Teaching Truth, Resisting Erasure: Disability Politics in a Changing America

Teaching Truth, Resisting Erasure: Disability Politics in a Changing America

Disability, from a social perspective, is distinct from impairment (Oliver 1990). Impairment is the lack of a part or the whole functioning of an organ (Barnes & Mercer 2004). Disability, instead, is a form of social oppression imposed on individuals who happen to have an impairment. It is the experience of individuals with physical or psychosocial impairments when they interact with an environment that fails to accommodate their needs (Oliver 1990; Oliver & Barnes 2012). Disability arises due to the systematic exclusion of impaired persons in the design of infrastructures, educational, legal, and healthcare systems, policy proposals and implementation, and every other aspect of society (Bowe 1978; Hahn 1982; Hahn 1985). Thus, while body diversity is an inherent characteristic of human beings, disability is not.

However, without sensitization by disability rights activists, disability is predominantly perceived through the medical lens, which considers it an inherent characteristic of a person with a physical or psychosocial defect that needs to be fixed (Zaks 2024). Similarly, the economic lens views disabled persons as societal members who fail to be productive due to such defects (Babik 2021). Furthermore, the historical stigmatization and ostracization of impaired individuals have led to a vast majority of society having limited exposure and little insight into the experiences of disabled persons (Lindsay & Edwards 2013). This lack of exposure results in discomfort when interacting with disabled individuals, further exacerbating the unfamiliarity of the non-disabled majority with disability-related issues (Lindsay & Edwards 2013). Simply put, people are either ill-informed, have deep-seated implicit biases, or lack awareness of disability issues. This is a significant problem!

The recognition and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities have never come easily. Disability rights have only been achieved through sustained and long-term resistance (Fleischer & Zames 2001). Michael Oliver, a prominent British disability rights activist, famously referred to the disability rights movement as the last civil rights movement (Oliver 1990), citing its limited recognition by social scientists, policymakers, and society at large, as well as the slow pace of its progress. While some gains have been made, such as the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which commits the U.S. government to protecting the social, political, and economic rights of disabled citizens, disabled persons continue to face numerous insurmountable challenges (Bagenstos 2020; Krahn, Walker, and Correa-De-Araujo 2015).

In America, vulnerable communities are more likely to experience disability. Older individuals are naturally more susceptible to developing impairments. Moreover, disabled persons are more likely to live in poverty (Stapleton et al. 2006), experience social isolation and loneliness (Emerson et al. 2021), face discriminatory employment practices (Bagenstos 2020), and be subjected to violence from law enforcement (Schweik 2009). Notably, disability is often a problem of the poor—persons born into lower-income households are more likely to become disabled due to a lack of access to quality and timely healthcare (Stapleton et al. 2006). It is also more prevalent among the transgender community (Smith-Johnson 2022) and among women, for whom factors like pregnancy complications can lead to disability (Ashford 2002). Additionally, returning veterans frequently face physical impairments and psychological trauma, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which profoundly affects their daily lives (Elbogen 2018). Given the United States’ history of racial slavery, political violence, and environmental injustice, disability is more prevalent among minority ethnic groups, such as Black and Native Americans (Bowen 2009). In sum, disability—through discrimination, social ostracization, stigmatization, and exclusion—further entrenches the disenfranchisement of already marginalized groups.

At a time when hard-won gains—such as initiatives to include individuals with disabilities in the economy through diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs—are being systematically dismantled, it is crucial to remain vigilant. Programs designed to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities receive training and access to opportunities in agencies like the FAA are now being reversed under the guise of stigmatizing the employment of those with impairments, leading to the eradication of DEIA initiatives altogether. Simultaneously, social welfare programs are being scaled down, with beneficiaries increasingly framed as burdens on society. Protections against discriminatory language are being weakened, and efforts to foster awareness—such as DEIA training, institutional structures promoting accessibility, and identity months, including Disability Awareness Month—are under threat, if not already eliminated.

As instructors and researchers in public health, disability politics, and social welfare studies, it is our responsibility to monitor these changes closely. The disability rights movement fought tirelessly for these protections (Anspach 1979), with activists like Judy Heumann, who championed federal anti-discrimination laws, and Lois Curtis, who fought to establish the right for people with disabilities to live independently rather than being institutionalized. Their legacies remind us that vigilance is essential.

We must not only document these shifts meticulously but also analyze their broader societal impact. It is imperative that we track policy changes and program rollbacks, breaking down their implications for the public. Those of us trained in data analysis and policy interpretation must step up—especially in moments when misinformation runs rampant and a fast-moving administration disrupts established systems—to help the public navigate an era of information overload.

Awareness is powerful. In times like these, raising awareness is not just advocacy—it is resistance.

We have access to a long recorded history that serves as a guide for future generations, helping them avoid repeating past mistakes. History has shown us that those who are marginalized and exist on the periphery of society are often the first targets of fascist regimes. In Nazi Germany, Hitler initially targeted persons with disabilities and LGBTQ individuals before expanding persecution to German Jews, the Roma, and other minority ethnic groups (Evans 2004).

When we walk into our classrooms to teach, we should not be intimidated by the mandates of Project 2025. Instead, we must be emboldened to teach history in a way that centers the voices of the victimized. We must remind our students that humanity has endured profound turbulence—times when hope seemed distant, lives were lost, and societies were upended. Yet history also teaches us that resilience, hope, and the capacity for love and empathy have empowered people to resist oppression. It was this resilience that united ordinary civilians across Africa, the United States, and the UK under the BDS movement and the global fight to end apartheid in South Africa (Manulak 2024). It was this spirit that drove American college students to protest the Vietnam War (Heineman 1992), that inspired the ongoing fight for Palestinian rights, that led African Americans to march for equal rights (Dittmer 1994), that fueled the Stonewall riots (Pitman 2019), that powered the 504 demonstrations (Scotch & Barnartt 2001), and that continues to inspire movements for justice today.

As Kendrick Lamar might say, it is with this same resilience that we gotta "squabble up" and push forward.

References

1. Anspach, Renee R. “From Stigma to Identity Politics: Political Activism among the Physically Disabled and Former Mental Patients.” Social Science & Medicine. Part A: Medical Psychology & Medical Sociology 13, no. 6A (1979): 765–773.

2. Ashford, Lori. Hidden Suffering: Disabilities from Pregnancy and Childbirth in Less Developed Countries. Population Reference Bureau, 2002.

3. Babik, Iryna, and Elena S Gardner. “Factors Affecting the Perception of Disability: A Developmental Perspective.” Frontiers in psychology Vol. 12 702166. 21 Jun. 2021, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702166

4. Bagenstos, Samuel R. “Disability Rights and the Discourse of Justice.” SMU Law Review Forum 73 (2020): 26-33.

5. Barnes, Colin, and Geoffrey Mercer, eds. Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research. Leeds: Disability Press, 2004.

6. Bowe, Frank. Handicapping America : Barriers to Disabled People / Frank Bowe. 1st ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

7. Bowen, Mary Elizabeth. “Childhood Socioeconomic Status and Racial Differences in Disability: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study (1998–2006).” Social Science & Medicine 69, no. 3 (2009): 433–441.

8. Dittmer, John. Local People : The Struggle for Civil Rights in Mississippi / John Dittmer. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994.

9. Elbogen, Eric B., H. Ryan Wagner, Sharon C. Johnson, Patricia Kinneer, Han Kang, Jennifer J. Vasterling, and Jean C. Beckham. “Are Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Using Mental Health Services? New Data from a National Random-Sample Survey.” Psychiatric Services 69, no. 2 (2018): 201-206.

10. Emerson, Eric, Nicola Fortune, Gwynnyth Llewellyn, and Roger Stancliffe. “Loneliness, Social Support, Social Isolation and Wellbeing among Working Age Adults with and without Disability: Cross-Sectional Study.” Disability and health journal 14, no. 1 (2021): 100965–100965.

11. Evans, Suzanne E. Forgotten Crimes: The Holocaust and People with Disabilities. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, 2004.

12. Fleischer, Doris Zames, and Frieda Zames. The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001.

13. Hahn, Harlan. “Disability and Rehabilitation Policy: Is Paternalistic Neglect Really Benign?” Public Administration Review. American Society for Public Administration, 1982.

14. Hahn, Harlan. “TOWARD A POLITICS OF DISABILITY DEFINITIONS, DISCIPLINES, AND POLITICS.” The Social science journal (Fort Collins) 22, no. 4 (1985): 87–105.

15. Heineman, Kenneth J. Campus Wars : The Peace Movement at American State Universities in the Vietnam Era / Kenneth J. Heineman. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1992.

16. Krahn, Gloria L., Deborah K. Walker, and Rosaly Correa-De-Araujo. “Persons with Disabilities as an Unrecognized Health Disparity Population.” American Journal of Public Health 105, no. S2 (2015): S198-S206.

17. Lindsay, Sally, and Alison Edwards. “A Systematic Review of Disability Awareness Interventions for Children and Youth.” Disability and Rehabilitation 35, no. 8 (2013): 623-646.

18. Manulak, Daniel. “Moral Contamination, Emotion, and the Global Anti-Apartheid Movement.” Diplomatic history 48, no. 3 (2024): 424–445.

19. Oliver, Michael. Politics of Disablement. London: Macmillan Education, Limited, 1990.

20. Oliver, Michael, and Colin Barnes. The New Politics of Disablement / by Michael Oliver, Colin Barnes. Houndmills, Basingstoke ; Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

21. Pitman, Gayle E, and Fred Sargeant. The Stonewall Riots : Coming out in the Streets : [Hbk.]. Abrams Books for Young Readers, 2019.

22. Scotch, Richard, and Sharon Barnartt. Disability Protests: Contentious Politics, 1970-1999. 1st ed. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 2001.

23. Smith-Johnson, Madeline. “Transgender Adults Have Higher Rates Of Disability Than Their Cisgender Counterparts: Study Examines Rates of Disability among Transgender Adults and Cisgender Adults.” Health Affairs 41, no. 10 (2022): 1470–1476.

24. STAPLETON, DAVID C, BONNIE L O’DAY, GINA A LIVERMORE, and ANDREW J IMPARATO. “Dismantling the Poverty Trap: Disability Policy for the Twenty-First Century.” The Milbank quarterly 84, no. 4 (2006): 701–732.

25. Zaks, Zosia. “Changing the Medical Model of Disability to the Normalization Model of Disability: Clarifying the Past to Create a New Future Direction.” Disability & society 39, no. 12 (2024): 3233–3260.