Not even as an excuse. It’s using their disability to protect themselves from the consequences of intentionally performing poorly.
I do IT for state government. I’m often involved in trying to provide accommodations for people. But people don’t come up to me and just say, “I need this because of that.” We have HR staff and ergonomic/safety specialists that handle such things. I am advised by them what to provide, because they are the experts and they determine what is most appropriate, safe, and properly follows policies and law.
My job is simple; once they figure out what a person needs, I make it work.
The vast majority of the time I’m providing an accommodation, I don’t know what it’s for exactly, don’t need to know, and frankly don’t want to know. That’s your personal business and it’s none of mine. I don’t need to know why you need some funky keyboard or weird headset. I just need to be told by someone in authority that you do, and I’ll make sure you get it, that it gets deployed to you, and that it’s working for you.
If someone comes to me directly, I always direct them back to their supervisor, HR, or our ergo person so an assessment can be made. There’s a process for it. What if a person has a vision problem, or a wrist injury, and what they think they need because they saw it in an ad is actually going to make it worse? That’s not my judgement call.
This gets pretty well at the root of why I think the OP is… detestable.
Whether it’s “oh, these people aren’t really disabled” or “hardee har, har, here’s all these freaks with disabilities who can’t even get accommodations right,” the effect is to further marginalize a vulnerable population by encouraging skepticism and disregard rather than acceptance. And some of the other comments in that line are, likewise, detestable (eg: it’s not the disability, it’s their personality causing the problems).
For the record (re: those who asked or expressed skepticism), no, none of my professors know about my accommodation with the school, as although it relates to test-taking, tests are not administered/overseen by the actual professors, and even if they were, they certainly wouldn’t have to know why I require accommodation. A few of them do know I have PTSD because it has come up, where relevant, in conversation about serving clients and providing trauma-informed care, and of course all of those professors have demonstrated far more acceptance and understanding of a range of disabilities–physical and mental–than Saint_Cad has in this thread.
That said–and here getting back to why Saint_Cad’s OP is so… provocative–I find the implicit assumption that people asking for accommodations aren’t really disabled to be abhorrent. Particularly as the OP seems to discount the possibility of, in the case of the student claiming PTSD on test day, that there may have been a misunderstanding. Because that would be my first concern. Not that a student claiming disability didn’t really have the disability and was just trying to get out of something, but that there may have been a terrible mistake and that the best course of action would be something to pursue harm reduction. If Saint_Cad pursued such a course of action, it’s not clear at all to me from the OP, which only further emphasizes the point to which I believe the message is at base one of mockery for people claiming disability and seeking accommodation, not understanding or support.
This fits in with how things are done at my agency. I don’t need to know what the accommodation is for. HIPAA in particular says I don’t need to know. And I personally think it’s none of my business unless you feel like sharing. I will never ask.
I’m at a state university, and for a long time the only way to get a new office chair was to use the magic words “my back hurts.” I say that like a joke, but it had the effect of moving the decision from a stingy office manager to an outside ergonomic/safety specialist. Of course, you didn’t have to demonstrate a disability, just claim that the old and broken chair you were using made your back hurt.
As to the greater thrust of the thread. Yeah, sometimes people act shitty. When they do, they’ll often make excuses using whatever is convenient to shift blame. Sometimes that may be a disability that isn’t in any way related to the original shittiness.
Of course, disabilities do cause issues that are more complicated than can be dealt with by a few accommodations, and others should be sensitive to that. For those without all of the information (possibly because it’s none of their business), it can be difficult to see this. Particularly in the case where somebody else’s added complications make your job harder.
None of which I fucking said so maybe learn to read.
I never claimed that they didn’t have a disability nor that they weren’t entitled to accommodations. I said they use their disability to shield themselves from their choice to be a shitty employee. Point out even ONE thing I said saying these people aren’t disabled. Go on, but you won’t because you need to make up shit to get angry about.
And since you know all about me and my attitude about people with disabilities, I’m surprised that you haven’t mentioned in this thread that I’ve done pro bono advocacy for students with disabilities when they and their parents get run over by school districts writing IEPs that don’t address their needs. And how about all the unpaid time I’ve sat with students so they could have extra time on tests. And why don’t you tell the people what my master’s degree ? Oh no! You don’t want to read for comprehension do you. Or will you just ignore anything that contradicts your made up reality. You’re so angry that you go off when I relate ONE story of a person that studied the test for 10 minutes then decided he wanted to take it later. For the record had he just come in and said I’m not in a frame of mind to take a test today without trying to memorize the question I would have let him, no questions asked - but I’m sure you’ll ignore that or accuse me of lying or some other bullshit that better fits with your narrative.
So now what shit are you going to make up about me to attack? What strawman will you now create so that you can feel better about how much of an asshole you are?
On a humorous note, today’s LegalEagle had one case where a firefighter tried to claim his fear of fire was a disability, and he was being discriminated against because of it.
He actually won a case initially but then lost it on appeal.
It’s not a strawman that you chose to post the OP, shitting on people claiming disability, holding them out as examples for mockery, because you’re convinced they either aren’t disabled or are doing disabled wrong. Posted it not once, but, twice.
ETA: Okay, I’ll retract the F-bomb I put in there ate the end.
The OP didn’t claim this about all people who are disabled, or who claim to be.
Are you suggesting that nobody ever falsely claims to be disabled, or tries to abuse their disabled status?
As someone who works for a government agency that investigates disability fraud cases, I can assure you that’s not reality.
By way of analogy, consider this as being roughly on par with the ongoing (so far as I know–I’ve muted it) thread about the transgender shopkeeper with the large breasts. Even if the story is “true,” the fact that the story is getting traction–generating clicks/views/outrage/whatever–is evidence of the increasing marginalization of trans people. So too with these kinds of “oh, this guy’s faking it” or “oh, it’s not the PTSD, it’s his shitty personality” or “oh, even if this guy is disabled, how ridiculous of him to expect this kind of accommodation!” stories. To the extent it’s true, it’s anecdotal. To the extent it fits within a broader theme, it’s toxic and dehumanizing.
This story was not told neutrally, or to shed light on the plight of people with real disabilities seeking good faith accommodations, it was told for laughs. To that extent, it is deeply offensive.
Again another wrong assumption. You’re full of them … or it.
You suck as a psychic.
You know what? I retract my previous retraction: fuck you, you lying, disingenuous ass. You posted this to shit on and mock these people, and in so doing contribute to a number of toxic and dehumanizing narratives around disability, and particularly disabilities related to mental health/development.
Fuck you.
Same with mine. The accommodation letter comes from the disability support services specifying what the student needs. The student is then required to follow-up with me. No reason for the accommodation is required nor is it needed.
Wow you’re really bad at this aren’t you. You actually know less than zero about me and my motivations.
And you still haven’t told everyone what my master’s degree is in. Why don’t you share with everyone?
I would like you to know that you are coming across as insane, regardless of any disabilities you may or may not have.
The ONLY thing in the OP, or anywhere else, that comes across as skeptical is the use of quotes around “anxiety issues,” but even that has a reasonable interpretation: that it’s a direct quote, because “anxiety issues” is not a clinical diagnosis, but a colloquial rendering of it. I don’t know how the OP meant it: some clarification might help the rest of us, but I can see your mind is closed.
I’ve known lots of disabled people. I’m married to one. I don’t think I’ve ever had someone I knew well take advantage of a disability in the way the OP describes, because I’m sort of choosy about the people I get to know well. But I have met my share of disabled assholes, and I have met assholes who feel entitled beyond reason, so the scenario in the OP is very plausible.
I understand what you mean about reinforcing negative stereotypes. If you knew an actual welfare fraud who fit the stereotype frequently trotted out by conservatives, you wouldn’t be able to talk about it without contributing to the larger narrative no matter what your intentions. But I disagree that the stereotype of fake-disabled is so prevalent.
There are a few specific conditions that are often treated with skepticism, true. There are also a large number of people who self-diagnose with disabilities, and thus might be right but might be wrong, and try to get ad hoc accommodations rather than going through the system. But there’s nothing in the OP or subsequent posts that suggests the OP is trying to mock the disabled or cast doubt on professionally diagnosed conditions.
Some years ago when I was the production manager for a cable TV company I hired someone through a state sponsored program designed to employ people with disabilities. I got into the program because my personnel budget was stretched thin and I figured it would save my dept some money.
I was not allowed to ask anything about the person’s disability. But this person seemed like they would be a good fit so I hired them. Turns out their job performance was unsatisfactory and no amount of training seemed to help. After much struggle the employee finally told me that they had severe dyslexia and could not do the job.
The job was to input commands to our computerized video playout system. It’s all reading and keyboard entry, neither of which this person could do. I ended up letting them go and having to pay off their contract. Cost me twice as much than if I hired someone on my own. And I caught major shit for that.
I don’t understand why the agency sent me this person knowing that they couldn’t read or write, given that’s what the job was all about. It was just a bad situation for everybody concerned. Wasted a lot of time. I felt bad about letting them go, they were really nice but I had no choice.
I meant it to lump together everything from a self-diagnosed anxiety disability (I have depression because I’m sad) to real anxiety issues that even so should not result in continual tardiness cf. depression where it is entirely reasonable a sufferer may have episodes and not be able to get out of bed. And that’s not to say a person can’t have an occasional panic attack and because of it be late for work. But that’s not what the OP is about. It’s about the person that is late everyday and doesn’t even claim it’s because of SAD but they feel protected from firing anyways because they have a disability.
I feel bad for everyone; you, the person you had to let go. Except whoever picked this assignment.
I mean, you have someone who is dealing with a disability that effects their ability to get or hold a job, or just handle regular day-to-day things, and you set them up to fail. How shitty is that?
Couldn’t you get some kind of compensation from that agency? I mean, they screwed up for both you and the person they sent you, costing you money and not helping that person’s resume at all.
I didn’t set them up to fail, the agency did. I had no way of knowing what the person’s disability was, nor was I allowed to ask.
Nope. The documentation they required to release me from the contract was quite daunting and nearly impossible to acquire. After a few months I finally gave up and paid off the contract. You don’t fuck with DVR (Dept of Vocational Rehabilitation)
FWIW, said employee and I parted on good terms, or at least I think we did. But I was really unhappy with DVR.
Side note: I know people who work for WI DVR. Generally they do good. We just got sucked into a bad bureaucratic situation.