From Diagnosis to Dialogue: Reflections on Autism Advocacy

In the seven years since I was professionally identified (or "diagnosed") as autistic, I have gradually developed a role as an autism advocate and occasionally even a consultant. I've done this out of a sense of responsibility, feeling the need to use my relatively prominent position to speak up about autism, indeed to represent it by being myself as much as possible. 

At times, this has been a little bit uncomfortable because, as I always say, I cannot speak for all autistic people. At the same time, I feel I do have a pretty good understanding of autistic issues, including those affecting people with learning difficulties or non-speaking people. I know several such individuals personally and whenever I am with them I am struck by how well we understand one another, whereas I can often struggle to understand neurotypicals. This is the famous double empathy problem in action. 

So much of what I do has been a process of translation: between lived experience and institutional practice, between neurodivergent insight and neurotypical assumptions, between urgent need and bureaucratic tempo. What began as a necessity - responding to the marginalisation and misunderstanding of autistic people - has developed into a more strategic form of engagement, helping organisations, companies, projects, universities, funding bodies and more navigate questions they didn’t always realise they needed to ask.  

To make these translations requires understanding both myself and autism more generally, and being able to communicate those insights in a whole range of situations from formal meetings and consultancies through to casual encounters. This can be quite challenging and indeed tiring, but I measure success and satisfaction in terms of small victories. The most meaningful outcome is not structural change but a quiet moment of recognition, for example a person reconsidering a long-held assumption or an organisation rethinking its definitions of excellence. 

At the heart of my work lies a deceptively simple proposition: autistic people should be involved in decisions that affect autistic people. Yet in many academic and cultural settings, this principle is still treated as novel. 

My first steps were the monthly Propeller workshops at BOM (Birmingham Open Media). Fresh from diagnosis, I encountered a group of other autistic adults for the first time. It was a remarkable experience and really helped me to understand the commonalities between us. We came from very different backgrounds and had widely varying support needs, but found an immediate and very direct form of communication that was open, honest and very rewarding. Full marks to Chloe Lawson, who ran those workshops with care and insight.  

Since then I have: 

 - served on disability panels at the University of Leicester, where I also founded the Staff Neurodiversity Group;

 - worked with the NHS and the local council on the Leicester Autism Partnership board, where I have also helped to develop the Autism Space website;

 - advised venues and organisations such as Leicester Railway Station, Phoenix Cinema, Attenborough Arts Centre, and many more, on interior design and accessibility;

 - been part of disability consultancy groups such as All-In Leicester, the Phoenix Advisory Group and Life on the Level;

 - worked as a consultant with large organisations such as Arup, Atkins Global and even the House of Lords; contributed locally through advisory roles with MBD Ltd and Attenborough Arts centre and work with ArtReach on disability leadership in the Midlands;

 - in artistic contexts have worked with the Percy Grainger Society, The Space, the BBC and Unlimited on various autism-driven arts projects, podcasts and web developments;

 - worked with charities such as Mosaic, which aim to improve the lives of autistic people.  

More important than all of this, however, are the many personal interactions I have had with both autistic and non-autistic people, during which I have tried to discuss and translate autistic issues as best I can. All the while I remain conscious that my very presence is itself the most powerful representation. To simply be autistic in professional and public contexts is to represent something that is still all too often invisible. 

This work requires stamina, strategy and no small amount of patience. But it also brings a peculiar joy: the joy of working towards a world where autistic people are not just accommodated, but understood and valued. 

That world is not yet here. But in every consultation, conversation or contribution, we help bring it closer.

Dealing with scepticism

Lately, I’ve found myself repeatedly trying to explain to people how my autistic experience differs from their neurotypical one. I'm often asked about this: how I perceive the world, how I relate to people, how I think, how I process sensory information, and so on. I like to talk about it, not in order to put myself at the centre of the discussion, but to try to make a connection with others. I’ve always done it really, but before I was diagnosed I did not know exactly what I was doing. 

Most of the time, people respond with interest. I’m good at articulating things and they seem to appreciate that. Perhaps they are just curious, or perhaps something I say resonates more deeply than they expect. While it can be exhausting to translate my lived experience into terms they can relate to, I persist because I have a sense of responsibility to advocate and to try to counter some of the negative myths that surround autism.

But every so often, I run into someone who, for reasons of their own, decides to tell me who I am not.

It usually begins innocently enough, perhaps with a compliment like “I can’t believe you’re that age!” (I’m 67). I do look young for my age ( many autistic people do), but what starts as a friendly comment often morphs into something more sceptical.

Sometimes the first target is my balance disorder and hearing loss. Those are both invisible disabilities, so they’re not always easy to spot, especially since I subtly use a lot of technology to help mask them. But demonstrating their reality is generally fairly straightforward, because they are “measurable”. I shouldn’t have to do it, but occasionally I have actually shown someone my audiogram to prove the point. 

But those are not the heart of the issue. What people really want to contest is the autism. The scepticism takes forms that will be familiar to other autistic people:

“But I have some of that myself.”
“You’re just trying to be different.”
“Everyone I know has a diagnosis these days.”

What’s being questioned here is not just the label, it’s the validity of my experience. Beneath these remarks lies a suspicion that I’m exaggerating, mistaken, or seeking attention. 

I suspect part of the problem lies in the language I’m forced to use. When I try to translate autism into language that neurotypical people will understand, I have to describe lifelong realities using words that, in their world, describe fleeting, temporary things. For example, whereas I may be over-sensitive to certain sounds, disoriented by some lighting, violently distracted by certain fabrics, or overwhelmed by particular smells, they will experience the same thing as a temporary annoyance that can be filtered out. Likewise, if I talk about hyperfocus and attention tunnels, they will think of being absorbed, unaware that for an autistic person the cognitive resources are so dominated that switching out is difficult. Similarly, masking = just putting on a professional face, or playing a role. Literal or patterned ways of communicating, or in my case scripting, are just seen as enjoying clever language and not a core identity. The absolute need for predictability and routine translates into a flexible desire for the same in certain situations. The ongoing background anxiety caused by social and sensory issues in the environment becomes temporary stress triggered by specific situations and not tied to the basic structure of everyday life.

I recently wrote: “I’m not trying to be different. I’m just not pretending to be the same.” That sums it up really. I don’t seek difference, I live it. Yet I’m occasionally treated as though I’ve chosen this path for dramatic effect, as if autism were a lifestyle or a fashion statement, rather than a fundamental state of being. Someone wrote to me recently “you’re not the person you pretend to be”, which is about as double-edged a “compliment” as it is possible to get.

Translating lived experience across neurotypes is always difficult. But I wonder why I have to defend myself so often against this kind of scepticism. I can see that my advocacy opens me up to challenge, especially since I have chosen to make my autism public. It would be easier, in a way, never to mention the fact and to leave it out of the conversation. 

At the same time, I think it is important, since I am a reasonably prominent person, that I challenge people’s expectations. Just because my neurotype or disability does not conform to what they expect does not mean that I should have to minimise it to make it more palatable. It’s a simple gesture of respect to listen to and believe others when they speak about themselves. And that small shift - from doubt to trust - can make a world of difference.

Interviews and Autism: some thoughts

During my academic career, I have chaired or sat on hundreds of interview panels. I went through the necessary HR training more than once and have read many guidance documents and briefing notes. Since being professionally identified (or “diagnosed”) as autistic in 2018, various issues that have always bothered me have come to the fore. I believe I have had some small impact on changing the interview process itself. However, and despite that, interviews remain a game designed by neurotypicals for neurotypicals. Given that they are a heightened and unnatural situation, those who understand how to role play and dissemble, how to engage in all those small social cues that provide mutual reassurance amongst groups of like-minded people, are the ones who normally succeed. The same would be true of an interview situation comprising mainly autistic people, but those are relatively rare. The structure and HR approach to interviews is most certainly designed by neurotypicals, although there have been attempts recently to be more inclusive. As always, those attempts are a bolt-on to standard practice: “if you are interviewing an autistic person then you should…”. It is often impossible to know that the person you are interviewing is autistic!

When I compare my experience as an interviewer with my experience as an interviewee, a marked difference emerges. I have had four major jobs in my career, and I have not been interviewed for any of them. In every single case, somebody has decided that I am the right person for that role and has invited me in. In other words, I have always been headhunted. I have only ever done two actual interviews. The first was for an academic lecturing post at a different university. The interview went as badly as might be expected, with all the usual autistic anxieties about the venue, the situation, and sensory issues, combining to lead me to overshare massively in answer to their first question. (I did meet the chair of the panel at a conference several years later and he was kind enough to express regret that they did not appoint me, which was very generous of him). 

The other interview was internal, when I was encouraged by the Vice-Chancellor to apply for a senior management position. The interview was conducted in a vast glass and metal building in central London by a slick team of HR consultants. I had no opportunity to familiarise myself with the building beforehand, no idea where I was going or who I was to meet, and no efforts were made to create a suitable sensory environment for me. My brain cannot be active if I am sensorially overwhelmed, as I was on this occasion. The interview was disastrous because they asked me what I thought of the Vice-Chancellor and I gave a full and honest reply which was pretty negative. Autistic people are always honest and direct in their answers to interview questions, regardless of the consequences for their own prospects. Looking back, though, I reckon I had a lucky escape!

Before becoming an academic at the age of 29, I survived in a haphazard way on a mixture of unemployment benefit (“the dole”, without which I would probably not be here today) and occasional casual work. I never held down casual work for long (it included things like collating traffic surveys, screwing the baseplates on mannequins, and working in a food warehouse) and I was never interviewed because I was placed in these positions by the dole office. Avoiding being interviewed was a key part of the reason for my lack of regular employment. I also did quite a lot of copying music parts for publishers and composers, something that again I could do without being interviewed and which I could do at home. At the time, I was unaware that it was the prospect of being interviewed that drove me away. Now, of course, I realise that that was a major reason, alongside the fear of having to mix with colleagues, working in unfamiliar environments, etc. 

Since my diagnosis in 2018, I have become much more aware of the issues facing autistic people who go for an interview. To give one example, I have repeatedly challenged HR (Human Resources) departmental advice to interviewers that they should assess a person’s body language and eye contact. This seems to be something all HR people are taught and fits with ridiculous clichés such as the idea that people are more honest if they look you in the eye. The whole idea of “body language” seems suspect to me. As far as I can tell, neurotypicals lie with their bodies all the time, and the notion that they share mutual understanding that way is just a comforting myth to make them feel reassured, a form of social bonding if you like. Needless to say, autistic people find all that utterly baffling and generally do not conform to normal expectations of how their bodies should behave.

Reinventing the interview process is a massive and probably unrealistic task. Organisations generally do not have sufficient time and resources to devote more to interviews. However, the downside is that many autistic people then either fail at interview or, more often, never get to the interview in the first place. There are numerous statistics around about the disproportionately low levels of employment in the autistic community. The National Autistic Society sets it at 30%.

What can be done? Ideally, I would like to do away with interviews altogether and replace them with a kind of probationary working model where people are given an opportunity to experience the real environment of the job for a week or two (during which time they would be paid, of course). One of the commonest mistakes autistic people make is to assume that they should try at all costs to get the job for which they are being interviewed. This is wrong because interviews should be a two-way process, in which both interviewers and interviewees figure out if this is the right ‘fit’ for them. Allowing a longer time to come to that judgment is the best solution, and would lead to far fewer bad appointments or, indeed, devastating rejections, being made.

Failing that, there are some practical steps that organisations can take to help autistic people who come for interviews. There are numerous good pieces of guidance online from, for example: the University of Bath, Autistica and the Buckland Review of Autism Employment. I’d distil these into the following key points:

1. Provide the candidate with videos of the interview venue in advance, or even a visit.
2. Give candidates the questions they will be asked in advance too.
3. Do not try to make candidates “think on their feet”. (That phrase is a typical example of metaphorical language to be avoided. Even as I write it, I become confused, even though I know exactly what it is trying to express). Even if the job involves having to respond quickly to situations, there is a great difference between doing so within a secure context and doing so in an interview.
4. Be sure to use clear language without metaphors and ambiguities. Speak literally.
5. Be very careful about the physical environment. Potential sensory issues include strong lights (strip lighting is the worst), unexpected sounds, strange smells, and so on. It is best to check with the candidate beforehand what bothers them. 
6. Avoid interruptions and stick closely to schedule. Include breaks if the process is long, and stick to them too.
7. Explain the process and make it clear that the interview is two-way.
8. Allow (even encourage) the candidate to stim during the interview. This has the advantage of being reassuring for them but also is an important signal that you understand their needs.
9. Provide a quiet room where candidates can decompress in private. Don’t make the candidates engage in social interaction with one another.
10. Be aware that autistic people may seek to comply with whatever it is you seem to be wanting.

For autistic candidates, the traditional interview process is often deeply flawed. The importance given to social cues and quick thinking under pressure works against autistic people. A more inclusive and effective approach would be to shift toward practical, real-world assessments that allow candidates to demonstrate their abilities in a supportive environment. To be realistic, though, the bets we can hope for is small but meaningful adjustments, such as: clearer communication, sensory accommodations, and a genuine commitment to neurodiversity. Where such changes happen, there are small victories which will eventually combine to change the culture as a whole. 

Awaydays, and how to include autistic people

Awaydays have become commonplace in most organisations. They are a day-long event for employees and managers to spend time away from their usual workplace or environment. They typically include team building exercises, training, or brainstorming activities. They are mainly used in the belief that a change of scenery would enhance creativity and relaxation. 

In practice, many awaydays have gradually lost this original sense of purpose. They often take place just in a different building or room on site, so they are not really ‘away’ at all. They can be full of unstructured or very loosely structured exercises using lots of post-it notes. They are frequently characterised by a sense of futility. This erosion of what seemed like a clear concept reflects their true function: to enable neurotypicals to feel more comfortable with one another. Sometimes the group will bond together in disapproving of the awayday itself. Funnily enough, that outcome can be productive.

From an autistic perspective, this amounts to a nightmare. Awaydays cause more anxiety and distress than almost any other activity. Having established a working pattern and set of routines at work, the autistic employee is suddenly required to stop all that in order to undertake a series of activities that rely on social interactions whose purpose is often unclear and in an unfamiliar environment that may or may not be well suited. 

Since most organisations contain autistic people, it is very important to plan awaydays effectively and inclusively. Here are a few thoughts. N.B. These are just my thoughts - others may disagree or want to add things!

First and foremost, an awayday needs to have a clear purpose, a set of aims and objectives. That should include a statement of why it is necessary to go away, rather than staying in familiar surroundings. If you cannot come up with a convincing reason for going away, then please don’t do it!

I would strongly recommend having autistic people involved in the planning. It seems obvious, but they will be best placed to advise on what will work and what will not.

You should provide information and guidance well beforehand, including an accessibility map and, preferably, a video, or at least photos, of the venue and the approaches to it. There should be a quiet room available and you should have adjustable non-fluorescent lighting and use microphones for speaking. 

You should space out noisy activities or, preferably, segregate them into separate areas. Avoid using balloons or other objects which may cause distress. Make great use of visuals, signs and timetables. Provide a clear running order, highlighting anything particularly bright, noisy or unexpected.

Every activity should be clearly structured, with a defined purpose and statements in advance about what is expected. Give people the option to drop out if need be. Never make “one size fits all” assumptions. Make sure that you know in advance if there are to be any fire drills or alarms. Those can really disrupt everything, for the whole day.

If you want to encourage unstructured social interaction (of course, there is no reason why the entire day should be made just for the benefit of autistics) then signal that clearly and give people who do not want to participate some acceptable way of ducking out. At some autistic events, people wear coloured communication badges to indicate whether or not they are open for conversation.

Bear in mind that autistic people can take longer to process information and may also struggle to explain how they are feeling, so build in plenty of space and time to get the best results. It’s ok to get personal – autistic people love talking about themselves! – but only in a way that gives the sense that we are contributing to a worthwhile exercise. In other words, there has to be an obvious reason. Avoid indirect and metaphorical speech and, obviously, expect social communication that lacks real and clear meaning to be greeted with incomprehension or anxiety.

To summarise: if the autistic person understands the reason for everything, can follow a clear structure and schedule that is stuck to rigorously, and is encouraged to share their insights, then you can get great results. On the last point, be ready: autistic people can talk for an hour or more without stopping on certain topics. It’s a good idea to specify before asking someone a question whether you want a short answer, a long answer, or a very long answer!

Finally, check in on spoons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon_theory Most autistic people have a sense of how they are doing during the course of a day. Ideally, you want to end an awayday with enough spoons to be able to get home safely. If spoons are getting dangerously depleted, then please allow the person to duck out, to avoid having a meltdown or shutdown later.

Unconscious Bias and Autism

Recently I have undertaken unconscious bias training. This will probably be familiar to anyone who works in a large organisation, but for those who have not come across the idea before here is a brief summary. 

I should say at the outset that I think unconscious bias is real and the training I received was effective and made its points well. There is a paradox at the heart of the matter, though, which is this: once one becomes aware of unconscious bias, it is no longer unconscious and is then just plain bias. That tends to reduce the amount of self-forgiveness available (given that we all have these biases) which is a bit tough to take. But so be it.

My purpose in this post is specifically to think about how autism and unconscious bias may or may not connect. Of course autistic people are just as likely to exhibit unconscious bias as anyone else. However, there may be differences in the way it works.

During the online training, there was an exercise (not part of the final test). We were presented with nine images and asked to group them into three groups. I immediately saw that three of them were red, three blue and three yellow/green. So I dragged and dropped them into those groupings. It did strike me as slightly odd that yellow and green were together, but I quickly rationalised that by thinking of the colours of the earth wires in a plug.

I clicked the “submit” button and the system responded:

“That’s an interesting selection. Most people would have grouped them as cars, lorries and motorcycles”.

I was stunned and, to be honest, felt rather foolish. Making taxonomies is a frequent part of my research work and yet it had never occurred to me to group the images by what they depicted! I thought of Magritte and his “ceci n’est pas une pipe”. Perhaps a lifetime of contemplating surrealism had led me to disregard depiction and focus on the properties of the image itself? But no, that was not it. It was just my autistic brain doing what it does. I realised that my interest in surrealism has probably been a way of seeking to understand its processes all along. Another moment of epiphany!

But now my attention turned to the training and the comment “Most people would have…”. I began to feel very different. Of course, autism means I do not think like “most people”. I started to resent the tone of the comment, which then led me to ask: is the test itself showing unconscious bias? 

The test was designed to make a simple point - that we unconsciously tend to group people based on appearance. But what if your whole way of grouping people is not at all based on the way they appear, but on some other attribute? I’ve never understood racism, for example, because skin colour and the various other stereotypical characteristics are just not what I notice. Does that mean I have no racial bias? Probably not, but it is buried under a mountain of other stuff that filters it out, on the whole. I unconsciously group people, for example, by the extent to which they try to make eye contact, or by the sounds they emit, or by their smell. I’ve always done that. I know that racism exists, and I hate and try to resist it when I find it, but I don’t understand it. It just makes no sense.

The same is true of body language and eye contact. I’ve done quite a few interviews recently and the HR guidance we’ve received emphasizes the importance of not giving the wrong impression to candidates through inappropriate body language. And of course I, like everyone else who uses Powerpoint, have seen the kind of advice, or even assessment criteria, that give plus-points to a presenter who makes “good eye contact” and shows “positive body language”. 

Whenever I encounter these kinds of advice, which are everywhere, I kick back against them by pointing out that not everybody can control their bodies and not everyone is able to make eye contact. Why should people be penalised for that? Is it not the very essence of bias to do so? I am deeply sceptical about the very concept of “body language”. Like many autistic people, I have spent a lifetime studying it, trying to figure out what on earth neurotypicals are communicating, or believe they are communicating. What I find is that there is a kind of “language” there, but it is one that continuously reveals untruths, deceptions and confusion. People use body language to reassure others, but in doing so they frequently engage in a collective self-deception that is comforting to the group, I suppose, but also delusional.

Here, it seems to me, is a real unconscious bias: against people who do not appear to go along with these incredibly subtle modes of non-verbal discourse. Since people do not understand body language, but just deploy it “instinctively”, they are completely unaware of the extent of its influence on their attitudes and decisions. It would be extremely difficult to unpick this in practice, and I imagine that nobody would be motivated to do so, so it looks to me that this kind of bias is here to stay and will escape my paradox by remaining perpetually unconscious. 

So, to get back to the training test, I’m afraid I did come to the conclusion that it was designed by neurotypical people for neurotypical people. The slightly sneery comment the system made just reinforced this impression. As an autistic person, I tend to view neurotypicals as a separate group, almost a different species. I guess that could make me biased against them, but I have spent a lot of my life trying to measure up to their standards, so actually I tend to think I am more biased against myself. Autistic advocates call this “internalised ableism”, which is about right. I reckon many of the difficult moments I’ve had in life have come about because of this failure to understand that I am judging myself by the wrong criteria. Now that is unconscious bias.

Equality, Diversity and the REF

The REF2021 results have just been published. The REF (Research Excellence Framework) is an assessment exercise that rates the quality of research across the whole of higher education in the UK, institution by institution, discipline by discipline, and even person by person (although that personal information is hidden in the published results and has to be decoded). There is a lot riding on this exercise. The better your research is deemed to be, the more funding your university receives and the higher up the academic league tables you go. The results are given here https://results2021.ref.ac.uk 

Apart from the academic review panels, there is also an Equality and Diversity Advisory panel, whose remit may be viewed here https://ref.ac.uk/equality-and-diversity/ They focus mostly on: “the environment for supporting research and enabling impact within each submitting unit”. (Environment accounts for 15% of the overall outcome awarded to each submission and is assessed against two criteria: vitality and sustainability). Their report makes interesting reading. As James Coe points out, the following passage gives pause for thought (my italics):

“Although the EDAP’s review of institutional and unit environment statements revealed much good, and some excellent, practice across the sector, it also showed that this was far from widespread. Although many institutions had successfully implemented several gender-related initiatives, there was much less attention given to other protected groups. The panel therefore had little confidence that the majority of institutional research environments would be sufficiently mature in terms of support for ED within the next few years to totally dispense with a circumstances process”.

This reflects my own experience of ED in Higher Education. Despite the best efforts of disability groups and individuals (such as myself) in universities, disability remains the poor cousin of gender and ethnic diversity. “Equality” is normally code for gender equality, and “diversity” is normally code for ethnic or racial diversity. The various other protected characteristics (disability, religious beliefs, age, marital status and maternity) tend to get added as an afterthought at best. 

So it is really alarming to see only gender being seriously considered as part of the research environment at most institutions. Given that disability is defined (horribly!) under the Equality Act of 2010 as “a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities” and given that there are 14.6 million disabled people in the UK (according to the charity Scope) it seems quite absurd that such little account should be taken of its consequences for academic researchers. 

To be more specific, I have an admittedly unscientific suspicion that the actual numbers of autistic academics greatly exceeds the reported numbers. I am certainly aware of many colleagues who I imagine are autistic but who have not been professionally or personally identified as such. Given the extent to which autism can affect one’s interactions with the environment, it seems likely that this is a significant factor in the performance of such researchers, whether for good or ill. An exercise such as the REF really needs to take account of this. After all, we try to do the same for our students, so why not for the staff?

"Positive psychoeducation" and ableism in academia

There has been quite a lot of discussion in academia recently about using “positive psychoeducation” to address the mental health crisis in students. The most headline-grabbing example of this is a module, offered at the University of Bristol, entitled ‘The Science of Happiness’. Here’s a video about it.

This clearly has a basis in solid psychological research and is delivered in a novel way which has demonstrably benefitted many of the students who have taken part. The science of happiness is also an intrinsically interesting topic that is relevant to a wide range of disciplines so, on the face of it, this would seem to be a welcome contribution. Surely, anything which improves student wellbeing has to be a good idea, right?

When this first came to my attention, alarm bells instantly rang. What would an autistic experience of this module be like? As I investigated further, I realised that my instincts were correct. This doesn’t just present autistic people with some challenges: it is actively ableist in a way which I am sure the authors do not intend. Let me explain.

The research which underpins the course is described in Hood, B, Jelbert, S., and Santos, L. R., ‘Benefits of a psychoeducational happiness course on university student mental well-being both before and during a COVID-19 lockdown’, Health Psychology Open January-June 2021: 1–12. This sets out both the evidence for benefits, which are significant, and the contents of the module itself. No mention is made of diversity in the paper and when it refers to a “university student”, it obviously means any university student. In other words, this is a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution. We learn that:

“[…] in order to earn course credit, students had to participate in weekly ‘happiness hubs’ (maximum of 11 meetings total) which were led by a postgraduate student or senior psychology student mentor. During these ‘happiness hub’ meetings, students were encouraged to discuss the course content and to take part in a series of positive psychology interventions (PPIs). […] These interventions involved (1) performing acts of kindness (2) forming social connections (3) savouring an experience, (4) increased exercise, (5) trying to achieve several nights of at least 7 hours sleep, (6) meditation and (7) writing a gratitude letter. […]”.

I’m going to criticise this from an autistic perspective, but I think what I have to say also applies to other disabilities. As a person with Ménière’s, I can see several obstacles to achieving ‘happiness’ in this list. But let’s focus on autism.

Both “(1) performing acts of kindness” and “(2) forming social connections” immediately present a serious problem. The standard diagnostic criteria for autism refer to “deficits in social communication”. I dislike “deficit” language, so I would phrase that differently, but the point remains that social interaction is one of the most challenging areas for autistic people. I cannot imagine approaching a stranger to perform an act of “kindness” (what might that be?) or randomly strike up a conversation. That would take a lot of spoons and most likely be unsatisfactory or even dangerous.

“(3) Savouring an experience” and “(6) meditation” involve opening oneself up to sensory overload. In some circumstances, this may be possible or even desirable, but it would need very careful management. If done wrong, the damage could be considerable. Speaking personally, I find ‘mindfulness’ close to torture. I spend a lot of time and effort trying to avoid mindfulness!

“(5) Trying to achieve several nights of at least 7 hours sleep”. There has been a lot of research into the problems that autistic people have with sleep. The National Autistic Society has published some guidance about this. Obviously, it would be beneficial if everybody could get a good night’s sleep, but we should be realistic about what is possible. Making this a required component of an academic course is more likely to disrupt autistic sleep than encourage it.

“(4) increased exercise” seems relatively uncontroversial, inasmuch as increased exercise is likely to bring health benefits to any human being. Even so, this may not be straightforward. The point is that the many benefits of exercise for autistic people are not exactly the same as those for neurotypical people. This is another aspect of the module that would require careful monitoring, especially if it involves changing routines.

“(7) writing a gratitude letter”. Well, this may be beneficial to both writer and recipient, but I know that I would find it difficult to write such a letter unless I had a clear reason to be grateful. I would need to understand the social conventions of such a letter. My belief is that you write a gratitude letter when somebody sends you a gift. Beyond that, there seems to be no social convention for writing one, unless you feel a sudden surge of gratitude for some reason. This is unclear and could become quite a stumbling-block.

Overall then, it is the normalising conception of what the students are required to do that is ableist. The proposition is that an autistic person should do what they find most difficult, even impossible, in order to achieve happiness, just because neurotypical people find these things pleasant and easy. The requirement to achieve normalised happiness is likely to have severely negative repercussions. If autistic people are given an opt-out, then that is problematic too, because it will look like they are unable to achieve happiness at all.

What could be done instead? How about a module that is based on autistic joy? One that actively encourages specific interests. That allows for repetition and embraces stimming. That accepts social isolation and non-standard communication. That removes barriers such as the need to use body language. That develops sensory spaces that autistic people find pleasant. That addresses anxiety by observing and analysing its causes. That reduces demand and translates autistic neurology so that neurotypicals may understand. That accepts autism as a reality rather than problematising it.

Universities are full of autistic staff and students. It is high time that this group be  properly included when developing new approaches to wellbeing.