2009 Summit: Careers in the Arts for People with Disabilities
Issue Paper
Issues Paper on Higher Education
Carol Funckes
Associate Director, Disability Resources, University of Arizona
Immediate Past President, Association on Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD)
July 2009
The 2009 Summit: Careers in the Arts for People with Disabilities is presented by the
National Endowment for the Arts, the Social Security Administration, the U.S.
Department of Labor, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, VSA arts
and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of the agencies and organizations listed above, nor is any representation made concerning the source,
originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement, information, data, finding, interpretation, advice,
opinion, or view presented.
Introduction
This Issues Paper on the role played by higher education in contributing to the
professional preparation of disabled artists, performers, writers, administrators and
those in other art-related fields was drafted to provide a common background on the
subject for participants of the second National Summit on Careers in the Arts for People
with Disabilities. Summit organizers set the context for the Paper by observing that
“Disabled students have been enrolled in American colleges and universities in
significant numbers for the past 30 years and yet the unemployment rate for people with
disabilities is still 75%.” The following questions, related to both the success of higher
education in welcoming and including disabled students in general and its role in
Quest
advancing art careers for students with disabilities, were presented to further frame the
Paper:

What is NOT happening in our colleges and universities?

Are disabled students being actively recruited in the arts?

How do retention and graduation rates for students with disabilities compare with
those of their peers?

How are we educating the next generation of artistic leadership about disability if
there are no disabled students in our classrooms, no peers?

How can we dislodge the pervasive and internalized cultural stigmas around
disability that are enmeshed in the educational curriculum?

Can current initiatives in higher education such as Disability Studies across the
Curriculum, Universal Design in Education and the prevalence of disability
resource programs in most institutions of higher education provide effective
strategies for fostering student success and careers in the arts for people with
disabilities?

How are we integrating disability into diversity agendas on college campuses?
Some Facts
Despite legal protections and increasing social awareness of access, people with
disabilities continue to be more likely to live in poverty and be dependent on
governmental services and less likely to be employed than non-disabled people
(Stoddard, Jans, Ripple & Kraus, 1998). Data from the US Census Bureau shows that
only 45.6% of individuals with disabilities are employed, compared with 83.5% of the
non-disabled population (Brault, 2008). Numerous studies document the connection
Quest
2
between education, employment and prosperity for the general public; that connection is
even stronger for those with disabilities (Stodden & Dowrick, 2000). Employment
statistics for individuals with disabilities are profoundly impacted by higher education,
increasing from 16 percent employment for those without a high school degree to 50
percent for those with four years of college (Stoddard, et al., 1998). Indeed, the
Position Paper on People with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education from the
National Council on Disability (2003) cites data from OSERS, the US Department of
Education and the HEATH Resource Center that demonstrate that earning a Bachelor
of Arts degree puts individuals with disabilities almost on par with non-disabled students
in securing employment.
Despite the positive impact a postsecondary degree offers, students with
disabilities are less likely than their non-disabled peers to transition to higher education,
be retained at colleges and universities, transition from two to four-year institutions, and
graduate (Horn & Berktold, 1999; National Council on Disability, 2003; ). A longitudinal
study (Horn & Berktold, 1999) of postsecondary education found that 53% of students
with disabilities either graduated or were still in a school five years after matriculation,
as compared with 64% of non-disabled students. While this is problematic for all
students with disabilities, it poses unique hurdles for future artists with disabilities.
Success in the arts is often based on ‘who you know’. Friendships and relationships
forged during students’ undergraduate and graduate years often provides the
foundation that supports a successful entry into the professional world of the working
artist.
Quest
3
In his forward to Putting Creativity to Work: Careers in the Arts for People with
Disabilities (Scribner, 2000), Randy Souders discusses the paradoxical relationship our
culture has with art: heaping celebrity on those who rise to the top of their fields while
failing to appreciate “the valuable role that artists and their creations play in our
personal, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and societal development.” (p. xiv) These
contradictory yet simultaneous notions affect all future artists but can have an even
more profound impact on people with disabilities. Students with disabilities are often
directed to careers with more predictability and permanence that offer more stable
access to health care coverage and a regular pay check than many performancerelated careers. For example, many Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) counselors do not
consider many arts-related careers to be viable. The VR policy manual requires that a
labor market analysis be completed before a student’s vocational plan can be approved.
Since the career goals of an artist can pose a significant hurdle in a poor labor market,
VR funding for such a vocational goal is often difficult to secure.
About 14% of students with disabilities pursue careers in the humanities
(National Science Foundation, 2004). While colleges and universities do recruit
students who show exceptional academic, athletic and artistic talents, there is little
specific attention paid to recruiting students with disabilities; reasons for this include the
perception that they will be less capable students, will encounter numerous barriers and
will be costly to serve. Data available from the Chartbook on Work and Disability
((Stoddard et al., 1998) shows that only 1% of employed people with disabilities have
careers as “writers, artists, entertainers, [and] athletes”. As a result, today’s art and
Quest
4
public media are rarely created by disabled artists who, with their lived experiences,
could expand our view of disability and challenge existing stereotypes.
Higher Education and Disability
To begin to address what is not happening in higher education, it is important to
first look at what is. The ADA, recently reauthorized as the ADA Amendment Act
(ADAAA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require non-discrimination
on the basis of disability in higher education and the availability of reasonable
accommodations to mitigate educational barriers. Adherence to legal mandates has led
to the establishment of disability service programs in most postsecondary institutions
and increasing numbers of students with disabilities in higher education. According to
the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), U.S Department of Education,
7.4% of the undergraduate population reported having disabilities in 2000 compared
with 11.3% in 2004. NCES also reports that in 1997, 98% of the American
postsecondary institutions that enrolled students with disabilities provided at least one
type of accommodation. Reflecting on these numbers, it is clear that legislation has had
substantial success and forms an essential foundation for inclusion. However, it has not
moved us to a place where unemployment figures, earning potential, or social
integration of disabled individuals is equal to that of non-disabled people.
Leslie Kanes Weisman has observed that, “As social movements mature, they
begin to look beyond the ‘letter of the law’, which emphasizes ethics and values, and
promulgate systemic changes in attitudes, behaviors and institutional structures”.
Quest
5
Disability services in higher education is just beginning to make this transition.
Research by the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) (Harbour,
2008) shows that over 75% of disability service staff members still use a legal definition
of disability, rather than a social one, to guide their work. Likewise, an overwhelming
number of mission statements from such offices highlight the office’s role in assuring
legal compliance for the institution but fail to address its role in system and social
change, and the annual “The Legal Year in Review” concurrent session at each year’s
AHEAD conference continues to be the most heavily attended session. It is time to
reexamine the current focus and consider new paradigms.
The Traditional Process
Using Program and Professional Standards developed by AHEAD (2004), most
colleges and universities have created policies and procedures to respond to legal
requirements and to address access barriers, which are usually framed in terms of
student “need”. In general, educational barriers for students with disabilities in higher
education include inaccessible facilities, lack of usable texts {Braille, large print,
electronic media}, availability of Sign Language interpreters or CART ((Communication
Assisted Real-Time translation) writers, inaccessible assessment measures {timed or
poorly formatted tests}, exclusive instructional pedagogies, and, most importantly,
negative attitudes. Training and education for many art related careers, such as acting,
architecture, art, and music, present additional barriers. Practice and performance
schedules, varied venues, internships and field placements and patron expectations are
just a few of the unique accessibility challenges presented by many art-related majors.
Quest
6
Disability service offices function to eliminate these barriers. The basic process for
serving students typically proceeds as follows:

The disability service program publicizes the availability of services via Websites,
Viewbooks, academic catalogs and brochures. These materials typically
announce that the institution provides reasonable accommodations to “eligible”
students and describe the process for students to follow in seeking services.
Disability service programs rarely engage in recruitment activities but do have a
role in informing prospective students of the availability of services.

Disabled students present disability documentation to the service office.
Students are responsible for securing documentation that meets the institution’s
requirements. The purpose of documentation is both to establish protection from
discrimination and determine the accommodations that may be appropriate for
the individual. The criteria for acceptable documentation varies from institution to
institution but typically speaks to criteria that AHEAD has identified as
“dimensions of documentation” in its Best Practices document (AHEAD, 2007):
the credentials of the evaluator; the presence of a diagnostic statement; a
description of the diagnostic methodology; a description of the student’s “current”
functional limitations that addresses the acceptable age of the documentation; an
assessment of the variability or stability of the condition; a description of past and
current accommodations; and recommendations for accommodations.

Disability service providers review the presented documentation and compare it
with the institutional protocol for establishing eligibility. Most institutions have
comprehensive documentation guidelines and refer students who do not have
Quest
7
the required paperwork to local professionals for assessment. In considering
documentation, the disability service provider looks for evidence that a condition
“substantially limits” a “major life activity” for a student who is “otherwise
qualified”; in other words, proof that the student meets the legal definition of
“disabled”.

Eligible students meet with a disability service professional to describe
anticipated academic barriers and request accommodations. Commonly
requested accommodations include: extended test time, note-taking, Braille, tape
or electronic text versions of printed materials, Sign Language interpreters or
CART writers, course substitution, and accessible classrooms or furniture. The
process for making these requests must be “interactive” and, while student
preference is considered, the institutional obligation is to provide “effective”
accommodations. Accommodations are not considered to be “reasonable” if they
“fundamentally alter” “essential elements” of the academic program or course,
present an “undue burden” or are of a personal nature. Ideally, accommodations
are matched to the individual and specific academic situation and are not
prescribed generically.

The service program designs a process by which the faculty member is informed
that the student is a member of a “protected class” (disability) and is eligible for
specific reasonable accommodations. While this process varies, most
institutions require the student to pick up a letter from the disability service office
and deliver it to the instructor. Students are encouraged to speak with their
instructors about their “needs” and instructors are encouraged to reach out to
Quest
8
students to offer their support. Many times instructors are encouraged not to
provide supports to students without first receiving notification from the disability
service office that the student is qualified and to avoid “over-accommodating”.
Accommodations are often delivered via retrofits to the existing curriculum and
through a process that separates students from their classmates.

The disability service office outreaches to the campus community to provide
training and consultation and to encourage the creation of accessible
environments. Increasingly, they present information about universal design,”
the design of products and environments to be usable by a all people, to the
greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design”
(Ron Mace, in Bowe, 2000, p. 24). However, most training sessions focus on
legal mandates, “interaction tips” and “awareness” activities.

Students are responsible for reporting to the disability professional if
accommodations are not effective. A grievance process is in place for students
who feel they have be subjected to discrimination or denied reasonable
accommodations.
Reading through the above procedures, one is likely to recognize its prescriptive
nature, its focus on legal issues, and its emphasis on the professional called to remedy
student “needs” and “problems”.
Concerns with the current process… What’s NOT happening?
1.
Issues related to Eligibility and Documentation
Quest
9
The current, legally-focused emphasis on documenting status as a person with a
disability in higher education in order to receive protection from discrimination and
reasonable accommodations is problematic in several ways.
a. Disability documentation and identity. The ADA is presented as a civil rights law,
yet it is unique among such legislation in that it requires not only nondiscrimination but the availability of proactive measures to create access.
Reasonable accommodations and the cost that may be associated with providing
them have led to a focus on proving eligibility to secure coverage. The concept
of documentation is not a component of any other civil rights legislation; people
of color and women are entitled to protection from discrimination without having
to prove their status. While the proactive nature of reasonable accommodations
makes it is understandable that institutions providing them would want some
verification of eligibility, given the personal identity issues that come with
acknowledgement of status as “disabled”, the requirement is not trivial.
Disability is framed negatively in our culture (Swain, French, Cameron,
2003). Often referred to as the Medical, or Individual, Model of disability, the
dominant lens through which we view disability paints a picture of deficiency,
abnormality and tragedy. Disability is seen as a matter of pathology and
“limitation”, with little consideration of the consequences of the social, economic,
and political experiences of individuals with impairments, the physical reality of
disability. In “A Faculty/Staff Guide: Integrating Disability Studies into Existing
Curriculum”, Rose Sachs (n.d.) writes, “The primary aim of the Medical Model is
to correct and cure. The Medical Model … is paternalistic, perpetuates the
Quest
10
negative image of disability and of persons with disabilities, and further promotes
segregation.” (para. 4)
Most social, political, economic, and, especially relevant, educational
systems are based on the Medical Model. We continue to define disabled
students as the problem and look for a “cure” that will allow them to fit into the
curriculum and academic systems that are designed for the majority, in other
words to be like “normal students”. As in medicine, solutions to access barriers
come from the professional, the disability service office in the role of doctor, and
contain messages such as, “What do you need because of your disability?”
rather than “What barriers does your course present because of its design”.
The following text, from the Cornucopia of Disability Information (n.d.) is
representative of the message sent by most institutions of higher education and
illustrates the frame with which disabled students are presented when beginning
an academic career:
Once students are admitted, they are responsible for notifying the
school of their disability, requesting academic adjustments, and
providing any necessary evidence of a disability-related need for the
requested adjustment. OCR has frequently found that a college did
not violate § 504 or the ADA by denying academic adjustments where
students fail to provide the necessary notification or documentation.
(para.1)
Quest
11
“Labelling is the process whereby descriptions are attached to individuals
or groups which, in turn, guides the attitudes and behaviour of others toward
them” (Swaim, 2003, p. 12). Requiring documentation of disability is the first in a
series of steps higher education puts in place that perpetuates an individual view
of disability and forces a culturally undesirable label on students usually without
the structure to support positive identity development. Not appreciating the
negative connotations that come with the label, disability service providers often
wonder why students don’t come to the office for services, are highly concerned
about confidentiality and fail to follow-through with processes.
b. Difference between disability documentation used in the K-12 system and that
required for higher education. While of less social and personal consequence
than issues of identity, the difficulty in securing required documentation presents
another challenge to students entering higher education. The purpose of
documentation for secondary and higher education differs substantially. As a
result, current assessment practices in secondary education do not always
create documentation that is consistent with the requirements of postsecondary
institutions… and this gap promises to widen even further as public education
stresses approaches such as Summary of Performance (SOP) and Response to
Intervention (RtI). The issue was described as a “disconnect” by the National
Joint Council on Learning Disabilities in its 2007 paper on the subject. As the
paper explains, the problem is, once again, rooted in legislation. The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), which applies to K-12 public
schools, focuses its mission and scope on providing a free and appropriate public
Quest
12
education (FAPE) to qualifying students, while Section 504 and the ADA, that
govern disability services in higher education, focus on equal access, integration
and non-discrimination. The intent of these laws also varies, with IDEA focusing
on educational outcomes and success and the ADA and 504 focusing civil rights
and equal access.
As students transition, they find themselves moving from documentation
for eligibility, instruction, and intervention to documentation for diagnosis, access
and accommodation. Especially for learning disabled students, documentation
that was developed for the purposes of secondary school often will not meet the
requirements established by the postsecondary institution. To further challenge
students, at the postsecondary level, there is a lack of uniformity in determining if
an individual is eligible as a person with a disability. Students may be considered
“disabled” at one college but not at another (NJCLD, 2007). When their existing
documentation is insufficient for the chosen postsecondary institution, students
are unable to secure services that could provide access.
c. Cost. Since assessments performed during their K-12 experience are often
inadequate for higher education, students and/or their families are responsible for
obtaining the documentation to prove their eligibility for services. Psychoeducational testing to establish the existence of a learning disability or attention
deficit disability is quite costly and rarely covered by insurance. While evaluators
in local communities do establish sliding fee structures, a complete psychoeducational assessment may cost several thousand dollars. Cost presents
problems for other disabled students as well. For example, a culturally Deaf
Quest
13
student may not have seen an audiologist for many years and may either not
have an audiogram or have one that is too old to meet institutional requirements,
necessitating a demeaning ‘run around’ to have a hearing assessment prior to
receiving interpreting services. A system of eligibility that places an additional
burden on individuals of lesser means poses an equity or social justice issue and
may prevent access to services at the higher education institution.
2. Issues related to reasonable accommodations
Academic adjustments, often referred to by higher education professionals as
reasonable accommodations, are modifications to a course, program, service, or
activity that provide a qualified individual with a disability an equal opportunity to
obtain the same access as is available to those without a disability. Their
application, a legally-mandated and often effective mechanism for increasing
postsecondary opportunities, can be a two-edged sword.
a. Separate, reactive, non-sustainable. Accommodation can both provide access
and segregate and stigmatize. The individual nature of accommodations centers
the “problem” of access in the student. Considering and achieving educational
access exclusively from an accommodation approach is much like
operationalizing the Medical Model: an academic barrier is framed as an
individual problem to be addressed through extra efforts and the services of a
professional. The solution is reactive, delivered through separate processes or in
separate spaces, and most commonly non-sustainable, i.e., must be recreated
each time a student encounters the barrier. For example, extended test-time, a
commonly requested and provided accommodation, requires individual request,
Quest
14
considerable arrangements with the faculty, and, often, a separate location.
While bordering on the extreme, such response begs the question of ‘separate
but equal’.
b. Viewed as indicative of students with lesser skills or preparation. Academic
accommodations are often perceived by other students and faculty as a watering
down of the curriculum. While most faculty members are willing to provide
accommodations, research has shown that they also struggle with concerns of
fairness, integrity, and rigor when accommodations are in place (Bourke,
Strehorn & Silver, 2000). In a study of disability service providers, Salzberg et al.
(2002) found that 93% of them reported faculty concern with maintaining
academic standards when accommodations are made. Despite the assurance
that accommodations that alter academic standards are not provided, faculty
persists in believing that disabled students who use accommodations, especially
students with invisible disabilities, are weaker or less well-prepared. This is
understandable when we consider that disability service providers typically
emphasize student eligibility for legally mandated accommodations when working
with faculty. A different message could be sent by discussing the concept of
“reasonableness” (for example, sharing the results of research that shows that
extended test time does not significantly impact the test results for students
without disabilities) or exploring the validity of the instructor’s test instrument for
all students. A focus on legal mandates fails to challenge the underlying belief
that students who use accommodations are not well-prepared and that their
Quest
15
academic experience is less rigorous. It perpetuates a negative image of
disability.
c. Equity. If we purport, as we do, that reasonable accommodations do not alter the
essential components of an academic program and do not reduce academic
rigor, why do we restrict the their availability so jealously? Clearly, more costly
accommodations such as Sign Language Interpreting or CART writing can’t be
provided to all students and wouldn’t be helpful if they were. However, it is
interesting to reflect on our resistance to make services that could facilitate
learning for all students, non-disabled and undocumented, available to them. To
flesh this out, consider course substitution, an accommodation that is often
available to students who document a disability in math or foreign language
learning. When an institution approves a course substitution as an
accommodation, it has accepted that the course is not essential to the student’s
academic major or program of study. For example, it has accepted that having
an understanding of a different culture and world view is equivalent to speaking
another language (foreign language substitution) or that developing estimation
skills and the ability to approach questions logically and recognize patterns is
equivalent to finding ‘X’ in a college level Algebra class (math substitution).
Equivalent, that is, for that student in that major; equivalent to represent the
development of the skills and knowledge required to pursue and graduate in that
major. Under our current approach, however, this equivalence is available only
to disabled students who have detailed psycho-educational test results.
Remembering that “reasonable” accommodations do not alter essential
Quest
16
educational requirements, isn’t it fair to say that the institution has also
established that the course is not essential… for a similar non-disabled student?
How can courses that are non-essential (i.e. substituted) for some students
(those with disabilities) be essential for other students in the same academic
program? The logic is simply inconsistent, and when applied, it is easy to
understand how the take away-message is that disabled students are indeed
‘special’ and not held to the same academic standards as their peers.
Before leaving this topic, it is important to stress again that reasonable
accommodation in higher education is a successful tool in providing educational
access and has been instrumental in leading to the success of numerous students
with disabilities. The concerns listed are not intended to suggest that
accommodations should be abandoned or disregarded. Rather, this discussion is
presented to encourage the consideration of the subtle messages that are contained
in our current systems and to focus attention on developing other strategies of
inclusion. Social and educational evolution is an overwhelming and slow process,
though also one worth pursuing. While we work toward that goal, the availability of
accommodations is an important tool in creating educational access.
3. Issues related to disability service providers
The disability service office at a college or university is typically the entity
entrusted by campus administrators to address all issues related to disability.
Statutes assure the availability of at least one person on the campus who is
responsible for replying to disability-related issues.
Quest
17
a. Training, preparation and focus. There is no degree program, certification, or
licensure for postsecondary disability service providers. The majority of
individuals working in the field have little background that prepares them to frame
disability in progressive ways, with 40% coming from special education, 38%
from student affairs, 34% from general education and 33% from social work
{Percentages total over 100 percent due to individuals with multiple
backgrounds} (Harbour, 2004). Without specific exposure to newer
conceptualizations of disability, these individuals are socialized like the rest of
society to view disability as a personal tragedy and to operate from the Medical
Model. They translate need into deficiency, locate this perceived deficiency in
the individual student and establish policies, procedures, and practices that
perpetuate a deficiency model on their campuses. Disability Service
administrators recognize their need for additional professional development, and
84% of them specifically mention a need for more information about models of
disability (Harbour, 2004). Training offered by AHEAD, the Thompson Publishing
Group, and others are well attended but tend to focus on training practitioners to
establish policy, design procedures, and remain in legal compliance. This
training focus perpetuates the legal/medical approach and provides little impetus
for disability service providers to move beyond the ‘letter of the law’.
Virtually all disability service offices engage in some form of student
counseling or support, faculty training and consultation, and outreach activities
(AHEAD Program Standards, 2004; Harbour, 2004). However, with their focus
on legal compliance, plans to implementing reasonable accommodations and
Quest
18
deficit thinking, these interactions don’t move their institutions to consider
proactive strategies for creating seamless access. For example, 96% of
disability service providers believe that it is important to provide faculty member
with legal information and 73% think training in “designing accommodations” is
important. Providing faculty with training on approaches to teaching, such as
universal design, was only mentioned only as “other suggestions” for training
activities. (Salzberg et al., 2002). Likewise, common practices do not provide a
foundation for students to develop a sense of pride in the cultural identity of
‘disabled’.
b. Professionalism. As with any professional/client relationship, there is an inherent
power differential in the relationship between the disability service provider and
the disabled student. The professional role and its presumed authority to fix
problems can perpetuate the Medical Model and keep disabled students stuck in
a subordinate, needy role. In higher education, disability service professionals
are responsible for verifying students’ eligibility, prescribing accommodations,
and measuring success. Rose Sachs (2003) reminds how constantly disabled
students must interact with professionals: “At the very least, having a disability
often necessitates planning and may involve depending on others to participate
in major activities of daily life. The need for involvement with professionals, such
as physicians, physical therapists, psychotherapists, and/or learning specialists,
tends to promote and reinforce inferior status (Unique Characteristics of
Disability, para.1)” As disability service professionals negotiate access for
students through retrofits and ‘special’ accommodations they can create and
Quest
19
maintain a dependency in students and distract faculty members from
recognizing and correcting the barriers their curriculum presents to a variety of
students.
Movements that Offer Opportunity for Change
1. Disability Studies and the Social Model of Disability
The Social, Interactional or Minority Model of disability provides an alternative to
the Medical Model. As discussed earlier, the dominant frame under which we think
about and respond to disability both in higher education and in other social systems
is one that views disabled people as broken, abnormal and pitiable. The Social
Model reframes disability as an ordinary, naturally occurring human difference.
Rather than focusing on the physical impairment, it describes disability as a shared
experience of oppression resulting from negative attitudes, societal and physical
barriers and stereotyping. Physical differences become disabling as they intersect
with environments that are designed with limited flexibility for “normal” people. Since
the Social Model recognizes that disability is socially prescribed, it also
acknowledges that inclusion can be impacted by the individual, an advocate or
anyone who affects the arrangements between the individual and the environment.
As such, it works to recast the role of the professional.
Disability Studies, an interdisciplinary field similar to Women’s Studies, Gender
Studies and Ethnic Studies, examines the history, culture and experiences of
disabled people. The Society for Disability Studies, SDS (n.d.), describes Disability
Quest
20
Studies as recognizing “that disability is a key aspect of human experience, and that
the study of disability has important political, social, and economic implications for
society as a whole, including both disabled and nondisabled people” (para.1).
Disability Studies scholars study the exclusion and oppression of disabled
individuals as rooted in social structures. Disability Studies seeks “to promote
greater awareness of the experiences of disabled people, and to advocate for social
change” (para.1).
The Social Model of disability could have a transformational effect were it
embraced by disability service providers in higher education. Rather than evaluating
disability documentation, focusing on legal minimums and advocating for
accommodations, disability service providers would spend more time collaborating to
impact the design of campus and instructional environments. Even when providing
accommodations, they would design processes that minimize extra efforts by
students and streamline service delivery. They would support students in their
exploration of a positive identity and work as allies to encourage system change.
They would collaborate with other diversity efforts on campus, building coalitions for
change with racial and ethnic centers and offices that support women and gay and
lesbian students. They would evolve their processes from a service model to a
social justice model.
2. Universal Design and Universal Design for Instruction
The concept of “universal design” (UD) has been gaining prominence among
disability service professionals in higher education over the last ten years.
Originating in the field of architecture, UD is beginning to be applied in physical,
Quest
21
information, policy and social postsecondary environments. Growing numbers of
disability service offices are incorporating UD into their mission statements,
educating their campus communities on its concepts, and advocating for its adoption
as a guiding institutional philosophy to lead to equality, inclusion and access for
students with a variety of diverse characteristics.
The following Principles of Universal Design provide guidance for designing
usable physical, information, policy and attitudinal environments (Center for
Universal Design, 1997):

Equitable Use- The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse
abilities

Flexibility in Use- The design accommodates a wide range of individual
preferences and abilities.

Simple and intuitive- Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of
the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration
level.

Perceptible Information- The design communicates necessary information
effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory
abilities.

Tolerance for Error-The design minimizes hazards and the adverse
consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

Low Physical Effort - The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and
with a minimum of fatigue.
Quest
22

Principle Seven: Size and Space for Approach and Use- Appropriate size and
space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of
user's body size, posture, or mobility.
These original principles have been applied to higher education and the
curricular environment by several groups, notably the Center for Postsecondary
Education and Disability at University of Connecticut, which has added two
additional principles to encourage the design of inclusive academic experiences:

A community of learners: The instructional environment promotes interaction
and communication among students and between students and faculty.

Instructional climate: Instruction is designed to be welcoming and inclusive.
High expectations are espoused for all students
UD provides a conceptual framework for designing and developing inclusive
environments. Like the ‘Green Movement’, it is rooted in attitudes and goals
rather than in a prescriptive checklist. Its tenets challenge us to think beyond
legal compliance to full and meaningful access by promoting new ways of
viewing both disability and design. While valuing the importance of a strong legal
foundation, proponents of UD recognize that good design benefits individuals with a
wide variety of differences, minimizes the use of accommodations and can create
usable, equitable, inclusive, sustainable environments. UD reframes the concept
of accessibility from special features for a few to good design for many. In
many ways, UD operationalizes the Social Model of disability. As applied in
higher education, it holds the promise of minimizing the ‘special’ treatment of
students with disabilities and mainstreaming their experiences.
Quest
23
3. Disability Studies across the Curriculum
Encouraging the integration of disability studies into existing curriculum in history,
literature, minority studies, art, and literature courses, i.e. “across the curriculum”,
Rose Sachs (2003) writes:
Because consciousness raising is a critical first step to all social and political
change, it is important to include disability as a social construct at the
introductory course level and to include disability in any course that examines
the experience of discrete groups within the broader society, that surveys
history, and that explores the ways in which image is developed and
portrayed. Rather than creating a separate course at the introductory level,
integrating Disability Studies into existing curriculum and from an
interdisciplinary perspective affords basic understanding and education for all
students and expands understanding of diversity and minority construction for
both faculty and students (Teaching at the Introductory Course/Community
College Level, para. 1).
The integration of Disability Studies in a liberal studies education could have
significant impact on how we view and respond to disability just as Women’s Studies
and African-American Studies has played a role in those social movements. The history
and lived experiences of individuals with disabilities can change perceptions of
normality and widen the dialogue around difference. As students learn more about how
negative representations of disability have contributed to exclusion and isolation,
culturally perpetuated images of fear, mistrust, and pity can be replaced by knowledge
and inclusion.
Quest
24
Conclusion
While this paper focused primarily on issues of disability in higher education in
general, disabled students and their peers studying for careers in the arts are influenced
by these same structures and will benefit from the implementation of progressive
thinking and strategies. If disabled artists are not represented in our higher education
classrooms, they will not be a part of the social networking that occurs there and often
propels a career in the arts. Equally important, if the next generation of arts leaders
hasn’t studied with and learned from disabled peers during their academic training, they
will be less likely to view disability art as part of the arts agenda or to foster the
professional employment and leadership of disabled artists.
In the forward to Putting Creativity to Work Careers in the Arts for People with
Disabilities (Scribner, 2000), Tony Coelho writes:
As people with disabilities, we must contribute our perspectives to the world of
the arts if we are ever going to achieve true integration and equality. The arts
are a reflection of society and too often the images of people with disabilities are
crafted by someone without disability experience, usually reinforcing existing
negative stereotypes. By integrating ourselves into the mainstream of the arts
world, we can ensure realistic portrayals of people with disabilities. (p. xvi)
Higher education must do better in welcoming, retaining and graduating students
with disabilities to both develop artists who will inform our perspective with their unique
experiences fulfill its promise as “the great equalizer”.
Quest
25
Quest
26
References
Association on Higher Education And Disability. (2004). Professional standards.
Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.ahead.org/resources/index.htm
Association on Higher Education And Disability. (2007). AHEAD Best Practices:
Disability Documentation in Higher Education. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from
http://www.ahead.org/resources/best-practices-resources
Bourke, A.B., Strehorn, K.C. & Silver, P. (2000). Faculty members’ provision of
instructional accommodations to students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33,
26-32.
Bowe, F.G. (2000). Universal design in education: teaching nontraditional students.
Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Brault, M. W. (2008). Current population reports: Americans with Disabilities: 2005.
U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration-U.S. Census
Bureau. Washington, D.C. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p70-117.pdf
Center for Postsecondary Education and Disability, University of Connecticut. (2004).
Principles of Universal Design. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from
http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprincipleshtmlformat.html
Cornucopia of Disability Information. (n.d.) Disabled students in higher education.
Retrieved June 20, 2009, from
http://codi.buffalo.edu/archives/colleges/.cul/disablaw3.html
Quest
27
Harbour, W. (2004). Final report: the 2004 AHEAD survey of higher education disability
services providers. Waltham, MA.: The Association on Higher Education And Disability.
Harbour, W. (2008). AHEAD 2008 report on disability services and resource
professionals in higher education. Huntersville, N.C.: The Association on Higher
Education And Disability.
Horn, L., & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A
profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, D.C.: National Center
for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
National Council on Disability. (2003). People with disabilities and postsecondary
education. Position Paper. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/education.htm
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2007). The Documentation
Disconnect for Students With Learning Disabilities: Improving Access to Postsecondary
Disability Services. Retrieved June 22, 2009, from
http://www.ahead.org/resources/articles/njcld-paper
Sachs, R. (n.d.) Disability support services: faculty/staff guide: integrating disability
studies into existing curriculum. Retrieved June 19, 2009 from
http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/departments/dispsvc/diversity.htm
Sakamoto, I. & Pitner, R.O. Use of critical consciousness in anti-oppressive social work
practice: disentangling power dynamics at personal and structural levels. British Journal
of Social Work. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from
http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/35/4/435.pdf
Salzberg, C.L., Peterson, L., Debrand, C.C., Blair, R.J., Carsey, A.C., & Johnson, A.S.
(2002). Opinions of disability service directors on faculty training: the need, content,
Quest
28
issues, formats, media and activities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 15(2), 101-113.
Scribner, P. (2000). Putting Creativity to Work Careers in the Arts for People with
Disabilities. Washington D.C., Social Security Administration's Office of Employment
Support Programs. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from
http://www.vsarts.org/documents/resources/artists/careerguide/introcontents.pdf
Society for Disability Studies. (n.d.). SDS mission. Retrieved June 24, 2009, from
http://www.disstudies.org/about/mission
Stodden, R.A., & Dowrick, P. W. (2000, Spring). Postsecondary education and quality
employment for adults with disabilities. American Rehabilitation, 25(3), 19-23.
Stoddard, S., Jans, L., Ripple, J. & Kraus, L. (1998). Chartbook on work and
disability in the United States: An InfoUse report. Washington, D.C.: National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Retrieved June 15, 2009,
from http://www.infouse.com/disabilitydata/workdisability/2_5.php
Swain, J., French, S., & Cameron, C. (2003). Controversial issues in a disabling society.
Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Quest
29