To share a petition to a college, New College Lanarkshire, raised by an Asperger and transgender student. www.change.org/p/new-college-lanarkshire-revoke-discriminatory-disciplinary-action-in-college-772798b4-86ee-4bbd-a90c-51c51c94eff5
His account describes shockingly mediaeval corrupt selectivity towards evidence, including ignoring evidence and acting on refuted evidence while ignoring its refutation. It includes – get this and circulate it – IT INCLUDES THIS COLLEGE ACCUSING THAT ASPIES ARE NATURALLY LIARS. The opposite of the medical position in all the literature that ASPIES HAVE A COPING DIFFICULTY WITH LYING.
Be thankful to the value of social media, in helping us to share stories like this without conversational challenge about how to introduce them.
What happens when aspies in local groups, or attending drop-in services, make themselves available as listening and supporting ears? To do that carries an ethic to be trustable by the supported person, so that we could never, in the middle of supporting them, turn against them and choose to believe an unevidenced claim about them. We could never ignore when the person we are supporting has evidence to give against the claim, we could never refuse to back their right to have their evidence looked at properly. Shockingly, as of Oct 10 there is an aspie in Edinburgh listed as a support contact, who is insisting that yes we could do that! who keeps saying that it would always be our choice to regard an unevidenced spiteful claim against our supported person as
“new information” about them, and on our own balance of belief to drop supporting them, for our own wellbeing; and will not commit that we are answerable to the supported person saying they have evidence in their favour. It’s common sense: would anyone seeking support want to trust that version of it?
If you were in a situation like this petitioner, would it be proper for anyone to offer you support and would you take it, if you knew that they reserved the right to suddenly change side and start siding with the college, and to refuse to listen to your answer to what the college said or your case about ignored evidence? Obviously not: cynical unreliable behaviour like that, which in a defence lawyer would instantly count as malpractice, could tip any supported spectrumite who is less articulate than this petitioner, into suicide. So if you take up anyone’s offer to be a supportive contact to discuss a problem with, and it’s a problem involving fair hearing of your evidence in a conflict,
CHECK FIRST ON THE SUPPORTER’S ETHIC OF RELIABILITY.
10 Oct 2016
from a social media share