Disability Justice, Violence Prevention, and Abolitionism Curriculum Introduction
Purpose
Defining the Project
Cognitive Accessibility of Curriculum Language: Plain Language
Defining Disability
White Supremacy, Capitalism, Intersectionality, and Disability Justice
Notes on Language Choices
Values
Curriculum Outline
Purpose
In an effort to expand and enhance services to survivors with disabilities and Deaf and Hard of Hearing survivors, PCAR and IDJ have created a virtual learning resource to assist sexual assault programs, advocates, and other service providers in building capacity to work with people with disabilities.
Defining the Project
This curriculum is a self-paced, free learning opportunity for anyone interested in disability justice and violence prevention. This is a starting place for learning and not intended to be a comprehensive course on the topics covered. While the collaborators’ approached these topics through the social model of disability, some resources included do not. For example, those who approach “disability rights” through the Americans with Disabilities Act are primarily approaching these issues from a legal model. This can be problematic given that the legal system has historically and presently been antagonistic to many of the core values of disability justice.
One way these manifests includes: not recognizing people with disabilities who do not meet legal definitions of disability and requiring people to define their disabilities from a deficits model. However, it is important to include resources from these various perspectives because 1. These materials can provide education about how our current system works so we can advocate for improvements and 2. This will allow participants to consider these varied views to develop more complicated and nuanced perspectives on these issues. Additionally, some of stakeholders who developed these resources are problematic but the resource included is informative. Please use your own critical thinking skills (and peer/community discussions) to reflect on the materials represented here, and take what is helpful and leave what is not.
Cognitive Accessibility of Curriculum Language: Plain Language
One of the coolest things about Artificial Intelligence (AI) is its ability to translate. AI can translate languages. AI can also help make understanding language easier. Here is one way you can use an AI to help you understand what is included in these materials using an AI called ChatGPT. Create an account with Chat GPT. On this webpage, click “Try ChatGPT” and then it will give you instructions on how to create an account. Once you have created an account, there will be a blank page with a text box. The text box is a place where you can write questions.
If you find any parts of this material confusing, copy and paste it into the text box. After you put it in the text box add a question like, “Can you explain what this means?” or “Can you put this into plain text?”
You can also ask it to explain certain terms or words. For example, you may not know what “abolition” means based on the definition we give here. You could open ChatGPT and write “What does “abolition” mean?” or “Where does the word “abolition” come from?” If you are asking ChatGPT to explain what a word, sentence, or question means, it is best to put quotation marks around the word, sentence, or question.
If you click on any links here, you can also do the same thing with those. Copy the link and past it into the chat box. Then write a question to ask the AI to explain it.
Here are some example questions you can use:
- Please make the words on this page plain language.
- Can you explain what this webpage says?
- Can you explain what is on this webpage in detail?
If you are ever confused about how to use ChatGPT, you can also ask it how to use it. For example, you could ask “How can you help explain this webpage to me?” or “I don’t know how to ask my question about oppression.”
Defining Disability
The project is based on the social model of disability which defines disabilities as any kind of bodily/mental function that is stigmatized, under-supported, or marginalized by society and institutions. For example, during an interview with a person with a cognitive disability, the interviewers do not provide questions in advance because that is a standard practice at the organization. This may inherently disadvantage the person with the disability during the interview process without the prospective employer intending to disadvantage applicants with disabilities. This definition is distinct from medical and legal models as summarized below.
Legal Model of Disability: defines disabilities as “deficits”, especially in the workplace, according to non-disabled standards.
- Goal: Move people with disabilities towards being non-disabled to increase “work capacity” according to non-disabled standards.
- Implications: People are human resources for the sake of production. Being unable to work within the parameters of capitalism means the person is less than human and disposable.
- Values: Work, productivity, financial success
- Example: The ADA states “An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.” Note how this definition states disabilities are an “impairment”, that disabilities “limit” a person’s life (rather than the lack of supports limiting a person’s life), and there is no acknowledgement of the role of society in disadvantaging disabled people.
Medical Model of Disability: Defines disabilities as “deficits” in bodily function based on non-disabled standards.
- Goal: Move people with disabilities towards being non-disabled to “increase” body function according to non-disabled standards
- Implications: People should be “cured” of disabilities to reduce the financial/medical “burden” of bodily diversity. Disabilities are a social, financial, and emotional burden.
- Values: Standardized body functioning and “health”
- Example: Common, degrading medical language such as saying “birth defects” as opposed to “congenital” or “developmental” disability, or referring to being multiply disabled as having “co-morbidities”.
Social Model of Disability: Recognizes disability as an aspect of bodily diversity and that disability is constructed by disadvantages on the basis of structural inequities, history, and cultural norms.
- Goal: End structural inequity (policies, practices, cultural norms) so society supports all people to be successful based on the ways they move through the world
- Implications: people have human value/worth regardless of productivity or body function
- Values: Equitable opportunities (dignity of risk), “quality of life” defined by the individual, self-directed interdependence
- Example: Pre-emptively prioritizing accessibility needs at the start of a collaborative project, such as asking what people need to feel set up for success in their work, identifying decision-making processes in advance, and providing opportunities to seek ongoing support.
Therefore, our organization of disabilities diverges from the ADA definition in an effort to acknowledge the histories, struggles, and movements among those in various disability communities. Note that there are many ways to categorize disabilities and this is not the “best” one, but this categorization is helpful for the purposes of this curriculum. There is also a lot of overlap between these categorizations. For example, cerebral palsy may be considered a developmental disability, a physical disability, and/or a kind of neurodivergence. Below are listed the general disability categories used in this curriculum followed by examples of each one.
1. Blind and Low Vision: age-related macular degeneration, cataracts, retinopathy, glaucoma, or various conditions causing congenital blindness
2. Deaf and Hard of Hearing
3. Cognitive, Learning, and Developmental Disabilities, and Neurodivergence: ADHD, autism, fetal alcohol syndrome, Alzheimer’s disease, tourette’s syndrome, aphantasia
4. Chronic illness and chronic pain: asthma, chronic Lyme disease, fibromyalgia, Crohn’s disease, lupus, arthritis, chronic migraines, autoimmune conditions, chronic fatigue syndrome
5. Psychiatric and Traumagenic Disabilities (these are also often considered a form of neurodivergence): dissociative identity disorder, complex PTSD and PTSD, bipolar spectrum, borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, traumatic brain injury
6. Physical Disabilities: cerebral palsy, epilepsy, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries.
White Supremacy, Capitalism, Intersectionality, and Disability Justice
We acknowledge that the act of needing to categorize disabilities is inherently a violent process that is rooted in white supremacy and capitalism. People cannot be broken into pieces and parts of themselves, but our current society often requires this of us to survive. White supremacy and imperialism are and continue to be perpetuated by “divide and conquer” practices, such as pitting various ethnic groups against each other or disrupting working class and poor people by race. Dividing people with disabilities into groups creates unnecessary divisions in the movement.
Based on the legal and medical models of disability (which have been created by capitalism), disabilities are categorized to determine people with which disabilities are “deserving of” and “in need of” support from the government and private services. This erases the individual experiences, needs, and desires of individuals with disabilities and upholds non-disabled ideas that people with disabilities in various groups have certain “deficiencies.” But if a person refuses to figure out where they are “categorized,” they are much less likely to be able to communicate needs to doctors, acquire services, or apply for disability benefits from the government. This is especially applicable to those with higher support needs or those who are multiply marginalized (like people of color with disabilities).
This dynamic is why getting a formal diagnosis for a disability is a privilege – the person can use capitalist language to convey “legitimacy” to those who gatekeep care and resources. We decided to organize this curriculum by general groups of disability experiences for 2 primary reasons: to help people see patterns in experience and marginalization because disabled peoples’ experiences are informed by imposed categorizations and to make utilizing the resource organized in a way that breaks down content into smaller sections. Note that identifying similar experiences among groups of people with disabilities is not inherently bad or harmful if it is rooted in the needs and desires of people with disabilities seeking community and support (rather than being imposed by non-disabled people). But currently, much of the need to categorize people into these groups is rooted in systemic oppression.
As you go through these materials, we challenge you to ask yourself and each other: What would it look like if all people could just communicate their needs and seek support without having to justify their needs and prove expertise in their own lived experience?
A final nuance regarding the social model: As Mike Oliver explains in the video linked in the Defining Disability section about defining the social model of disability, this model has limitations (like any model). Models are broad overviews of an issue which attempt to convey a pattern. But people aren’t patterns and each person’s experience will differ greatly, even among those with the same disabilities and intersectionality (such as Black trans men who have dyslexia). The social model pushes back against ideas of disability being inherently bad or harmful to people, those around them, and society as a whole.
However, some disabilities do result in pain, difficulty, and stress even if the world was perfectly accessible and affirming. This tends to be especially the case among those with chronic illness, chronic mental distress, addiction and eating disorders, and progressive conditions. It is and should be in the control of the person with the disability to decide for themselves their own goals around their body and disability. Advocating for a destigmatized, accessible world shouldn’t mean that people are not allowed to name pain or difficulties they experience with their disabilities.
Notes on Language Choices
1. Person vs. Identity First Language: People vary a lot in whether they prefer “people with disabilities” (person first language) or “disabled people” (identity first language). Therefore, we’ve included both at various points in this curriculum.
2. Cognitive and Developmental Disabilities: Most people refer to those with these disabilities as “intellectual and developmental disabilities.” Intelligence at it’s best, could refer to the many kinds of talents and skills any given person may have, but for now, that’s not how it’s used. The idea of intelligence in a post-colonial framework originated in eugenicist movements and defines “intelligence” very narrowly (usually based on IQ). Therefore, we’ve used the language of “cognitive and developmental disabilities” which names the kind of disability without equating the person’s disability with eugenicist language.
3. Healthy vs. Affirming: In public health language, it’s common to refer to a quality of a behavior as “healthy” or “unhealthy,” like “an unhealthy relationship” or “healthy sexuality.” This language is imprecise and is usually defined by those who are in places of formal power, which often excludes marginalized people (such as people with disabilities).
- a. Generally, when people refer to a “healthy relationship” for example, they are attempting to name a relationship that includes mutual respect, support, and active anti-violence practices. To be more clear, we are naming “healthy relationships” or “healthy sexuality” as “affirming relationships” and “affirming sexuality.” Describing something as affirming redefines WHO is in the position to define the relationship. “Affirming” is defined by the person who is experiencing the relationship, sexuality, etc.
- b. Similarly, there’s a movement that connects to the supported decision-making movement related to “healthy interdependence.” This concept names the process of people breaking down the norms of individuality (rooted in American nationalism, white supremacy, and ableism) in which people are expected to magically not require any support in their lives. Healthy interdependence strives to replace this strict individuality with the idea that all people benefit from relationships that involve intentionally creating safety, space for vulnerability, and person-based support. For similar reasons, we are referring to this as “affirming interdependence.”
Of course, many of the resources included in this curriculum don’t use this language, but we felt it important to explain why our language diverges from public health language and to offer a different way of approaching these topics.
Values
PCAR and IDJ have prioritized and sought out resources that align with some or all the below values (listed in alphabetical order). The items are named and then a brief description is provided to ensure clarity regarding how we have used this language. Click on the link for each one to learn more.
1. Abolitionism: Policing and incarceration are not just practices, they are a value system and culture which propagate violence, racism, sexual violence, and further traumatize people in moments of crisis (among other situations). Practicing abolition means holding space for pain without responding with punishment, and uplifting the humanity of all people, including those who cause harm.
2. Anti-Capitalism: People’s humanity is worth more than their ability to make money or produce something.
3. Healing Centered: This curriculum does not simply point out flaws in the service provision system or identify risk factors for harm. While those topics are included, there has also been considerable effort made to include materials that offer capacity building, practical advice/ideas, and healing-focused materials for survivors and those impacted by vicarious trauma.
4. Intersectionality: Resources which provide insight and expertise from multiply-marginalized people such as LGBTQIA+ people with disabilities and BIPOC people with disabilities have been prioritized and actively sought out. This is important as ableism and other forms of systemic harm are rooted in imperialism, white supremacy, and militarism.
5. Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Those who are most impacted by harm should be at the forefront of leadership, education, and organizing. All people are simultaneously students and teachers.
6. Social Justice: All people should be treated with dignity, respect, and nuance. No one deserves to experience harm and everyone deserves to be supported in healing.
7. Solidarity: Resources have come from people and organizations which practice mutual aid and collaboration, rather than from a place of “saving” a marginalized group (i.e. people with disabilities) by a dominant group (i.e. people without disabilities). This has particular resonance in disability justice given our focus on affirming interdependence, self-determination, and dignity of risk.
8. Systems Thinking: Inequity and violence are rooted in history and structures. Contributing to violence prevention and justice work must involve addressing the roots of violence and societal shifts, not just individual or organizational capacity building.
9. Transformative Justice: When someone causes harm, accountability should be mutually healing-centered and educational for those who experienced harm and those who caused it. This is in contrast to punishing the person who caused harm and not seeking input about the accountability process from the person who was harmed (such as is most common in the U.S. carceral and legal systems).
10. Trauma-Informed Practice: We have made an effort to locate resources which are non-graphic, visually or in story-telling. However, given the topic of this curriculum, please take care of yourself and take breaks, especially for those service providers who are also people with disabilities.
Note: While these words and concepts may be “new” to white, “western” peoples, all these concepts have existed in various ways in Indigenous communities across the world pre-colonization. It’s easy for white people to pretend these are novel concepts in part because many of these values and practices were a way of life for many native peoples, so there may have not even been a necessity to have specific words for these practices. One reason these words have developed over time in the present is because people needed language to describe resistant to oppression – oppression created and sustained through white supremacy, patriarchy, ableism, and other forms of systemic marginalization facilitated through colonialism.
Curriculum Outline
The curriculum has 9 sections but may be periodically updated and expanded. Each section includes a summary of the section as well as details about the suggested educational resources. For clarity of use, each section has 2 to 4 “areas of learning” that categorize the educational materials. Each learning area contains 3 to 9 resources. As noted above, there is a lot of overlap in how people define and categorize disabilities, and identify access needs. Because of this overlap, we sometime made choices to place a resource in one area over another, even though it might fit in both. For example, a resource we included on service dogs is placed in the section regarding physical disabilities, even though this could fit in any of those categories. We do not mean that only those with physical disabilities are likely to need or have a service dog.
The curriculum is designed to be flexible and fit the needs of the learner. While we have organized the content in a linear way, there is no right way to navigate the course material. We also encourage participants to return for refreshers. The areas currently included in the curriculum are:
1. An Introduction to Disability Justice, Practicing Respect, and Identities
2. Psychiatric and Traumagenic Disabilities
3. Cognitive and Developmental Disabilities
4. Physical Disabilities
5. Blindness
6. Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communities
7. Chronic Illness, Chronic Pain, Fatphobia, and Capitalist Profiteering
8. Disability Justice, Policy, and Institutional Change
9. Ableism, Violence, and Violence Prevention
Additionally, we are available to help. Reach out to us at email address and INdisabilityjustice@gmail.com as you need support. We hope you enjoy this learning experience!