Introduction

Today more organizations who once rejected the notion of including neurotypical skills and experiences to their workforce, are now aligning their talent acquisition and retention initiatives to include and support people from the neurodivergent communities. This new hiring trend encapsulates the historical efforts administered by the American Disabilities Association and other advocacy groups, including the Equal Equity in the United States and around the world. Neurodivergent are on a mutual quest for equality, equitable opportunity and access, respect, and tolerance for people who are different in social spaces.

In societies structured on platforms of ableism; disabled people are forced to conform, reform, and readjust parts of themselves to meet the norms of society. To most people on the outside looking in, this may seem relatively easy and something neurodivergents can be accommodated. Asking someone to change their cognitive processes that are innately human to them is equivalent to asking someone to stop the waves from washing onto the seashore. Those impositions come with serious sacrifices and effort, which can also be detrimental to neurodivergents in social spaces.

Social Spaces

The term social space is relative. I have read a multitude of definitions of what a social space is. In this narrative, social space is not meant to exist in the power dynamics or social structures that define social space. Rather, it is founded on places where people socially interact within the context of learning and earning. Therefore, social spaces are physical spaces that create avenues for mental spaces.

Many people are still misguided by the true definition of a social space. For the purpose of this narrative, I define a social space as spaces where people meet and connect on shared cultural schemas both from their intrapersonal and extrapersonal selves. The two places where people develop their socialization skills the most outside their homes are in academic and professional spaces. We develop most of our friendships in our workplace and at school. Most people would tell you they met their friends during their academic journey or while being employed.

Social Exclusion

In this narrative, earning spaces represent environments that are “connected to other sociocultural places as well as spaces of semiotic flows” (Kostogriz and Peeler, 2004, p. 1 Abstract). Socialization happens in spatial spaces such as academia and the workforce through our interactions to shared meaning, ideologies and beliefs in our everyday experience. Workplaces also serve as a venue for developing invaluable social adaptation skills and practices. Therefore, earning spaces are vital to the social inclusion, and enrichment environments where neurodivergents find acceptance and inclusion. Social inclusion is vital to not only the social development of divergents, but also their spiritual growth as well.

Acceptance is crucial for neurodivergent individuals seeking inclusion in society, as they often feel the need to sacrifice parts of themselves to fit in. Society, built on ableism, can create exclusionary experiences for neurodivergents, contributing to a culture of mental exclusion and rejection in social settings. Exclusion goes beyond physical barriers, also encompassing psychological impacts on individuals' lives.

Social exclusion prevents individuals from fully enjoying the benefits of social advantages. It is a global issue characterized as "deep exclusion," a complex and multi-dimensional process that involves the denial of resources, rights, goods, and services, as well as the inability to engage in healthy relationships and activities that are accessible to the majority of people in a society, whether in economic, social, cultural, or political spheres. This exclusion impacts both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole (Levitas et al., p. 5, 2007). In professional environments, social exclusion (whether explicit or implicit) acts as a barrier to social mobility and progress for disabled communities.

Throughout history, humans have tended to accept and internalize certain beliefs and norms without critically questioning their validity. This includes the prevalence of ableist ideologies and their impact on disabled individuals in society. A lack of awareness regarding this power dynamic is a key factor contributing to social exclusion today (Razza, 2018, p. 1). The inability of disabled individuals to exercise agency is also a consequence of this exclusion, shaping the interactions between disabled and neurotypical individuals. The perpetuation of unchallenged truths in society leads to a culture of intolerance, resulting in the exclusion observed in contemporary society.

Many individuals are often limited by preconceived notions and are not encouraged to explore their full potential due to prevailing ignorance. It is crucial to recognize that organizational systems and policies are typically designed and implemented by individuals with neurotypical or ableist perspectives. Consequently, the established models may not align with the needs of disabled employees. This places the onus of adaptation on the employees rather than prompting organizations to adjust their policies to accommodate disabled individuals. Despite claims of inclusivity, many employers fail to integrate systems and policies that cater to disabled employees. The lack of empathy towards those who are different in social settings is often rooted in ableist beliefs and societal norms.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that has been presented over time to challenge widely held beliefs about human capabilities, individuals with disabilities continue to face exclusion from various social spheres, including professional environments. Alarmingly, many people do not initially consider the need for evidence to support their beliefs, making it challenging to question established social norms and narratives. One way to illustrate this concept is by examining the influence of social media on society, particularly on younger generations. Social media platforms often promote misleading narratives and information presented as truth, shaping our perceptions without concrete evidence to back them up.

In their study, Tsfati & Cohen (2013) contended that most social media platforms rely on the notions of "credibility and trust" when disseminating information to the public. In order to gain credibility, information is often presented in a way that resonates with the audience. By using sensational stories or propaganda with attention-grabbing headlines, captivating images, and narratives that align with the headline and image, false narratives can be portrayed as undeniable truths. Tsfati & Cohen further argued that the challenge for users lies in not critically evaluating and verifying the information shared on social media, as these platforms excel at building trust and credibility through their content. Consequently, unverified information can solidify into accepted truths, shaping people's perceptions and interactions in social settings based on misleading beliefs. This cycle perpetuates rigid ideologies founded on distorted versions of reality. For those who fall prey to the dissemination of false narratives on social media, these fabrications become an unquestionable truth, further contributing to societal divisions.

The role of social media in shaping societal divisions today is crucial for understanding how social influences impact popular narratives, regardless of their accuracy. The exclusion of individuals with disabilities from social spaces is not only a product of contemporary society, but also stems from a historical misconception about human abilities that has gone unchallenged. This perpetuates false beliefs about the capabilities of people with disabilities, leading to their continued exclusion from various social environments. By examining how social exclusion influences the experiences and stories of both able-bodied and disabled communities, we must consider fundamental questions: How do we acquire knowledge and perceptions of human abilities? Answering these questions could shed light on the ongoing barriers preventing individuals with disabilities from accessing social and professional spaces. This chapter aims to explore the reproduction of knowledge concerning human abilities and identify how biased perceptions hinder the inclusion of disabled individuals in professional settings.

Job descriptions that impose exclusionary requirements contribute to inaccessible work environments, perpetuating discriminatory practices that hinder the employment and advancement of disabled individuals. The job search process, from applications to interviews and onboarding, remains challenging for individuals with disabilities due to societal misconceptions about their abilities. According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics study from 2019, individuals with disabilities are more likely to face part-time work and have their hours reduced due to job-related challenges. While the presence of disabled individuals in professional settings is not a new phenomenon, societal acceptance and tolerance towards them have evolved over time.

Historically, disabled individuals have had to adapt their cognitive processes to fit societal expectations, perpetuating a culture of exclusion. However, many disabled individuals seek employment for reasons similar to neurotypical job seekers, viewing work as a means of inclusion and finding purpose. Working is seen as essential for many, including disabled individuals, who strive for financial independence and livelihood sustenance. Despite the misconceptions that disabled individuals are unable to work or do not belong in the workforce, many are active members of society, fulfilling roles as heads of households, property owners, and parents. Recognizing the value of partnering with the disabled community in professional spaces can lead to increased productivity and success for companies. Embracing a culture of inclusion where everyone can thrive is essential for creating diverse and successful workplaces.

Disabled also work and seek work for opportunities in mentorship, professional development, enhancing social development, establishing professional relationships, a sense of duty or obligation, a sense of power Zarasus also noted (2017, p.1). Disabled seek work which adds value and meaning to their lives for the same reason ableist work. According to Steger (2016), the inclusion of Disabled to professional spaces “optimizing occupational opportunities” for growth as any neurotypical applicant or employee (p. 61). The value in meaningful work is not only meant to improve the financial stability of people but the opportunity for an array of equitable teaching and learning experiences between employees and employers.

It is challenging for many individuals in Disabled communities to find meaningful work within exclusive work cultures. Meaningful work, as a means of socialization stimulation, should revolve around teaching, learning, and building, rather than creating obstacles for Disabled communities. According to Stegger (2016), meaningful work not only motivates employees to enhance their efforts but also boosts productivity levels. It aims to empower employees to embrace attitudes of ownership, responsibility, and citizenship towards the organization and themselves. However, the word "live" persistently obstructs, depriving people of access to valuable resources and introducing hostility into their experiences.

In 2019, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and the United States Department of Labor released a summary of a study conducted in 2018, revealing that although there has been a rise in employment rates for individuals with disabilities, the actual number of employed individuals remains low. The ongoing low talent acquisition rates continue to impose restrictions on people with disabilities in the workplace due to perceptions of human capability. One of the key findings of the study was that individuals with disabilities face lower employment rates compared to their non-disabled counterparts (2018 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019, p. 1). The study also highlighted that older workers, regardless of disability status, are less likely to be employed. Moreover, persons with disabilities are significantly less likely to be employed than those without disabilities, indicating a concerning trend of exclusion by employers today.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination in various aspects of employment, including recruitment, hiring, promotions, training, pay, and social activities. In 2018, the Department of Labor and Statistics (DLS) reported that 31% of workers with disabilities typically worked part-time, in contrast to 17% of those without disabilities. Additionally, the DLS report revealed that workers with disabilities were more likely to work part-time for economic reasons compared to their non-disabled counterparts. Furthermore, individuals with disabilities were less likely to work in management, professional, and related fields, highlighting the discriminatory practices prevalent in the workforce.

The report also noted that some individuals worked part-time due to reduced hours or the inability to secure full-time employment, reflecting the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in exclusive professional environments. Society's limited understanding of ability and disability perpetuates exclusionary practices, hindering the inclusion of disabled individuals in workplaces. These misconceptions push individuals from the disabled community to move away from concealing their neuro-identity to secure employment, towards embracing their uniqueness and advocating for their right to work and succeed. The increasing number of disabled individuals asserting their identities in the workplace signifies a shift towards diversity and inclusion.

People with disabilities, whether visible or invisible, face challenges in the workplace. Invisible disabilities, which are not readily apparent, contribute to the emergence of neurodiversity. Misconceptions surrounding invisible disabilities lead to further marginalization, reinforcing the false belief that if a disability is not visible, it is less likely to be recognized.

Embracing Neurodiversity in Social Environments

The concept of Neurodiversity is complex. Dr. Judy Singer introduced this term in 1990 to challenge the restrictive and inaccurate beliefs about individuals who differ in social contexts. Over time, Neurodiversity has evolved into a movement advocating for the inclusion of individuals with diverse cognitive and physical characteristics. According to Dr. James Adler Robison, Neurodiversity is a movement that recognizes conditions like autism and ADHD as natural variations in the human genome, rejecting the notion of inherent disability imposed by society.

Neurodiversity represents both a human rights movement for social inclusion (Harmon, 2004) and a platform for accommodating learning differences (Pollak & Griffin, 2015). Historically, neurodivergent individuals have faced exclusion from professional environments due to misconceptions about their abilities. Pollak and Griffin (2015) highlighted the shared cognitive differences among neurodiverse individuals and emphasized their overlooked potential as a valuable talent pool in the workforce. Studies have shown that neurodivergent employees are highly productive and loyal, challenging the ableist norms prevalent in professional settings and paving the way for a more inclusive and tolerant workplace culture.

Neurodivergents in Ableists Spaces

The exclusion of neurodivergent individuals from the workforce is not a recent occurrence, but rather a product of ableist beliefs about human capabilities. The unchallenged ableist ideologies we hold about human abilities drive the exclusion of neurodivergent individuals from social and professional settings. Corporate executives and human resources leaders who enforce discriminatory hiring practices are acting against the values of the organizations they are supposed to uphold. By limiting the applicant pool for neurodivergent individuals, they are hindering diversity in the workplace.

Job descriptions often reveal workforce discrimination through their wording and presentation to the public. Many job descriptions are designed to selectively reject applications from individuals who are neurodiverse. The lack of neurodivergent representation in the workplace indicates a failure of society to adapt to the changing needs of its diverse population.

Ableism

Ableism refers to the discrimination where able-bodied individuals are considered normal and superior to those with disabilities, leading to bias against the latter (Britanica, 2019). Despite many companies claiming to be open to including the neurodiverse community, their systems and policies are still rooted in ableism, leaving little room for change. Navigating through ableist cultures without support or understanding can be detrimental to neurodivergent individuals in the workplace. Research indicates that in rigid ableist environments, neurodivergent individuals often choose not to disclose their neurodiversity status to potential employers out of fear of discrimination and rejection. The University of St. Thomas Opus College of Business and Minnesota Diversified Industries (MDI) found that "Implicit bias is a powerful force, making it challenging for even well-meaning individuals to overcome their subconscious biases" (p. 7). Ableism thrives on implicit biases and can affect individuals indiscriminately.

Many neurodivergent individuals are acutely aware of societal perceptions of their abilities, creating a hostile environment where they feel unable to reveal their true selves in the workplace. A study by Jans, Kaye, & Jones (2012) revealed that employers may be hesitant to hire people with disabilities due to concerns about accommodation costs, uncertainty about how to support workers with disabilities, and fear of legal repercussions for disciplining or terminating such employees. Furthermore, more than half of the respondents in the study agreed that employers avoid hiring workers with disabilities because they believe these individuals cannot perform essential job functions. Advocates for the neurodivergent community emphasize the need to eliminate discriminatory practices in the workplace to ensure inclusivity and support for neurodivergent individuals. Consequently, many neurodivergent individuals hesitate to disclose their neurodiverse status to potential employers out of fear of facing discrimination, limited opportunities for advancement, and professional growth.

People who identify as neurodiverse often conceal their disabilities from interviewers, coworkers, and supervisors out of fear of continuous discrimination and rejection (Jans, Kaye, & Jones, 2012). These experiences are entrenched in ableist environments and narratives, making it challenging for neurodivergent individuals to navigate. Despite the enactment of the American Disabilities Act in 1990, employers should no longer use excuses to discriminate against neurodivergent individuals in the workplace. The societal constructs aimed at excluding neurodivergent individuals from social spaces persist due to ingrained perceptions of human ability. Cultural biases and discrimination continue to perpetuate false ideologies, hindering people with disabilities from obtaining inclusive and meaningful employment opportunities.

The Studies of Disability in Social Spaces

According to Semi Linton (1998), disability studies involve a socio-political-cultural examination of disability that challenges traditional deficit-based approaches to disability. The social model of disability views disability as a cultural and minority identity rather than a physical or mental defect, emphasizing the impact of societal structures on disabled individuals. Disability studies aim to promote social change, increase awareness of disabled individuals' experiences, and advocate for inclusivity in all cultures and historical periods.

While disability studies encompass a variety of social elements, research on neurodivergent individuals in the workplace remains limited. Values-based research within the realm of social constructivism is crucial for challenging prevailing ideologies about human ability and fostering evidence-based changes in disability studies. It is essential to recognize that societal adjustments may require time and cognitive reevaluation for individuals with strong ableist beliefs regarding human ability.

Griffin & Pollak (2015) suggest that the medical and social models of disability studies are not mutually exclusive. The medical model attributes disability to medical or genetic deficits that limit individuals' abilities, while the social model emphasizes societal and environmental barriers that disable individuals in social spaces. By differentiating between impairment and disability, the social model underscores the role of societal constructs in disabling individuals rather than inherent impairments.

Researchers in disability studies argue that individuals are not inherently disabled but are categorized based on societal perceptions of ability and disability. The exclusion of neurodivergent individuals from social spaces stems from ignorance and misconceptions about human ability, perpetuating societal divisions based on false dichotomies. Challenging ableist societal constructs is crucial for fostering inclusivity and support for neurodivergent individuals in professional and social settings.

Neurodiversity in Professional Spaces

In a study carried out by Hernandez and Keys (2000), employers were evaluated on various factors, such as their positive and negative attitudes towards individuals with disabilities in the workforce, as well as their views on supportive employment programs. The research indicated that while employers generally have a positive outlook towards individuals with disabilities, there are instances of negative attitudes towards this group (p. 5). Furthermore, the study revealed that some employers exhibited a favorable attitude towards individuals with disabilities only if they had previous interactions with them. However, the majority of employers' behaviors towards the neurodiverse community were inconsistent with their stated attitudes (p. 5). Despite the compelling findings of this study, the underlying reasons for the low representation of neurodivergents in the workplace can be attributed to employers' preconceived notions.

The study also highlighted "discrepancies between employers’ reluctance to hire individuals with disabilities based on perceived abilities and their actual hiring practices" (p. 5). Implicit biases contribute to exclusion and segregation of diverse cultures in social environments. Additionally, the study noted that certain groups of individuals with disabilities were perceived hierarchically, with some employers favoring neurodivergents with sensory challenges over those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

In a separate study, Unger (2002) utilized the same dataset and identified critical factors contributing to the exclusion of neurodivergent individuals from the workforce. Employers' perceptions of applicants' abilities based on the severity of their disabilities, previous interactions with the employer, and the industry type were identified as factors influencing employers' reluctance to hire neurodivergents (p. 5). These factors shape the inclusive or exclusive spaces for neurodivergents within and outside the workplace. Employers often view neurodivergents as hindrances to productivity and profitability, posing challenges for neurodivergents seeking employment in inclusive settings.

The American Disability Association (ADA) defines disability as characteristics of mental impairment or physical limitations that substantially restrict major life activities. The ADA mandates that individuals with disabilities must be qualified to perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodations. While intended to promote the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the workforce, the law also provides opportunities for employers to base hiring decisions on biased perceptions of applicants' abilities and disabilities.

Implicit Bias in Talent Acquisition Selection Process

Historically, the workplace has imposed ableism on the neurodivergent community, expecting conformity to organizational social norms. Selective talent acquisition practices by human resources perpetuate discriminatory experiences for neurodivergents, hindering inclusive employment spaces. The ADA and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) aim to protect individuals with disabilities in the workplace, but implicit biases and selective hiring processes continue to discriminate against neurodivergents. The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disabilities but does not regulate selective processes that determine an employee's job suitability.

Job descriptions often list "Required Skills," which may inadvertently exclude neurodivergent individuals who may need a supportive environment to develop essential job skills. While job skills are crucial, they can be learned, and the exclusion of neurodivergents based on specific skills criteria may hinder their inclusion in the workforce. A system of processes should be established to support neurodivergents in acquiring job skills, emphasizing teaching, learning, and peer support for skill development.

Employers are obligated to make reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities, preventing discrimination and creating inclusive work environments. However, human resources practices that favor homogenous cognitive processing perpetuate exclusion and hinder diversity in the workplace. The Human Element, encompassing innate skills, talent, emotion, and culture, plays a crucial role in fostering inclusive professional environments.

Communities of Practice provide a framework for individual and group identity development, emphasizing mutual engagement, shared goals, and a common repertoire to express meaning. Inclusion of neurodivergent individuals in non-segregated spaces is essential for their success in professional settings, promoting mutual engagement and shared objectives among diverse team members.

Discrimination in the Selection Process

The prevailing structures of ableism and perceptions of human ability continue to drive implicit biases, exclusion, and discrimination towards individuals with disabilities in the workplace. Discrimination rooted in ableist biases at work not only paves the way for a hostile work environment that fosters intolerance towards those who are different but also originates from ideologies centered on narrow definitions of human ability. As Anaïs Nin stated in 1961, "We do not see things as they are; we see them as we are." People tend to align with and perpetuate the ideologies they have been exposed to, shaping their realities based on conditioning rather than actual experiences. Such ideologies often lead individuals to overlook the systems and counter-systems that affect their lives daily, perpetuating marginalization and subtle discrimination.

Many individuals adhere to ontological concepts and ideologies of human abilities that view a person's disability as a hindrance rather than recognizing their abilities as valuable assets for enhancing productivity and business outcomes. This dichotomy between truth and perceived truth, as highlighted by Foucault, underscores how power dynamics operate through acts of domination or coercion, ultimately influencing forced intimacy and pervasive coercion in social contexts. These ideologies of uniformity and human ability significantly impact the perceptions of neurodiverse individuals in social spaces, reinforcing exclusionary practices in social settings.

Given that society was founded on an ableist framework, the challenges faced by neurodiverse individuals often go unnoticed. This unchallenged hostility can have severe consequences for neurodiverse colleagues, leading to forced intimacy and access to their personal lives to conform to ableist expectations. Unchecked conditioning from environments can breed ignorance, fueling intolerance, discrimination, and conflict. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits workplace harassment and discrimination based on disability under any circumstances.

In contrast to educational institutions mandated to support students with disabilities, workplaces lack similar policies, resulting in implicit "do not tell, do not ask" practices that create hostile environments for neurodivergent individuals. The misconception that adults should embody ableism and perfection further exacerbates the challenges faced by neurodivergent individuals in professional settings. It is crucial to recognize that adulthood alone should not determine a person's abilities, as individuals' life experiences significantly shape their perspectives and interactions in social environments. Unfortunately, the current landscape of employment opportunities for neurodivergent individuals remains saturated with ableist ideologies.

The concept of forced intimacy in professional spaces has historically perpetuated the neglect of neurodiverse communities by ableist groups, leading to a disregard for the true potential and abilities of individuals with disabilities. However, there is a gradual shift towards inclusivity in the workforce, with more employers in the United States embracing neurodiversity. The limited historical support for individuals with disabilities in social and professional spaces stems from ingrained ideologies of normalcy and uniformity, hindering the social enrichment and success of neurodivergent individuals.

Communities of Practice play a crucial role in shaping individual and group identities, emphasizing mutual engagement and shared goals. The success of neurodivergent individuals in professional settings hinges on their inclusion in non-segregated spaces, where they can fully participate and contribute meaningfully. Developing a professional identity that aligns with one's social group membership and institutional setting is essential for fostering inclusivity and supporting the diverse talents and abilities of neurodivergent individuals in the workforce. In conclusion, challenging ableist perceptions and fostering inclusive environments are essential steps towards creating equitable and supportive workplaces for all individuals, regardless of their neurodiversity.

The ADA and Inclusive Work Spaces

It was only twenty-nine years ago in 1990, when the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted to support the inclusion and welfare of people with disabilities in social spaces, such as education and employment. Up until that time, the availability of resources to support the neurodivergent communities in the United States was limited in social spaces, including professional spaces. While the American Disability Act (ADA) was initially conceived to limit modes of discrimination in social spaces, and “intended to increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities by prohibiting discrimination in the workplace; discrimination to the neurodivergent community persists. 

The ADA also requires employers to accommodate the needs of workers with disabilities. Despite the presence of the ADA and other legislation prohibiting workplace harassment to the neurodivergent community, the quest for inclusion and equitable treatment continue to go unnoticed. Though today there is a growing trend in hiring practices to include people from neurodiverse communities; many employers are still hesitant to employ neurodivergents due to deep-rooted ideologies and social conditioning which helps to shape perceptions of knowledge about human ability.

According to The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), it is unlawful to discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. The ADA also outlaws discrimination against individuals with disabilities at not only the local government level, but also at the state, public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications levels.

This part of the law explains the part of the ADA that prohibits job discrimination and the part of the law which is enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and State and local civil rights enforcement agencies that work with the Commission. Since applicants and new employees are not mandated to disclose their ability or disability statuses, employers are also not obligated to make any adjustable accommodations to support their inclusion at the organization, due to “contemporary practice of “selling” employers on hiring people with disabilities” (Ferguson & Nusabum, 2014, p. 1). In this window of opportunity, that hostile environment can be generated because it awards employers the opportunity to be selective and discriminatively dismissive to people from neurodivergent communities from potential pools of job candidates. 

Epistemological Understanding of Truth, Knowledge, and Human Capability

Individuals who identify with individualistic ideologies and truths may paradoxically exhibit collective tendencies on topics that others consider individualistic, as highlighted by Gallager (2004). While most people can distinguish between truth and fiction, they may opt for fiction when faced with truth, perceiving it as a safer choice. Foucault (1975) observed the diverse ways in which power is wielded in society, emphasizing that the exercise of power as governance over individuals requires not just obedience and submission, but also truth acts where individuals play various roles in truth procedures (p. 145; 164).

Moreover, the conflicting attitudes towards human capability reinforce and perpetuate uniform perceptions of others as inflexible. These ingrained ideologies, normalized as truth to fit historical notions of human ability, contribute to intolerance and conflict in society. Foucault (1975) defines normalized truth as a system entrenched in and perpetuated by power structures, aiming to equate perceptions of truths with actual truth. Furthermore, the transmission and perpetuation of social beliefs also endorse linking the concept of truth with the political regime, as Foucault (1975) suggested that "Society Must Defend." Therefore, the societal defense of normalized truth represents a political system that upholds oppressive, exclusionary, and irresponsible impositions on marginalized individuals in society.

Disability Studies

Society, across different eras (pre-construction, construction, and post-construction), was not originally designed to accommodate or cater to the needs of individuals with disabilities. Historically, social spaces were structured to align with ableist ideologies centered on normalcy and uniformity. This can be attributed to the individuals involved in shaping society and the lack of representation of people with disabilities during its construction phase. To comprehend the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in society, it is crucial to examine the presence of disability in social environments and how this presence was conceptualized. Studying disability is essential for understanding the existing systems and counter-systems that influence our perception of disability. This field of study recognizes disability as a significant aspect of human experience with profound political, social, and economic implications for both disabled and nondisabled individuals (Nusbaum & Fergusson, 2017, p. 71). Although all humans are inherently equal, there is considerable diversity in cognitive processes and other modes of existence.

Truth Perceptions

The perception of human ability, suggesting that all individuals are born with similar neurological wiring, plays a significant role in the intolerance and marginalization faced by neurodivergent individuals in society. Not all people have equal access to resources for inclusion in society. It is crucial to ensure that our perceptions are not influenced by our predispositions to focus on certain aspects while neglecting others (Gallagher, 2004, p. 7). The notion of limitations in human ability has historically hindered the progress of individuals with disabilities. These limitations are profound because our perception is not only restricted by the lack of exposure to shaping factors but also by the inherent limitations of our perceptual system (Carbon, 2014, p. 2). Therefore, not all individuals possess cognitive skills such as attention to detail or organizational navigation. Job descriptions that explicitly require such skills from all applicants create implicit discriminatory systems that exclude neurodiverse individuals from the selection process due to a lack of understanding of their needs.

This exclusionary system acts as a hindrance, professional sabotage, and a disadvantage to potential employees who do not meet these specific job requirements. This ignorance of actual human abilities also restricts the access that neurodivergent individuals require in professional environments. Gallagher (2004) also introduced the concept of "correspondence theory," which supports the idea that factual information and truths can be verified through systematic observation methods. By responsibly observing human abilities, we can demystify opportunities that help shape and maintain narratives distinct from human value and opinion.

Many individuals from neurodivergent communities seeking employment in inclusive and non-segregating professional settings feel challenged by the perceived 'requirements' for the job. Consequently, neurodivergent individuals are sometimes compelled to disclose aspects of their identity to employers to explain what may be perceived as limitations, while also attempting to adapt their processes to meet neurotypical expectations. Supportive Employment Program (SEP) initiatives aim to support the inclusion of neurodivergent individuals in the labor market while catering to the needs of employers. Employment specialists and job developers involved in SEP programs work to persuade employers to hire individuals from diverse backgrounds.

Brantlinger (2004) highlighted the role individuals play in limiting access to inclusive spaces in the United States based on their education and knowledge of neurodiverse communities. The question arises whether it is possible to set aside preconceived biases, values, and opinions to make objective observations about individuals from neurodiverse communities in inclusive spaces, as Gallagher (2004) proposed. The focus should be on observing things as they are, rather than through preconceived lenses. As a job developer for Supportive Employment Programs in California, one of my challenges is securing Supportive Employment for clients by convincing employers to embrace diversity in their workforce.

When employers concentrate on what applicants cannot do rather than their capabilities, neurodivergent communities continue to face disparity and exclusion. This exclusionary system can be transformed if employers educate themselves on ideologies that align with the realities of human abilities. Employment environments characterized by limitations, rejection, intolerance, and exclusion can only be rectified through the theory of Correspondences by engaging in active and responsible observations (Gallagher, 2004, p. 7). Correspondence Theory asserts that "truth corresponds to, or aligns with, a fact," dismissing falsehoods that hinder progress. Social exclusion and rejection can be minimized by observing people and situations objectively without distorting the reality.

Gallagher (2004) emphasized that observation based on correspondence theory is effective when conducted in distortion-free environments. Individuals from neurodiverse communities often face initial rejection and implicit biases based on perceived abilities. Emotional intelligence plays a crucial role in understanding human behavior by supporting the management of one's emotions and those of others. Observations in such settings must be objective and free from preconceived ideologies and experiences shaped by perceptions of truth or the 'Truth Regime' (p. 7). Observations should be unbiased, fair, equitable, and should not limit the scope of abilities within the neurodiverse community.

Emotional intelligence underscores the importance of emotional awareness, harnessing emotions for problem-solving, and managing emotions effectively. It is essential to assess employers' perceptions of the neurodiverse community in relation to their social conditioning. The exclusion of neurodivergent individuals from professional spaces stems from observers' lack of emotional intelligence, leading to the imposition of unjust narratives.

Excluding neurodiverse communities from the workplace is rooted in historical ableism and perpetuated beliefs. Observers need to set aside their biases, values, and opinions to make objective observations, as facts cannot be separated from values (Gallagher, 2004, p. 7). This cycle of exclusion has persisted over time and has resulted in the current landscape of disparity and exclusion.

Perceptions of human ability have been widely accepted due to deep-seated social conditioning, stemming from positivist ideologies of human capability that foster intolerance and exclusion. Positivism asserts that what we believe to be true can be proven, including human abilities (Gallagher, p. 7). Skewed perceptions of human ability, often assessed through ableism, will persist if not challenged. This ideology supports the notion that what is observable and verifiable is the only reality. Gallagher (2004) also noted that the "Procedure of Verification" is deemed natural or real based on observational evidence, reinforcing the belief that "seeing is believing." This data-driven approach emphasizes the importance of physically detectable evidence in shaping perceptions.

Ensuring Access to Diverse Spaces

Throughout history, social environments have been structured to align with ableist beliefs centered around notions of normality and uniformity. Many employers fail to recognize the diverse ways in which individuals process information due to varying neurological frameworks, such as attention to detail and organizational skills. This lack of understanding perpetuates barriers for individuals from neurodivergent backgrounds in professional settings.

Individuals within neurodivergent communities often seek employment in inclusive and integrated workplaces, as very few organizations are intentionally designed to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Despite being well aware of the challenges they may face, neurodivergent individuals are often undervalued by employers, leading to lower productivity levels. Consequently, many are compelled to operate in environments that do not acknowledge their capabilities, thereby forcing them to disclose personal information to meet employer expectations.

Brantlinger (2004) highlighted how societal attitudes and education can hinder access to inclusive spaces for neurodiverse individuals. It is crucial to challenge preconceived notions and biases in order to objectively evaluate the contributions of neurodiverse individuals in inclusive environments. By acknowledging the importance of perceiving reality as it is, rather than through biased lenses, we can create more inclusive spaces that do not marginalize the neurodivergent community.

By focusing on what people can do rather than what they cannot do, employment settings can reduce intolerance and rejection without altering the observed individuals or situations (Gallagher, 2007, p. 7). Individuals from neurodiverse communities often face initial rejection and implicit biases based on perceived abilities. This exclusion of neurodiverse communities is deeply rooted in historical beliefs and knowledge that have shaped an ableist society over time. This perpetuation of exclusion has gone unchallenged and has evolved into the present-day reality we witness.

However, these ideologies overlook the fact that societies have historically been designed to marginalize those who are different. Examining the historical treatment of individuals with disabilities, from death to institutionalization, isolation, abuse, and exclusion, sheds light on this issue.

The disability community has been systematically excluded from societal and social spaces since the inception of society. It is crucial to question who were the decision-makers behind constructing society on an ableist foundation, considering factors such as gender, race, age, abilities, and physical appearance. The absence of people with disabilities in the construction of societies is evident in historical records. Understanding who was present and absent at the decision-making table is essential.

Contemporary recruitment and talent acquisition practices in companies continue to create barriers and exclusion for individuals with disabilities in various social settings, including the workplace. The biases present in social spaces also extend to academic and professional environments. This bias is reflected in the job descriptions for common roles, which are often based on preconceived notions of people with disabilities.

Gallagher (2004) refers to these ideologies as an "empiricist approach to knowledge acquisition," suggesting that they hold promise in reducing uncertainty in employer actions in the workplace (p. 7). However, this acceptance of knowledge has become deeply ingrained in professional cultures, making it difficult to question these assumptions. Society has come to accept these assumptions as undeniable truths, perpetuating the status quo (Gallagher, p. 6).

In the face of these differences, we have unquestioningly embraced the social narrative linked to neurodiversity, stemming from the epistemological notions of truth that underpin and perpetuate it today. This theory is based on the idea that a statement is deemed true if it aligns with physical reality. According to Gallagher (2004), if something can be read, heard, seen, felt, and proven to exist, then it is considered true. However, this rigid way of thinking also fosters societal divisions and intolerance.                                                                                                                                                     

Moreover, individuals are influenced by their social conditioning. If left unchallenged, this conditioning molds their views of reality. Hence, the belief that adults should inherently possess superior knowledge is both ableist and dismissive of individuals' diverse life experiences. Access to resources significantly impacts people's experiences and, consequently, their perspectives on the world. This access plays a crucial role in shaping their stories and encounters.

The EEOC states that it is discriminatory for an employer to knowingly allow blatant discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the workplace and to continue to impose such hardships implicitly and carelessly. Therefore, the EEOC should take stronger measures to enforce the law without leniency in cases of obvious discrimination. According to Dr. Cassanto from Psychology Today, understanding how our experiences influence our thoughts, and how individuals with different physical and social backgrounds develop distinct ways of thinking, can help us comprehend behavior that may seem puzzling under a one-size-fits-all approach to the mind. Cassanto further explains that people's beliefs and misconceptions vary based on their environments and experiences.

There is minimal evidence to suggest that neurodivergent individuals cannot thrive in professional environments. Employers do not typically make an effort to provide accommodations for neurodivergent employees, potentially missing out on enhancing their business success through a more inclusive hiring process. Neurodivergent individuals often undergo significant preparation, including adapting their cognitive processes to fit into a society that tends to exclude them. This constant effort to navigate a social world that is inherently exclusive is a daily reality for many neurodivergent individuals. Some employers and supervisors may perceive neurodivergent employees as incapable due to lack of understanding. However, those employers who fail to recognize the impact of their ableist ideologies, systems, and perceptions on human ability miss the opportunity to foster a more inclusive company culture and society as a whole.