disabled | Campus Safe Words

TERM: disabled
RISK LEVEL: moderate

Definition

“Disabled” refers to individuals who have physical, mental, sensory, or cognitive impairments that substantially limit major life activities. In higher education, the term appears in legal contexts (e.g., ADA protections), student services, accessibility policies, and occasionally in personal identity statements.

Why It’s Risky

While “disabled” is legally recognized and widely used by self-advocates, its use as an adjective or identity label can be politically sensitive in conservative environments—especially when tied to broader narratives of oppression, intersectionality, or activism. Legislative efforts targeting DEI-related programming, such as Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act or Texas Senate Bill 17, do not ban the term itself but have created heightened scrutiny around how disability is framed. If “disabled” is used in materials that suggest structural injustice, demand ideological alignment, or promote identity-based restructuring of institutional practices, it may be flagged as part of a politicized agenda. Its use in syllabi, trainings, or hiring statements may also raise concerns if presented with language associated with activist movements (e.g., “disabled and proud” or “disability justice”).

Common Critiques

Conservative critiques focus less on the term “disabled” and more on its rhetorical context. The label can be seen as politically loaded when it appears in conjunction with claims of systemic oppression, demands for decolonized pedagogy, or calls for transformative institutional change. Critics argue that this reframing of disability moves beyond ADA compliance into ideological territory, sometimes used to justify accommodations that extend into academic expectations or grading. Some view identity-first language (“disabled person”) as unnecessarily politicized compared to the more neutral, person-first alternative (“person with a disability”). In addition, when campus programming frames disability within an intersectional justice lens or positions it as an oppressed identity akin to race or gender, it may be perceived as contributing to a broader culture of grievance or ideological overreach. These concerns are heightened in states where DEI and social justice terminology are under legislative review or defunding.

Suggested Substitutes

Person with a disability (in formal documents and ADA compliance)
Student eligible for accommodations (in academic or service contexts)
Individual with access needs (in event planning or housing)
Person requiring support services (in student affairs or HR)
ADA-covered individual (in legal or policy language)

These options align with legal norms and reduce identity-based framing.

When It May Still Be Appropriate

“Disabled” is appropriate in contexts where identity-first language is explicitly preferred by individuals or groups, such as disability studies programs or first-person narratives. It is also acceptable when quoting ADA language or scholarly work. For general campus communications, person-first language is safer and less likely to draw scrutiny, especially in public documents or required training materials.

NOTES: When using the term, be mindful of tone and context. Avoid coupling it with social justice rhetoric unless required by grant language or academic content. Focus on legal compliance, student support, and academic access to maintain neutrality and reduce political risk.