For educational accessibility such as InnerVoice, I believe it is both ethically and morally correct, but there are still questions of what effect this will have on the development of a child. This obviously seems better than the alternative of little to no accommodations, including all of the academic and social issues that come with it to a neurodivergent student, but would a more systemic change in the school not provide more benefit?
Systemic change is difficult to achieve by definition, but it is what I believe the end goal for any sort of accessibility endeavor should be.
In the case of InnerVoice, changing how schooling systems treat and affect neurodivergent students should be the goal, not just how accommodating technology is used.
The same thought applies when discussing the use of AI technology in the workforce. AI tools may be invaluable to a neurodivergent worker, and allow them to succeed and excel in their position, but that should be a milestone in accommodation, not the end all be all.
Until universal equity is achieved, accommodations should work like improv; “Yes, And.” “Yes” to the tools and accommodations available currently, then “And” to further systemic changes and advances in accessible technology.
The other side of the AI technology advancement relates to the article’s point on “neurodivergent employees’ affinity for repetitive tasks.” A task which AI are uniquely suited to do, and run the very real risk of replacing workers for many tasks where a “human touch” is not, in fact, deemed necessary.
The changing of hiring practices to accommodate neurodivergence is undoubtedly helpful to neurodivergent workers, but the article fails to highlight that this effort is ultimately spearheaded by companies as a method to increase their profits, and not a humanitarian effort. Does this underlying truth not create some trepidation in you?
As the article says plainly enough, companies and their management have begun to see the efficacy of neurodivergent workers, and want to take advantage of that. This is the commodification of neurodivergence, regardless of if it does more good than harm, the root cause behind it needs to be acknowledged.
Is this not just othering neurodivergent workers in a newer, shinier way? For a boss to search out specifically neurodivergent workers, does that not reduce neurodivergent people down to that singular aspect of their demographics?
Accommodations are necessary and good in the workforce, but do we want to take the path leading to having a "neurodivergent filter" on sites like LinkedIn? If the cost of a more equitable hiring process is commodification, is that worth it in your eyes?