No abstract

No abstract available

This paper presents an in-depth examination of autistic acceptance on college campuses from the perspective of two academic scholars who are both autistic.1 This inquiry first describes the history of the emergence and growth of the neurological diversity and autistic rights movements. These movements led to the development of a unified autistic disability culture and community. Then the paper shares how autistic acceptance on college campuses has received increasing attention in parallel with expanded focus on autistic acceptance in society. It highlights major challenges impacting autistic people attending colleges and universities, as well as potential solutions for resolving those challenges and cultivating understanding and support of autistic people among the broader culture of colleges and universities.This paper examines the emergence of autistic acceptance in society and the growth of support for autistic people on the college campus. It is written from the authors' perspectives as autistic persons who pursued college studies, and both authors are active scholars and advocates in the cross-disability community.

No abstract

Context: COVID-19 has prompted debates between bioethicists and disability activists over Crisis Standards of Care plans (CSCs), triage protocols determining the allocation of scarce lifesaving care. Methods: We examine CSCs in 35 states and code how they approach disability, comparing states that have revised their plans to those that have not. We offer ethical and legal analyses evaluating to what extent changes to state policy aligned with disability rights law and ethics during the early pandemic and subsequently, as stakeholder engagement grew. Findings: While disability rights views were not well represented in CSCs that were not updated or updated early in the pandemic, states that revised their plans later in the pandemic were more aligned with advocate priorities. However, many CSCs continue to include concerning provisions, especially the reliance on long-term survival, which implicates considerations of both disability rights and racial justice. Conclusions: The disability rights movement’s successes in influencing state triage policy should inform future CSCs and set the stage for further work on how stakeholders influence bioethics policy debates. We offer thoughts for examining bioethics policymaking reflecting the processes by which activists seek policy change and the tension policymakers face between expert delegation and mediating values conflicts.