Also calling people 'autistic' and later calling people with autism 'it' as in 'try to injure itself' is a really shitty way to talk about human beings. Check yourself.
mamcx is not a native English speaker and was perhaps trying to use "it" as a gender-inspecific pronoun rather than intentionally portraying people on the autistic spectrum as "objects" or "inhuman."
I think most people will tend to use a plural (they, them) in this kind of situation. People who are pickier about grammar will probably say "he or she" or "him or her."
People-first: http://www.asha.org/publications/journals/submissions/person... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language
Identity-first: http://www.xojane.com/issues/i-am-not-a-person-with-a-disabi... and http://cheshirekit.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/the-social-model...
Perhaps, but this only works in a world in which our evaluation criteria and processes are sophisticated and mature enough to be fair to all applicants. The article illustrates a few reasons this is not the case (such as expecting candidates to look you in the eye when talking to you).
Interviewers (and systems/processes) have biases - the first step to eliminating those subtle (or sometimes not-so-subtle) biases is to be aware of them and actively work to eliminating those biases, not pretending that being {race,gender,disability,etc.}-'blind' is the same as being 'neutral' and therefore unbiased.
> Secondly, but perhaps more important, I see companies that solely hire the autistic more as taking advantage than as providing assistance.
This may be true; I'm not familiar enough with programs such as the one mentioned in the article.
That problem is that "fair" is a subjective notion. Most people value being fair, but they will disagree on which decisions are fair.
Secondly, but perhaps more important, I see companies that solely hire the autistic more as taking advantage than as providing assistance.