Why the promotion of equality for neurodivergent individuals by adjusting workplaces and public spaces requires phased implementation, cost-benefit analysis, and a careful balance of feasibility and societal acceptance.
One of the fundamental principles in our society is the moral equality of citizens and the neutrality of governments towards forms of diversity such as religion, language, and sexual orientation. However, this concept has yet to be fully extended to neurodiversity.
In a recent article (‘Neurodiversity and the Neuro-Neutrale State’) in the American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience, Bouke de Vries, a philosopher at the Belgian Ghent University, advocates for neuro-neutrality. He outlines various ways contemporary governments have harmed the interests of neurodivergent groups, such as individuals with autism, compared to other diversities. De Vries examines the reasons given to justify such unequal treatment and argues for a significantly more neuro-neutral government.
As an autistic person and advocate, I am familiar with the challenges and prejudices neurodivergent people face. While De Vries’ plea for neuro-neutrality is well-intentioned, it raises several concerns for me.
Inequalities Faced by Neurodivergent People
De Vries highlights several issues that neurodivergent individuals encounter, such as in the workplace, public spaces, and communication. He points out problems like excessive noise, disruptive lighting, and odor nuisances in offices. Public spaces like schools, museums, and libraries are often unsuitable for neurodivergent people. Additionally, there is frequently a lack of clear information at places like train stations and along roads. Government communication often fails due to the use of certain fonts, figurative language, and the subsidization of controversial therapies like Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA).
Proposals for Neuro-Neutrality
In his article, De Vries makes several proposals to make governments more neuro-neutral, including:
- Adjusting workplaces and public spaces.
- Improving signage and information provision.
- Halting subsidies for harmful therapies.
- Using neurodivergent-friendly layouts and fonts.
- Encouraging literal language in communication.
Moreover, governments could encourage private organizations to become more neuro-neutral through social media campaigns and tax incentives.
Specific Examples of Successful Neuro-Neutral Initiatives
To provide a clearer picture of how neuro-neutrality can be practically implemented, it’s useful to highlight specific examples of successful initiatives:
- Quiet Hours in Supermarkets: Some supermarkets have introduced “quiet hours,” where lights are dimmed, and noise is reduced, creating a more comfortable shopping environment for neurodivergent individuals.
- Sensory-Friendly Movie Screenings: Various movie theaters offer sensory-friendly screenings with lower sound levels, reduced lighting, and a relaxed environment where patrons can move around and talk freely.
- Autism-Friendly Workplaces: Companies like SAP and Microsoft have implemented hiring programs specifically for neurodivergent individuals, providing supportive work environments tailored to their needs.
These initiatives not only help neurodivergent individuals but also raise awareness and encourage broader societal acceptance of neurodiversity.
Addressing Practical Objections and Challenges
While these proposals sound promising, there are many practical objections. Adjusting public spaces and workplaces is often financially and logistically challenging. Many buildings cannot be modified without significant costs and disruptions. Implementing neuro-neutrality can be expensive, with adjustments like better lighting and sound systems requiring substantial investment. Many of De Vries’ proposed adjustments are also generalized and not necessarily suitable for all autistic or neurodivergent individuals. Hypersensitivity is often just a consequence of autistic thinking in the environment, and sensory adjustments alone do not make an environment neuro-neutral.
To address these objections, consider the following actionable solutions:
- Phased Implementation: Gradually introduce neuro-neutral adjustments, starting with the most critical areas. This approach spreads out the costs and allows for adjustments based on feedback and effectiveness.
- Inclusive Design from the Start: When planning new buildings or renovations, incorporate neuro-neutral principles from the beginning to avoid retrofitting costs.
- Public-Private Partnerships: Collaborate with private organizations and non-profits to share the financial burden and benefit from their expertise in creating inclusive environments.
- Pilot Programs: Implement pilot programs to test the effectiveness of proposed adjustments in specific settings before scaling them up.
Ethical Considerations
De Vries advocates for the abolition of subsidies for ABA therapies, arguing that these therapies attempt to conform autistic people to neurotypical norms. While I am not a proponent of ABA, some autistic individuals may benefit from (autism-friendly and humane) ABA therapy. Completely rejecting such therapies could limit their freedom of choice and access to assistance. As a person with lived experience, I know that what works for one person does not necessarily work for another.
Long-Term Impact and Cost-Benefit Analysis
Exploring the long-term impact and cost-benefit analysis of implementing neuro-neutral adjustments is crucial. While initial costs may be high, the long-term benefits could outweigh these expenses. For example:
- Increased Productivity: Creating a supportive work environment for neurodivergent employees can lead to higher productivity and job satisfaction, ultimately benefiting the company.
- Reduced Healthcare Costs: By minimizing stressors in public spaces and workplaces, neuro-neutral adjustments can reduce the mental health burden on neurodivergent individuals, leading to lower healthcare costs.
- Enhanced Social Inclusion: Promoting neurodiversity and inclusion can foster a more accepting and cohesive society, reducing social tensions and improving overall community well-being.
Conclusion
While the idea of a neuro-neutral state is appealing, policymakers must carefully weigh practical feasibility, financial implications, ethical considerations, and potential public opposition. It is essential to find a balance between promoting equality and maintaining practical feasibility and social cohesion. Let us strive for a more just society for everyone, including neurodivergent individuals, while remaining realistic about what is possible.
By providing specific examples of successful initiatives, addressing potential objections with actionable solutions, and incorporating firsthand accounts and diverse perspectives, the discussion on neuro-neutrality can be made more robust and impactful.
de Vries, B. (2024). Neurodiversity and the Neuro-Neutral State. AJOB Neuroscience, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2024.2368715
The European Autist 