Fraudulent Writing about Autism Over at Slate Magazine

There’s a recent article by Amy Lutz over at Slate entitled “Is the Neurodiversity Movement Misrepresenting Autism”? –its title an embedded question designed to illicit a yes, as all rhetorical questions address the prima facie supposition (unspoken) between asker and reader that answers are not just known, but mutually known. Moreover, in a culture wedded to conspiracy theories, even those who know little about autism (or care little about it) will see in the word “movement” an oversized red flag. Movements inevitably “misrepresent”. Factor in “neurodiversity” and you have the semiotics of multiculturalism–an instigation of nausea to neo-liberals, who, like their conservative counterparts, imagine diversity represents something nefarious and un-canonical. (Politics is knowing who’s paying for your lunch, per Gore Vidal; all diversity types steal the canapés.)

Slate is scarcely reliable when it comes to autism. George Easterbrook’s piece, “TV Really Might Cause Autism”–offers a synopsis of an imprudent study at Cornell University arguing 3 year olds who watch too much TV may be neurologically damaged. Slate, is to autism writing, as a Potemkin village is to urban planning. Let us be clear. 

Ms. Lutz reissues the tired ableist “voice over” narratives of non disabled people who talk on behalf of those who can’t. Her exhausted, nay, enervating reassertion that FC (Facilitated Communication) is a hoax is composed of ad hominem attacks on talented autistic people who have learned how to type. One is reminded of the old Harvard professors who exclaimed that Helen Keller was just a ventriloquists dummy for Annie Sullivan. 

Shame on Slate. As for Ms. Lutz, you ought to read some serious philosophy and sharpen your monads. Piffle, darling, you’ve written offensive piffle. 

Author: stevekuusisto

Poet, Essayist, Blogger, Journalist, Memoirist, Disability Rights Advocate, Public Speaker, Professor, Syracuse University View all posts by stevekuusisto