Autism and Kemi Badenoch

it all depends how severe the neuro diversity problem is. I have dyspraxia and ADHD, and in my circumstaances Badenoch is probably right, BUT

But I have worked with people with what we now reccgnise as neuro diverse symptoms, who were severely handicapped in their whole life because such problems were not understood in school or at work.

There is no one rule that suits all circumstances and it is foolish to think one can be drawn up.

I know nothing about autism and clearly neither does KB.

Badenoch needs educating about neurodiversity.

Chapeau

Opinion article in today's Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/14/autistic-children-culture-wars-kemi-badenoch

Thank you for this link. An excellent article written by the parent of an autistic child, so someone who really knows. unlike Miss KB!

Cossy

Having an adult daughter with Autism plus a very late diagnosis and another daughter with a serious mental health issue I think this odious woman has no idea what’s she talking about and, politely, I would suggest she’s talking absolute Bollox!

She has a degree in Computer Engineering.

Perhaps she can only process the information fed into her, like a computer, but is unable to deal with people's emotions, anxieties and feelings.

Opinion article in today's Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/14/autistic-children-culture-wars-kemi-badenoch

Wyllow3

The last sentence surely makes clear the disapproval of the resources put into some people

"In short, whereas once psychological and mental health was seen as something that people should work on themselves as individuals, mental health has become something that society, schools and employers have to adapt around."

Again, I'm pointing out the conflation between neurodiversity and "mental health" and see only a hostility in this statement - ie "shouldn't be allowed to happen"

This attempts to undo the patient and slow acceptance of neurodiversity in our population by the hard work of families and professionals - and also labels people who actually have totally different circumstances as all the same.

I don't disagree with your point David....since being in a job where you are set to fail is not good for anyone. However, promoting a hostile environment is more likely that people will feel they have to hide in shame rather than say, "I have difficulties with"..."but can do x,y,z".

At my local Sainsbury's checkouts we have several people who actually were the sunflower badge and have some clear neurodiverse traits, and I have noticed the levels of acceptance in regular customers and wouldn't like to return to the days when this wasnt OK.

👏👏👏👏👏

Btw, both work full time in stressful jobs and yes, we had to pay for assessments and treatment! In fact, between them and us sharing costs we are still paying!

Having an adult daughter with Autism plus a very late diagnosis and another daughter with a serious mental health issue I think this odious woman has no idea what’s she talking about and, politely, I would suggest she’s talking absolute Bollox!

Jaxjacky

I keep returning to this thread, have reread the original quote and the larger document for context, I’m still confused as to whether KB is stating fact, or giving an opinion.

It wouldn't surprise me if she's confused too. It wouldn't be the first time she's claimed that her opinion is fact.

No need to apologise Parsley. I agree with you about Badenoch's attitude - every man/woman and child to themselves.

I wonder which "class" she sees herself in. It's not as though she's ever actually produced anything tangible.

Doodledog I take your point. People shouldn't need to be supported to the extent that other people in an education or workplace suffer. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. However, I can think of many examples where reasonable adjustments could be made, but aren't. In the case of schools, every child does deserve an education. If a child really can't be accommodated in a mainstream setting, then surely there should be some kind of special provision.

Essex, which is where Badenoch is an MP, does not have any specialist autistic education provision. The only support available for autism in Essex has been outsourced to a private organisation, which I know from talking to people is woefully inadequate. I really wonder if she's ever met any of her autistic constituents about the so-called advantages available to them.

Sorry growstuff I had missed your link but I have now read the whole pamphlet. Yes, her opinion is that there is far too much support from the new bureaucratic class being given to people who really just need pull themselves together.
This quote from the pamphlet struck me that what they really want is a return to the old Conservative values of the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate tugging his forelock.

We are moving from the largely horizontal politics of the 1950s to 1980s, where those at the top in socio-economic terms vote right and those at the bottom vote left, to a vertical politics, where those in the bureaucratic class or supported by it, e.g. those on welfare or newly arrived migrants, vote left, and those in the market dominated classes vote right.

Wyllow3

I'm not denying your experiences, of course, just offering another persons experiences faced with an equivalent situation.

It's most certainly not simple, because there are so many neurodiverse and MH conditions and it's so individual, and getting help at a very early stage harder and harder. Many people who've posted on relatives here, now in work, have probably had to pay for help.

I am in no way suggesting that there should not be help and support, but I am arguing against it being an automatic right to be able to avoid things you (generic) find difficult, whether that difficulty is because of MH, Neurodiversity or whatever when those things are essential to the situation.

I could be wrong, but I doubt that a Professional Body for Mathematicians will insist on a high level of presentation skills in return for accreditation of degrees? That being the case, it would be much easier to come up with an equivalent assignment, so the two situations are not remotely equivalent.

I used my experience as an illustrative example - I should have known better, as whenever that happens people use different anecdotes as though one proves or disproves another, and they don't, so it's my fault. My point is that a blanket 'if you have X you will never have to do Y, regardless of the impact on others' is not a sensible way forward, but that Y shouldn't be insisted on unless it is necessary.

If someone is unable to do Y and Y is necessary to a role or qualification they shouldn't expect others to do it for them. They should choose a different path, with the help and support they need.

If they are able to do Y if Z is in place, then Z should be put in place wherever possible.

62Granny

I am reading this as if she is saying it isn't a good thing that employers and schools have to make adjustments for them? Perhaps I am reading this in the negative as like a lot of people I don't like the women.

As I've said above, what I object to is the attempt to politicise the matters we are discussing as "woke" "identity politics", which is the context in which they are alluded to in the O/P document.
KB's "small state" politics doesn't give a lot of room or resources or indeed value for the state helping individuals.

My opinion is that it can "go too far"as examples have shown, but not to do away with the principles.

I'm not denying your experiences, of course, just offering another persons experiences faced with an equivalent situation.

It's most certainly not simple, because there are so many neurodiverse and MH conditions and it's so individual, and getting help at a very early stage harder and harder. Many people who've posted on relatives here, now in work, have probably had to pay for help.

Mollygo

^In short, whereas once psychological and mental health was seen as something that people should work on themselves as individuals, mental health has become something that society, schools and employers have to adapt around."^

Both things IMO are true. My DGS are both autistic, one diagnosed at nursery and one at school.
Both are now at uni, one studying a formal subject and the other working in performing art. The support at home and the help they got at school - e.g. a quiet place for melt-downs, extra time in exams, and at one stage, a scribe, was invaluable, but they have had to work on themselves as individuals too in terms of social skills, self control and skills like writing and I don’t know what will happen when they are job seeking.
On the other hand, I have worked with children with ASC who have enormous behaviour problems which early on are huge barriers to learning. The support they have received has been beneficial, and enabled them to stay in mainstream at primary, but who knows what will happen in KS3 and later on.

Yes. Support in the forms you describe, and others where appropriate is absolutely what should happen. But in the end, if a performing artist is unable to perform, they should not be able to spoil the chances of others in the orchestra/cast/dance troupe by failing to show. They would be doomed to disappointment in their career if they were unable to do so, and if they had the right support that would have been made clear at an earlier stage.

I don't know enough about younger children in education to comment, but would hope they too get support to flourish, but are also taught how to minimise the impact of their behaviour on others (as far as is reasonably possible) as if they grow up expecting everything to adapt to them they will also be disappointed.

I am reading this as if she is saying it isn't a good thing that employers and schools have to make adjustments for them? Perhaps I am reading this in the negative as like a lot of people I don't like the women.

In short, whereas once psychological and mental health was seen as something that people should work on themselves as individuals, mental health has become something that society, schools and employers have to adapt around."

Both things IMO are true. My DGS are both autistic, one diagnosed at nursery and one at school.
Both are now at uni, one studying a formal subject and the other working in performing art. The support at home and the help they got at school - e.g. a quiet place for melt-downs, extra time in exams, and at one stage, a scribe, was invaluable, but they have had to work on themselves as individuals too in terms of social skills, self control and skills like writing and I don’t know what will happen when they are job seeking.
On the other hand, I have worked with children with ASC who have enormous behaviour problems which early on are huge barriers to learning. The support they have received has been beneficial, and enabled them to stay in mainstream at primary, but who knows what will happen in KS3 and later on.

I don't deny what Doodledog describes never happens, of course.
I'm not sure how that was meant, but I worked in universities for 25 years, and can assure you that it happens often, whether you deny it or not .

I see it less now, as I have a different role, but I am aware of it still happening on the sidelines, and this is in a different university, so it's not something that is confined to one course in one institution.

I'm not saying that the students are trying to work the system either. I am saying that the current view is that adaptations have to be made for people with MH issues (and to a lesser extent Neurodiversity) and that this is not always as simple as it may seem.

I suspect that the trend just now is for more people to put their own needs first, and not to consider the impact of what they are doing on others. We see it socially too, with people cancelling plans at the last minute and blaming anxiety, forgetting that having people not turn up to your party is a horrible thing to happen, or that others may have gone to trouble and expense to organise something.

Yes sensible compromise is the way ahead.

But to turn to actually what was said in the O/P quote, don't let's throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.

Support and treatment at school or at work to enable people to be the best they can, and therefore access work when possible, or live independently when they might not have been able to,

should not be used as a political football, which it is in the pamphlet.

My son is a lecturer in Maths in a high rated UK university and has been for 15 years.

I have discussed this with him on several occasions when he's talked about preparation and management of assessments and examinations. He's perfectly aware of the situation generally as it comes up in discussions on University guidelines.

Special needs do come into some students he has to assess, but there is most definitely not a deluge of students trying to "work the system

I don't deny what Doodledog describes never happens, of course.

Enlightening post @Doodledog. Food for thought here.

In the end it became almost the norm for them all to get a diagnosis of anxiety, as the university was obliged to take that into account when setting assignments, and people realised that they were at a disadvantage without one - classmates with a doctor's note could (and would) get a free pass for things that those without one had to do. Is that fair? Or helpful?

Eminently sensible viewpoint Doodledog.

growstuff

Maybe people do think that no allowances should be made for people with autism and mental health conditions. I was hoping to discuss that view.

I don't think that no allowances should be made. We make allowances for others all the time, and there are circumstances when these have to be enshrined in law, to be fair to others.

That is, or should be, a two way street, however. I have been in many situations which have involved balancing the needs of groups of students - with one another, with the demands of professional bodies, with university regulations and so on, and it is all but impossible to do so. Many students want assessments to be tailored to their (often self-diagnosed) needs.

What can staff do if those needs don't match the requirements of the professional body? To use the example I came across most, the PB which accredited my course insisted that graduates were demonstrably able to give high level presentations, both in groups and individually, as doing this is an important part of the skills needed for the profession they would join on graduation. Numerous students said that this would trigger their anxiety and wanted to be assessed by other means. Going along with this could risk the PB withdrawing accreditation, which would mean that other students lost the automatic right to become members, which was a selling point of the course. In turn, declining numbers could mean the course would close, with redundancies for staff and fewer opportunities for students to enter a competitive profession.

Similarly, some would agree to take part in group assessments, then not turn up, citing anxiety again, which could ramp up the stress for those who were there, possibly without the notes or props that the absentee was supposed to provide, and probably feeling stressed themselves - these things are rarely easy for the inexperienced. Obviously, I would find ways round that one, but doing that would be stressful for me, too and so the cycle goes.

In the end it became almost the norm for them all to get a diagnosis of anxiety, as the university was obliged to take that into account when setting assignments, and people realised that they were at a disadvantage without one - classmates with a doctor's note could (and would) get a free pass for things that those without one had to do. Is that fair? Or helpful?

In the workplace, we've all known people who take time off, (and sometimes have this specifically sanctioned by HR) for MH conditions, and leave others to pick up the pieces. Why should those people be paid the same as the ones doing two jobs instead of one, with the added anxiety of someone else's deadlines on top of their own? Not everyone declares their MH conditions or gets a diagnosis, and it shouldn't be assumed that those without one should carry others.

I think that reasonable adjustments should be made, but if someone is not able to fulfil the sensible requirements of a role they should find another one. As an example, if a bus driver loses her/his sight - they can't continue to drive a bus, however much they may love doing so. If someone finds a job makes them anxious and they can't do it, they should find one that is less stressful, even if it has lower status and/or a lower salary.

I know I will be accused of being hard, unfair, lacking in understanding, but I also know that is not true. I fully understand how disabling anxiety can be, and have every sympathy with sufferers. What I don't agree with is that a MH condition (or neurodivergence) should allow people to add to the MH load of others, and risk triggering a crisis in colleagues' MH. There will always be conflicts of needs, and people have to be measured according to their abilities to do what they are paid for, not to do the jobs of others on top of their own, or in styles that conflict with theirs.

Things like letting people wfh more, or sit alone in a busy space are easy, and of course they should be accommodated where possible.

I keep returning to this thread, have reread the original quote and the larger document for context, I’m still confused as to whether KB is stating fact, or giving an opinion.

J52

foxie48

I find it interesting that although we need more people in the work place some will see things that are given or changed to help someone stay in a job as "advantages" The son of a friend is taken to and from work by taxi and has a sound proof work station separate to his colleagues all paid for by his employer. He cannot work from home for security reasons but he's super bright and a real asset at work, however, he cannot cope on trains or buses and hasn't learned to drive. I don't think his work colleagues see him as having "advantages" they probably feel relieved that they do not have similar issues.

Thank you for your post. What an enlightened employer.

I thought exactly the same. If a few 'advantages' as KB sees them are not made in the workplace, presumably these people would be unemployed and claiming benefits. Far better for them to work to help both their self esteem and the economy than take from the welfare system.