Bringing order or creating exclusion: systems for managing disability in a university

PurposeClassification schemes make things happen. The Australian Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which derives its classification system from the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), legislates for adjustments to support the inclusion of people with disability. This study explores how students with disability enrolled in a university experience the systems intended to facilitate their studying “on the same basis” as students without disability.Design/methodology/approachThrough an online questionnaire and interviews comprising open and closed questions made available to students registered with the disability services unit of a university and follow-up interviews with a small number of students, students’ views of their own disability and effects on their participation in learning were gathered, alongside reports of their experiences of seeking support in their learning. Interview data and responses to open-ended questions were analysed using a priori and emergent coding.FindingsThe findings demonstrate that students are aware of the workings of the classification scheme and that most accept them. However, some students put themselves outside of the scheme, often as a way to exercise autonomy or to assert their “ability”, while others are excluded from it by the decisions of academic staff. Thus, the principles of fairness and equity enshrined in legislation and policy are weakened.Originality/valueThrough the voices of students with disability, it is apparent that, even though a student's classification according to the DDA and associated university policy remains constant, the outcomes of the workings of the scheme may reveal inconsistencies, emerging from the complexity of bureaucracy, processes and the exercises of power.

THE ANTICIPATORY REASONABLE ADJUSTMENT DUTY: REMOVING THE BLOCKAGES?

The anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty, introduced by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and now found in the Equality Act 2010, has been hailed as an innovative and proactive tool for embedding disability equality in services and public functions. Despite important successes, the duty has had a surprisingly low profile in academic scholarship and has struggled to fulfil its practical potential. We seek to understand how this has happened, identifying a range of factors that may operate as blockages to the success of the duty. Whilst these factors are interrelated, we group them under three main headings – visibility, uncertainty and enforcement. We reflect critically on whether, and if so how, relevant blockages can be tackled to enable the duty to embed disability equality more effectively within services and public functions and whether new supplementary measures (particularly concerning accessibility) are also needed.

DDA 1995, 2005 or 605?

In DDA 1995, 2005 or 605? Hanaa Sayed briefly explores the Five Pillars of Islam and how they catered to those with disabilities thousands of years prior to modern laws preventing workplace disability discrimination (Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA, 1995)).

Missing the mark or scoring a goal? Achieving non-discrimination for students with disability in primary and secondary education in Australia: A scoping review

Australia has legislation in the form of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Cth) that has the objective of eliminating disability discrimination. The purpose of this scoping review was to determine the extent to which this legislation is achieving the elimination of discrimination against students with disability in primary and secondary schooling. The review reports on the findings of a systematic search of law and education databases that identified 18 peer-reviewed articles discussing the legislation, relevant literature and related case law in the context of the education of students with disability in Australia. Content analysis of the articles indicated the existence of problems in several areas of the intersection between the law, policy and practice. These are outlined under five key themes: inclusion/exclusion, jurisdictions and definitions, the complaints-driven system, legislation clarity and reasonable adjustments. The review concludes with recommendations and suggestions for action.

Commentary on “The bounds of liberty: lessons learnt from treating a man with alcohol use disorder, autism and learning disability”

Purpose In commenting on the issues raised by Drake et al. the purpose of this paper is to discuss three areas of practice: assessing capacity in the presence of intransigence and/or rigid patterns of thinking and behaviour; understanding addiction in this context; and identifying “reasonable adjustments” in the way addiction and substance misuse services are provided to this client group. Design/methodology/approach As well as discussing the issues raised by Drake et al. the commentary refers to a serious case review exploring similar issues. Findings Both the case discussed by Drake et al. and the serious case review draw attention to the importance of identifying “reasonable adjustments” to current practice. Research limitations/implications While the implications of the cases discussed are very significant, further work quantifying the scope of the problems identified would be very useful. Practical implications The 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (UK) requires public services to make “reasonable adjustments” in order for people with a range of disabilities to access their services on an equitable basis. This paper identifies what some of those areas of difficulty might be. Originality/value This is a relatively new area of work and expertise in both mainstream addiction and specialist intellectual disability and mental health services needs to be developed in order for them to provide more coherent and accessible programmes to individuals.

Disability discrimination in children’s sport

This article examines how the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) relates to children’s sport. More specifically, this article asks: how does the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) address the treatment of children with disabilities participating in competitive sport? This article asserts that the ‘attitude’ in and around the construction of sport is framed in the ableism perspective that assumes ability. While there are specific disability sports, with rules designed to accommodate the different attributes people may possess, this article focuses on the nature and quality of access to, and experience in, sport that is not disability specific (mainstream sport), and argues that the law fails to protect children with disability being treated in a way that places them at a disadvantage. The primary concern raised by this article is that children with disability are not provided with fairness in competitive sport. This may be discriminatory.