I'm deaf and rely on real-time captions for calls. In an in-person interview scenario, I'm at a huge disadvantage and not able to perform at my best. In a video call, I'm on equal ground.

It's not as simple as "requiring people to be able to interact with other people."

Yep, I'm in the exact same situation as you.

The tools for in-person are getting better, but aren't frictionless to set up and sometimes require you to spend time futzing with getting your iPad or iPhone to actually see an external microphone. I don't know if Android is better about this or not, unfortunately. I would _hope_ that interviewers would extend people a bit of grace about this, but who knows.

As an aside - I saw your post on Apple Live Captions, and completely agree with you. I've been slowly adding to a collection of reviews of various captioning tools, and was _very_ critical of some of the choices Apple made there.

I’d love to read this collection of reviews!

Nearly every large company I've interviewed with would comply with a reasonable accommodation request for a legitimate disability e.g. providing a deaf person the interview questions on paper or even having an ASL interpreter present.

In fact many mention it up front on the screening call before any questions are asked.

> Nearly every large company I've interviewed with would comply with a reasonable accommodation request for a legitimate disability

so neuro divergence isn't a legitimate disability?

> so neuro divergence isn't a legitimate disability?

It doesn't really matter if it is or isn't, if being able to function well around other humans is a job requirement, as it often is in technical occupations. Why do you think behavioral questions are often asked during interviews?

For the same reason someone who requires a wheelchair could not reasonably be expected to be a firefighter, or a blind person be a pilot or bus driver, regardless of any accommodation provided.

Yeah but software / digital is a great equalizer, where all kinds of people can contribute even with disabilities or neurodivergence. The whataboutism doesn't really work.

Sure. But if you are unable to really explain yourself and your thought process in the hiring process, they might feel like you are unfit for the interview. they are way more likely to pick a guy who might be a little worse than you in coding but they actually liked him in the interview.

I mean, this comment is literally an emotion. It's not a fact, and even if it was, well it's changing thanks to AI and all the people who promote AI, and AI isn't going anywhere, so neurodivergent people really I think might have to disclose it/ Maybe if they can truly prove that they are neurodivergent, companies can go back to remote interviews?

That depends on several factors. You should read the official guidance.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reas...

I am pretty sure my current employer could make an exception if you can show proof of your condition (which would benefit you either way in Germany). But we also like to see collegues in person, as this is what the interaction for many positions might look like anyways.

Demanding said proof is very illegal in multiple jurisdictions.

“Prove you’re deaf” would be a pretty rude thing to say, but you also don’t want to hire someone who’s lying about a disability. Presumably you’d do some kind of vetting before an in-person interview, and certainly before a hire.

Anyway in Germany I bet there’s a Taubenausweis (Gehöhrlosigkeitsbescheinigung?) or other form of official status marker, and the employer would expect you to show it to HR.

Sorry for the snark, but yeah, I agree, human dignity and empathy have no place in the capitalist work place. You must prove you're disabled or else.

I've worked under communist regime. A real one, a few decades ago, and let me tell you, they also demanded proof of disability. Did you have different experience?

I wasn't trying to claim that only capitalists dehumanize people. But that's what we mostly see today because that's the majority of our society.

When it comes to the types of disabilities that are being discussed in this thread and that I was referring to - to say varied types of autism - I doubt any type of organisation that treats employees as "resources" will work in a decent way.

What's wrong with asking people to prove they're disabled? There definitely exist people that lie about being disabled too. Many places have a persons with disability certificate given by the government, so "proving", just means entering the ID of that certificate in a form.

> What's wrong with asking people to prove they're disabled

It's dehumanizing, it's lacking empathy, and it usually ends up having people trivialise the problem a person might suffer from.

As long as the disability doesn't prevent a person from executing their contractual obligations, gatekeeping a position behind "you need to be able to function in society" is an indecent request to people that have difficulties doing so.

And from personal experience, once you're in the second half of your life, looking for an autism diagnosis and then using that to fight the gauntlet of bureaucracy required to get a government approved "stigma certificate" is a chore that really eats into one's provision of spoons.

I for one would like my manager and my employer to understand when I tell them I have trouble in loud open spaces with many people and disruptions, and I would prefer to do my job at home in a comfortable environment.

How do you propose I demonstrate to you that being in an office severely impairs my ability to reason about problems and write code? Is heart rate enough? Are higher bugs per feature enough? Is being an asshole to people enough?

> As long as the disability doesn't prevent a person from executing their contractual obligations [...]

That's exactly the context. In the US, if you're being asked to prove a disability, it's part of a request for accommodations.

> And from personal experience, once you're in the second half of your life, looking for an autism diagnosis and then using that to fight the gauntlet of bureaucracy required to get a government approved "stigma certificate" is a chore that really eats into one's provision of spoons.

I'm in my 30s, but that's been my experience as well. Unfortunately, from personal experience as well, finding a new job after being fired with cause due to failing to obtain ADA protections really eats into one's spoons too.

> How do you propose I demonstrate to you that being in an office severely impairs my ability to reason about problems and write code? Is heart rate enough? Are higher bugs per feature enough? Is being an asshole to people enough?

Why guess? A diagnosis per the DSM by a qualified professional is how you demonstrate impairment. It's also how you guarantee accommodations. As a bonus, it often come with suggestions tailored to your specific disability.

> How do you propose I demonstrate...heart rate...bugs per feature...

Just a doctor's note/certificate actually.

> Fight the gauntlet of bureaucracy needed to get a government approved certificate is a chore

Well that is a separate problem. Yes, bureaucracy causes a lot of problems(even renewing your driver's license is a pain), but that doesn't mean the entire basis of needing to prove you are disabled should be thrown away. Everyone in their life faces shit bureaucracy, it's not news.

I'm not sure what kind of authority you have or in which jurisdiction you are to be able to say with such confidence that you need "just a doctor's note", but I was speaking from personal experience where a doctor's note was rejected as it wasn't specific enough to warrant an exception to the RTO mandate. And the doctor is not allowed to put the exact diagnosis in writing for the company. So currently it's a stale mate while everyone is trying to find an acceptable formula for what said doctor's note should say to satisfy the (in)human resources drones and their capitalist overlords.

In the US, the ADA allows employers to request proof of disability.

I had an interview cut short early once because the interviewer said “I have to make sure we’re allowed to hire you.”

This was in Germany.

Ultimately, accommodations help but they don’t place me on even ground: they still single me out and make people consider whether I’m capable based on accessibility, not skill.

No, but ignoring their disabilities and saying to just learn to do better is not good enough. It is no different from telling a deaf person to learn to hear with their other sense, it doesn't make sense as their disability is what prevents it. People do need to be able to interact with other people, it just doesn't work like it does with non-neurodivergent people. It takes an effort on both sides. Quit putting it all on the person who cannot do what you want. That is the bigotry.

Not having social skills is not a disability.

Comparing it to deaf people (recognized by the ADA) or any other physical disability is extremely offensive.

Sorry for the offense, it is hard coming up with analogies that don't offend someone. Should probably just have left it out.

But neurodivergense is not just a lack of social skills. Painting it this way is one of the reasons people don't understand it and act with bias against those suffering from it. It is a disability and is recognized by the ADA.

I think the tension comes from the fact that the term "neurodivergent" doesn't have a specific clinical definition, it's a catch all term that is often used in a colloquial manner that lacks a meaningful diagnosis behind it.

Typically, in a context where practical accomodations are being discussed one would want to address specific needs. A person with dyslexia isn't going to need the same accomodations as someone with ADHD, for example

Accommodations usually (but not always) require diagnosis or confirmation by a doctor or other medical professional, and the law affords companies this discretion before granting one, whereas nonspecific 'neurodivergence' is often self-diagnosed.

All this aside, if you have e.g. crippling anxiety such that you can't make it through an interview unaided, you probably won't be successful in that job, whatever it is. Whereas a deaf person or someone in a wheelchair would have no long-term problem.

The way I see it, Autism is more a kin to color-blindness, while crippling anxiety is na actual illness/disorder that should be addressed with therapy.

And while someone on the autism spectrum is born that way, anxiety is inflicted. Of course, Genetic temperament plays a role in one's predisposition to anxiety, just like with many physiological illnesses.

In a nutshell, Autism is neither an illness or disorder, but merely a "different order", while crippling anxiety is actually a disorder.

At some point on the spectrum it is a seriously crippling disability. Where I live there are supervised residances for severly Autistic people and the people living there cannot function on their own without supervision. The "monchénou" network of residances saves them from homeless or institutionalization.

The kind of autism discussed here is, trivialize their experiences and challenges. It's borderline insulting to those for witch it is a disorder.

Social anxiety can be quite specific; fine with small groups but terrified of public speaking, or terrified of new people but fine once you get to know people, or fine with speaking in front of thousands of people but not with the Uber ride to the convention center. I can very easily imagine someone who would do very well on a team of eight people and no client contact but would find the interview itself impossible.