<p>
</p>
<p>The same could be said of all of our collective neuro-typical kids, who have so many resources available that many other kids in this country don’t have. If Oberlin believes that this young man will add richness to the Oberlin community, that aiding him is part of their mission, and is willing to invest in whatever degree is necessary to ensure his reasonable success, I’m not sure what the problem is? Maybe I’m missing something here?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently the father was a very aggressive individual in advocating for his son. I say good for him! Wouldn’t we all fight for our kids? I don’t know, my response is more “there but for the grace of God, go I” instead of resenting what advocacy the father brought to bear.</p>
<p>I don’t get it. From what is shown in the CNN video, this kid is severely impaired and incapable of communicating without a full-time assistant. He types slowly, one letter at a time, and has difficulty maintaining focus, as seen when his father tries to get him back on track during the interview. This is not to say he doesn’t have high intellectual and reasoning abilities, but how is he going to sit through lectures and write papers at a college set up for the neurotypical? How has he done so in high school to have gotten straight As? When I read the article, I thought how great…but after seeing the video, I wonder if this is mainstreaming taken too far.</p>
<p>Autistic people have trouble dealing with unusual situations involving unaccustomed stimuli. An interview situation, with a distracting microphone and who knows what else, probably put the student in question on stimulus overload.</p>
<p>The parents probably knew the interview would be difficult but felt that it would be worth it to give it a shot.</p>
<p>In high school and college, the boy would have to be able to deal with a normal classroom situation, and presumably he has been fairly successful with this so far. </p>
<p>If something unusual were to happen in class, it might send the autistic student into a tailspin, but hopefully this wouldn’t happen very often.</p>
<p>A typical accommodation that occurs in schools is preparing kids with neurological differences for what is going to happen ahead of time. For instance, if the chemistry teacher did a demonstration with a flash and boom, the autistic student would be warned in advance or even possibly excused for a few minutes.</p>
<p>My problem also, Wild… and others. Adults should be contributing members of society- anyone who needs at least one full time aid can’t be- this person needs much more than just the educational aid. That aid is devoted solety to him, the net contribution to society is zero. I don’t buy the argument that exposure to extreme adversity is a benefit- that having such a roommate for example helps more than not. </p>
<p>Our current society has the wealth to accomodate those who are a costly drain on it. We are in the unfortunate position of having technologies available, but without additional economic resources to pay for them. Decisions must be made- how much is everyone willing to give up in order for some individuals to get all of the high cost help without much benefit? We all want everyone to reach their maximum potential, but that is impossible. There aren’t enough resources to do so. For every public dollar spent (think of all of the special ed in the schools) on one person there are many more who could use them- and the return on the dollar would be so much greater- as well as the intangible benefits to so many more families. To date we have been willing to subsidize the less fortunate, but I see a future where we as a society can’t afford it to the extent now done.</p>
<p>Sounds tough, but it is reality. Just as generations ago kids were starving and normal kids lacked a basic education. Budget cuts can penalize everyone but the special needs groups. Pet peeve of mine is that lobbying by special needs parents got laws passed that require huge expenditures when school districts don’t have the money for regular expenses. I understand why parents advocate for their kids- but when it takes away from the rest of the kids I object. “Stealing from Peter to pay Paul”- in this case it is many Peters who suffer for every Paul. Basic economics- limited resources. Is any kid’s life so much more valuable than any others that he can steal from their ability to reach their potential? Is spending huge resources so one severely handicapped child can be only a bit better than otherwise justified? I would rather spend my resources on countless strangers who will have much better lives because of public expenditures.</p>
<p>More than enough from me. Warned people. This could mushroom into many philosophical/religious debates.</p>
<p>Do you object to, for example, an aid for a student with Down syndrome? A good friend of mine has a son with Down syndrome (senior in hs) and he is mainstreamed with a full-time aid. It’s in a different school district, and honestly I just haven’t thought about whether it’s “worth it” or not, because again - there but for the grace of God go me and mine.</p>
<p>Down Sydrome, the most common known cause of mental retardation, encompasses a wide range of disabilities. Some have near normal intelligence and few medical problems- others have horrendous medical issues and little potential. A problem exists when one child suffers “unduly” at the expense of another. Some of the high priced care given in the public schools results in the major benefit being of baby sitting services for parents. Needing more than one attendant along with the educational specialists so a child who is mainly oblivious to their surroundings and dependent on a ventilator can be in school seems like a waste. Spending a lot more time than the normal child needs to be educated so a child can take care of their basic needs seems worthwhile. Spending public dollars so the ■■■■■■■■ child can eventually not only take care of their bodies, but work and live in a sheltered environment actually saves money.</p>
<p>Parents with handicapped children have guilt from their child being less than normal. It is good for society to help out parents since the financial and emotional burden can be too much to handle. I object to parents taking huge resources away from other children so their severely handicapped child can merely exist. There is also a point at which such huge resources are used that can’t be made available to every child because we just don’t have the money. The example of this Oberlin child is one- imagine how much all autistic children could do given equal resources?</p>
<p>How much do we owe other parents so they can enjoy their children or at least lessen their guilt because “everything possible” is being done? Is it our job to ensure every other child’s needs/wants are met? No problem when it doesn’t affect our own children’s lives negatively. But what happens when your child can’t get the education that once was offered in the public schools? What happens when your child suffers lifelong problems because resources went to someone for whom there was little or no benefit? This segues into my desire for universal healthcare. The disabled get medicaid benefits and other social programs but the child of a working parent may not get that operation/treatment because his/her paernts can’t afford it. I said this could mushroom.</p>
<p>Wow oh wow. Just looked at the video. DJ looks almost exactly like a friend of my son’s who has pretty severe Aspergers. Same coloring, everything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, I didn’t know that you knew my son. Watching him write - cursive or printing - is a trip.</p>
<p>I understand your rant, wis75, and I haven’t researched this boy’s story, but to what extent is it “society” providing him these resources versus his own family? And in the case of Oberlin, isn’t Oberlin a private institution that can spend its resources as it sees fit? You might have more of a story if we were talking about a state school supported by taxpayers.</p>
<p>
No question how you would feel about rationed healthcare…</p>
<p>I completely agree with wis75 on this. When resources are scarce they must be distributed rationally, and ^ yes, including in health care. Any way you look at it some individuals are going to lose out, so you have to look at the whole picture. In this case, would Oberlin be willing to support 20 kids with this kind of profile, 100? What kind of accommodations will he be given for exams and assignments? Because it looks like he will need an awful lot. Or is this a gesture to appear inclusive and benevolent that will not carry over to other equally qualified (or equally impaired) disabled applicants precisely because of the cost/benefit implications.</p>
<p>I know of at least a handful of non-verbal autistics in colleges. I myself am autistic but am fully able to communicate, I have different issues. It is worth mentioning here that there is a saying… when you’ve met one autistic, you’ve met one autistic. We all have a different make-up of symptoms and I am seeing some major, major, major generalizing going on here that is a little bit disturbing. </p>
<p>I hear the argument about people with these kinds of disabilities being a drain on society…(don’t agree, but I hear you) but you know, that’s something society wants to have both ways. They don’t want to be a part of funding programs that take care of disabled people for life, but they don’t want to be a part of funding accommodation programs to allow a disabled person to get on their own two feet, either. You can’t have it both ways. I either need what I need to succeed so that I don’t have to be a drain, or so that I can minimize that drain, or I need someone to take care of me. I think we’re blessed to be in a society that generally tries to avoid allowing perfectly good people who have something to contribute to society starve in the streets and that’s not something I’d like to see change just for lower taxes. And I am not getting much of anything in the way of supports anyway and probably never will, precisely because the world wants to have their cake and eat it too. So it’s not like I only feel that way because I’m one of the ones they’re saving from starvation, on the contrary it’s very likely I’ll be homeless after graduation.</p>
<p>^I understand that decisions like this have to be made on a case by case basis, as obviously there are many high-functioning autistics and mentally impaired people that can benefit from mainstream education with reasonable accommodations. I worked for several years with elderly mentally handicapped, with Downs and other disabilities, and there was great variation in what each was capable of and the kinds of activities that benefited them. I just question this case, solely based on a short news video, which, granted, may give a distorted picture of this kid’s needs. But just from that, one has to wonder how much accommodation is reasonable and cost effective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that it is our job to ensure that EVERY child’s needs/wants are met - not just every OTHER child’s… ;)</p>
<p>Emaheevul07, Very well said. Thank you for sharing that.</p>
<p>So true emaheevul07! A applaud you and all the other college students that are trying to make it in life despite obstacles. Some of the above comments are concerning…perhaps if their life will not have a perfect course at some point, are they prepared? Getting back to aspergers… Bill Gates, Einstein, Ben Franklin, John Quincy Adams, Vincent Van Gogh, Beethovan, Henry Ford, Clark Gable…all suspected to have a form of autism. Any mind…repeat any mind, should not be wasted. Even if nothing comes of an education…is personal pride not worth it? Let the parents invest in his higher education…it is not costing you a nickle. In fact, I’m sure his parents have paid more than their fair share to get additional help for their son, while the rest of us were lucky enough to invest in our children’s sports activities, music lessons and camps. Just a thought.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps Oberlin admits this boy and decides “we can do this in the future for x more kids a year.” Or perhaps Oberlin admits this boy and decides “this is too much, we can’t handle this, this was a noble experiment but it’s beyond our scope.” It would seem to me there is no harm in trying? Oberlin is not now required to educate / admit every single autistic kid out there.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, how does this compare based to other accommodations that a private college might have to make, e.g., for a blind, deaf or physically disabled student? I don’t know the legal issues involved.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no simple answer since so much is still not understood about autism and its causes, but here is an interesting article on autism that discusses the underlying sensory and motor control issues often seen in individuals with autism and questions the “typical” neurotypical interpretations of autistic behaviors:</p>
<p>[Rethinking</a> Autism: Implications of Sensory and Movement Differences | Donnellan | Disability Studies Quarterly](<a href=“Rethinking Autism: Implications of Sensory and Movement Differences | Disability Studies Quarterly”>Rethinking Autism: Implications of Sensory and Movement Differences | Disability Studies Quarterly)</p>