disability | Campus Safe Words

TERM: disability
RISK LEVEL: moderate

Definition

“Disability” refers to a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In higher education, the term is most often used in reference to eligibility for accommodations, accessibility services, legal protections, and inclusive campus design.

Why It’s Risky

Although “disability” is a legally recognized and medically accurate term, its use can become politically sensitive when presented within broader identity-based or activist frameworks. In states where legislation has targeted DEI and related terminology, references to “disability” are occasionally scrutinized if they appear tied to ideological language or advocacy goals beyond legal compliance. For example, program descriptions or trainings that connect disability status with systemic oppression, intersectionality, or social justice movements may be perceived as extensions of identity politics. In such contexts, the term may draw unintended attention—not because of the word itself, but because of how it is operationalized or packaged. The risk increases when disability-related content is embedded in DEI plans, mandatory faculty trainings, or student life initiatives that adopt an overtly ideological tone.

Common Critiques

Critics rarely object to the word “disability” in isolation but take issue with how it is sometimes framed. When disability discourse shifts from legal and academic accommodations to advocacy for “disability justice” or structural change, it can be viewed as exceeding the institution’s scope. Conservative lawmakers and trustees have expressed concern that such framing introduces contested social theories into higher education under the cover of compliance. Some argue that overemphasis on disability narratives in curriculum or employee training may unintentionally promote entitlement culture, reduce academic standards, or burden faculty with unclear obligations. There is also resistance when disability discussions intersect with politically charged topics such as neurodiversity activism, mental health identity, or intersectional oppression—particularly if these themes are presented as mandatory perspectives. In politically sensitive environments, “disability” may become controversial not for what it denotes, but for how and where it is invoked.

Suggested Substitutes

ADA-recognized conditions (in policy or legal documentation)
Eligibility for accommodations (in admissions, syllabi, or HR)
Accessibility needs (in student services or event planning)
Functional impairments (in research or clinical settings)
Learning or access barriers (in faculty resources or training guides)

These alternatives focus on function, access, and compliance while avoiding politicized framing.

When It May Still Be Appropriate

“Disability” remains appropriate and necessary in any context referencing ADA, Section 504, or other legal protections. It is also suitable in academic research, disability services, and disability studies programs. For general communications, use the term carefully and in alignment with legal definitions rather than activist or ideological interpretations.

NOTES: Avoid substituting vague or euphemistic alternatives like “special needs” or “differently abled,” which are outdated and risk appearing patronizing. When possible, focus on outcomes and access rather than identity or moral obligation. Maintain a compliance-forward tone to reduce political exposure in conservative legislative climates.