Commitments to workplace inclusion are aspirational only without this change

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

“We celebrate and are committed to the principles of diversity and inclusion,” said a job advertisement for a position as a judicial law clerk with the Minnesota Court of Appeals posted on the Minnesota Judicial Branch’s website.

As someone with autism, I was inclined to interpret this statement literally.

However, after my experience of applying to different positions with the Minnesota Judicial Branch over the past year, I no longer take it at face value.

At the moment, it’s a statement of aspiration rather than a description of concrete reality.

Three months after being hired as a judicial law clerk for a Minnesota district judge in early 2023, I was diagnosed with autism. Less than a year later, I had left my job — even though I was well compensated.

After a couple months of critical reflection, I started applying to jobs with the Minnesota Judicial Branch — mainly for judicial law clerkship positions with Minnesota district judges.

However, compared to when I had started applying to judicial law clerk positions with the Minnesota Judicial Branch in late 2022 — prior to my autism diagnosis — the first thing I noticed when searching for these same positions in 2024 was a substantial reduction in how many of the job advertisements for them explicitly stated that the position was eligible for either a hybrid or completely remote work environment.

In my own experience, which is informed by how my autism affects me on a daily basis, I perform employment tasks better in a hybrid or remote work environment. It’s not that I can’t work in person, but doing so all the time is not best for my employer — let alone me — in the long run.

The substantial reduction in how many of these judicial clerkship positions are advertised as eligible for either a hybrid or completely remote work environment has the effect of keeping many qualified applicants who are neurodivergent — including applicants with autism — from applying to these judicial law clerk positions in the first place.

Unfortunately, even when the job advertisements for these judicial law clerk positions explicitly state that the positions are eligible for either a hybrid or completely remote work environment, that does not always end up being the case.

In those moments, I not only felt misled by the job advertisements for these judicial law clerk positions with the Minnesota Judicial Branch, I began to seriously question the Minnesota Judicial Branch’s professed commitment to fostering an inclusive work environment.

Now, as we begin a new calendar year, I urge the Minnesota Judicial Branch to recommit itself to ensuring that it has an inclusive hiring and interview process for all of its applicants, along with creating an inclusive work environment for all of its employees — including those who are neurodivergent. And every judge in the Minnesota state court system should ask themselves: “As a judge, what concrete actions am I taking to make the Minnesota judiciary — including my own chambers — a more inclusive workplace for those who are neurodivergent?”

Otherwise, the many qualified applicants who are neurodivergent — including applicants like myself who have autism — will never get the fair chance they deserve to share their skills and talents with the Minnesota Judicial Branch.