IT'S NOT INCLUSIVE

And it's dehumanizing!!

In my local "special kids group", I shared that cool article that I shared here about a school in Washington that is truly inclusive (although it's been pointed out to me they heavily use ABA - so still not a viable option for autistic folks!).

One parent piped up about how their kid attends an ICT class here in Brooklyn that is inclusive, and I explained to them that no, ICT classes are NOT inclusive.

They replied how it is, except for those "level 3 autistics" who attend a "satellite class". So basically, according to them, it is.

I replied that that was like saying a group that's open to LGBTQ people, except for trans people who have to go in another room, is inclusive.

And they double downed saying their school was doing a great job of inclusivity, except that those level 3 autistics have to go to another place but they at least have a place for those level 3 autistics! (I'm paraphrasing, but it was basically that).

I'm blogging about it because I'm too tired and have too much on my plate to reply to them the way I eventually will - talking about the research on inclusion, the human rights about inclusion, the impact of being excluded every day in 100 ways, and how THEY have no right to chime in about whether a place is inclusive or not if THEY are not the ones being excluded (or, their kid). I will tell them to first listen, listen to the adults who've gone through this (and not JUST for "level 3 autistics" but also for kid with ID and down syndrome who are also excluded from their wonderfully inclusive school) and I'll give them several documentaries to watch, podcast episodes to listen to, a book to read, and some IG accounts to follow. They, probably, will ignore all of it and will just be glad for the rest of their life that their disabled white kid with low support needs is in an inclusive school.

Anyway... the other thing this made me feel is the impact of using "levels" to refer to autistic people. I've never quite got it - like in my bones. Of course, it wasn't for me to get. As an ally I'm listening to the autistic folks - especially those with high support needs - who are saying "ya don't use levels to refer to me" and I'm like "got it! I will not!". But I also saw a difference in the way society treats different disabled people and how that reality also gets erased by some folks on social media. So I have just been trying to listen and learn.

But in this moment I got it. He wasn't saying "some autistic people who have specific support needs that can't be accommodated in this classroom go to a different classroom" (this still wouldn't be ok, but it would at least point to some sort of acknowledgment of the humanity of all autistic people). He said it like it was a category of person who was not-worthy, who was disposable, who we didn't really need to care about. Without even realizing that each person in that category, "level 3", is a unique person with totally different support needs and some may be, in fact, already accommodated in that school and some may not. It was just a flippant hand-wave. "This school already does inclusion really damn well! murmur murmur, level 3”

Of course, he could have said the exact same sentence and said "except for those high-support need autistics", but maybe there's at least inherent in the language some sort of acknowledgement that we're talking about support needs and not just a blanket category that reduces you to sub-human.