Why so much hostility toward reasonable adjustments for autistic/ADHD students/workers?

[KeenTaupeDog]

I keep seeing backlash whenever someone with autism/ADHD asks for reasonable adjustments. Things like:
• being accused of cheating or getting “special treatment”
• people assuming you're lying or gaming the system
• resentment for accommodations that simply level the playing field

Why do so many people react this way?
Is it ignorance about what these conditions actually mean?
Envy?
Fear that fairness is “zero-sum”?
Or something deeper around stigma toward invisible disabilities?

Would be interested in honest perspectives — especially from those who’ve witnessed or experienced this dynamic.

If you dont think adhders etc. should be employed if they cant stay in work due to their adhd, then are you happy with them sitting at home and claiming benefits? Or dying of hunger?

Not looking to fight — just trying to understand where this reaction comes from.
Am a apsergers sufferer and people at uni accused me of cheating when they found out i had remote exams

Of course it's opinion because the science simply doesn't confirm your assertions. You are suggesting a level of scientific certainty that simply doesn't exist.

We know that there is a genetic component to Autism and that parents of Autistic children are more likely to either be Autistic themselves or have BAP. This suggests that they aren't distinct conditions in the way you suggest (or BAP being just a personality type) but the same condition where it can manifest in a subclinical manner. It's important to remember that the threshold has been arbitrarily defined and there isn't some huge scientific theory behind why it has to be exactly where it currently is. Indeed it is highly likely to change as our understanding of the brain evolves.

You are also mischaracterising and unfairly minimising the struggles of those with BAP . There is a lot of overlap between the Autism and BAP. This article may help explain link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13229-019-0275-3

Well, I don't know for sure, but the DWP system of running Universal Credit claims is that some issues are dealt with in Job Centres, so those clients are seen face to face. Some people call the helpline, so they are dealt with by phone. Some people write an entry on their journal, and they get a reply from a caseworker online.

So it's quite feasible for somebody who copes best with scheduled face to face appointments to work in the job centre, someone who prefers phonecalls to work in the contact centre, and someone who prefers email/online communication to work as a caseworker.

I'm not sure what your background is, but for the last 20 years or so the trend has been away from dedicated admin roles and towards "self service" admin via tech tools.

Reading through these comments has been quite an eye-opener. Why on earth would you apply for a job that you can’t do or don’t want to do? Do people actually rock up to an interview and say they want to do 2/3 of the job for a third of the time with different benefits to everyone else who works there?

Yes

If you have a disability (of which neurodiversity could be an example) it could be there aren't any jobs you can do without some form of adjustment. Or at least none you can find that are recruiting.

So you are left with the OP's original question. Is it preferable for an employer to give reasonable adjustments (not unreasonable ones!) or the the person to stay unemployed and claiming benefits.

You also have to remember people also have other limitations based on educational ability, basic aptitude etc too.

I do have a physical disability and medical conditions that limit the work I can do. And it sucks. But I’m amazed by what adaptations people are considering reasonable. Surely a degree of onus is on the individual to find a job that works for them.

What do you think is better? For someone with ND (or another disability) to apply for a job and do, say, 70% of the work, or for them to live on benefits for life?

Personally there are two things I would do in this space:

1. Be more discerning about what adjustments were allowed and the impact this has on the overall workforce. I would want compelling medical evidence they were absolutely required (not just desirable) if they involved providing someone with an advantage otherwise the request could be rejected by the employer. This way colleagues would be more accepting of the adjustments as they would know that there wasn't any piss taking and all claims were legitimate. There would also be an emphasis on reasonableness.

1. I would look to employ more disabled people with difficult or very limiting conditions in the public sector. They would have limited responsibilities that would reflect what they are capable of doing and they would be paid a wage that reflects the work they do. They could then be topped up with a disability premium if they can't earn enough this way to support themselves so that their take home pay is at least equivalent to what they would receive in our of work benefits. Basically it's better for everyone if disabled people work including the disabled themselves but I don't think it's fair on the private sector to expect them to absorb people that require too many adjustments. It isn't practical. Why couldn't the public sector offer some kinds of employment that have more flexibility built into them? If the alternative is disabled people just sitting at home then any kind of productivity is better than none.

Take a look at this. It is more readable:

https://www.autismparentingmagazine.com/broad-autism-phenotype/?srsltid=AfmBOoonNn9qUa6IG7p1PnP68O2wRW_RpkgyMw92iyX1D5ue0sjUmgRy

This is a quote from the above;
“Autism spectrum disorder is a medical diagnosis but the broader autism phenotype is not. Rather, it refers to subclinical cognitive, personality, and behavioral traits in relatives of autisitc individuals; relatives who do not meet the diagnostic criteria for an autism spectrum disorder as presented in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM–5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013).”

I suspect neither of us has got it quite right. However, I was not dismissing anyone’s difficulties by saying BAP is milder. That is literally the difference between getting an autism diagnosis and deciding it’s BAP. And yes I am fully aware that people witb BAP tend to be related to people witb autism. DC2 is autistic, DC1 isn’t but I have often thought DC1 has BAP. DC1 bas a MUCH easier life than DC2.

You suggested that BAP was simply a type of personality whilst Autism was due to physical differences in the brain. That they were completely different in nature. This simply isn't true. They both have the same root cause this is why there is such a strong genetic link and the generic traits are fundamentally the sam. BAP may generally be milder in its expression but not necessarily across all traits uniformly. This is the crucial difference and what that study proves. Lots of scientists believe that BAP is a subset of Autism.

So someone who has BAP could easily find a particular element of a workplace far more challenging than someone with Autism and there adversion to the element will be driven by a ND traits and yet they aren't classified as disabled enough under the Equality Act so can't request an adjustment whilst their Autistic colleague can. This could mean that the BAP colleague is stuck doing even more of this extremely challenging element

From the perspective of an employer, I’m sure they’d rather employ someone who can do 100% of the work.

I don’t disagree that adjustments can and should be made, but I also think that everyone has to be realistic about whether a job is for them.

It’s the lack of realism about the suitability of the job that is often so challenging and leads to the not so reasonable reasonable adjustment requests . An earlier poster had the example of a girl who wanted to be a solicitor but couldn’t make eye contact or speak on the phone, and was hoping (expecting?) adjustments to be made. It’s an extreme example but not totally out there

Of course - but often when people are realistic and say they can't do X or Y, the result is that they need to claim benefits to survive, and then they get grief for that, or told to just get on with it, or to suck it up etc.

I had that for years - I was guilted into working hours I couldn't handle and ended up going into (what I know now to be) autistic burnout - three times - before I finally spoke to a GP with the knowledge to refer me for an autism assessment.

People see me as high-functioning but I'm not at all, really. I am very, very fortunate to earn a decent wage from my own business but I can only manage 25 (ish) hours a week long-term.

That lack of realism is often a symptom of being ND in the first place, though, that's the problem.

On the whole, I would say that is would be unusual for BAP people to find something harder than someone with autism. The whole focus of the autism diagnostic criteria is about impairment. The impairments in autism are very fundamental to work and indeed life/.

Just by way of comparison, DC2 has language processing issues so struggles to understand complex information delivered orally whereas DC1 who probably has BAP doesn’t have this problem or any other major issues. DC1 is a physicist and rather nerdy and like most autistic people has some quite intense interests but unlike most autistic people doesn’t bore for England on their interests and can also recognise if the person they are talking to isn’t interested.

The brain differences in autism are a known thing. If you scroll down, I posted a link to an article about this. I’ve not seen anyone describing BAP as a neurodevelopemntal disorder.

It's likely that this young person is thinking that a solicitor is someone who is an expert in the law, which might be their niche interest. But, actually, why couldn't there be a role for someone who is happy to research and write opinions on niche areas of law, delivering that by email? Why do they have to be able to talk on the phone?

I don’t think there has ever been a greater diversity of working environments, or an environment where employers have ever made more of an effort for disability, and yet we have more people apparently out of work and unable to cope with any workplace. So I don’t think your statement about being unable to find any job holds for many (most?) cases.

Law librarian

It's not a disease at all.

Taking the example of DD2 that I mentioned above:

Apprenticeship in zookeeping at a community farm. She would be awesome with the animals. She would cope, in time, with being part of a small team. She would be able to be polite to members of the public that approached, and to point them in the right direction if they needed to know where to go. I dare say she would be happy to answer a direct question from a member of the public about why she was tying something that way, or how often the animals get fed.

She couldn't run tours of the animals, be 'dynamic and proactive with service improvement', etc.

Why can't they split the role and have a front of house role who loves the people and doesn't mind the animals, and a back of house role who loves the animals and can just about cope with the people?

Sainsbury's employs lots of people with physical and learning disabilities. I'm sure that the person who is using two crutches to walk stacks the shelves slower, and one of the autistic staff members is alternately quite abrupt if you want directions to an area they don't work in, and over invested in your choice of mushroom if you ask for help with vegetables. Some of these staff need more direction and support than other team members, and I doubt that the person with crutches can go out and get heavy cages of stuff to stock the shelves with. But they make a valuable contribution to the team.

I think that would be the worst possible outcome. The ASD person, already vulnerable to black and white rigid thinking, would be insulated from dealing with the real world nuances and compromises and learning from their mistakes when theory hits reality.

It won't be described like that because it is viewed as being subclinical so by definition can't be a disorder.

The Autism assessment process focuses on impairment across a number diagnostic criteria. It isn't enough to have one or two that are a huge issue and then nothing of significance across the rest.

People with BAP absolutely can have major issues as evidenced by the study. This is especially true socially and other studies have shown a higher risk of mental health issues as a result. As with everything else and I'm sure you of all people will appreciate this. BAP itself is a spectrum and there will be milder and more severe presentations within the phenotype. One person with BAP isn't representative of everyone with BAP.

Suspected rain differences have been identified at population level between people with Autism and the general population and these are mirrored by people with BAP (although presentation is usually less severe). I know you are cynical but they genuinely are fundamentally the same condition. It's just people with BAP don't meet a specific arbitrary threshold and those with an Autistic diagnosis do.

Speaking as a late-diagnosed autistic adult - it's not being able to find a job that is a problem for me. I can mask, I can pass interviews (I've got every job I've ever interviewed for), I can speak to people, I can maintain eye contact. None of that is an issue in the short-term.

But, long-term, I cannot do it. I burn out - every single time. I have ended up medicated and in autistic burn-out five times since I was 15. It was only when we went into lockdown in 2020 that I realised how much work was impacting me and how unwell it was making me.

Maybe in the same way there is an apprenticeship levy there could be a disability one to encourage all companies to have 5% (or whatever) of staff as registered disabled.