1 Disabling Injustice in the Higher Education Classroom Daniel W. Eadens, Danielle M. Eadens, & Christopher Lanterman *Daniel W. Eadens Associate Professor Educational Leadership and Higher Education College of Community Innovation and Education University of Central Florida 12494 University Boulevard P. O. Box 161250 Orlando, FL 32816-1250 USA Phone: 727.831.1968 Email: Daniel.Eadens@ucf.edu Danielle M. Eadens Lecturer Interdisciplinary Studies College of Undergraduate Studies University of Central Florida 12796 Aquarius Agora Drive Orlando, FL 32816-1998 USA Phone: 407.823.0144 Email: Danielle.Eadens@ucf.edu Christopher S. Lanterman Assistant Professor Department of Educational Specialties College of Education Northern Arizona University 801 S. Knoles Dr. PO Box 5774 Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5774 USA Phone: 928.523.3575 Email: Chris.Lanterman@nau.edu Corresponding Author: *Daniel W. Eadens 2 Abstract This chapter explores perspectives in higher education classrooms, specifically the need for social justice in education through inclusive and universal design/universal design for learning (UD/UDL). The authors contacted colleagues regarding what worked to change paradigms and perspectives around issues of social justice and advocacy in classrooms. Three themes emerged, mirroring those of the literature reviewed: scholarly strategies, structured activities, and amplifying marginalized voices. The authors also discuss how accessible and inclusive approaches disable injustice and ableism in higher education classrooms by recognizing disability as an element of diversity and the need for inclusive approaches on college campuses and beyond. An implication is that faculty should discuss ableism and predominant ableist societal structures as people with disabilities are too often marginalized within schools, workplaces, and society. Social justice in education is incomplete when disability is viewed only as a medical condition within educational contexts and not as identity or a legitimate identity in the diversity discourse. Inclusion and UD/UDL within the learning environment may afford opportunities to elaborate socially just methods of teaching and learning. The potential for inclusion and UD/UDL to frame and reframe perspectives and beliefs about equity and difference in educational is powerful. Faculty can guide students to create new paradigms to lead to an inclusive society where diversity of all kinds is celebrated and embraced. Keywords Ableism, Accessibility, Accommodations, Disability, Social Justice, Universal Design for Learning 3 Introduction Since Harvard University in the United States was established in 1636, higher education in the nation has evolved immensely. Today, it seems as though change is occurring more rapidly than ever in both society and higher education. In this chapter within the context of evolving changes and interventions occurring in higher education, specifically in the realm of social justice and paradigms around disability, we deal with minimizing or hopefully ending injustice within the higher education classroom. Like society, social injustices are prevalent along with many forms of bias within higher education classrooms. Many US institutions have formal policies that prohibit discrimination such as Title IX and faculty and student handbooks. Institutions that receive federal and state funding are, in fact, required to provide periodic trainings, lest they have a founded civil rights complaint, lose their funding, and worse perpetuate or allow discrimination in the classroom or on campus. Targeted professional development and extensive diversity training with a multiplicity of certifications abound in higher education settings. These measures are designed to educate faculty and students, and shift the culture away from discrimination and social injustice within classrooms. This discussion lays a foundation to disabling injustice in the higher education classroom by shifting student paradigms towards thinking about themselves in relation to the most vulnerable within our society. Higher education has the potential to change human lives one class at a time. Hanson (2014) described the transformative potential that higher education offers students: “the experience of schooling holds the potential to serve as a life-changing milepost .... Schools hold the promise of helping students to develop wiser, more thoughtful, and idealistic versions of 4 themselves” (p. 12). Thus, one of the purposes of education is self-enlightenment, and another is societal good and improvement. Many would claim that over the last decade, societies have experienced monumental shifts. Understandings in education and society of social justice are dramatically evolving. One key that applies to the concepts discussed in this chapter is that of the “diffused and centralized model, that is agency and responsibility shared between all, including center and periphery” (Blackmore, 2013, p. 1008) as “the price is too high for individuals to ignore social injustices seething with years of unresolved inequities and discontentment” (Eadens & Eadens, 2016b, p. 349). For instance, as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement, which was founded July 2013 and was highlighted as of late after the tragic deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and far too many other victims have resulted in large-scale protests all over the world. Black voices are being magnified concerning the shared responsibility towards equity for all. Most universities have made public statements about the need to be actively anti-racist. This marked shift in approach among higher education institutions lays a strong foundation towards the need to disable injustices. There is a collective move to create a classroom where students are assisted as they examine their own paradigms about the way the world works and to develop a shared vision about needed equity-promoting institutional, to listen to the experiences of those different from themselves, and encourage self-examination of bias and privilege. This anti-racist approach is a large-scale intervention across universities towards shifting their ideologies. In fact, it is now a measure upon which all decisions and policies must be examined at every university. The standard and requirement for accessibility for students with disabilities (SWD) in universities is another large-scale intervention, though its implementation and attitudes about 5 such implementation might vary across higher education institutions. We consider perspectives about social justice education in higher education classrooms, specifically the need for social justice in education through inclusive and universal design/universal design for learning (UD/UDL). For large scale change, Goodman et al. (2015) noted the need for a commitment from the entire faculty to teach from a social justice perspective rather than only a handful of who specialize in social justice issues. In order to shift perspectives on a larger scale in higher education, all faculty must see themselves as a social justice educator. Papa and Papa (2016) discussed this need, … it is the mission of all college/university instructors to become social justice instructors across the disciplines at the college/university level and encourage their adult learners to grow in their understanding of others, in this diverse world. … Preservation of difference and diversity is key to maintaining culture in our society. (p. 28; italics in original) Practices from Literature on Changing Perspectives There are many strategies proposed in the literature to develop a social justice agenda in higher education classrooms. Wagner and Shajahan (2015) note the need to utilize “pedagogical strategies that foster embodied ways of knowing ... in anti-oppressive pedagogy” (p. 245). Decker, Manis, and Paylo (2016) recommended that all social justice advocacy strategies be grounded in critical pedagogy as this “offer[s] an intuitive fit for raising awareness of culture and the related societal dynamics of privilege and oppression ... given the roots of the theory in civil and human rights movement” (p. 7). Malott and Knoper (2012) supported the need to have social justice integrated via an interdisciplinary model into the foundation of programs themselves, “informing the mission statement, hiring practices, and course curriculum” (p. 24). 6 The human body can be used as an embodied teaching tool in social justice instruction. As discussed by Wagner and Shajahan (2015), coauthor Shahjahan uses a guided meditation activity at the start of his academic administration graduate classes to help students become grounded within their bodies as they explore multiple ways of knowing; for example, students are guided through an activity on privilege and debrief about their emotional and bodily responses. The authors emphasize the need to have students explore concepts not just intellectually and verbally, but viscerally through their physical bodies and emotional responses. Wagner and Shajahan talk openly about their different experiences as faculty at the same institution. Author Wagner describes herself as a tenured, white, middle-aged, able-bodied woman who is free to experiment with teaching methods in her undergraduate classrooms. Author Shajahan describes himself as an untenured man of color working in a predominantly white institution where students who evaluate his teaching often question his explicit focus on social justice issues, thereby minimizing his “challenges of teaching from a critical theoretical perspective, a racially minoritized positionality, and drawing on multiple worldviews” (p. 252). Wagner and Shajahan (2015) continue this discussion. They said, What is particularly striking is that this institutional context contributes to feelings of shame for minoritized faculty, where we constantly feel like we are flawed or somehow lacking as teachers, as students are not ‘getting it.’ In [Shajahan’s] experience, the remnants of students’ resistance get lodged in the body, and although hard to let go of during the class, it really manifests after class, when feelings of guilt and shame linger and he starts to question what he could have said or done differently. (p. 252) Further, they explain that 7 Such reactions are not surprising, given the context of the neoliberal university that promotes individualism at the expense of more collective approaches. Teaching a critical embodied approach in a context where most do not understand such pedagogy is necessarily a fraught endeavor. (p. 252) Each discipline has scholarly resources that discuss how social justice instruction is incorporated into programs. While certainly not an exhaustive list, some of the techniques suggested in social justice instruction practices described are next explored. From an anthropological perspective, Samuels (2018) suggested that mobilizing cultural heritage can be a persuasive tool for transformative action that is capable of shaping and mobilizing forms of social change. Of particular note, she argues that the concept of transnational heritage can shift the field from a preservation to a developmental paradigm through the persuasive power of heritage from a transnational perspective. Some of the specific strategies Decker et al. (2016) recommended within their counselor education program , which can be integrated into multiple programs, include the following: addressing roles and mandates early and often (developing understanding of the profession); cultivating multicultural awareness (additionally, biopsychosocial considerations); incorporating social change and advocacy theories and reflective exercises, especially audio-visual reflections (“reflection of experience promotes self-awareness and the processing of learning opportunities,” [p. 11]); utilize modern media; invite guest speakers for an insight on needs and injustice within the community; and real life advocacy work and case studies. Also, Hilert, and Tirado (2019) discussed the need to teach contemplative pedagogy as an intervention for social justice initiatives, whereby trainees see the need for mindfulness and compassion-based practices noting that mindfulness can cultivate in students’ cognitive empathy, 8 perspective-taking, attunement with clients, and tolerance of ambiguity: “Mindfulness exercises can empower Students of Color and reduce stereotype threat” (p. 473). Deep listening can be used “as a practice for unlearning privilege and encouraging deeper dialogue and community within classrooms” (p. 473). It also must be noted that contemplative pedagogy, and particularly mindfulness practices, has been criticized with its “focus on acceptance as running counter to social justice advocacy” (p. 476). Other strategies include utilizing multicultural counseling roleplays, multicultural immersion, ethnographic fiction, and social justice focused practicum and service-learning experiences. Bemak, Talleyrand, Jones, and Daquin (2011) suggested promoting classroom discussions on ways to apply multicultural social justice to current topics. They also suggest the following strategies: discussions on how students’ own life experiences shape what they see as important within the profession; having “discussions to explore personal biases regarding the race, gender, privilege, oppression, and socioeconomic status of individuals” (p. 40); providing service learning experiences of working with marginalized populations in the community with focus on social justice (service learning projects); including internships and close collaboration with field-based supervisors and mentors; and incorporating real life situations and current news. Finally, Williams, McMahon, and Goodman (2015) suggested that practicing ethnographic fiction assignments (response of fictional characters to social justice situations) increases students’ commitment to social justice work. They also suggested that service-learning advocacy projects expand understanding of public policy and connect courses to the real world, and that exercises of constructing critical genograms (visual maps of influence of social forces of racism, sexism, and classism) deepen understanding of connections between social/institutional systems and individual/family dynamics. These authors highlighted a model of eco-webbing (a 9 concept-mapping activity) as a teaching strategy and “an opportunity for participants to identify and create a multilevel map of the wide variety of factors influencing a particular situation, and then to analyze the reciprocal relationships between those factors and the situation” (p. 83). The purpose of eco-webs, they wrote, is to “promote a more complete and contextualized understanding of the complex ecology and social power dynamics in which our clients and students live and grow” (p. 84). Within these handfuls of literature on the topic examined, clearly many different approaches to social justice instruction exist in higher education classrooms. Three themes emerged from the literature reviewed on approaches for integration of social justice approaches into the higher education classroom: (1) scholarly strategies (e.g., eco-mapping); (2) structured activities (including service-learning with marginalized populations); and (3) amplifying voices of marginalized populations (such as media or guest speakers). Faculty Conversations Regarding Changing Perspectives Over time, the authors of this chapter have communicated with faculty at several institutions to find out what has worked best for them in changing past paradigms and perspectives to new perspectives around issues of social justice and advocacy in higher education classrooms. Those friendly conversations appear to have three themes that sort of emerge in the approaches used by faculty in their classes. Interestingly, the themes mirror those of the literature (i.e., scholarly strategies, structured activities, and amplifying marginalized voices). Those faculty conversations can be sorted into these themes: • Scholarly strategies (theme 1): readings from experts in minoritized communities and critical work intended to disrupt anti-deficit thinking; readings from experts in 10 minoritized communities and critical work intended to disrupt anti-deficit thinking; book studies; case studies theory analysis; journal articles provided toolkits and resources. • Structured activities (theme 2): structured examination of intercultural challenges; perspective-taking related to current events to cultivate empathy; service-learning assignments aligned to a social justice issue; analysis of challenges in the field and identification of a topic of personal interest in striving for a more socially just system; debate and discussion. • Amplifying marginalized voices (theme 3): introduction of videos; small group discussions where empathy with fellow students is encouraged; guest speakers discussing the need for purposeful engagement to racially marginalized communities; sharing personal experiences. In the literature and the faculty responses, a recurring approach was getting students into the community for connection and service to others. One interdisciplinary faculty described an assigned activity: “Students select a social justice issue grounded in their values and complete community service hours in support of it, plus incorporate the values, mission statement, and goals into their professional statement exercise.” Another faculty member there looked at the need to consider how students conceptualize the underlying concepts, focusing on that scholarly and structured approach to reaffirm or disrupt paradigms, This [cognitive] toolkit seeks to cultivate such things as empathy, open-mindedness, tolerance of ambiguity/uncertainty, and embracing diversity. I often say that interdisciplinarity is essentially the art of human connection. So, I don't think in the specific framework of social justice. 11 Similarly, an education faculty noted the ambiguity in the terminology of social justice: “I plan to discuss a variety of racial justice issues. I use this phrase instead of social justice because the phrase has become ambiguous.” Though not highlighted in that conversation, critical race theory is an important tenet of teaching from a social justice framework, including a focus on the “central importance of white racism and the need for active struggle towards greater equity” (cited in Chapman, Dixson, Gillborn, & Ladson-Billings, 2013, p. 1020). Some of the strategies mentioned often in the literature and with faculty include amplification of marginalized voices, such as guest speakers and experts from minoritized communities. Additionally, in the literature, faculty of color often feel they must amplify their own voices and it is important that those in less marginalized groups offer forums for them to do so. Powerfully, one education faculty noted, “I also feel that as a Black, female, professor … it is my experience that students question my perspective to protect their own.” Disability as Diversity In discussion of social justice or other analogous terminology, disability or ableism are sometimes mentioned as concepts to address with marginalized groups. People with disabilities are rarely discussed as a needed element in the discourse of diversity education. Shallish (2017) observed that “a contributing factor to the persistent and structural exclusion of disability within postsecondary diversity efforts has been the lack of understanding of persons with disability as having social group status” (p. 19). The discipline of disability studies (DS) is less prevalent in most institutions when compared to other fields in diversity education. However, there is room for growth with accessible and inclusive approaches as faculty and administrators disable injustice and ableism in higher education classrooms. It is integral that disability is recognized as 12 an element of diversity and the need for inclusive approaches is addressed on college campuses and beyond. Lanterman and Applequist (2018) found that specific training for pre-service teachers in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) led to a small-moderate positive relationship between preservice teachers’ beliefs about disability and their epistemological beliefs. The strength of said relationship increased after the training on UDL. These researchers note that training in UDL can have a powerful and positive impact on interventionist epistemological beliefs and beliefs about disability, meaning that it helps move perspectives from the medical interventionist model towards a model of inclusive universally designed approaches. Through purposeful inclusive training, pre-service teachers and other students can change their mindset about disability, shifting from a medical model approach to a social one, and they can acquire the tools to incorporate this mindset into their own classrooms by implementing UDL. Disability warrants further exploration in the social justice literature; higher education faculty should discuss ableism, including predominant ableist societal structures, as people with disabilities are often highly marginalized population in terms of access and opportunity in the United States and around the world. Design’s Role in Socially-Just Education In this section, we begin by proposing that social justice in education is incomplete when disability is viewed only as a medical condition within educational contexts, not as an identity or as a legitimate stakeholder in the diversity discourse. Further, inclusion and diversity depend on equity for all individuals being at the forefront of policy, curriculum, and environmental design. We use DS and disability studies in education (DSE) to frame this discussion, ultimately 13 highlighting their intersections with social justice education and the premises of inclusive and universal design/universal design for learning (UD/UDL). Understanding Disability Discourse The disability rights movement has been emerging since the mid-20th century. Early conceptions of stigma informed modern perceptions of the marginalized body. For example, Goffman (1963) thought that disabled persons are viewed as less than normal, even less than human. The legacy of this emerging understanding of disability as identity within the broader social construct of normalcy helped to establish the DS and DSE fields. DS, an interdisciplinary field, focuses on understanding the phenomenon of disability through social, political, cultural, and economic contexts. A DS approach is often situated through understandings in which, “Disability … affects an individual, but is a reflection of how society regards and facilitates or impedes interactions among people with all kinds of bodies, minds, and affects” (Baglieri, 2016, p. 5). These understandings are often referred to as social models of disability. Naming these models as a collective lens through which to view disability acknowledges a plurality of perspectives that eschew a reductive view of disability as a problem to be fixed (Connor, 2014). By contrast, this reductive view of disability tends to emphasize disability as a pathology, a property of an individual, and a deficit in need of remediation (Baglieri, 2016). This view of disability is often referred to as the medical model (Baglieri, Valle, Connor, & Gallagher, 2011). The medical model of disability dominates the discourse on disability in education, as suggested by such practices and beliefs as the continuing emphasis and reliance on statistical normalcy (Davis, 2017); arbitrary criteria for diagnosis (Gallagher, Conner, & Ferri, 2014); and a discourse of difference (Lanterman, 2016). 14 One impact of such a medicalized notion of disability is to estrange it from the diversity discourse. Instead, disability becomes its relegation to a position of inferiority and stigma, as suggested by Goffman (1963) for which legal protections define disability’s place in higher education (Gabel, Reid, & Pearson, 2017). The DS and DSE fields focus on disability as an issue of social justice and identity, thus attempting to legitimize disability as a constituent of diverse identity groups, rather than simply as a medical deficit or pathology. It is within these contexts that we argue the necessity of creating social and educational environments that value difference and establish inclusive communities of learners. We further suggest that these environments must provide equity of opportunity for all, regardless of differences and similarities, in order to achieve socially just education. Disability as Diversity in Higher Education The recognition of disability identity as part of any discourse on diversity and inclusion is paramount, and is increasingly part of diversity conversations within higher education. However, such recognition continues to evolve. For example, some institutions continue to define disability primarily within the medical model, not the social model. In their review of the California State University (CSU) system, Gabel et al. (2017) found that the website conveyed disability primarily as rights-focused, arguing that “Containing disability within the landscape of accessibility, disability services, student services, and accommodations perpetuates the notion that disability is an innate characteristic that needs to be fixed on an individual basis” (p. 181). They point out that less than one percent of students in the CSU system self-disclosed having a disability, compared with 10.9% nationally. As a result, they imply that the CSU climate is not welcoming to disability, despite the CSU system’s ostensible support for SWD. 15 The findings of Gabel et al. (2017) point to the discourse of disability as a phenomenon warranting services and supports under the provisions of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1973 and the ADA of 2008. Albanesi and Nusbaum (2017) look to structural and institutional resistance within the greater diversity efforts at one college. Indeed, Albanesi and Nusbaum even point to resistance among those individuals and offices specifically focused on diversity work at that institution, leading Albanesi and Nusbaum to conclude that such resistance is, in part, due to competition for limited resources for diversity work, but also illustrative of the continuing marginalization and macro- and microaggressions evident around disability in the academy. Other higher education institutions illustrate more robust demonstrations of disability as an integral element of the diversity discourse. That institution’s web-link to diversity on its home page leads to the Center for University Access and Inclusion’s (CUAI) site where disability is acknowledged as one of the main constituents of diversity at the institution. The CUAI website (https://in.nau.edu/center-for-university-access-and-inclusion) lists five diversity commissions that include the Commission on Disability Access and Design. This website also presents the nascent Diversity Strategic Plan, which defines diversity as: The complexity of personal experiences, values, and worldviews that arise from differences and intersections of culture and circumstance. Such differences and intersections include race, sex, ethnicity, age, religion, language, ability/disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, socioeconomic, veteran or other status, or geographic region. (p. 4) The importance of an acknowledgement where disability is listed alongside the other differences and intersections is that disability is recognized as an integral element of the diversity 16 conversation there, as opposed to being simply treated as a problem to be fixed or accommodated through disability services and supports. While these services and supports exist under the auspices of federal legislation such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1973 (Education & Fund, 2018) and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments (2008), this becomes only one dimension of a larger view of disability contextualized more within a social and political sphere than as a deficit. Without this recognition and a societal shift, persons with disabilities will continue to be marginalized. For example, despite more students with disabilities pursuing STEM majors, they are less likely than nondisabled peers to secure a job in that field (Klimaitis & Mullen, 2020). Embracing diversity in hiring and in society includes embracing the inclusion of people with disabilities. In order for educational institutions to bring disability meaningfully into the diversity conversation, they must build a cultural competence among students, staff, faculty, and administration, through curricula, and across those units that support academic and student affairs. Such efforts at diversity strategic planning might “embed diversity in learning outcomes, professional development, performance expectations, evaluations and increase opportunities … to participate in and advance diversity and inclusion (Northern Arizona University [NAU], 2020, p. 5). By building cultural competence, institutional constituents can acknowledge and learn from the shared oppressions of people with disabilities and those from other marginalized groups. Social Justice in Education Through Inclusive and Universal Design1 Mills and Ballantyne (2016) postulated that social justice in education can simply be that which is fair and just, but further explain that such considerations can be advanced through “a fair redistribution of resources and opportunities, recognition of differences, the representation of 17 interests in decision making, and development of capabilities to live fulfilling lives” (p. 1). Social justice offers a framework for exploring the interconnectedness of humanity through equity, fairness, and opportunity within the physical and intellectual context of higher education. Kanes-Weisman (1999) pointed to UD as a means by which society might achieve such socially just outcomes. Thus, we present here the potential for the universal design of physical and learning environments as viable frameworks within which to situate socially just education. Loewen and Pollard (2010) pointed to respect, dignity, economic and social equality, inclusive environments, and equity of opportunity for full participation as hallmarks of social justice for disabled persons. This latter point establishes an entrée for considering potential frameworks for facilitating such opportunities. Here, the concept of inclusive and universal design is situated within the principles of universal design (UD) of physical spaces and universal design for learning (UDL) in learning environments. These frameworks serve to ground mechanisms for equity of educational opportunity (see Levin, 1973, 1976). Universal design in physical environments. UD in the build environment was first proposed by Ronald Mace and his colleagues at North Carolina State University in the late 1990’s. UD is defined as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design (Center for Universal Design, 1997). The concept of UD emphasizes design decisions that consider benefit to all users, regardless of age, ability, size, or circumstance (Follette Story, Mueller, & Mace, 1998). Universal design is organized into seven principles that inform design decisions to promote inclusion of all people. The principles of UD are outlined below (see Table 1). Table 1: The Seven Principles of Universal Design* 18 Principle and Definition Principle 1: Equitable Use The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. Principle 2: Flexibility in Use The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. Principle 3: Simple and Intuitive Use Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. Principle 4: Perceptible Information The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities. Principle 5: Tolerance for Error The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. Guidelines 1a. Provide the same means of use for all users: identical whenever possible; equivalent when not. 1b. Avoid segregating or stigmatizing any users. 1c. Provisions for privacy, security, and safety should be equally available to all users. 1d. Make the design appealing to all users. 2a. Provide choice in methods of use. 2b. Accommodate right- or left-handed access and use. 2c. Facilitate the user's accuracy and precision. 2d. Provide adaptability to the user's pace. 3a. Eliminate unnecessary complexity. 3b. Be consistent with user expectations and intuition. 3c. Accommodate a wide range of literacy and language skills. 3d. Arrange information consistent with its importance. 3e. Provide effective prompting and feedback during and after task completion. 4a. Use different modes (pictorial, verbal, tactile) for redundant presentation of essential information. 4b. Provide adequate contrast between essential information and its surroundings. 4c. Maximize "legibility" of essential information. 4d. Differentiate elements in ways that can be described (i.e., make it easy to give instructions or directions). 4e. Provide compatibility with a variety of techniques or devices used by people with sensory limitations. 5a. Arrange elements to minimize hazards and errors: most used elements, most accessible; hazardous elements eliminated, isolated, or shielded. 5b. Provide warnings of hazards and errors. 5c. Provide fail safe features. 5d. Discourage unconscious action in tasks 19 that require vigilance. Principle 6: Low Physical Effort 6a. Allow user to maintain a neutral body position. The design can be used efficiently and 6b. Use reasonable operating forces. comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue. 6c. Minimize repetitive actions. 6d. Minimize sustained physical effort. Principle 7: Size and Space for Approach and 7a. Provide a clear line of sight to important Use elements for any seated or standing user. 7b. Make reach to all components Appropriate size and space is provided for comfortable for any seated or standing user. approach, reach, manipulation, and use 7c. Accommodate variations in hand and grip regardless of user's body size, posture, or size. mobility. 7d. Provide adequate space for the use of assistive devices or personal assistance. *The Center for Universal Design (1997). The Principles of Universal Design, Version 2.0. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm Universal design for learning. Compared to UD in the physical environment, UDL focuses on designing curriculum and instruction so learning environments meet the variability for all learners, including those with disabilities (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). The UDL framework consists of three principles and nine guidelines that present considerations for facilitating “expert learning” (Meyer et al., 2014). Expert learners are purposeful and motivated, knowledgeable and resourceful, and strategic and goal-directed. The UDL framework offers flexible and individualized pathways to learning through tools, methods, and practices that respond to the variability of learners (Meyer et al., 2014). The three principles of the UDL framework are (1) multiple means of engagement; (2) multiple means of representation; and (3) multiple means of action and expression. Multiple means of engagement focuses on recruiting student interest, supporting persistence in the learning process, and facilitating self-regulated learning. Multiple means of representation assure that learners are able to access content and materials, understand language and symbols unique to that content, and make sense of the content in meaningful ways. Finally, multiple means of 20 action and expression provide learners with options for engaging with the process of learning, demonstrating understanding using tools and media, and developing and achieving personal learning goals (Meyer et al., 2014). Levin’s taxonomy of equality of educational opportunity. Levin’s (1976) taxonomy of equal opportunity in educational environments identifies four standards of equality of educational opportunity: “(1) equality of educational access; (2) equality of educational participation; (3) equality of educational results; and (4) equality of educational effects on life chances” (p. 148). The concept of equality of educational opportunity primarily addresses inequities in educational expenditures among children from different social groups and economic statuses. While Levin’s taxonomy focuses on the allocation of educational funding, we apply this concept to equity in the physical and learning environments of schools. Further, such equity of opportunity cannot be differentially applied to any individual identity group or constituent without delegitimizing the premise on which it is based. Therefore, equity of educational opportunity, as we present here, applies to all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, ability, gender identity, background, experience, age, or any other identity marker. We take liberty in framing Levin’s (1976) concept in terms of equity, rather than equality. To this point, we reference a medical analogy, which helps differentiate equality, or sameness, of treatment from equity, or appropriateness, of treatment: Imagine two people, one of whom has appendicitis and the other tonsillitis. Perform a tonsillectomy on both and they will each have been given identical treatment. They will not, however, have received equal medical care, because what was appropriate for the one illness was not for the other (pp. 26-27). 21 Equity of educational access. The first standard of Levin’s (1976) taxonomy, equity in access, might be described as opening the door to the schoolhouse and letting all students in. This concept establishes a premise for inclusion of all students in educational institutions. Thus, as some have interpreted the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no child shall be denied the right to an education (US Supreme Court, Brown v. Board of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 [1954], 2020), though where and how this education occurs is not necessarily relevant at this level of Levin’s taxonomy. With respect to disability, this foundational level of access can easily be related to the of identifying and removing physical barriers in the built environment, in accordance with regulations like the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (28CFR Part 35). However, principles of UD within the built environment expand on the minimal legal compliance of the ADA to create usability for all people, regardless of disability status. The application of UD on college campuses means that physical spaces allow for, and can even promote, community. Consider the design and construction of a new facility on a college campus. An entry to the building may require an elevation for which stairs are intuitively necessary. The ADA would require access via a ramp under such circumstances. Ramps provide ingress and egress but may require some individuals to enter the building separately from friends and colleagues. However, UD would indicate a gently sloping sidewalk to the main entry, thus allowing all to enter the building together and in the same manner. Equity of educational participation. Levin’s (1976) second level, equity of opportunity in participation, suggests that all students, once in the school, should have equal opportunity to participate. For example, a student with a disability may be admitted to a school, but must be called on by the teacher, provided appropriate materials, and included by peers in class 22 discussions, social activities, and co-curricular programming to have equitable opportunity for participation. Espada (1996) reflects lack of such equity in his poem, “PUBLIC SCHOOL 190, BROOKLYN 1963,” writing, “There were vandalized blackboards and chairs with three legs, taped windows, retarded boys penned in the basement. Some of us stared in Spanish” (p. 25). Being present in school is not enough; there must be equity of educational participation. The expectation for students to receive "reasonable and appropriate" accommodations to ensure equitable participation, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 US §12101 (1990), seems explicit. While reasonable and appropriate accommodations in the classroom can be part of the solution for creating equitable opportunity for participation, other aspects of the postsecondary experience, including participation in campus events and cocurricular activities, seem to fall off the radar for many institutions (Getzel, 2008; Yssel, Pak, & Beilke, 2016). Consider a circumstance in which a university holds a welcome back barbecue in the main quad each fall. Tents for serving food and eating line the perimeter of the quad and activities are set up in the center of the lawn. The atmosphere is lively, with loud music broadcast throughout the area. Such an event offers opportunity for students, staff, faculty, and administration to reconnect or develop new acquaintances in a friendly environment. However, the location of the barbecue, the music, the number of people, and the food may each present its own barrier to equitable participation for individuals with disabilities from different cultures, with various nutritional needs, or other differences. Planning with these considerations in mind has the potential to create a more equitable event and develop greater community for all. In addition to the principles of UD, the instructional framework of UDL offers guidance to facilitate equitable participation for all. Returning to Levin’s (1976) premise, equity of participation is a function of an ability to proceed successfully in the school environment. The 23 UDL framework is perhaps best situated to create equity of educational participation through its inherent attention to learners’ varied and unique learning profiles. For example, a university may offer free, regular screenings of feature films as part of its arts and cultural co-curriculum. When such films lack captions or descriptive narration (multiple means of representation), individuals with sensory disabilities and those whose primary language is not English may be inadvertently excluded. Equity of educational results. The third level in Levin's (1976) model, equity of educational results, advocates that students should be able to succeed in their education, regardless of their personal characteristics or circumstance. The distinction between equity of participation and equity of results is the difference between participation in school and schooling’s efficacy “in providing those skills, behaviors, and attitudes contributing to a productive adulthood” (Levin, 1976, p. 156). Institutions can best create environments to facilitate equity of educational results with an understanding of which skills, behaviors, and attitudes are best suited to success in adulthood. Multiple theories and frameworks have been proposed to answer this question, including Chickering’s Seven Vectors of development (Chickering & Reisser, 1993), 21st Century Skills (Trilling & Fadel, 2009), and Dimensions of Successful Young Adulthood (Scales, Benson, Oesterle, Hill, Hawkins, & Pashak, 2016). Common skills, behaviors, and attitudes represented across these theories and models include the development of knowledge and skills in content or subject areas, critical thinking and problem solving, physical and mental health, interpersonal skills and collaboration, and appreciation for diversity. In addition to these theories and models, the UDL framework, through its three principles, proposes that educational systems have the capacity to create expert learners who 24 engage in continuous growth in motivation, knowledge, and skills (Meyer et al., 2014). Within these domains, the UDL framework supports self-regulation, executive functioning, and comprehension among learners, when implemented with fidelity. In order to achieve such outcomes, administration and faculty in educational systems must, themselves, evidence the motivation to learn, become knowledgeable about learning, and become strategic about learning in order to create positive structural performance and efficiencies (Meyer et al., 2014). Research on the efficacy of UDL implementation, particularly for developing the skills, behaviors, and attitudes for life-long success among college students, appears to be limited (Capp, 2017). However, studies among elementary and secondary students have shown that UDL implementation can lead to increases in student self-concept and social inclusion (Katz & Porath, 2011) and academic and social engagement (Katz, 2013). In part, these findings align with development of knowledge and skills in content or subject areas, interpersonal skills and collaboration, and appreciation for diversity, as noted. Equity of educational effect on life chances. Finally, equity of educational effect on life chances moves the discussion into the social context, evidencing that equity of opportunity in education is only achieved, in its fullest capacity, when individuals’ education leads to such relative markers of success as employment, housing, health care, and economic stability (Levin, 1973). This, perhaps, begins to surface the inequities that appear to exist for SWD transitioning from higher education to employment. Even with the requirements of the ADA, educational impact on life chances for graduates with disabilities is disheartening. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020) reported that only 28.2% of individuals with disabilities with at least a bachelor’s degree were employed in 2019, compared with 75.5% of college graduates without disabilities. Additionally, this Bureau found that, regardless of educational level, persons with 25 disabilities aged 25 or older were employed at a much lower rate (18.6%), compared with their non-disabled counterparts (69.0%). Similarly, as reported by the Bureau, persons with disabilities were less likely to work in management, professional, or related occupations – 34.1% compared with 41.0% of the non-disabled workforce. Life outcomes for persons with disabilities tend to lag behind persons without disabilities in other domains, as well. For example, in 2019, persons with disabilities had lower median incomes, were more likely to experience burdensome housing expenses, and were more likely to live in poverty (Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics,2020). The statistics on outcomes for persons with disabilities beyond schooling demonstrate inequities worthy of further exploration. In part, such statistics might be excused simply through the discourse in which disability is viewed as a medical condition rather than a socially constructed deficit. However, narratives like this discount the agency that might be enabled, or constrained, by educational experiences for SWD. One area of perennial concern, in this regard, is student persistence and the factors that enable or constrain it. While some research correlates college student persistence as a function of personal factors only rather than institutional factors (Capps, 2012), institutional factors may negatively impact student persistence. For example, perceptions among SWD of instructional climates continue to have negative impacts on student persistence and achievement (Fleming, Oertle, Plotner, & Hakun, 2017). Arguably, such barriers result in SWD choosing not to disclose their disability, even though such disclosure could lead to the provision of services. For example, in their study of 1,110 undergraduate students, Grimes, Southgate, Scevak, and Buchanan (2019) reported that two-thirds (67%) of chose not to disclose their disability to the institution. An 26 institutional culture that creates implicit barriers or hurdles for success flouts the ideal of equitable effect on life chances. The concept of inclusive approaches and UDL provides an impetus for changing the ways in which we think, design curricula, establish pedagogic practice, and implement educational policy to benefit all students (Barajas & Higbee, 2003). This extended view challenges us to discover embedded inequities and strive for socially-just education. They note that reflection on changes in teaching practice, not simply the changes themselves, is essential to teaching efficacy. In Barajas and Higbee’s words, However, part of that reflective process is being critical about what we think and do. Otherwise, we end up believing we have created a universal design because we have added some information to our classroom strategies, but few of us have substantially restructured our thinking, practices, and policies. (p. 287) Inclusive and Universally Designed Learning Inclusive and UDL may afford an opportunity to elaborate socially just methods of teaching and learning, which may translate to achieving each of Levin’s (1973) levels of equality in education. In its broadest context, UD is “an orientation to any design process that begins with a responsibility to the experience of the user” (Institute for Human-Centered Design, 2010). The elements of UDL focus on both access and equity for the variability of learners (Meyer et al., 2014). For example, in this model, the materials used in a class should be both accessible and usable by students. This demonstrates equality of access and participation in Levin’s (1973) taxonomy. Learning environments should be welcoming and inclusive, and maintain high expectations for all learners (Sanger, 2020). In other words, learning environments that apply UDL principles provide the necessary supports and instructional design considerations that 27 eliminate barriers to learning for diverse students. Further, participation in co-curricular events, residence hall activities, and entertainment opportunities are elements of the postsecondary experience that are critical elements to equality of educational results (Lanterman & Shuttic, 2009). Even with these considerations, inclusive and UDL still function at the level of equality of access and participation, with the expectation that such applications will lead to equality of educational results. However, there is far more to supporting equality in educational results than creating usable instructional environments. The ability of higher education to develop skills, behaviors, and attitudes among students that generalize into life applications plays a critical role in creating equity of educational results. Whether these skills focus on academic content, learning and thinking skills, personal well-being, information and communication technology literacy, or life skills, they form a foundation of lifelong success. In this regard, such 21st century skills (Trilling & Fatel, 2009) align with the intent of the UDL framework to create expert learners who are purposeful and motivated, knowledgeable and resourceful, and strategic and goal-directed. The real promise of UDL, however, is in its potential to change perspectives about the diversity of learners. Loewen and Pollard (2010) argue that inclusive and UDL is the best approach for creating socially-just environments for SWD in postsecondary environments. The potential for inclusive approaches and UDL to frame and reframe perspectives and beliefs about equity and difference in an educational context is powerful. Faculty, students, staff, and administrators become aware of the interplay between environments and differences. This interplay, in turn, becomes the focus for intervention; the deficit is removed from the individual who is different and placed upon the way educational, societal, and political environments act 28 upon the individual. When we come to this point, the effect of education on life chances approaches equity for all. Inclusive Voices In higher education, there are numerous efforts towards accessible online teaching, particularly through measures like clickable/readable text, alternate text for images, captions on videos, etc. In-person courses may or may not be universally designed with accommodations often offered only when required when a student with a disability enrolled in the course has registered with the university’s disability or accessibility services. While online and in-person access and accommodations are important, it is not the be-all and end-all in meeting the varied needs of students with and without disabilities in our higher education institutions. A faculty member seeking to make their course truly inclusive and accessible will purposefully plan for a cultural shift in their classroom, where every student has what they need regardless of registration for disability services through the purposeful application of attitudinal interventions and UDL. Disability is often ignored in the social justice literature, warranting further exploration (exceptions include Klimaitis and Mullen, 2020). Higher education faculty should magnify and amplify voices from the disabled experience. Matthew Wangeman, faculty of DS in Arizona, USA, asserted that he believes he has been given this platform to use my “voice” to try to help change how people think about disability. I have been incredibly fortunate in my life to be able to do things that most people with significant disabilities just don’t get to do, and it is my absolute duty to try to make life better for other people with significant disabilities. In teaching [DS]…, my 29 mandate for myself is to create the next generation of advocates through [DS]! (personal interview, 21 June 2018) A short, award-winning documentary focusing on Wangeman’s life and advocacy (https://youtu.be/EsVzlyD7ArM) has opened the door for him to visit higher education institutions, community events, and other speaking engagements as an advocate and uses those experiences to amplify his voice as he advocates for those with significant disabilities. Accessibility-Focused and Universally Designed courses While many courses and materials are made accessible to SWD after faculty are required to do so, there are concerted efforts at many institutions to make courses universally designed and accessible for all students, regardless of declared disability. Courses designed around the UDL principles reduce the need for last minute scrambling to make material accessible to a student in the class who requires accommodations. It amplifies the benefits of a universally designed course by offering multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/ expression while making the course accessible to all students. In addition to institution-based measures, nationally recognized measures push towards universally accessible online university coursework. For example, Quality Matters is a measure used to designate courses as quality online courses. The eighth item in the Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric (2018), Accessibility and Usability is used as a measure of online accessibility in a course, including things like captions on videos and alt text for images. In an in-person course, faculty are notified of students requiring accommodations who have registered with the institution’s disability services; they offer support to ensure the course is accessible to SWD. 30 NAU is a leader in supporting faculty in making courses accessible. For example, professors seeking to get a video captioned can send the link of the video to Accessibility Services and receive a captioned version back a few weeks later to ensure that the videos they are using in their classes are accessible to all or send in a PDF to ensure its readability by a screen reader tool (Usable Materials Center; https://in.nau.edu/disability-resources/usablematerials-center). NAU is also unique in having an Institute for Human Development (IHD) that advocates for attitudinal and policy change towards persons with disabilities while also hosting a DS minor and graduate programs in assistive technology and disability specialist degrees. They also develop disability-experience modules other NAU degree programs can include in their online courses as appropriate for the course content. On the IHD homepage (https://nau.edu/ihd), it is noted that, The IHD fosters the development of attitudes that promote the public’s appreciation and value of individuals with disabilities. Attitudes, as barriers to or facilitators of inclusion, go hand-in-hand with access. Access, commonly thought of as access to services and supports, can have a much broader meaning. Services are unquestionably essential for inclusion but access also refers to access to information, education, physical environments, community, friendships, relationships, etc. Conceptually, access and attitude have reciprocal roles in promoting or inhibiting inclusion. (para. 2) The University of Central Florida has a Universal Design Online [content] Inspection Tool (UDOIT) that automatically runs a report in a course letting the instructor know which items need correction within the online course shell. Examples include missing alternate text on an image, uncaptioned video, or the need for formatting adjustments that make the course easier to navigate with a screen reader program or other assistive technology. This tool is free to 31 institutions wanting to use it to improve accessibility in their own Canvas Learning Management System (https://cdl.ucf.edu/initiatives/udoit). Additionally, accessible online courses are a fundamental pillar towards approval of a course designation as a Quality or High-Quality Online course. Prior to teaching online, every faculty member goes through special training on the online platform, which includes information about accessibility. Prior to designing a course for teaching online, UCF faculty must complete a semester-long cohort training course that covers best practices in online course design, such as disability access and UDL. Inclusive Attitudinal Approaches It is important that teachers and faculty shift mindsets to one of inclusivity when it comes to persons with disabilities, “Teachers need a mindset that shapes how they approach all students in the classroom” (Eadens & Eadens, 2016a, p. 253). Brabazon (2015) offers a simple maxim, “We need to think about learners rather than impairments” (p. 78). This is where UDL plays a pivotal role. According to the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, UDL is defined as “A scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice”; as such, UDL (a) Provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged (b) Reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including [SWD] and students who are limited English proficient. (Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Section 10 [https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/110/public/315]; cited in Eadens & Eadens, 2016a, p. 250) Accessible and universally designed courses are not the end-all-be-all in inclusive higher education pedagogy. There is a responsibility among faculty to “teach disability-focused anti- 32 oppressive pedagogy” (Beckett, 2015, p. 89) by approaching their teaching seeking “to unshackle the possibilities for what a life can be/do and where a life might go” (Beckett, 2015, p. 76) with a paradigm centered around creating enabling, inclusive societies. It is a human right that faculty in higher education utilize educational approaches that engender “respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity” (United Nations Enable, n.d., Guiding Principle D). Dunlap (2014) encouraged everyone, including those in higher education to spend time in self-examination, “I believe that when we examine our own mental models towards disability, we won’t default to pity and charity but will focus our efforts on making our society accessible to everyone and everyone will benefit” (Dunlap, 2014, as quoted in Eadens & Eadens, 2016a, p. 249). Chen, Sanderson, and Kessel (2018) surveyed 35 computer science and engineering faculty members in Norway and Poland and found that most had positive attitudes towards accommodations and accessibility for students who needed it, but many lacked experience and competence in how to make it happen in their courses. They also often used “inadequate terminology when discussing diverse students” (p. 95). These researchers recommended additional training and support. Similarly, Lipka, Khouri, and Shecter-Lerner (2020) noted a need for training for faculty members in her research regarding persons with learning disabilities with regard to knowledge about the disability and how to accommodate it in higher education classrooms. Lombardi and Lalor (2017) agreed that misunderstandings regarding “invisible disabilities such as learning disabilities, and mental health disorders” are prevalent in higher education (pp. 117-118). After reviewing a great deal of literature on the topic, they conclude that “faculty generally endorse positive attitudes towards [SWD] including a willingness to 33 provide accommodations but often report feeling underprepared to provide such supports” (pp. 108-109). Attitudinal research on higher education campuses often centers on willingness to accommodate a person with disabilities, which is an important element in working with this marginalized population, but attitudes towards persons with disabilities, as with any marginalized population, are much bigger than a willingness to accommodate. Further research should consider other measures of attitudinal domains, such as those based upon social distance theory. Social distance theory would predict that the more experiences faculty members (or other populations) have with persons with different disabilities, the more comfortable they should be with each type of disability and population (Eadens, Cranston-Gingras, Dupoux, & Eadens, 2016). Amplifying voices of all marginalized populations, including those with disabilities and an attitudinal shift towards full inclusion has the power to evoke attitudinal change in our higher education classrooms. Current research shows a need for additional training and support to support the positive attitudes toward accommodation to create classrooms that are more inclusive for higher education SWD, but just because a course is accessible does not mean that it will lead to a needed societal shift in seeing disability as an important piece of what makes our society valuably diverse. Faculty must embrace all elements of diversity and celebrate the differences in our courses as we ensure that our course materials and experiences are actively creating new paradigms that lead us away from the -isms and towards an inclusive society where diversity of all kinds is celebrated and embraced. Conclusion This chapter explored perspectives in higher education classrooms, specifically the need for social justice in education through inclusive approaches and UDL. We examined these 34 themes of social justice and advocacy in higher education classrooms: scholarly strategies, structured activities, and amplifying marginalized voices. We argued that accessible and inclusive approaches can disable injustice and ableism in classrooms by recognizing disability as an element of diversity and the need for inclusive approaches on college campuses and beyond. Inclusive and universally designed approaches within the learning environment may afford opportunities to elaborate socially just methods of teaching and learning that advance diversity discourse. The potential is for inclusion and UDL to reframe perspectives and beliefs about equity and difference in educational contexts. Faculty can create new paradigms leading to an inclusive society where diversity of all kinds is celebrated and embraced. Notes 1. Portions of this section adapted, with permission from the copyright holder, from Lanterman (2010). See references for complete citation. References Albanesi, H., & Nusbaum, E. A. (2017). Encountering institutional barriers and resistance: Disability discomfort on one campus. In Kim, E. & K. C. Aquino (Eds.), Disability and diversity in higher education (pp. 185-199). New York. Routledge. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC §12101). Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s3406#:~:text=The%20ADA%20Amendmen ts%20Act%20of,level%20of%20the%20United%20States. Baglieri, S. (2016). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for embracing diversity in education. New York: Routledge. 35 Baglieri, S., Valle, J. W., Connor, D. J., & Gallagher, D. J. (2011). Disability studies in education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 267–278. doi:10.1177/0741932510362200 Barajas, H. L., & Higbee, J. L. (2003). Where do we go from here? Universal design as a model for multicultural education. In J. L. Higbee (Ed.), Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universal design in higher education (pp. 285-292). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Beckett, A. E. (2015). Anti-oppressive pedagogy and disability: Possibilities and challenges. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 17(1), 76–94. Bemak, F., Talleyrand, R. M., Jones, H., & Daquin, J. (2011). Implementing multicultural social justice strategies in counselor education training programs. Journal for Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 3(1), 29-43. Blackmore, J. (2013) Social justice in education: a theoretical overview. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, and S. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of educational theories, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, N.C., pp.1001-1009. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: a meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791-807. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074 Capps, R. (2012). Supporting adult-student persistence in community colleges, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(2), 38-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.655218 36 Center for Universal Design (1997). Universal design principles. Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm Chapman, T. K., Dixson, A., Gillborn, D., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson, Handbook of educational theories (pp. 1019-1026). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Chen, W., Sanderson, N. C., & Kessel, S. (2018). Making learning materials accessible in higher education—attitudes among technology faculty members. Studies in health technology and informatics, 256, 87-97. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Connor, D. J. (2014). Social justice in education for students with disabilities. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 111–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davis, L. J. (2017). The disability studies reader (5th ed.). New York: Routledge. Decker, K. M., Manis, A. A., & Paylo, M. J. (2016). Infusing social justice advocacy into counselor education: Strategies and recommendations. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 8(3), 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.7729/83.1092 Eadens, D. M., Eadens, D. W. (2016a). (Dis)ability in the elementary school classroom: Embracing an inclusive mindset. In R. Papa, D. M. Eadens, D. W. Eadens, (Eds). Social justice instruction: Empowerment on the chalkboard. Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-12349-3_22 Eadens, D. W., & Eadens, D. M. (2016b). Social justice instruction in mathematics and science. In R. Papa, D. M. Eadens, & D. W. Eadens (Eds.), Social justice instruction: 37 Empowerment on the chalkboard (pp. 347-356). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-12349-3_30 Eadens, D. M., Cranston-Gingras, A., Dupoux, E., & Eadens, D. W. (2016). Police officer perspectives on intellectual disability. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39(1), 222-235. Education, D. R., & Fund, D. (2018). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Espada, M. (1996). Imagine the angels of bread. New York: Norton. Fleming, A. R., Oertle, K. M., Plotner, A. J., & Hakun, J. G. (2017). Influence of social factors on student satisfaction among college students with disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 58(2), 215-228. Follette Story, M., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). Universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Durham, NC: NC State University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED460554.pdf Gabel, S. L., Reid, D. P., & Pearson, H. (2017). Disability, Diversity and higher education: A critical study of California State University’s websites. In E. Kim & K. C. Aquino (Eds.), Disability and diversity in higher education (pp. 171-184). New York: Routledge. Gallagher, D. J., Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2014). Beyond the far-too incessant schism: Special education and the social model of disability. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(11), 1127-1142. Getzel, E. E. (2008). Addressing the persistence and retention of students with disabilities in higher education: Incorporating key strategies and supports on campus'. Exceptionality, 16(A), 207-219. 38 Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Goodman, R. D., Williams, J. M., Chung, R. C. Y., Talleyrand, R. M., Douglass, A. M., McMahon, H. G., & Bemak, F. (2015). Decolonizing traditional pedagogies and practices in counseling and psychology education: A move towards social justice and action. In R. D. Goodman & P. C. Gorski (Eds.), Decolonizing “multicultural” counseling through social justice (pp. 147-164). Springer. Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., & Buchanan, R. (2019). University student perspectives on institutional non-disclosure of disability and learning challenges: Reasons for staying invisible. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(6), 639-655. Hanson, C. (Ed.). (2014). In search of self: Exploring student identity development. New Directions for Higher Education, 166. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20090 Hilert, A. J., & Tirado, C. (2019). Teaching multicultural counseling with mindfulness: A contemplative pedagogy approach. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 41(4), 469-480. Institute for Human Development (n.d.) Homepage. Northern Arizona University. Retrieved from https://nau.edu/ihd Kanes-Weisman, L. (1999). Creating justice, sustaining life: The role of universal design in the 21st century [Keynote address]. Boston: Adaptive Environments. Katz, J. (2013). The three block model of universal design for learning (UDL): Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36, 153-194. 39 Katz, J., & Porath, M. (2011). Teaching to diversity: Creating compassionate learning communities for diverse elementary school communities. International Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 1-13. Klimaitis, C. C., & Mullen, C. A. (2020). Access and barriers to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education for K–12 Students with Disabilities and females. In C. A. Mullen (Ed.), Handbook of social justice interventions in education (pp. 1-24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29553-0_125-1 Lanterman, C. S. (2010, December). Reframing disability: Social justice through universal and inclusive design in higher education. ALERT Newsletter, Association on Higher Education and Disability. Retrieved from http://www.ahead.org/publications/alert/december-2010#72 Lanterman, C. S. (2016). Efficacy of training in UDL for changing preservice teachers’ beliefs about disability. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/openview/ 5f8736184fa93f4465368a38fbf2e4a1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Lanterman, C. S., & Applequist, K. (2018). Pre-service teachers' beliefs: Impact of training in universal design for learning. Exceptionality Education International, 28(3), 102-121. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/215387162.pdf Lanterman, C. S., & Shuttic, M. (2009). Reasonable accommodations, course substitutions, and universal design. In M. L. Vance & L. Bridges (Eds.), Advising students with disabilities: Striving for universal success (2nd ed.). (Monograph No. 19, pp. 125-133). Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association. 40 Levin, H. M. (1973). Equal educational opportunity and the distribution of educational expenditures. Education and Urban Society, 5(2), 149-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/001312457300500203 Levin, H. M. (1976). Educational opportunity and social inequality in Western Europe. Social Problems, 24(2), 148-172. https://doi.org/10.2307/800335 Lipka, O., Khouri, M., & Shecter-Lerner, M. (2020). University faculty attitudes and knowledge about learning disabilities. Higher Education Research & Development, 1-15. Loewen, G. & Pollard, W. (2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(1), 5-18. Lombardi, A.R., & Lalor, A. R. (2017). Faculty and administrator knowledge and attitudes regarding disability. In E. Kim & K. C. Aquino (Eds.), Disability as diversity in higher education (pp. 107-121). New York: Routledge. Malott, K. M., & Knoper, T. (2012). Social justice in application: Counselor training in a legal context. Journal for Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 4(2), 23-40. Mills, C., & Ballantyne, J. (2016). Social justice and teacher education: A systematic review of empirical work in the field. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116660152 Northern Arizona University. (NAU) (2020). Diversity strategic plan (pp. 1-20). Retrieved from https://in.nau.edu/center-for-university-access-and-inclusion/diversity-strategic-plan Papa, J., & Papa, R. (2016). Social justice: Reframing social justice for the adult learner. In R. Papa, D. M. Eadens, & D. W. Eadens (Eds.), Social justice instruction: Empowerment on the chalkboard. Springer. 41 Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric. (2018). (6th ed.). Maryland Online, Inc. Used under license. All rights reserved. Retrieved from http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/qm-rubric Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. (2020). 2019 Annual disability statistics compendium. [Durham, NH: Institute on Disability.] Retrieved from https://disabilitycompendium.org/compendium/2019-annual-disabilitystatistics-compendium?page=22 Samuels, K. L. (2018). Mobilizing heritage: Anthropological practice and transnational prospects. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Sanger, C. S. (2020). Inclusive pedagogy and universal design approaches for diverse learning environments. In C. S. Sanger & N. W. Gleason (Eds.), Diversity and inclusion in global higher education (pp. 31- 71). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Oesterle, S., Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., & Pashak, T. J. (2016). The dimensions of successful young adult development: A conceptual and measurement framework. Applied Developmental Science, 20(3), 150-174. Shallish, L. (2017). A different diversity?: Challenging the exclusion of disability studies from higher education research and practice. In E. Kim & K. C. Aquino (Eds.), Disability as diversity in higher education: Policies and practices to enhance student success. UK: Taylor & Francis. United Nations Enable. (n.d.). Guiding principle D. [Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.] Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/ convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/guiding-principles-of-theconvention.html 42 Usable Materials Center (Northern Arizona University.) Usable Materials Center. Retrieved from https://in.nau.edu/disability-resources/usable-materials-center US Supreme Court, Brown v. Board of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 [1954], 2020 Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483 Wagner, A. E., & Shahjahan, R. A. (2015). Centering embodied learning in anti-oppressive pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(3), 244-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.993963 Williams, J. M., McMahon, H. G., & Goodman, R. D. (2015). Eco‐webbing: A teaching strategy to facilitate critical consciousness and agency. Counselor Education and Supervision, 54(2), 82-97. Yssel, N., Pak, N., & Beilke, J. (2016). A door must be opened: Perceptions of students with disabilities in higher education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 63(3), 384-394. 43 Index Ableism Accessibility Accommodations Brown v. Board of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Disability Diversity Education Equity Higher education classrooms Inclusion Injustice Methods Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric Social Justice Teaching and learning Universal Design for Learning