Responses to Prejudice · Nov 6, 12:00 PM

Mikita Brottman’s spasm of bigotry, Nutty Professors, provoked a righteous outcry upon its original publication in the September 16 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education. In this article, the newly minted Interim Chair of the Maryland Institute College of Art Department of Language, Literature and Culture (who also makes inflated claims of expertise in psychology), questions the fitness for employment in academia of individuals whom she suspects qualify for an Asperger Syndrome diagnosis, and finds them damningly uncollegial and worthy of ostracism.

Initial reactions to Nutty Professors by participants in Internet discussion groups included:

So much for embracing diversity.

And no wonder that so many of us are un- or underemployed.

...and this is in an ART SCHOOL!

Now, imagine if the writer had labelled the people as being Black or Chinese or Muslim, and ascribing those negative qualities (described of a couple of people) to all Blacks, Chinese or Muslims. People would be hollering about stereotyping and such, and they ought to be.

Her article is insulting, bigoted, and cruel.

Although I am not really fluent in AS issues, I CAN recognize discrimination, exclusion, and self-righteous snobbery.

Maybe she belongs to a white supremacist group too.

I guess society should lock up people like Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and John Nash since they can’t seem to get along with anyone or act right.

It’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.

One would have hoped that a one-week run would have been the end of it, and that editors of other publications might have had the sense to recognize the article as a self-serving piece of pseudo-intellectualism. One would have hoped that other editors might have tossed it straight into the same dumper reserved for press releases of racist organizations and inflated resumes of unqualified job applicants.

Alas, it seems that these days, the simple mention of Asperger Syndrome is sufficient to grant even the most poorly-informed collection of paragraphs entrée into well-regarded regional newspapers. On September 30—the day after I finished writing a detailed analysis of Brottman’s article, Autopsy of a Violent Diagnosis—an edited version of Nutty Professors was published in the Los Angeles Times. Over the following week, it was syndicated in the Tallahassee Democrat, Austin American-Statesman, Hartford Courant, Press of Atlantic City, Daily Hampshire Gazette, and the Boulder Daily Camera. Then, adding insult to injury, the University of Western Ontario’s Western News ran the original Chronicle piece in its entirety.

To their credit, the editors of the Tallahassee Democrat promptly gave ample space for two rebuttals to the article, and even gave one the status of an Op-Ed. The Chronicle of Higher Education chose to run three of the many letters they had received in their October 21, 2005 edition. The editor of Western News also featured 300 words from yours truly.

The following is a compilation of published and unpublished letters to editors in response to “Nutty Professors” and its hideous spawn, as well as one pointed missive sent directly to Ms. Brottman. All are reproduced with the permission of their authors.

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
September 17, 2005
Anne Bevington

To the Editor,

As the mother of a college student with Asperger’s, I was disturbed by Mikita Brottman’s article “Nutty Professors,” which appeared in the September 16, 2005 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. The premise of Ms. Brottman’s article is that people with Asperger’s are undesirable co-workers who should be excluded from the academic workplace. Ms. Brottman seems to believe that a negative hiring decision based on an applicant’s autistic spectrum disability would be prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act if the person had a formal diagnosis, but that such discrimination would be permissible if the employer could recognize an applicant as an undiagnosed autistic.

Professor Brottman’s ideas are based on her experience in working with two people that she regards as having had undiagnosed cases of Asperger’s Disorder. Nothing about Professor Brottman’s position as a humanities professor at an art school suggests that she has any knowledge about autistic spectrum disorders or the expertise to diagnose them. Her conclusion that these people represent how a person with Asperger’s would interact in the workplace perpetuates stereotypes, inaccurately portrays Asperger’s as a character defect, and adds to the already significant burden of misunderstanding and rejection that autistic spectrum people face in trying to secure places for themselves in society.

It is amazing that The Chronicle of Higher Education would publish an article that advocates violation of the ADA. The ADA prohibits discrimination in hiring based on disability, and it protects people who have a physical or mental impairment as well as people who are regarded as having such an impairment. I think that a decision not to hire an applicant for an academic position based on the belief that the applicant has an autistic spectrum disorder would be illegal. I invite the Maryland Institute College of Art to make an official statement as to whether it supports Professor’s Brottman’s views expressed in her article “Nutty Professors.”

Anne Bevington
Pacifica, California

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
September 17, 2005
Jonet Greene

To the Editor,

I was disappointed and angered by this article.

Even more than the misinformation and misconceptions about how Aspergers Syndrome manifests, which has been addressed by others far more eloquent than I, I am disturbed by Ms. Brottman’s smug, self-righteous belief in her own normalcy and subsequent assumption that this somehow renders her capable of standing in moral judgement.

It is precisely this kind of attitude that causes the most problems. It seems that Ms. Brottman values her own comfort more than anything. The contribution her colleagues might make to their field and their students is apparently worthless compared to her idea of the way things “ought” to be.

What makes it especially sad is that a small amount of creativity applied to the situation might have reaped huge dividends for all involved. Did anyone ask the professor who seemed to have an obsession with “the size of her office and the quality of the furniture” what she needed? The answers might have been surprising.

While I realize this was probably not the actual issue, since supposedly details were changed, it’s as good as an example as any. The obsession, you see, might have resulted from an actual problem that the person didn’t know how to address, and some respectful questioning and a few minor adjustments might have done amazing amounts of good.

No, if Ms. Brottman’s article was any indication, she never once bestirred herself to directly address the issue, but rather whispered amongst her colleagues about how “difficult” the person was and how “misleading” their references were, and how terrible it was to have to deal with a “consistently exasperating co-worker”. And in such a subtly hostile environment, it’s probably no great surprise that the annoying traits became even more pronounced as the other person began to pick up on it and feel defensive.

She concludes the article with a classic “slippery slope” fallacy:

Moreover, Asperger’s syndrome is a “neurological disorder.” It is classified as a disability, along with difficulties in hearing, vision, and mobility, that most universities are required to accommodate. If our hires had permitted themselves to accept a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome (assuming that was, indeed, their condition), would we have been expected to adapt ourselves to the neurological differences that make them obsessive, miserly, rude, and truculent? Would we have been considered rigid and inflexible for failing to be open to their rigidities and inflexibilities? Would we have been expected to allow our new hire to live in his office, if his disability made it painful for him to spend money on rent?

This is utterly ridiculous and unworthy of a thinking adult. First of all, one person’s “miserly” is another person’s “careful with money”. One person’s “obsessive” is another person’s “concentration”. One person’s “rude” is another’s “refreshingly forthright”. One person’s “truculence” is another’s “comes straight to the point”. By not defining these terms, Ms. Brottman assumes that everyone thinks the same way she does, showing a rigid inflexibility and inability to see outside of her own narrow comfort zone, the very problem she is apparently so concerned about.

Perhaps she “simply has to be taught, through years of counseling and therapy, how to conduct herself appropriately in social and public situations.”

What accommodation means is to make reasonable changes that make it possible for a person to do their job. For a physically disabled person, it might mean adding a wheelchair ramp. For an Aspergers person, it might be simply getting to know what situations are triggers and strategizing ways to minimize problems.

For example, the Aspie might be perceived as rude because xe doesn’t make eye contact, and accommodation might simply be to explain to people that Professor X dislikes eye contact, but if he stares intently down towards the left, it means you have 100% of his attention.

If Professor Y consistently snarls at people when she is interrupted in her office, the solution might be to see to it that interruptions are kept to a minimum. This could be accomplished by getting a student to “guard” the office, or it might be something as simple as a sign that has red on one side and green on the other that she can turn over to signal people that she is trying to get some work done or needs some quiet time and thus needs to be left alone. As she grows to trust that people won’t bug her at these times unless it’s absolutely necessary, she’ll likely be far less likely to snarl when she must be interrupted because she will know it’s for good reason.

“Bartleby” might have simply needed help finding an inexpensive apartment, or a friendly accounting student to help him work out his budget so that he no longer felt the need to camp in his office. It’s hard to say exactly what was going on, but certainly, dismissing it as “miserly” doesn’t do anything to fix it.

Of course, it’s far easier to throw around pejorative adjectives than it is to do a little digging and come up with creative approaches and try to understand.

Would a less “difficult” colleague who developed a drinking problem be treated this way, or would they be offered therapy, support, and encouragement? Would someone then worry out loud that acknowledging this problem meant that an alcoholic who got hired had to be provided with vast quantities of alcohol instead of the more realistic accommodation that perhaps they need to start classes a little later so they can attend a morning AA meeting?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding here. Perhaps Ms. Brottman is such an amazing visionary and contributor to humanity that she needs her little foibles accommodated so that she can successfully do her incredibly valuable work.

If this is the case, by all means, shape your hiring policy accordingly—you wouldn’t want to lose such a worthy resource.

If, however, she is simply average, then perhaps her department will be improved by removing her and hiring some more of those “quirky” Aspies who set their students’ minds on fire and make the world a better place to be.

Sincerely,

Jonet Greene
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mszola/

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
September 15, 2005
Kathleen Seidel

To the Editor,

I am mother to two adolescents, one with a diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome. Mikita Brottman’s armchair diagnoses of her despised former colleagues, and her arrogant, judgmental, condescending, poorly informed speculations, are tasteless and bigoted. Her reference to AS as a “character disorder” in itself clearly demonstrates that her education on the subject is limited to stereotypes and words on paper.

Citizens with autism and Asperger Syndrome are not works of fiction, cartoon characters, or figments of the imagination, they are real human beings. Many live a lifetime on the receiving end of the kind of intolerance so abundantly demonstrated by Ms. Brottman. It is alarming that the Chronicle of Higher Education would choose to broadcast such an ill-considered hemorrhage of viciousness against individuals with developmental disabilities. Would you publish such prejudicial slurs against members of any other class of humanity?

Sincerely,

Kathleen Seidel
neurodiversity.com | honoring the variety of human wiring

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
September 14, 2005
Alyric
(Originally published as Peddling Prejudice)

To the Editor,

I read with dismay the opinion of Dr Mikita Brottman concerning the unseemly presence of eccentrics in academia. She refers specifically to Asperger’s Syndrome. While the intolerant will always be among us, I find it disturbing that a journal such as the Chronicle of Higher Education would lend editorial space to an article with such basic flaws as errors of inductive reasoning, research quality for which a freshman would be roundly condemned and pronouncements that the author is totally unqualified to render.

Taking the research quality first, Brottman seems to think that Asperger’s Syndrome is a character disorder and then goes on to perpetuate that misrepresentation by talking as if those with Asperger’s Syndrome have definable personality traits. Dr Brottman is categorically wrong. Asperger’s Syndrome has nothing to say about the personality at all, which should be obvious in the most cursory examination of the literature. I refer you to Dr Tony Attwood for the expert’s view: http://www.tonyattwood.com.au/.

Prima Donnas and the miserly, two variants in the human landscape are around to be sure, but there is nothing in the literature that says that these are more common in the Asperger’s population than in the general run of humanity. It is quite amazing that Brottman should make such a logically fallacious argument. Just because two former colleagues had what she interprets as personality problems, and it should be noted that we have only Brottman’s version of events here, does not mean that those same foibles belong to Asperger’s as a class, a classic error of inductive reasoning. That the Chronicles failed to edit that out is indeed ‘peddling prejudice’.

That leads to the third flaw in Brottman’s article – her assumption that the two colleagues who made such an impression on her for their lack of collegiality could have been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. Dr Brottman is entirely unqualified to make such pronouncements, and given her limitations should not have been allowed to do so.

Finally, the only positive that I can find in Dr Brottman’s article is perhaps the partial answer to a puzzle. For some time now, there has been growing concern about declining standards in the university, particularly in the Humanities. Where this miasma of mediocrity is coming from, no one could say with any certainty. I think it would be reasonable to say that one of the vectors is Dr Brottman and other assorted like minds. Brottman acknowledges that the gifted can be eccentric and also concedes that they may be wonderful ‘on paper and in the classroom’. One would think that this is precisely the best job description for an academic. Yet for Brottman, the subjective ‘collegiality’ must be elevated to a position of pre-eminence, given that the average can never compete with genius on any other variable. And academe is the correct abode for the best minds in the business. To aim for anything less is to encourage a creeping conformity to social norms that are actually antithetical to the aims of higher education, namely inspiration of the finest minds, by the finest minds. Brottman confesses that if she were in a position to hire someone who from her perspective is an oddball, she would not. Let us hope for the sake of the academy, that she never is put in such a position.

Alyric
http://alyric.blogspot.com

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
September 14, 2005
Lisa Cohen
(Originally published as Diagnosis by Proxy and other Logical Fallacies)

In the 9/16/05 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Mikita Brottman writes an opinion piece titled “Nutty Professors.” In it she makes an argument about the essential inappropriateness of accommodating to potential behavioral issues that she identifies as accompanying Asperger’s Syndrome (AS).

It would be one thing if Ms. Brottman were a neuropsychologist or psychiatrist in the autism field. According to the biography attached to her opinion piece, she is “a professor of language, literature, and culture at the Maryland Institute College of Art.” Performing an internet search reveals she is also a psychotherapist with a private practice. However, I was unable to find any publications by her that dealt with psychotherapy or autism. Her bibliography seems to be limited to books and articles about culture and language. He knowledge seems to be based on reading the APA diagnostic criteria for AS and on her experience with two faculty members who did not pass their year’s probation.

I can recall two instances where candidates were hired who, in retrospect, appear to have had many of the characteristic personality traits of Asperger’s. Both had stellar résumés and impressive lists of publications; they were dedicated and professional teachers, with superlative references…

Neither lasted more than a year in the job. In the first case—and I’m disguising some details to protect their identities—the new hire turned out to be dismissive of any student incapable of meeting her impossibly high standards, disturbingly fastidious, bad-tempered, and intractable in meetings. She was also arrogant, petty-minded, and obsessed with such matters as the relative size of her office and quality of its furniture. In the second case, the new star revealed himself to be an abstemious hermit and hypersensitive to imaginary slights; he was also a compulsive hoarder, and frugal to an unusual extreme. He was discovered to be actually living, Bartleby-like, in his office.

Ms. Brottman is making a host of assumptions that she is not qualified to make. First that these two individuals have Asperger’s Syndrome, second that their performance difficulties were in fact related to any neurological difference at all, and third that this experience can be generalized to a population of individuals with Asperger’s Syndrome.

I find it illuminating that Ms. Brottman considers AS as character disorder (that would be in the same family as Borderline Personality disorder). She states:

Consequently, like most character disorders, Asperger’s is a controversial diagnosis. (emphasis added)

Most researchers describe AS as a neurobiological issue. She goes on to say:

If our hires had permitted themselves to accept a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome (assuming that was, indeed, their condition), would we have been expected to adapt ourselves to the neurological differences that make them obsessive, miserly, rude, and truculent?

This is an interesting statement on many levels. The language she chooses, eg, ‘permitted themselves to accept a diagnosis’ makes it seem as if for those individuals a diagnosis would give them an excuse for and permission to continue their inappropriate behavior. In fact, a proper understanding of one’s neurology enables the individual to compensate for his or her difficulties and alleviates functional problems.

She also ‘blames’ their “obsessive, miserly, rude, and truculant” behavior on a diagnosis that she has made based on casual reading. For the sake of argument, I am willing to posit that these two individuals may have had Asperger’s Syndrome. If that is the case, there are at least two possible viewpoints regarding their behavior. First, that their behavior has as much or more to do with base personality than neurological hard-wiring. Second, that anxiety and a stressful work environment triggered stress related responses that were misinterpreted as obsessive, rude, etc. In neither case is it appropriate to assume that these negative behaviors are an inevitable result of Asperger’s Syndrome

At the end of the day, Ms. Brottman is guilty of the worst kind of generalization—that made from a sense of academic superiority. I must disagree with her thesis and her conclusions and hope she does not speak for either this publication or academia at large.

Lisa Cohen
http://aspies.blogspot.com/

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
September 19, 2005
Lisa Jean Collins

To the Editor,

Thank you for printing Mikita Brottman’s “well-studied,” “sensitive,” and “deeply insightful” piece on the difficulties of working with colleagues hypothetically diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. Even though the two case studies she documented turned out not to have any diagnosis to her knowledge, she was so convincing in her analysis that I was persuaded by the end of the article that they did indeed have Asperger’s syndrome and that they were indeed as obnoxious and toxic as she described them. I agree with her that their quirkiness more than cancelled out a lifetime of academic achievement. I admire how much research she put into developing the ideas for her article. Drawing inspiration for the article from a cast of fictional characters, Ms. Brottman showed amazing dexterity in her ability to quote authoritatively from the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s syndrome without having any real-life experience with these people. Her journalistic virtuosity left me with the sense that Ms. Brottman really knows what she’s talking about.

From this article, I have learned that Asperger’s syndrome is a “neurological disorder,” not a neurological disorder. I did not know that Asperger’s syndrome is not actually a neurological disorder, but rather a “character disorder” bordering on “obvious mental illness.” I was deeply moved by how difficult it must be for Ms. Brottman to navigate in her work environment with these “obsessive, miserly, rude, and truculent” people. I especially liked the part where she stated: “Nothing is more demanding than the day-to-day grind of dealing with a consistently exasperating co-worker.” Come to think of it, I really can’t think of anything more demanding either! I feel awful for her. I think I have a solution that would really help Ms. Brottman. Perhaps instead of having to be put in the perilous position of “casting her vote” and accidentally hiring an Aspie, she should remove herself from her position and go find a job where she will never encounter one. I wish her good luck on that one. Please tell her I said so. I know she will be flattered to learn that I and so many others in the autism advocacy community are thinking about her.

Oh, one last thing before I forget. I can be kind of addlebrained at times. Ms. Brottman wrote, “It has often been observed that the more prodigious the intellect, the more it can compromise other aspects of the personality, such as self-awareness and social grace.” This article proves that she has none of the above, at least when it comes to certain members of society that she feels should not be protected from slander. She said she disguised the identities of two candidates who were hired and shortly thereafter fired; she apparently did not give them enough credit to think that they could identify themselves in her writing. I suppose she did not have the theory of mind to figure this out. Either that, or she just didn’t care.

Lisa Jean Collins
Autism advocate
Mother of two ASD children

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
October 21, 2005
Jane Meyerding, University of Washington
(Unedited Version)

To the Editors,

Mikita Brottman’s “Nutty Professor” (Sept. 16, 2005) is terribly unfair. Apparently lacking any background knowledge of autism, Brottman diagnoses two former colleagues and, based on a superficial acquaintance with the controversial APA diagnostic criteria, suggests that all people with an Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) diagnosis are likely to be unwelcome colleagues. Autism is a term that describes a neurological difference from the norm. It is not another word for “personality disorder.”

Brottman should look at the subject from the perspective of Carol Gray and Dr. Tony Attwood, who know a great deal more about AS-diagnosed people than she does. One good starting place would be their essay “The Discovery of ‘Aspie’ Criteria,” which can be found on Dr. Attwood’s web site (http://www.tonyattwood.com). As these two experienced practitioners note, “If Asperger’s Syndrome was identified by observation of strengths and talents, it would no longer be in the DSM IV, nor would it be referred to as a syndrome. After all, a reference to someone with special strengths or talents does not use terms with negative connotations (it’s artist and poet, not Artistically Arrogant or Poetically Preoccupied)...”

AS, like other autism diagnoses, is not a straightjacket. We’re not all alike. Many autistic adults have lived most of their lives being treated badly because they “don’t fit in.” Without a diagnosis, all autism-related dilemmas remain personal and all failures are considered proof of individual flaws. Diagnosis can be a huge relief, because it can explain a lifetime of formerly baffling experiences and disappointments. Few autistics I know would use their autism as an excuse for bad behavior.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge writes, “Rather than conceiving of autism as a deficiency, autism might be better characterised as a different cognitive style.” This intriguing idea complements an observation by Dr. Fred Volkmar of Yale: “Many troubled with Asperger’s are really quite bright, especially in terms of their verbal skills. What is harder for people to appreciate is how impaired they are in other areas.” Many of us are coming to see ourselves as part of what might be called a neurological minority group composed of those diagnosed “some kind of autistic.” Nonetheless, even though autism isn’t “awful” and “tragic,” neither is it negligible or non-handicapping.

Why should a hard-working autistic person who possesses none of the personality flaws Brottman abhors be subjected to heightened suspicion by potential colleagues? Characters like those Brottman disdains can be winnowed out on their own merit (or lack thereof), not because they happen to be autistic. Or is this another reincarnation of the old “is he or isn’t he?” injustice, where people who simply “look gay” (or “appear autistic”) are at risk of being blacklisted? It is possible to see all kinds of oddities in those we have labeled pejoratively, just as it is possible to overlook – or even appreciate—eccentricities in those we allow ourselves to like.

Jane Meyerding
Program Coordinator
Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies
University of Washington
Seattle
http://mjane.zolaweb.com/

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
September 2005
Ettina Satot

As a person with a condition very closely related to Asperger Syndrome, I resent your inaccurate and prejudicial portrayal of AS.

But the popular stereotype runs not to ruthless or power-mad but to “absent-minded” or, thanks to Jerry Lewis, “nutty” professors. But these light-hearted notions may mask serious dysfunction, suggests Mikita Brottman, a professor herself, in today’s Chronicle Review.

Since when is AS “serious dysfunction”? If there are more AS professors, it’s because that line of work caters to their strengths. Characteristics of AS that are benefits in academia include intense interests, high intelligence and the ability to concentrate on one thing for hours. In fields such as engineering and physics, another benefit is a high incidence of spatial talents.

Aspies also tend to do well with logical systems such as math and computers. In veterinary science, some aspies excel due to talents in relating to animals.

And underlying this is not something seriously “wrong”, like self-hating perfectionism. Instead, the underlying experience of an aspie is of being different, an “alien” (one woman described herself as an “Anthropologist on Mars”), who is rejected and discriminated against. For some, university is where they finally get to be respected and valued.

Academe is a draw for introspective, narcissistic, obsessive characters who occasionally suffer from mood disorders, such as the high-functioning autism known as Asperger’s syndrome.

We are introspective, and we are obsessive. But AS is not a mood disorder and is very different from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In NPD, the person has a deep down feeling of being worthless, and seeks admiration in order to escape from that feeling. Aspies sometimes seem narcissistic because we have difficulty figuring out how normal people are feeling, and tend to be less socially oriented. But we do care about other people’s feelings. Empathy has two parts, knowing how someone else is feeling and being sympathetic. You aren’t very sympathetic if you have no clue how someone is feeling. In terms of a mood disorder, there are two types, mania and depression. Neither is the same as AS. Due to chronic rejection, aspies are prone to depression, and bipolar disorder (manic depression) seems to have a slight genetic link to AS, but that does not mean AS is the same type of condition. Aspies can be just as happy or sad as anyone else, and what really matters is how we are treated.

Nothing is more taxing than the day-to-day grind of dealing with a consistently out-to-lunch co-worker.

[sarcasm]Oh, poor, pitiful person![/sarcasm] I can think of plenty worse. Being repeatedly told that the way your mind works is wrong, your strengths are unimportant and your weaknesses are very important, being bullied by classmates, teachers, colleagues or other people, noticing unfair standards where social problems due to mutual misunderstanding are blamed on you because you’re different, getting medications designed to make you into someone else, that really make you disoriented, tired and sick, being forced to live a lie because if you don’t, you’re seen as crazy, stupid or defective, and many other things that adults and children on the autistic spectrum have to deal with.

Ettina Satot
Canada
http://www.geocities.com/ettinashee/rants.html

PS: [sarcasm][/sarcasm] is a programmerism, often used by autistic people who feel uncertain that others will recognise the sarcasm otherwise. Similar to the phenomenom of having “this is a joke” written somewhere on each joke page.

Letter to Mikita Brottman
September 15, 2005
Theresa

Dear Professor Brottman,

And if I am ever put in the position of casting my vote in the hiring of a midcareer candidate with no previous record of tenure—especially if he or she seems… well… just a little bit odd—I might, like Bartleby, prefer not to.

So, what you’re saying is that you’d rather have as a fellow academic someone who meets your standards of sociability so that your personal experience as a lecturer/researcher is not adversely affected, rather than have on staff someone of exceptional intellectual ability such as Einstein…or Nash…or Wittgenstein…or Nietzsche…or Russell…or, for that matter, Newton…or Darwin…or Warhol…or Yeats…or Carroll…?

Theresa

Letter to the Tallahassee Democrat
October 8, 2005
Jarl K. Jackson

Column took prejudiced view of Asperger’s Syndrome

Mikita Brottman uses terms like “downright dysfunctional” to describe those whom she argues no longer should be tolerated. Asserting that academic world has been a haven for these types too long, she wants them ostracized.

In what appears almost a digression, Ms. Brottman introduces her readers to a neurological disorder called Asperger’s Syndrome. People with this condition, she notes, have difficulty with the “kind of social signals many of us take for granted, such as eye contact and body language.”

This is true, as I can state from personal experience. I am an adult with Asperger’s Syndrome.

Although described in 1944, formal recognition of Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) in this country did not occur until the mid-1990s. This means that many individuals with the disorder had to struggle and suffer along in our own ignorance – and that of others – until, the news broke. What Ms. Brottman proposes is a conscious, deliberate, intentional return to those days, despite the fact that we are all, presumably, better informed.

If someone is simply a jerk or a boor, his behavior is inexcusable and clearly intolerable. At least after a certain point, he presumes too much on the rest of us and requires proper handling. However, to treat him accordingly without giving any sensitive consideration to possible causes is to be no better than we assume him to be.

Brottman goes on to relate how their colleagues handled the respective situations – and individuals. Both were “discreetly informed that their behavior was causing concern.” She implies hat their reactions were uncalled for. I would agree that as described, they were perhaps excessive – though again, we do not know exactly what happened. But what would you do if colleagues confronted with a claim that you might need psychological help?

Obviously, not all of the traits of these two individuals are necessarily expressions of their AS, any more than the color of their hair or eyes. However, this is implied to make it all seem some terrific, terrible struggle between “them.” and “us.” I guess that makes me one of “them.”

Ms. Brottman presents only one side of these stories, sequences of events she may not have even been witness to. Here are some points that might suggest something about the other side:

• AS is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). It has a relationship to, in a somewhat debated way, to autism, which many know of from the movie “Rain Man.”

• People with AS are not just like “Rain Man,” including having the “affinity for numbers” Ms. Brottman mentioned and that Dustin Hoffman’s character displayed. I know that I do not.

• Most individuals with AS and other ASDs probably are adults, although autism is often thought of as a “children’s disease.”

• Most adults with AS and other ASDs most likely do not even know they have it. I did not until my 30s.

• It is not a “disease”; it is a developmental disability caused by a neurological condition.

It falls under the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other, similar legislation as deserving reasonable accommodation. What would that be? Well, perhaps that needs consideration on a case-by-case basis. What is certain – particularly in light of Ms. Brottman’s piece – is that in all cases, the proper attitude on the part of all concerned is necessary.

Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, “The presence of a physical or mental disability should not suggest or presuppose that an emotional or spiritual disability is also present. If we cannot make these kinds of distinctions then we are the ones with the more serious disabilities – the disability of imprecision, the disability of discrimination and the disability of being a casual generalist.” I think this statement cuts to the heart of the matter.

As the facilitator for a local social support group for adults with AS and other ASDs, and a person wanting to just “spread the word,” I welcome all comments and questions.

Jarl K. Jackson is coordinator of the Tallahassee Autism Support Coalition

Letter to the Tallahassee Democrat
October 13, 2005
Lindee Morgan & Amy Wetherby

Column’s assessment of Asperger’s was unfair

In Mikita Brottman’s column about “nutty professors,” she provides a brief description of Asperger’s Syndrome (AS). She then makes a “diagnosis” of two former colleagues using numerous disdainful terms.

Having a cantankerous disposition in the presence of high intellect does not warrant a diagnosis of AS. This column unfairly frames this disability in an exceedingly unpleasant light. In contrast to Ms. Brottman’s suggestion to shun individuals with AS, we would like to encourage readers of the Tallahassee Democrat to be more informed.

AS is a neurodevelopmental disorder for which current research suggests a genetic basis. With a range of intellectual gifts and abilities, individuals with AS are painfully aware of the challenges they face in social situations. Assistance can be provided in work situations and in personal relationships through the development of a system of supports to assist the individual with AS.

To know more about AS or other Autism Spectrum Disorders and available services please contact the FSU Center for Autism & Related Disabilities (CARD) at (850) 644-4367 or http://autism.fsu.edu.

Lindee Morgan, Director
Amy M. Wetherby, Executive Director
FSU Center for Autism & Related Disabilities

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
October 21, 2005
Adrienne DeAngelis

To the Editor:

I must voice the strongest disapproval of Mikita Brottman’s “Nutty Professors.” The author’s note does not disclose that she is a therapist, with a practice in Baltimore. Why was this not revealed?

While this presumably gives her the ability to perform out-of-office diagnoses of people she barely knows, she is utterly and completely ignorant of the specifics of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Her belief is that if persons with Asperger’s syndrome are allowed to work in universities, their employers will be compelled to make accommodations that will be disruptive to their colleagues and others: “If our hires had permitted themselves to accept a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome (assuming that was, indeed, their condition), would we have been expected to adapt ourselves to the neurological differences that make them obsessive, miserly, rude, and truculent?”

This belief is absolutely untrue, and most unfortunately … it is widespread in academe. It is sad to see that someone who has the education to know better does not.

Adrienne DeAngelis
Editor
Resources in Art History for Graduate Students
http://members.efn.org/~acd/resources.html

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
October 21, 2005
Elaine Olson

To the Editor:

I found Mikita Brottman’s “Nutty Professors” profoundly disturbing.

It is impossible for any of us to know whether or not the two individuals described by Ms. Brottman did indeed have Asperger’s syndrome. There are any number of reasons (including a variety of psychiatric diagnoses) that would cause a person to be difficult, tyrannical, eccentric, or just a plain jerk. ... To equate Asperger’s with being “obsessive, miserly, rude, and truculent” is inaccurate, as well as quite an insult to the many fine individuals with Asperger’s in academe.

Yes, Asperger’s is classified as a disability, and by law it must be accommodated. This includes nondiscrimination in hiring practices.

It’s been speculated that Einstein was on the autism spectrum, although of course we don’t know that for sure. Should he have been excluded from academe because he was a bit odd? Should future Einsteins avoid disclosing a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome when applying for a job? I hope not.

Elaine Olson
Kula, Hawaii
Institute for Astronomy
University of Hawai’i
http://koa.ifa.hawaii.edu/


Letter to the Western News
October 17, 2005
Kathleen Seidel

Writer Not Equipped to Make Diagnosis

To the Editors:

Mikita Brottman’s act of rhetorical violence, Eccentricity Can Cross The Line, is an egregious example of a trend whereby poseurs intent upon displaying “psychological acumen” make pejorative generalizations about individuals on the autistic spectrum, in spite of possessing little ascertainable understanding of autism. Her familiarity with psychoanalytic literary theory may enable her to sprinkle her film criticism with knowing references to Foucault and Lacan; however, this does not equip her to professionally assess individuals with a neurobiologically based, atypical cognitive profile.

Brottman opens with a pastiche of imagery from popular culture and history, recites diagnostic criteria from a reference book, then identifies Asperger Syndrome as a “character disorder” – an antiquated term inaccurately implying that A.S. is a consequence of personal or parental misconduct. She then describes and “diagnoses” two colleagues with whom she experienced professional conflicts, and asserts that an academic’s ability to socialize is more important than his or her intellectual ability, scholarship or teaching skills.

Brottman’s blithe announcement of her inclination to illegally discriminate against job applicants based on their possible disability status is unconscionable. Autistic spectrum adults already bear significant risk of unemployment and underemployment. This injustice persists even though they often possess valuable qualities such as dependability, precision, attention to detail, persistence, long attention span, problem solving skills, prodigious memory, artistic ability, technical and scientific acumen, and a capacity for unexpected insights.

Although Brottman appears to promote development of a healthy academic community by idealizing a nebulous concept of “collegiality,” in truth, she advocates intellectual impoverishment via elimination of diversity. Should fellow academics heed her advice and exclude “talented thinkers with strange personalities” – that is, people who thrive in communities that value depth, creativity, intellectual accomplishment and heterogeneity over superficiality, mediocrity, derivative thinking, and conformity – academia would be much the poorer for it.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Seidel
neurodiversity.com | honoring the variety of human wiring

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
September 21, 2005
Suzanne Paola

To the Editor,

I am writing to let you know how deeply offended I was by the biased, unthought-through op-ed piece, “Nutty Professors,” by Mikita Brottman. I am quite concerned that such a poorly strung together train of thought could exist in the academic world, where evaluations of one’s students and fellows is a constant obligation and fair evaluation therefore is a skill we should excel in; I am even more concerned that a reputable paper would print it. To compare John Nash, who was schizophrenic, with Einstein, because of his hair, and lump them together as “crazy geniuses” makes as much sense as associating those who demand bigger offices (surely not a rare breed in academia) with all of those who share a neurological condition, and illustrates how flimsy her associations are. I am also not sure where Brottman’s term “character disorder” for Asperger’s comes from; it is a neurological difference, one that offers challenges but powerful gifts.

If anyone is curious about Brottman’s conclusions, he or she can be assured that arrogance, cheapness, a desire for a larger office and flyaway hair are nowhere to be found in the DSM-IV as criteria for judging any of the disorders she mentions. It is frightening to think about anyone heading into an interview trying to sniff out members of groups protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, particularly based on bizarre criteria that seem to reflect only a desire to pin a label on those who have created the author’s negative experiences within her own department.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Paola
Associate Professor
Western Washington University

Letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education
September 27, 2005
Meg M. Evans

Regarding the article Nutty Professors by Mikita Brottman:

I am disgusted and appalled that any reputable publication, anywhere on Earth, would print such a vile bigoted diatribe against a vulnerable minority population with developmental differences.

I have a teenage son with some autistic traits who will be choosing a college soon. I had always planned to do careful research on the available academic programs and the social environment of each school under consideration. Now I am beginning to wonder if my due diligence will have to include reading faculty articles to ensure that I do not send my son to a school that employs overtly prejudiced instructors who see nothing wrong with disability discrimination and who are aided and abetted by the editorial decisions of a professional journal in spreading their grossly offensive views.

For shame.

Meg M. Evans


Letter to the Western News
October 20, 2005
Allen Pearson

Untrained Diagnosis Reveals Writer’s “Nuttiness”

In response to the Commentary in Western News on Oct. 13 – OK, so we’re all nuts.

Over 30 years in academe assures me that professors are eccentric. Some of my best friends are crackpots. There is no doubt that I’m regarded by many as a social misfit. But I still maintain that the oddballs that populate the ranks of the professoriate make our profession one of the most interesting and rewarding ones around.

There is, though, one form of nuttiness that does trouble me. This is when academics with no background or training in medicine or science read diagnostic manuals and proceed to identify the infirmities of their colleagues. Too often I have heard colleagues diagnosed with the most off-the-wall ailments.

We may be loony, but we do have principles. One central principle in our work is the respect for scholarship, evidence, and the expertise of those who have studied a topic closely. Untrained diagnosis, such as Mikita Brottman shows in her commentary, is a clear example of a violation of this principle. Moreover, her suggestion that members of appointments committees vote against a “midcareer candidate with no previous record of tenure – especially if he or she seems just a little bit odd” is not only foolish but also wrong. That it is wrong is reflected in the employment equity provisions that govern our hiring process. Our responsibility in appointments committees is to find the very best scholars, teachers and researchers.

Last time I looked oddness or the lack thereof were not relevant characteristics in the hiring of academics.

Allen Pearson
Dean
Faculty of Education
University of Western Ontario


Adapted from Film as a Vehicle for Raising Consciousness among Autistic Peers
October 30, 2005
Phil Schwarz

In my contribution to the recent conference on Autism and Representation at Case Western Reserve University, I touched upon the question of positively-valued roles in various societies, past and present, for folks on the autism spectrum.

Careers in academia are sometimes cited as examples of such roles in our mainstream current-day society. Indeed, the joke is sometimes made that academia is a “sheltered workshop for people like us.” But I think that the politics of career advancement in academia, and numerous other barriers large and small, put the lie to that notion when tested against reality. Not to mention overt bigotry from some quarters within academia: Autopsy of a Violent Diagnosis is an entry in the blog of Kathleen Seidel’s wonderful neurodiversity.com website that documents a particularly vicious recent instance of such bigotry—an opinion piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education Review by Mikita Brottman titled Nutty Professors, subsequently revised by the author and republished in the Los Angeles Times and now the Tallahassee Democrat.

It is all too easy to paint an entire population with the same brush, and all too easily damaging when it is done on the basis of bad experience with the individual characteristics of a few members of that population. A similar characterization of a racial, ethnic, or religious minority on such a basis would be immediately and justifiably condemned as bigotry.

As is too often the case with those who seek to dismiss us on ad-hominem grounds, Brottman wraps her argument in the medical model of autism as entirely a disorder, a collection of deficits – and on that basis implicitly claims that what she is doing is categorically different from racial, ethnic, or religious bigotry.

Such tactics underscore the need for increased emphasis on
social-model-of-disability approaches to autism, to provide balance and to make sure that the positive aspects of autism get the mindshare they are due, that autism gets more widely seen as the simultaneous duality of disability issues and diversity issues that it is, and that it is not so easy to write us off as “damaged goods”.

What is particularly frustrating about the appearance of Brottman’s piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education is that two years ago, it published Dawn Prince-Hughes’s groundbreaking, positive article about identifying and accommodating university students on the spectrum Understanding College Students With Autism.

Phil Schwarz
Vice-President
Asperger’s Association of New England


Article in the Ann Arbor News
People with Autism Deserve Better than Brain Bigotry
October 31, 2005
Jean Kearns Miller

I don’t know which is more frightening: the hate speech/office gossip of Mikita Brottman (Other Voices, Oct. 11) or the fact that it’s seen by editors across the country as appropriate editorial content. Brottman writes of two difficult co-workers whom she diagnoses with an autistic abnormality, Asperger Syndrome, even though the characteristics she describes have nothing to do with AS, and even though her proclaimed credentials for psychotherapy are phantom, and even though her article violates the privacy of her subjects by pinpointing the campus with which they were associated in the recent past, making them easy to out.

That Brottman generalizes from two anecdotal examples should be considered suspect. By doing this, she creates a self-portrait of a clearly obnoxious colleague. (I could speculate that she did what she could to make her co-workers’ lives miserable but that would be following her lead.) She also implies that when a professor is not eccentric but has Asperger Syndrome, he or she should never be hired much less granted tenure.

And there it is, brain bigotry, the last utterly shameless prejudice. By reclassifying her colleagues from eccentric to AS, Brottman is choosing a spot where she is free to bash as she wishes. And publishers of newspapers (including the online Chronicle of Higher Education) see nothing wrong if they see it at all.

In fact, Brottman’s right to the thorny crown of martyrdom at the hands of these two colleagues who are, after all, gone, is nothing compared to the authentic suffering of all autistics at the hands of brain bigots like Brottman. Our autistic children continue to be demonized by persons who see them as inhuman, thereby missing out on the great but divergent humanity these kids offer for the taking. Instead children are subjected to violating treatments to make them more likable, easier to love. Sometimes the treatments, from suffocating restraints to snake oil, have killed; sometimes a parent will murder, but the demon child is seen as understandable motivation and indictments tend to be weak.

As adults, autistics are subjected to excessive scrutiny thanks to perceived oddities that are after all just oddities and nothing more. Since affect doesn’t coordinate with inner state very well, we are perceived to be indifferent, aloof, uncooperative, guilty, secretive, unfeeling, blunt. Yet we are asocial but not impersonal. Some neurologically typical people are the opposite, with a knack for reading social settings but no sensitivity at all to others as persons. Lacking social intuition, we simply meet others as individuals of presumed value. We seldom take offense, hold grudges, lie successfully, or take advantage, because our brains lack those social capabilities.

Yet our circumstances in community, society, and its institutions, such as education, employment, criminal justice, and commerce, are almost certainly treacherous. While making twice the effort of neuro-typicals to function well, we are easier to arrest, convict, fine, fire, not hire, scapegoat, disrespect, overcharge, undervalue, marginalize, disenfranchise, and otherwise be penalized for our non-conforming neuro-biology. The financial setbacks alone, like those of the faculty let go at Brottman’s institution, are considerable. Each day is open season and we struggle to pass for normal to keep ourselves safe.

I’m one of those “Aspies” in academia and I must say my work is grueling. It’s not my world I teach in so I can never forget my place. But I have also been greatly rewarded. I have lots of former students who are buddies for life, colleague friends I treasure, continued capacity for self renewal, curiosity, and hope, and a firm grasp on the gifts of my autism. Yes, gifts. My strengths are not in spite of AS but because of it. We must celebrate neuro-diversity if only to strip people like Mikita Brottman of publicity and validation to which they are not entitled.

Jean Kearns Miller teaches English at Washtenaw Community College. She is editor of Women from Another Planet?: Our Lives in the Universe of Autism (ISBN 1-4107-3431-5).

Comments


  1. Professor Paola wrote:

    “I am quite concerned that such a poorly strung together train of thought could exist in the academic world”

    And that’s what struck me quite forcibly. How is it possible that Oxford University with its formidable reputation actually gave this person a PhD?

    We know she has no qualms citing psychotherapeutic qualifications she does not have. Is it any worse than that? — Alyric    Nov 6, 05:32 PM    #

  2. Kathleen,

    This collection of letters is impressive.

    It’s amazing that Brottman with so much apparent training in academe could act so unlike a “professional”. It does beg the question, “Oxford”? — Autism Diva    Nov 9, 12:53 PM    #

  3. I recall a debate on wheather or not Harvard´s president “has Asperger Syndrom” or not. True or not, if everyone who could get a diagnosis would stand up for it, it would be a surprise for many people. — Tunnelblick    Nov 11, 10:19 PM    #

  4. Responding to Tunnelblick’s comment: I think there are two big obstacles preventing that, and they are related to each other and to a fundamental inadequacy in the underlying model we apply to the autism spectrum.

    The first obstacle is stigma. Nobody wants to be identified as “disordered” or “defective” if they don’t have to be.

    The second obstacle is that the current medical definitions of AS and other forms of autism stipulate that the identified characteristics must cause “clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning”. Those people who have those characteristics but aren’t impeded in their own social or occupational goals to the extent that it hurts too much to continue without seeking help, don’t get counted.

    The underlying problem is the exclusively medical model of disability with which we as a society characterize AS, and more generally autism.

    The medical model posits a discontinuity dividing “ill” from “well”. The things that the medical model identifies as needing fixing are all intrinsic to the (“ill”) individual.

    But the language above (“causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning”) is necessarily arbitrary, because if the surrounding society provided better ergonomic, economic, social, and attitudinal accommodation of the individual’s characteristics, the supposed dividing line between “ill” and “well” would be elsewhere. It is necessarily subjective.

    When you cannot find and agree upon a clear point of discontinuity, what you have is a continuum. That is what exists in AS, and in the autism spectrum as a whole. And that is where the medical model fails.

    What we need instead is a model that recognizes that continuum, and the moveability of the goalposts upon it. Such a model already exists: the social model of disability.

    The social model of disability makes a distinction between impairment and handicap. Impairment is an individual’s lack of ability to accomplish a specific task, without regard as to whether that specific accomplishment is necessary for the individual to achieve broader occupational and social goals—as in the medical model, but without the unnecessary negative connotations of “illness” or “defect”. Handicap, on the other hand, is a measure of lack of ability to achieve those broader goals, whether by one means or another.

    Now here is why the distinction is important: handicaps identify those things needing fixing that are extrinsic to the individual—ergonomic, economic, social, and attitudinal factors in the surrounding society.

    By focusing on changes needed in the surrounding society, while at the same time acknowledging individual differences without negative connotation, the social model serves to counteract stigma. In most cases, the accommodations made in the surrounding society benefit a wider range of people than just those for whom the accommodations are critically necessary.

    And with the barriers of stigma and exclusive reliance on the medical model out of the way, individuals who share autistic traits but are not impeded in their own social or occupational goals to the extent that it hurts too much to continue without seeking help, will be empowered to come forward.

    And their rising tide will lift all boats. There is power in numbers, and when we add to the small number of people who truly cannot function, for example, under the flicker of 50 or 60 Hz fluorescent lighting, the much larger number of people who can function but find that lighting annoying or headache-inducing, we will have the clout to get the necessary ergonomic change widely implemented. When we add to the small number of people who are truly ostracized because they engage in sensory-adaptive behavior that makes them “look retarded”, the much larger number of people who have milder sensory-adaptive needs for which they have found less stigmatizing adaptations, we can begin to seriously exert the clout necessary to make it as shameful in the eyes of the mainstream society to deride eccentricities of behavior characteristic of AS and autism as it is to deride the identifying characteristics of racial, ethnic, and religious groups.

    That is why it is important to bridge the falsely overemphasized gap between “ill” and “well” in the medical model, and leverage the strength in numbers of those who in Tunnelblick’s words “could stand up” and be identified as AS or members of the broader autism phenotype.

    The set of people formally diagnosed with AS or other forms of autism is the tip of a much larger iceberg, and we need to be able to leverage the mass of that huge submerged part of the iceberg.

    I expect a round of automatic nay-saying from some quarters, particularly those who claim to be acting in the interests of the most severely handicapped autistic people. They are prisoners of erroneous zero-sum thinking: the notion that if more attention is paid to milder forms of autism, and perhaps even to non-clinically-handicapping sets of autistic traits, it somehow follows that the more severely handicapped will get a smaller slice of a finite pie of attention and hence resources.

    The fallacy is in the notion that the pie is finite: it is not. If the general public is made aware of a range of expressions of autism that cover the entire range of handicap-vs.-ability from the most handicapped to people who are functioning successfully alongside them in their neighborhoods, places of work, and school, the tendency to categorize autistic people as “other” and “not my problem” will decrease. Interest and attention that did not exist in the past will develop.

    I have seen this in my own experience, when I have been in situations where I can safely identify as not just a parent of an autistic kid, but as an AS adult parent of an autistic kid. To others, I’m the same person I always was before I identified, but now my kid’s autism is more tangible and concrete to them.

    With that increased interest and receptivity on the part of the general public, when the much larger numbers of people across the entire spectrum—including those who have characteristics but aren’t handicapped to the extent that they “need” a diagnosis—throw their clout behind goals that will benefit people across the entire spectrum, including the most severely handicapped, those goals are more likely to be realized, and that will benefit severely handicapped autistic people more than any already-too-late attempt to maintain the purported “purity” of the diagnostic label (as applying only to the most severely handicapped) is capable of doing.

    And to those who say that all of the less handicapped or non-handicapped in the broader autism phenotype will only look after their own, and abandon the more severely handicapped, I say that is further proof of your imprisonment by pessimistic zero-sum thinking. Human nature, even collective human nature, is better than that, particularly when marshalled for what is fair and just and good.

    The way we as a society characterize AS and autism, impairment and handicap, needs to change so that we can leverage the clout of the huge submerged part of the iceberg whose visible tip is the set of people formally diagnosed with AS and autism. That bigger population isn’t going to “stand up” and be counted—and be reckoned with as a significant force by the general public—if it is kept from doing so by stigma and divisive models. — Phil Schwarz    Nov 13, 06:22 PM    #

  5. I just keep thinking how pleased Mikita Brottman will be when colleagues, potential clients, potential employers, and other interested parties look up her name on Google and find pages like this one. — bonni    Nov 14, 09:25 PM    #