This article makes me feel a little bad, because we used our privilege to help Lara (who got extra time on tests in high school, and is getting extra time on tests in college).

Not that it was inappropriate. She absolutely needed the accommodation. But it is equally true that we were only able to secure the accommodation because of our privilege, and I'm sure that there are many, many other children, less privileged children, who need the accommodation as well, but lack the means to get it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...r_axiosam&stream=top

quote:

In Washington, D.C., one mother said she had spent about $7,000 on neuropsychological evaluations for her son, now 17. She had little doubt that he needed extra help but she acknowledged that her family had resources that others in similar situations did not.

“It’s totally unfair,” said the mother, who works in political communications and asked not to be named because she wanted to keep her child’s medical history private. “I know how to advocate for my kid. We made sure he got what he needed and it wasn’t always clear. We bring that privilege to the table.”

The student population I see that benefits from extra-time accommodation is overwhelmingly white. I haven't asked about family income, but I would be shocked if the group isn't at the pinnacle of the institution's income distribution.

You've seen this on FB, but I'll post it here with a few extensions ...

Whenever you frame something in the language of universal rights, but do not fully fund it, you will reinforce privilege for families of wealth. Those families often feel really good about their privilege since it's seemingly fully justified by the universal language of rights!

Yet underneath the surface, other people resent the privilege, and the gaming that goes on to secure it.

The people who resent the privilege form a very mixed group. Some students who get the benefit feel a bit ashamed. I have had some of the beneficiaries tell me that the extra time really isn't the issue, but they take it anyway.

Most students don't get the benefit, of course, and many of them resent it. They have to compete against those who get double time, while they labor under sometimes extreme time pressure.

Minority students sometimes class this as yet another example of white privilege, which brings the whole idea of neurodiversity into an ethical grey area. It's not good for the neurodiverse when so many people associate this benefit with fundamental unfairness.

Giving a certain group extra time on exams might be regarded more favorably if it was a perfectly sharp scalpel that effectively solved a well-understood surgical problem. But it's not. The issues involved aren't fully understood, and this remedy seems like a blunt club instead of a scalpel.

The problem is that neurodiversity, unlike skin color, isn't visibly apparent, and there's also some degree of subjectivity.

+ 1 to those last 2 points, P*D.

Those who need accommodation should absolutely get it. But there's no doubt that there is subjectivity in making a determination of who gets what accommodation. There are also professionals who will very willingly sign a document stating that so-and-so has a particular special need, without giving it a second thought or even conducting their own assessment.

Some neurological conditions are very visibly apparent, btw. It's just that many are not.