Unpacking Disability Inclusion in U.S. Higher Education: Critical Discourse Analysis for Shaping the Future

• In Event: Unsettling the Present: Multigenerational, Interdisciplinary Dialogues on the Past, Present, and Futures of Inclusive Education

Abstract

Objectives
The evolution of disability inclusion in higher education is one of progression from segregated settings and limited access to greater accessibility and accommodations, and an inclusive campus culture (GAO, 2024). Disability inclusion in U.S. Institutes of Higher Education (IHEs) is mandated by federal legislation like Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act and supported by evolving understandings of disability and social justice. Movement beyond compliance and medical-based models are sought, but disability policies and practices fail to overcome isolation, oppression, and discrimination for many disabled students and particularly minoritized, students of color with disability in higher education. This study provides a historical, critical analysis of disability policy, detailing the progression of inclusion for disabled students in IHEs, drawing on critical interpretation of legal, institutional, and cultural origins of current systems, persistent systemic inequities, and emerging counter-practices and resistance strategies.

Theoretical Framework
We applied a critical disability theoretical framework (Disability Critical Race Theory; DisCrit; Annamma et al., 2013) to identify and expose how racialized and ableist logics have historically intertwined, perpetuating marginalization and often silencing specific voices within the disability rights movement and educational policy. Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) grounded our understanding of how race, gender, class, and language intersect with disability, shaping unique experiences of exclusion and access, in IHEs.

Methods and Data Sources
We used critical discourse analysis to trace the evolution of legal compliance, multi-level, institutional disability inclusion policy development and implementation in U.S. IHEs. Critical narrative analysis of student and institutional data allowed us to identify and critique disabilities and racialized inequalities discourses understood through language, oppression, power structures, and privilege. Data Sources were federal policy (504 and ADA); university disability policy; student oral histories and accommodation plans; and the Annual Disability Statistics Collection (2008-2023).

Results
Results indicate that while the journey toward inclusion for disabled students in U.S. higher education was initially driven by advocacy movements, pivotal legislation and legal frameworks failed to acknowledge the unique, embedded, systemic and racialized biases and barriers faced by multiply minoritized students within the education system (Artiles, 2011) and continued exclusion within the disability community (Composition Forum, n.d.; Disability Studies Quarterly, n.d.; ResearchGate, n.d.; Slothouber & Lindsay, 2025; University at Buffalo, 2019; WID, 2022). The university aim was compliance and policy reforms; yet, both deficit (medical) models and discourses persist, leaving the burden of responsibility for eligibility, access, accommodation, and inclusion squarely on the student, often overlooking student identities beyond disability, need for belonging and an inclusive culture at the intersections.

Significance
This study offers a critical historical lens on disability inclusion in higher education, moving beyond a purely legalistic or statistical narrative. By examining how racialized and ableist logics have historically intertwined, it exposes often-silenced voices and experiences of marginalized students, particularly disabled students of color. This study unpacks the significant progress achieved and persistent systemic challenges, clarifies historical roots of current inequities, and highlights counter-practices as resistance strategies, signaling new possibilities for shaping equitable, universally accessible higher educational systems.

Authors

• Elizabeth Harkins, William Paterson University

• Audrey M. Sorrells, Texas Christian University