Member-only story
A critical look at neuro-neutrality
Why the promotion of equality for neurodivergent individuals by adjusting workplaces and public spaces requires phased implementation, cost-benefit analysis, and a careful balance of feasibility and societal acceptance.
One of the fundamental principles in our society is the moral equality of citizens and the neutrality of governments towards forms of diversity such as religion, language, and sexual orientation. However, this concept has yet to be fully extended to neurodiversity.
In a recent article (‘Neurodiversity and the Neuro-Neutrale State’) in the American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience, Bouke de Vries, a philosopher at the Belgian Ghent University, advocates for neuro-neutrality. He outlines various ways contemporary governments have harmed the interests of neurodivergent groups, such as individuals with autism, compared to other diversities. De Vries examines the reasons given to justify such unequal treatment and argues for a significantly more neuro-neutral government.
As an autistic person and advocate, I am familiar with the challenges and prejudices neurodivergent people face. While De Vries’ plea for neuro-neutrality is well-intentioned, it raises several concerns for me.
