My response to NY Times calling Autistic coworker "incompetent"

Dear Workfriend,

As an Autistic professional who has personally faced many hurdles in the workplace, I was startled and disappointed by both the letter “Socially Awkward, or Obstinate?” and Anna Holmes’s subsequent response in the New York Times column. While it is important to discuss challenging workplace behaviors, it’s equally crucial that we do so with an understanding of the systemic barriers that Autistic individuals face and the harmful stereotypes perpetuated by painting us as obstinate or incompetent. By labeling the colleague “incompetent” without acknowledging the reality of Autism-specific employment challenges, both the letter writer and Ms. Holmes reinforce harmful stereotypes that make it even more difficult for Autistic people to secure and keep jobs. According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, 80% of Autistic adults are unemployed worldwide. These alarming rates aren’t a result of Autistic people universally lacking skill or capacity; they reflect systemic barriers—including ableist attitudes and insufficient workplace accommodations—that keep Autistic employees from thriving.

This depiction of an Autistic individual as cartoonishly rude or obstinate overlooks the nuances of how Autism can affect communication. It also ignores the responsibility of an employer to provide sufficient accommodations and feedback. Without hearing from the videographer or understanding whether he has been given the right supports, we only get a one-sided depiction that plays into damaging stereotypes. Autistic communication styles can sometimes be more direct or unfiltered, but that doesn’t automatically translate to “willful rudeness.” Labeling it as such—while withholding workplace support—does a disservice to everyone involved.

Navigating conflict with a neurodivergent colleague calls for a nuanced approach. If there are legitimate performance issues, they should be documented and addressed with constructive feedback and ongoing support—exactly as they would be for a neurotypical employee. However, equating a different communication style with “obstinance” without offering clear guidelines, awareness training, or accommodations is not only unfair but also often counterproductive, leading to the very misunderstandings and resentments highlighted in the letter.

Instead of jumping to disciplinary measures or dismissing the Autistic employee as “incompetent,” a productive approach would be for management to create clear communication protocols, set up regular check-ins, and offer specialized training or coaching. This way, everyone on the team—neurodivergent or not—benefits from explicit expectations and mutual respect. Providing such support is often the difference between a struggling employee and one who can thrive and make valuable contributions.

Ultimately, the conversation around workplace conflicts involving neurodivergent individuals must rise above old stereotypes of “obstinance” or “lack of competence.” The real question is how to create truly inclusive environments that enable all employees to succeed. Dismissing an Autistic employee’s struggles as mere rudeness or incompetence ignores the systemic failures that contribute to alarmingly high unemployment rates for Autistic people worldwide. I urge The New York Times and Anna Holmes to consider these broader realities. We can certainly address poor behavior or performance when it appears—while still recognizing the deep-seated inequalities that profoundly affect Autistic people every day.