AITA for using my special needs priviledges?
A year ago, a university expanded its special needs program to include psychological conditions, opening a door of hope for those silently struggling.
Among them was a student battling severe anxiety and clinical depression, seeking not just accommodation but understanding and a chance to navigate academia without being overwhelmed by invisible chains.
Yet, even as the student gained rightful access to support—extra time on exams, lecture recordings, and compassionate flexibility—their struggle deepened.
Friends, once allies, questioned the legitimacy of their needs, casting doubt and judgment, turning personal triumph into a battleground of stigma and misunderstanding.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Get the latest stories delivered to your inbox.
The original poster (OP) is experiencing significant internal conflict after being accepted into a university support program for mental health challenges.
While the accommodations provided tangible benefits for their severe anxiety and depression, friends have accused the OP of being selfish and undeserving because their condition is currently managed, creating a direct clash between their personal need for support and perceived external obligations or fairness standards.
Given that the accommodations were formally granted based on a verified diagnosis, is the OP ethically obligated to relinquish their benefits because their symptoms are currently less severe than they once were, or does their medical status alone justify their continued participation?
The Comments Section Came Alive:
The internet jumped in fast, delivering everything from kind advice to cold truth. It’s a mix of empathy, outrage, and no-nonsense takes.