Scarleteen

Hey y'all! So, I'm currently filling out applications for internships and on one of them it asks if you have a disability. One of the illnesses mentioned on the list of disabilities was "major depression". The thing is, I do have depression, and even though I'm privileged enough to be on medication and go to therapy, sometimes even now when it gets really bad it can interfere with my schoolwork and productivity. Like, last semester my grades tanked, because my depression was so bad, and it didn't help that I wasn't on medication yet. In filling out my application, I was also thinking about how for any job/internship I've worked for since starting therapy, they've all had to allow for some flexibility around my therapy appointments (which I call "doctor's appointments" to employers).

I guess I never really thought about myself as having a disability, so I'm kinda worried that I might be too privileged or taking up space in an area I might not totally fit into, if that makes sense? Like, I'd want an employer to be understanding of my needs for days when my depression gets really bad and I can't function at my best, but I also don't want to take away from people who may have it worse than me regarding this illness. I guess I'm wondering: is it inappropriate for me to ID as someone with a disability on my application? Also, how common is it for jobs to discriminate based on disability?

Any and all answers would be greatly appreciated!

Edit: I just realized that this area is only for newbies! Sorry about that!! If anyone on the staff wants to move this thread somewhere else, that's totally fine.

I don't want to offer an opinion on whether you should tick that box on this form or any form, because that's a personal choice and also probably better informed by information specific to your country, field and other details. So, none of what I say is intended in that light!

On whether you may: yes, of course you may. You're not taking away anything from any other disabled person if you ID that way yourself. Whether the ID of disability "fits", or fits well, on mental illness - or on other long-term illness, for that matter - is a bit thornier, and again, pretty personal. However, when we're talking about necessary accommodations or about struggles to work within the able-bodied/well-world frameworks, when the choices are "disabled" or "non-disabled", I think picking the "disabled" choice is often the only way to get the necessary accommodations and protections; sometimes an individual person might feel like it doesn't fit them all that well, but it's still a better fit than "non-disabled", especially in some contexts. I'd say that's a problem with the binary "disabled or non-disabled" framework we have available to us, and it's not ok with me that individual people get disadvantaged by that. (It's always these bloomin binaries, isn't it...) You have a real thing which presents you real challenges, and within a broken system, I think you should get to do whatever you need to do to navigate as best you can.

This is a bit disability-politicy, but given how you think about and approach other things, I trust that's both ok with and makes sense to you! It's also, as again I think you'll understand, not About the politics, but about the realities of everyday life.

One of the problems of ableism is that we're almost never disabled "Enough". Society generally doesn't want us to be disabled; given half a chance, society tries to treat us as if we were non-disabled. We're not really "supposed" to be disabled, and so there's this teeny-tiny space in which to be disabled. That space isn't even really big enough for one person. Most of us have to keep "proving" that we're disabled "enough", and sometimes society grants us a tiny fraction of that space, trying to revoke it at every turn (ever come across the anger and suspicion when a deaf person has some hearing, or a blind person has some sight, or a wheelchair-user stands up, etc?). When one is disabled "enough", it's mostly because one is perceived as Very Very disabled, and then society in general seems to see that person as less human, and being less-than-human takes up less human-space.

I'm trying to say that the way things are set up, there's not "enough space" for any of us. That is not your fault, and it will never be your fault - or anyone's fault who is mildly disabled or sometimes-disabled or I-wouldn't-say-disabled-but-it's-the-best-imperfect-fit-right-now or anything else - whatever way works best for you to ID. It's not that there's a finite amount of care and resources available for disabled people, and therefore those things should go to the people who need them most. It's that every single one of us gets majorly short-changed, by design. If there were 3 disabled people in the entire world, those people would be short-changed. Because it's the prevailing mind-set and it's so very embedded, most disabled people often think and work within the "scarce resources" and "better to be non-disabled" frames, and do not claim the provisions and space that we genuinely, rightfully need. All that does is keep us from the best and fullest lives we could have. As I started with, I'm absolutely Not saying "ID as disabled!", because trying to tell someone else who they are or how to self-describe is pretty gross. I Am saying, please do and ID whatever works best for you to have the best and fullest life you can have; giving any of that up in deference to people who "have it worse" won't help other people and is just a myth that ableism spins us.

(...This rant was brought to you by a space-claiming, relatively privileged invisibly disabled person... )

I'll leave the question of job discrimination to people who have a better idea of the US context. As far as I know, it's illegal (beyond being able to actually do the job one is hired for), but of course sometimes it's different in practice because people find other "reasons" to pin it on, or sometimes it's things that can't be proved.

Hey Redskies! Thanks so much for your really informative and helpful response.

I totally forgot that my mom works in human resources for a company in the US. I asked her what the typical treatment is of people who make it known that they have a disability before they're hired, and she told me that even though legally a company can't turn you away for that -- and even though she'd like to say it doesn't make a difference in the hiring process, unfortunately (as you pointed out) they may find other "reasons" to turn away someone's application. But she did note that after people are hired, places like the company she works in tend to be willing to accommodate people if it's made known to them. So, I decided to check off the "choose not to answer" button, just because I didn't feel comfortable flat-out saying "no," but I also am slightly worried that a company as big as the one I'm applying to might find other "reasons"to turn away my application if they see pre-hire that I might need accommodations.

But your response really helped me come to terms with the fact that my depression does sometimes require accommodation, and that it'd be okay for me to ask for those of my employers if necessary. So, thanks so much for helping me think this through.

I'm glad it was helpful to you! You're welcome.

That's great that you had someone so accessible to you to ask about the job stuff! I'm really glad you were able to get such good feedback and to come to a conclusion that feels good to you. I'm sad but very unsurprised that the situation is as your mom says; I know that many people with disabilities (however they ID, or not) choose not to reveal them on applications or sometimes ever in the workplace because of difficulties with discrimination. I detest "reasons" so, so much.

I wish you the very best with your application!

By the by, if you haven't already, since you're here in the States, you might find it helpful to read an overview of the ADA and labor rights as they intersect: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/disability/ada.htm

I actually came up against this recently from the other angle: I was applying for a government job, and had been told by existing employees that they're very good about adjustments, which is great. But they also have a scheme under which if you're disabled and you meet the minimum criteria, you're guaranteed an interview. I had a very similar thought process - I'm privileged, my disability is mostly under control right now, and I don't need any adjustments at present. So I felt like if I ticked the box, I'd be taking advantage of the system to get an interview, and I thought the interviewers might be pretty unimpressed if I showed up and said "I know I got this guaranteed interview because of disability, but"... so I didn't tick the box. Redskies' comment about a disability binary really struck a chord for me on that one.