Autistics Need Not Apply
November 2, 2006 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
It is said that autism is an “invisible disability,” as autistic persons “present” as “normal” in their physical appearance. Parents have indeed noted that, because their child does not have the visible signs of a disability, they have sometimes been hard-pressed to explain the puzzling, perhaps tantrum-y, actions of a child who just “can’t seem to behave.”
In a November 2nd article, Willing and able, but treated as unemployable, novelist Ann Bauer writes that it is in part because her 18-year-old autistic son Andrew does not look “disabled enough” that he has not been able to find a job.
I took Andrew to Target, a company known for its history of working with disabled people. Only there’s a catch: I was told when I called that their policy was to employ “visibly handicapped” workers. People in wheelchairs qualify, as do those with Down syndrome. My son, with his eccentricities and halting speech, does not. What’s more, Target administers a computerized psychological screening test designed to eliminate people on the outer edges of the bell curve. People like Andrew.
Andrew is termed a “potential liability” by the staff of a factory where his stepfather tries to help him get a job. The hiring manager at a nursing home thinks he is “odd” and turns him down for a position, despite his kindness and patience with the residents while working as a volunteer.
What is all too visible—transparent, indeed—are the attitudes towards autistic workers, however energetic, eager, and capable:
Autistics Need Not Apply.
Go here to read Willing and able, but treated as unemployable.
That was in my paper today. I wanted to hug her son and tell him we’d find what he was better at than ANYONE in the whole area, and together find him a job. It isn’t fair that he isn’t being given a chance just because he INTERVIEWS badly. Interviews never have anything to do with the actual job.
Well, unless theyre my tumbling program director:
N: So you want to coach?
K: Yes.
N: Can you still do a straddle roll?
K:….I did them yesterday
N: Oh yeah. Do you know the proper progressions.
K: Yes ma’am.
N: And are you ready to make up new drills?
K: Already have 5.
N: Your first class is 4:30, 2 weeks from Wed.
I’d known N for 3 years. That was easy. Stranger-interviews are HARD.
I cannot believe that someone at Target admitted to a discriminatory policy. OK, maybe I can; but that kind of statement is just inviting a lawsuit, not to mention bad publicity.
Joe: agreed, especially since that remark strongly suggests that Target is more concerned with being publicly seen as “doing the right thing” than actually doing it. It amounts to saying that all their disabled workers are ornaments.
There is a grocery store here in the southern states, Publix, that has many autistics working there and invites their “helpers” from an organization here that helps all disabled people find jobs and helps them to lead independent lives! Too bad Target! You’re missing out on some great people!!
“It amounts to saying that all their disabled workers are ornaments. ”
Well said!!! And very too bad.
And Target is based in the Twin Cities, where Bauer lives.
The part of the article that stood out to me, too, was her mention of her son folding all the laundry etc. for her—of his responsibility and meticulousness.
I think it is sad that Target has to be that way.But, I am so happy to hear about Publix! We are planning to move from rural Missouri where there is not work for my 20 year old autistic son to Tennessee where I have been very impressed with the Publix market and was wondering if maybe he could be hired there. Seth is so meticulous and could be a very great worker for someone willing to give him a chance. He is a great helper to me at home and does things so thoroughly!
Nancy Lynne Clayburn
thepuzzleboy.blogharbor.com
I’m curious to find out more about Publix’s program and training etc.—-please let us know.
Kassiane: “It isn’t fair that he isn’t being given a chance just because he INTERVIEWS badly. Interviews never have anything to do with the actual job.”
I’ve been looking into interviews as part of the recruiting and selection process partly because of what Kassiane said there (points to quote from K’s post), and partly because of my interest in occupational psychology. I shall post here on the topic when I’ve had lunch and typed up a short essay on it.
I think that Kassiane won’t be surprised by the conclusion. Many others will, though.
David, I would much like to hear about your conclusions. I have been thinking about Bauer’s article a lot since reading it—-thinking about what kinds of jobs my son might hold, or try to.
Well, I wrote the paper, and it is about 2000 words, referenced… :/
Upshot is…
Traditional interview – validity coefficient: 0.33
Structured interview – validity coefficient: 0.44
Used by about 97% of organisations for assessing candidates for jobs.
Ability tests – validity coefficient: 0.54
Work sample – validity coefficient: 0.54
But… 80% of organisations use ability tests whilst only about 15% use work samples.
Candidate reactions to interviews usually positive, and to tests negative-to-moderate.
Of all possible assessment devices, the only one that consistently gets positive reactions from candidates AND is sufficiently reliable to make valid inferences about suitability for hiring as a worker: work sample.
The one used least by organisations looking for workers.