presentation disability justice

Resource Library

What is disability justice.

In this resource, you’ll learn about the origin and definition of disability justice as a movement and framework.

What does “Disability Justice” mean?

Disability Justice centers intersectionality and the ways diverse systems of oppression amplify and reinforce one another.

The term “disability justice” is often used interchangeably with terms such as “disability rights” and “disability inclusion.” Yet it’s important to recognize that “disability justice” refers to a very specific framework of thinking about disability.

Disability inclusion is a broad term to describe approaches to advance access and inclusion for disabled people. A disability justice approach centers the priorities and approaches of those most historically excluded groups, such as women, people of color, immigrants, and people who identify as LGBTQ+.

The Origin of Disability Justice

As explained by Patty Berne, the Co-Founder, Executive and Artistic Director of Sins Invalid and one of the people whose work and words informed the conceptualization of disability justice, the framework was a reaction to the ways that the US disability rights movement “invisibilized the lives of peoples who lived at intersecting junctures of oppression – disabled people of color, immigrants with disabilities, queers with disabilities, trans and gender non-conforming people with disabilities, people with disabilities who are houseless, people with disabilities who are incarcerated, people with disabilities who have had their ancestral lands stolen, amongst others.”

Click here to read Berne’s piece on disability justice and its 10 principles .

Defining Disability Justice – “an expectation of difference”

As set forth by Naomi Ortiz, a writer, poet, facilitator and visual artist whose work focuses on self-care for activists, “Disability Justice is the cross-disability (sensory, intellectual, mental health/psychiatric, neurodiversity, physical/mobility, learning, etc.) framework that values access, self-determination and an expectation of difference. An expectation of difference means that we expect difference in disability, identity and culture. To be included and part of society is about being able to be our “whole self” (all of our identities together). Disability Justice includes space for self-care, reflection and hard discussions.”

Click here to read the full definition of disability justice .

Disability Justice and Interdependence

Writer, educator and community organizer for disability justice Mia Mingus explains: “With disability justice, we want to move away from the ‘myth of independence,’ that everyone can and should be able to do everything on their own. I am not fighting for independence, as much of the disability rights movement rallies behind. I am fighting for an interdependence that embraces need and tells the truth: no one does it on their own and the myth of independence is just that, a myth.”

Click here to read Mingus’ piece on the values of the disability justice framework .

Disability Justice and Other Justice Movements

Disability justice connects with all other key movements for justice and liberation from oppression. For example, Standing Up for Racial Justice, a national network of groups and individuals working to undermine white supremacy and to work toward racial justice, shares: “We want to create a movement for racial justice that not only pushes back against disability stereotypes of tragedy, inspiration or irresponsible burden but that also fiercely resists the powerful undercurrents about the ‘feebleminded’, the illiterate or accented people of our lives. These ideas, birthed in ableism, grease the cogs of white supremacy and perpetuate white privilege.”

Click here to read their full statement on disability justice and racial justice.

Further Learning Resources

Disability Justice Curriculum

Disability Justice: An Audit Tool

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Disability and Justice

Among the topics in philosophy and disability, the relationship between disability and justice has received the lion’s share of attention. No doubt this is in part because justice, often regarded as the “first virtue of social institutions” (Rawls 1971: 3), is central to the evaluation of social policies and public institutions. But it is also because disability has played at least two distinct roles in recent discussions of social justice. First, disability has been seen by many as a paradigm example of unchosen disadvantage. Hence, disability has played a central role in internal discussions of luck egalitarianism, in particular with respect to the “currency” question—equality of what?—and external discussions, in particular with respect to the question of whether luck egalitarianism is disrespectful or stigmatizing. Second, people with disabilities, particularly intellectual or cognitive disabilities, have been seen by many as a “limit case” for contractarian or contractualist theories of justice. Hence, disability has played a central role in discussions about the eligibility conditions for being party to the contractual procedures by which principles of justice are chosen and for being subject to the principles of justice so chosen.

Disability also presents difficult issues as a social or group identity: roughly, a central part of the way an individual understands, presents, or values herself. This aspect of disability has been made salient by the civil rights movement that established disability as an important category in antidiscrimination law. Theories that assess justice in terms of the distribution of resources or opportunities have sometimes been criticized for failing to take adequate account of such identities. But the embrace of social identity as a component of justice can be equally problematic.

Disability is of special interest for justice because of the way in which it juxtaposes two basic and powerful senses of injustice . These two senses of injustice are sometimes expressed in terms of a distinction between the justice of distributions and the justice of recognition, or more recently, between distributive justice and relational injustice. Very roughly, we can think of these labels as denoting a distinction between the injustice of certain outcomes —in particular, outcomes in which there is an inequality of income, wealth, health, or other aspects of well-being resulting from morally irrelevant factors—and the injustice of certain forms of treatment —in particular, the treatment of some people as moral, social, or political inferiors on the basis of morally irrelevant characteristics. Correcting the first form of injustice is thought to require, fundamentally, a change in the distribution of resources, broadly construed, that affect well-being. Correcting the first form of injustice is thought to require, fundamentally, a change in the structure and character of interpersonal relationships, which may in turn require changes to social and institutional norms and practices. Needless to say, the relationship and comparative importance of these two forms of injustice have been the subject of considerable discussion, and there is no canonical statement of the distinction (Fourie et al. 2015; Anderson 1999; Fraser 2001, 1996; Honneth 1992).

This entry is organized as follows: Section 1 will discuss disability in terms of these two broad types of injustice. Sections 2 and 3 will examine the implications of different models of disability for the distinction between redistribution and recognition. Section 4 will then examine the treatment of disability in contemporary theories of distributive justice. It will explain how the environmental and social character of disability has been largely overlooked by contractarian and egalitarian theories, not so much because of their distributive focus, but because of their narrow focus on one aspect of disability—functional limitation—to the neglect of exclusionary attitudes and practices. Section 4 will conclude by discussing recent efforts to rectify this neglect, describing several ways in which distributive justice theorists have sought to take account of environmental and social barriers and to address claims for recognition. These efforts include broadening the metric for just distributions to encompass respectful relationships and social practices; arguing that a just distribution on such broader metrics can be attained more effectively and appropriately by modifying the physical and social environment than by redistributing resources among individuals; and adopting outcome standards that do not require strict equality on any metric but rather the reduction or elimination of disrespectful inequalities. Section 5 will discuss a major issue in the recognition of disability: the relationship of disability identity to various approaches to justice, where “identity” is understood as a part of an individual’s self-understanding or self-presentation.

1. Disability, Recognition, and Redistribution

2. models of disability and their implications for justice, 3. justice, reconstruction, and reasonable accommodation, 4.1 disability and contemporary social contract theories, 4.2 disability, outcome-oriented theories, and the “currency” of justice, 4.3 the appropriate metric for distributive justice, 4.4 the appropriate standard for distributive justice, 5. justice, disability identities, and epistemic injustice, 6. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries.

It is clear that people with disabilities have long been treated as moral and social inferiors, at the same time that they have suffered distributive injustices of various kinds (see generally, Barclay 2018). Routinely, people with disabilities have been denied jobs for which they are highly qualified because they have been considered incompetent, or because employers have not been comfortable with their presence in the workplace. Often, people with certain disabilities have been consigned to segregated institutions and facilities because they have been regarded as incapable of making decisions or caring for themselves, or because others in the community did not want to interact with them.

These forms of relational injustice are associated with very concrete material inequalities. In 2009, almost 20 years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the employment-population ratio of people with disabilities in the United States was 19.2%, compared to 64.5% for persons without a disability (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010). Based on data from 1996–1999, researchers estimate that 47.4% of working-age adults who experienced poverty for a year or more had at least one disability (Fremstad 2009).

Facts such as these have led some to conclude that

in particular, internally diverse ways, people with disabilities have been on the end of a kind of pincer movement between Fraser’s two impediments to parity: “misrecognition” and “maldistribution” (Calder 2010: 62).

In these respects, people with disabilities are in a comparable position to members of other “discrete and insular minorities” with a history of being subject to both distributive and relational injustice. But there is a significant difference. Simply put, there is no reason to think that it need be particularly expensive to eliminate disrespect and misrecognition towards racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities. But insofar as accommodation and reconstruction of the built environment are necessary to eliminate disrespect and misrecognition towards people with disabilities, relational justice for people with disabilities may require diverting significant resources from other causes. In that sense, achieving justice for people with disabilities requires us to directly address the relationship between relational justice and distributive justice to a degree that achieving justice for members of other groups generally does not.

To be sure, the costs associated with accommodation and reconstruction of the built environment need not be understood as compensation for the alleged deficits of people with disabilities. Indeed, they would have to be acknowledged even if disabilities were seen as intrinsically neutral physical or mental characteristics that merely differ from those of a majority of the population. In any society whose physical structures and social practices are designed for average or typical members, people with disabilities will be disadvantaged just because of their minority status. A similar point has been made by feminist scholars, who have pointed out the structural discrimination of workplaces and public settings designed exclusively for men. The expenses of additional restrooms, stalls, or pumping stations do not compensate women for their deficiencies. They simply accommodate differences ignored in a society that saw a woman’s place as in the home (Wendell 1996; Wasserman 1998: 178–179).

Still, the rectification of such structural discrimination may raise more difficult issues for people with disabilities than for women, because there is greater uncertainty and potential for disagreement about the extent of the changes that are required to treat people with disabilities as social and political equals. Indeed, the range and variety of physical and mental differences within a society raise issues of distributive justice that have no obvious analogue for other stigmatized groups. A “gender-neutral” environment can be readily conceived, and achieved at modest cost. In contrast, disability scholars and activists have not specified what it would mean to achieve an “ability-neutral” environment—one that was no more advantageous to people with some physical and mental characteristics than others. And some argued that the ideas of an “ability-neutral” environment is either conceptually incoherent or prohibitively expensive (Barclay 2011, 2018). Moreover, it seems likely that questions about the extent to which justice requires reconstructing or modifying the built environment would arise with respect to people with disabilities even in a society with no history of invidious attitudes or practices toward such persons. By contrast, it seems less likely that such questions would arise in a society with no history of sexism, for example.

Justice for people with disabilities, then, appears to raise questions about the relationship between distributive justice and relational justice that justice for other stigmatized groups does not. Yet the need for redistribution hardly reduces the importance of recognition in achieving justice. Indeed, the complex, disputed relationship between the two makes disability a significant challenge for theories of justice.

“Disability” is typically defined in terms of two elements: (i) a physical or mental characteristic labeled or perceived as an impairment or dysfunction, and (ii) a significant personal or social limitation associated with that characteristic. The relationship between these two elements—and the role of the environment in mediating them—is a core issue in the conceptualization of, and social response to, disability. The medical model treats disability as an individual physical or mental characteristic with significant personal and social consequences. In particular, it sees the limitations faced by people with disabilities as resulting primarily or solely from their impairments. By contrast, the various social models see disability as a relationship between individuals and their social environments: physical and mental characteristics are limiting only or primarily in virtue of social practices that lead to the exclusion of people with those characteristics. This exclusion is manifested not only in deliberate segregation, but in built environments and social practices that restrict the participation of people regarded as having disabilities (see SEP entry on disability: definitions, models, experience ).

In their extreme forms, which treat the impairment or environment (respectively) as the sole cause of personal and social limitation, the medical and social models have few, if any, defenders. Rather, they mark the limits of possible relationships between impairment and limitation. Almost all writers on disability acknowledge some role for both the impairment and the environment in causing limitations; the disagreement largely concerns the assessment of their comparative contribution, and their interaction. Most scholars who embrace some version of the social model acknowledge that impairments—generally but not universally understood as deviations from species-relative statistical norms—can be sources of discomfort and limitation even in the absence of disadvantaging social practices (e.g., Shakespeare 2006, Thomas 2004). These scholars would argue, however, that such adverse effects are far less damaging than social exclusion, are greatly magnified by hostile environments, and could be significantly reduced by more inclusive environments. The medical model is less often explicitly defended than unreflectively adopted—by health care professionals, bioethicists, and philosophers who ignore or underestimate the contribution of social and other environmental factors to the limitations faced by people with disabilities. Even among these groups, however, there is a growing awareness of the environmental contribution to disability and a partial embrace of the social model (Cureton and Brownlee 2009).

To the extent that it is held by anyone in unalloyed form, the medical model of disability would not deny that disability raises issues of justice. Indeed, that model might give support to the view that the disadvantages perceived as inherent to disability raise some of the most urgent claims of justice (Barclay 2011, 2018). But such a model does not recognize any principled rationale for preferring reconstruction of the social and built environment over compensation or correction as a means for correcting disability-related disadvantage, a point made by Wolff (2009a, 2009b), among others. In contrast, the social model strongly supports such a rationale, since it construes many aspects of disability-related disadvantage as essentially connected to various forms of literal and figurative exclusion. Relatedly, the social model construes reconstruction as a public good: more accessible structures and more inclusive practices can be enjoyed by a wide variety of people with and without disabilities (Scotch and Schriner 1997). But such reconstruction also helps to achieve a fairer distribution of tangible and intangible goods, particularly social and economic opportunities.

Some critics accuse social model theorists of assuming that any disadvantage caused by the social environment is ipso facto unjust (Samaha 2007). This assumption would reflect an oversimplified view of the relationship between causing disadvantage and creating injustice. The fact that social structures or practices cause disadvantage does not imply that there is a duty of justice to correct or compensate for the disadvantage. That will depend on the costs of alleviating it, and—under any plausible theory of justice—some comparison with the advantages and disadvantages that would result from alternative social arrangements. Thus, for example, choosing to spend the bulk of a municipal arts budget on a concert hall rather than an art museum may disadvantage those who cannot hear. But that disadvantage, although caused by a social decision, is not necessarily unjust. That will depend, inter alia , on the availability of non-auditory forms of aesthetic experience and the comparative costs of building the museum instead. To take another example, placing ramps and elevators in new high-rise buildings is relatively inexpensive and beneficial to most users, whereas placing them in nineteenth century walk-ups is difficult and expensive; holding public meetings or events in buildings with ramps and elevators has negligible costs, whereas moving an existing business from a building that lacks them to one that has them may be very expensive (Samaha 2007; Wasserman 2001).

The difficulty of inferring injustice from socially caused disadvantage is clear in contexts where greater social provision secures incremental advantage. In such contexts, the question of how much is just will not always have an obvious answer. For example, it would at least marginally benefit wheelchair-users to have additional restricted parking spaces, but we could hardly infer an injustice from the fact that an institution provided N rather than N + 1 such spaces. Intuitively, the allotment should be proportionate to the number of wheelchair users in the community or at the facility, but that number may be uncertain, and a range of spaces would likely satisfy any proportionality requirement. [ 1 ] In deciding how many spaces are enough, we would receive no guidance from the indisputable fact that any disadvantage or advantage in this context would have social causes.

Conversely, the fact that social arrangements do not cause or contribute to a disadvantage does not insulate it from claims of justice; the failure to alleviate that disadvantage may be unjust on plausible accounts of justice. Thus, although many “natural” disasters like Hurricanes Katrina owe much of their destructive impact to social arrangements, it is plausible that the state’s duty to support the victims of hurricanes and tsunamis is not contingent on its responsibility for causing or exacerbating them (Wasserman 2001). [ 2 ] Indeed, as we discuss below, various forms of luck egalitarianism do not distinguish between disadvantages caused versus merely not corrected by society’s institutions, provided that the relevant disadvantages are equally severe and equally unchosen by those disadvantaged.

Nevertheless, the causal claims made by social-model theorists are relevant to justice in several ways. First, as suggested above, for most theories of justice, the mere fact that the social environment can be modified in ways that alleviate the disadvantages associated with impairment places demands for their alleviation within the scope of justice—as claims that a theory of justice must consider and weigh. Second, the fact that those disadvantages are caused by social arrangements is relevant for those theories that regard society as having a stronger duty not to create or aggravate disadvantages than it has to prevent or correct them (Wasserman 2001, Schemmel 2012). Finally, alleviating the disadvantages attributable to prejudice or stigma will enjoy priority on any theory of justice that treats disadvantage resulting from prejudice or stigma as a greater injustice than innocently-created disadvantage. [ 3 ]

Beyond a shared concern with the social causation of disability, different versions of the social model emphasize different features of the exclusionary structures and practices (see SEP entry on disability: definitions, models, experience ). The minority group model regards people with impairments as a stigmatized minority group. It holds that the main reason people with disabilities encounter special hardships is that they face discrimination akin to that faced by racial or ethnic minorities (Hahn 1987, Oliver 1990). The human variation model holds that many of the challenges faced by disabled people do not result from deliberate exclusion, but from a mismatch between their characteristics and the physical and social environment (Scotch and Schriner 1997). These two versions of the social model differ mainly in emphasis. The discrimination stressed by the minority group model generally leads to, and is expressed in, the societal failure to accommodate people with stigmatized differences. Yet the failure to fully accommodate people with various differences, from extreme height to intellectual impairment, does not necessarily arise from stigma. But often, disparities in access that were initially caused by resource or technological limits are maintained by stigma. For example, an employer’s initial purchase of communications technology inaccessible to blind or deaf employees may be explained by the fact that accessible technology had not been developed at the time of purchase. But those historic facts would not justify the employer’s refusal to include modestly priced accessibility features when purchasing upgrades a decade later, for example.

Both versions of the social model require the removal of barriers and practices serving to exclude people with disabilities, and the reconstruction of the environment to more fully include them. Under a minority-group model, these measures are dictated primarily by a demand for recognition and respect, and for the correction of past expressions of disrespect found in the knowing exclusion of people with disabilities from many aspects of social, political, and economic life. The human variation model puts less weight on the expressive or symbolic significance of past exclusion. Rather than construing people with disabilities as a “discrete and insular minority” created by practices of more or less deliberate exclusion, the human variation model construes people with disabilities as simply people who differ in degree from the majority of statistically normal population with respect to one or more physical or mental characteristics. The purpose of reconstruction is not so much to end specific exclusionary practices as to create a more inclusive physical and social environment. Given this difference in emphasis, it is natural to understand the human variation model as appealing principally to norms of distributive fairness, ensuring equal or adequate access to the physical and social environment, in contrast to the minority group model, which appeals more explicitly to norms of respect and recognition.

The demand for greater inclusiveness is less categorical than the demand to eliminate discrimination. Although any environment can be made more inclusive, none can be fully inclusive for everyone (Barclay 2010, 2018). This is not necessarily because, as Barclay, following Shakespeare (2006), claims, the inclusionary features required for one impairment often conflict with those required by another. Such conflicts may be minor, temporary, and remediable. The problem is more general: 1) for many characteristics, from height to mathematical aptitude, one “size” does not fit all; 2) providing different sizes increases fit for a wider range of variation, but at increasing cost (albeit less than often assumed); and 3) it is frequently impractical, and may arguably be unjust, to ensure that everyone is equally well-or ill-fitted; it may, for example, be too expensive to ensure that left-handed or extremely tall individuals suffer no inconvenience in being statistical minorities. Full inclusion, like universal design, is an ideal—one that cannot be fully achieved, and that must be compromised in the partial satisfaction of other legitimate claims.

Even if it would be impossible or unreasonable to achieve full inclusion through wholesale changes in the physical or social environment, modest changes could significantly increase inclusion at little cost. Some examples come from a study of environment modification for autistic individuals (Owren 2013). Some people with autism face significant barriers to taking part in routine social activities: they find such familiar stimuli as applause, light touching, and deodorant as highly aversive; they must be explicitly instructed about social expectations because they cannot “read” most facial expressions or social clues. The study’s author recognizes that the “neurotypical majority” cannot be expected to give up applause, light touching, or even deodorant, let alone nuance in communication:

What would be lost? Large parts of what may be some of the most treasured areas of communication: the art of innuendo, the double meaning at the heart of much comedy, irony, the implied meaning at the heart of so much poetry,… flirtation and “feeling each other out” before committing to something that cannot be retracted. (2013: 23-24)

At the same time, the author points out that the majority could often gain from more modest accommodations.

Many neurotypicals might profit from being more explicit and from others being more explicit, as can be illustrated by the extensive focus in couples therapy on getting partners to state their needs and expectations more explicitly, not relying on other to pick up on “vaguely described, implied, or unspoken behavioral expectations”. (2013: 92)

The author suggests (2013: 111) that it may be feasible to develop “best practices”: “strategies for enhancing accessibility and reducing sensory issues in a larger scale” without unduly burdening the majority:

One strategy might be to incorporate into Universal design the practice of providing access to low stimulation areas in mainstream settings. Another might be to create more public acceptance of autistic behaviors like stimming, [ 4 ] which seem to help many autistic people reduce the impact of aversive sensory stimuli.… (2013: 111)

Such strategies clearly involve tradeoffs, but those tradeoffs would involve small economic and social costs for a majority to achieve large gains in inclusion for a minority. The claim that it is impossible to achieve, or even understand, full inclusion for people with autism does not deny that there is significant injustice in their current state of social isolation.

The challenges for social models of disability for justice may seem greatest for intellectual and psychiatric impairments, as well as for complex physical impairments such as fibromyalgia, multiple chemical sensitivity, and other conditions that radically and unpredictably affect energy, stamina, and functioning (Wendell 1989, 1996; Davis 2005). First, these conditions strikingly display both aspects of impairment, as markers for stigma and as sources of functional limitation (see SEP entry, disability: definitions, models, experience ). Cognitive and psychiatric impairments evoke some of the strongest prejudice and all present some of the most difficult functional limitations, e.g., on the capacities to engage in practical reasoning, to recognize the intentions and attitudes of other people, or to participate in shared activities.Second, some theorists contend that these conditions pose more of a practical challenge for the social model than even the most severe physical disabilities, in part because the measures required for greater inclusion are not as concrete or tangible, and may demand greater imagination to envision and implement. [ 5 ]

Although significant practical work has been done in educational and workplace inclusion, philosophers have been daunted by the challenge of social reconstruction for cognitive disabilities. Thus Jonathan Wolff, who generally favors such reconstruction—which he calls “status enhancement”—as the most respectful intervention, asks

What would it mean to change the world so that people with cognitive disabilities and other people were equally able to find a worthwhile place in the world? Can we even imagine what this would be? (2009a: 407)

Many rights and privileges are thought to require a certain level of cognitive capacity, e.g., the right to vote or contract (Wikler 1979). Similarly, most jobs are structured to require regular hours, uninterrupted activity, undivided attention, and general sociability.

How much should a society modify these requirements or restructure these activities to include people with various intellectual, psychiatric, and complex physical disabilities? A total relaxation of such requirements would impose large, even “unduly burdensome” costs. However, many modifications to promote the inclusion of people with significant cognitive impairments would also benefit people with typical cognitive function: simplified task explanations, warning labels, news copy, and jury instructions. Many accommodations employers are already making to increase flexibility and reduce stress, from individually-tailored schedules to telecommuting, would ease the entry of people with these disabilities into the workplace. There is a growing body of practical and policy work that applies social models of disability to people with intellectual, psychiatric, and complex physical impairments (e.g., Biklen 1992; Block 2006; Connor et al. 2008; Hehir 2002).

As discussed later in this Entry, there is sharp disagreement about whether individuals with the most severe intellectual impairments qualify as subjects of justice. But even if individuals with the most substantial intellectual impairments are regarded as subjects of justice, what justice demands for them, and of them, may be uncertain or disputed. Nussbaum (2009) contends that the equal citizenship of those individuals requires that they be enabled to exercise such political rights as voting and jury service through appropriate surrogates. Wasserman and McMahan (2012) question whether those rights could be meaningfully exercised by surrogates for individuals with the most severe intellectual disabilities.

Some philosophical intimation of a social model approach to cognitive disability can be found in Dan Wikler’s 1979 essay, “Paternalism and the Mildly Retarded”. Wikler held that the category of cognitive disability was socially constructed by the competence thresholds set for important social activities, such as signing a contract or voting in an election. But although society chooses, in this sense, who will be cognitively impaired, it does not have unlimited flexibility, since there can be significant social costs in altering those thresholds. The issue, Wikler concluded, was ultimately one of justice; of fairly distributing the burdens of setting thresholds that will be too high for some or too low for others. Yet Wikler questioned whether justice would require, or even permit, the kind of modifications necessary for significantly greater participation. Writing two decades later, Wolff cited Wikler in stating,

the fact is that what makes much of modern life possible now relies on binding and enforceable contracts that in turn assume a certain level of intellectual competence. To change the world so that such a bar is lowered would have tremendous costs. (2009a: 407)

This pessimism has prevailed in the years since Wikler wrote, and there has been little philosophical attention to practical possibilities for the inclusion of people with cognitive impairments. Although there have been interesting discussions of this issue in the context of education (e.g., Howe 1996; Ladenson 2005; Veatch 1986), the general issue has tended to be dealt with in summary fashion. (Exceptions include Kittay and Carlson 2010; Hartley 2009a; Silvers and Francis 2009; Wong 2007, 2009.) Thus, for cognitive disabilities, Wolff emphasizes “targeted resource enhancement” rather than status enhancement, arguing for an entitlement scheme that gives people with cognitive disabilities maximum possible control over an individual budget for personal assistance and social support (2009a: 407–413). He does regard some forms of status enhancement, notably antidiscrimination measures, “as essential”, but he accepts Wikler’s conclusion that broader changes in social practice carry “intolerable costs” (2009a: 413).

In their influential book From Chance to Choice , Buchanan et al. (2000) repeat the assertion that there would be excessive social costs in reconstructing society to permit the full participation of people with significant cognitive impairments. They compare the reconstruction of society for greater inclusion with a family decision to play only the card games that a young child can understand. They contend that just as adults will tire of a constant game of Go Fish, the society will be “dumbed down” if it refashions itself to fully include people with cognitive impairments.

Although the meaning of inclusion is debatable, and different forms of inclusion will have differing value for different people, the card-game analogy oversimplifies the challenge. To present inclusion as a zero-sum allocation is to dumb down the incredibly complex task of rearranging society to respect and nurture all its members. The analogy assumes that every activity must be done by everyone, which is false.

A more apt analogy to organized social activity might be an assortment of games that can be played by different combinations of people in different ways. Some games could be played by everyone; others could be modified to include cognitively impaired people in a way that preserved the interest of non-disabled players; some would be beyond the reach of people with certain cognitive impairments. But even the most cognitively gifted individuals could not participate in all games—the sheer amount of training and practice required to master some of them, and the considerable time and energy many of them require, would preclude participation in many or most. Indeed, society may function better if people have varying aptitudes for, and interests in, different activities. (A similar criticism of the card-game analogy is offered by Wong (2007), who recounts how her brother with Down enriched rather than impoverished family life.) The fact that a smaller set of activities may be available to people with cognitive impairments need not present a problem, if it does not result in their social isolation or deny them intellectual challenges (Parens & Asch 2000: 25–26 [quoting Philip Ferguson, personal correspondence]). But ensuring their participation may require society to refashion itself in significant ways.

It is not clear that such refashioning would impose the “intolerable costs” feared by Wolff. Social inclusion does not require, for example, that individuals with significant cognitive impairments be able to make binding contracts in every domain of law and business; it requires that competence standards be graduated to reflect the complexity of specific tasks so that those individuals are not categorically excluded –a suggestion made more than two decades ago by the authors of the card-game metaphor (Buchanan and Brock 1990). Social model theorists know full well that impairments—physical as well as cognitive—differ from skin color in that they are sometimes relevant to what people can do, as are such other attributes as education and income. But that feature of impairment hardly precludes social reconstruction. Indeed, the most effective rebuttal to the card-game metaphor may be found in the practical work that already has been done in educational and workplace inclusion (e.g., Biklen 1992; Block 2006; Hehir 2002; McGuire et al. 2006). At the same time, it bears emphasis that the social model of disability was originally conceptualized in terms of physical disabilities. And there may be significant limitations on the extent to which it applies to cognitive disabilities. More generally, although it may be useful to speak of “the” social model of “disability”, the diversity of impairments that fall under the extension of “disability” suggests that the aptness of the social model in any given context will vary depending on the nature of the impairments at issue.

As suggested in §1 , the disabling impact of social arrangements may be relevant to the type and scope of interventions that justice requires. In stressing the impact and the malleability of the environment, social-model theorists have shifted the focus from claims for correction and compensation to claims for reconstruction.

Consider a society with much greater height variation than our own. Even if very tall or short stature was neither stigmatized nor functionally limiting, that society would, on any plausible theory of justice, be obliged to construct its public spaces, buildings, and vehicles to accommodate them. They would be treated unjustly if the construction of the physical environment took no account of them, especially if the failure to do so caused them significant disadvantage. Of course, the extent to which their height differences needed to be taken into account would depend on the distribution of height in the society, as well as on its level of resources and competing needs. No plausible theory of justice would require that the built environment be equally accommodating to all heights, if such a thing were possible, but all would condemn some environments as unjustly restrictive. What even this simple case suggests is that the demand for a more inclusive environment need not be seen in terms of compensating individuals, tall or impaired, for their internal deficits, but of accommodating as wide as possible a range of human variation.

Even if environmental reconstruction should not be seen as compensating for deficits, a question remains about the extent to which it should be seen as a matter of redistribution or recognition. This question is raised by the legal requirement of “reasonable accommodation”. Under the ADA and ADAAA, “accommodations” include ramps, elevators, texts in multiple formats, sign-language interpreters, flexible work schedules, and job coaches or assistance. The failure to make reasonable accommodation for disabled employees or users of public facilities constitutes, with some notable exceptions, discrimination (ADA 1990). There is no reference to that concept in the laws banning discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or age; the term was introduced in cases addressing claims of religious discrimination (see, e.g., Karlan and Rutherglen 1996). Like practitioners of minority religions, but unlike women, people of color, or older people, people with disabilities must be “reasonably accommodated”.

For the human variation model, reasonable accommodation requires changes in the physical and social environment, from installing ramps to modifying work schedules and altering the location of meetings and classes. Often, such changes require little more than flexibility and imagination. But some of these changes can be expensive; at some point, the cost may make further change unreasonable. On this approach, the legislative understanding of such accommodation as a matter of distributive justice is reflected in the qualifying use of “reasonable” and the exemption of accommodations that would impose an “undue” burden or hardship on the entity required to make accommodations (Wasserman 1998).

But it is also possible to see reasonable accommodation as a requirement of equality for people with disabilities without recourse to a theory of distributive justice (e.g., Crossley 2004; Karlan and Rutherglen 1996). Accommodating religious practices may be expensive in various ways, but no one regards doing so either as compensating religions for their deficits. Indeed, such a rationale would appear to violate the state’s constitutionally-mandated neutrality among religions. Rather, because the state is required to treat religions and their adherents with equal respect and concern (Dworkin 2003), it disfavors rules and practices that interfere with religious observance. Somewhat similarly, a state that regards people with disabilities with equal respect and concern will disfavor arrangements that interfere with their participation. With respect to both groups, substantive equality may require unequal provisions. In the case of disability as well as religion, how much additional provision is required is indeterminate, not for lack of a complete theory of justice to specify the amount or proportion, but because the demands of equal respect are indeterminate.

Consider, for example, the question of how much it is reasonable for a small business to spend on an elevator or ground-floor space to be able to employ a talented IT technician with emphysema. To answer that question, we might do better to decide what respect for that person demands, based in part on current social practice and convention, rather than to consult a comprehensive but abstract theory of distributive justice. In any case, it may be unreasonable to expect a determinate answer; it may be appropriate to rely on a fair procedure to select among a range of plausible outcomes. But by the same token, the utter lack of accommodation in many workplaces and public facilities is clearly unjust on any plausible theory of justice.

The debate over the accommodations available for a minority group may often reflect a complex mix of claims concerning redistribution and recognition. For example, people in wheelchairs are sometimes provided restaurant access only through the service entrance. The restaurant owners often claim that such access is quite reasonable, since the service entrances already have ramps—a distributive consideration. Disability advocates claim that however convenient it may be for the owners, such access treats wheelchair users as second-class customers—a claim of misrecognition. In this case, it may seem that the recognition claims clearly trump the conflicting distributional claims. But this will not always be the case.

Again, resolving such conflicts may involve the same kind of judgment employed in debates over accommodating minority religious practices. It may be that some jobs cannot be made available to people whose Sabbath falls on Friday or Saturday, because (in light of demographic considerations) the essential functions of those jobs require working on those days. But although the “essential function” standard appears objective and determinate, it is often subject to distributive considerations, e.g., about staffing requirements and business volume. A refusal to sustain the slightest loss of revenue to accommodate any minority religion might be a distributive injustice; a willingness to sustain greater losses to accommodate Jewish and Adventist employees than Muslim ones might involve misrecognition as well—the failure to treat Islamic practice as having the same value as other religious practices. Similarly, the violation of the ADA involved in refusing to display the same flexibility for disabled as for pregnant employees arguably constitutes both distributive injustice and misrecognition.

The uncertainty about the distributive character of reasonable accommodation suggests that in the case of disability, it may often be difficult to sharply distinguish claims for redistribution and recognition. [ 6 ] Recognition may require redistribution, and redistribution should aim at securing recognition. Asch (1989) has gone even further, arguing that recognition must precede redistribution; that if people with disabilities were recognized as equals, capable of significant contributions to others, society would be more willing to adopt appropriate measures for redistribution and reconstruction.

4. Disability in Contemporary Theories of Justice

The resurgence of philosophical interest in justice is often dated to the publication of John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in 1971. Although that was only two years before the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, embodying a social model of disability (see SEP entry, disability: definitions, models, experience ), it was well before the academic reconceptualization of disability as a social phenomenon. For the 25 years after A Theory of Justice , many justice theorists tacitly accepted the medical model (e.g., Dworkin 1981a,b; Daniels 1985). They treated disability as a physical or mental limitation of the individual, the principal cause of disability-related disadvantage. Disability thus posed a problem for justice theories based on mutual advantage, hypothetical agreement, or material or social equality. People with disabilities did not appear to offer reciprocal advantages; they complicated the task of reaching a hypothetical agreement on the basic structure of society; and they made the goal of equality seem impossibly demanding.

By the late 1990s, some mainstream political philosophers were becoming acquainted with social models of disability, and some disability theorists were gaining a hearing among political philosophers. Some philosophers sought to modify distributive theories of justice to take account of the social and environmental character of disability; others cited the failure of those theories to take appropriate account of disability as one reason to reject exclusively distributive approaches.

Before describing these developments, it is useful to distinguish two types of distributive theories. Modern social contract theories, notably Rawls’ (1971), seek to determine the fair terms of social cooperation to which individuals (generally with limited knowledge of their own situations) would agree; they argue that certain distributive principles would be among those terms (Rawls’ “difference principle” may be the most familiar). Rawlsian theories are procedural in one sense: they regard any distribution as just if and only if it is consistent with the distributive principles that would be chosen by those individuals. Disability-oriented criticism of these theories has focused on their assumptions about the individuals who are eligible to make a hypothetical contract or participate in the cooperative scheme it establishes. Critics have argued for the eligibility of people with disabilities or their representatives to participate in the contract-making processes and resulting cooperative scheme more than about the validity of the principles or rules yielded by that process (Richardson 2006; Silvers and Francis 2005; Stark 2007). The second type of theory is primarily interested in outcomes; in the kind of end state a just society should strive for: either equality on some outcome metric or the reduction of certain kinds of inequality. Here, disability-informed criticism has favored outcome metrics that take account of the social contribution to disability-related disadvantage, and standards for just distributions that are oriented toward disrespectful inequalities (Anderson 1999; Nussbaum 2006a; Wolff 2009b).

Within social contract theories, a distinction is often drawn between contractarian/Hobbesian and contractualist/Lockean accounts (see SEP entry on contractarianism ). One way to characterize this distinction is in terms of the parties’ motivation and interaction. In the former, they are narrowly self-interested and hard-bargaining; in the latter, their self-interest is tempered or balanced by their commitment to justifying themselves to others, and they proceed by deliberating rather than by bargaining. This distinction is often formulated in terms of a distinction between (merely) rational agents, and “reasonable” agents.

A Rawlsian approach might seem more congenial than a Hobbesian approach to people with disabilities. It derives the basic structure of society from a hypothetical choice situation, the Original Position, in which a veil of ignorance precludes reliance on the contractors’ actual limitations—limitations that a Hobbesian contractor might ruthlessly (albeit rationally, if not reasonably) exploit (cf. note 10 ). Although the parties themselves are motivated exclusively by considerations of self-interest, which Rawls understands in terms of the fulfillment of two higher-order interests (see SEP Entry on the original position ), the informational constraints of the Original Position compel the parties to motivate as if they are reasonable, at least in the sense that it compels them to be impartial between the claims of all who will be subject to the principles they choose.

But even if Rawlsian contractors do not know their specific limitations, they do know that they, or the individuals they represent, are not permanently disabled. Rawls stipulated that the idealized society whose “basic structure” was the subject of hypothetical agreement was restricted to members who would be “fully-cooperating” over the course of their adult lives. Rawls assumed that this restriction would exclude people with severe and permanent physical and mental disabilities (Rawls 1993: 18–20). He did not defend that assumption, nor provide for the representation of those people in the process by which the basic structure of society is to be determined. Instead, he consigned their fate to the later, legislative phase. Rawls also restricted participation in the Original Position to those with two “moral powers”: the capacity to form and revise one’s own conception of the good; and the capacity for a sense of justice, the capacity to act on and apply fair terms of cooperation ( ibid .). It is doubtful that these powers can be attributed to people with the most severe intellectual and psychiatric impairments, although some philosophers and disability scholars have argued that a just society should treat all human beings as having the potential to develop such functioning (Wong 2007, 2009).

Disability scholars have been particularly critical of these eligibility conditions for the Original Position. If the deliberators in the Original Position do not believe that they could be representing, or could turn out to actually be, people with “severe and permanent” disabilities when the veil is lifted, they will have no prudential reason to choose a basic structure for their society that will provide for the inclusion of those people. Indeed, insofar as such measures would impose costs on people with non-disabilities, the parties will have prudential reasons not to support such measures, since doing so would undermine the interests of people whom they know they could represent (the able-bodied on whom the costs are imposed) for the sake of those whom they explicitly know they don’t represent (the disabled for whom the costs are imposed).

Several philosophers sympathetic to the Rawlsian framework have suggested modifications that would give people with disabilities a greater and more direct role in the social contracting process. Some have argued that the “full cooperation” requirement, and the kind of reciprocity it involves, can be liberally interpreted so as not to exclude most people with significant physical disabilities (Hartley 2009b; Stark 2009). Henry Richardson has gone even further, maintaining that “Rawls’ arguments making use of the device of the [Original Position] do not essentially depend on any reciprocity premise” (2006: 427). He examines modified versions of the Original Position that drop the assumption that no one has severe and permanent disabilities. He contends that with such modifications, the Original Position can yield principles more sensitive to disability concerns about the continuous nature of abilities, the stigmatization resulting from false dichotomization, and the exclusion of severely disabled human beings.

In response, Martha Nussbaum (2006b: 490–498) concedes that Richardson’s proposed reconstruction of Rawls would largely avoid the exclusionary features of the OP to which disability scholars have objected. But she argues that this reconstruction is a more radical departure from Rawls than Richardson acknowledges. She suggests that the theory loses its contractual character if it dispenses, per Richardson, with the reciprocity requirement and the assumption that the contractors have roughly equal physical and mental powers.

Rawls’ “moral powers” condition has posed further problems. Harry Brighouse (2001) observes that modifying the cooperation requirement still excludes those whose cognitive impairments preclude their possession of the two moral powers. Sophia Wong (2009, 2007) argues that those powers can be acquired by people with severe intellectual impairments, with adequate social support. Leslie Francis (2009) and Anita Silvers (Silvers and Francis 2009) contend that many individuals with severe cognitive impairments can collaborate with others to construct individualized, authentic conceptions of the good. Silvers and Francis (2005) and Christie Hartley (2009a) also maintain that people with severe intellectual impairments can be represented adequately in a contracting process that consists in trust-building more than hard bargaining, even if they cannot participate in it personally.

Others have argued that exclusion from the Original Position need not adversely affect people with disabilities or treat them with disrespect. Adam Cureton (2008) argues that the exclusion of people with severe disabilities from the Original Position is just part of its idealization, and does not diminish the urgency or priority of their claims. Cynthia Stark (2007) proposes lifting the full-cooperation requirement to include people with disabilities at the second stage of Rawlsian deliberation, where the society’s constitution is established and where the hypothetical decision makers acquire some knowledge about the resources, development level, and other characteristics of their society.

The plausibility of these responses to Rawls depends to some extent on which version of the Original Position we consider. Rawls made a change in his presentation of the Original Position in his Restatement (2001) that is especially pertinent to people with cognitive disabilities. He emphasized that the participants in the Original Position are representatives of people in the future society, not people living in the future society denied knowledge of their social position. If representatives were made to take into account the possibility that those they represent might be disabled, this might help to ensure that the interests of the disabled were represented. It would only do so, however, if the contractors have the ability to imagine the very different embodiments of people with a variety of disabilities, an ability feminist critics of Rawls have questioned with respect to men representing women (Young 1990; Benhabib 1992; Okin 1994). The strictly representational role of participants in the Original Position would also avoid the conflict of interest faced by cognitively unimpaired individuals representing themselves and cognitively impaired individuals.

More broadly, philosophers have varied widely in their optimism about the prospects for including people with disabilities in contractarian or contractualist deliberations. On the one hand, Lawrence Becker (2005) suggests that even selfish, hard-bargaining contractarians (his “tough crowd”) would accept an expansive notion of “reciprocity”, one that would ensure adequate provision for people with disabilities in the scheme of social cooperation they adopt. Their acceptance of reciprocity would arise from recognition of the needs and vulnerabilities they and their loved ones have or will likely acquire. That recognition places a premium on social provisions for health.

Even for the tough crowd, health is now ripe for inclusion in the list of basic goods. And it may be that a robust social commitment to health will address questions of justice for the disabled—as long as we are careful to include fundamental aspects of psychological health (i.e., those associated with active rational agency…. (2005: 35)

Members of the tough crowd may not be so careful, however. Indeed, some may not even regard “active rational agency” as a matter of health as they more narrowly construe it, with an emphasis on physical survival and comfort. In contrast to Becker, Eva Kittay (1999) holds that even the most liberal interpretation of Rawls’ scheme will not be sufficiently responsive to the egalitarian concerns that motivate his theory. Rawls’ assumption that the participants in the original position are or represent fully productive members of society neglects the fact of pervasive, inevitable human dependency. “[T]hose within relationships of dependency fall outside the conceptual perimeters of Rawls’ egalitarianism” (1999: 79).

Another debate within contractarian theories that has particular relevance to disability concerns the scope of justice itself: Is justice concerned only with the distribution of social goods, or also with the rectification of “natural inequalities” (Pogge 1989: 44–47). Pogge (1995) argues that in the Original Position, it would be irrational for parties to ignore the contribution of natural advantages to the well-being (understood in terms of the fulfillment of the two “higher-order interests”) of prospective citizens, since from that standpoint, it is just as bad to be disadvantaged by uncompensated disabilities as it is to be disadvantaged (to the same degree) by a small share of social primary goods. But Pogge claims that attempting to eliminate those inequalities would go beyond the scope of justice. Some philosophers argue, however, that many natural inequalities are within the scope of justice, and that health care to mitigate them is a requirement of justice (Daniels 1985; Buchanan et al. 2000).

Other philosophers and disability scholars would deny that the inequalities associated with impairments can be regarded as “natural” (Amundson 1992; Wasserman 2001). In questioning the very notion of “natural inequalities”, they join a broader philosophical debate about whether it is possible to draw a coherent distinction between natural and artificial or social inequalities (see Lippert-Rasmussen 2004; Nagel 1997; Pogge 2004a,b; Aas and Wasserman, 2016). [ 7 ] Even if such a distinction can be plausibly drawn, it may turn out that many or most inequalities in abilities are artificial: as with of obsolete skills, those inequalities may be largely attributable to the physical and social environment (Bickenbach 1993).

Other distributive theories of justice take a less procedural approach than Rawls. They are directly concerned with the kinds of outcomes a just society should pursue. These theories differ in the outcome metrics they adopt—the “currency” of distributive justice (Cohen 1989). Some adopt a resource metric (Dworkin 1981b); still others, a metric based on opportunities for welfare (Arneson 1989) or access to advantage (Cohen 1989). Finally, capability theories assess outcomes not only by the goods or resources that people have, but also by what people are able to do with what they have (Nussbaum 1990; Sen 1980). Such outcome-oriented theories may be more or less demanding, depending on whether they require equality or merely priority for the worst-off, and on whether they support equality of a sort that may not require the significant redistribution of goods or resources.

The most prominent family of outcome-oriented approaches has been called “luck egalitarianism” (see, for example, Arneson 2000; Dworkin 2003; Lippert-Rasmussen 2015). According to the dominant characterization of that position, its central claim is that it is unjust when there are unfair inequalities in the distribution of “brute luck”—an advantage or disadvantage with respect to the relevant metric that is not attributable to an individual’s fault, choice, or assumption of risk. “Option luck”, in contrast, refers to an advantage or disadvantage an individual acquires through the foreseeable consequences of his or her actions. The stronger versions of luck egalitarianism (e.g., Dworkin 81b) deny that any inequality resulting from option luck generates claims of justice. On those versions, only some disabilities generate justice claims—those that resulted from brute bad luck (e.g., congenital impairments)—whereas others, which may involve the same or greater disadvantage, do not, simply because they resulted from a free choice (e.g., reckless pastimes or an unhealthy lifestyle).

Some philosophers have taken these implications as a reductio ad absurdum of luck egalitarianism (Anderson 1999), and they would no doubt be rejected by many writers on health care, who have questioned the moral and policy relevance of individual responsibility (Cavallero 2011; Feiring 2008; Galvin 2002; Wikler 1987). The greater concern for disability scholars may be with the conflation of disadvantages resulting from unchosen impairments with disadvantages resulting from unchosen social conditions under the one heading of “bad brute luck”. Luck egalitarianism does not, as such , provide any principled rationale for distinguishing between equally severe setbacks to the well-being of people with disabilities that result from the “bad luck” of being born in a society with disability discrimination and the “bad luck” of being born with an intrinsically disadvantageous set of physical abilities. Both are equally unchosen from the individual’s standpoint, and it is individual responsibility, rather than some combination of individual and collective responsibility, that determines whether a given disadvantage generates a valid justice complaint. This is not to deny that luck egalitarianism can be supplemented to account for the intuition that the “bad luck” of being born in a disabling environment (Fine and Asch 1988) differs morally from less socially mediated forms of bad luck, as we will see in our discussion of the capabilities approach.

The implications of outcome-oriented theories for disability depend on two features of those theories. The first is the metric, or “currency” of justice they adopt—welfare, resources, primary goods, or capabilities. The second is the distributive standard they impose—strict equality, priority for the worse off, or merely some minimum for everyone (sufficientarianism). We will consider these two features in order, although they are sometimes intertwined.

Rawls and other social contract theorists adopted a broad outcome metric for assessing the comparative advantage of the individual in a society: “social primary goods”, which include opportunities, basic liberties, income, and the social bases of self-respect. This breadth is intended to achieve neutrality between competing substantive conceptions of the good, since the social primary goods are construed as “all-purpose means” that are valuable to have irrespective of the content of one’s particular conception of the good. For many disability scholars, the difficulty in this approach does not concern its neutrality, but its failure to take account of the environment in which those goods must be utilized, which may profoundly affect their value to those receiving them. Two persons might be alike in their share of social primary goods, and have similar projects, aims, commitments, and values, but nonetheless differ in the value they can derive from those goods, if one person is disabled and the other is not. As we shall see below, the capabilities approach takes into account this objection, when the difference between the uses to which each person can put her primary goods is construed as the result of differences in “internal resources”, or the rate at which the individual can convert resources to “functionings”.

A failure to take adequate account of the environment may also be found in directly-egalitarian resource-based approaches. Dworkin (1981a,b), for example, appears to take the social environment for granted in proposing a hypothetical division of resources into individual bundles. Giving people with impairments equal material shares in a society like our own would hardly satisfy the demands of equality in a physical and social environment designed exclusively for people with standard endowments. Dworkin is aware of the problem, but his solution is to adjust individual shares to include insurance payouts against poor environmental fit, rather than to redesign the environment to reduce inequalities in fit. To that degree, Dworkin appears to tacitly assume a medical model of disability, according to which limitations resulting from impairments are solely attributable to the impairment itself, and, if not correctable, compensable only by the redistribution of resources to people with such impairments. Such compensation may ensure survival, but it does little to enhance or equalize participation, and may in fact hinder participation if Anderson (1999) is right that compensating for disabilities expresses disrespect. Moreover, the size of the insurance payout for a given disability is determined by the amount by which able-bodied people would be willing to insure themselves against the prospect of incurring that disability. Insofar as the judgments of able-bodied people don’t always track the intuitively relevant facts about disability-related disadvantage, such an approach threatens to “bake in” flawed assumptions about the experience of disability into its account of just entitlements for people with disabilities (Bodenheimer 1997a,b).

Several alternatives for assessing outcomes for purposes of political and social equality seem more responsive to the disabling role of the social environment. The most familiar and influential of these alternatives is the capabilities approach, developed in different ways by Martha Nussbaum (2006a) and Amartya Sen (1980). Their accounts are concerned not only with the resources an individual has but also with what she can do with them; with her “capability” of engaging in a number of valuable “functionings”, such as forming intimate relationships and having rich sensory and aesthetic experiences.

Nussbaum’s earlier formulations of the capabilities placed considerable emphasis on species-typical functioning. For example, she initially treated “the exercise of the five senses” as a necessary constituent of human flourishing. More recent formulations are more congenial to social models of disability, in part because of Nussbaum’s encounter with disability scholarship. She now makes room for the social contribution to “natural” deficits (see Wasserman 1998; Terzi 2009), recognizing that most capabilities bear only a contingent, environmentally-mediated relationship to people’s “natural endowment”. She abstracts from differences between people with impaired and normal limb function to find a common claim to the means of moving about from place to place. Such means may be architectural, vehicular, mechanical, or prosthetic; they may involve making places more accessible or making the individual more mobile. Similarly, a person lacking sight or hearing can achieve aesthetic satisfaction by other means; a person with intellectual impairments can participate in activities structured to include individuals of varying cognitive skills. An individual with emphysema could increase his capacity for affiliation and control over the material environment (two capabilities from Nussbaum’s 2006a list) not only by measures to increase his lung capacity but also by measures to increase his access to social and business venues through better transit and architectural design.

Nussbaum’s broader framing enables her to recognize the prospects for flourishing of people with severe impairments. The plausibility of the capabilities approach for disability critics of distributive accounts lies in the way the capabilities are individuated. A basis for individuation might be found in a comprehensive account of human nature and human flourishing, such as the Aristotelian account that informs Nussbaum’s work. As Becker notes, however, such a comprehensive account would have limited appeal in justifying a distributive scheme in a pluralistic society (2005: 35). Despite its promise, considerably more work is needed to clarify her approach. Another feature of Nussbaum’s theory that some disability theorists find congenial is her incorporation of recognition and respect into her set of basic capabilities. Thus, the capability for “affiliation” encompasses not only intimacy, but self-respect and dignity; the capability for “control over the environment” includes both the material and political environments.

Less ambitiously than Nussbaum, Jonathan Wolff (2009b) classifies equality-enhancing measures for people with disabilities by the extent to which they address recognition as well as redistribution. Thus, the individual limitations of people with disabilities can be addressed with either cash compensation or “personal enhancement”, medical, surgical, or rehabilitative measures to correct those limitations. “Targeted resource enhancement” offers an intermediate option, which tries to improve the fit of the individual and the environment with a range of restricted resources such as personal assistance and assistive technology. Finally, “status enhancement” alters the built environment and social practices to reduce the impact of individual differences in abilities on social equality. Wolff generally favors status enhancement as the most respectful intervention, because it shapes the environment to the needs of all members of society. It is also the most stable intervention, because it protects the social equality against sudden changes in individuals’ levels of functioning.

Although Wolff does not adopt the device of hypothetical decision making to justify a preference for status enhancement, that preference could be underwritten by a suitably modified Original Position. As Richardson (2006) suggests, hypothetical decision makers who know that they may represent individuals with severe impairments are more likely to be concerned with capabilities than with primary goods, since the latter by themselves may be of limited value to those they represent. Further, those decision makers would recognize that capabilities often can be increased more respectfully, as well as more effectively, by status enhancements than by other measures.

Yet doubts remain about the extent to which concerns about recognition, respect, and social equality can be captured in any outcome metric of individual well-being, however broad. Thus, Christian Schemmel (2012) argues that the treatment of people as equals must be understood in terms of respectful relationships among individuals and institutions, and that the presence of such relationships cannot plausibly be regarded in what Pogge (2004a,b) calls “recipient-oriented” terms, as components of individual well-being. The moral significance of respectful treatment is neither exhausted by, nor derivative of, its contribution to individual well-being. As Schemmel argues (2012: 19), people may need some forms of affiliation to flourish but do not necessarily require social and political equality for their own well-being. The plausibility of these claims depends to some extent on how narrow or broad a conception of well-being one adopts. A conception that encompasses virtually all that a person has reason to care about will more easily accommodate social equality and respectful relationships.

Two approaches seek to moderate the ambitions of distributive justice in ways that may be more inclusive of people with disabilities. One takes the end-state of justice not as equality or priority but sufficiency: it requires that every member of society reach some minimum in the appropriate “currency”. This approach, labeled “sufficientarian” by one critic (Arneson 2006), is suggested but not endorsed by Nussbaum, and it serves to make capabilities a less demanding metric for distributive justice. (Nussbaum notes that certain capabilities must be distributed equally if anyone is to have a sufficient level of them, e.g., voting rights.) The requirement that a just society ensure that every citizen reaches a minimum level of each capability may be far less demanding than the requirement of equal capabilities. One way of setting the minimum appeals to the requirements for participation in a democratic society (Gutmann 1987; Anderson 1999).

Although sufficientarian approaches claim to make the demands of justice less oppressive, they have been criticized as demanding both too much and too little. They demand too much if the minimum for every capability must be met in the face of recalcitrant impairments or environments. They demand too little if attaining the minimum could still leave the individual with a miserable life (Arneson 2006; Wasserman 2006; Wolff and de-Shalit 2007). Those approaches have also been criticized for lacking a mechanism for prioritizing capabilities (Wolff and de-Shalit 2007) and for assessing whether the minimum has been reached for any one capability (Riddle 2010). Clearly, the extent to which justice is achievable on such approaches for people with severe disabilities will depend on where the minimum is set, how its satisfaction is assessed, and how the capabilities are defined.

A second approach would replace equality on a specific metric of advantage with social equality or equality of respect (Anderson 1999; Miller 1999; Norman 1997, 1999). This approach would involve a more radical departure from luck egalitarianism than a sufficiency account, since it does not lower the standard for a just distribution so much as propose a non-distributive standard for justice. That standard would see justice in terms of recognition rather than, or as well as, redistribution. Although this approach may demand strict equality of a sort, it is a sort that does not appear to set determinate distributive requirements. A society of social equals, abounding in mutual respect, can arguably tolerate significant disparities in welfare, resources, opportunities, or capabilities.

Underlying this approach is the more fundamental distinction between relational and distributive theories of justice. Although this distinction can be drawn in different ways (see, e.g., Lippert-Rasmussen 2015, Fourie et al. 2015), it identifies two critical dimensions of justice. One concerns how well-off individual people are, both absolutely and in comparison to each other. The other concerns the kinds of social relationships people stand in to one another. As discussed in §4.3 , it is a difficult question to what extent either dimension of justice can be reduced to, or expressed in terms of, the other.

Against the claim that relational justice can be understood as an instance of distributive justice, one may observe that at least with respect to equality, there seems to be an important structural difference between two people standing in some relation to some third thing (i.e., some good) to the same degree and two people standing in some relation to one another to the same degree (e.g., the relation of being respected, recognized, and so on). Insofar as interpersonal equality has a different structure when construed as relational, it is a mistake to think that it can be reduced to a species of distributive equality, for “equal” means something different in each case. For example, it is one thing for any two people in society to have equal respect from others ; it is a different thing for any two people in society to have equal respect for one another. This distinction is relevant to debates about disability in particular, because one way to understand the social model is in terms of the relational view—its core insight is that disability is not a one-place property of individuals, defined in terms of some welfare deficit, but an n-place relation between individuals (n>2) defined by stigmatizing or excluding attitudes, dispositions, practices, and forms of treatment.

Some of these issues have taken center-stage in a recent debate over the expressive significance of different measures to remediate the disadvantages associated with disability. Pogge (2002) and Anderson (1999) have claimed that it is disrespectful to attribute a person’s disadvantage to features of his or her natural endowment because it treats her as needy, deficient, or inferior. For this reason, they argue against justifying redistributive measures to achieve inclusion on the grounds that they correct natural inequalities in skills, talents, or the ability to convert resources into welfare. Instead, they contend that such measures can and should be justified as redressing discrimination, and conversely, that failures to achieve inclusion should be recognized as unjustly discriminatory.

Barclay (2010, 2018) challenges the argument that a claim for redistribution treats the claimant as deficient or inferior. Such claims need only recognize that some traits are less suited than others for specific environments—a contingency that does not imply the intrinsic superiority or inferiority of a given endowment. She thus questions those (e.g, Daniels 1985; Buchanan et al. 2000) who claim that certain characteristics or traits are universally valuable, such that an individual who lacked them would be deficient in any environment. Although she tends to see the environment as fixed rather than malleable, Barclay argues that the project of achieving inclusion is best seen in terms of maximizing individuals’ environmental fit. Achieving that fit may require expending more resources for some individuals than others in any given environment. The demands made by very tall or left-handed people for greater accommodation do not presuppose their inferiority, only their minority status (see §2 , infra). These comparisons suggest that the demands for accommodation of people with such statistically atypical features differ merely in degree, not kind, from those made by people with various impairments.

Even if compensation for disadvantage need bit be demeaning, however, specific grounds for compensation may well be. Laws and policies that compensate people simply because they are disabled, or have a specific disability, may be objectionable because of the social meaning of disability-compensation. Compensation that is based on the medical classification of disability may reinforce the humanity-obscuring stereotype of “the cripple” as helpless and pitiable. This grave threat to social equality should make us wary of drawing distributive implications from the claim that disability is a “bad difference” rather than a “mere difference “(see entry, “Disability: Well-Being, Health, and Personal Relationships”). Even if disability in general, or specific disabilities, were bad differences, that would hardly imply that individuals who had (those) disabilities were entitled to compensation simply by virtue of that fact.

There are many categories or groups into which people can place themselves, and be placed, on the basis of their varying characteristics. The salience and appeal of these categories depend on social and historical context as well as individual preferences and values. Identity and identity politics become important as members of historically excluded groups challenge their status and work for inclusion. Many women gained a sense of group identity in opposing laws that limited voting and other political rights to men; racial identities have been forged in the fight against segregation. Although people with disabilities are not always understood as sharing an identity, their awareness of membership in an oppressed group has been shaped by exclusionary laws and customs, from “ugly laws” prohibiting people with physical deformities from appearing in public to the state-sponsored involuntary sterilization of “mental defectives”. A sense of group identity has been further encouraged by welfare, social security and other laws that place people with various disabilities in a single category, even if they define that category in different ways.

The importance of disability as a social category was increased by the movement to establish civil rights for people with disabilities. As in the case of other stigmatized groups, the characteristics used as a ground for exclusion became a basis for mobilization and a source of pride. The social model of disability, which informed the movement for disability rights, emphasized what people with various impairments have in common—their stigmatization and exclusion—and thereby promoted the emergence of disability as a powerful social identity.

Critics like Fraser argue that the importance of social identity cannot be adequately captured in any metric of individual advantage. An effective social response to stigmatized identities requires both recognition and transformation—changes in cultural framing and social perception that are poorly served by redistribution. An emphasis on redistribution is often self-defeating, exacerbating stigma and reinforcing the impression of the stigmatized group as deficient (Fraser 1995, 1997; see Olsen 2001). Yet as we will discuss, some ways of transforming social identity have significant dangers as well.

For proponents of recognition, one issue is whether justice requires not only respect for individual members of society, but also respect for their group or cultural identities. Must a just society recognize “group-specific cultural identity” or merely “the status of group members as full partners in social interaction” (Fraser 2001: 23, 24)? Are these separate requirements, or does respect for an individual entail respect for her social or cultural identities? These questions have been addressed primarily with respect to religious, ethnic, racial, and sexual minorities. Very little work has been done on the question of what a disability identity would look like and what sorts of recognition claims it would implicate.

A somewhat parallel issue has been raised in distributive justice—must society allocate resources, broadly construed, to support the group and cultural identities of its members? That support could be based on the claim that such identities are a constituent, perhaps an irreducible one, of the well-being of the individual members of society. This claim has been suggested by justice theorists who argue for the importance of culture as a “context of choice” for individuals (e.g., Kymlicka 1989, Sparrow 2005). An individual deprived of a culture through which he has experienced and interpreted the world will find it far more difficult to flourish. As we will discuss, however, it is doubtful that disability in general, or particular impairments, play such a comprehensive role in the lives of many—let alone all—people with disabilities. [ 8 ]

We begin by describing the different characteristics of an individual’s “identity”. One sense of this term is that of numerical identity over time: what makes some person at time t1 the same person as the person at time t2? (see SEP entry on identity over time ). This is, in the first instance, a metaphysical question and not our interest here. A different sense of “identity” refers to those characteristics that make one the particular person one is, as judged both by oneself and by others. This includes narrative, biographical, and practical identities. It is less about criteria for sameness over time and more about the constitutive or defining features of one’s self- (or social) conception. This is the sense of “identity” we will be concerned with.

The sense of individual identity most directly relevant to respect and recognition is arguably that of practical identity. Following Korsgaard (1996, 2009), we can understand a practical identity to be a description under which a person values herself, where valuing oneself involves treating oneself as a source of reasons. For example, someone who identifies as a mother in this sense values herself under the description “mother” and for that reason treats the fact that she is a mother as a source of (normative practical) reasons. Moreover, to “drop” this identification is not like dropping a desire or short-term goal. It involves changing one’s sense of who one is as a person and what gives one’s life value.

On this view, a person’s practical identities should be normatively significant for other people as well. For one thing, many of a person’s significant interests are derived from her practical identities. Since it is uncontroversial that respect and concern require giving appropriate weight to the interests of others, it follows that respect and concern require giving appropriate weight to other people’s practical identities, at least insofar as they generate (legitimate) interests. In addition, respecting a person’s practical identities plausibly falls under a more general requirement of respect for personal autonomy. Personal autonomy is a foundational value of liberal democracies, whose laws and policies do not require individuals to organize their lives around any particular identity, but rather give them the latitude to make of their identities what they will (Appiah 2005; Appiah and Gutmann 1996; see also the SEP entry on identity politics ). This can be seen as a part of liberalism’s broader commitment to neutrality about conceptions of the good (e.g., Rawls 1993).

These issues become especially charged if we move from individual to group identities, bringing us closer to the question of disability identities. As K. Anthony Appiah points out, though individual identity is different from group identity, it nevertheless has a collective or social dimension (Appiah 2005: 21). For example, Palestinians living in the West Bank have a distinct collective identity. This is different from, though certainly compatible with, some specific West Bank resident having as part of his individual identity being a Palestinian. [ 9 ] It is important to bear this distinction between individual and collective identities in mind, because the latter, to a greater extent than the former, is imposed or “ascribed” by the larger society rather than chosen by the individual.

Being disabled, like being a member of a minority race, subjects one to particular treatment. But one can experience that treatment without feeling compelled to regard one’s disability or minority status as part of one’s individual identity in the practical sense of being a description under which one values oneself. Often, having a disability identity ascribed to one, like having a racial identity ascribed, consists in part in being the object of, and provides an excuse for, discriminatory, demeaning or degrading treatment of various sorts. This is so both for people whose impairments are immediately observable and for those whose impairments are hidden but subject to exposure and ridicule by a temporary change in appearance, e.g., a person with epilepsy who has a seizure in public (Schneider and Conrad 1985; more generally, Davis 2005). And since this social identity is often part of one’s individual identity, such treatment is likely to be injurious to the self-respect of the one with this identity, and in that sense constitute an instance of misrecognition. Ironically, the fact of being unfairly stereotyped can itself shape the identities of those who are treated in this way, as Appiah notes, even if initially they did not identify strongly with the group in question.

Desirable change with respect to social identities is possible in at least two ways. First, even if some important aspects of one’s self are not chosen—say, the fact that one has paraplegia or deafness—how central they are to one’s self-conception, how much they matter to one’s interests and plans, is to some extent within one’s voluntary control. On some views, notably Korsgaard’s, reflective endorsement of an identity is a necessary condition of its being normative for the agent, i.e., providing reasons for her. At the same time, the extent to which one’s identifications are voluntary depends on the constraints of the social environment. One cannot simply decide to make one’s disability a less salient feature of one’s biographical identity, at least, especially if one’s disability is not “hidden”. If the identity is ascribed, and emphasized, by the larger society, it may be difficult to reduce its importance in one’s own practical reasoning. But one still has some choice about whether to accept or resist that emphasis.

Second, there can be a change in the valence of the label, as there has been with the term “queer”: what was once a negative label, accompanied by unjust treatment of various sorts, can be transformed into a positive label and championed as a source of self-respect and pride for those who share in the collective identity. John Lawson discusses how special education for disabled children, once seen as a major factor in the creation of a negative, second-class identity, can be transformed into “sites for the positive promotion of disability as a cultural identity” (Lawson 2001: 203–21). Neither sort of change—in identification or valence—can be accomplished without struggle, personal as well as political, but partial success is sometimes achievable.

Even if disability is not and does not have to be a central component of every disabled person’s identity, this does not negate the significance of disability as an organizing principle of political action. But when the social and political recognition of disability becomes the objective of political action, as it is in identity politics, it gives rise to the “dilemma of difference” (Minow 1990). Consider special education for children: On the one hand, labeling a child “disabled” risks stigmatizing and isolating the child. In this sense, to be “different” is to be inferior. Alternatively, being labeled “disabled” is a way for parents to secure attention to the child’s particular ways of learning and functioning. In this sense, to be “different” is to be entitled to appropriate educational assistance.

The dilemma may not be insurmountable. The movement for universal design in education aims to refashion classrooms and teaching practices to encourage the participation of all students. To the extent that the movement is successful, it will minimize the need for “special education” (Biklen 1992; Gartner and Lipsky 2002; Lipsky and Gartner 1996). Law and public policy must think creatively about ways to solve this dilemma so that the stigma they seek to eliminate is not in effect reinforced. Success in resolving the dilemma of difference may reduce the importance of disability identity for justice. If disability is simply a characteristic to be taken account of in social arrangements, it could become as significant or insignificant as height or aptitude.

There are at least two other risks for an identity politics of disability. One involves the danger of assuming that the members of a particular marginalized group all share the same culture, be it African-American culture or disability culture. This assumption is not required by a mature identity politics, but it may be encouraged by efforts to mobilize diverse individuals around a single identity. Two considerations may help to resist this tendency. First, we must recognize that culture is a complex concept, and that defining it is no easy task. Second, we must recognize that on any plausible definition, people with the same disability (let alone different disabilities) need not share a common culture. There are some examples of a shared disability culture: Deaf culture is perhaps the best known. But many people who are deaf, particularly those who do not sign, do not identify as Deaf or take part in Deaf culture (Tucker 1997 [ 10 ] And even for those who participate, Deaf culture does not appear to be the kind of “encompassing” or “comprehensive” culture claimed by Kymlicka, Margalit, and Raz to provide a “context of choice” for its members. [ 11 ]

The second, related risk involves privileging one identity over others. This is especially important for people with multiple or “intersectional” identities. People who are African-American and disabled, or female and disabled, or disabled and LGBT may sometimes feel a conflict between those identities. In one study, for example, African-American women with mobility impairments reported that they felt estranged from the disability-rights movement, partly because its leadership seemed predominantly white, and partly because some of its principal goals—to maximize independence—went against their more communal values, which emphasized family and co-dependence (Feldman and Tegart 2003). More generally, although there has been comparatively little discussion of the intersection between disability and race within philosophical work on disability (though see Stubblefield 2009), more discussion can be found in disability studies more generally (e.g., Bell 2011). Also, some have noted that mainstream feminism’s focus on independence and self-sufficiency has tended to exclude women with disabilities, who are perceived as lacking in these cardinal virtues (Crawford and Ostrove 2003; Wendell 1996). At the same time, disabled women are often particularly vulnerable to the injustices that motivate the feminist movement: they are frequently victims of sexual exploitation (Crawford and Ostrove 2003), encounter many obstacles to leaving dissatisfying relationships because of physical, psychological and financial dependency (Olkin 2003), and have median incomes below the poverty line and substantially lower than those of their male counterparts (Crawford and Ostrove 2003; Olkin 1999).

In addition to these potential risks associated with emphasizing identity politics for persons with disabilities and other stigmatized minorities, there have been several major challenges in mobilizing people with disabilities around an affirmative group or cultural identity. The first, addressed by the disability rights movement, was getting people with disabilities to recognize that they have something in common with others who are differently impaired but also suffer stigma and exclusion because of their impairment. This has been difficult because people who are born with disabilities or acquire them in childhood come from widely dispersed socioeconomic, geographic and racial groups (Scotch 1988) and so are less likely to grow up with a sense of group identity. Another obstacle has been the overwhelmingly negative connotation of the label “disabled”. Indeed, the challenge for people with visual, motor, and psychiatric impairments has been to recognize that they share a “disabled” identity while denying that this makes them dependent, child-like, or powerless (Asch 1985; Scotch 1988); such a self-identity would quite literally disable one’s capacity for social participation and political action.

It is instructive to compare how the medical and social models would address these challenges. The medical model suggests a disability identity that is both fragmented and negative. Because the medical model defines disability in terms of particular physical or mental impairments, the primary commonalities it recognizes among disabled people are strictly functional; it views the blind person and the deaf person as having very different problems. Although it could recognize the fact that such biomedically distinct conditions had similar social consequences—stigmatization and exclusion—it would treat those similar consequences merely as secondary effects of the two conditions. Even within a single impairment, a medical model encourages distinctions based on etiology. For example, it would distinguish blindness due to Leber’s congenital amaurosis from blindness due to retinaopathy of prematurity, focusing on genetic testing for the former and treatment for the latter, and placing less emphasis on the shared challenges of living with blindness. Although this narrow focus may be appropriate for the purposes of clinical intervention, it obscures the recognition of disability as a social and political problem, except insofar as it raises perennial questions about how to distribute scarce health-care resources (Barnartt et al. 2001).

In contrast, the various social models were explicitly formulated to support a disability identity that could serve as the basis for claims of respect and recognition. The inclusion of people with a vast array of different impairments in United States and other national civil rights laws, and the creation of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, have helped to forge a shared disability identity. The emergence of disability studies as a recognized field of academic inquiry has also contributed. The minority group model promotes a trans-impairment identity by treating people with disabilities as a “discrete and insular minority” making claims on a generally stigmatizing able-bodied majority. Though the minority group model has proven extremely useful in passing anti-discrimination laws, it may do so at the expense of emphasizing the differences between people with disabilities and people without them, rather than highlighting the many ways in which identity need not be tied to the presence or absence of an impairment. The human variation model tempers this emphasis, and resists essentialism about disability identity, by treating the group itself as socially constructed. It sees the category of “the disabled” as resting on an artificial dichotomy imposed on a continuum of variation. The conceptualization of disability as just one source of difference, and as a difference in kind more than degree, can undercut a sense of disability as the basis for a unique and exclusive identity.

The more the redesign of the physical and social environment is guided by a thoroughgoing human-variation model, the less dominant disability identity and identity politics may become for people with disabilities. A society in which disabilities lack the social and practical significance they currently have may be one in which the equality of people with disabilities can be fully recognized without having to treat disability as a salient feature of their identities.

It may be, though, that the physical, sensory, or psychic experience of a particular impairment turns out to be central and salient to how those with the impairment live—even in a society deeply committed to inclusion, participation, and non-discrimination. Perhaps communicating primarily gesturally and not vocally, or moving through the world with wheels and not on legs, or focusing on detail rather than context, makes the lives of people who are deaf, or paralyzed, or autistic sufficiently distinctive that they feel a strong affinity and connection with others who have the same impairment (see SEP entry on disability: definitions, models, experience for a discussion of this claim.) Disability theorists who adopt different social model approaches might profitably consider how different views about group and individual identity apply to people with disabilities.

The connection between different models of disability and different ways of understanding disability identity points us in the direction of an important category of injustice, in addition to the distributive and relational conceptions already discussed. This is epistemic injustice (Fricker 2007; Barnes, 2016). Epistemic injustice consists in a person’s being wronged in her capacity as an epistemic subject. Testimonial injustice consists in someone’s being wronged in her capacity as a subject of knowledge, while hermeneutical injustice consists in someone’s being wronged in her capacity as a subject of understanding. More specifically, testimonial injustice consists in someone’s testimony being given less credence than the evidence warrants due to prejudice on the part of the hearer, while hermeneutical injustice consists in someone’s experiences being obscured from individual and collective understanding due to wrongful exclusion from the practices by which those understandings are generated. Both have clear implications for disability, justice, and identity.

For example, consider the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to assess the prospective benefits of health care interventions. The standard method of “quality adjustment” involves (i) assigning a value of 1 to each life-year one can reasonably expect to save through a given intervention, and (ii) discounting each life-year that would be lived by a person with a disability by some coefficient (between 0 and 1) which is thought to reflect the badness of living with the disability in question. These coefficients are typically arrived at by asking people how many years of life with the disability people would be willing to exchange for each year of life without the disability. For example, suppose survey data indicate that people would trade 8 years of life with blindness for 4 years of life with sight. The method of quality-adjustment would assign a QALY of 0.5 to each year of life lived with blindness. The upshot is that saving nondisabled life-years provides more “bang for your buck” in the QALY model, and as such is to be preferred to saving disabled life-years.

This implication has led some to criticize the method of quality-adjustment on the grounds that it produces a kind of “double jeopardy:” people with disabilities are disadvantaged twice-over, first by having the disability itself, second by having their health care needs discounted for that very reason (e.g., Singer et al. 1995; Bognar 2011; John et al. 2017). But there is another way of thinking about QALYs which takes issue with both quality-adjustment and an assumption behind the double-jeopardy criticism. When the “exchange rate” between disabled and non-disabled life-years is calculated, it is primarily or exclusively based the judgments of able-bodied people. This feature is criticizable on two distinct grounds. One is that it disrespects the first-person authority of people with disabilities, who know first-hand what it’s like to have the disability in question (and, if disabled as adults, know also what it’s like not to have the disability). This disrespect for first-person authority is plausibly an example of testimonial injustice, at least insofar as it reflects prejudicial or otherwise biased attitudes on the part of the able-bodied. A second, related criticism is that this approach exaggerates the difference in quality between able-bodied and disabled lives, relative to an approach that appropriately incorporated and weighed the perspectives of people with disabilities. Able-bodied people often overestimate how bad it would be to have a given disability, given popular stereotypes which depict life with disability as tragic, occlusive of life’s major goods, and so on. This is plausibly an example of hermeneutical injustice, insofar as the poor understanding of disabled people’s experiences and identities results from their exclusion from the public sphere. This is only one example; much work remains to be done exploring the implications of epistemic injustice for people with disabilities.

This entry began by pointing out a feature of disability that distinguishes it from other characteristics which have often been seen as grounding legitimate claims of justice, such as race, sex, sexual and gender identity, and religion. Simply put, achieving full inclusion for people with disabilities is expensive to a degree that achieving full inclusion for other minorities is not. Any plausible theory of inclusion implies the necessity of considerable accommodation and environmental reconstruction. And even if the costs of such measures have often been exaggerated, it is difficult to see how the appropriate degree of accommodation and reconstruction would not require diverting significant amounts of resources from other worthy goals, including some goals which are supported by countervailing considerations of justice. One implication of this feature of disability is that disability requires us to directly compare, and perhaps trade off, values of relational justice, which ground the demand for full inclusion as part of a society of equals, and values of distributive justice, which ground the demand for a fair distribution of scarce resources.

Having made this general point, the entry proceeded to discuss different models of disability, which differ principally in their understanding of the relationship between impairment and limitation. Whereas the medical model of disability tends to attribute most of the limitations associated with disability to functional aspects of the relevant impairments, the social model of disability emphasizes the mediating role of the social environment—broadly understood to include the configuration of physical space, the availability of various forms of accommodation, social practices and norms, etc.—in generating disability-related disadvantage. Among other things, the social model highlights the relational aspects of disability-related disadvantage, such as stigma, invisibility, and exclusion, whereas the medical model lends itself to a narrow distributive interpretation of the claims of justice generated by disability.

In subsequent sections, the entry focused on the role of disability in contractualist and other distributive theories of justice. Disability has often been regarded as a “limit case” for contractualist theories of justice, and more specifically for the idealizing assumptions these theories make about the capacities of those who choose and those who are governed by contractualist principles of justice. We also saw that disability has played a central role in discussions of outcome-oriented, distributive theories of justice, in particular luck egalitarianism. Internally, disability has played a central role in discussions about the “currency” of justice, since it has often been seen as a paradigm example of unchosen disadvantage. Externally, disability has played a central role in relational criticisms of luck egalitarian theories of justice. At best, these theories have been seen as failing to attribute normative significance to morally relevant differences between identical patterns of distribution which differ in the causal contribution of the social environment. At worst, these theories have been criticized for expressing disrespect towards people with disabilities in virtue of characterizing them as “mere” unfortunates or objects of pity. Although some of these criticisms may be overstated, they have been taken to heart by many theorists of distributive justice, especially proponents of the capabilities approach. Finally, the entry concluded by pointing to a topic which has received far less attention in discussions of disability and justice: namely, the normative significance of disability as a form of social identity, and the connections between disability and epistemic injustice.

This entry raises a number of questions which would benefit from further exploration. Clearly, one general question is how exactly to understand the distinction between distributive and relational values of justice. Another, related question is how to assess the comparative weight or importance of these values. And if, as many find plausible, some form of pluralism about justice is the correct answer, then we will need to work out how the relevant trade-offs, weights, and so on apply to the special case of disability, which simultaneously raises both distributive and relational concerns. A third question which calls for further research is the link between disability and epistemic injustice. We briefly discussed two examples of testimonial and hermeneutical injustice concerning people with disabilities, but there are—needless to say—many more. Indeed, disability may be an especially powerful example of epistemic injustice precisely because the phenomenological experiences of people with disabilities, especially those with sensory impairments, differ considerably from the experiences of the able-bodied majority, raising the hard question of how well we must understand others in order to treat them as justice requires.

• Aas, Sean and David Wasserman, 2016, “Natural and Social Inequality: Disability and Fair Equality of Opportunity”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 13(5): 576–601. doi:10.1163/17455243-46810042
• Acemoglu, Daron and Joshua Angrist, 1998, “Consequences of Employment Protection? The Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act”, NBER Working Paper 6670, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w6670
• Albrecht, Gary L., Katherine Seelman, and Michael Bury (eds.), 2001, Handbook of Disability Studies , Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781412976251
• [ADA], 1990, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as Amended , ADA 1990 amended available online
• Amundson, Ron, 1992, “Disability, Handicap, and the Environment”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 23(1): 105–119. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.1992.tb00489.x
• Anderson, Elizabeth S., 1999, “What Is the Point of Equality?”, Ethics , 109(2): 287–337. doi:10.1086/233897
• Appiah, Kwame Anthony, 2005, The Ethics of Identity , Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
• Appiah, Kwame Anthony and Amy Gutmann, 1996, Color Conscious: The Political Morality of Race , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Armitage, Faith, 2006, “Respect and Types of Injustice”, Res Publica , 12(1): 9–34. doi:10.1007/s11158-006-0003-7
• Arneson, Richard J., 1989, “Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare”, Philosophical Studies , 56(1): 77–93. doi:10.1007/BF00646210
• –––, 2000, “Luck Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism”, Ethics , 110(2): 339–349. doi:10.1086/233272
• –––, 2006, “Distributive Justice and Basic Capability Equality: ‘Good Enough’ is Not Good Enough”, in Kaufman 2006: 15–43.
• Asch, Adrienne, 1985, “Understanding and working with disability rights groups”, in Complete Guide to Employing Persons with Disabilities , Henry McCarthy (ed.), Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center, pp 170–184.
• –––, 1989, “Reproductive Technology and Disability”, in Reproductive Laws for the 1990s , Sherrill Cohen and Nadine Taub (eds.), Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 69–124. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3710-5_4
• Banks, Martha E. and Ellyn Kaschak (eds.), 2003, Women with Visible and Invisible Disabilities: Multiple Intersections, Multiple Issues, Multiple Therapies , New York: Haworth Press.
• Barclay, Linda, 2010, “Disability, Respect and Justice”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 27(2): 154–171. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2010.00489.x
• –––, 2011, “Justice and Disability: What Kind of Theorizing Is Needed?”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 42(3): 273–287. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2011.01533.x
• –––, 2018, Disability with Dignity: Justice, Human Rights and Equal Status , London and New York: Routledge.
• Barnartt, Sharon, Kay Schriner, and Richard Scotch, 2001, “Advocacy and Political Action”, Albrecht, Seelman, and Bury 2001: 430–449. doi:10.4135/9781412976251.n18
• Barnartt, Sharon, with K. Schriner and R. Scotch, 2001, “Advocacy and Political Action”, in Handbook of Disability Studies , G.L. Albrecht, K.D.
• Barnes, Elizabeth, 2016, The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability , Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732587.001.0001
• Becker, Lawrence C., 2005, “Reciprocity, Justice, and Disability”, Ethics , 116(1): 9–39. doi:10.1086/453150
• Bell, Christopher M. (ed.), 2011, Blackness and Disability: Critical Examinations and Cultural Interventions , (Forecast 21), East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
• Benhabib, Seyla, 1992, Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics , New York: Routledge.
• Bickenbach, Jerome Edmund, 1993, Physical Disability and Social Policy , Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
• Biklen, Douglas, 1992, Schooling Without Labels: Parents, Educators, and Inclusive Education , Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
• Block, Lydia S., 2006, “Letter from the Guest Editor” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 19(2): 115–116.
• Bodenheimer, Thomas, 1997a, “The Oregon Health Plan: Lessons for the Nation, First Part”, New England Journal of Medicine , 337(9): 651–656. doi:10.1056/NEJM199708283370923
• –––, 1997b, “The Oregon Health Plan: Lessons for the Nation, Second Part”, New England Journal of Medicine , 337(10): 720–723. doi:10.1056/NEJM199709043371021
• Bognar, Greg, 2011, “Impartiality and Disability Discrimination”, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , 21(1): 1–23. doi:10.1353/ken.2011.0000
• Bolton, Derek, 2008, What Is Mental Disorder?: An Essay in Philosophy, Science, and Values , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/med/9780198565925.001.0001
• Bowe, Frank, 1980, Rehabilitating America: Toward Independence for Disabled and Elderly People , New York, NY: Harper and Row.
• Brighouse, Harry, 2001, “Can Justice as Fairness Accommodate the Disabled?”:, Social Theory and Practice , 27(4): 537–560. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract200127433
• Brownlee, Kimberley and Adam Cureton (eds.), 2009, Disability and Disadvantage , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199234509.001.0001
• Buchanan, Allen E. and Dan W. Brock, 1990, Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making , (Studies in Philosophy and Health Policy), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139171946
• Buchanan, Allen, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels, and Daniel Wikler, 2000, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511806940
• Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2010, “Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics—2009”, available online , accessed April 21, 2012.
• Calder, Gideon, 2010, “Pragmatism, Critical Theory and Democratic Inclusion”, Etica & Politica/Ethics & Politics , 12(1): 52–67. [ Calder 2010 available online ]
• Cavallero, Eric, 2011, “Health, Luck and Moral Fallacies of the Second Best”, The Journal of Ethics , 15(4): 387–403. doi:10.1007/s10892-011-9109-z
• Cohen, G. A., 1989, “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice”, Ethics , 99(4): 906–944. doi:10.1086/293126
• Connor, David J., Susan L. Gabel, Deborah J. Gallagher, and Missy Morton, 2008, “Disability Studies and Inclusive Education ��” Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice”, International Journal of Inclusive Education , 12(5–6): 441–457. doi:10.1080/13603110802377482
• Crawford, Danette and Joan M. Ostrove, 2003, “Representations of Disability and the Personal relationships of Women with Disabilities”, in Banks and Kaschak 2003: 179–194.
• Crossley, Mary, 2004, “Reasonable Accommodation as Part and Parcel of the Antidiscrimination Project”, Rutgers Law Journal , 35(3): 861–958.
• Cureton, Adam, 2008, “A Rawlsian Perspective on Justice for the Disabled” Essays in Philosophy , 9(1): article 5. [ Cureton 2008 available online ]
• Cureton, Adam and Kimberley Brownlee, 2009, “Introduction”, in Brownlee and Cureton 2009: 1–13. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199234509.003.0001
• Danermark, Berth and Lotta Coniavitis Gellerstedt, 2004, “Social Justice: Redistribution and Recognition—a Non‐reductionist Perspective on Disability”, Disability & Society , 19(4): 339–353. doi:10.1080/09687590410001689458
• Daniels, Norman, 1985, Just Health Care , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511624971
• Daniels, Norman and James Sabin, 1997, “Limits to Health Care: Fair Procedures, Democratic Deliberation, and the Legitimacy Problem for Insurers”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 26(4): 303–350. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00082.x
• Davis, N. Ann, 2005, “Invisible Disability”, Ethics , 116(1): 153–213. doi:10.1086/453151
• Drimmer, Jonathan C., 1993, “Cripples, Overcomers, and Civil Rights: Tracing the Evolution of Federal Legislation and Social Policy for People with Disabilities”, UCLA Law Review , 40(5): 1341–1410.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1981a, “What Is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 10(3): 185–246.
• –––, 1981b, “What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 10(4): 283–345.
• –––, 2003, “Equality, Luck and Hierarchy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 31(2): 190–198. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00190.x
• Feiring, E, 2008, “Lifestyle, Responsibility and Justice”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 34(1): 33–36. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.019067
• Feldman, Scott I. and Georgina Tegart, 2003, “Keep Moving: Conceptions of Illness and Disability of Middle-Aged African-American Women with Arthritis”, in Banks, and Kaschak 2003: 127–144.
• Fine, Michelle and Adrienne Asch, 1988, “Disability Beyond Stigma: Social Interaction, Discrimination, and Activism”, Journal of Social Issues , 44(1): 3–21. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1988.tb02045.x
• Fishkin, James S., 1983, Justice, Equal Opportunity, and the Family , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Fourie, Carina, Fabian Schuppert, and Ivo Wallimann-Helmer (eds.), 2015, Social Equality: On What It Means to Be Equals , Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199331109.001.0001
• Francis, Leslie P., 2009, “Understanding Autonomy in Light of Intellectual Disability”, in Brownlee and Cureton 2009: 200–215. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199234509.003.0008
• Fraser, Nancy, 1995, “From Redistribution to Recognition: Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘Post-Socialist’ Age”, New Left Law Review , 212: 68–93. [ Fraser 1995 available online ]
• –––, 1996, Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation , The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Delivered at Stanford University, April 30–May 2, 1996. [ Fraser 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1997, Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition , Routledge: New York.
• –––, 2001, “Recognition without Ethics?”, Theory, Culture & Society , 18(2–3): 21–42. doi:10.1177/02632760122051760
• –––, 2007, “Identity, Exclusion, and Critique: A Response to Four Critics”, European Journal of Political Theory , 6(3): 305–338. doi:10.1177/1474885107077319
• Fremstad, Shawn, 2009, Half in Ten: Why Taking Disability into Account is Essential to Reducing Income Poverty and Expanding Economic Inclusion , Washington, DC: Center for Economic Policy Research. [ Fremstad 2009 available online ]
• Fricker, Miranda, 2007, Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing , Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
• Galston, William A., 1991, Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139172462
• Galvin, Rose, 2002, “Disturbing Notions of Chronic Illness and Individual Responsibility: Towards a Genealogy of Morals”, Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine , 6(2): 107–137. doi:10.1177/136345930200600201
• Gartner, Alan and Dorothy Kerzner Lipsky, 2002, Inclusion: A Service, Not a Place—A Whole School Approach , Port Chester, NY: National Publishing Resources.
• Gliedman, John and William Roth, 1980, The Unexpected Minority: Handicapped Children in America , New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Goering, Sara, 2009, “‘Mental Illness’ and Justice as Recognition”, Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly , 29(1–2): 14–18. doi:10.13021/g8pppq.292009.111
• Gutmann, Amy, 1987, Democratic Education , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Hahn, Harlan, 1987 [1997], “Advertising the Acceptably Employable Image: Disability and Capitalism”, Policy Studies Journal , 15(3): 551–570. Reprinted in The Disability Studies Reader , Lennard J. Davis (ed), London, UK: Routledge Kegan Paul, pp. 172–186. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1987.tb00729.x
• Hartley, Christie, 2009a, “An Inclusive Contractualism”, in Brownlee and Cureton 2009: 138–162. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199234509.003.0006
• –––, 2009b, “Justice for the Disabled: A Contractualist Approach”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 40(1): 17–36. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01436.x
• Heath, Joseph, 1998, “Culture: Choice or Circumstance?”, Constellations , 5(2): 183–200. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.00087
• Hehir, Thomas, 2002, “Eliminating Ableism in Education”, Harvard Educational Review , 72(1): 1–33. doi:10.17763/haer.72.1.03866528702g2105
• Honneth, Axel, 1992, “Integrity and Disrespect: Principles of a Conception of Morality Based on the Theory of Recognition”, Political Theory , 20(2): 187–201. doi:10.1177/0090591792020002001
• Howe, Kenneth R., 1996, “Educational Ethics, Social Justice and Children with Disabilities”, in Disability and the Dilemmas of Education and Justice , Carol Christensen and Fazal Rizvi (eds.), Buckingham: Open University Press, pp 46–62.
• John, Tyler M., Joseph Millum, and David Wasserman, 2017, “How to Allocate Scarce Health Resources without Discriminating against People with Disabilities”, Economics and Philosophy , 33(2): 161–186. doi:10.1017/S0266267116000237
• Karlan, Pamela S. and George Rutherglen, 1996, “Disabilities, Discrimination, and Reasonable Accommodation”, Duke Law Journal , 46(1): 1–42.
• Kaufman, Alexander (ed.), 2006, Capabilities Equality: Basic Issues and Problems , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203799444
• Kittay, Eva Feder, 1999, Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency , New York: Routledge.
• Kittay, Eva Feder and Licia Carlson (eds.), 2010, Cognitive Disability and Its Challenge to Moral Philosophy , Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444322781
• Korsgaard, Christine M., 1996, The Sources of Normativity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511554476
• –––, 2009, Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552795.001.0001
• Kymlicka, Will, 1989, Liberalism, Community and Culture , Oxford: Clarendon.
• Ladenson, Robert F., 2005, “The Zero-Reject Policy in Special Education: A Moral Analysis”, Theory and Research in Education , 3(3): 273–298. doi:10.1177/1477878505057428
• Lawson, John, 2001, “Disability as a Cultural Identity”, International Studies in Sociology of Education , 11(3): 203–222. doi:10.1080/09620210100200076
• Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper, 2004, “Are Some Inequalities More Unequal than Others? Nature, Nurture and Equality”, Utilitas , 16(2): 193–219. doi:10.1017/S0953820804000536
• –––, 2015, “Luck Egalitarians versus Relational Egalitarians: On the Prospects of a Pluralist Account of Egalitarian Justice”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 45(2): 220–241. doi:10.1080/00455091.2015.1061369
• Lipsky, Dorothy Kerzner and Alan Gartner, 1996, “Inclusion, School Restructuring, and the Remaking of American Society”, Harvard Educational Review , 66(4): 762–797. doi:10.17763/haer.66.4.3686k7x734246430
• Longmore, Paul K., 1995, “The Second Phase: From Disability Rights to Disability Culture”, Disability Rag , 16: 4–11. [ Longmore 1995 available online ]
• McGuire, Joan M., Sally S. Scott, and Stan F. Shaw, 2006, “Universal Design and Its Applications in Educational Environments”, Remedial and Special Education , 27(3): 166–175. doi:10.1177/07419325060270030501
• Miller, David, 1999, Principles of Social Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Minow, Martha, 1990, Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Nagel, Thomas, 1997, “Justice and Nature”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 17(2): 303–322. doi:10.1093/ojls/17.2.303
• Norman, Richard, 1997, “The Social Basis of Equality”, Ratio , 10(3): 238–252. doi:10.1111/1467-9329.00043
• –––, 1999, “Equality, Priority and Social Justice”, Ratio , 12(2): 178–194. doi:10.1111/1467-9329.00086
• Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books; see especially pp. 42–43.
• Nussbaum, Martha, 1990, “Aristotelian Social Democracy”, in Liberalism and the Human Good , R. Bruce Douglass, Gerald M. Mara, and Henry S. Richardson (eds.), London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul.
• –––, 2006a, Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2006b, “Replies”, The Journal of Ethics , 10(4): 463–506. doi:10.1007/s10892-006-9002-3
• –––, 2009, “The Capabilities of People with Cognitive Disabilities”, Metaphilosophy , 40(3–4): 331–351. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01606.x
• Oliver, Michael, 1990, The Politics of Disablement , Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan
• Oliver, Mike and Gerry Zarb, 1989, “The Politics of Disability: A New Approach”, Disability, Handicap & Society , 4(3): 221–239. doi:10.1080/02674648966780261
• Okin, Susan Moller, 1987, “Justice and Gender” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 16(1): 42–72.
• –––, 1994, “Political Liberalism, Justice, and Gender”, Ethics , 105(1): 23–43. doi:10.1086/293677
• Olkin, Rhoda, 1999, What Psychotherapists Should Know About Disability , New York: Guilford Publications.
• –––, 2003, “Women with Physical Disabilities Who Want to Leave Their Partners”, in Banks and Kaschak 2003: 237–246.
• Olsen, Kevin, 2001, “Distributive Justice and the Politics of Difference”, Critical Horizons , 2(1): 5–32. doi:10.1163/156851601750169982
• Owren, Thomas, 2013, “Autreat and Autscape: Informing and Challenging the Neurotypical Will and Ability to Include”, Masters Thesis, Community Work, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway.
• Parens, Erik and Adrienne Asch, 2000, “The Disability Rights Critique of Prenatal Genetic Testing: Reflections and Recommendations”, in Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights , Erik Parens and Adrienne Asch (eds.), Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp 3–43.
• Pogge, Thomas W., 1989, Realizing Rawls , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 1995, “Three Problems with Contractarian-Consequentialist Ways of Assessing Social Institutions”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 12(2): 241–266. doi:10.1017/S026505250000474X
• –––, 2002, “Can the Capability Approach Be Justified?”:, Philosophical Topics , 30(2): 167–228. doi:10.5840/philtopics200230216
• –––, 2004a, “Equal Liberty for All?”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 28(1): 266–281. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.2004.00095.x
• –––, 2004b, “Relational Conceptions of Justice: Responsibilities for Health Outcomes”, in Public Health, Ethics and Equity , Sudhir Anand, Fabienne Peter, and Amartya Sen (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, ch. 7.
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 2001, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement , Erin Kelly (ed.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Richardson, Henry S., 2006, “Rawlsian Social-Contract Theory and the Severely Disabled”, The Journal of Ethics , 10(4): 419–462. doi:10.1007/s10892-006-9000-5
• Riddle, Christopher A., 2010, “Indexing, Capabilities, and Disability”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 41(4): 527–537. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2010.01514.x
• Robeyns, Ingrid, 2003, “Is Nancy Fraser’s Critique of Theories of Distributive Justice Justified?”, Constellations , 10(4): 538–554. doi:10.1046/j.1351-0487.2003.00352.x
• Samaha, Adam M., 2007, “What Good is the Social Model of Disability?” University of Chicago Law Review , 74(4): 1251–1308. [ Samaha 2007 available online ]
• Schartz, Helen A., D. J. Hendricks, and Peter Blanck, 2006, “Workplace Accommodations: Evidence Based Outcomes”, Work , 27(4): 345–354.
• Schemmel, Christian, 2012, “Distributive and Relational Equality”, Politics, Philosophy & Economics , 11(2): 123–148. doi:10.1177/1470594X11416774
• Schneider, Joseph W. and Peter Conrad, 1985, Having Epilepsy: The Experience and Control of Illness , Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
• Schramme, Thomas, 2010, “Can We Define Mental Disorder by Using the Criterion of Mental Dysfunction?”, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics , 31(1): 35–47. doi:10.1007/s11017-010-9136-y
• Schreuer, Naomi, William N. Myhill, Tal Aratan-Bergman, Deepti Samant, and Peter Blanck, 2009, “Workplace Accommodations: Occupational Therapists as Mediators in the Interactive Process”, Work , 34(2): 149–160.
• Scotch, Richard K., 1988, “Disability as the Basis for a Social Movement: Advocacy and the Politics of Definition”, Journal of Social Issues , 44(1): 159–172. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1988
• Scotch, Richard K. and Kay Schriner, 1997, “Disability as Human Variation: Implications for Policy”, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 549(1): 148–159. doi:10.1177/0002716297549001011
• Sen, Amartya, 1980, “Equality of What?” in Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Volume 1 , S. MacMurrin (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Shakespeare, Tom, 2006, Disability Rights and Wrongs , New York, NY: Routledge.
• Sher, George, 1997, Beyond Neutrality: Perfectionism and Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609169
• Silvers, Anita and Leslie Pickering Francis, 2005, “Justice through Trust: Disability and the ‘Outlier Problem’ in Social Contract Theory”, Ethics , 116(1): 40–76. doi:10.1086/454368
• –––, 2009, “Thinking about the Good: Reconfiguring Liberal Metaphysics (or Not) for People with Cognitive Disabilities”, Metaphilosophy , 40(3–4): 475–498. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01602.x
• Singer, P., J. McKie, H. Kuhse, and J. Richardson, 1995, “Double Jeopardy and the Use of QALYs in Health Care Allocation”, Journal of Medical Ethics , 21(3): 144–150. doi:10.1136/jme.21.3.144
• Sparrow, Robert, 2005, “Defending Deaf Culture: The Case of Cochlear Implants*”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 13(2): 135–152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2005.00217.x
• Stark, Cynthia A., 2007, “How to Include the Severely Disabled in a Contractarian Theory of Justice”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 15(2): 127–145. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2005.00257.x
• –––, 2009, “Contractarianism and Cooperation”, Politics, Philosophy & Economics , 8(1): 73–99. doi:10.1177/1470594X08098872
• Stubblefield, Anna, 2009, “The Entanglement of Race and Cognitive Dis/Ability”, Metaphilosophy , 40(3–4): 531–551. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01603.x
• Swain, John and Sally French, 2000, “Towards an Affirmation Model of Disability”, Disability & Society , 15(4): 569–582. doi:10.1080/09687590050058189
• Szasz, Thomas S., 1960, “The Myth of Mental Illness”, American Psychologist , 15(2): 113–118. doi:10.1037/h0046535
• Terzi, Lorella, 2009, “Vagaries of the Natural Lottery? Human Diversity, Disability, and Justice”, in Brownlee and Cureton 2009: 86–111. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199234509.003.0004
• Thomas, Carol, 2004, “Rescuing a Social Relational Understanding of Disability”, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research , 6(1): 22–36. doi:10.1080/15017410409512637
• Tucker, Bonnie Poitras, 1997, “The ADA and Deaf culture: Contrasting Precepts, Conflicting Results”, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 549(1), 24–36.
• Veatch, Robert, 1986, The Foundation of Justice: Why the Retarded and the Rest of Us Have Claims to Equality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wasserman, David T., 1998, “Distributive Justice”, in Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy , Anita Silvers, David T. Wasserman, and Mary Briody Mahowald (eds.), Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• –––, 2001, “Philosophical Issues in the Definition and Social Response to Disability”, in Albrecht, Seelman, and Bury 2001: 219–251. doi:10.4135/9781412976251.n9
• –––, 2006, “Disability, Capabilities, and Thresholds for Distributive Justice”, in Kaufman 2006: 214–225.
• Wasserman, David and Jeff McMahan, 2012, “Cognitive Surrogacy, Assisted Participation, and Moral Status”, in Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Health Care , second edition, Rosamond Rhodes, Margaret Battin, and Anita Silvers (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–334. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199744206.003.0027
• Wendell, Susan, 1989, “Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability”, Hypatia , 4(2): 104–124. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00576.x
• –––, 1996, The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability , New York, NY: Routledge.
• Wikler, Daniel, 1979, “Paternalism and the Mildly Retarded”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 8(4): 377–392.
• –––, 1987, “Personal Responsibility for Illness”, in Health Care Ethics: An Introduction , Donald VanDeVeer and Tom Regan (eds.), Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 326–358.
• Wolff, Jonathan, 2009a, “Cognitive Disability in a Society of Equals”, Metaphilosophy , 40(3–4): 402–415. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01598.x
• –––, 2009b, “Disability among Equals”, in Brownlee and Cureton 2009: 112–137. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199234509.003.0005
• Wolff, Jonathan and Avner de-Shalit, 2007, Disadvantage , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278268.001.0001
• Wong, Sophia Isako, 2007, “The Moral Personhood of Individuals Labeled ‘Mentally Retarded’: A Rawlsian Response to Nussbaum”, Social Theory and Practice , 33(4): 579–594. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract20073343
• –––, 2009, “Duties of Justice to Citizens with Cognitive Disabilities”, Metaphilosophy , 40(3–4): 382–401. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01604.x
• Young, Iris Marion, 1990, Justice and the Politics of Difference , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Zurn, Christopher F., 2003, “Identity or Status? Struggles over ‘Recognition’ in Fraser, Honneth, and Taylor”, Constellations , 10(4): 519–537. doi:10.1046/j.1351-0487.2003.00351.x

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

cognitive disability and moral status | contractarianism | disability: definitions and models | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on disability | identity: over time | identity politics | justice: distributive | luck: justice and bad luck | Rawls, John | recognition | redistribution

Acknowledgments

We want to thank the participants in the Workshop on Disability: Bioethics, Philosophy, and Public Policy (January 18–19, 2007) for enormous help in framing the issues discussed in this Entry. In addition, we have received invaluable editorial assistance from Dorit Barlevy, Ari Schick and William Chin.

Copyright © 2019 by Daniel Putnam < dmp428 @ nyu . edu > David Wasserman < dtwasserm @ gmail . com > Jeffrey Blustein < jblustein @ ccny . cuny . edu > Adrienne Asch

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Associated Students Commission on Disability Equity

The 10 Principles of Disability Justice

This page gives an overview of the “10 Principles of Disability Justice.” This framework was developed by Sins Invalid, a disability justice-based performance project that incubates and celebrates artists with disabilities, centralizing artists of color and LGBTQ / gender-variant artists as communities who have been historically marginalized. The following image was found on their “Curriculum” webpage, linked here: https://www.sinsinvalid.org/curriculum

Click the following link to view a PDF breakdown of each of the 10 Principles of Disability Justice, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bed3674f8370ad8c02efd9a/t/5f1f0783916d8a179c46126d/1595869064521/10_Principles_of_DJ-2ndEd.pdf

These Principles can also be found in the “SKIN, TOOTH, AND BONE: The Basis of Movement is Our People” Disability Justice Primer, available for purchase here: https://www.sinsinvalid.org/disability-justice-primer

Highlights: The Principles that inform CODE’s new Commission Structure and Vision

The following is adapted from Marvia Cunanan’s Spring 2021 workshop on Sins Invalid’s 10 Principles of Disability Justice , and how they apply to CODE’s redesigned Commission: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19ivRPRTWCedbpxliVFIgB-yn6ViJIoFN9pc5gccg9u8/edit?usp=sharing

Commitment to Cross-Movement Solidarity

Shifting how social justice movements understand disability and contextualize ableism, disability justice lends itself to politics of alliance. 

Through cross-movement solidarity, we create a united front . We hope that by implementing our Racial Justice Outreach Coordinator and Gender and Sexual Equity Outreach Coordinator, we can facilitate collaborative efforts, and build lasting coalitions with other communities.

Recognizing Wholeness

People have inherent worth outside of commodity relations and capitalist notions of productivity. Each person is full of history and life experiences.

Disabled people are whole people. In addition to the need to address “accessibility issues” on campus, we envision a campus with peer support networks, inclusive social programs, an “honors society” with both academic and career advising, and more! See our Overview of CODE’s 3-Pillar Plan for more.

Sustainability

We learn to pace ourselves, individually and collectively, to be sustained long-term. We value the teachings of our bodies and experiences, and use them as a critical guide and reference point.

We take a ground-up approach in identifying the needs of the disability community on our campus. We move away from the urgency of quotas, and our “progress” is marked by the ongoing development of our community-building efforts. Our student leadership makes every effort to enact principles of patience, flexibility, and care, that honors the ways that our capacities may fluctuate over time.

Interdependence

We meet each others’ needs as we build toward liberation, knowing that state solutions inevitably extend into further control over our lives.

For the liberation of our community, we offer care and support for each other . In this vein, our Commission works to organize the Disability Community Care Space , a community space for disabled students to talk openly about their experiences and connect with each other.

Collective access and Liberation

No body or mind can be left behind — only by moving together can we accomplish the revolution we require. We move together as people with mixed abilities, multiracial, multi-gendered, mixed class, across the sexual spectrum, with a vision that leaves no bodymind behind.

Our Commission’s website compiles both basic needs resources and “accessibility guides” for students in the disability community and allies to reference. For more information, see our Resources page .

Mad Lab at Cal

The Berkeley Disability Lab

Disability Justice

Disability 101.

Disability justice abandons the previous models which tend to focus on a binary and instead move to a broader approach focused more systemically. “Disability Justice was built because the Disability Rights Movement and Disability Studies do not inherently centralize the needs and experiences of folks experiencing intersectional oppression, such as disabled people of color, immigrants with disabilities, queers with disabilities, trans and gender non-conforming people with disabilities, people with disabilities who are houseless, people with disabilities who are incarcerated, people with disabilities who have had their ancestral lands stolen, amongst others.” ( Source )

“Disability justice recognizes the intersecting legacies of white supremacy, colonial capitalism, gendered oppression and ableism in understanding how people’s bodies and minds are labeled ‘deviant’, ‘unproductive’, ‘disposable’ and/or ‘invalid’.” ( Source )

A disability justice framework understands that: 

• “All bodies are unique and essential. 
• All bodies have strengths and needs that must be met. 
• We are powerful, not despite the complexities of our bodies, but because of them. 
• All bodies are confined by ability, race, gender, sexuality, class, nation state, religion, and more, and we cannot separate them.” ( Source )

If you are new or newer to disability justice, I recommend you reread the list above slowly and reflect on what each of these above bullet points means, and how it might be a shift for how you have considered things in the past. Is this how I view my body? Is this how I view others’ bodies? Do I resonate with the statements? Do any of the statements align with what I believe? What might be different if I thought this way about myself and others?

10 PRINCIPLES OF DISABILITY JUSTICE 

“INTERSECTIONALITY “We do not live single issue lives” –Audre Lorde. Ableism, coupled with white supremacy, supported by capitalism, underscored by heteropatriarchy, has rendered the vast majority of the world “invalid.”

LEADERSHIP OF THOSE MOST IMPACTED “We are led by those who most know these systems.” –Aurora Levins Morales

ANTI-CAPITALIST POLITIC In an economy that sees land and humans as components of profit, we are anti-capitalist by the nature of having non-conforming body/minds.

COMMITMENT TO CROSS-MOVEMENT ORGANIZING Shifting how social justice movements understand disability and contextualize ableism, disability justice lends itself to politics of alliance.

RECOGNIZING WHOLENESS People have inherent worth outside of commodity relations and capitalist notions of productivity. Each person is full of history and life experience.

SUSTAINABILITY We pace ourselves, individually and collectively, to be sustained long term. Our embodied experiences guide us toward ongoing justice and liberation.

COMMITMENT TO CROSS-DISABILITY SOLIDARITY We honor the insights and participation of all of our community members, knowing that isolation undermines collective liberation.

INTERDEPENDENCE We meet each others’ needs as we build toward liberation, knowing that state solutions inevitably extend into further control over lives.

COLLECTIVE ACCESS As brown, black and queer-bodied disabled people we bring flexibility and creative nuance that go beyond able-bodied/minded normativity, to be in community with each other.

COLLECTIVE LIBERATION No body or mind can be left behind – only mobbing together can we accomplish the revolution we require.” ( Source )

If there is something in the 10 principles that you don’t agree with or don’t understand yet, I encourage you to focus on the broader vision in claiming the power in our bodies because of our differences. 

I highly recommend checking out the resources on Project LETS for more articles, blog posts, videos, and other resources about disability justice: https://projectlets.org/disability-justice  

Check out this blog post “Changing the framework: disability justice. How our communities can move beyond access to wholeness”: https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/changing-the-framework-disability-justice/  

Note: disability justice is sometimes shortened to DJ

• Accessibility
• Nondiscrimination

Our Socials

Facebook     Twitter       Instagram

• Racial Justice
• Collections
• Climate Justice
• Health Justice
• CONTENT TYPES
• Upcoming Webinars
• Complimentary Webinars
• Premium On-Demand Webinars
• Submissions

Racial Justice and Disability Justice: The Complex Journey

Stanfort J. Perry and Nicole Zerillo

When asked about the intersection of the disability rights and civil rights movements, I often think of a compelling advocacy image from the 1990s: a disability rights activist is in the midst of a rally. Attached to his wheelchair is a sign that reads, “I can’t even get to the back of the bus.”

This image powerfully captures multiple complex issues: how the disability rights movement built on the model of the civil rights movement—and operated in tension with it; the chronic and infuriating lack of access to tools and resources for mobility due to unaddressed ableism; and broader implications of how inaccessibility changes the expectations that people have about what is possible in life for people with disabilities.

A Brief Note on Language

Self-advocates self-identify in different ways. As such, when discussing disability issues, it is important to be aware of the type of language we use. When connecting with people with disabilities, ask them which language they prefer—that is, whether they prefer person-first language (e.g., artist with developmental disabilities) or identity-first language (e.g., developmentally disabled artist).

Respect for self-identification is crucial for inclusion because language is central to social recognition. As disability advocates argue, the social acceptance of people with disabilities requires full recognition of their personhood —and it’s a pressing issue that must be tackled to address the root causes of exclusion.

Recognizing Structural Barriers and Persistent Biases

In this time of polarizing politics, we can all acknowledge that America has not applied its principles equally to all citizens. Throughout the country’s history, progressive legislation—including the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act—has been passed in response to collective action, sometimes spanning decades, after inequity and injustice could no longer be denied.

Today, despite such action, disability remains a ground on which to segregate people from the rest of society. Disability still leads to categorical denials of organ transplants , marriage rights , and access to the essential direct care staff necessary for an independent life. Discriminatory practices are compounded when disability impacts people of color, from under-representation in special education programs to over-representation in prisons.

For change to happen, visibility of people with disabilities is key, along with increased awareness of and respect for varied experiences of disability. Deconstructing perspectives rooted in ableism and sanism requires vigilance. Society has traditionally looked at disability through a medical model of inability and dependence . Breaking through to authentic allyship begins with considering our privilege, unconscious biases, and fluency with disability issues and taking steps to broaden our perspective through research, volunteerism, and trainings.

Reconsidering Disability: Intersectionality and Justice-Oriented Approaches

In the past, advocacy movements chose to self-identify in a way that would build consensus rather than attending to the different lived experiences of people with disabilities. Too often, however, structural barriers to access and inclusion are consequences of disregarding our differences. The intersection of ableism with structural racism has further skewed our understandings of the realities of people with disabilities, leading to the denial of their rights.

For example, minimizing identity politics within the disability rights movement may have been a way to advance a broader agenda, but it also contributed to a movement where Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) could not fully participate. As Jennifer Erkulwater, a professor of political science at the University of Richmond, explained to The Conversation , “Not only did activists in the 1970s fear that assertions of racial identity would divide people with disabilities from one another, but throughout the 1980s, activists posed disability rights as the antithesis of welfare, at a time when the term ‘welfare’ became deeply racialized.”

Conversely, many Black “history makers” may have downplayed their disabilities in the past; today, however, Black disability leaders are increasingly receiving recognition within their communities.

“There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives,” the poet Audre Lorde famously said in her “Learning from the 60s” address . Lorde’s insight appears in many discussions of the concept of intersectionality , which focuses on a person’s or group’s different “overlapping identities and experiences in order to understand the complexity of prejudices they face.” The concept’s originator, Kimberlé Crenshaw , intended to provide “a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it interlocks and intersects. It’s not simply that there’s a race problem here, a gender problem here, and a class or LBGTQ problem there. Many times that framework erases what happens to people who are subject to all of these things.”

Expanding on this framework, LBGTQIA+ disability activists of color , including Patty Berne, Stacey Milbern, Eli Clare, Sebastian Margaret, and Mia Mingus, developed the disability justice framework to bring forward the experiences of people who are marginalized within the disability rights movement and disability studies. Disability justice, according to the Disability and Philanthropy Forum , “centers the priorities and approaches of those most historically excluded groups, such as women, people of color, immigrants, and people who identify as LGBTQ+.”

The disability justice framework offers profound intersectional insights into what is required to realize a more inclusive and equitable future. The Associated Students Commission on Disability Equity explains why a justice-based approach is necessary for community members who are multiply marginalized: “…while some people in the disability community can achieve rights and access through a legal or rights-based framework, this privilege is not always available to all members of the disability community, specifically [sick and disabled, queer and trans people of color] SDQTPOC.”

The “10 Principles of Disability Justice” provided by Sins Invalid , a disability justice-based performance project, offers a number of tenets to consider, from attention to “intersectionality,” “leadership of those most impacted,” and “cross-movement solidarity,” to more nuanced concepts such as an “anti-capitalist politics” where “our worth is not dependent on what and how much we can produce.”

Sign up for our free newsletters

Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

A Crucial Caregiving Workforce: Direct Support Professionals

Applying a disability justice framework enables a better understanding of how isolation and invisibility can be so damaging to marginalized groups—and, sometimes, the people who support them, such as direct support professionals (DSPs). DSPs help people with disabilities lead independent lives, assisting them with essential activities and services like dispensing medication, personal hygiene, and companionship. The role of these essential workers, most of whom are women of color , is often unknown outside of the sector.

The low wages paid to DSPs are the focus of ongoing advocacy efforts by organizations like The Arc of the United States , a national advocacy group for people with disabilities. According to a 2020 survey of approximately 8,800 DSPs conducted by the University of Minnesota and the National Alliance for Direct Support Professionals (NADSP), during the pandemic 43 percent of Black/African American DSPs worked more than 16 additional hours per week, in comparison to 26 percent of white DSPs. The average hourly wage prior to the pandemic was $13.57 for Black/African American DSPs in contrast to $13.98 for their white counterparts.

DSP retention has been “in crisis” for many years, and Covid-19 has only exacerbated matters. In a brief summarizing the findings of their 2021 survey , “The State of America’s Direct Support Workforce Crisis,” the American Network of Community Options and Resources explains, “While many in the private sector pivoted by offering increased wages and hazard pay, community providers—who rely almost exclusively on Medicaid funding and are thus beholden to paying wages that Medicaid reimbursement rates will permit—lacked the resources to fund these kinds of unanticipated programmatic costs.”

Chronic underfunding and disparate data collection have DSP advocates calling on the federal Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor and Statistics to establish a DSP Standard Occupational Classification (SOC), ensuring that DSPs are accurately classified in labor reports. No SOC, says the NADSP, results in “negative implications for service reimbursement rates,” “lack of data for identifying workforce shortages,” and “devaluation of the workforce.” This call to action has echoed through the corridors of power for many years.

Examining Privilege and Opportunities for Personal Growth

Such systemic gaps and the concomitant lack of urgency to correct them reflect the ongoing need for a wider application of intersectional and disability justice frameworks. Questions about how equity and inclusion can support full citizenship remain. We must also consider how allies can be most effective in ensuring that disability is a component of all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives . Disability inclusion and justice must be a vital part of strategic and personal initiatives for which “social justice is both a process and goal.”

Increased understanding of and fluency with the intersections of race and disability is a starting point for DEI initiatives. In my role as the CEO of the nonprofit, AHRC Nassau , and our family of organizations—which together form one of the country’s largest networks supporting people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD)—I see every day how a lack of understanding of disability issues is one of the highest barriers to developing new programs or partnerships outside the nonprofit.

Yes, the “R-Word” is largely understood to be offensive, and the media’s representation of autistic adults has improved . Yet, in my experience, potential partners unacquainted with children or adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities often hesitate or stumble over their words, are hyper-aware of their ability to offend, and struggle to acknowledge a gap in their understanding before pivoting to more meaningful engagement.

“I had no idea” is a response I’ve often heard when visiting lawmakers alongside disability self-advocates. These lawmakers had “heard” about I/DD issues; they had received testimonials via email, telephone, and tagged social media posts. However, an in-person visit changes the dynamic and the stakes.

Nonprofits must normalize bringing self-advocates to the table, from the start of strategic planning processes to board of directors’ meetings. Toward this end, nonprofit leaders can also provide opportunities for staff, board members, and other stakeholders to learn and grow—to meet self-advocates, listen to their experiences, and connect with them, and to ask uncomfortable questions that demonstrate gaps in such stakeholders’ understandings of disability and allow them to critically assess their privilege and bias.

Inclusion and understanding go hand in hand. To increase understanding, we must build relationships. One way to do this is through digital spaces and tools that bridge gaps of understanding and geographical distance.

This spring, AHRC Nassau and The Arc of the United States co-hosted an online DEI conference, bringing together people with lived experiences of disability and sector expertise and those seeking more insight into disability issues.

The conference , “Beyond the Comfort Zone: Understanding and Eradicating Injustice, Racism and Inequality in the Field of Developmental Disabilities,” was a free, online training tool intended for use by a variety of stakeholders through May 2023. Some of the conference’s takeaways include:

• The Benefits of an Anticipatory Welcome: “We have to look at psychological safety. True inclusion moves at the speed of trust.”—Atif Choudhury, conference keynote and CEO of Diversity and Ability
• Manifesting Cultural Competence: “Cultural competence really says that these values have to be aligned and that there have to be policies in place, structures, practices, behaviors, and attitudes that would allow everyone within the organization to work effectively cross-culturally.”—Tawara Goode, Director of the National Center for Cultural Competence, Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development and University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, Georgetown University Medical Center
• A Perspective on Neurodivergence: “(When) thinking about different opportunities for empowering folks, (remember) that for instance autism is not a processing error. It is a different operating system. We are not broken. We are not defective, typical folks. We are neurodivergent. In my case, or for other folks with other types of disability in the lived experience, we just need empowerment to be able to hone in on our own strengths, talents, and skills, and align with that, and receive the supports and accommodations to be successful.”—Dr. Scott Michael Robertson, PhD, self-advocate and Senior Policy Advisor at the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), US Department of Labor

Another useful open-access tool, published by the Northwest Health Foundation, is the Disability and Philanthropy Forum’s “Disability Justice: An Audit Toolkit,” authored by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha and envisioned with Stacey Park Milbern. “Aimed at Black, Indigenous and POC-led organizations (that are not primarily focused on disability),” the toolkit is intended “to be part of the generational shift to end ableism and transform your work through disabled wisdom.” Drawing on a range of sources, from internal audits to disability justice discussions, the toolkit poses many useful questions on topics ranging from “procedures and structures” to “cross-movement organizing” and “collective access.”

The toolkit is meant to be a resource for continual learning. Piepzna-Samarasinha exhorts its users to “start where you are and return to these questions over and over again.” The resource also highlights personal experiences and provides access tools and background information, including case studies, on the disability justice movement. One case study, titled Hand in Hand: The Domestic Employers Network , documents “a groundbreaking approach, bringing together disabled people, including disabled people who are caregivers, and paid care attendants to fight for domestic workers’ rights and the rights of disabled people who need care.” As a result of such alliances, Hand in Hand’s successes include a living wage for care workers in many states as well as cultural and engagement projects.

As resources like the toolkit and conference make clear, disability can no longer be “out of sight, out of mind.” For a more equitable future, we must create shared spaces to listen to people with disabilities and learn to value their varied life experiences while building alliances to advance just policies.

For change to happen, we must collectively answer this call to action. Are you ready?

About the authors

Stanfort J. Perry is CEO of AHRC Nassau and its affiliated organizations, the largest entity on Long Island and the second largest in New York State exclusively serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Perry currently serves as President of the New York State Industries for the Disabled, Inc. (NYSID), which is dedicated to providing ongoing employment opportunities for people with developmental disabilities throughout the state. Perry also serves as Chair of the Board of Managers of Care Design NY and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Long Island Alliance. He is the recipient of numerous awards and honors for his contributions to the lives of others, including the Healthcare Hero Award, EP Maxwell J. Schleifer Distinguished Service Award, Executive of the Year Award, and Sisters in the Struggle-Champion Award, to name a few. Since 2019, he has served as a member of the Steering Committee of the National Council of Executives of The Arc of the United States and currently serves as its Region Two Representative. Perry received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the State University at Stony Brook and his Master of Science in human services management from Buffalo State College.

Nicole Zerillo is assistant director of community resources at AHRC Nassau, one of the largest agencies in New York State supporting people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Zerillo is a graduate of Columbia University’s MS Nonprofit Management Program and Brooklyn Law School.

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

You might also like

Black Organizers in Boston’s Roxbury Neighborhood Provide a Path Forward

Art Is the Cure: A Black Arts Cooperative Story

Addressing the Risks and Harms of Artificial Intelligence by Leveraging Capital

Battles over Biomarker Testing Shed Light on Precision Medicine’s Inaccessibility

Why the CROWN Act Is Necessary and Must Be Enforced

Reimagining Economics: Conference Offers Some Neighborhood-Based Lessons

Npq webinars.

White and Black Women Archetypes

Remaking the Economy

How to Change Our Stories about the Economy

Better Budgeting in QuickBooks

DESKTOP USERS

ONLINE USERS

Black Organizers in Boston’s Roxbury Neighborhood Provide...

Addressing the Risks and Harms of Artificial Intelligence by...

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

Disability Visibility Project

"Creating, sharing, and amplifying disability media and culture"

The Disability Visibility Project  is an online community dedicated to creating, sharing, and amplifying disability media and culture.

What does the dvp do.

• Believes that disabled narratives matter and that they belong to us
• Encourages people with disabilities to go to StoryCorps or use the StoryCorps app and record their oral histories with the option of having them archived at the Library of Congress
• Publishes  original essays, reports, and blog posts about ableism, intersectionality, culture, media, and politics from the perspective of disabled people
• Builds online spaces for people to share, organize, and connect
• Champions   disability culture and history
• Organizes and facilitates events, gives presentations, participates on panels
• Supports and amplifies the work of other disabled people and organizations in the community using social media
• Partners and collaborates  with other activists and organizations in various campaigns such as #CripTheVote, #CripLit, Access Is Love , and DisabledWriters.com
• Consults and provides professional services through Disability Visibility LLC

NOTE:  The Disability Visibility Project   does not represent or speak for StoryCorps in any way. The DVP did not create the #CripTheVote campaign but is a co-partner in that movement.

Also: t he usage of the word ‘visibility’ in the project name is metaphorical. It is not meant to privilege one sensory experience over others.

Disability Visibility Project ®  is a trademark of Alice Wong. All rights reserved. (c) Alice Wong 2016.

Terms of Use/Privacy Policy

Alice Wong (she/her) is a disabled activist, writer, editor, and community organizer. Alice is the founder and director of the Disability Visibility Project , an online community dedicated to creating, sharing, and amplifying disability media and culture.

Alice is a co-partner in four projects: DisabledWriters.com , a resource to help editors connect with disabled writers and journalists, #CripLit (no longer active),   a series of Twitter chats for disabled writers with novelist Nicola Griffith , #CripTheVote , a nonpartisan online movement encouraging the political participation of disabled people with co-partners Andrew Pulrang and Gregg Beratan, and Access Is Love with co-partners Mia Mingus and Sandy Ho , a campaign that aims to help build a world where accessibility is understood as an act of love instead of a burden or an afterthought.

Alice’s areas of interest are popular culture, media, politics, disability representation, Medicaid policies and programs, storytelling, social media, and activism.

She has been published in the New York Times , KQED , High Country News , Orion Magazine ,  Vox , Radiolab , PEN America , Catalyst , Syndicate Network , Uncanny Magazine , Curbed SF , Eater , Bitch Media , Teen Vogue , Transom , Making Contact Radio , and Rooted in Rights .

Her activism and work has been featured in the CNN original series United Shades of America (Season 3, Episode 4) , Huffington Post , WNYC’s Death, Sex, and Money podcast , KQED’s Truth Be Told podcast , Wired, The Hill , Autostraddle , WNYC’s Werk It: The Podcast , The Guardian , Roll Call , WBUR radio , Al Jazeera , Teen Vogue , Bitch Media , Rewire , Vice , Esquire , CNET , and Buzzfeed .

In 1997 she graduated with degrees in English and sociology from Indiana University at Indianapolis. She has a MS in medical sociology and worked at the University of California, San Francisco as a Staff Research Associate for over 10 years. During that time she worked on various qualitative research projects and co-authored online curricula for the Community Living Policy Center , a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research .

Recognized for her service to the community and activism at the local and national level, Alice received the Beacon Award by the San Francisco Mayor’s Disability Council in 2010 and the Disability Service Award by the University of California, San Francisco in 2011. From 2013 to 2015 Alice served as a member of the National Council on Disability , an independent federal agency charged with advising the President, Congress, and other federal agencies regarding policies, programs, practices, and procedures that affect people with disabilities, appointed by President Barack Obama . Alice was the recipient of the 2016 AAPD Paul G. Hearne Leadership Award , an award for emerging leaders with disabilities who exemplify leadership, advocacy, and dedication to the broader cross-disability community.

Alice launched the Disability Visibility podcast in September 2017 as host, co-audio producer, and writer. She edited and self-published Resistance and Hope: Essays by Disabled People in October 2018.

In 2018 Alice was featured in the Bitch 50 , a list recognizing the most impactful creators, artists, and activists in pop culture by Bitch Media and Colorline’s 20 X 20 , a group of transformative leaders reimagining what it means to advance racial justice.

In 2020 Alice was named by Time magazine as one of 16 people fighting for equality in America. Alice self-published and edited #ADA30InColor , a series of essays by disabled people of color in July. Alice was featured with activists such as Angela Davis and Dr. Bernice A. King on the cover of British Vogue’s September issue . For the Pop Culture Collaborative, she guest edited Break The Story Volume IV: Disability Visibility , a snapshot of disability. Along with 19 other disabled artists, Alice was named a Disability Futures fellow , a grant by the Ford Foundation and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation administered by United States Artists. Alice also received the Indiana University Bicentennial Medal for her contributions to disability justice and broadening the reach of IU around the world. 

In 2021, Alice was named a changemaker by Marie Claire magazine . She co-edited a digital issue that year, The Access Series with Bitch Media that expands the meaning of access in everyday life. Alice’s first role as a voice actor was in Someone Dies In This Elevator podcast, season 1, episode 11, “Hot Wheels,” as Waverly.

In 2022, Alice was included in Gold House’s A100 List , a list honoring 100 Asians and Pacific Islanders  who had the most impact on culture and society over the past year. She created the Society of Disabled Oracles with co-partners Aimi Hamraie and Jen White-Johnson.

Alice is the editor of Disability Visibility: First-Person Stories from the Twenty-First Century (Vintage Books, 2020) , an anthology of essays by disabled people and Disability Visibility: 17 First-Person Stories for Today, an adapted version for young adults (Delacorte Press 2021).

Her debut memoir, Year of the Tiger: An Activist’s Life is available now from Vintage Books. Disability Intimacy , her next anthology, will be out in 2024.

In 2023, Alice became a columnist for Teen Vogue and recipient of the Community Award from the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies . She also was a voice actor portraying Alice, a character loosely based on her, in season two of Human Resources , an animated series on Netflix.  In partnership with Eater, Alice co-edited Low and Slow , a series of food writing by disabled people. Year of the Tiger received a Northern California Book Award for creative nonfiction. For the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Alice became the podcaster-in-residence for Raw Material podcast. 

In 2024, Year of the Tiger was selected as the Adult Nonfiction Winner by the Asian/Pacific American Librarians Association.

Alice  also works as an independent research consultant as part of her side hustle with clients such as Netflix, Twitter, and other disability rights organizations. Alice is a public speaker and represented by The Steven Barclay Agency .

For more about her work, you can go to her website or check out the latest on Twitter @SFdirewolf and Instagram @Disability_Visibility .

For headshots and shorter bios of Alice, check out her Media Kit .

Twitter:   @SFdirewolf   @DisVisibility

Instagram: @disability_visibility

Bluesky: @SFdirewolf.bsky.social

Newsletter: https://disability-visibility-newsletter.ghost.io

Email:   [email protected]

Newsletter: https://disabilityvisibility.substack.com/

Speaking requests: please contact Steven Barclay at Steven Barclay Agency ,  707-773-0654; [email protected] and Alyssa Jones, 707-773-0654; [email protected]

Access rider for speaking events (updated September 2023)

Freelance Audio Producers for the Disability Visibility podcast (September 2017- April 2021)

Learn more and support these amazing audio producers! 

Geraldine Ah-Sue, Cheryl Green, and Sarika D. Mehta

Share this:

12 thoughts on “ about ” leave a comment ›.

Enjoyed reading your NY Times Op-ed piece. I hope more voices like yours are heard in the din that is the health care debate.

Thank you very much, Tri!!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

• Our Podcasts

Werk It: The Podcast

Podcasting for disability justice.

So one in four people in the US are disabled, so that means 25% of the population is overlooked and underserved.

Dessa: What we can do as podcasters to serve this large community, making our content more accessible and telling stories where those with disabilities aren’t reduced to just being one-dimensional sources of inspiration? Bri M., the host and executive producer of Power Not Pity, has some ideas on how we can make our podcasts accessible and inclusive. 

I’m Dessa, the host of Werk It, the podcast -- a compilation of some of the best moments from the live event. This session was part of the Womxnifestos series. They’re moments of distilled wisdom presented by people with lived experience and real conviction.

Bri M.: All right, so this is Podcasting for Disability Justice, how you can make your podcast more accessible. So before I begin, I'd like to call in the fact that we are on unceded land. Land that belonged to the Tongva people going back centuries. Land that we now know as California. Um, I want to call in all of the disabled people throughout history who have helped shape a more accessible world.

So I'm Bri M., I'm the executive producer-host of Power Not Pity . It's a show all about the lived experiences of disabled people of color. Um, what a wonderful opportunity it is to be here. Werk It is so special to me. Uh, so I want to give you a chance to invite the stories of the disability community into your mind and your heart because we deserve it.

So who am I? Why am I here to talk about disability justice and podcasting? Uh, I'll tell you a little bit about me. I'm a black Jamaican-American disabled, queer, non-binary alien prince from the Bronx. That's right. That's right. B-X all day. I did three years of music radio in college. I went around interviewing tattoo artists and piercers about gender, class, and race. I worked in the music industry for a little while until I received a surprise in the spring of 2014. So five years ago I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and it actually happened only four days after my birthday. Um, so I came to podcasting while I was living in bed. So I started to, um, ask myself all of these different questions about, um, where I was and where I was in life. And I realized that I found a safe getaway space in podcasts. Like How to Survive the End of the World and LeVar Burton Reads. And Levar, if you’re listening, I love you.

But yeah. Um, you know, podcasts have the power to expand my worldview and change up how I thought about all these different subjects, but they weren't without their shortcomings. Unfortunately, I started to realize that my safe space wasn't so safe after all. Um, I was gaining more friends. I was learning about the disability justice community and you know, I realized that the voices of disabled people of color were missing from podcasting altogether. So I wanted to do something about it. I started to ask myself all these, all these different questions.

Uh, so some of the questions that I started to ask myself around what was missing was that: Where are the voices of the people of my community? Where were the stories of black and brown disabled people? Or the voices of people of queer, trans and non-binary experience, or the stories that reflected the amazing breath of a multiply marginalized life?

So within such an intimate medium, I just think there's so much change as possible in podcasting. Uh, so why not try changing things up a bit? Um, so that, that's, that's pretty much what I did. I created Power Not Pity in 2017 on the back of a Greyhound bus going back from Philly to New York. And I remember when I made the logo, I felt like I was stepping into something bigger than me. So, um, I believe that podcasting can actually, it actually tweaked my perception of disability from a first person issue, meaning the person and their individual condition. It tweaked my perception from that to a greater societal issue, meaning the systems at play that cause oppression. Um, so I think it's time to start thinking about those things and start thinking about the stories that we turn our minds away from and why, why we do this.

So I think, uh, it sort of comes down to these questions, what can we do to tell more authentic and inclusive stories? What can we do as women and non-binary people to foster a more equitable world? So, I think it comes down to tangible and intangible ideas. So when we start to think about what makes an accessible podcast, it takes some radical reframing of your mind.

So, uh, can I offer you a quote? All right. All right. Um, so it basically says disability is more than the deficit of diagnosis. It is an aesthetic, a series of intersecting cultures and a creative force. Now, this was spoken by Alice Shepherd, the founder of Kinetic Light, a dance troupe that is so amazing, like two, um, wheelchair dancers they flip and they twirl and they like balance off of each other. I don't know if you can see the image, but it's basically her and her partner. And her partner literally holding her up in the air while she's in her wheelchair. I just, I saw them and it was absolutely amazing. So, if you get a chance to see Kinetic Light, please do.

So whenever I find a new podcast, I always assume that there won't be transcripts and, uh, I think that shouldn't be the norm. It should be the exception. Right? Uh, so one thing I want to offer you is, um, the idea of including every word in your transcripts that said and edit for cultural competence. Because that is something that is always missing from transcripts. It's always about like every standard language. So think about vernacular and different ways of, um, dialects, different ways of speaking. Um, there are so many things that we could lose in translation.

I think, um, another tangible thing that you can do to make your podcast more accessible is to include image descriptions. Those of us who are unable to see deserve to visualize what's happening as well. So when you're doing image descriptions, make sure that every detail is described. And I often find that creative image descriptions, like ones that really go deeply into what, what the image is portraying, it can really put me into a different state of mind. 

All right. So can I drop some knowledge on you? All right. All right. I'm so glad you're ready. So one in four people in the US are disabled, so that means 25% of the population is overlooked and underserved, and media invisible. We fall victim to invisible, uh, being invisibilized. And we also fall victim to tropes of overcoming adversity and inspiration. And unfortunately, these stories are so common that people actually have a term for it. It's called inspiration trash.

Yeah. So I would challenge you to make more dynamic and authentic stories about disabled people, especially disabled people of color. And we're not inspiration trash made to make you feel better about your, uh, your life.

Um, so I think, uh, another thing that we could do, um, in terms of making your podcasts more accessible is to have an accessible workplace. Meaning not only your episodes, but where you work and where you basically produce your content. It's not just about episodes, but about where you work. I want to challenge you to be an advocate of, uh, an accessible, uh, space to work. Uh, uh, disabled people are entitled to accommodations so that they can create the best content that they can. This means advocating for good benefits. This means advocating for good health care. This means advocating for spaces where people are, uh, receiving, uh, adequate accommodations. I want to see the end of drug testing and background checks. It's too often that background checks and drug testing are part of the cycle that keeps disabled people, especially black disabled people underemployed. I was almost denied a job because I tested positive for marijuana. Um, even though I had a medical marijuana card and it's like illegal to discriminate against a person from New York State, uh, I had to go back and forth with HR and I had to like really try to prove my case about why I deserve to be there. It was ridiculous. Um, so I wanna offer you -- now that we've talked about that, I want to offer you the effect, an effective way of, um, telling a story, centering a disabled person in your story.

So this is Haben Girma, she's the first deaf-blind woman to graduate from Harvard Law School. So you could say she's impactful. You could say she's inventive, you could say she's intersectional, but just don't call her an inspiration.

So now I want to offer you a couple of ways to tell an effective story about Haben, let's talk about the wrong way. So Haben is often portrayed as a millennial Helen Keller, and this is just completely wrong because we're not monoliths. We're actually multiplicitous and a myriad of voices. So I think, um, another way to think of, uh, creating a correct and more authentic version of an effective story is to try to use words that are, um, more reflective of a genuine experience. You know, I want to dare you to not use the word inspiration. I want to dare you to use words that are not one dimensional to describe a person and this is the best way to center a disabled person in your story.

Uh, so like I said, the word inspiration has lost its impact because it's been so overused. I think when you want to talk about impact versus intent, when you're talking about your stories, I know that there are good intention, well intentioned people. But the words that you use, the ways that you put your, your portrayed disabled people, they actually have an impact. And good intentions don't always lead to positive impact, right? 

So Haben also offers, uh, quotes and um, techniques on her website. And one of the things that she says is we respect and admire disabled leaders just as we respect and admire our nondisabled leaders. So it's just a, something to think about, you know? 

So remember my show Power Not Pity? All right. Um, so the last thing I usually ask people on the show is a pretty cheesy question. It goes, what's your disabled power? What is the thing that gives you the most power and agency in your disability? And usually 9 times out of 10 people talk about adaptation. My friends and I, we want to see the end of injustice and systemic inequality.

I'd like to offer you four tangible ways that you can, um, you can make your podcast more accessible. So it goes, this is the acronym. It goes R-E-A-P. What does that spell? That's right. Reap. R as for Recognize, E is for Educate, A is for Amplify, and P is for Politicize.

So let's start with R. Recognize. I'll tell you that ableism is a systemic discrimination that keeps disabled people on the margins of society. It's time that we recognize that discrimination that happens. So I'd like to challenge you to begin to locate ableism and all its forms. Begin to recognize how ableism causes harm to disabled people of color.

Here we go with E: Educate to find ways to learn about the disability community. Um, you know there's, there's articles and and opinion -- op-eds and like all these different ways. It was Twitter and Instagram and you know, all the other platforms that exist. TikTok, I dunno, Snapchat, who knows. So disabled people of color also organize for other social justice issues. So I would suggest becoming familiar with those as well and take time to get to know disabled people. It would actually really cause you to make fewer assumptions, I think.

A is for Amplify. So get out there and floss that knowledge that you have cultivated. Reach out to organizations and get involved with all the social media platforms that exist. Give disabled people more chances to reflect, to create reflections of themselves in mass media. Amplifying is all about passing the mic.

P for Politicize is my favorite. Organize and conquer, y'all. Get involved with organizations and groups that are doing the work. Find creative ways to financially support disabled people of color. That's a really important. Feature disabled activists on your podcasts.

So now that I've talked about tangible things and intangible things that you can do to make your podcast more accessible, um, let's talk about, uh, what it means to actually do this and create culture. You know? Because it's not, we don't do this in a vacuum. And I think that all of our work, all of our content is so important that we can shape culture. So what's more possible in an accessible podcasting culture? Um, I think one thing that I like to say is representation matters. 

Say it with me. Representation matters. Oh, you sound so good. So this, this kind of means stories that show the community in a more authentic light, giving people the chance to feel seen and heard. Another thing that would be possible is intersectionality. We would cultivate a politic of realizing that all of our stories are tied up in one another. We don't live this life alone. So give everyone a chance to be liberated. Another thing that's possible is more listeners. We all love that, right? We would be catering to the 25% of the population that's looking for reflections of themselves in mass media. Disabled people are hungry for more media.

So I've talked about accessibility, right? This pod, this presentation is called Podcasting for Disability Justice. How to make your podcast more accessible, right? I've talked about the accessibility part, but what's disability justice? I would like to offer you another quote. Uh, this is written by Patty Berne: “Disability justice is a vision and practice of a yet to be. A map that we create with our ancestors and our great grandchildren onward in the width and depth of our multiplicities and histories. A movement towards a world in which every body and mind is known as beautiful.” Isn't that amazing? She's an amazing writer and she's the founder of Sins Invalid. Uh, it's, um, a dance troop of disabled people of color and it's also a creative collective and it's all about advocacy as well. She's an amazing person. Look her up, Patty Berne. So finally, I want to offer you my last slide. Hire more disabled people of color. Thanks for listening. 

Dessa:  That was Bri M., speaking at the 2019 Werk It festival. 

Both the festival and the podcast are produced by WNYC Studios and are made possible by major funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting with additional support from the Annenberg Foundation.

Event sponsors include Luminary, Spotify, Spreaker, Acast, Himalaya, and the Women’s Foundation of California. 

Shows You Might Like

Shopping Cart

Rethink Disability.

Start the conversation in your school and community.

Lesson Plans

1990s ada in the classroom, disability justice tales over tea.

Understanding Disability During the Civil War through Music

The complicated life of helen keller, disability is everywhere, ramps in ancient greece: an archeological mystery, disability justice library, professional development, a little bit about autism.

Wayne State University

Social work school of social work, disability justice series.

For 86 years the Wayne State University School of Social Work has invested in, and committed to, the rights of those with physical, cognitive and emotional disabilities. As an urban school located in the heart of Detroit, we have worked hand-in-hand with our neighbors to build a just community for all, however, there is still work to be done. Society's conception of disability is far too limited and disability is no longer understood to be a deficiency, something to be fixed, tolerated, pitied or special. But rather disability is understood to be an identity, a culture, a movement -- a movement that challenges all of us to grapple and expand our notion of what it means to be "human". The emergence of disability pride is fueling the disability justice movement and as social workers, we must join in the disability community in dismantling the stigma and advance the movement for ALL. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." 

This academic year we are proud to host an open, honest and powerful three-part series focused on disability justice. The series will allow us to take an in-depth look at the student disability experience, hear lessons from world-renowned disability justice advocate Judith Heumann and explore the disability justice climate in our own backyard of Detroit. We hope participants leave the series with tangible ways in which they can advocate for a just society and empower social change in their communities. 

Series details:

• Event #1: Demystifying Disability: The Student Perspective held on Thursday, October 7, 2021 from 3 - 5 pm EST on Zoom
• Event #2: Disability Justice Fireside Chat with Judith Heumann held on Thursday, October 21, 2021 from 3:30 - 5:00 pm EST on wayne.edu/live
• Event #3: The Detroit Disability Justice Movement held on Thursday, March 24, 2022 from 3 - 5 pm EST on wayne.edu/live

To provide accessibility for all, this series will be held virtually. Each event will host an American Sign Language interpreter and provide the option for captioning. Details and RSVP's links for each event are listed below. 

Disability Justice Series flyer

Event #1: Demystifying Disability: The Student Perspective

Thursday, October 7, 2021  3:30 - 5:00 pm EST Zoom 

View event video

Join the WSU Social Work Student Alliance (SWSA) as we initiate important conversations focused on the student disability perspective. The term "disability" covers physical disabilities, mental health, intellectual, learning, physical, and other types of disabilities. This event will feature clips from the Academy Award Nominee for best documentary Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution . Participants are encouraged to view the film before the event to better understand the film's illustrative examples of disability justice. Crip Camp is available to view in full for free via the Netflix YouTube channel . This event will also include powerful student testimony on the experience of living with a disability, provide tips for students on how to receive academic accommodations, discuss supports for those with disabilities to engage in healthy and safe relationships, and include a roundtable discussion providing takeaways for what social workers can do to advance disability justice. 

We request that attendees submit questions for the Q&A portion of the event via the RSVP form. This event will host an American Sign Language interpreter and provide the option for captioning via Zoom.

The event will feature the following speakers:

Damon Creighton Jr. , is a current BSW student, the vice president of the WSU Association of Black Social Workers (ABSW) and a Social Work Peer Support (SWPS) peer mentor. He is also the vice-president of The Brotherhood, a WSU student organization aimed at providing academic, social, and emotional support to African American males in higher education.

Susan Rogers, LMSW, ACSW , is a former school social worker, and has had a counseling practice for the past 13 years, Parare Counseling and Consulting, PLC. Rogers primarily works with people with disabilities such as Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and supports people to engage in healthy and safe relationships and lifestyles with a reduction of vulnerability. Rogers frequently presents on the topic of health and sexuality for people with disabilities and consults with individuals involved with the criminal justice system.

Ryan Wiseman is a Student Disability Specialist with Student Disability Services at Wayne State University. He specializes in providing access to deaf and hard of hearing students as well as autistic individuals. Wiseman is committed to educating students, staff, and faculty that disability is not a deficiency, but a tax placed on diverse bodies and minds to exist in a world not built with them in mind. You can find Wiseman on the first floor of the Undergraduate Library (through the quiet area) or reach him at [email protected] . 

Event #2: Disaiblity Justice Fireside Chat with Judith Heumann

Thursday, October 21, 2021 3 - 5 pm EST wayne.edu/live

Judith (Judy) Heumann is an internationally recognized leader in the disability rights community. She has revolutionized disability legislation, fought social stigma, and been an integral part of cultivating an active disability community in the United States and around the world. From local communities to the global stage, Heumann seeks to empower disabled people to demand their own rights and inclusion. This intimate fireside discussion will explore Heumann's feelings as a young woman of 18 years and her courage to launch a journey of activism, the link between the disability justice and civil rights justice movement, the disability justice movement connection with the Black Panthers, the importance of inclusive laws and much more. This event will also feature clips from the award-winning documentary film,  Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution . 

We request that attendees submit questions for the Q&A portion of the event via the RSVP form. This event will host an American Sign Language interpreter and provide live captioning.

Throughout her life, Judith (Judy) Heumann  has traveled with her motorized wheelchair to countries all over the world, in urban and rural communities alike. She has played a role in the development and implementation of major legislation including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Heumann is the co-author of Being Heumann: An Unrepentant Memoir of a Disability Rights Activist and Rolling Warrior: The Incredible, Sometimes Awkward, True Story of a Rebel Girl on Wheels Who Helped Spark a Revolution . She was also featured in the documentary film,  Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution , which is currently available for free viewing to the public on the Netflix YouTube page.

Lisa Franklin  is the CEO and founder of Warriors on Wheels of Metropolitan Detroit  (formerly Women on Wheels), a 501c3 non-profit organization that advocates quality services for the disabled and elderly. In 1996, Lisa survived a horrific car accident caused by a drunk driver and as she started to heal from her injuries she saw firsthand the difficulty of receiving services and the barriers experienced by wheelchair users. Believing that this was her God-given purpose, in 2008 Lisa founded WOW to assist wheelchair users in need of supportive services and accommodations for a barrier-free society. Franklin has continued her work on the front lines accepting leadership roles and board memberships to work closely with agencies to improve the quality of life for disabled persons. Franklin will serve as the facilitator for the discussion with Judith Heumann.

Kathryn Wright is pursuing a Doctoral Degree in Wayne State School of Social Work and Anthropology (SWAN) and recently created the Ableism in Social Work: Making your practice more accessible online CE workshop. She focuses on intellectual and developmental disability with an emphasis on how individuals with disability navigate the educational system. Wright is interested in how academic fields and fields of practice, such as anthropology, social sciences, education, social work, and policy-making define disability; alternative definitions of disability springing from disabled individuals and communities, and the role of social engagement in extending or limiting personhood. Wrights is also interested in macro social work practice, policy advocacy, and engaged anthropology. Wright will serve as the co-facilitator with Franklin for the Q&A discussion with Judith Heumann.

This event is brought to you in part by support from the following sponsors: Detroit Disability Power , WSU College of Education ,  WSU College of Liberal Arts and Sciences , WSU Michigan Developmental Disabilities Institute ,  WSU Law School , WSU Office of Diversity and Inclusion ,  WSU School of Medicine  and WSU School of Social Work Edith Harris Lecture Endowment. 

Event #3: The Detroit Disability Justice Movement

Thursday, March 24, 2022 3 - 5 pm EST wayne.edu/live

RSVP and submit Q&A questions

Purchase 2 social work CE's for $10

Event flyer

This interactive discussion will explore the disability justice movement in our own backyard. Local panelists will discuss the history of the disability justice movement in Detroit, where we are at now and where we need to go. Attendees will hear ways in which they can advocate for disability justice at the individual micro and macro policy level in their community.

We will request that attendees RSVP for the Zoom link and to submit questions for the Q&A portion of the event.  This event will host an American Sign Language interpreter and provide captioning via wayne.edu/live.

Owólabi Aboyade  is the Coordinator of Community Care Circles with Detroit Disability Power and a multidimensional cultural worker, from Detroit (Will See). He is a co-founder of Relentless Bodies , a Detroit-based creative disability and healing justice collective. He has been negotiating kidney failure since 1990. His leadership style emphasizes facilitation, creativity and spiritual growth. He brings 20 years of cultural facilitation and organization practice against modes of colonization, making soundtracks of resistance that touch mind, body, and spirit. He is the voice of justice anthems such as "Day 2 Day Struggle" "Take tha House Back" and "Water Power". 

Hala Alazzawi serves as the as the Gender and Religion Initiatives Coordinator at the Michigan Disability Rights Coalition . She has a bachelor's degree in Sociology and Women and Gender Studies along with a minor and certificate in Arab American Studies from the University of Michigan-Dearborn. As an Arab American woman with a disability myself, she has focused her advocacy work on exploring the intersections of race, disability and gender. Currently, she is pursuing an MSW at the University of Michigan's School of Social Work.

Tameka Citchen-Spruce has been advocating for over 15 years for access to affordable and accessible housing, fighting against voting oppression towards people with disabilities, racial and gender injustices, and health equity. She has a strong passion for disability advocacy and media and graduated with a bachelor's degree in Journalism from Oakland University. Her short film, Justifiable Homicide, has been nominated and won an award and her My Girl Story documentary has been selected for film festivals. In 2008 she formed Women Empower Inc, to empower women with disabilities to live their best lives. Citchen-Spruce works as a community organizer for Warriors on Wheels of Metro Detroit , as a facilitator for Michigan Disability Rights Coalition , and as a Program Assistant and chairperson of the Inclusive Health Committee for Beaumont Health, Healthy Dearborn.

Jamie Junior, ADAC is the Community Coordinator for the City of Detroit, Civil Rights, Inclusion & Opportunity Department's , Office of Disability Affairs . Junior has dedicated herself to advocating for greater Community access, Social, and Economic Justice for all people; but she has a special passion for those that like herself have a disability and face systemic ableism. In 2020 she was awarded the Cookie Gant Spirit award by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services for her work. In addition to her role with the City, Junior serves as the Vice-Chair of the Michigan's Developmental Disabilities Council , and a member of both the Constituents Voice and Recipients Right Advisory Board for the Detroit-Wayne Integrated health network, and graduate of the LEND program at MI-DDI .

Sharon Milberger, Sc.D. has a deep commitment to contributing to the development of inclusive communities and quality of life for people with intellectual/developmental disabilities and their families. As the Director of the Michigan Developmental Disabilities Institute (MI-DDI) Michigan's University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service (UCEDD), Milberger is responsible for statewide education, community support, research, and dissemination programs. Milberger is committed to promoting diversity and cultural competency. Milberger will serve as the facilitator for this discussion.

This event is brought to you in part by support from the Edith Harris Endowed Memorial Lecture and the Wayne State University School of Social Work. 

• CE workshop:  Ableism in Social Work: Making your practice more accessible
• Book:  Disability Visibility: First-person Stories from the Twenty-First Century by Alice Wong
• Disability Visibility Project Online Community
• Graduate Certificate Program in Disabilities
• M ichigan  L eadership  E ducation in  N eurodevelopmental and Related  D isabilities (MI-LEND)  Leadership Training Program
• Sins Invalid - 10 Principles of Disability Justice

Ableism in Social Work

The WSU Office of Continuing Education has recently launched a new online CE workshop,  Ableism in Social Work: Making your practice more accessible that may be of interest to attendees of the Disability Justice Series. In this online session, Kathryn Wright, MA, MSW suggests ways that social workers can work in solidarity with people with disabilities, including ideas for how to make your practice accessible and welcoming to people with disabilities. Participants receive 1 CE for a cost of $15.

Maryann Mahaffey Legacy Campaign

Mahaffey worked closely with the disability justice community in Detroit to achieve equal rights and access for all. We are proud to partner with the Walter P. Reuther Library to develop a digital exhibit of the Maryann Mahaffey papers, which explore her youth and work as a leading community advocate. Additional details on the exhibit will be coming soon.

To memorialize and honor the impact Mahaffey had on Detroit, its residents and the social work profession, we have launched the Maryann Mahaffey Legacy Campaign . We're raising funds to honor and memorialize the impact Mahaffey made in the civil rights community and beyond. 

Make a gift

Disability Justice and Youth

We build understanding, empathy and connections between disabled youth and their peers to co-create a world without ableism.

Jump to a section:

A Note on Language Defining Terms How Ableism Shows Up Local Actions Videos YCD Workshops

Disability Justice Leaders Books for Students Books for Educators and Adults Movies Podcasts Organizations

A Note on Language

When talking about disabilities, it’s useful to first establish respectful language and terms. This is not always clear-cut and there are debates about the right language to use. Here are some guidelines based on this article by Alex Kapitan :

• First and most importantly, different people have different preferences on how they would like to be called. Always respect an individual’s preference for how they would label themselves .
• Some people prefer person-first language, which de-centers the disability or diagnosis. For example, you would say “person with a disability” so that your language reflects them as a whole person, and not defined exclusively by their disability.
• In more recent years, some disabled activists and communities have pushed back on person-first language, because they feel it attempts to divorce their disability from their identity. For these people, their disability is intrinsic to who they are, and they want to prioritize their disability in how they refer to themselves. For these people, it is preferable to say “disabled person” or “autistic person”; this is called identity-first language.
• Most important in this discussion is to honor each individual, and to be transparent about terms and terminology.
• Throughout this page and YCD materials, we have chosen to use identity-first language based on the guidance and perspective of activist Lydia X.Z. Brown and others, but we recognize and respect this approach does not work for all disabled people.
• There are 13 categories of disability in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and within each of these categories are a large number of different disabilities. It’s critical to remember the wide diversity and range of disabilities at all times, and avoid stereotypes or oversimplication.

Defining Terms

• Invisible disability : disabilities not readily visible when you see or meet a person, for example debilitating pain, fatigue, dizziness, cognitive dysfunctions, brain injuries, learning differences and mental health disorders, as well as hearing and vision impairments. ( Invisible Disabilities Association )
• Neurodiversity : the idea that there is no single, perfect ideal of what a human mind or brain should be: that, on the contrary, the existence of diversity of minds and brains is necessary for human societies to flourish. ( Patrick Dwyer )
• Neurodivergent : having a brain that functions in ways that diverge significantly from the dominant societal standards of “normal.” ( Dr. Nick Walker )
• Neurotypical : having a style of neurocognitive functioning that falls within the dominant societal standards of “normal.” ( Dr. Nick Walker )
• Ableism : systematic, institutional devaluing of bodies and minds deemed deviant, abnormal, defective, subhuman, less than. ( Lydia X.Z. Brown )
• Disability justice : challenges the idea that our worth as individuals has to do with our ability to perform as productive members of society. It insists that our worth is inherent and tied to the liberation of all beings. ( Nomy Lamm )

How Ableism Shows Up in Today’s World

• Ableist language is used by many of us every day, often without realizing it: words like lame, r*t*rded, crazy, psycho, and crippled are just a few examples of ableist terms that should not be used. For more examples and alternative language suggestions, check out this list of ableist language from Lydia X.Z. Brown .
• When interacting with disabled people, we sometimes ignore the disabled person’s ability to communicate or make their own decisions. Examples include looking at an ASL interpreter instead of the Deaf person who is signing to you, pushing someone in their wheelchair without them asking, or directing questions to a parent or assistant instead of the disabled person themselves. ( YO! Youth Organizing – Disabled & Proud )
• When engaging disabled youth in conversations, they are often asked only about their disability, rather than being seen as complex people with multiple aspects to their identity (race, gender, sexuality, and more).
• Disabled youth are often not taught in the same classrooms as their peers, and may be segregated in a different part of a school building. Curriculum rarely includes mention or inclusion of disabled people, whether in books, videos or elsewhere.
• When disabled people are the focus of a movie or book, it is often to provide inspiration to the reader or viewer, rather than building true understanding that values the disabled person. This is sometimes referred to as “inspiration porn.” Learn more about inspiration porn from activist Stella Young in her TED talk .
• Another genre of disabled movies and books focuses their attention on the challenges of a companion, sibling, parent or helper of disabled people, and then celebrates their success for dealing with the disabled person. These films and books encourage and celebrate “saviorism” of the people who cope with disabled people. Learn more about the harm media can perpetuate on disabled people from this interview with activist Alice Wong .

Local Actions to Support and Include Disabled Youth

Here are just a few ideas of ways students can take action locally to advance disability justice and support disabled youth in your school or community:

• Some of our most important work is on ourselves. Reflect on ableist language that you carry in your vocabulary, and make a daily effort to remove ableist terms from the way you speak. When others use ableist language around you, don’t be overly harsh or critical; instead, provide education and real-world scenarios on why the language is offensive, and suggest alternatives.
• Are disabled students segregated in a different part of your school so they are out of sight for most students? Does your school provide opportunities for disabled youth to interact and build connections with their peers? Conduct a project with disabled students and administration to reimagine how disabled students can be more fully included in your school’s campus, classroom and curriculum. Ensure any effort centers the voices and ideas of disabled students.
• Are “special education” classes receiving the same funding, supplies, books, and support as typical courses in your school? Often these programs are underfunded, and the materials used to teach these courses assume limits from the students enrolled. Learn about how one school district in California revamped their approach to special education . After doing some local investigation, work with disabled students, teachers and administration to support mainstreaming of special education students.
• Are disabled students welcome and included in clubs and extracurricular activities at your school? If they are welcome but not participating, are there barriers preventing their attendance, such as the bus schedule or accessibility of the meeting space? Look for barriers that may prevent disabled youth from joining in these important activities and conversations, and then work to remove those barriers, centering the disabled voices throughout the process.
• One disability that is significantly misunderstood and misrepresented today is autism. Consider inviting an autistic person to join your club or class to share more about their experiences, and to learn about the neurodiversity movement. Be cautious about which organizations you approach for help; there are many autism-focused orgs that are not led by autistic people, and are actively doing harm to the autistic community. Ensure you are hearing a perspective that centers the autistic person. The hashtag #actuallyautistic on social media and elsewhere can help in this effort.

Videos to Explore Disability Justice

Stay up to date for future student-generated videos on this topic and more by subscribing to YCD’s YouTube channel here .

Teens Talk: Community, Disability, and Representation

Many disabled people have built a community to protect each other from able-bodied people’s inability to make space for them. You will learn just how uneducated the collective is on what it takes to fight for disability justice. After breaking down just how many barriers are hidden in plain sight, you will understand the gravity of the situation.

#ActuallyAutistic: Understanding Autism and Neurodiversity

There are so many stereotypes and misunderstandings about autism and neurodiversity, often perpetuated by groups that claim to support autistic people but are led by non-autistic people. Listen to this session, hosted in partnership with the Asperger/Autism Network (AANE), to hear from three panelists who are actually autistic about their experiences, and what everyone needs to know to be better allies to the neurodivergent community.

Dreaming Disability Justice into Our Future

Disability justice advocate Lydia XZ Brown provides a compelling and inspiring narrative on how we can make disability justice a reality through our words and actions, and how disability justice is grounded in the intersectional work of feminism, LGBTQ+ activism, racial justice, and more.

Living in the Deaf World

What is like to be deaf? In this video, disability rights activist Mariangela Acosta shares her experiences as a deaf young person, and clears up some misconceptions or misunderstandings around what it is like to be deaf.

A Life Worth Living: Down Syndrome

In this video, Sophia, a young person with Down Syndrome, shares about her experience living with the condition, and combats stereotypes about what it means to live with Down Syndrome. This video was recorded by the Global Down Syndrome Association.

YCD Workshops on Disabilities

Below are example workshops YCD has hosted in the past through our conferences for students and educators; contact us to request more information or connect with a presenter.

An #ActuallyAutistic Tour of the Spectrum

This workshop is a crash course on autism, the autistic community, and the neurodiversity movement. Led by an autistic self-advocate, this workshop will break down stereotypes and misconceptions about autism in order to help clarify who we are, what we think about ourselves, and how we perceive and interact with the world. It will also provide participants with the tools to support autistic friends and family and the language to advocate alongside us.

Presented by YCD Board Member and alumna Kierstin Miller

Character Counts: Not Judging People

Let’s have a discussion about students who may be “different” than their peers. Using a hands-on demonstration, we will also talk about not labeling ourselves or one another. Not judging people is harder than it may seem; do you have what it takes?

Presented by blind speaker and activist Emily Zimmerman

Disability, Advocacy, and Building Power

Join two advocates from the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition in exploring how to become an advocate for disability rights or an ally for students with disabilities. We’ll explore the intersection of disability and white privilege. We will give you concrete ideas on how to disrupt disability oppression.

Presented by the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition

Living with a Physical Disability

A current high school student will give a presentation on what it’s like to live with a physical disability. Gain insight on what others around us face and open your eyes to a new perspective that allows you to understand what you can do to be more inclusive and supportive of people with disabilities. Come with questions; there will be a question and answer portion and time for discussion.

Presented in various iterations by different local students

Disability Justice Leaders Who Guide Our Work

Here’s a list of folx who are leading the conversation on disability justice today. They inspire and inform our work. Follow them on social media, or seek out opportunities to hear them speak to dig deeper on these issues.

Disability Positive Books for Students

Here is a list of recommended books for students and teens that explore and address disabilities and disability justice issues. You can find free e-books or your local library using OverDrive.com .

Disability Positive Books for Educators and Adults

And this list is for teachers, educators and adults looking for guidance on disabilities and disability justice within the classroom or school system.

Disability Positive Movies

Below are movies that address disabilities and disability justice topics in meaningful and compelling ways, and/or contain authentic and positive portrayal of people with disabilities.

Podcasts on Disability Justice

Here is a list of recommended podcasts you can download and follow to explore disability justice work in more detail.

Organizations Advancing Disability Justice

YCD partners with numerous organizations to offer education and trainings for students on disability justice issues. Below are some of these groups; we encourage you to look into what services, resources and information they can offer for a deeper exploration of disability justice.

Jump to: California | Colorado | New Mexico | Wyoming

YO! Disabled & Proud connects, organizes and educates youth with disabilities. Youth Organizing (YO!) develops community organizing activities to build a power base among youth with disabilities so that we can effectively work for change. We engage youth to learn about our history, the disability rights movement, disability pride, organizing and advocacy. Youth with disabilities build community with each other, develop a sense of leadership, a positive disability identity and organize and mobilize each other on issues that affect our lives.

The Center for People with Disabilities , based in Boulder, provides resources, information and advocacy to assist people with disabilities in overcoming barriers to independent living, including referrals, peer groups, advocacy, transition services, and an employment program.

The Colorado Association of the Deaf* researches educational, linguistic, vocational, and social issues, shares findings, develops policies, and proposes legislative initiatives to advance the human and civil rights of all deaf* people.

The Colorado Center for the Blind is a world-renowned training center located in Littleton. Grounded in a positive philosophy of blindness, the Center provides innovative teaching techniques, daily challenges and self-confidence that are the building blocks of independence, opportunity and success for all blind people.

Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition , based in Denver, is Colorado’s only statewide organization run by and for people with all types of disabilities. Members consist of people with disabilities and our non-disabled allies (coworkers, employers, family members, friends, and neighbors), all working together to support disability rights. CCDC advocates for social justice for people with all types of disabilities through leadership development, grassroots organizing, advocacy, litigation, education and voter engagement.

Disability Rights New Mexico protects, promotes and expands the rights of persons with disabilities. They are the designated protection and advocacy program for New Mexico, and as such have authority under federal law to pursue legal, administrative and other remedies on behalf of persons with disabilities.

The Wyoming Institute for Disabilities , connected to the University of Wyoming, assists individuals with developmental and other disabilities and their families by promoting and supporting full community inclusion, community membership, independence, productivity and social participation through education, training, community services, and early intervention..

Do you have a suggestion of an addition or resource for this page? Share your idea with us.

Department Of Justice To Strengthen Website Access For Disabled People

The Department of Justice took a major step this week towards ensuring website and mobile app access for disabled people under federal disability law.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland signed a final rule on Monday that will clarify obligations of state and local governments to make their websites and mobile apps accessible by creating technical standards for guidance on how to achieve this.

The website access rule falls under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act , which bars disability discrimination and requires state and local governments to provide disabled people equal opportunity and access to public services, programs or activities.

Website and app barriers such as poor color contrast, lack of alternative text, inaccessible online forms and no captions on videos can prevent disabled people from accessing information on voting, up-to-date health and safety resources, public transportation schedules and other services that are vital to their daily life.

“This final rule marks the Justice Department’s latest effort to ensure that no person is denied access to government services, programs, or activities because of a disability,” Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in a statement on Monday.

“By issuing clear and consistent accessibility standards for state and local governments’ digital content, this rule advances the ADA’s promise of equal participation in society for people with disabilities.”

The finalization comes two years after the rule was first proposed by the Department of Justice following public calls for more guidance on how to ensure websites are accessible, according to the DOJ website . According to Forbes , only 3% of the Internet was accessible to disabled people as of 2022, and a majority of business owners didn’t know how to make websites accessible.

“For too long, ADA rules lagged behind in ensuring disabled people had equal access to electronic communication and information. Now, disabled people will be able to have greater access to voting, health care, safety net benefits, emergency information, education, transportation, etc,” Mia Ives-Rublee, director of the Disability Justice Initiative at the Center for American Progress, said in a statement in response to the finalized rule.

She continued: “As the disability community has continued to significantly expand, it’s more important than ever to ensure the ADA keeps pace to ensure disabled people are able to access and utilize information and services online.”

The rule on Monday follows less than a month after the Center for American Progress, former Congressman Tony Coelho and other disability groups wrote a letter urging the Department of Justice to finalize its pending rules and regulations impacting disabled people in the U.S.

Several other rulings that impact disabled people are still waiting to be finalized by other federal agencies, such as to strengthen prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of disability in health care and human services programs.

Ives-Rublee previously told HuffPost that members of the disability community worry that these regulations, if not finalized quickly, could fall victim to the Congressional Review Act and be wiped away under a Donald Trump presidency.

“If there is a change in administration for the following year, that administration could just strip all those changes with sort of a stroke of a pen,” Ives-Rublee explained to HuffPost in March. “So we want to try and get these things done as soon as possible, and that means that we need the… agencies to act as soon as possible so that we aren’t running into that deadline.”

Support HuffPost

Our 2024 coverage needs you, your loyalty means the world to us.

At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.

Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.

Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.

Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.

Dear HuffPost Reader

Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

Popular in the Community

From our partner, more in u.s. news.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ

U.S. Attorney Jesse Laslovich announces settlement with University of Montana over access to Adams Center’s arena for persons with disabilities

BILLINGS — U.S. Attorney Jesse Laslovich today announced a settlement agreement between the United States and the University of Montana over access to the Adams Center’s Dahlberg Arena for persons with disabilities. The settlement agreement will result in more wheelchair spaces and improve wheelchair seating for events at the arena, which hosts athletic events, concerts, graduation ceremonies and various other activities.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office investigated the Adams Center after it received a complaint alleging the complainant was unable to use an accessible seating area during a graduation ceremony in June 2019. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination in “the services, programs, or activities of a public entity” based on disability.

The parties voluntarily agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement, under which the University of Montana will disperse additional courtside ADA-compliant accessible seating when the Dahlberg Arena is configured for basketball, beginning with the 2024/25 season. The university will also continue to provide ADA-compliant accessible seating when the Dahlberg Arena is configured for other events, including concerts and graduations. The University of Montana cooperated with the government throughout the investigation.

“This agreement brings the seating plans for the Adams Center into compliance with the ADA by addressing issues with wheelchair spaces and seating. I appreciate the University of Montana’s cooperation with our investigation and its commitment to upholding the rights of persons with disabilities to ensure they can participate in a concert or graduation or cheer on the Grizzlies in Dahlberg Arena,” U.S. Attorney Laslovich said.

“The Adams Center welcomes tens-of-thousands of visitors annually for some of Montana’s most celebrated events. These changes are in line with UM’s efforts to be a campus that is accessible and open to all. We thank U.S. Attorney Laslovich and his staff for their hard work and partnership on this agreement,” said Dave Kuntz, UM spokesperson.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Vestal handled the case in coordination with the Disability Rights Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

For more information on the ADA, please call the department’s toll-free Information Line at 800-514-0301 (TDD 800-514-0383) or visit www.ada.gov. ADA complaints may be filed online at www.ada.gov/complaint . For complaints of civil rights violations occurring in the District of Montana, please visit justice.gov/usao-mt/civil-rights.

See settlement agreement here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/media/1347036/dl?inline

Clair J. Howard

Public Affairs Officer

406-247-4623

[email protected]

Related Content

MetLife Disability Benefits Suit To Get Redo Under New Standard

By Jacklyn Wille

A Continental Automotive Inc. employee seeking disability benefits secured a Fourth Circuit decision giving him another chance to prove his case against Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

The district court decision affirming MetLife’s denial of benefits was issued before the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit announced how courts should handle these cases, the appeals court said in an unpublished opinion Tuesday reviving Tracy Penland’s lawsuit.

The Fourth Circuit vacated MetLife’s victory and instructed the district court to reconsider the case during a judge-only trial, as required by the appeals court’s 2022 decision in Tekmen v. Reliance Standard Life ...

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

• M, W, F: 9:30am - 12pm and 3pm - 5:30pm ET
• Tu: 12:30pm - 5:30pm ET, Th: 2:30pm - 5:30pm ET

Title II Web and Mobile App Accessibility Final Rule Signed by the Attorney General

Learn about the rule's requirements

Table of contents

Fact sheet: new rule on the accessibility of web content and mobile apps provided by state and local governments.

The Attorney General signed a final rule updating its regulations for Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The final rule has specific requirements about how to ensure that web content and mobile applications (apps) are accessible to people with disabilities.

Purpose of this fact sheet: This fact sheet gives a summary of the rule. The summary is designed to provide introductory information about the rule’s requirements, particularly for people who may not have a legal background. For more information, please read the full rule . Please note that this link leads to an advance copy of a rule that has been approved by the Attorney General.  The official version of the rule will be published in the Federal Register.

Title II of the ADA requires state and local governments to make sure that their services, programs, and activities are accessible to people with disabilities. Title II applies to all services, programs, or activities of state and local governments, from adoption services to zoning regulation. This includes the services, programs, and activities that state and local governments offer online and through mobile apps.

Title II uses the term “public entities” to describe who it applies to, but in this fact sheet, we call these “state and local governments.”

A regulation, also called a “rule,” is a set of requirements issued by a federal agency for laws passed by Congress. When Congress passed the ADA, it gave the Department the authority to make regulations that explain the rights and requirements for Titles II and III of the ADA. A regulation usually has two parts. The first part is regulatory text. The second part provides information about the regulatory text and what it means, which is sometimes in an appendix to the rule.

The Department made this rule using a process sometimes called “notice and comment rulemaking.” As part of this process, the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM was basically a first draft of the regulation. It let the public know about the requirements the Department was considering and gave an opportunity for feedback.

The Department got feedback from the public on the NPRM. Based on that feedback, the Department made changes to certain parts of the rule. A description of the feedback the Department got and how it updated the rule is available in the appendix to the rule .

Like the rest of Title II, the rule applies to all state and local governments (which includes any agencies or departments of state or local governments) as well as special purpose districts, Amtrak, and other commuter authorities.

State and local governments that contract with other entities to provide public services for them (like non-profit organizations that run drug treatment programs on behalf of a state agency) also have to make sure that their contractors follow Title II.

Examples of state and local governments include:

• State and local government offices that provide benefits and/or social services, like food assistance, health insurance, or employment services
• Public schools, community colleges, and public universities
• State and local police departments
• State and local courts
• State and local elections offices
• Public hospitals and public healthcare clinics
• Public parks and recreation programs
• Public libraries
• Public transit agencies

For more information about the responsibilities of state and local governments under Title II, visit our State and Local Governments page .

The Reasons the Department Set Specific Requirements for Web and Mobile App Accessibility

State and local governments provide many of their services, programs, and activities through websites and mobile apps. When these websites and mobile apps are not accessible, they can create barriers for people with disabilities.

• For example, individuals who are blind may use a screen reader to deliver visual information on a website or mobile app as speech. A state or local government might post an image on its website that provides information to the public. If the website does not include text describing the image (sometimes called “alternative text” or “alt text”), individuals who are blind and who use screen readers may have no way of knowing what is in the image because a screen reader cannot “read” an image.

Websites and mobile apps that are not accessible can make it difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to access government services, like ordering mail-in ballots or getting tax information, that are quickly and easily available to other members of the public online. Sometimes, inaccessible websites and mobile apps can keep people with disabilities from joining or fully participating in civic or other community events like town meetings or programs at their child’s school.

This rule will help make sure people with disabilities have access to state and local governments’ services, programs, and activities available on websites and mobile apps. This rule will also provide state and local governments with more clarity about what they have to do to comply with the ADA.

You can find more information about why the Department made this rule in the section of the rule called “Need for Department Action.”

Highlights of the Requirements in the Rule

The rule’s requirements for making web content and mobile apps accessible are highlighted below. The full rule explains these requirements in more detail.

Requirement: The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Version 2.1, Level AA is the technical standard for state and local governments’ web content and mobile apps.

This rule sets a specific technical standard that state and local governments must follow to meet their existing obligations under Title II of the ADA for web and mobile app accessibility.

WCAG, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines , is a set of guidelines that say what is needed for web accessibility, such as requirements for captions for videos. WCAG is developed by the World Wide Web Consortium .

You can find more information about why the Department picked WCAG 2.1, Level AA as the technical standard for state and local governments’ web content and mobile apps in the rule in the section of the appendix called “Technical Standard—WCAG 2.1 Level AA.”

A technical standard says specifically what is needed for something to be accessible. For example, the existing ADA Standards for Accessible Design are technical standards that say what is needed for a building to be physically accessible under the ADA, such as how wide a door must be or how steep a ramp can be.

Requirement: State and local governments’ web content usually needs to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

The rule applies to web content that a state or local government provides or makes available. This includes when a state or local government has an arrangement with someone else who provides or makes available web content for them.

• Example: If a county web page lists the addresses and hours of operation for all county parks, that web page must meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA even if a local web design company made the web page and updates it for the county.

“Web content” is defined as the information and experiences available on the web, like text, images, sound, videos, and documents. You can find more information about how the Department defines “web content” in the rule in the section of the appendix called “Definitions.”

Requirement: State and local governments’ mobile apps usually need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA

The rule applies to mobile apps that a state or local government provides or makes available. This includes when a state or local government has an arrangement with someone else who provides or makes available a mobile app for them.

• Example: If a city lets people pay for public parking using a mobile app, that mobile app must meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA even if the app is run by a private company.

Mobile apps are software applications that are downloaded and designed to run on mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. You can find more information about how the Department defines mobile apps in the rule in the section of the appendix called “Definitions.”

Yes, this rule does not stop a state or local government from using designs, methods, or techniques as alternatives to WCAG 2.1, Level AA if the state or local government can prove the alternatives provide the same or more accessibility and usability. The rule refers to this as “equivalent facilitation.” The rule allows this so that state and local governments can have some flexibility, while also making sure that people with disabilities still have equal access to state and local government web content and mobile apps.

• Example: There may be new web accessibility standards that are developed in the future, such as WCAG Version 3.0. Under this rule, a state parks department would probably be allowed to create a new mobile app for campground reservations that meets a future standard if the standard provides the same or more accessibility and usability than WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

Exceptions: In limited situations, some kinds of web content and content in mobile apps do not have to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

It is important that state and local governments can prioritize so they can choose the most important content—like current or commonly used information— to make accessible to people with disabilities quickly.

There are limited exceptions for some kinds of content that are not as frequently used or that may be particularly hard for state and local governments to address right away.

If an exception applies to certain content, it means that content would not have to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

In the next section, we describe the exceptions and provide examples of how they might apply. We also give examples of when the exceptions would not apply.

Under the current ADA rules, state and local governments must provide individuals with disabilities with effective communication, reasonable modifications, and an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from their services, programs, and activities. So even when web content or content in mobile apps does not have to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA, a state or local government would likely still need to provide the content to a person with a disability who needs it in a format that is accessible to them.

Learn more about existing ADA obligations to ensure effective communication .

Learn more about existing ADA obligations to make reasonable modifications .

Summary of the Exceptions

1. archived web content.

State and local governments’ websites often include a lot of content that is not currently used. This information may be outdated, not needed, or repeated somewhere else. Sometimes, this information is archived on the website.

Web content that meets all four of the following points would not need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA:

• The content was created before the date the state or local government must comply with this rule, or reproduces paper documents or the contents of other physical media (audiotapes, film negatives, and CD-ROMs for example) that were created before the government must comply with this rule, AND
• The content is kept only for reference, research, or recordkeeping, AND
• The content is kept in a special area for archived content, AND
• The content has not been changed since it was archived.

Example: A water quality report from 1998 that a state has stored in an “archive” section of its website and has not updated would probably fall under the exception. The exception would also probably apply to handwritten research notes or photos that go with the 1998 water quality report that the state scans and posts to its website in the archive section.

The exception does not apply unless all four points are present. If any point is missing, the content generally must meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA unless another exception applies.

Example: City council meeting minutes created after the date the city must comply with this rule would not fall under the exception even if they are posted in the “archive” section of the city’s website. The meeting minutes would probably have to comply with WCAG 2.1, Level AA, because this content was created after the time the city had to comply with this rule.

Example: A spreadsheet of 2021 COVID-19 statistics posted in the “archive” section of a county health department’s website would probably not fall under the exception if the spreadsheet is later edited and reposted in the archive. The exception would probably not apply, and the spreadsheet would probably have to comply with WCAG 2.1, Level AA, because the content was changed after it was first posted in the archive.

Example: A PDF document that includes a current map of a county park that is based on data collected after the county was required to comply with this rule would probably not fall under the exception even if the document is posted in the “archive” section of the county’s website. The PDF provides current information about the park. The exception would probably not apply, and the PDF would probably have to comply with WCAG 2.1, Level AA, because the content is not kept only for reference, research, or recordkeeping.

What the exception does not change

Under the current ADA rules, state and local governments have to provide individuals with disabilities with effective communication , reasonable modifications , and an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from their services, programs, and activities.

• Example:  If a person with a hearing disability requests access to a city’s video that is archived, one way that the city could provide effective communication to the person is by adding captions to the video and sharing a copy of the captioned video file with the person.

2. Preexisting conventional electronic documents

Some state and local governments have a lot of old documents, like PDFs, on their website. It can sometimes be hard to make these documents meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

Documents that meet both of the following points usually do not need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA, except in some situations:

• The documents are word processing, presentation, PDF, or spreadsheet files; AND
• They were available on the state or local government’s website or mobile app before the date the state or local government must comply with this rule.

Example: This exception would probably apply to a PDF flyer for a Thanksgiving Day parade posted on a town’s website in 2018, or a Microsoft Word version of a sample ballot for a school board election posted on a school district’s website in 2014.

The exception does not apply unless both points are present. Where either point is missing, the document generally needs to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

Example: After the date a town has to comply with the rule, it posts a PowerPoint presentation that will be used in an upcoming town council meeting. The presentation would not fall under the exception, and it would probably have to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA, because it was posted after the rule’s compliance date.

Example: After the date a city has to comply with the rule, it updates a Microsoft Word document that was first posted on its website in 2020 to include the city’s new contact information. The updated document would not qualify for the exception anymore, and it would probably have to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

When the exception does not apply: Documents that are currently being used to apply for, access, or participate in a state or local government’s services, programs, or activities do not fall under the exception even if the documents were posted before the date the government has to comply with the rule.

• Example: A state posted a PDF version of a business license application on its website in 2020. Members of the public still use that PDF to apply for a business license after the date the state has to comply with the rule. The exception would not apply to the application and it would usually need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

3. Content posted by a third party where the third party is not posting due to contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a public entity

Third parties sometimes post content on state and local governments’ websites or mobile apps. Third parties are members of the public or others who are not controlled by or acting for state or local governments. The state or local government may not be able to change the content third parties post.

Content that is posted by third parties on a state or local government’s website or mobile app would not need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

• Example: A message that a member of the public posts on a town’s online message board would probably fall under the exception.

This exception only applies to content posted by a third party. Content that is not posted by a third party usually needs to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA. This includes:

• Example: Many state or local governments post content on their websites that is developed by an outside technology company, like calendars, scheduling tools, maps, reservations systems, and payment systems. This content would not fall under the exception, and it would usually need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA, because it is posted by the state or local government.
• Example: If a state or local government uses a company to design, manage, or update its website, the content the company posts for the government would not fall under the exception, and it would usually need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.
• Example: If the state or local government has a message board platform on its website, that platform would not fall under the exception, and it would usually need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA, because the message board was added to the website by the state or local government. However, the exception would probably apply to posts by third parties on that platform.

Under the current ADA rules, state and local governments must provide individuals with disabilities with effective communication , reasonable modifications , and an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from their services, programs, and activities.

• Example: If a person with a disability is a party to a state court case, and a third-party private law firm in the case submits documents to the state court’s website, the court could provide effective communication to the person with a disability by providing the documents to the person in a format that is accessible to them quickly upon request.

4. Individualized documents that are password-protected

State and local governments sometimes use password-protected websites to share documents that are for specific individuals, like a water or tax bill. It might be hard to make all of these documents accessible right away for everyone, and there might not be a person with a disability who needs access to these documents.

Documents that meet all three of the following points do not need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA:

• The documents are word processing, presentation, PDF, or spreadsheet files, AND
• The documents are about a specific person, property, or account, AND
• The documents are password-protected or otherwise secured.

Example: A PDF version of a water bill for a person’s home that is available in that person’s secure account on a city’s website would probably fall under the exception. However, the exception does not apply to the city’s website itself.

The exception does not apply unless all three points are present. If any point is missing, the content usually must meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA. Here are some examples related to a town water bill:

Example: If a person’s water bill is made available for them to view on a password-protected website as HTML content, the exception would not apply because the content is not in one of the listed document formats, and the content would usually need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

Example: If the water company posts a PDF document on a password-protected website about an upcoming rate increase for all customers, the exception would not apply, and the document would usually need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA, because the document is not about one customer’s account.

• Example: If a person with vision loss asks to access their personal and password-protected PDF town water bill, the town might provide effective communication to the person by giving them a large print version of the water bill, or a version of the water bill that meets some WCAG criteria, even though the PDF document would meet the exception.

5. Preexisting social media posts

For many state and local governments, making all of their past social media posts accessible may be impossible. There also may be very little use to making these old posts accessible because they were usually intended to provide updates about things happening at the time they were posted in the past.

For these reasons, social media posts made by a state or local government before the date the state or local government must comply with this rule do not need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

• Example: This exception would apply to a 2017 social media post by a city’s sanitation department announcing that trash collection would be delayed due to a snowstorm.
• Example: If an individual who is blind requests access to a picture a city posted on social media in 2023, the city could provide effective communication by providing an alternative text description of the image to the individual.

If none of the exceptions apply, do state and local governments always have to make web content and content in mobile apps meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA?

Usually, yes. But there are some situations where meeting WCAG 2.1, Level AA is not required:

Under the current ADA rules, state and local governments do not need to take actions that would result in a fundamental alteration or an undue burden. This is also true for this rule. Determining what is a fundamental alteration or undue burden is different from entity to entity and sometimes from one year to the next.

For more information about fundamental alteration and undue burden, see the final rule in the section of the appendix called “§ 35.204 Duties” and the Department’s State and Local Governments page .

Other Information About Complying with the Rule

Use of conforming alternate versions.

Sometimes a state or local government tries to have two versions of the same web content or content in a mobile app: one version that is not accessible and another version that is accessible and provides all the same information and features. The second version is called a “conforming alternate version.”

Usually state and local governments should not have a main web page that is inaccessible and a separate accessible version of the same content, because people with disabilities should get equal access to that content on the same page.

Under the rule, state and local governments may use conforming alternate versions as an alternative to inaccessible content only in very limited circumstances. State and local governments are allowed to do this only when there is a technical or legal limitation that prevents inaccessible web content or mobile apps from being made accessible.

For more information about conforming alternate versions and when they are allowed, see the final rule in the section of the appendix called “§ 35.202 Conforming Alternate Versions.”

Sometimes an individual with a disability may not be able to access a state or local government’s web content or mobile apps even if they meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA. If this happens, the state or local government is not required to make more changes to its web content or mobile apps that meet the technical requirement, but the government must still satisfy its other obligations under the ADA to provide individuals with disabilities with effective communication , reasonable modifications , and an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from their services, programs, and activities. The state or local government must figure out on a case-by-case basis how best to meet the needs of the individual with a disability.

• Example: If a person’s disability stops them from accessing a county's mobile app that meets WCAG 2.1, Level AA to buy tickets to the county's annual fair, the county needs to provide an alternative way for the person to purchase tickets.

What Happens If a State or Local Government Has Failed to Meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA in a Minor Way?

In some limited situations, state and local governments may be able to show that their web content or mobile apps do not meet WCAG Version 2.1, Level AA in a way that is so minor that it would not change a person with a disability’s access to the content or mobile app. If the state or local government can show that, then they are not violating the rule.

State and local governments cannot use this part of the rule to avoid trying to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA. If a state or local government’s web content does not fully meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA, there are many things the government would have to prove to show that they did not violate the rule.

Example that violates the rule: A state’s online renewal form does not meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.  Because of that, a person with a manual dexterity disability may need to spend a lot more time to renew their professional license online than someone without a disability. This person might also need to get help from someone who does not have a disability, give personal information to someone else, or go through a much harder and frustrating process than someone without a disability.  Even if this person with a disability could ultimately renew their license online, the state would violate the rule.

Example that meets the rule: A state’s web page with information about a park has text with a color contrast ratio that is 4.45:1. WCAG 2.1, Level AA requires a color contrast ratio of 4.5:1 for this text. It can be hard for some people with vision disabilities to see text on a web page if there is not enough contrast between the color of the text and the background color.  But that very small difference in color contrast ratio probably would not change whether most people with vision disabilities could read the text on the website and access the information about the park. If the state can prove the difference in color contrast is so small that it would not make it harder for people with disabilities to access the information about the park, the state would not violate the rule.

For more information, see the final rule in the section of the appendix called “§ 35.205 Effect of noncompliance that has a minimal impact on access.”

How Long State and Local Governments Have to Comply with the Rule

State and local governments must make sure that their web content and mobile apps meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA within two or three years of when the rule is published, depending on their population.

You can find more information about why the Department is requiring compliance with this timeline in the rule in the section of the appendix called “Requirements by Entity Size.”

After this time, state and local governments must continue to make sure their web content and mobile apps meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

A school district is not a special district government. If it is a city school district, it would use the population of the city to know when to comply. If it is a county school district, it would use the population of the county. If it is an independent school district, it would use the population estimate in the most recent Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates .

To figure out the date, you have to know the population of your state or local government. For most governments, this is a number you can find in the 2020 data from the U.S. Census Bureau . For smaller parts of a larger government that do not have a population listed there, like a city police department or a city library, you can look at the population of the larger government they are part of, like the city the runs the police department and library in this example.

You can find more information about how to find the population of your state or local government in the rule in the section of the appendix called “§ 35.104 Definitions” under the heading “Total Population.”

ADA Information Resources

If you have questions about this rule or the ADA, you can call the Department’s ADA Information Line .

Another source of information is the ADA National Network . The National Network includes ten regional centers that provide ADA technical assistance to businesses, state and local governments, and individuals with disabilities. One toll-free number connects you to the center in your region: 800-949-4232 (Voice and TTY).

You are now leaving a Department of Justice website

You will be automatically redirected to a:

The Department of Justice does not endorse the organizations or views represented by this site and takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over, the accuracy, accessibility, copyright or trademark compliance or legality of the material contained on this site.

• Victor Mukhin

Victor M. Mukhin was born in 1946 in the town of Orsk, Russia. In 1970 he graduated the Technological Institute in Leningrad. Victor M. Mukhin was directed to work to the scientific-industrial organization "Neorganika" (Elektrostal, Moscow region) where he is working during 47 years, at present as the head of the laboratory of carbon sorbents.     Victor M. Mukhin defended a Ph. D. thesis and a doctoral thesis at the Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia (in 1979 and 1997 accordingly). Professor of Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Scientific interests: production, investigation and application of active carbons, technological and ecological carbon-adsorptive processes, environmental protection, production of ecologically clean food.   

Title : Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental problems

Quick links.

• Conference Brochure
• Tentative Program

Turn Your Curiosity Into Discovery

Latest facts.

Approach for Using 5 Tips To Help You Write Your Dissertation

Dmitry Doev Projects as CEO of VIS Group Doev Dmitry Vitalievich

40 facts about elektrostal.

Written by Lanette Mayes

Modified & Updated: 02 Mar 2024

Reviewed by Jessica Corbett

Elektrostal is a vibrant city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia. With a rich history, stunning architecture, and a thriving community, Elektrostal is a city that has much to offer. Whether you are a history buff, nature enthusiast, or simply curious about different cultures, Elektrostal is sure to captivate you.

This article will provide you with 40 fascinating facts about Elektrostal, giving you a better understanding of why this city is worth exploring. From its origins as an industrial hub to its modern-day charm, we will delve into the various aspects that make Elektrostal a unique and must-visit destination.

So, join us as we uncover the hidden treasures of Elektrostal and discover what makes this city a true gem in the heart of Russia.

Key Takeaways:

• Elektrostal, known as the “Motor City of Russia,” is a vibrant and growing city with a rich industrial history, offering diverse cultural experiences and a strong commitment to environmental sustainability.
• With its convenient location near Moscow, Elektrostal provides a picturesque landscape, vibrant nightlife, and a range of recreational activities, making it an ideal destination for residents and visitors alike.

Known as the “Motor City of Russia.”

Elektrostal, a city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia, earned the nickname “Motor City” due to its significant involvement in the automotive industry.

Home to the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Elektrostal is renowned for its metallurgical plant, which has been producing high-quality steel and alloys since its establishment in 1916.

Boasts a rich industrial heritage.

Elektrostal has a long history of industrial development, contributing to the growth and progress of the region.

Founded in 1916.

The city of Elektrostal was founded in 1916 as a result of the construction of the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Located approximately 50 kilometers east of Moscow.

Elektrostal is situated in close proximity to the Russian capital, making it easily accessible for both residents and visitors.

Known for its vibrant cultural scene.

Elektrostal is home to several cultural institutions, including museums, theaters, and art galleries that showcase the city’s rich artistic heritage.

A popular destination for nature lovers.

Surrounded by picturesque landscapes and forests, Elektrostal offers ample opportunities for outdoor activities such as hiking, camping, and birdwatching.

Hosts the annual Elektrostal City Day celebrations.

Every year, Elektrostal organizes festive events and activities to celebrate its founding, bringing together residents and visitors in a spirit of unity and joy.

Has a population of approximately 160,000 people.

Elektrostal is home to a diverse and vibrant community of around 160,000 residents, contributing to its dynamic atmosphere.

Boasts excellent education facilities.

The city is known for its well-established educational institutions, providing quality education to students of all ages.

A center for scientific research and innovation.

Elektrostal serves as an important hub for scientific research, particularly in the fields of metallurgy, materials science, and engineering.

Surrounded by picturesque lakes.

The city is blessed with numerous beautiful lakes, offering scenic views and recreational opportunities for locals and visitors alike.

Well-connected transportation system.

Elektrostal benefits from an efficient transportation network, including highways, railways, and public transportation options, ensuring convenient travel within and beyond the city.

Famous for its traditional Russian cuisine.

Food enthusiasts can indulge in authentic Russian dishes at numerous restaurants and cafes scattered throughout Elektrostal.

Home to notable architectural landmarks.

Elektrostal boasts impressive architecture, including the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord and the Elektrostal Palace of Culture.

Offers a wide range of recreational facilities.

Residents and visitors can enjoy various recreational activities, such as sports complexes, swimming pools, and fitness centers, enhancing the overall quality of life.

Provides a high standard of healthcare.

Elektrostal is equipped with modern medical facilities, ensuring residents have access to quality healthcare services.

Home to the Elektrostal History Museum.

The Elektrostal History Museum showcases the city’s fascinating past through exhibitions and displays.

A hub for sports enthusiasts.

Elektrostal is passionate about sports, with numerous stadiums, arenas, and sports clubs offering opportunities for athletes and spectators.

Celebrates diverse cultural festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal hosts a variety of cultural festivals, celebrating different ethnicities, traditions, and art forms.

Electric power played a significant role in its early development.

Elektrostal owes its name and initial growth to the establishment of electric power stations and the utilization of electricity in the industrial sector.

Boasts a thriving economy.

The city’s strong industrial base, coupled with its strategic location near Moscow, has contributed to Elektrostal’s prosperous economic status.

Houses the Elektrostal Drama Theater.

The Elektrostal Drama Theater is a cultural centerpiece, attracting theater enthusiasts from far and wide.

Popular destination for winter sports.

Elektrostal’s proximity to ski resorts and winter sport facilities makes it a favorite destination for skiing, snowboarding, and other winter activities.

Promotes environmental sustainability.

Elektrostal prioritizes environmental protection and sustainability, implementing initiatives to reduce pollution and preserve natural resources.

Home to renowned educational institutions.

Elektrostal is known for its prestigious schools and universities, offering a wide range of academic programs to students.

Committed to cultural preservation.

The city values its cultural heritage and takes active steps to preserve and promote traditional customs, crafts, and arts.

Hosts an annual International Film Festival.

The Elektrostal International Film Festival attracts filmmakers and cinema enthusiasts from around the world, showcasing a diverse range of films.

Encourages entrepreneurship and innovation.

Elektrostal supports aspiring entrepreneurs and fosters a culture of innovation, providing opportunities for startups and business development.

Offers a range of housing options.

Elektrostal provides diverse housing options, including apartments, houses, and residential complexes, catering to different lifestyles and budgets.

Home to notable sports teams.

Elektrostal is proud of its sports legacy, with several successful sports teams competing at regional and national levels.

Boasts a vibrant nightlife scene.

Residents and visitors can enjoy a lively nightlife in Elektrostal, with numerous bars, clubs, and entertainment venues.

Promotes cultural exchange and international relations.

Elektrostal actively engages in international partnerships, cultural exchanges, and diplomatic collaborations to foster global connections.

Surrounded by beautiful nature reserves.

Nearby nature reserves, such as the Barybino Forest and Luchinskoye Lake, offer opportunities for nature enthusiasts to explore and appreciate the region’s biodiversity.

Commemorates historical events.

The city pays tribute to significant historical events through memorials, monuments, and exhibitions, ensuring the preservation of collective memory.

Promotes sports and youth development.

Elektrostal invests in sports infrastructure and programs to encourage youth participation, health, and physical fitness.

Hosts annual cultural and artistic festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal celebrates its cultural diversity through festivals dedicated to music, dance, art, and theater.

Provides a picturesque landscape for photography enthusiasts.

The city’s scenic beauty, architectural landmarks, and natural surroundings make it a paradise for photographers.

Connects to Moscow via a direct train line.

The convenient train connection between Elektrostal and Moscow makes commuting between the two cities effortless.

A city with a bright future.

Elektrostal continues to grow and develop, aiming to become a model city in terms of infrastructure, sustainability, and quality of life for its residents.

In conclusion, Elektrostal is a fascinating city with a rich history and a vibrant present. From its origins as a center of steel production to its modern-day status as a hub for education and industry, Elektrostal has plenty to offer both residents and visitors. With its beautiful parks, cultural attractions, and proximity to Moscow, there is no shortage of things to see and do in this dynamic city. Whether you’re interested in exploring its historical landmarks, enjoying outdoor activities, or immersing yourself in the local culture, Elektrostal has something for everyone. So, next time you find yourself in the Moscow region, don’t miss the opportunity to discover the hidden gems of Elektrostal.

Q: What is the population of Elektrostal?

A: As of the latest data, the population of Elektrostal is approximately XXXX.

Q: How far is Elektrostal from Moscow?

A: Elektrostal is located approximately XX kilometers away from Moscow.

Q: Are there any famous landmarks in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to several notable landmarks, including XXXX and XXXX.

Q: What industries are prominent in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal is known for its steel production industry and is also a center for engineering and manufacturing.

Q: Are there any universities or educational institutions in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to XXXX University and several other educational institutions.

Q: What are some popular outdoor activities in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal offers several outdoor activities, such as hiking, cycling, and picnicking in its beautiful parks.

Q: Is Elektrostal well-connected in terms of transportation?

A: Yes, Elektrostal has good transportation links, including trains and buses, making it easily accessible from nearby cities.

Q: Are there any annual events or festivals in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal hosts various events and festivals throughout the year, including XXXX and XXXX.

Was this page helpful?

Our commitment to delivering trustworthy and engaging content is at the heart of what we do. Each fact on our site is contributed by real users like you, bringing a wealth of diverse insights and information. To ensure the highest standards of accuracy and reliability, our dedicated editors meticulously review each submission. This process guarantees that the facts we share are not only fascinating but also credible. Trust in our commitment to quality and authenticity as you explore and learn with us.

Share this Fact:

katamaran ibiza tour

• Cala Salada
• Beach Cruise - Sunset
• Beach Cruise - Mornings
• Es Vedrà Sunset

971 34 62 84 +34 696 222 896 [email protected]

Are you boarding with us?

Boat trips in ibiza, do you know our tours.

At Nautilus Ibiza we have been making the best excursions and boat cruises in Ibiza for 35 years, with our Captain Nemo catamarans. We have a varied offer of excursions, which are carried out daily, allowing our visitors to discover the best coastal landscapes of the island.

Beach Cruise

Nature reserve - Aquarium

Sunset Cruise

Excursions and boat trips in Ibiza

You will be able to enjoy the best Mediterranean sunset and unique parties. You will know the most beautiful coves and views, and that is why... You can't forget your camera! In our Captain Nemo we also offer you the possibility of hiring private services such as birthdays, bachelor parties, weddings, ... The best way to spend a special day in an alternative way.

Discover Ibiza from the sea

Where are we taking you.

Click on the points marked on the map to find out all the details of the boat trips we take every day in Ibiza.

Visit one of the most beautiful natural environments in Ibiza. Departing from San Antonio.

Park the car, run away from the traffic and come to discover a different sea cruise. We will stop at two of the best beaches on the island with plenty of time to explore them before watching the wonderful sunset from Café Mambo.

Embark on our glass-bottomed catamaran and get to know the exuberant variety of marine fauna of our coast. We will cross the bay of San Antonio and reach the cape of Cap Nonó.

Beach cruise

Departing from the port of San Antonio, on this route we will show you Cala Bassa and Cala Conta, probably the most popular beaches in Ibiza.

Regular daily trips

Unusual coastal landscapes are waiting for you, visit our blog, latest news.

EASTER WEEK IN IBIZA

BALEARIC ISLANDS

Sant antoni de portmany - ibiza, departure and arrival points.

• Port of San Antonio
• C/Badajoz, 2 - Next to Mar Amantis Hotel

Contact Information

Offices: C/Sant Antoni nº11 1st Door 3. 971346284

Sales and customer service: Passeig de ses fonts. +34 696 22 28 96

Ibiza Boat Trips

• +1 800-442-4448
• My Account Hello Credits My Account Log out

Ibiza Exclusive Catamaran Tour

Ibiza, Spain

activityLevel

Moderate Activity

excursionType

Information Not Currently Available

wheelchairAccessible

startingAtPrice

Approximately 5 Hours

mealsIncluded

Meals not included

Embark on a picturesque journey exploring the stunning coastline of Ibiza with our sail Itinerary. After leaving the port of Ibiza we will navigate towards the costs of this amazing island. Dive into the crystal-clear waters during our swim stop and immerse yourself in the natural beauty that surrounds you. The golden sands and turquoise waters of Ibiza create a postcard-perfect backdrop, offering you the perfect opportunity to relax and unwind.

A barbecue lunch will be served with salad and fresh fruit and cake for dessert, sangria, water, soft drinks, and beer.

This sail Itinerary promises not only a visual feast of Ibiza's coastal wonders but also a sensory experience that will linger in your memories. Join us for a day of exploration, relaxation, and pure bliss on the waters of this Mediterranean paradise.

Rent a catamaran in Ibiza?

Rent the catamaran flow.

Catamaran Flow Ibiza

• Destinations
• Photo gallery
• Eco-Friendly

vitamin ibiza.

• Black Coffee
• David Guetta – “F*** Me I’m Famous”
• Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike Ibiza
• Martin Garrix
• Calvin Harris
• Armin van Buuren

Boat Experience – Ibiza Catamaran Tour

Written by :, posted on :, share this :.

Explore Ibiza on our exclusive catamaran tour! Your adventure on the water awaits you.

Are you ready for an unforgettable experience on the sparkling Mediterranean Sea? Our exclusive catamaran tour will take you to the hidden treasures of Ibiza that few people know about.

Our exciting Ibiza Catamaran Tour includes:

Roundtrip transfers: we take care of your comfort from start to finish. Our shuttle service will comfortably take you to the catamaran and pick you up after the tour. Complimentary drinks: Enjoy refreshing drinks, cocktails and delicious snacks throughout the tour. We’ll make sure you want for nothing. Secret Bays: Discover small, hidden bays that are only accessible by catamaran. We will take you to places with crystal clear waters and breathtaking nature that you will never forget. Jump into the water: Dare to take a refreshing dive into the clear Mediterranean water. Swim and snorkel amidst the beauty of Ibiza’s underwater world.

Carrer San Mateu, 6B, 07820 Sant Antoni de Portmany, Illes Balears

• +34 611 330 518

4 HOURS CATAMARAN TOUR IN IBIZA

Embark on a catamaran tour from San Antonio, and experience an unforgettable adventure in the Mediterranean Sea!!

Enjoy a fresh barbecue on board, fresh salads, tropical fruits, snorkeling gear, stand up paddleboard, all in the company of a friendly crew.

We offer day trips and sunset excursions, with stops at Cala Conta for water activities. Please contact us to check availability before booking this 4-hour tour.

PRICE INCLUDES

• Fresh barbecue prepared on board with chicken and/or sausages (during the swim stop at Cala Conta).
• Options: vegetarian and halal.
• Fresh salads.
• Tropical fruits (watermelon and/or melon).
• Snorkeling equipment.
• Stand up paddle boards.
• Friendly crew.
• 2 toilets (for men and women).
• 21% (taxes included)

Day Trip: Departure from San Antonio. You will be able to see the bay of San Antonio, Cala de Bou, Port des Torrent, Cala Bassa, Torre Rovira and make a stop in Cala Conta (lunch, swimming stop, snorkeling, stand up paddle boarding, barbecue, salads).

Sunset Tour: Depart from San Antonio. You will be able to see the bay of San Antonio, Cala de Bou, Port des Torrent, Cala Bassa, Torre Rovira, Isla Conejera and make a stop in Cala Conta (stop swimming, snorkeling, stand up paddle boarding, barbecue, salads). On the way back, you will be able to witness a great sunset.

PRICE DO NOT INCLUDE

• Bath towels.
• The times of the daytime excursion are as followed: (11 am – 3 pm) or (12 pm – 4 pm), they vary depending on the month.
• The times of the sunset excursion are as followed: (16:00 – 20:00) or (17:00 – 21:00), they vary depending on the month.
• The meeting point is set 30 minutes before departure.
• Once you have made your booking, we will send you the details of the meeting point.
• Contact us via whatsapp (+34) 611 330 518 before booking the 4-hour catamaran trip to check availability, schedule and dates.

The boat tour is available: May/June/July/August/September/October

Solar Catamaran Tour on Ibiza

Experience an unforgettable day at sea and discover the most beautiful bays of Ibiza with the 100% Solar Catamaran Tour on Ibiza. The solar catamaran on Ibiza is equipped with an incredible sound system and even while swimming in the water you can enjoy your favourite music. All excursions are organised by experienced and passionate sailors. Choose between 3 different catamaran tours on Ibiza and feel the unique experience with the 100% Solar Catamaran for maximum 12 people.

Free Cancelation until 24 hours

Languages Spanish, English

Duration From 3 hours

About this Activitie

• Ecofriendly 100% Solar Catamaran Tour on Ibiza for maximum 12 people
• 3 different tour options: Solar Catamaran Day Tour Ibiza – 7 hours Solar Catamaran Day and Sunset Tour Ibiza – 9 hours Solar Catamaran Sunset Tour Ibiza – 3 hours
• Welcome drink (cava), water included
• Delicious menu options available
• Super sound system
• Masks and snorkels
• Welcome drink (cava), water and ice
• cooler available onboard
• Shade canopy
• Life Jackets & necessary safety equipment
• Experienced Captain / Service aboard
• Final cleaning
• The captain reserves the right to change or cancel the route at short notice in the event of bad weather conditions to guarantee the safety and quality of the excursion.
• Feel free to bring your own Catering (food and drinks) or order a menu or drinking package in advance.
• Solar Catamaran Day Tour Ibiza (10:00 am – 5:00 pm): 1350,00 € for maximum 12 people
• Solar Catamaran Day and Sunset Tour Ibiza (12:00 pm –9:00 pm): 1800,00 € for maximum 12 people
• Solar Catamaran Sunset Tour Ibiza (5:00 pm – 8:00 pm) 720,00 € for maximum 12 people

Service Temporarily Unavailable

( wrong credentials ), ( service disabled ).

Option 1: Solar Catamaran Day Tour Ibiza – 7 hours

Enjoy the most popular solar catamaran tour on Ibiza and discover hidden anchorages with a unique experience in the waters of Ibiza. During the day you will head for 2 or 3 catamaran anchorages to ensure you can swim, sunbathe and dance the day away. Heading south, you’ll come across the famous turquoise waters of Cala Tarida and Cala Comte, as well as a beautiful little cove next to the main beach where the Cala Bassa Beach Club is located. In addition, there are some beautiful, more secluded and less crowded stops at Sa Conejera, Cala Roja or Cala Salada. If you sail northwards with our solar catamaran tour on Ibiza, you will get to know the authentic side of th eisland, where you can see many old fishermen’s huts and swim along the rustic cliffs that will take your breath away. If the wind allows, you may even be able to sail to the beautiful arched island of Ses Margalides.

  Option 2: Solar Catamaran Day and Sunset Tour Ibiza – 9 hours

If you want to have the full-blown experience on the water, book the Solar Catamaran Day and Sunset Tour on Ibiza. During the day we set sail for 2 or 3 spots to anchor to make sure you get to swim, sun bath and dance the day away. The solar catamaran on Ibiza is equipped with the most incredible sound system and even when swimming in the water you can enjoy your favourite tunes. Our experienced and sweet captains take care of you along the day and anything you’d like to know; they can answer for you. Extend your experience to include the magical sunset hours, where the sky becomes a canvas painted with hues of orange and pink. Gather with your loved ones on the deck, surrounded by nothing but the vast expanse of the sea, and witness nature’s breathtaking spectacle unfold before your eyes. As the day draws to a close and you reluctantly return to shore, you carry with you the precious gift of a memory — a memory so vivid, so cherished, it becomes a cherished addition to your collection of life’s most unforgettable moments.

Option 3: Solar Catamaran Sunset Tour Ibiza – 3 hours               

Indulge in the ultimate serenity aboard our Solar Catamaran Tour Ibiza during the sunset time. As the sun begins its descent towards the horizon, there’s no finer place to be than on the tranquil waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Powered by electric motors, our catamaran ensures a silent and eco-friendly journey, allowing you to fully immerse yourself in the magic of the moment. With nothing but the gentle lull of the waves beneath you, you’ll find unparalleled peace and tranquillity as you witness the sky transform into a masterpiece of colors. Keep your eyes peeled, as you may even be treated to the sight of playful dolphins dancing in the distance.

Customer reviews

Private Catamaran Tour Around Ibiza

Imagine yourself gliding through the azure waters of Ibiza, surrounded by luxury and tranquility on a private catamaran tour. The gentle sea breeze caresses your skin as you take in the stunning vistas of the island’s coastline.

But what awaits you beneath the surface of the glistening sea? The mysteries and delights that lie beneath are yours to discover, adding an element of surprise and wonder to your already exceptional journey.

• Exclusive private catamaran tour with snorkeling and SUP activities.
• Indulge in complimentary snacks and beverages onboard.
• Comfortable amenities, WiFi , and restroom facilities provided.
• Convenient meeting point at Tropicana Eivissa Cala Jondal for a seamless experience.

Here's some more nearby experiences we've reviewed

• Western Ibiza Cruise With Snorkeling, Waterslides, and More (Mar )
• Discover the Best Corners of the Island in Paddle Surf
• 3 Hours All Inclusive Boat Trip Ibiza
• Full Day Boat Tour in Formentera

Tour Details

Set out on an exclusive private catamaran tour around Ibiza, where snorkeling equipment is provided, and you can enjoy the thrill of paddling on a SUP board, all while indulging in complimentary snacks amidst the stunning Mediterranean scenery.

For those eager to explore the underwater world, here are some snorkeling tips : remember to breathe calmly, keep your mask clear by using defogging solutions, and avoid touching any marine life to preserve the delicate ecosystem.

Along With the exciting activities, guests have the opportunity to savor delicious local cuisine onboard, adding a flavorful touch to the experience. Whether you’re a beginner or a seasoned snorkeler, the crystal-clear waters of Ibiza offer a captivating glimpse into the marine wonders below, complemented by delightful culinary delights.

Amenities Onboard

Offering a range of luxurious amenities, the catamaran provides guests with a comfortable and indulgent experience while cruising around Ibiza. Onboard, guests can enjoy access to WiFi , allowing them to stay connected and share their stunning moments in real-time. Plus, the catamaran offers a variety of beverage options , including refreshing alcoholic beverages to complement the picturesque views of the Mediterranean. To enhance the overall experience, a restroom is available for convenience, ensuring guests’ comfort throughout the journey. Whether guests are socializing, relaxing , or capturing memories , the amenities onboard cater to their needs, making the private catamaran tour a delightful and unforgettable experience.

Meeting and Pickup Information

Upon arrival at the designated meeting point at Tropicana Eivissa Cala Jondal, guests will be greeted for their private catamaran tour around Ibiza. The meeting point is conveniently located at Cala Jondal, s/n , 07830 Sant Josep de sa Talaia, Illes Balears , Spain. Start times will be confirmed with the local provider, ensuring a seamless experience.

After the captivating tour exploring the crystal-clear waters and stunning coastline, guests will be brought back to the meeting point. While on the catamaran, guests can enjoy local cuisine and engage in beach activities like snorkeling and paddleboarding. This meeting point provides easy access to the beautiful waters of Ibiza, promising a memorable day filled with adventure and relaxation.

• Cancellation Policy

After enjoying the private catamaran tour around Ibiza, guests should be aware of the straightforward cancellation policy in place for this excursion. The refund policy states that a full refund is available if the tour is canceled 24 hours in advance.

However, if the cancellation occurs within 24 hours of the scheduled start time, no refund will be issued. It’s important to note that changes can’t be made within 24 hours of the activity’s start time. The cut-off times are based on local time, so guests should factor this into their planning.

Understanding these booking terms ensures a smooth experience when arranging the private catamaran tour and provides clarity on the cancellation process.

Four reviews from verified guests provide valuable insights into the private catamaran tour experience around Ibiza. Customers expressed high levels of satisfaction with the tour, praising the knowledgeable crew and the variety of activities offered. Snorkeling and paddleboarding were recommended activities by multiple reviewers. The tour’s overall rating averaged at 4.8 stars out of 5, indicating a consistently positive experience. Guests particularly enjoyed the included snacks and beverages, as well as the opportunity to explore the stunning coastline of Ibiza from the comfort of the catamaran. The reviews highlighted the exceptional service provided, making it a highly recommended experience for those looking to enjoy a day out on the crystal-clear waters surrounding Ibiza.

To navigate to the private catamaran tour meeting point at Tropicana Eivissa Cala Jondal in Ibiza, travelers can follow the detailed address of Cala Jundal, s/n , 07830 Sant Josep de sa Talaia, Illes Balears , Spain.

• Enjoy scenic routes along the coast when driving to the meeting point.
• Explore local attractions such as the stunning Cala Jondal beach nearby.
• Look out for signposts directing towards Tropicana Eivissa for easy access.
• Immerse in the beauty of Ibiza’s landscapes on the way to the catamaran tour.
• Take in the charming surroundings and plan extra time to discover hidden gems along the route.

Here's a few more nearby tours and experiences we think you'll like.

• Sunset Beach Hopping Cruise, Cala Comte and Cala Bassa, SUP and Snorkelling
• Private Catamaran Beach Hopping in Ibiza
• Ibiza Sunset Snorkeling Beach and Cave Cruise Tour
• Boat Excursion in Ibiza With All Inclusive
• Formentera Day Trip From Ibiza on Private Luxury Catamaran
• Hidden Ibiza Yoga & Brunch

Common questions

Is There a Minimum Age Requirement to Participate in the Private Catamaran Tour?

Age restrictions for tour participation ensure child safety onboard the catamaran tour. Specific age requirements vary, so it’s crucial to check with the tour provider. Prior inquiries can clarify any concerns regarding children joining the excursion.

Are There Any Restrictions on Bringing Personal Items or Belongings Onboard the Catamaran?

When considering boat safety and packing restrictions , guests should be mindful of personal items brought onboard. While there are no specific restrictions mentioned, it’s advisable to pack light for a comfortable and safe experience.

Can Special Dietary Requirements or Food Allergies Be Accommodated for the Snacks and Lunch Provided?

Special dietary requirements and food allergies are considered onboard. Catering accommodations offer customized menus and allergen-friendly options for snacks and lunch. Guests can enjoy a worry-free experience with options tailored to their needs.

Is There a Limit to the Number of Guests Allowed on the Private Catamaran Tour?

Guest capacity on the private catamaran tour adheres to strict safety regulations . The limit ensures a comfortable and secure experience for all passengers. Safety is a priority, and the number of guests is carefully managed to uphold standards.

Are There Any Recommended Items or Clothing to Bring for the Tour, Aside From Swimwear?

For the tour, guests should consider bringing sun protection like hats and sunscreen. Packing tips include a light jacket for cooler weather. Comfortable footwear options are recommended. Be prepared for varying weather conditions.

Not for you? Here's more of our most recent tour reviews happening neaby

• Luxury Water Toys Boat Tour Ibiza – SEABOB- Paddle Surf Boards
• Excursion to Cala Salada by Jet Ski From San Antonio
• Private Guided Ebike Tour in Ibiza
• Private Mediterranean Classic Boat With Paddle Boardssnorkelling
• Ibiza Old Town Private Walking Tour With a Professional Guide
• Excursion to Es Vedrá Island by Jet Ski From San Antonio
• Guided Walking Tour in Dalt Vila and Art Workshop
• Ibiza Island Tour: Punta Arabi Local Market
• Jet Ski Excursion From San Antonio (Ibiza) to Es Vedrá
• SUP Adventure Sunset Cruise (Cala Salada, Cala Gració & More)
• Yoga Experience by the Sea
• Paella With 1 Lt of Sangria at Restaurante America
• Ibiza “Three Worlds” Tour
• Port Des Torrent Catamaran Private Trip
• Boat Rental Without License Full Day (8hs)

Set out on a private catamaran tour around Ibiza for an unforgettable experience filled with relaxation, adventure , and luxury. With top-notch amenities, delicious snacks , and stunning views , guests can indulge in a day of pure bliss on the crystal-clear waters.

Whether you’re seeking a romantic getaway or a fun outing with friends, this tour promises to be a highlight of your time in Ibiza. Don’t miss out on this exclusive opportunity to explore the beauty of the island from the water.

Similar Posts

Outlander Tour

Set out on a journey through the captivating landscapes of Scotland with the Outlander Tour, a unique exploration of history…

Visit the Bavarian National Museum With Paul

Venture into the venerable halls of the Bavarian National Museum with Paul as your knowledgeable guide. Marvel at masterpieces spanning…

Thessaloniki Mount Olympus Group Hiking Tour

Join an unforgettable journey through the enchanting landscapes of the ‘Thessaloniki Mount Olympus Group Hiking Tour 2024’. As participants traverse…

Furnas: Night-Time Experience With Thermal Baths and Dinner

Set out on a journey where the night whispers secrets and the thermal baths hold tales untold. As the stars…

Bangalore: Full-Day Historical Guided Tour

As the morning sun gently illuminates the ornate arches of Bangalore’s historical landmarks, visitors are beckoned to uncover the captivating…

Guilin&Yangshuo: Top 4 Highlights All Inclusive Private Tour

Travelers on the ‘Guilin&Yangshuo: Top 4 Highlights All Inclusive Private Tour’ find themselves enraptured by the breathtaking beauty of the…

• Weekly Charter
• Daily Charter

Ibiza – Weekly Charter July & August ’19

Adding item to wishlist requires an account, already a member.

Forget Password?

Don't have an account? Create one.

Have questions.

Get in touch with us and we will answer you as soon as possible.

+34 928 839 605

[email protected]

Catamaran Ibiza tours

Enjoy your time a board of a Catamaran and discover Ibiza. Explore its beaches and beautiful landscapes. Catamaran Ibiza tours for your family events and friends.

The vessel is spacious, stable and has all the commodities and equipment necessary to spend a special and unforgettable holiday.

Our Catamaran is booked with a profesional Captain in order to enjoy life on board without any concern or responsibility. The Captain will take care of everything and will find the best option that suits you.

Departure/return

Available dates.

Talamanca – Sant Antoni de Portmany

JULY: from the 21st to the 31st of july 2019 AUGUST: from the 1st to the 31st of august 2019

Departure time

Sat: 17:00 PM

Return time

Sat: 10:00 AM

• Private Navigation on board of a Catamaran

Not Included

• Private expenses
• Mooring in different docks
• Captain: 150€/day *
• Comfort Pack (cleaning, towels): 250€ *
• Cook/Host: 110€

*Obligatory service

Max. People

The itinerary will depend on the weather conditions and the best available options according to the wishes of the group.

Related Tours

Ibiza Daily Charter July & August ’19

Ibiza – Weekly Charter June & September ’19

Catamaran Beach Tour from San Antonio

Cala bassa nad cala conta.

Come aboard and enjoy Catamaran Ibiza tour ! On Catamaran Ibiza tour you will discover one of the most beautiful coasts of Ibiza. Catamaran leavse from the port of San Antonio. You will visit Cala Bassa beach and Cala Conta beach .

During the cruise you will have open bar. Drinks and food are included in the price. While you enjoy this spectacular experience, our staff on board prepare the   barbecue  accompanied by a typical Ibizenc salad.  Open bar  of sangria, beer and soft drinks.  Fresh fruits  will also be included with your experience on the boat.

During catamaran Ibiza tour you will have a swim stop and you can enjoy snorkeling and SUP . We guarantee  that you will bring a golden tan, unforgettable memories and beautiful sunsets photos. Go to the west coast to spend a fantastic day on the Mediterranean Sea.

Catamaran boat

A catamaran is balanced on two hulls, with the sails in the middle. Catamarans have a phenomenal stability : they do not heel under way and do not roll at anchor. This usually makes seasickness a non-event. It makes it somewhat safer for kids running around. It is a fact that more people get seasick on monohulls than catamarans.

Our catamaran has a length of 22 meters and a maximum capacity of 100 people. Wide nets in the bow will become your favorite place in the sun. Lying down on them while feeling the blue waters flow beneath your body and enjoying the murmur of the sea.

Catamaran Beach Tour

From: 99 €

Times are in Europe/Warsaw

• Choose a date above to see available times.

Description

• Reviews (0)

Swim stop in Cala Conta

Food and drinks barbecue, beautiful catamaran with nets.

1. The boat departs from San Antonio port

2. Stop in front of Cala Bassa or Cala Conta beach. Time for swimming and snorkelling.

4. Opan bar with drinks. Time for lunch (BBQ)

6. Amazing sunset on the way back

7. Return to San Antonio port

• visiting Cala Bassa and Cala Comta beach
• open bar (water, soft drinks, beer, sangría, vine)
• food (barbecue) on the board 
• stop for swimming next to  Cala Conta beach
• water activities (paddle board, snorkelings)
• nice music and big catamaran with nets in front 
• amazing sunset with glass of champagne 
• toilet onboard 
• from San Antonio port. After make a booking you will recive exactly location on Google Map

Departure: check in our calendar the departure time. 

Duration : 4 hours

Days:  Check in our calendar 

• Check-in starts 30 minutes before the departure. 

• We reserve the right to change the time or the itineraries in the case of unforeseen events (for example adverse weather condition) In this case we will inform you by mail or by phone.

• You will receive a confirmation email after booking. Also check your SPAM BOX.

• DO NOT park in the port, as there is a 2 hours maximum stay. There is parking available around San Antonio, but it’s a busy place in summer, so please allow time to find a space. We recommend parking  here.

• Especially in high season (June – August) it can be very tricky to find a taxi in Ibiza.  Please calculate enough time for your transport.

• Unfortunately, THE BOAT CANNOT WAIT FOR YOU. If you are late for the meeting point, you will miss your cruise.

• For a full refund, you must cancel at least 24 hours before the experience’s start time.
• If you cancel less than 24 hours* before the experience’s start time, the amount you paid will not be refunded.
• Any changes made less than 24 hours before the experience’s start time will not be accepted.
• This experience requires good weather. If it’s cancelled due to poor weather, you’ll be offered a different date or a full refund.
• This experience requires a minimum number of travellers. If it’s cancelled because the minimum isn’t met, you’ll be offered a different date/experience or a full refund.
• Cut-off times are based on the experience’s local time.

Review scores

Based on 0 rating(s)

There are no reviews yet.

Be the first to review “Catamaran Beach Tour” Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Related products

Beach boat tour Ibiza

• long swim stop to enjoy water activities (sup paddle board, snorkelling, kayaks)
• open bar (beer, sangria, vines and soft drinks)
• snacks and tapas
• spacious boat with nice big chill out beds
• toilet onboard
• free cancellation

Formentera Paradise Boat Tour

• Free time on Formentera to explore the island (about 3 hours)
• Stop for swimming on Espalmador island
• Lunch onboard (Spanish paella) and open bar (beer, sangria and soft drinks)
• Snorkel equipment and paddle boards to share
• Perfect for families
• Toilet onboard 
• Free cancellation

Formentera Catamaran Tour

• Spacious catamaran with large nets in front
• Open bar on board (soft drinks, water, sangria and beer)
• Lunch in front of Espalmador island : roast meat (chicken and pork), salads, Spanish tapas and fruits
• Stop for swimming and snorkelling next to Ses Illetes Beach
• Games onboard and water toys
• Perfect for family, toilet onboard
• Free cancellation 

• Blog about Ibiza
• Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy

• Ibiza Things To Do In April 2024
• Full Day Charter Yacht Ibiza with skipper and fuel included
• Half Day Boat Hire San Antonio Ibiza with skipper and fuel included
• Cala Bassa and Cala Conta Beach Boat Tours
• Top Rated Boat Excursions from San Antonio
• Rent a boat to Formentera – day charter
• Ibiza Excursions and Boat Tours from Playa den Bossa
• The best Formentera Tours from Ibiza in 2024
• Boat Tours and Excursions from San Antonio Ibiza
• Top Boat Tours 2024 – the best trips in Ibiza and Formentera
• All inclusive boat tour
• Ibiza Sunset Boat Trips

Start typing and press Enter to search

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. You must have JavaScript enabled in your browser to utilize the functionality of this website.

Delightful Ibiza catamaran tour to Formentera to the most beautiful beaches

• Cruise recommendation

Dreamlike excursion by catamaran from Ibiza to Formentera with bathing stops in front of paradisiacal beaches. Look forward to pure relaxation while sunbathing on the catamaran's nets and to snorkelling and swimming in crystal clear water. Lunch and drinks are included!

• Tour / activity duration: ~5 hours
• Languages: English, Spanish, Italian, French
• Transfer: no, not included
• The best insider tips
• English-speaking service
• Hassle-free booking change or cancellation
• Usually cheaper than at site

Please choose your tours or activities

• Reserve date later Reserve date later
• Reserve a date Reserve a date

Select your preferred date

* Required Fields

You can add a personal greeting, which will be shown on the voucher, during the last step of the checkout process. example 

Buy a voucher without a date

• You can buy a voucher for yourself or as a present for someone
• You or the person who got the present choose the date and time later
• Valid for one year from the date of purchase

Catamaran tour from Ibiza to Formentera through a beautiful nature reserve

Treat yourself with a perfect day on a catamaran tour from Ibiza, which takes you to Formentera's dream beaches - with food, drinks and two bathing stops.

Catamaran tour from Ibiza to Formentera

• Ibiza catamaran tour to Formentera - per adults (from 14 yrs) 79.-€
• Ibiza catamaran tour to Formentera - per child (3-13 yrs) 39.50€

Booking option: Catamaran tour from Ibiza to Formentera

You start the catamaran tour from Ibiza Town on a large and comfortable catamaran. You will have plenty of space on deck and on the wide net area to enjoy the journey through an impressive nature reserve to Formentera's dream beaches. You will pass the island of S'Espalmador and anchor in front of Illetes or Llevant beach.

• Duration: ~ 5 hours
• Hours: 9:30 AM - 2:30 PM
• Months: 21st of June - 27th of September
• Pick-up not included
• Starting points: Ibiza Town - Eivissa
• Snacks: crisps, dried fruit, biscuits / Buffet: pasta salad, roast beef, chicken sticks, fruit
• Swim stop(s), snorkeling mask, boat ride, bar / cafeteria on board, toilet on board
• Beverages: water, soft drinks, beer, sangria
• There is no shore leave during the catamaran tour. You anchor a little off the coast / in front of the beach.
• Not recommended for children who cannot swim.
• Not recommended for persons with reduced mobility due to lack of space on board.
• Maximum capacity of the catamaran: 100 persons

Preconditions

• Ability to swim

Please bring

Swimwear, towel, sunglasses, sun blocker, hat, small travel pharmacy (just in case)

Detailed description

Relax and enjoy life on the catamaran tour from ibiza to formentera.

Enjoy a wonderful day on the Balearic Islands and sail with a catamaran from Ibiza along the coast towards Formentera. First you will be welcomed on board until the check-in is completed and the catamaran leaves. The route follows the famous beaches of Playa d'en Bossa and Figueretas in Ibiza, which are popular for their long sandy beaches. Relax on the large catamaran nets and enjoy the warm rays of the sun and the fresh scent of the salty sea. You will pass through the Ses Salines Nature Reserve, located between the two Balearic Islands, where you will stop for a short swim. After a short drive you reach the nearby neighbouring island Formentera and anchor there either in front of the beach Playa de Ses Illetes or Playa de Llevant. The paradisiacal beaches of the small island are among the most beautiful in the world. Here we anchor extensively so that you can explore the fine white sandy beach and the crystal clear water in peace. Refresh yourself with an extensive swim or use the free snorkel equipment available on board to discover the wonderful underwater world. The crew on board will prepare the food for you while you enjoy yourself in the water. Drinks are included during the entire catamaran tour from Ibiza to Formentera. Let yourself be carried away by the breathtaking scenery in which you find yourself and enjoy the fantastic view, the bright sunshine and the good mood on board the catamaran. The beautiful excursion slowly comes to an end and you start the return journey towards Ibiza. Meanwhile, observe the shimmering Mediterranean Sea and the gradually disappearing neighbouring island of Formentera on deck. On the Ibiza Catamaran Tour to Formentera you can look forward to paradisiacal beaches, a friendly crew, cool drinks and delicious food.

Valid on the reserved day or for 12 months after date of purchase if no date has been selected. You will receive the tour operator's details with the purchased ticket. Attention: reservation is required! The reservation can be made through sunbonoo as part of the booking process or later by contacting the tour operator directly via phone or email.

Similar experiences

Others liked these tours, activities and excursions too:

• Best seller

Sailing trip off Formentera: half day tour from La Savina

Beach & Cave Boat Trip in Ibiza from San Antonio

from 159.-€

Boat trip from Ibiza (Playa d'en Bossa) to Formentera

Paradisiacal catamaran tour from Ibiza to Formentera's dream beach

• Special price

Ibiza boat trip to Es Vedra and Formentera from San Antonio

Ibiza: Formentera Boat Trip from Playa d'en Bossa or Puerto Formentera

• Instant ticket

All year round by ferry from Ibiza to Formentera

from 299.-€

Formentera: catamaran excursion (from Es Pujols)

Customer reviews catamaran tour from ibiza to formentera through a beautiful nature reserve, inmejorable.

Show translated review

Beautiful day!

Soo beautiful, das beste aus meinem urlaub, highly recommended, zum empfehlen, a delightful trip, write your own review.

Delightful Ibiza catamaran tour to Formentera to the most beautiful beaches.

• Summary of Your Review *

Our customers' questions

How do I receive my tickets?

Where is the meeting point / will I be picked up directly at my hotel when a transfer is possible?

Can I pay in cash directly when the tour / activity starts?

Can I book on short notice?

What happens if the weather is too bad to do the tour / activity?

How does a gift voucher work?

Are discounts possible?

Any questions?

More offers.

Holiday destination Ibiza

Tours, activities & excursions Ibiza

Book boat trips ibiza, catamaran tour ibiza.

Region Ibiza South

Tours, activities & excursions Ibiza South

Book boat trips ibiza south, catamaran tour ibiza south.

City Ibiza Town - Eivissa

Tours, activities & excursions Ibiza Town - Eivissa

Book boat trips ibiza town - eivissa, catamaran tour ibiza town - eivissa.

Cala Comte Private Catamaran Tour

• Driver/guide
• All taxes, fees and handling charges
• Snorkelling gear
• Paddle boarding
• Life jackets
• Our captains will take as many pictures as you want with your camera
• Paddle Board
• Megaboom Bluetooth Speakers so you can play your own music
• Feel free to bring your own food and drinks or also disembark for lunch.
• Rita's Cantina, Carrer de Madrid, 1, 07820 Sant Antoni de Portmany, Illes Balears, Spain
• Not wheelchair accessible
• Service animals allowed
• Near public transportation
• Infant seats available
• Confirmation will be received at time of booking
• May be operated by a multi-lingual guide
• A current valid passport is required on the day of travel
• Most travelers can participate
• This experience requires good weather. If it’s canceled due to poor weather, you’ll be offered a different date or a full refund
• This is a private tour/activity. Only your group will participate
• All sales are final and incur 100% cancellation penalties.
• You'll start at Rita's Cantina Carrer de Madrid, 1, 07820 Sant Antoni de Portmany, Illes Balears, Spain See address & details
• 1 Cala Comte Stop: 2 hours - Read more
• You'll return to the starting point

• rukmeep2018 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Highly recommend! Highly recommend this tour! Nacho is a great host and he knows the area really well! We had the best time on this tour and would definitely do it again Read more Written April 7, 2024
• 341athenal 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Highly Recommend Highly recommend booking! We celebrated our family/friends 30th birthday! Nacho was helpful, made us feel safe, and comfortable on our tour of the water. Very accommodating and flexible. We didn’t need to bring a cooler or speaker so it made it even more convenient. Read more Written April 7, 2024
• B5801LGjasminem 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Highly recommend! Highly recommend! Nacho made us feel comfortable and safe while out on the water. He is very kind and flexible. He had a cooler and speaker available for us to use which was great. We celebrated my sister’s birthday with friends. Definitely recommend! No lo Read more Written April 7, 2024
• maruschiyav 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Private catamaran for a bachelor party We booked a private catamaran to Formentera from Charteralia. We were a group of 11 girls celebrating a bachelor party and we had an amazing time. Our skipper Nacho was the best. He was very nice and adjusted the whole trip depending on what we prefered. If you’re looking to book a tour of the beaches or Formentera, don’t hesitate and book through Charteralia. They are professional and make sure that you get the best experience. Also don’t forget to ask for Nacho so you’re sure to enjoy the trip! Read more Written April 5, 2024
• 444nirut 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Great Day on a private boat ! Thank you Nacho for everything ! We had a great time for our sister’s hen party thanks to you ! We have privatised the boat for the occasion and everything went perfect ! We enjoyed the sunset ! I recommend 100% !! Read more Written April 5, 2024
• nevillet2019 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Amazing time with Nacho our skipper who was absolutely amazing. Amazing boat and skipper Nacho our skipper could not do enough for us, even booked us a wonderful restaurant to eat lunch I would highly recommend this as a day trip !! Read more Written April 5, 2024
• lisahE9432HS 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Gorgeous day on board with teo We had the best day with Teo, boat was lovely and clean, we got see some gorgeous views. We stopped for a swim and he had lots of snorkelling equipment we could use. Highly recommend Read more Written February 15, 2024
• luciabK3328AX 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles My best birthday in Ibiza I celebrated my birthday with friends and had a delightful day sailing with captain Martin Lyon - the blue sea, the swimming everything perfect in dr Jekyll ! Read more Written October 15, 2023
• 668rafaele 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Es Vedra rocks!! Amazing experience with Martin Lyon in Dr Jekyll! I speak in name of my friends to say we had a tremendous sailing epxerierence near iconic Es Vedra. We will come back next year! Thanks Captain! Read more Written October 12, 2023
• ignacios96 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Beautiful trip in catamaran Experiencing Ibiza by sea is really something that exceeded our expectations and the best decision of our holiday. Martin was very kind and took good care of us. The catamaran was well equipped with swimming gear and we could snorkel for hours. Excellent experience overall, would recommend! Read more Written October 12, 2023
• J213JQfeliciam 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Perfect sailing day Beautiful family day trip embarked in Dr. Jekyll with Martin. We very much enjoyed the experience, the sea and the views at the majestic es Vedra. With Martin there was a very nice atmosphere, he put some music and also shared some interesting conversations. Many thanks!! Read more Written October 12, 2023
• isabellepN9080ZK 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles The best time in formentera on the Dr.jeckyl! Amazing boat trip to formentera, we all had a wonderful time! Martin has taken us to some amazing spots and we just loved all the services provided on board! He was very attentive and took great care of us ensuring we would have a great time and we surely did! Definetly doing that again on our next trip! Read more Written October 11, 2023
• alexiafelixph 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Perfect day to Formentera ✨ Our vocation to ibiza wouldn’t have been perfect without a day to formentera ! This boat company and the Capitain whose kindness and smile made this adventure even more beautiful ✨ thanks Martin see you next year ! Read more Written October 11, 2023
• macarenau109 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Amazing experience! Strongly recommend it Amazing day sailing around Ibiza and Formentera in Dr. Jekyll!! Every time I travel to Formentera I make sure to spend a full day sailing and discovering the island by boat. I strongly recommend this company! Is safe, fun and they tell you everything you need to know! Read more Written October 9, 2023
• nachorr89 0 contributions 5.0 of 5 bubbles Formentera on Dr Jekyll with Martin Had the most amazing time on the Dr. Jekyll with my friends visiting Formentera, not only the weather was fantastic for sailing but the service was superb, Martin is a hell of a captain, really friendly, polite, responsible and punctual! Highly recommend to go with friends, family or couple, you wont regret it! Read more Written October 8, 2023

Most Recent: Reviews ordered by most recent publish date in descending order.

Detailed Reviews: Reviews ordered by recency and descriptiveness of user-identified themes such as wait time, length of visit, general tips, and location information.

Cala Comte Private Catamaran Tour provided by CharterAlia Boat Hire Ibiza

Joaquin Phoenix & Lady Gaga Find Love In 'Joker: Folie à Deux' Teaser Trailer - Watch Now!

Coachella 2024 Set Times Revealed, Surprise Performer Added to Lineup!

Louis Tomlinson Responds to 'Larry' Conspiracy Theories Involving Harry Styles Relationship

Zendaya Talks Tom Holland, What She Realized About Their Relationship, If She Has a Hollywood Friend Group, Why She Might Say 'No' to a Selfie, & More

Anitta 2024 Tour Dates & Cities Revealed for Baile Funk Experience!

Anitta is going out on tour!

The 31-year-old entertainer just announced her long-awaited tour, the BAILE FUNK EXPERIENCE tour, which kicks off next month in Mexico City.

Tickets for the Mexico City and South America dates will go on sale Thursday, April 11 at 10am local time. Tickets for U.S. dates will be go on sale to the general public on Friday, April 12 at 10am local time.

Keep reading to find out where Anitta will be headed…

BAILE FUNK EXPERIENCE 2024 Tour Dates

May 18, 2024 – Mexico City, MX Salon LA

May 21, 2024 – Los Angeles, CA The Wiltern

May 23, 2024 – Miami Beach, FL Filmore

May 26, 2024 – Orlando, FL Hard Rock Live

May 28, 2024 – Boston, MA MGM Music Hall at Fenway

May 29, 2024 – Toronto, ON HISTORY

June 1, 2024 – Chicago, IL Byline Bank Aragon Ballroom

June 2, 2024 – New York, NY Brooklyn Paramount

June 7, 2024 – Bogota, Columbia Lourdes Music Hall

June 9, 2024 – Lima, Peru CCB

June 14, 2024 – Santiago, Chile Basel

June 16, 2024 – Buenos Aires, Argentina Vorterix

June 25, 2024 – Berlin, Germany Metropol

June 26, 2024 – Amsterdam, Netherlands Melkweg

June 28, 2024 – London, United Kingdom O2 Kentish Town Forum

June 29, 2024 – Paris, France Elysee Montmartre

July 1, 2024 – Ibiza, Spain Pacha

July 3, 2024 – Madrid, Spain Sala La Riviera

July 4, 2024 – Barcelona, Spain Razzmatazz

July 7, 2024 – Milan, Italy Fabrique

July 8, 2024 – Ibiza, Spain Pacha

If you didn’t see, Anitta made quite a splash on the red carpet at the Vanity Fair Oscar Party last month by wearing a completely see-through dress that showed everything underneath. She wore no bra and just a pair of panties to cover up.

JJ: Latest Posts

• Fire Breaks Out on Set of 'Tamron Hall...
• 'The Jinx Part Two' Trailer Teases...
• The Most Popular 'NCIS' Cast Members,...
• Sam Taylor Johnson Reveals If Her Kids...
• First Look at Joshua Colley &...
• 'RuPaul's Drag Race' Star Katya...
• 'Legend of the Lost Locket' - 2 'When...
• Princess Anne's Son Peter Phillips...
• Halle Bailey Shares Hot Bikini Photos...
• Megan Thee Stallion Bares All on...
• Shemar Moore Reveals If He'd Return to...
• Travis Kelce Jokes About How He Ended...
• Outlander's Showrunner Responds to...
• 'Sanditon' Seasons Ranked From Worst...

Just Jared Jr.

• Walker Scobell Meets Fellow Percy...
• 'Pretty Little Liars: Summer School'...
• Get to Know 'I Woke Up a Vampire' Star...
• Nicholas Galitzine Talks Thoughts Of...
• The Little Mermaid's Halle Bailey...
• Smosh's Courtney Miller & Shayne...
• Charithra Chandran & Sebastian...
• © 2005-2024 Just Jared, Inc. ||
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Manage Cookies
• Return to Mobile

27. Sail the Ibiza coast on a luxurious, private catamaran for your group of up to 11 people, with seven hours to swim, snorkel, paddle board, and soak up the sun on deck. Cruise to Cala Comte Beach, one of Ibiza's best beaches, navigate to Conejera Island, then catch a classic Ibiza sunset by Café del Mar.

Safari Beach Tour Ibiza. 23. 4WD Tours. from . $198.29. per adult (price varies by group size) Private Catamaran Cruise Trip in Formentera & Espalmador . 108. Full-day Tours. from . $1,597.33. ... Catamaran Experience Ibiza - All You Need to Know BEFORE You Go (2024) $ USD. United States

13. Private Boat Rental Sea Ray up to 8 people Ibiza-Formentera. 6. Full-day Tours. 6+ hours. Private excursion to the island of Formentera for a maximum of 9 people, with the cheapest prices in Ibiza and with the …. Free cancellation. from. $810.

Adults: 69,00€ - Kids: 25,00€. SAN ANTONIO 15:00 H. Mar Amantis Hotel 15:05 h. Park your car, escape from traffic jams and come to discover a different boat trip. We will stop at two of the best beaches on the island (Cala Bassa and Cala Conta) with plenty of time to explore them before contemplating the wonderful sunset from Café Mambo.

Ibiza Beach Hopping Cruise with Paddleboards, Drinks and Food. 6h. 2,997. Every member of your party will find something to enjoy on this action-packed day cruise. The double-decker glass-bottomed catamaran will stop at two of the finest beaches on Ibiza's west coast, Cala Bassa and Cala Conta.

Here you will find an overview of the most popular catamaran tours in Ibiza. Half day or full day tours with skipper, food and drinks. Island-wide excursions on modern catamarans can be booked online at a reduced price. Also exclusive catamaran tours for groups or companies available. from 89.-€.

Embark on a unique experience and discover the magic of Ibiza in the best possible way on our exclusive Lagoon 400 catamaran (40 feet). Our private tours offer a trip that goes beyond navigation, offering a truly unforgettable experience always with safety on board as a standard.

Boat trips around Ibiza. Catamaran Capitán Nemo with underwater vision (glass-bottom boat). 10% discount booking now. ... Do you know our tours? At Nautilus Ibiza we have been making the best excursions and boat cruises in Ibiza for 35 years, with our Captain Nemo catamarans. We have a varied offer of excursions, which are carried out daily ...

After leaving the port of Ibiza we will navigate towards the costs of this amazing island. Dive into the crystal-clear waters during our swim stop and immerse yourself in the natural beauty that surrounds you. The golden sands and turquoise waters of Ibiza create a postcard-perfect backdrop, offering you the perfect opportunity to relax and unwind.

Catamaran Flow Ibiza Catamaran's Name: Flow | Enrollment: 6ª MH-1-66-17 | Charter license number 0750/2023

Our exciting Ibiza Catamaran Tour includes: Roundtrip transfers: we take care of your comfort from start to finish. Our shuttle service will comfortably take you to the catamaran and pick you up after the tour. Complimentary drinks: Enjoy refreshing drinks, cocktails and delicious snacks throughout the tour. We'll make sure you want for nothing.

4 hours catamaran tour in ibiza Embark on a catamaran tour from San Antonio, and experience an unforgettable adventure in the Mediterranean Sea!! Enjoy a fresh barbecue on board, fresh salads, tropical fruits, snorkeling gear, stand up paddleboard, drinks, and music, all in the company of a friendly crew.

Experience an unforgettable day at sea and discover the most beautiful bays of Ibiza with the 100% Solar Catamaran Tour on Ibiza. The solar catamaran on Ibiza is equipped with an incredible sound system and even while swimming in the water you can enjoy your favourite music. All excursions are organised by experienced and passionate sailors. Choose between 3 different catamaran tours on Ibiza ...

Ibiza Catamaran tour beaches is a unique and unforgettable experience designed for all those visitors, who year after year return to our charming island and also for those who visit us for the first time !! Sail away with us to our new and exciting catamaran adventure for families, couples and anybody that enjoys the picturesque views of San ...

Directions. To navigate to the private catamaran tour meeting point at Tropicana Eivissa Cala Jondal in Ibiza, travelers can follow the detailed address of Cala Jundal, s/n, 07830 Sant Josep de sa Talaia, Illes Balears, Spain. Enjoy scenic routes along the coast when driving to the meeting point.

The catamaran tour around Ibiza includes a wide range of exciting and convenient inclusions for guests to enjoy. Safety instructions for snorkeling and paddleboarding are provided to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience. Guests are given thorough guidance on how to use the snorkeling equipment and paddleboards, ensuring they can confidently ...

Catamaran Ibiza tours for your family events and friends. The vessel is spacious, stable and has all the commodities and equipment necessary to spend a special and unforgettable holiday. Our Catamaran is booked with a profesional Captain in order to enjoy life on board without any concern or responsibility. The Captain will take care of ...

On Catamaran Ibiza tour you will discover one of the most beautiful coasts of Ibiza. Catamaran leavse from the port of San Antonio. You will visit Cala Bassa beach and Cala Conta beach. During the cruise you will have open bar. Drinks and food are included in the price.

Dreamlike excursion by catamaran from Ibiza to Formentera with bathing stops in front of paradisiacal beaches. Look forward to pure relaxation while sunbathing on the catamaran's nets and to snorkelling and swimming in crystal clear water. Lunch and drinks are included! Tour / activity duration: ~5 hours. Languages: English, Spanish, Italian ...

Private Catamaran Tour around Ibiza. 4. Full-day Tours. from . $1,550.00. per group (up to 11) Formentera Day Trip from Ibiza on Private Luxury Catamaran. 141. Full-day Tours. from . $3,263.74. per group (up to 12) Discover Cala Bassa and Cala Comte on board a catamaran. 5. On the Water. from . $1,311.03.

Anitta 2024 Tour Dates & Cities Revealed for Baile Funk Experience! Anitta is going out on tour! ... July 1, 2024 - Ibiza, Spain Pacha. July 3, 2024 - Madrid, Spain Sala La Riviera . July 4 ...

• schnellboot