Disability as Diversity in Higher Education

Policies and Practices to Enhance Student Success

Eunyoung Kim, Katherine C. Aquino, Eunyoung Kim, Katherine C. Aquino

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138186170
• eBook ISBN: 9781317287704
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Addressing disability not as a form of student impairment—as it is typically perceived at the postsecondary level—but rather as an important dimension of student diversity and identity, this book explores how disability can be more effectively incorporated into college environments. Chapters propose new perspectives, empirical research, and case studies to provide the necessary foundation for understanding the role of disability within campus climate and integrating students with disabilities into academic and social settings. Contextualizing disability through the lens of intersectionality, Disability as Diversity in Higher Education illustrates how higher education institutions can use policies and practices to enhance inclusion and student success.

PART I

Theoretical Lenses and Application

1

SUPPORTING STUDENTS WITH NON-DISCLOSED DISABILITIES

A Collective and Humanizing Approach

Christina Yuknis and Eric R. Bernstein

Introduction

Along with the increased frequency of disability identification in elementary and secondary schools (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005), students receiving special education services are also increasingly enrolling in postsecondary education (Council for Exceptional Children, 2014). Although students with disabilities are attending higher education in larger numbers than before, a disproportionate number do not graduate compared to their nondisabled peers (Barber, 2012; Hudson, 2013).

While attending postsecondary institutions, not all of students disclose their disability to their subsequent institutions of higher education (Richardson, 2009). There are a number of reasons for this including fears of “the social stigma, the loss of esteem by professors, and the fear that future employers will have access to their record” (Lauffer, 2000, p. 42). Those concerns and the widely held perception that postsecondary faculty do not accommodate or understand the needs of students with disabilities (Barnard-Brak, Lechtenberger, & Lan, 2010; Burgstahler, 2006), contribute to postsecondary students with disabilities withholding that information from faculty or administrators. This withholding of information means that students may not be receiving the accommodations or supports that they need to access educational opportunities, and this could be a reason why students with disabilities do not persist to graduation.

The objective of this chapter is to propose a framework that expands the construction of culturally relevant pedagogy to include cultural dimensions of disability and that recognizes the intersectionality of disability with other identities. Postsecondary faculty can then use this framework to evoke instructional practices that are inclusive for all students in their classes in a collective and humanizing way, thus reducing the need to rely on self-disclosure of a disability before accommodating.

We begin by providing background on the intersection of disabilities with other identities and identify some of the issues surrounding disclosure of disability. We then offer one way of understanding culturally relevant pedagogy and propose expanding this understanding of culturally relevant pedagogical framework to include disability. Finally, we discuss practices that may facilitate the implementation of this framework within postsecondary environments.

A New Framework

Ladson-Billings (1995) has described culturally relevant pedagogy, in part, as being “committed to collective, not merely individual, empowerment” (p. 160). She supports Bartolome’s (1994) argument for a “humanizing pedagogy that respects and uses the reality, history, and perspectives of students as an integral part of educational practice” (p. 173). We propose extending the assertions of culturally relevant pedagogy around collective empowerment and humanization that respects students as whole people and includes diversity of (dis)ability.

This framework, which we are calling Culturally Relevant Disability Pedagogy, makes use of culturally relevant pedagogy principles but applies them to people with disabilities, while simultaneously recognizing the intersectionality of the human experience. Goodley (2013) notes “Intersectionality is not simply about bringing together these markers but to consider how each supports or unsettles the constitution of one another” (p. 636). The markers he is referring to are the markers of a person’s identity. Each part of a person’s identity—gender, race, ethnicity, background experiences, and so on—works to bolster or disrupt the workings of the other identities. Until recently, disability was not a part of the discourse surrounding diversity, although bodily experiences differ. To illustrate, we offer an example from gender and disability, and the ways they are linked because bodily ways of being are situated within gendered experiences. For example, mental illness in women is typically couched in terms of madness or sanity, but for men, it is typically described in terms of criminality (Goodley).

We are proposing a new framework that we term Culturally Relevant Disability Pedagogy, because the discourse around disability is often framed in a deficit narrative. Culturally Relevant Disability Pedagogy seeks to change that narrative by building on the prior work of other theorists (such as Ladson-Billings) on the overlap between culturally relevant pedagogy and critical disability studies. The central idea is to create positive, affirming environment not just for people from a variety of cultures, but also along dimensions of disability. This requires some recognition of the ways in which bodily ways of being are influenced and interact with culture.

Intersectionality

Banks (2013) notes that intersectionality is an emerging area of study within multicultural education, having grown since the beginning of the 21st century. Gillborn (2015), citing the African American Policy Forum, best articulates the rationale for our reliance on an intersectional approach in considering the development of a new framework to include disability. Our intersectional approach “goes beyond conventional analysis in order to focus our attention on injuries that we otherwise might not recognize . . . to 1) analyze social problems more fully; 2) shape more effective interventions; and 3) promote more inclusive coalitional advocacy” (p. 278). The connection between problem analysis and intervention development is especially central to our proposed framework.

Disability studies, specifically, is an emerging field in critical theory that seeks to define disability outside of the traditional medical view and in terms of the social construction of disability. The main posit is that society is set up in such a way as to be oppressive to people with various physical or cognitive characteristics, and as such disables them (Goodley, 2013). Critical disability studies take the field one step further by examining disabling forces through political, theoretical, and practical lenses (Goodley). Hegemonic ideas of disability both within and outside of disability studies are raised for inspection and analysis, because bodies that are disabled challenge ideas of what it means to be nondisabled. The idea of normal is questioned, defined, and redefined when varied bodily abilities are introduced for inspection.

Goodley (2011, as cited in Goodley, 2013) notes the emergence of a “carnal sociology,” a notion that explores the importance of the body in understanding how one self interacts with society. The body cannot be ignored or disregarded. Critical disability studies acknowledge that people with disabilities are multidimensional beings with many different identities and theorizes about the role of the body in the human experience. Each identity falls along a spectrum of capital and interacts with other identities and the body in complex ways. For example, a person may be White, male, and have a learning disability. While the learning disability gives this individual lower academic capital (and therefore, lower status) than a person who does not have a learning disability, his Whiteness and maleness cannot be disregarded as they provide a certain amount of privilege. These characteristics interact to give the person a certain amount of status, and that status can vary depending on whether the individual is a student in a classroom, an athlete on the field, or a consumer in a shop.

Disability Disclosure

For many people with disabilities, the idea of when and how to disclose their disability to others, whether for school, work, or social purposes, is a difficult one. Research shows that people struggle with choosing the appropriate time to disclose their disability (Jans, Kaye, & Jones, 2012), but nondisclosure comes at a cost for higher education. Students with disabilities who do not disclose to their postsecondary institution are at a higher risk of dropping out (Hudson, 2013).

Several studies have shown that most course instructors do not receive training on how to accommodate students with disabilities (Asuncion et al., 2010; Gladhart, 2010) nor do they understand the needs of students with disabilities (Asuncion et al., 2010; Barnard-Brak et al., 2010, Burgstahler, 2006; Cole & Cawthon, 2015; Rao, 2004). Faculty members often rely on disability support services for information on how to work with students with disabilities, but those offices utilize boilerplate templates to distribute a list of accommodations for a specific student (Orr & Hammig, 2009). Due to their perception that faculty members rarely have a deep understanding of how to support students with disabilities, the participants in Burgstahler’s (2006) study did not disclose their disabilities unless they absolutely needed accommodations. In Cole and Cawthon’s (2015) study, students with learning disabilities shared that when they approached faculty members about accommodations, many of them did not know what to do. The students then had to assume the responsibility for assisting the faculty members in understanding the disability support process, a responsibility that students felt strained the professor-student power dynamic.

This perception of faculty knowledge surrounding disability is noted in existing research. Some studies have found that a substantial portion of the teaching faculty do not know whether students with disabilities are treated fairly in the classroom (Bruder & Mogro-Wilson, 2010). Others have found that faculty do not know how to interact with people with disabilities (Lombardi, Murray, & Dallas, 2013). Interestingly, Cole and Cawthon (2015) found that students who had professors whose demeanors were more positive toward disability were more willing to disclose the disability and to do so more deeply (via personal conversations in addition to a letter).

Orr and Hammig (2009) also note that the use of boilerplate accommodations for a specific student does little to address the needs of students who have undisclosed disabilities or who may need additional support. Additionally, when faculty choose to not comply with the university accommodations policy (as found in Bruder & Mogro-Wilson, 2010) or to wait for students to approach them regarding needed accommodations, it sets up an environment where students perceive that accommodations are unavailable while also putting the onus on the student for disclosing. This does not encourage students to disclose, and thus students would rather wait until they are on the brink of failing before asking for accommodations (Burgstahler, 2006).

Providing instruction that meets the needs of a broader group of students, instead of accommodations for select individuals would go a long way to supporting those students who do not disclose their disabilities. For example, Gladhart (2010) found that fewer than half of instructors never provided advanced organizers, large print handouts, captioned materials, or captioned or scripted audio for their students. Instructors surveyed by Asuncion et al. (2010) indicated that ensuring accessibility was the role of someone else on campus. As Rao (2004) notes, faculty “need to be better informed about disabilities and students with disabilities” (p. 197).

Stigma and Disability

Individuals with disabilities face a similar potential threat as people from traditionally marginalized racial and ethnic groups—stigma. Several decades ago, Goffman (1963) describes stigma as an attribute that reduces “a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one,” ultimately discrediting the individual based largely, if not entirely, on perceptions of that attribute alone (p. 3). Later, Steele and Aronson (1995) studied the ways that stigma led to a vulnerability that impacted Black students’ academic experiences and performance, or stereotype threat. They explained that stereotype threat was the “risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group” (p. 797).

Stereotype threat theory may help inform the basis for non-disclosure of disability and the reasons that disability should be conceptualized as a form of diversity in the higher education classroom. It is essential to note that stereotype threat theory does not consider the “internalization of inferiority images or their consequences” (Steele & Aronson, 1995, p. 798). Rather, it “derives from the broad dissemination of negative stereotypes about one’s group—the threat of possibly being judged and treated stereotypically, or of possibly self-fulfilling such a stereotype” (p. 798). Students with disabilities, similar to students from traditionally racially and ethnically marginalized groups, face the vulnerabilities these stereotypes threaten (Greenbaum, Graham, & Scales, 1995).

Particularly salient in the context of higher education, stereotype threat is heightened when the domain is an area of interest. Each subsequent level of higher education involves greater self-selection and less compulsion. The nature of the effects of stereotype threat in compulsory PK-12 education may differ from the impact of those same threats in higher education contexts, specifically because of the students’ inherent heightened interest and self-selection in their higher education programs. Students in graduate and professional programs, even further self-selected, may feel increased psychological pressures associated with stereotypes and, thus, may further resist the revelation of their disability status (e.g., Griffin, 2002; Pontius & Harper, 2006).

The words one chooses and how a disability is framed makes a difference. Stigma and discrimination, even decades after the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), are rampant and can influence how people with disabilities experience the world. People with non-apparent disabilities, such as learning disabilities or mental health disorders, are often viewed unfavorably due to negative stereotypes and misunderstandings, which results in an increased reluctance to disclose (e.g., Cole & Cawthon, 2015; Sniatecki, Perry, & Snell, 2015). Whereas people whose disabilities are more apparent are given more empathy and opportunities to choose whether or not to disclose—though still facing threats from the stereotypes associated with their disabilities.

Bruder and Mogro-Wilson (2010) surveyed students and faculty at a university to assess the attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of people with disabilities. Of note is that the majority of students (both undergraduate and graduate) and faculty reported that they felt pity, awkwardness, and/or embarrassment often or occasionally when they met a person with a disability. There was a fear of doing or saying the wrong thing, and there were feelings of uncertainty about how to behave around people with disabilities. Additionally, approximately half of undergraduate students reported less than enthusiastic feelings when encountering people with disabilities, an attitude that students with disabilities themselves pick up on (Cole & Cawthon, 2015).

Sniatecki, Perry, and Snell (2015) also examined faculty attitudes and beliefs around disability and reported that faculty generally held positive views about ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgement
• Preface
• PART I: Theoretical Lenses and Application
• PART II: College Experiences of Students with Disabilities
• PART III: Perspectives of Faculty and Higher Education Administration
• PART IV: Institutional Programs and Initiatives
• About the contributors
• Index