Ableism-in-Academia-Understanding-Systemic-Oppression-in-Higher-Education

Overview

This knowledge base explores ableism as systemic oppression within academia, examining how neoliberal university structures actively produce and maintain disability through impossible productivity demands, exclusionary accessibility frameworks, and normalized ableist epistemologies.

Understanding Ableism As Structural Oppression

Definition and Framework

Ableism operates as a “network of beliefs, processes and practices that produces a particular kind of self and body (the corporeal standard) that is projected as the perfect, species-typical and therefore essential and fully human. Disability then is cast as a diminished state of being human” (Campbell).

This extends beyond individual prejudice to create a soma-epistemological system that determines whose bodies, minds, and ways of being are valued as legitimate, productive, and fully human.

Key Components

Differentiation: Ranking certain bodies as superior
Notification: Making differences visible and therefore suspicious
Prioritization: Rewarding alignment with the benchmark body

Beyond Physical Disability

Ableism encompasses:

Neoliberal Academia As Ableist System

Transformation of Higher Education

The shift from publicly-funded institutions to market-driven businesses has created:

Constant pressure for productivity and measurable outputs
Performance metrics like Research Excellence Framework (REF) and Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF)
Demands for academics to be “agile, economical and highly performing”
Devaluation of invisible labor like mentoring and emotional Support

The “normal” Academic Body

Neoliberal academia creates implicit standards requiring:

Perpetual productivity (publications, citations, funding)
Visible health (sickness signals reduced productivity)
Cheerful adaptability to changing demands
Independence from care responsibilities

Disclosure and Strategic Information Management

The Double Bind

Disabled academics face impossible choices:

Disclosure: Risk discrimination, perceived weakness, career consequences
Non-disclosure: Cannot access reasonable adjustments, may face unexplained absences

Statistical Reality

Less than 4% of academics disclose disability compared to 16% of the working-age population, suggesting systemic discouragement rather than individual hesitation.

Factors Shaping Disclosure

Job security: Early-career academics on precarious contracts face higher risk
Visibility: Those with visible disabilities may not have the option to “pass”
Intersectionality: Race, gender, and class compound disclosure risks

Disclosure Dances

Rather than binary choices, disabled academics engage in selective information management:

Disclosing pain to HR for accommodation purposes
Concealing cognitive dysfunction from academic colleagues
Managing different narratives for different audiences

Knowledge Production and Gatekeeping

Historical Gatekeeping

Professional bodies (medicine, law) have historically controlled:

Who has legitimate knowledge
Whose experiences count as valid
What constitutes “expertise”

The social model of disability challenged medical gatekeeping by separating:

Impairment: Biological variation
Disability: Social construction through environmental barriers

However, poststructuralist approaches argue both disability and ability are performatively constructed through discourse and power relations.

Participatory Research Frameworks

Feminist participatory action research (FPAR) offers alternatives by prioritizing:

Reciprocal learning
Democratic validity
Ethical validity
Outcome validity
Process validity

Invisible and Fluctuating Disabilities

Unique Challenges

Invisible disabilities create two critical problems:

Invisibility: Automatic assumption of non-disability
Fluctuation: Non-static nature of many conditions

The “but You Don’t Look Sick” Barrier

This phrase emerged repeatedly as undermining credibility and understanding, particularly for conditions like:

Cognitive Dysfunction in Academia

Cognitive difficulties carry particular Stigma in academia where intellectual capacity is foundational to professional identity. Symptoms include:

Difficulty processing information
Problems following conversations
Concentration difficulties
Getting lost on familiar routes

The Problem With “reasonable Adjustments”

Framework As Procedural Violence

The “reasonable adjustments” framework under UK Equality Act 2010 operates as:

Enumerative passport system: Requiring Diagnosis to access services
Suspicion generation: Creating doubt about disability authenticity
Minimal compliance: Meeting technical standards without ensuring genuine accessibility

The “undue Burden” Problem

The legal test conflates disability with burden, making equality provisional and contingent rather than universal.

Examples of Failure

Venues deemed “accessible” while excluding disabled staff from full participation
Gaslighting disabled academics who point out inaccessibility
Providing Support that doesn’t address actual barriers

Humiliation and Ontoviolence

Understanding Ontoviolence

Fiona Kumari Campbell defines ontoviolence as “violence that seeps into the interior spaces of a person’s beingness, attacking their fundamental dignity and self-respect.”

Elements of Humiliation

Calling into question a status claim
Public failure of that claim
The degrader possessing higher status
Rejection of the status itself

Microaggressions and Accumulated Harm

Examples include:

Being required to scoot down stairs rather than using accessible rooms
Having complaints redirected as evidence of problematic attitude
Colleagues withdrawing Support due to uncertainty about extended illnesses

Intersectionality and Compounded Oppression

Multiple Marginalization

Disability cannot be abstracted from race, gender, sexuality, and class. Disabled women, disabled people of color, and disabled LGBTQ+ people experience compounded exclusions.

Historical Context

Disabled women marginalized by mainstream feminism focused on able-bodied concerns
Disability metaphors weaponized against marginalized groups
Working-class disabled people lacking structural supports available to privileged groups

Systemic Barriers

Professional advancement and political activism are “resource heavy,” favoring those with structural supports—overwhelmingly middle-class, well-connected, able-bodied people.

Universal Design and Anticipatory Accessibility

Beyond Retrofitting

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles include:

Multiple formats for content (text, audio, video)
Multiple means of engagement and participation
Reducing barriers not essential to learning objectives

Implementation Requirements

Clear policies backed by high-level strategy
Specific resource allocation for accessibility
Building in flexibility at design stage
Cultural shifts assuming good reasons for non-participation

Practical Strategies

Individual Practices

Setting sustainable work boundaries
Recognizing that perfect output isn’t necessary
Building peer Support networks
Strategic disclosure based on risk Assessment

Institutional Changes

Participatory knowledge production frameworks
Comprehensive accessibility planning
Anti-retaliation policies with enforcement
Resource allocation for accessibility coordination

Collective Action

Questioning productivity metrics
Documenting hidden labor
Insisting on alternative evaluation criteria
Organizing resistance to impossible demands

Shared Interest in Refusing Ableism

Non-Disabled Academic Responsibility

Both disabled and non-disabled academics are shaped by ableist power structures:

Disabled academics: Constrained by inaccessibility and performance demands
Non-disabled academics: Constrained to endless performance and productivity

Mutual Liberation

Resisting ableism serves everyone’s interests by:

Creating sustainable work practices
Valuing diverse contributions
Recognizing embodied knowledge
Building alternative academic values

Mental Health and Systemic Factors

Contextual Understanding

Rising mental ill-health in academia reflects:

Profession-wide pressure and culture
Neoliberal demands for constant productivity
Precarious employment conditions
Not individual weakness or pathology

Shifting Responsibility

Solutions require examining workplace cultures and structural demands, not just medicalizing individuals or promoting individual “resilience.”

Resources and Support

Organizations

Disability Rights UK: Employment advice and legal guidance
Mind: Mental health Support
ACAS: Workplace rights and employment relations
Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice: Participatory research examples

Theoretical Frameworks

Crip theory: Disability resistance and interdependency
Poststructuralism: Power and discourse analysis
Disability justice: Intersectional disability politics
Embodied practice: Integrating body awareness into academic work

Keywords

Ableism, academia, disability, chronic illness, invisible disability, neurodiversity, disclosure, reasonable adjustments, universal design, intersectionality, mental health, Burnout, neoliberalism, productivity metrics, embodiment, ontoviolence, accessibility, higher education, social model, crip theory, participatory research, knowledge production, systemic oppression, structural change

Topics

Disabled academics, chronic illness in academia, neurodivergent scholars, disclosure decisions, academic accessibility, university ableism, research productivity, teaching excellence framework, mental health in higher education, intersectional disability justice, universal design for learning, embodied academic practice, disability rights in education, academic workplace culture, systemic discrimination, participatory action research, disability studies theory, crip epistemology, academic leadership and disability, early-career researchers, precarious academic employment, disability disclosure strategies

Divergent Tabletop Wiki

Explorer

Ableism In Academia Theorising Experiences Of Disabilities And Chronic Illnesses In Higher Education