Is There A Neurodiversity Backlash?

The Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (EDIB) sector has taken a battering recently, with the Telegraph reporting it to be a “monster of the Tories own creation” and with tech companies like Google and Meta making cuts to EDIB in 2023. What seemed like a force to be reckoned with in 2020 has spluttered, with social narratives trending towards a growth in misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, racism and antisemitism.

Neurodiversity seems so far relatively unscathed by the backlash and remains a popular topic of conversation in business. However, with the tsunami of diagnoses currently underway and the end game being a place where 15-20% of the population identify as neurodivergent – as population studies would predict – inclusion will have to move beyond tokenism and into a more radically redesigned workplace that has removed systemic barriers. Looking at what happens when we try to move beyond a token female leader, a token Black or Brown board member, a token transgender ambassador or queer spokesperson – the next stage is backlash. The dominant group realise that there are limited roles at the top, and therefore to include an equal balance means less share for them. The dominant group begin to see the systemic barriers that facilitate their privilege, and they don’t want to compromise. Backlash can be overt, which risks contravening employment law, or more subtle, covering deeply unequal outcomes with shiny looking policies and procedures.

In the case of disability and neurodiversity, this looks like the implementation of a reasonable adjustments / accommodations program which requires disclosure and diagnosis to get through the gateway. Knowing the cost of assessments and social risk of disclosure, we can pretty much guarantee that fewer people will ask for flexibility. So this keeps a lid on “needs” and we avoid having to change our standard practices and conventions for the sake of a few. We can keep the cheap, noisy, open plan offices by issuing the odd set of noise cancelling headphones and some remote work permissions. We can avoid making changes to confusing, divisive performance management practices by assigning a few “mentors” to “help” those who find them illogical to “cope”. This is a subtle backlash, gatekeeping support to prevent overwhelm.

Universal Design is the concept that from the get-go, we design with a wide range of abilities in mind. We don’t create access barriers for wheelchair users because we have step free access. We ensure websites can be read aloud by assistive technology and indeed create our own voice options. Universal design is hard. It requires thought and planning. And, let’s be honest, everyone in the world is still recovering from the pandemic. “Build Back Better” seemed viable in 2020, but our momentum has waned and we are languishing in perpetual online meetings waiting for AI to take over the jobs we used to enjoy. For us to move to Universal Design conversations we need better data, better research and fewer “guides and handbooks” signalling token gestures such as piped nature sounds and tactile walls.

For those working in Neurodiversity and disability inclusion, now is the time to galvanise and raise our game. We can’t carry on picking off cheap wins of “hearts and minds”, we need to provide a change roadmap. We need to be intersectional in our inclusion conversations and look at where our plans create unforeseen difficulties. Neurodiversity is in the transition from hot topic to hot potato, but Universal Design allows us to include without escalating costs beyond what is reasonable. We need a completely new model to cope with the scale of the change, the opportunity being that an overhaul of working practices leads to a more human-centred workplace for all.

To read more of Nancy Doyle’s articles, click here