What Is Disability Discourse Matters?
Over the past year, negative rhetoric surrounding people with disabilities has increased significantly. History has shown that the language used by politicians, policymakers, and local leaders influences the policies, practices, and daily experiences of individuals with disabilities. The goal of this project is to track shifts in disability-related discourse over time and assess how this rhetoric influences policies across the country. Using AI, DDM collects and analyzes statements about people with disabilities made by political leaders at the local, state, and federal levels. This includes all 535 voting members of Congress (100 senators and 435 representatives), as well as members of the White House—including, but not limited to, the President, Vice President, cabinet members, White House advisors, and heads of executive departments and independent agencies. Additionally, we track statements from the nine Supreme Court justices, including their rulings, as well as from governors across all 50 states. To capture discourse at the local level, we scan statements from politicians and political leaders—such as school board members and state senators—across all 3,144 counties and county-equivalents in the United States and the District of Columbia. Once collected, statements are scored using a four-point system that evaluates whether they dehumanize or affirm the value of individuals with disabilities. These results are then mapped on this website for public viewing.
Why Does Discourse Matter in America?
Language, whether intentional or not, is a powerful tool that can shape people's lives. The words politicians and political leaders use shape the society we live in. The way they speak about individuals with disabilities directly influences policies, practices, and the everyday experiences of people with disabilities. Outdated, harmful, and ableist language reinforces negative stereotypes, fuels discrimination and marginalization, and limits opportunities for individuals with disabilities to fully participate in society. Impact on Policy and Funding When policymakers focus on what people with disabilities are perceived to lack rather than their strengths, they risk shaping policies based on assumptions of incapability. This deficit-based perspective can lead to segregation, excessive control, or the perception that people with disabilities are passive recipients of charity rather than active and valuable members of society. Deficit framing also affects funding decisions. When individuals with disabilities are seen as dependent or incapable of contributing to society, financial support may be allocated to welfare programs without necessary investments in infrastructure—such as accessible transportation, education, and workplaces—that enable independent living and full participation in society. Impact on Education Every learner is different. When people with disabilities are viewed through a deficit lens, educational policies often prioritize segregation rather than fostering inclusive learning environments that support all students. This approach reduces access to quality education for both students with and without disabilities, limiting academic opportunities and preventing students with disabilities from reaching their full potential. Impact on Employment The way disabilities are discussed influences societal attitudes and workplace inclusion. When disability discourse fails to recognize the value of people with disabilities, it can lead to exclusionary hiring practices and inadequate workplace accommodations. This, in turn, limits job opportunities, economic participation, and financial independence for individuals with disabilities. Impact on Accessibility A deficit-focused narrative overlooks the political, social, economic, and environmental barriers that restrict accessibility. When we recognize the strengths, skills, and potential of individuals with disabilities, we foster more inclusive discourse. This shift helps society acknowledge that many barriers people with disabilities face are created by the environment—not by disability itself—and that policies should aim to remove these barriers.
Latest News.
Our Scoring System.
Statements by politicians and political leaders are evaluated using a four-point scale to assess whether they are dehumanizing or affirming the value of individuals with disabilities. A score of 1, the lowest possible, indicates a statement that dehumanizes people with disabilities. Statements that criticize the abilities or attributes of individuals with disabilities receive a 2. A 3 is assigned to statements that, while not overtly critical, use a deficit frame—focusing on perceived limitations rather than strengths or potential. Deficit framing emphasizes what individuals cannot do or what is "wrong" with them, rather than recognizing their full humanity, skills, and contributions. Finally, statements that earn the highest score of 4 promote a holistic and affirming view of individuals with disabilities.
Dehumanizes
Values the whole person
1
Uses hate/ableist speech and/or Encourages violence toward individuals with disabilities
2
Critical of the social, cognitive, physical, and/or economic abilities of individuals with disabilities
3
Uses a deficit frame regarding the social, cognitive, physical, and/or economic abilities of individuals with disabilities.
4
Values the social, cognitive, physical, and/or economic abilities of individuals with disabilities
The Team.
Dr. Chris Cipriano
