When someone says “there are no disabled students in my class,” this is a map of fear, perhaps (access Vidali). But it is also voicing a desire. There is a fear of the presence of disability and a desire for its opposite: its eradication and exclusion.

I have said this many times, and I could say it right now. I’m not sure I do have any students who have defined physical disabilities. I realize that this can be more of a hope than anything else. Am I even equipped to assist a student with a physical disability? I can comfortably make the effort for my students with learning disabilities. After all, the school tells me in a succinct email exactly what to do for these students. 

Considering their physical bodies can be quite difficult, as I’m more concerned with how they think and I want to avoid any sort of judgment based on what little I know about them physically. That said, I had some reactions to the article that go a little outside the prompt.

I agree with the general idea that we should be taking a proactive rather than reactive approach to disability, but I’m honestly not sure how to implement it on the level of one teacher. If institutions are building inaccessible classrooms and making commutes to buildings difficult for students with disabilities, the powers that be will have to make this priority one in the planning and building of colleges. [I’m once again absolving myself of responsibility for this inaccessibility, I’ll acknowledge.]

I thought the section about “Miami Mergers” introduced an interesting new wrinkle to the issue of inaccessibility. At first it seemed almost comical to analyze with any seriousness this kind of advertising drivel meted out by poorly paid alumni association marketers, but Dolmage does come to a salient point about the college’s doublespeak regarding inclusivity.  To lampshade the coupling of college students in fundraising propaganda speaks to the notion that schools are still conformity factories turning out perfect families filled with alums who will one day send their children to the college. While calling this a form of eugenics is harsh, it did point out that Dolmage’s “steep steps” are rooted in an economic value system that likely has grown even stronger in this era of funding freezes and tuition hikes. If the university finds the most value in these “perfect couples” then why admit large numbers of students who will be less likely to reach this outcome?