I think there are several areas where advocates get off-track with autistic advocacy. I’ve written about one many times - the anti-anti-vaccine focus to the exclusion of other topics (it’s sad to me when someone who overtly attacks disabled or autistic people is a member of the “autistic advocacy” community simply because they agree with our community on vaccines not being the source of autism - it seems like we’re fousing on the minor points, not the major ones). Civil rights is where, in this autistic’s view, attention needs to be paid.
Yet civil rights are often ignored. I think there are several reasons for that, but the primary one is that autistic people are the only major stake holder in support of civil rights for autistic people. I’m not saying others don’t support our cause - they do - but as a cohesive “thing”, autistic people are fairly alone when it comes to civil rights.
Schools and governments - the main areas where advocacy is occurring - are not trying to further civil rights. They may be trying to further public health, education, or, most importantly money. And for too long, they’ve been determining the context upon which the conversation about autistic civil rights must take place. That needs to stop.
An example of this “context is everything” is in the area of education. Ask an educational commission, legislature, or school board about why autistic people are denied basic civil rights (the right to communicate, the right to inclusion, the right to be safe from abuse, etc) - and you will hear one answer: We don’t have the money.
It’s strange, though, because no other civil rights battle is focused on needing money to respect someone’s rights, even when respecting those rights does have a financial cost. No other battle has so-called supporters claiming that they would respect our rights if we paid them enough.
Some of the battle is a side-battle that is completely irrelevant. Does the State or the Feds pay for special education? Frankly, who cares? Other than the States (trying to get the feds to pay, so they don’t have to raise State taxes) and the feds (who want to get the states to pay so they don’t have to raise federal taxes), truly it doesn’t matter. But it is important to those who are dealing with education finance all day, so other debates get hijacked - and parents and others get, almost, threats. Get the (state or feds, pick one) to pay for this, or else we’re going to do the wrong thing (yes, I know this is a US-centric paragraph, no need to remind me - substitute the appropriate side-battle for your country).
We need to get the conversation turned back to civil rights. Schools spend a substantial part of their day (probably more than any formal subject) teaching about other people’s rights. Seriously. “Don’t throw scissors?” “Don’t hit her.” “Wait your turn.” “Everyone needs to be quiet when someone else is talking.” Because they spend a huge part of their day on this, that means also a huge amount of money. Yet it is seen as essential - how could you teach ANYTHING without teaching these things? You couldn’t.
There are other areas of civil rights which aren’t necessarily funded. Schools in a high-crime area may have additional security requirements that other schools don’t. But not placing these security measures in place will reduce the ability of students to learn - and penalize some students for no reason other than they happen to live in the “wrong” neighborhood.
In the US, we also pay to bus students to class. I know some students who would ride the bus for 2 or 3 HOURS each day, in rural parts of the United States (the other option is even more expensive single-room schools). Often times, they rode in a gas-inefficient school bus (6-7 MPG is not unusual) with a handful of other students. Yet, it was considered the responsibility of government to provide education for all students in the country, even ones that happened to live far away from school. It was considered a responsibility, even though these students cost many times more (think bus purchase cost, driver pay/training/benefits/support, bus maintenance, gas, insurance) to educate than people who lived two blocks from the school. But without bussing these students, there would be no school for them to go to - and they have a right to education, despite their parents living literally in the middle of nowhere (I also suspect the cost to bus one of these students per year was more than the cost of most communication devices).
In other areas, we also see the need for education, even when it costs money - such as schools that may have to teach the child of an immigrant, who may not yet know English.
That’s why we need to get this turned back to “It’s not about who pays, it’s about civil rights.” When schools press that they could educate however many “normal” students for the cost of one “special” student, it’s time to ask, “So, what makes educating normal students more important? It it only numbers? If so, let’s stop educating in rural areas and bad neighborhoods.” There is an underlying principle here: We have to educate students - ALL students, not just the inexpensive ones.
Yes, States, the Feds, schools, and local communities should pay for this, too - JUST LIKE THEY DO FOR INEXPENSIVE STUDENTS! And we should lobby for this. But when one of these communities tries to balk and say that the money shouldn’t come from their own pocket, it’s time to call them on that. This isn’t something that each funding source can simply toss over the wall, nor is it something that they can say “We can sacrifice these students for the good of normal students.”
I know I can hear people saying “We just don’t have the money.” Well, perhaps we would have that money if we would pick the X number of students that one special-ed kid’s education would pay for, and then NOT educate those X students. They probably are important enough to fund - by every funding body.
(Added the following after posting): One more thing, it shouldn’t have taken a mandate, funded or otherwise, for schools to support the civil rights of all students. I guess that’s my concern about the “unfunded mandate” argument, when applied to special education - they should have been doing it long before the mandate.