Disability in Academia: Ascending the Steep Steps

Why is there silence around disability in academia?

On March 12, 1990, 60 people discarded their assistive devices and crawled up the Capitol steps in what is known as the “Capitol Crawl” to demand that Congress pass disability rights legislation

People with disabilities have traditionally been the object of study in academia rather than the students or teachers. This inaccessibility has been described by Dolmage’s book Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education as ascending the “steep steps”. At the top of these “steep steps” there is an “ivory tower” where the ideals, standards, or identity of the university is placed. These steps are so “steep” that few can ascend. During most of the 20^th century, American colleges and universities made minimal efforts for the accommodation and inclusion of those with disabilities.

Such attitudes were reinforced by entrance exams, and compulsory medical or physical fitness examinations. Thus, those that do not fit these narrow requirements of mental and physical ability were excluded. Even campus layouts and buildings were designed to be physically imposing, with many stairs. This hierarchy creates minimal incentive for academics to fight for those who were excluded.

Eventually, disability scholarship and activism exposed the deep, influential reach of ableism in education. The first advocacy group to fight ableism in postsecondary education was established at the University of California, Berkeley in 1970 (Berkeley Disabled Students Program 2021). Between 1970-1990, before he Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed, programs, committees, boycotts, and civil disobedience combatted ableism in education (Dolmage 2017).

Also known as the “social model” of disability, there was a focus on anti-discrimination legislation, barrier removal, independent living, and other ways to respond to social oppression. The social model was a direct counter to the so-called “medical model” of disability, which focuses on medical prevention, cure, or rehabilitation of impairment (Shakespeare 2006). The “medical model” overlooks people with disabilities as a sociopolitical group with a history of discrimination, thereby enforcing negative stereotypes about disability. This is particularly enforced in STEM fields with an emphasis on biomedical research.

Feminist disability studies scholarship

Berkely disability rights protests.

Recently, feminist disability studies scholarship has taken a more intersectional approach to disability. Feminist disability studies can examine and critique the construction and inflections of how gender, race, ethnicity, ability, sexuality and class interact with each other. The term “feminist disability studies” was coined by Garland-Thomson in her work “Redrawing the Boundaries of Feminist Disability Studies”. Garland-Thomson attributes such exclusion to a cultural history and system that stigmatizes certain kinds of bodily variations. In later work, Garland-Thomson writes that issues such as forced sterilization, assisted suicide, selective abortion, institutionalization, prenatal engineering, genetic testing, and segregation polices are enacted to eradicate those with disabilities (Garland-Thomson 2002).

Feminist-of-color disability studies links ableism to intersecting systems such as heteropatriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalist violence. Schalk and Kim (2020) argue that disability studies should highlight the

“ideological and rhetorical deployment of ableism within legacies of eugenics, colonialism/neocolonialism, counterterrorism, welfare reform, war, urban redevelopment, and other oppressive practices that divert life-sustaining resources from populations of color” (38).

They explain how nationalist discourses of disability shaped U.S. immigration laws, including the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1882 Act to Regulate Immigration, and how ableism gave traction to anti-welfare policies. They also cite environmental racism, like uranium mines near communities of color, disproportionately harming residents’ health. Bailey and Mobley in “Work in the Intersections: A Black Feminist Disability Framework” note that African American children are more likely to be segregated into special education and face barriers to medical care or trauma from the medical system. Feminist-of-color disability studies has significant potential to influence contemporary science and technology studies.

The ADA’s passage in 1990 was a landmark victory, yet it did not transform academia. The institutions largely determine what counts as “reasonable accommodations,” placing the burden on students to document disabilities. Additionally, there are limits to damages paid by ADA lawsuits (EEOC 2021) which can make it financially difficult for people to persist in lawsuits. Furthermore, disability accommodations are threatened by the modern “corporate university” with its emphasis on costs savings and managerial rhetoric which often positions disability as a drain or a threat.

Even inclusive educational strategies such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can become compromised by neoliberalism. UDL is a teaching philosophy that advocates for multiple and flexible strategies for engaging students, delivering content, and having students to express themselves. However, Dolmage argues that at the modern neoliberal university, UDL can lose its effectiveness, and just become a way to make promises that are not followed up on.

The progress for academics with disabilities has been slow, and few are likely to ascend the steep steps to the faculty level, let alone to administration. In the 1980s, the “first generation” of students with disabilities began entering college in significant numbers due to legislation that required colleges to make reasonable accommodations for students (Vogel 1982). By 1994, 6% of enrolled postsecondary undergraduates had disabilities, and these students were more likely to be enrolled in a two-year institution than a four-year institution. Students with disabilities were less likely to graduate and those that did, were more likely to be unemployed. Students with disabilities were more likely to be older, white males (Horn, Berktold, and Bobbitt 1999).

By the 21 Century:

• By 2015-2016, about 19.4% of undergraduates in the U.S. reported a disability (NCES 2021)

• Fewer than 2% of doctorate recipients from 1993–1999 reported having a disability (Thurgood, Golladay, and Hill 2006). By 2019, this figure had risen to 9.1%, with engineering showing the lowest rate at 7.1% (NCSES 2021).

• Only about 10.5% of the doctoral academic workforce reported having a disability (NCSES 2021, 48), markedly lower than the 26% of U.S. adults estimated to have a disability (CDC 2020).

Academia can play a crucial role in cultural perceptions of disabilities. While academia can be an area where disability scholarship is conducted and published, it can also be an area in which new science and technologies for treating disabilities is conducted. It is also the training ground for future scientists and policy makers. Given academia’s mixed record with disability acceptance, research, and rhetoric, there are major issues to confront.

Disclosure in Academia

Appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities may not be easy to obtain. Though the provision of reasonable accommodations is legally mandated by the ADA, university instructors or administrators sometimes display a resistant attitude towards actually providing them (B. G. Cook, Gerber, and Murphy 2000).

Students are typically not given the full range of accommodations available, but are instead, matched to an accommodation based on what the officials think is best, with the expectation that they will be grateful whether the accommodation is useful to them or not (Dolmage 2017; Restle 1995).

Dolmage notes that accommodations, such as wheelchair ramps, often reveal that accessibility was not considered in the original design and may serve more to protect institutions legally than to ensure real access. Students with less visible disabilities may face additional hurdles to prove their needs (Kundrat & Nussbaum 2003). Power imbalances between students and instructors can discourage challenges to inadequate accommodations, as students fear making a poor impression (Dolmage 2017). Minimal efforts like these fail to address broader structural barriers.

Media, university officials, and peers may view accommodations with suspicion, perceiving that students are abusing privileges, gaining unfair advantages, or being shielded from the demands of the “real world” (B. G. Cook, Gerber, & Murphy 2000,). This resistant attitude is consistent with the philosophy of the corporate university, that looks to assign value to every transaction.

Trigger warnings (notes preceding potentially upsetting content) have become highly politicized. Carter (2015) argues that opposition to trigger warnings reflects a refusal to acknowledge trauma-based learning. Traumatic experiences are often rooted in power and oppression, yet individuals with trauma must navigate environments shaped by those without such experiences. Requests for trigger warnings are, fundamentally, students asking to be recognized as full persons. Resistance aligns with the corporate university’s ethos, which seeks to assign value to every interaction.

Colleges often provide inadequate professional development for students with disabilities. They may miss out on career exploration opportunities—undergraduate research, internships, extracurriculars, externships—and graduate without full awareness of assistive technologies (Lillywhite & Wolbring 2019). Rumrill et al. (1999) found that while students used some accommodations and technologies, universities frequently failed to provide helpful supports such as tutoring, proofreading, trained personal assistants, visual aids, or notetakers. Job placement assistance, information about technology, and accommodations were often insufficient.

STEM Students

Students with disabilities face unique challenges in completing STEM majors. While they enter STEM fields at rates comparable to their population representation (Lee 2011), they are less likely to graduate, enter the STEM workforce, or pursue graduate school (Thurston, Shuman, & Johnson 2017).

Designing Accessible Laboratory Spaces for People with Disabilities

Laboratory work, often central to STEM courses and research, often poses significant accessibility barriers. Lillywhite and Wolbring (2019) revealed that students with disabilities were underrepresented in undergraduate research despite its clear benefits for career development and program success. Yet discourse tends to center on classroom rather than lab accessibility. This gap reflects faculty and staff attitudes: a 2017 NSF Research in Disabilities Education study found that many faculty and staff doubted the capacity of students with disabilities to conduct STEM work, leading to limited resources and poor implementation of existing accommodations (Thurston, Shuman, and Johnson 2017).

A survey of 245 faculty at a south central land-grant university revealed some dismissive responses by faculty towards students with disabilities (Rao et al. 2003). Some comments were “All depends upon proven need” (51) and “It is unfair if students with disabilities have to master material at 50% of the required level to get the same grade” (51). Even though 93% of faculty were willing to provide extra time on tests, they often mentioned that it would not prepare students for the “real world” (52). College of Engineering faculty indicated that they would be less likely to accommodate students. For example, fewer than 50% of faculty would offer “partial credit if the correct mathematical computation was used although the final answer was wrong when this was not available to other students” (51). Notably, non-tenure and part-time faculty had significantly better attitudes and higher level of understanding for providing accommodations.

It seems that time extensions for exams or other easy to apply accommodations are highly agreeable to faculty. Cook et al. examined faculty attitudes at a Midwestern university towards different types of accommodations. “Disability etiquette” statements (i.e., avoiding stereotyping students, including a disability statement in the syllabus, protecting confidentiality of students with disabilities) were highly agreed to, but when it came to “accommodation willingness” statements (i.e., provision of alternative assignments, extra credit, partial credit, course substitutions or waivers) there was low agreement (L. Cook, Rumrill, and Tankersley 2009). A study which examined semi-structured interviews of three undergraduate students in a civil engineering program highlighted some themes for persistence in the program. These themes included developing a sense of self-advocacy, the ability to seek out and utilize accommodations, and to negotiate intermediate expectation (Groen et al. 2018). The expectation, however, for change and success, is placed on the individual, rather than the institution.

Faculty & Staff

Faculty with disabilities face unique challenges, intensified by the exploitative nature of the neoliberal university. Disclosure can be a fraught, highly personal decision, particularly for academics seeking permanent employment. Brown’s study (“Disclosure in Academia: A Sensitive Issue”) of twenty-eight academics with fibromyalgia (an “invisible” illness) found that early-career scholars worried about being “identified as someone dealing with health issues and conditions” (61). While disclosure can lead to support, accommodations, and potential allies, it can also result in stigma or career setbacks; in the study, some fixed-term staff avoided disclosure, and one Ph.D. student dropped out. Brown argues that safe disclosure depends on three conditions: personal acceptance of the disability, workplace acceptance, and assurance of no negative repercussions upon disclosure

A cross-sectional survey of 267 faculty who self-identified with mental disabilities or mental-health histories reveals a troubling picture (Price et al. 2017). About 70% had little or no awareness of accommodations, 86.9% had not requested any, only 21% had disclosed to their department chair, and just 25% felt “very” or “extremely” supported by supervisors. Faculty with multiple disabilities sometimes disclosed only the less-stigmatized condition.

Academic unions can help promote disability rights and accessibility, addressing issues such as building access, snow removal, and unsafe traffic conditions (Knapp 2008). Yet research on the experiences of faculty with disabilities remains concerningly limited.

Disability Rights for Academics -United States

Disability rights for students, faculty, and staff are protected by 2 federal laws:

• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

  • Prohibits disability discrimination in any program or activity that receives federal money. Virtually all public and private universities receive some form of federal funding, hence this applies to nearly all US academic institutions.

• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990:

  • Title I (Employment): Prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, and firing of qualified individuals with disabilities in workplaces with 15 or more employees, including universities.

  • Title II (Public Services): Prohibits discrimination by public entities, such as public colleges and universities, regardless of federal funding.

  • Title III (Public Accommodations): Requires that public accommodations, including private universities, provide full and equal enjoyment of their goods, services, and facilities.

This Means

• Both laws require postsecondary institutions to provide reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access and opportunity, unless doing so would cause undue hardship or fundamentally alter the essential nature of a program or job. Institutions must provide students, faculty, and staff with disabilities the academic adjustments, reasonable accommodations, and auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpreters) necessary to participate in programs or perform essential job functions. Disability-related information is confidential and protected under laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the ADA. Limited disclosure is permitted only to, Supervisors/Managers who need information about work restrictions or accommodations, Emergency or First-Aid Personnel, and Government Officials investigating ADA compliance.

• However, unlike in K-12 education, college students are responsible for self-identifying to the university’s disability services office and providing documentation of their disability to receive accommodations.

• Both Section 504 and the ADA require institutions to have a process for individuals to appeal decisions regarding accommodations.

  Resources

  • General FAQs about Disability Discrimination

  • Complaints regarding educational programs can be filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights

  • Employment-related complaints can be filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

  • General information on the ADA and filing a complaint with the Department of Justice can be found on ADA.gov.

  • Advocacy Groups: The National Disability Rights Network and the Association on Higher Education and Disability

Conclusion

The “steep steps” metaphor not only refers to the exclusion of those with disabilities, but to the inaccessible physical structures which typified American college campus design. A long history of prejudice against those with disabilities was not eradicated but rather transformed into a new rhetoric of the 21^st century. Examination of disability in academia is relegated to the humanities and has minimal influence on the curriculum of future medical and scientific researchers. These forces work to create a hostile environment for those with disabilities at the research university.

References

Dolmage, Jay T. 2017. Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press.

EEOC. 2021. “Remedies For Employment Discrimination Compensatory & Punitive Damages Limits On Compensatory & Punitive Age Or Sex Discrimination &.” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (October 4, 2021).

Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. 2002. “Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory.” NWSA Journal 14(3): 1–32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4316922.

Groen, Cassandra J. et al. 2018. “Experiencing Disability in Undergraduate Civil Engineering Education: An Initial Examination of the Intersection of Disability and Professional Identities.” In 2018 CoNECD - The Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing Diversity Conference, ASEE.

Knapp, Sara D. 2008. “Why ‘Diversity’ Should Include ‘Disability’ with Practical Suggestions for Academic Unions.” American Academic 4: 105–30.

Labor, U.S. Department of. 2021. “Americans With Disabilities Act.” U.S. Department of Labor. (September 20, 2021).

NCES. 2021. “Digest of Education Statistics.” U.S. Department of Education NCES. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60 (October 4, 2021).

NCSES. 2021. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/data-tables