Exploring the Definition of Disability: A Comparative Analysis of Global Legal Frameworks

• In Event: Gender, Race and Disabilities in Education

Proposal

Disability rights are of the utmost importance to the principles of equity, diversity, and social justice. Persons with disabilities (PWDs) have historically been marginalized and oppressed, facing discrimination in various aspects of life. Legal frameworks like the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and civil rights law in the state of Massachusetts have been created to protect and promote the rights of PWDs. However, they continue to face systemic barriers, preventing them from accessing their full potential and participating in society (Granberry & Agarwal, 2022). Comparing legal definitions of disability across different countries can identify areas of divergence and overlap that can inform policies and practices, ensuring PWDs’ full inclusion. Examining the language that policies use to define who is covered under disability law and what rights they are entitled to, reveals what ideologies are at play in defining who belongs to the nation (Ullman, 2010).
Legal definitions of disability must be problematized beyond a single-axis framework by implementing an intersectional framework (Crenshaw, 1989). It is crucial to recognize how disability intersects with other marginalized identities, causing PWDs to face compounded discrimination (Reid & Knight, 2006). Therefore, it is essential to explore how PWDs define themselves and work toward collective justice through various modalities (Schalk, 2023). Through critical comparative intersectional analysis of legal frameworks governing disability rights across different countries, this conference paper aims to contribute to the ongoing global conversation about the diversity of the disability community, their right to self-determination, and the promotion of social justice for all.

OBJECTIVES
What definitions of disability are outlined in the UNCRPD, ADA, and civil rights law in the state of Massachusetts? What are the areas of overlap or divergence between definitions? Is there a unified definition that is widely accepted and used?
How can these legal frameworks be revised to better reflect PWDs’ experiences?
How does disability intersect with other marginalized identities to form multiple layers of marginalization?
How are PWDs defining themselves on the ground and working towards collective justice through various modalities?

FRAMEWORK
Intersectional Disability Rights Framework is adopted as a lens for analyzing and advancing inclusion and social justice. Drawing on intersectionality (Collins et al., 2019), this framework recognizes the complex interplay between individuals' disability experiences and various social identities and systems of oppression. It incorporates the Social Model of Disability (McRuer, 2006), distinguishing impairment from disability and emphasizing societal barriers as the cause of disability. Grounded in a human rights perspective, this framework asserts that disability rights are human rights, as enshrined in international conventions. It promotes inclusive and universal design principles, addressing barriers through proactive accessibility measures. Furthermore, it calls for combating discrimination and promoting equity (Shakespeare, 2006), acknowledging the multiple layers of discrimination. Lastly, this framework emphasizes empowerment and self-advocacy (Thomas, 2007), amplifying PWDs’ voices. This intersectional lens offers a comprehensive understanding of disability, guiding efforts toward inclusive policies and practices.

INQUIRY
The proposed research used content analysis, critical discourse and intersectionality analysis as methodologies to systematically analyze legal definitions of disability across the UNCRPD, ADA, Massachusetts’ civil rights law, and different countries’ definitions. The researchers conducted a literature review of legal documents related to disability rights, including official government documents, legal briefs, and academic articles. These combined methodologies allowed for a comprehensive examination of the commonalities and differences in the definitions of disability, discourse, and categorical frameworks used in these policy and legal documents as well as areas where these definitions could be revised to better promote equity, diversity, and social justice for PWDs.

FINDINGS
1) Study found key differences in how disability is defined in the UNCRPD, ADA, and Massachusetts’ state law, which highlight the importance of contextualizing disability within a social model.
2) Definitions of disability across the U.S., Egypt, Canada, and Korea revealed similarities, differences, and potential overlap or divergence (CDIP, 2022; DREDF, n.d; NCFDAE, 2019). The U.S. and Egypt follow a medical model; Canada and Korea incorporate social and cultural factors. The U.S. and Canada consider a multifactorial approach, while Korea focuses on physical impairments and Egypt emphasizes theories. All countries value accessibility and reasonable accommodations for promoting equal rights. However, there is no international consensus on what constitutes a disability, necessitating further research.
3) Analysis revealed gaps in current disability rights documents, including the lack of attention to intersectionality and the need for incorporating PWDs’ perspectives in policy development. Recommendations include that disability rights documents explicitly acknowledge PWDs’ multiple identities and take into account how belonging to multiple marginalized groups can contribute to disability status (Granberry & Agarwal, 2022). Another recommendation is to incorporate PWDs’ perspectives in disability rights policy development and implementation (Schalk, 2023; Wong, 2020; Helm, n.d.). We can take up Schalk’s (2018) question, “What might it mean to imagine disability differently?” (p. 2). This imagining work can be achieved through participatory approaches that engage PWDs as active partners in policy-making.
4) In the documentary "Crip Camp," PWDs define themselves as a community of "crips” who have faced systemic barriers and use wit to reclaim the word as a term of pride and empowerment while advocating for their rights.
5) K-12 educational practices that apply the medical model of disability are a form of school policing, which justifies the segregation of multiple marginalized students (Black students, boys, and PWDs) in “special education” spaces and disciplinary contexts (Reid & Knight, 2006).

CONTRIBUTION
By critically analyzing disability definitions outlined in legal frameworks in the U.S. and other countries, highlighting areas of overlap or divergence, this research can inform policy and practice related to disability rights and inclusion on a global scale. By investigating how PWDs are defining themselves on the ground and working towards collective justice and equity through various modalities, this research could contribute to developing more inclusive and equitable practices in education, employment, healthcare, and other areas of society. It aims to advance the field of disability studies and contribute to efforts to promote equity, diversity, and social justice for all individuals, including those with disabilities.

Authors

• Lamiaa Eid, The University of Massachusetts Amherst

• Jana L Pickart, UMass Amherst