Introduction
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed in 1990, has significantly improved the lives of disabled individuals, in particular, by facilitating their access to public spaces. However, these people are still faced with injustices, and such factors as gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and religion may further worsen their experiences. For example, according to the National Disability Institute, 20% of disabled people lost their jobs due to COVID-19, but among people from racial minority groups, this percentage was 35% (2). Therefore, there is a need to protect not only disabled individuals as a whole but also specific vulnerable groups of them, whose intersecting identities cause them to experience inequalities in several dimensions.
Addressing this issue is important because it has real-life stakes for multiple stakeholders. First and foremost, it affects individuals with disabilities who may face discrimination in employment, education, housing, or the use of different services. The more vulnerable identities individuals possess, the higher is the risk that they will face injustices. Other stakeholders in the problem of protecting disability rights are community groups and various organizations. They are responsible for developing the right attitudes toward disabled people and providing the necessary accommodations to ensure equal access. Finally, the government is a key actor in developing and implementing disability justice policies, making sure that all disabled individuals, regardless of gender, race, and other demographic characteristics, have equal rights. Since scholars have identified that race and gender may aggravate injustices experienced by disabled people, there is a need to build on this work by including an intersectional perspective in disability justice policies.
Call to Action
Disregarding the intersectional character of disabilities leads to the situation when some individuals appear to be more burdened by disability than others. Jampel uses the “basement metaphor” to describe this phenomenon (123). This metaphor suggests that all people disadvantaged in terms of race, sexual orientation, gender, age, class, or physical ability occupy the basement. However, those burdened by a disadvantage in a single dimension are placed at the top, while those influenced by a full range of factors are located at the bottom. This metaphor clearly shows that the more disadvantaged identities a person incorporates, the more injustices he or she will be likely to experience.
The government plays a significant role in sanctioning discrimination against vulnerable populations. Schalk and Kim argue that state apparatuses, such as schools, prisons, the police, and welfare systems, often operate as “instruments of mass disablement” since they “regularly brutalize those who are poor, undocumented, black, brown, disabled, trans, and/or gender nonconforming” (43). As long as this continues to be true, American society will not be able to reach equality and justice for all regardless of their personal differences.
Until society provides equal protection to all its members, disabled people, especially those of minority groups, will keep struggling in their everyday lives. For example, Jimmy Lebrecht, a disability rights activist who was born with a birth defect preventing him from using his legs, described his everyday experiences as follows: “I had to try to adapt. I had to fit into this world that wasn’t built for me” (Crip Camp). American society needs to change in order to ensure that no one feels as if this world were not built for them. The ADA was a crucial step toward this goal, but more action is needed to make further improvements. Disability justice policymakers should take into account that people disadvantaged in several dimensions need special attention and incorporate the intersectional perspective into disability rights policies.
Review of the Literature
Intersectionality is a relatively new concept in the field of disability studies, but scholars have already made certain progress in researching this question. Intersectionality is defined as “major social identities that are created within systems of privilege and oppression, including race, class, gender, sexuality, (dis)ability, age, nationality, and ethnicity” (Schalk 7). In other words, it refers to individuals’ identities that place them in more or less privileged or oppressed groups. This section will provide scholarly evidence supporting the argument that disabled people with a disadvantaged racial and gender background are the most vulnerable groups within the population and, thus, need special protection.
The Intersection of Disability and Gender
The intersection of gender and disability shows the difference in experiences of disabled men and women. Disability is itself a disadvantaging factor because contemporary society is based on ableism, which is “the system that oppresses people with nonnormative bodies and minds” (Jampel 123). Regarding gender, men are considered a privileged group, while women, transgender, and genderqueer may experience a certain degree of discrimination. When these two factors are combined, one may see that a disabled woman will be in a less advantageous position than a disabled man. The intersection of their social identities will lead them to have different positions in society.
The study conducted by Brown and Moloney demonstrated how intersecting gender and disability affected the workplace experiences of individuals. Their findings showed that working women with disabilities were more likely to be employed in low-income, stressful, less prestigious, less creative, and less autonomous jobs than women without disabilities and men with and without disabilities (Brown and Moloney 111). As a result, disabled women experienced less satisfaction from their work and more depressive symptoms (Brown and Moloney 112). The results of this study prove that women with disabilities have a double disadvantage stemming from their disability and gender. Therefore, injustices experienced by them should be specifically addressed by disability justice policies, particularly those related to equal employment opportunities.
The Intersection of Disability and Race
The race is another important factor that may worsen the experiences of inequalities in disabled individuals. According to the National Disability Institute, there are several categories of people subject to historic and systemic racism: indigenous, black, and people of color (1). When individuals from these groups acquire disabilities, they experience a combined effect of disability and racial discrimination. This influence is clearly seen from the data about economic inequalities among Americans reported by the National Disability Institute. For example, evidence shows that the poverty rate is 11% among Americans without a disability and 26% among those with a disability, which implies that disabled individuals are more vulnerable to poverty (National Disability Institute 4). However, the percentage of poor individuals among the disabled population is spread unevenly among different races. The group least subject to poverty is non-Hispanic whites, with only 23% of them living in poverty (National Disability Institute 4). In contrast, 36% of disabled black people, 34% of indigenous individuals, and 28% of Hispanic people with disabilities are poor (National Disability Institute 4). This data shows that economic inequalities disproportionately affect disabled individuals, but among them, people of disadvantageous racial backgrounds are subject to the greatest negative impact.
The economic inequalities among disabled individuals of different racial backgrounds are not limited to poverty rates. The educational levels also differ among Americans: the percentage of people with a Bachelor’s degree or higher is 35% among those without disabilities and only 15% among disabled individuals (National Disability Institute 5). Among those with disabilities, black, indigenous, and Hispanic individuals have lower education levels than whites (National Disability Institute 5). Hence, disabled individuals are affected by educational disparities, and racial minorities experience a larger negative impact due to the combined effect of race and disability.
The National Disability Institute also reports that disabled people of disadvantageous racial backgrounds have fewer savings, lower household net worth, and a higher percentage of job loss (6). Finally, households with at least one disabled member are more likely to spend over 30% of their income on housing costs, and this percentage is higher among black and Hispanic individuals (National Disability Institute 8). Thus, one may conclude that disabled people, especially black, indigenous, and people of color, are subject to significant economic inequalities. In order to improve their quality of life, it is important to include an intersectional perspective in disability justice policies to ensure that their interests are taken into account.
The Compound Effect of Disability, Race, and Gender
It has been demonstrated that race and gender, taken separately, aggravate inequalities experienced by disabled individuals. When these three social identities intersect – as it occurs, for example, in disabled black women – the burden of the disability becomes even worse. Several studies have investigated and confirmed this phenomenon. For example, a study conducted by Mendoza et al. aimed to explore the intersection of race, gender, and disability to explain students’ risk of contact with juvenile justice (226). Their findings indicated that having a disability and a disadvantageous gender and racial background caused students to be at risk of juvenile justice contact. For example, although individuals with intellectual disabilities are usually excused from inappropriate behaviors, this is not the case for African American students with intellectual disabilities (Mendoza et al. 231). Further, the risk of juvenile justice contact is increased in individuals with emotional behavior disorders, and it is even higher in females and African American males (Mendoza et al. 232). Thus, disability may predispose students to juvenile justice contact, especially if they are female or come from racial minority groups.
Another study conducted by Maroto et al. aimed to investigate the intersection between disability, gender, race, and education and its effect on economic insecurity. The researchers found that the negative impact of disability led to “hierarchies of disadvantage” (Maroto et al. 66). It means that women and racial minorities with disabilities and lower levels of education were the most economically insecure. They had the lowest income, the highest poverty rates, and the greatest reliance on government support (Maroto et al. 66). Because of their intersecting identities of being disabled, female, and not white, these people are the most vulnerable group of the population, which is why they need special protection.
Finally, there is another real-life example of how people with disabilities experience injustices, which are aggravated by their race and gender. During hurricane Katrina, there were people who did not evacuate. They included those who “lacked public transportation, misjudged the storm, were limited by their own or a family member’s physical disability, and were more likely to be lifetime New Orleans residents” (Jampel 127). Those disabled individuals who managed to evacuate struggled in the new environment because they lost their assistive devices, and there was a lack of spaces designed for the disabled (Jampel 127). Apart from negatively affecting disabled individuals, hurricane Katrina caused further disablement. According to Jampel, those who were more likely to become disabled were female and racial minority groups (127). This was because they were more likely to live in areas that were the most damaged. Furthermore, women had to take care of their children, which prevented them from leaving their households right away. This example shows that when adversity happens, disabled people, especially women and racial minorities, are likely to take the most damage.
Acknowledgment of Opposition Views
Based on the evidence above, it is clear that disabled people are a vulnerable group of the population whose rights have to be protected to ensure greater equality and justice. Yet, some people oppose activists’ efforts to ensure that disabled people receive the same treatment and those without disabilities. According to Pettinicchio, there have even been attempts to repeal the ADA, which would prevent disabled people from using Medicaid funding for receiving in-home care. Some progress has been made to create barriers to disabled individuals’ rights. For example, accessibility requirements for medical equipment or websites are no longer enforced (Pettinicchio). There are two main arguments that opponents use to object to the protection of disabled people’s rights. First, they claim that abiding by laws that ensure equal rights for disabled people is costly (Pettinicchio). Second, they argue that giving special treatment to the group of individuals with disabilities would undermine the use of services by everybody else (Pettinicchio). However, these arguments do not seem compelling enough for American society to stop defending disabled people’s rights.
Both arguments are flawed because they are based on the culture of ableism. This culture is discriminatory by its nature because it perceives individuals with disabilities as “unwanted ‘Others’ in society,” which results in their marginalization, stigmatization, and segregation (Jampel 124). Ableism is unethical not only because it views some people as more valuable than others but also because it disregards that all people are likely to acquire disabilities, especially as they age. Therefore, claiming that meeting the needs of the disabled population is too costly or will interfere with the needs of others is unethical since it deems disabled people unworthy of equal treatment. As Judith Huemann, an American disability rights activist, rightly noted, “If I have to feel thankful about an accessible bathroom, when am I ever gonna be equal in the community?” (Crip Camp). Society has to abandon ableist thinking and accept that all people, regardless of their abilities, race, gender, and other characteristics, deserve equal treatment.
Further, the argument that ensuring disability rights is expensive does not seem to prove that the government should not protect the disabled population. Although it may indeed be costly, it is the question of priorities whether the authorities can allocate funds to increasing public spaces accessibility and providing other accommodations to disabled individuals. For example, the government could revise its financing strategy for prisons and reallocate funds to programs designed to help disabled individuals.
Finally, it would be wrong to think that protecting the rights of disabled people would infringe the rights of others. Disability justice activists promote the idea that “All bodies are whole. All bodies have strengths and needs that must be met” (Sins Invalid). This does not imply that only disabled people’s needs should be met. Instead, it means that, in its pursuit of raising the standards of life, society should shift its focus from benefiting only the privileged group to improving the well-being of everyone. In other words, society should account for the interests of different groups of people, regardless of their ability status, race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other social identities. Having accessible websites will not prevent people without visual impairments from using them but will make their use much easier for people with disabilities. Accessible medical equipment will not deprive non-disabled individuals of receiving quality healthcare but will facilitate its provision to those with disabilities. Employing talented disabled people will not damage businesses because they will perform their tasks as effectively as those without disabilities. Protecting disabled people will not worsen the lives of others, but it will significantly improve the well-being of the most vulnerable population.
Consideration on Implementing the Intersectional Approach to Disability Justice
This section will provide some practical considerations related to the integration of the intersectional approach into disability justice policies. First, it has been mentioned above that disabled people, especially women and racial minority groups, experience inequalities in employment. They earn lower wages and have less autonomy, and even though employers may support the idea of hiring disabled individuals, actual hiring practices often diverge from these intentions. However, this can and should change, and the current situation with the pandemic has provided opportunities for employers to consider hiring more disabled individuals. COVID-19 has reshaped the workplace by removing barriers to working from home, making employment more accessible for those who had such obstacles as assistive technology and transportation (National Disability Institute 11). Therefore, employees can reach this new talent pool by collaborating with organizations dealing with vocational rehabilitation and disability employment.
Further, the financial institutions covered by the Community Reinvestment Act also have the power to assist the most vulnerable groups of the population – people with disabilities, especially women and racial minorities. According to the National Disability Institute, the Act now clearly targets disabled individuals among low- and middle-income groups (11). Therefore, this Act presents an opportunity to provide the necessary financial support to disabled individuals.
One more consideration is related to ABLE accounts. Available for individuals since 2015, they provide disabled people with an opportunity to make tax-advantaged savings that do not affect people’s eligibility for means-tested programs. According to the National Disability Institute, this instrument is currently underutilized (11). Therefore, there is a need to increase the awareness of this program among disabled individuals, especially the most vulnerable of them – women and racial minorities. Educational efforts could help these people learn how to use the tool and, thus, increase their financial security.
Conclusion
Disabled people face many inequalities in different areas of life, including education and employment. The most vulnerable individuals in this group are those who experience the effect of intersecting disadvantageous social identities. Although some people think that protecting disability rights is costly and may negatively affect the use of services by other people, these arguments are unethical. They are based on ableism and consider one group of people to be superior to others. Yet, disability is just another form of being, and disabled people deserve to be treated as fairly as those without disabilities. Therefore, policies protecting disability rights are necessary. They should pay special attention to the most vulnerable members of this community who may experience discrimination not only based on their disabilities but also based on their race and gender.
Works Cited
Brown, Robyn Lewis, and Mairead Eastin Moloney. “Intersectionality, Work, and Well-Being: The Effects of Gender and Disability.” Gender & Society, vol. 33, no. 1, 2019, pp. 94-122.
Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution. Directed by Nicole Newnham and James Lebrecht, Netflix, 2020.
Jampel, Catherine. “Intersections of Disability Justice, Racial Justice and Environmental Justice.” Environmental Sociology, vol. 4, no. 1, 2018, pp. 122-135.
Maroto, Michelle, et al. “Hierarchies of Categorical Disadvantage: Economic Insecurity at the Intersection of Disability, Gender, and Race.” Gender & Society, vol. 33, no. 1, 2019, pp. 64-93.
Mendoza, Martin, et al. “Race, Gender, and Disability and the Risk for Juvenile Justice Contact.” The Journal of Special Education, vol. 53, no. 4, 2020, pp. 226-235.
National Disability Institute. “Race, Ethnicity and Disability: The Financial Impact of Systematic Inequality and Intersectionality.” NDI, Aug. 2020, Web.
Pettinicchio, David. “Why Disabled Americans Remain Second-Class Citizens.” The Washington Post, Web.
Schalk, Sami. Bodyminds Reimagined: (Dis)ability, Race, and Gender in Black Women’s Speculative Fiction. Duke University Press, 2018.
Schalk, Sami, and Jina B. Kim. “Integrating Race, Transforming Feminist Disability Studies.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 46, no. 1, 2020, pp. 31-55.
Sins Invalid. “All Bodies Are Whole.” Disability Arts Online, Web.