In April of 2023, the American Political Science Association (APSA) council approved a proposal for a Committee on the Status of Disability in the Profession. This approval was recently publicly announced alongside the introduction of the committee of five individuals – the majority of whom do not publicly identify as disabled or participate in existing advocacy efforts led by disabled academics.
Status committees are nothing new to political science. APSA already features nine other status committees focusing on underrepresented groups: Asian Pacific Americans, Blacks, Community Colleges, Contingent Faculty, First Generation Scholars, Graduate Students, Latinos y Latinas, LGBTQ Individuals, and Women. Each of these committees has clearly prioritized the voices of those they represent, with all but one of them being comprised entirely of individuals who publicly identify as members of the underrepresented group their committee is meant to support.
Academics from these and other underrepresented groups have been fighting for decades for better representation and equality for those who have been historically excluded from higher education. The work of those scholars has led political science to better understand and value a diversity of perspectives. Equally importantly, it has given those most impacted by the marginalization of a community the opportunity to have their voices centered in conversations about their marginalization and how to address it. This “pass the mic” approach is a widely accepted best practice in conversations about marginalization and exclusion.
The creation of all male, all white, or otherwise unrepresentative panels and committees are met with deserved criticism and distaste. They are particularly egregious when the topic of discussion is representation and inclusion itself and members of the marginalized group in question are largely absent. So, why was the announcement of a disability committee led by predominantly non-disabled scholars met with acceptance and even praise?
The creation of disability status committees in academic organizations is long overdue. Disabled graduate students and faculty members throughout academia have been fighting for access to higher education and academic employment for decades, and we are far too often left to fend for ourselves. Allies are a welcome addition to the fight. However, the creation of a committee to study the status of disabled scholars in the profession that is comprised of predominantly non-disabled individuals is inappropriate and does not reflect the “commitment to disability justice and equity” that the committee says they espouse.
For over thirty years the phrase “Nothing About Us Without Us” has been the mantra of disability activism and community. It is one of the first things that anyone studying disability history or the disability community learns. This phrase has been a powerful rallying cry among disabled people specifically because we have historically been excluded from and talked over in conversations and decisions about us and our needs. Unfortunately, the fight to be heard continues. The appointment of a largely non-disabled committee to study the status of disability in the profession is yet another example of this common and exhausting dynamic. How are disabled people in the profession supposed to trust that this committee has our best interests in mind when it fails to incorporate our core principle of “Nothing About Us Without Us”?
Academia is a profession where accessibility is an afterthought, accommodation denials are the norm, and disabled scholars are fighting battles one at a time to keep our places in the discipline. Our lived experiences navigating these dynamics give us crucial insights into our status in the profession. It is heartening to see more interest from non-disabled political scientists in issues surrounding disability. However, it is not appropriate for allies to set the agenda or take the lead in these discussions. It perpetuates the core problem:
We don’t have access to the table.
Judith Heumann, often referred to as the mother of the Disability Civil Rights Movement in the United States, famously noted, “Our anger was a fury sparked by profound injustices. Wrongs that deserved ire. And with that rage we ripped a hole in the status quo.” She also encouraged disabled people to feel not only seen by the movement but empowered to fight for themselves. “I want to see a feisty group of disabled people around the world. If you don’t respect yourself and if you don’t demand what you believe in for yourself, you’re not going to get it.”
We respect ourselves enough to be angry about this. A committee comprised of primarily non-disabled individuals meant to evaluate the experiences and address the challenges faced by disabled political scientists is an injustice and we are demanding change.
The APSA Committee on The Status of Disability in the Profession should be led by and comprised of disabled students and faculty who deserve to be the ones speaking to their own experiences. The goals and vision of this committee must be created with the collective input and experiences of a wide variety of disabled political scientists. Our voices must be centered.
In short: Nothing About Us Without Us.
Sincerely,
Disabled Political Scientists and Those Who Are Passing Us the Mic
We have spent the week following the initial release of this letter in direct communication with the current members of the APSA Committee on the Status of Disability in the Profession after they reached out to us to discuss our concerns. Throughout this dialogue they have made it clear that ensuring that all members of this committee are disabled themselves is not something they believe is necessary or realistic.
We maintain that disability disclosure, while complex, is necessitated in contexts of power such as this one. This disclosure need not be detailed, complex, or exploitative. It simply serves to ensure that those most qualified to speak to the status of disability in the discipline are the ones being given the opportunity to do so.
We also maintain that prioritizing having a diverse group of disabled scholars across types of disability, academic rank (as all other APSA status committees have done), and other intersectional identities will provide the best forum for high quality deliberation about how to approach disability inclusion and equity in political science.
We will continue to fight for disabled political scientists to be the ones speaking to and directing conversations about the status of disability in political science because we believe it is the only acceptable option. In the words of disabled writer and activist Imani Barbarin:
“Taking up space in advocacy for a marginalized group is a privilege; one that you can wield to make the public sphere more inclusive or one you can use to center yourself. Ally-ship requires you to do the former, anything else is a performance. As well as frustrating disabled people, taking up space to speak instead of disabled people is ableism in itself. We are constantly being infantilized well into adulthood and speaking for disabled people reinforces that stereotype in the public consciousness. It also spreads the idea that we aren’t autonomous, are unable to give consent and aren’t knowledgeable about the factors that affect our lives."