Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy is intervention here "helicoptering?" Or not?

Wasn't sure how to categorize this. It's kind of a 2e issue, and kind of an advocacy one, and KIND OF a high-school + asynchrony one.

Here's the scenario. (I'm going to request that people not QUOTE directly from this post, because some of it is quite identifying, and I'll edit those elements later, though they are relevant information in terms of advice.)

DD13 has applied to a regional science internship program for the summer. She is a VERY strong applicant (estimating among the top 5% among applicants), and her essays/transcripts/etc. all favor her. Odds probably about 70-80%. But these are SUPER-competitive. There are 5-10X as many applicants as positions.

The problem is that she was encouraged to add "personal touches" to her essay-- so she did, in the process noting her ability to creatively work around natural barriers/limitations by thinking outside the box. She mentioned that her drive for community service led her to start her own business (in order to profit-share with a local NPO) when she was just ten-- because her allergies and age made it nearly impossible to find other volunteer opportunities that were safe and open to her.

Fine, right?

Well, here's where it gets weird. She has NOT asked for any accommodations from the program, has not officially even TOLD them that she has a disability. She's just been selective about her 'interest' in various positions.

Someone from the program CALLED HER TO ASK ABOUT THAT ESSAY.

DD13, being somewhat wet behind the ears.... ANSWERED the questions asking for more specifics.

I'm well aware that the correct thing would have been to pleasantly stonewall with "It seems more appropriate to discuss this AFTER I'm selected for a position."


Okay. What do I do, here? The person she spoke with was fairly open about the fact that she was "making notes" for DD's application file. What those notes are labeled, and who SEES them... that I do not know. DD didn't understand that it might be relevant to ASK, either... (in which instance, I think that she is probably not at all "immature" relative to other high school or for that matter, college, students)

DD is 13. She is not yet independently managing her disability, but I don't want to undermine her, either. She felt GOOD about this phone conversation... and feeling confident about those decisions is a HUGE part of our transition plan for her to manage her disability on her own.

on the other hand, it's totally illegal that they asked in the first place, since SHE was not asking for accommodations of any kind, and it PROBABLY torpedoes any shot she has of being interviewed, if the mentors can "see" that she is a "problem" applicant.



I could call and let them know that this was not an okay thing to be doing from an ADA standpoint-- and I probably should in point of fact do just that. The question is one of timing.

If I call, do I label DD a "helicoptered" kid? Will THAT count against her??

If I call, do I let DD know why??


ACK!! She really wants one of these internships, and because of age/acceleration, she will only be eligible this one summer. She will be 14, which had already limited which ones she could apply for.

Oh-- I do have a reason for one of us to contact the program anyway, since we will be out of phone contact for a couple of weeks, and many mentors prefer to phone interview.

This has really been eating at me. Thoughts?

I'm confused.

It seems perfectly reasonable to call an applicant to talk; phone screens are standard practice in most hiring situations.

Did the person who called start asking questions about disabilities?

Right, the person was asking about specifics pertaining to my child's disabling condition... but this wasn't a "screening" call, it was a call specifically TO ask about that condition.

So if an applicant made the statement that:

my mobility limitations have at times forced me to be creative in approaching...

It still wouldn't be appropriate for someone in the program office to call up the applicant about that line in the essay and ask "so tell me what this means. Are you in a wheelchair? Can you work in a building without an elevator?"

So it's clearly illegal. I'm not sure that they KNOW that what they did is illegal, though-- because while mobility impairments are clearly in the category of "disability" to most people, hidden things like diabetes, seizure disorders, etc. really don't register as "disability" in the same way. KWIM?

I know that they didn't do this with any kind of nefarious intent. But it's still discriminatory.

Two things at work here, and they are partly at cross-purposes:

a) this isn't about "how dare you do this to MY KID" or anything-- for me, it's about the larger advocacy bit... More like "look, this isn't an inclusive practice, and you should be more mindful about it"

b) ADA exists to provide a more "level" playing field. Not just for those who know to work the system in that context. So life lesson or not, (no offense, MoN) I think that my kid and anyone else with a disability gets plenty of practice with "the rules are different for people like you" and at some point, all that additional such life lessons provide is a crushing pressure to submit to becoming defeatist and bitter.

If I wait to say something, my message on both parts a and b will be diluted by "digruntled helicopter parent is mad that her special snowflake got passed over."

BUT... if I mention it NOW, then I'm "that woman" and I've also undermined my DD's confidence in her own competence to act as her own advocate. The latter matters far more to me than the former, incidentally.

How did they even know about it if your DD didn't mention her disability in her application?

Ahhh-- the essay. Because she made a (fairly vague) statement.

my mobility limitations have at times forced me to be creative in approaching...

Much like the mobility example in my statement above. But I know from my own experience in higher ed that there are REALLY strict rules about what one can ask and what one can't.

I am confused too. How did they figure out she had a disability? If I am reading right, I don't think others would view allergies as a disability and protected under the ADA even though they are protected. And I am not sure people even view allergies as a disability.

I don't think they had negative intent here. I think that if you call them on it, it might make you look like a helicopter parent and "that woman" either before or after you find out about the internship. I think you would appear like "how dare you do this to my kid" no matter how you approach it.

Okay. I understand now.

I would NOT call them. I would write them a letter. But I'm not sure when I'd do it.

The thing is that the woman who called has put everyone into a very difficult situation. Maybe she was calling because they want to accept your DD and she was trying to find ways to accommodate her...but she should have avoided those questions until after the acceptance letter had been sent. D-oh!

If they reject your DD, it is reasonable to suspect that the rejection may be related to the disability. I would definitely write a pointed letter describing this woman's questions and her notes at that point.

Two possibilities:

1. Call a lawyer and ask for advice. You can usually get a free 30-minute consult. I'm not suggesting this because I think you should threaten to sue them. It's merely an exercise at gathering information.

2. Call them and ask. Be anonymous if you want. Be sure you talk to someone high up in their hierarchy.

Oh, I don't think that they had negative intent, either. But it wasn't an okay thing to have done.


Much along the lines of "Hey-- I couldn't help but notice your insulin pump when you dropped off your application the other day..."


Not all allergies do rise to the level of disabling. Agreed. But that didn't seem to be the nature of the conversation-- which would have been a different series of questions. That, I wouldn't have a problem with. That's "You mention a mobility challenge in your essay. Would it be okay with you if I note that you have a disability which impairs your mobility?" Their application process doesn't really include any means of telling them about a disability.

If it did, then that is completely above board, and there are clear rules about how that cannot be used as a disqualifying criterion for positions in which it isn't an issue. It's when it ISN'T openly acknowledged that it becomes a problem in selection criteria. But it needs to be noted as "this is disability-related information," or it can.

I think that at the very least, I need to find out WHAT got recorded, and who is privy to the information. DD's youth actually means that she isn't entirely able to waive her rights even if she wanted to. <>

HK, I think you may be suffering under a bit of a misapprehension about the law in this case. At least if your DD was an adult, it would not be illegal to ask questions about a disability, no matter how many times HR departments have told you that it is (and I'm sure they have). What is illegal is to base a hiring decision on the information. HR departments tell you (quite forcefully) not to ask because they don't want to be put in a position of having to show that "yes, we knew that, but we didn't use the information in rejecting her." Now, I am not 100% certain how her age plays into this with the decision to disclose the information. I can agree that it was inappropriate to call and ask her directly, but I think you've gone way too far down the "infer evil intent, or at least evil results" path. I would wait and see what they do. They may intentionally offer her an "ideal" internship that is fully compatible with her disability, because of the conversation. Or they may realize that they goofed and ignore the information. Or they may do just what you fear and reject her. But I don't think you can know which it will be nearly as well as you seem to think that you can.

If she doesn't get in, you can probably privately contact the woman who called you and search for information on what was asked and how it was used. (You already know that she asks questions when she shouldn't - maybe she'll answer them when she shouldn't, too!) You can talk to your DD then about why it was inappropriate to give the information when asked, instead of a pleasant put-off. If you'd like, I can go dig into my employment law notes and find some cases that might make interesting reading for her. But honestly, if you go in guns blazing now, I think that would be more likely to torpedo her chances of getting an internship than anything that has happened to date.

Yeah-- I definitely get that.

I'm still not sure that anyone associated IS clear on the fact that she's technically a QID.

So they may well base selection off of the information and not even understand that it SHOULD NOT be used that way.

The reason why I wonder if it is worth bringing up is that there is a central clearinghouse which acts as a go-between between applicants and those who will interview/hire. The go-between level is where the questions were coming from.

So there is still a chance (potentially-- not sure?) that the information has not yet gone to the hiring/interviewing personnel. If it does, then "disability" needs to be attached to that information, IMO. If it doesn't, then it's all fine either way.

Doesn't really sound like there is any good way of bringing it up, though. I'm with Val here-- that phone call really places everyone involved into an awkward situation.

You are between a rock and a hard place - and there is an upside and downside to choosing to speak up now or later. Really feel for you in this one.

If it were me, I'd probably call the group, let them know your child told you about the phone call and ask to speak who called your child. I'd approach it as helpful - is there any more info you needed, etc., all the while sowing the seeds of things like, " while I'm sure disabilities would never be part of the determining factors in your selection, I do very much appreciate your proactive approach to determining the needs for accomodations, but rest assured .... "

ABQmom, that's what I'm thinking, too-- and I can in fact make that phone call fairly casual because I have another handy excuse for calling.

If I involve a lawyer, then they'll hunker down and go all defensive/CYA. That's why I really don't want to come across as "aggressive" over this. BTDT.

HK, I agree with ABQMom that the strongest messaging I would pursue at this point would be inquisitive and cautionary. The agency may well be interested in your daughter and be verifying facts/doing due diligence. I agree that the particular line of questioning used would be questionable in any hiring setting, and disentangling discrimination from legitimate interest is difficult, if not impossible, when such questions are asked.

Some agencies have an ethics ombudsman. If this one does, you might wish to go on record and file a notice of the call. You're in a tough asymmetric information position, but I think going strongly on the offensive at this point would cause more damage than good.

I would definitely take this as an opportunity to educate your daughter on the perception of disabilities. It's unfair that this is the case, but I think your daughter would have been in a less risky position if she provided a more general explanation for her business without referencing disabilities, with further elaboration as needed for accommodations after hiring decisions were made. We live in an unfair world, and I would much rather see your daughter get the job AND have the opportunity to advocate change.

Just my $0.02.

I'd add that to the letter if you write one: I don't want to be writing to anyone about this problem, yet I feel as though this person's actions have left me with no choice.

Okay-- in talking with DD about this phone call in a more inquisitorial fashion, several things have emerged.

1. She's pretty sure that the person she spoke with never gave her a name. Only identified themselves as "with {program}."

2. Definitely took notes "to pass along to mentors."

That means that unless they flag those notes as "disability" then they WILL be used as selection criteria.

DD feels awful; like an ignorant little kid, in spite of me pointing out that I've seen ADULTS get themselves into this kind of situation, too, and that as soon as she explained severity, the term "disability" should have come up-- and it very definitely did not, which was not her fault at all.

It's not realistic to expect our 2e kids to be able to advocate for themselves as if they were us (that is, experienced, savvy adults). I'm annoyed that my DD13 was placed into a position for that to have been required of her. Frankly, this is a challenging scenario even for a pretty clever parent advocate to negotiate well.

I'll also add, here, that my DD has no real need for us to educate her about how others see her in the context of her disability. Unfortunately, she's had ample life experience there.

DD knew as soon as I said "I'd like to ask you about that phone call" what the implications were.

She put her head down and said "I'm so stupid. I shouldn't have answered some of her questions, should I? She sounded so helpful, though-- and I didn't want to seem rude."

I cleared my strategy with her-- that is, call the program office re: this other little thing that we need to let them know about, and then ask some questions about this earlier phone call... like WHO made the call, wow, how nice that they are so concerned... would it be helpful for them to have some of the accommodation information contained in her 504 plan...

just want to make sure that this information isn't going to be used as part of selection criteria...

I don't envy the position you and DD have been put in. You're right that most adults wouldn't know how to navigate such questions.

Knowing that a contractor did this changes my opinion on what you should do here.

As you noted, the questions were illegal under federal law. As I see it, there are two main problems here:

1. Your DD may be affected negatively because the contractor broke the law.

2. Others may also be harmed. The contractor organization may have already fished for this information with other people.

Personally, I think you need to decide on a course of action and act on it. I recommend writing to the organization sponsoring the internships, with a CC to the University. Ignore the contractor people this woman works for. Let them find out about it when they get unhappy phone calls or emails from whoever pays them.

If I was writing the letter and if this situation is as egregious as it sounds (I don't know all the details...), I'd be firm and not at all apologetic. I would bluntly inform them that their contractor had broken the law (cite it; chapter and verse; cite specific questions your daughter was asked and state that answers were written down. Detail is key here.). Ask if they sanction the contractor's actions and if this is a general approach to hiring. Tell them you expect to be told what they plan to do about it.

I understand that you don't want to be seen as a helicopter parent, but you aren't being a helicopter parent. Someone broke the law (by apparently exploiting the naivté of a child) and you are right to question it. You are probably not the only person who's been affected by this.

This approach puts 100% of the blame on someone else and will therefore be more likely to be resolved quickly in your favor.

We have not been through a similar situation yet, but my son wants to know more about what he should say regarding his disability when he applies for jobs in the future. We are wondering how much ADA would really help him avoid discrimination and if it would be best to hide the fact that he has a disability. I thought I could wait a while before looking for answers to his questions about this but your story made me realize that we can't. He needs to know how to handle situations like this now.

HK, this is a *really* tough situation to be put in - honestly, no matter what the call had been about, I would have been annoyed at best if a call had been made to my 13-year-old without my knowing about it. My own 13 year old recently had an *email* inquiry re a detail on a summer camp application - but I was cc'd as his parent and I would expect, at 13, to be still in the loop re this type of communication.

I honestly don't know what I'd do in this situation, but I agree with Val that a letter to the organization actually running the camp is the right thing to do.


qxp, as the parent of a child with life-threatening allergies, unfortunately my past experiences supporting my child would lead me to react and suspect in exactly the same way HK has. It's true - many people do not view allergies as either a disability, or more seriously, many people do not really understand that they are real and people can become seriously ill and possibly die from them. I'll be honest, it's just been my experience that when questions like this come back, chances are good the intent *is* to deny admission, or at the very least make sure that the organization hiring feels comfortable that they wouldn't be putting either the child or themselves at risk if she attends.

I apologize for being a bit jaded on this, but I've heard some things said by other parents and by people in charge of children's programs that I think would make most parents of kids who don't have medical challenges get absolutely *riled* about if they ever personally experienced it. It's not fair at all, but it is something that exists out there. My dd11, like HK's daughter, has also been exposed to things like this and is very aware not all adults take allergies seriously or want to make simple accommodations or want to deal with having a child with allergies participate.

HK, good luck to your dd - I hope she is accepted into the program!

polarbear

On the advocacy side of things--

I'm probably hesitant to use the full-Monty approach for two reasons:

1) I've gone this route before, and the guns blazing approach always seems to burn bridges. The bottom line is that I do still want DD to have this chance, because it's one of the few things she has ever wanted enough to truly reach for it. We went the "guns blazing" route once before with something like that (where food SHOULDN'T have been an issue), and sadly, food allergy IS still a second-class disability in legal terms. We got shut down by a national organization's legal team who instructed everyone in the organization to never communicate with us in writing again... after they passed around my child's private medical information. (really not kidding-- that experience was so unbelievably evil that I can hardly think of it without shaking) Even with awesome documentation of discriminatory conduct, one cannot win. Well, you can. It's just that most people don't, OSEP/DOJ advisory letters aside. DOJ was highly sympathetic to us, but their hands were (mostly) tied. We opted NOT to go public, which was our only real other option.

2) My experience has led me to believe that academics in particular tend to require Kaa (Jungle Book) handling. By that I mean, let them think whatever they like, and suggest that THEY check the legalities of it once they paint themselves into a corner. They won't be budged if YOU do it, but if THEY take the initiative, and their own legal team tells them to stand down, they do. Plus, it doesn't burn bridges. It makes them take you more seriously in the future, too, without turning you into an "adversary."

If I thought for one instant that there was actual ill-intent involved, I would definitely be in there making trouble. Actively. I have done that. This doesn't feel like that kind of situation to me. I can't really explain it more than that. These are basically dedicated and decent people running a program that helps kids, and doing it short-staffed and on a shoestring budget in a state that has pretty much NOTHING to offer those kids within public schools.


But-- they need a lot of guidance before they can see outside of the box. And being engineers, it matters where the guidance comes from. Proper channels and all. This is how we eventually got such great results with the (twin organization director) before. When {director} tried to throw us under the bus, (seeing only liability and trouble), I fired back with "Really? How interesting. You should really go CHECK ON THAT." After a quick check with the disability office on campus, {director} came back with everything we'd been begging for and several things we hadn't. And an apology.

Similarly here. I know what their institutional legal counsel in the disability office will tell them. They don't know (obviously!), but it's probably who they need to hear it from. If THEY ask, they'll be perfectly willing to work with us in the future... but if we do (and they get TOLD before asking) then they'll hate us for "tattling" on them. KWIM?

Sadly, we do need goodwill. Nature of this particular beast.

I'm reminded of the line in "Recount" re: Even when you win, you still lose. I've been there, done that with advocacy before. I hate this kind of situation-- it's what makes a disability truly limiting. You can get used to the lifestyle modifications just fine. It's the perception biases of others that wind up being the problem.

If this is an organisation that will have a disability office, an option would be to call that, and ask them to handle it. [ETA: e.g., by them calling whoever's in charge of selection and reminding them that it would be illegal to base selection decisions on disabilities, and offering to give advice on what constitutes a disability, without mentioning any particular candidate's name, for example!]

I like ABQMom's approach. My immediate reaction is to guess that you're being far too negative and to doubt that this information will count against your DD at all - but I realise you may be n times burned, n+1 times shy and moreover, right. What is certainly true is that if they weren't going to use the information against your DD, you suggesting that they were is definitely going to put their backs up, which you don't want!

Another option would be to have ready a letter/email to send back by return if they do reject her, saying essentially, "It's so unfortunate that you asked these questions, because now it's so difficult for us to feel really comfortable that you rejected DD because there were better candidates and not because of her disability. To make sure that noone else ever feels this way, can you confirm that you'll change your procedures so as not to ask such questions?". And then wait...

I really appreciate everyone's thoughtful answers to this quandary.

It's really helping me to see outside of my own box. Polarbear and I both probably are fairly cynical, but when even friends and family tend to think of you as histrionic pains in the backside, and make no secret about sneering at you or excluding you... you don't need too many instances of getting applications "lost" or "waitlisted" before you figure out what is actually going on.

My favorite is the bait-and-switch. "Oh, well, we don't have that opening anymore" (the one that we told you not to worry about when we offered you a slot BEFORE we found out about your little problems...)

So yes, I'm probably highly sensitized to this kind of discriminatory conduct at this point. It's all about "don't go away mad-- but DO go away..."

The thing is, I was really hoping that DD could apply to this program purely on merit, without the taint that the PP mentions, because (having been hired because of my gender, or at least potentially so) it REALLY sucks to be that person who wasn't good enough without being the "token" (protected group member).

So emotionally, I'm kind of mad over THAT aspect of it, too.

That is such a healthy way of viewing this, Moomin.

That's how I've always tried to approach things, as well. It does take a certain maturity, though, not to go overboard into OCD-style perfectionism. I do worry about that some with my DD. She really does feel a need to be "perfect" to "make up for" the inconvenience of... well, being included like her peers.

Good news: DD forwarded me the e-mail that she got last week from the program office, and they are forwarding applications to mentors at the end of NEXT week, so no mentors will have seen the notes on her file-- yet.

I'm waiting for a call back.


ETA: Program coordinator wasn't really clear WHY I was objecting to this particular set of notes being included in DD's application, but I gently explained that many faculty will not be aware that life-threatening food allergy is covered by ADA/ADAA, and therefore having it gone would be best. It's a conversation that can be had in the event of an offer, but not appropriate as a selection criterion-- we wouldn't want there to be any QUESTIONS about whether or not it had been (illegally) used that way. With a mobility impairment, it would be far more obvious that such a thing would be strictly verboten. But that with a hidden and poorly understood disability like this, it's better to not have it out there to begin with.

*poof* the note is gone. I also seeded her head with why asking about "conditions" in the preliminary application may open them up here... but I don't think she was "getting it" very well there.

I'll probably return to the issue with them at some point, suggesting that they should make sure that this is compliant.

In our area, allergies, no matter how severe, have been officially and specifically exempted from disability status. It's a big problem, especially when people with very severe allergies are trying to claim expenses on their taxes... and there's a big push to get it changed.

Not that this really helps you any in the situation, but maybe contributes something to the question of whether allergies are thought of as disabling or not...

http://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/?p=58
The Office of Civil Rights, a division of the Department of Justice, has ruled that a history of anaphylaxis is a disability for purposes of having a disability protected by Civil Rights law. The wrightslaw link provides the information. OCR also has an memorandum on "hidden disabilities," in which it specifically uses life-threatening food allergies as an example. If you are in the US, a city, district, or state cannot define disability to exclude children with anaphylaxis/life-threatening food allergy.

I would probably wait with contacting them until after you know if she got in or not. I wouldn't want to look like a difficult parent that caused my daughter to lose the spot by contacting them too early.

But I have another question ... Since she is only 13, is it even ok for them to contact her and interview her like this without her parents' consent???

(we are not in the US)

Well, for whatever it's worth, I've encountered quite a number of people who openly sneered at the notion that even someone as profoundly impacted as my DD is "disabled" in any way.

The problem is that they have to WANT to do the right thing, and they have to be open to hearing it from a parent, and then maybe they can 'hear' that food anaphylaxis (or diabetes, or severe asthma, or a cardiac condition, or a seizure disorder, etc. etc.) is "really" a disability and requires them to make reasonable (or otherwise, in the event of K-12 ed) accommodations.

I don't predict that the program office will "get" that without going through the uni disability office, but there is NO WAY that the forms they have kids fill out are compliant, because the general rule (in my own experience) has been that you NEVER want the person making the hiring decisions to be aware of those things if it isn't a necessity during the interview/selection process. This isn't a situation where it IS necessary, and if the information is there, wow... how unfortunate that they are opening that door. Good thing that we aren't at all the kind of people to exploit that kind of loophole legally-- but they can bet that someone will eventually.

That's actually an honest appraisal of the practice, by the way. I am sort of like Don Quixote for this sort of thing at this point in my life. Because I know that for every applicant like my DD, there is only one parent like ME for about every 20 of those kids. Most parents just don't try to fight the system, even when it's wrong. I believe in paying it forward as a part of advocacy, though.