← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

Masking is survival, not success

If they say: We just don’t see your child struggling the way you're saying at school.

Say: I’m glad they feel safe enough to hold it together here, but masking distress is an exhausting strategy. It’s still our shared responsibility to accommodate their full profile of needs.

Legal grounding: This response affirms the duty to accommodate based on observed or reported need, not only visible behaviour, which aligns with BC Human Rights Tribunal principles.

This entry draws from Part 3: Duty to Accommodate – Meaningful Inquiry by Kim Block, which underscores the legal duty of schools to inquire into disability-related harm—even when that harm is hidden. Many students, especially autistic, ADHD, or otherwise neurodivergent girls and gender-diverse children, mask their distress to survive the school day. That composure should not be mistaken for thriving.

Key takeaways

Holding it together is a warning sign, not a green light
Students who mask often do so at great personal cost. Emotional collapse after school, withdrawal, and exhaustion are all valid indicators of distress—even if none of it happens in the classroom.
Invisibility does not erase obligation
The Human Rights Code protects against disability-related harm whether or not the harm is visible to staff. Schools have a legal duty to respond to reported distress, even when the student appears “fine.”
Equity includes students who internalise
Just because a student isn’t acting out doesn’t mean their needs are being met. Subtle suffering is still suffering—and it deserves meaningful, proactive accommodation.