Neurodiversity and its Malcontents

This week is Neurodiversity Celebration Week, and the subject has elicited a range of reactions from Cornellians. Accordingly, we are proud to announce two articles taking differing positions on what neurodiversity represents and the value of celebrating it. This article takes a critical view on the subject.

As we suffer through “Neurodiverse Celebration Week,” Cornell University’s army of administrators and bureaucrats will have to innovate new methods of shameless pandering. Thus, in this week of performative activism and misdirected attention, may we spare a thought for the neuro-normative people that define Cornell’s community? 

Neurodiversity is a term that recognizes the natural variations in human brain function, including those associated with autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other conditions. This definition however, is hopelessly vague and could reasonably be applied to anyone. Natural variations in the human brain are not abnormal, but to be expected in a species as complex as ours. The use of the term only serves to derive false distinctions that can justify unequal treatment.

The Student Disability Services (SDS) system actively coddles so-called “neurodivergent students.” With a simple doctor’s note, neurodiverse students can get benefits not available to the average student. Such benefits include extra time on exams, less-distracting exam locations, and special permissions to use their computer during exams. 

When offered to genuinely disabled students, SDS accommodations are understandable. However, SDS is so lackadaisical in its standards that it has unwittingly created a school-sanctioned means of cheating. As with many within the student body, I have been subjected to braggadocious remarks from wayward students who crow about the ease with which they “gamed” the SDS system. It’s no wonder the amount of young people who claim to have mental health issues has skyrocketed.

The expansion of SDS privileges is not dissimilar to exploitation of high school Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), which scandalized many elite universities. The college admissions scandal was not merely perpetrated by graft within collegiate athletics, but more insidiously, by preferential treatment given to students with supposed learning disorders. Privileged LA suburbanites would pay private doctors to diagnose their children with fallacious disorders, guaranteeing them unlimited time on many standardized exams. 

In the wake of the college admissions scandal, it was naive to suppose that any prestigious university admission is wholly meritocratic. It is impossible, and quite frankly comical, for an institution such as Cornell to present itself as a meritocracy, proudly lavishing in its grade deflation and overworked student populace while simultaneously ladling out unfair accommodations to almost anyone that asks. When students can circumvent the shared trials that make Cornell competitive by exploiting exaggerated or imagined mental illness, it tarnishes our noble alma mater. 

Beyond the pride of scholarly achievement, universities play an integral role in preparing students to become competent, contributing members of society. While Cornell may feign interest in the neurodiverse, the real world certainly does not. There will be no fidget spinners in the halls of Congress or “sensory-friendly” rooms in the bullpens of the largest banks. In the dystopian horror that is reality, you will not be given twice as much time to pay your bills, as your neuro-normative landlord will not tolerate such frivolities. Whether SDS accommodations are exploited by the mentally weak or ethically challenged is insignificant. Regardless, it provides a crutch that stunts the emotional and psychological development of our students. 

There is no greater tragedy than sending young people into the world unprepared, and there is no greater sin than to facilitate this fatal underdevelopment. It is not the fault of the students who exploit SDS, because they do not know better; rather, it is the responsibility of Cornell to maintain an equal playing field that enables students to demonstrate their “distinguishing excellence.”

When Cornell, in its vainglorious attempt to display fictitious diversity, favors a subset of students, they discount all those whose college admissions are the product of meritorious scholastic achievement.