Beyond the Diagnosis
In modern society, diagnostic labels like "autism" are often used to determine eligibility for accommodations. While these labels can be helpful in navigating bureaucratic systems, relying on them as the primary justification for support is problematic. A diagnosis does not create an individual's needs; rather, those needs exist regardless of formal recognition. Even without a diagnosis, an autistic individual still faces challenges that require accommodations. It is the person’s individual needs that should guide the accommodations, not the diagnostic label. Focusing on the diagnosis as the basis for support is not only reductive but also distorts the true purpose of accommodations.
Autism, in this sense, can be understood as a reverse prism. Where a prism separates light into a wide spectrum of colors, the autism label compresses a wide range of human diversity into a single category. This diagnostic category, while useful for identifying patterns, often reduces the rich complexity of an individual's unique needs and experiences. It is not "my autism needs X accommodation" but rather "I need X accommodation." The focus must be on the person and their individual experience rather than the artificial and overly broad category that autism represents.
When the diagnosis becomes the primary justification for accommodations, it warps the process into something akin to a measuring contest, much like how test scores often become a focus in education, regardless of the actual material being learned. Just as test scores can pervert the goal of education by making the score the target rather than genuine learning, using a diagnosis as the justification for accommodations turns the process into a bureaucratic exercise in proving need. The goal becomes not understanding and meeting individual needs but merely meeting diagnostic criteria to “qualify” for support. This approach shifts the focus away from addressing genuine challenges and toward satisfying external measures, which is a perverse way to handle human support systems.
By focusing on the diagnosis as the gatekeeper for accommodations, we risk distorting the very purpose of these supports. Accommodations should exist to help people function better and live more comfortably according to their specific needs, not to satisfy a system that demands proof of deficiency. This bureaucratic gatekeeping turns a deeply personal and human process into a contest of who can meet the criteria most effectively, which may overlook those whose needs are equally valid but not as easily categorized.
The emphasis should always be on the individual’s specific needs, regardless of whether or not they have a formal diagnosis. The diagnosis is a tool, not the justification. Making it the latter oversimplifies human diversity and places undue importance on formal recognition rather than on the person’s lived experience. Accommodations must be grounded in an understanding of the individual's unique challenges, not in satisfying diagnostic checklists.
Relying on diagnoses like autism to justify accommodations is both reductive and distorts the true goal of providing support. Autism, like a reverse prism, compresses a wide variety of human experiences into a narrow label. This category, while useful, should not overshadow the individual. Using the diagnosis as the primary basis for accommodation perverts the goal, turning the process into a measuring contest rather than a genuine effort to meet the person's needs. Accommodations should be based on the individual, not the label, respecting the diversity of human experience over bureaucratic metrics.
