Over the next decade, and possibly longer, colleges and universities will experience an increase in enrollment by students designated by their previous educational institutions as “autistic.” How universities understand autism related disabilities will shape what strategies are adopted to accommodate these students. The range of accommodations deemed reasonable, and those assumed to be required by law, will be based on the definition of autism adopted by any given institution. (Of course, lawsuits will set some standards, but universities must try to anticipate these before being sued!)
It is important to ask who has defined autism and what the ethical, moral, and legal implications of various definitions are. These Web pages examine the definitions of autism advanced by mental health professionals, advocacy organizations, laws, regulations, and public schools. After examining the competing definitions, it will be clear how challenging it is for universities to meet current and future social, legal, and ethical obligations.
One might assume each student labeled “autistic” has been diagnosed by a mental health expert, but this is not the case. Many of the autistic students entering universities will carry a neuropsychiatric diagnosis while other students will have been assigned a category by public school officials. To further complicate matters, some students will have been diagnosed by private clinicians specializing in neuropsychology but far more will have been diagnosed by pediatricians, school psychologists, and experts from a variety of other fields.
We can point self-assuredly to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and suggest that this book, the one used by most mental health professionals and insurance companies in the United States, contains the definition of autism. But the DSM-IV-TR is not definitive. We might also turn to federal laws with specific mention of autism. Surely we expect our lawmakers to verify the exact nature of a disability when mandating accommodations for those affected by the condition. Unfortunately, laws are often vague and leave it to the courts to offer clarifications.
Maybe we can turn to advocates for the autistic, since they must have the best interests of the affected in mind. And yet again, we would find competing definitions among competing advocacy organizations.
These pages explore how definitions have evolved, whose interests are being served, and which definitions of autism might prove useful for universities admitting students carrying the “autistic” label. The concern of this exploration is to develop criteria universities might use when considering accommodation requests in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. No single definition of autism is embraced, nor is a single program of accommodations endorsed. Instead, I suggest flexibility and situational analysis.
Implications
After considering the difficulties associated with defining autism and the process of labeling students as autistic, it should be clear that colleges and universities should be allowed to develop independent definitions of autism, which in turn will determine the accommodations provided to students. Each institution of higher education should consider a number of contradictory pressures before endorsing a particular definition of autism. The issues affecting the definition chosen include, but are not limited to:
- Does the definition meet the legal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act?
- Does the definition include as many capable students as possible?
- How will other students be affected?
- What are the financial constraints on the accommodations that can be offered?
- What are the contractual and legal restrictions limiting what can be required of faculty members?
- What are the implications for any current or future autism research funding?
- How will the public perceive the definition adopted?
- Does the definition match the ethical goals, as well as the educational goals, of the institution?
Advocating for a pragmatic definition of autism means advocating for the ability of universities to consider their unique situations and the current social context behind the definition of autism. Regardless of the definition developed by a university and the accommodations adopted, there will be compromises. Individual student situations can result in further compromises. A university should also be free to adopt a policy that allows individual disability specialists additional freedom to develop individual accommodation plans.
Legal and social pressures dictate that students with similar diagnoses receive similar accommodations. These pressures mean universities are likely to develop written criteria for their understandings of autism. These definitions should develop via discourse within the university community. Adopting the DSM or IDEA criteria without question is unlikely to meet the needs of university. Adherence to the DSM-IV-TR is likely to exclude some students labeled as autistic by their K-12 schools, while adopting the most lenient criteria of the more extreme Asperger’s Syndrome advocates might be too broad for the financial and cultural situation of an institution. However, some institutions might find adopting the most liberal definitions of autism pose no undue financial or social stress.
Faculty should answer the question of which services do not alter the nature of a degree after all faculty members receive information on the nature of autism. Being pragmatic means recognizing that definitions of words such as “reasonable” and “fundamental” are dynamic. What one department considers a reasonable accommodation for students might be rejected by another department at the same university. How these situations are resolved is best left to educators who know the expectations of their disciplines.
The real test of pragmatism will be if universities are willing to reexamine their definitions of autism over time. Because there are already protections against discrimination codified into federal and state laws, the challenge to universities will be meeting the expectation of equal educational achievement of all graduates. Employers, and society as a whole, will expect a degree to indicate a standard has been met. The path to this achievement can and should be determined by the community within an institution.