Secondly, but perhaps more important, I see companies that solely hire the autistic more as taking advantage than as providing assistance.
Also calling people 'autistic' and later calling people with autism 'it' as in 'try to injure itself' is a really shitty way to talk about human beings. Check yourself.
mamcx is not a native English speaker and was perhaps trying to use "it" as a gender-inspecific pronoun rather than intentionally portraying people on the autistic spectrum as "objects" or "inhuman."
I think most people will tend to use a plural (they, them) in this kind of situation. People who are pickier about grammar will probably say "he or she" or "him or her."
People-first: http://www.asha.org/publications/journals/submissions/person... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language
Identity-first: http://www.xojane.com/issues/i-am-not-a-person-with-a-disabi... and http://cheshirekit.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/the-social-model...
Perhaps, but this only works in a world in which our evaluation criteria and processes are sophisticated and mature enough to be fair to all applicants. The article illustrates a few reasons this is not the case (such as expecting candidates to look you in the eye when talking to you).
Interviewers (and systems/processes) have biases - the first step to eliminating those subtle (or sometimes not-so-subtle) biases is to be aware of them and actively work to eliminating those biases, not pretending that being {race,gender,disability,etc.}-'blind' is the same as being 'neutral' and therefore unbiased.
> Secondly, but perhaps more important, I see companies that solely hire the autistic more as taking advantage than as providing assistance.
This may be true; I'm not familiar enough with programs such as the one mentioned in the article.
That problem is that "fair" is a subjective notion. Most people value being fair, but they will disagree on which decisions are fair.