Rethinking Access and Inclusion in Higher Education: A Reflexive and Critical Engagement with Disability Studies

Introduction 

The lecture “Introducing Critical Disability Studies: Indian Contexts, Global Perspectives” challenged many of my earlier assumptions about disability, access, and inclusion within higher education. Instead of understanding disability only as an individual medical condition or limitation, the session encouraged me to think about disability as something shaped by social structures, institutional barriers, and cultural attitudes. The speakers, Dr. Antonios Tzides and Dr. Karuna Rajev, emphasized that universities are often designed around able-bodied norms, which can unintentionally exclude disabled people from fully participating in academic life. Their discussion pushed me to critically reflect on my own understanding of accessibility, productivity, merit, and inclusion. 

I tried here to critically engage with the ideas presented in the lecture and connect them with broader themes in critical disability studies. I particularly tried to reflect on anti-ableist pedagogy, access as social justice, the culture of productivity in universities, and the importance of reflexivity in creating inclusive educational spaces. Through this reflection, I also examine how ableism operates not only through physical barriers but also through everyday attitudes, assumptions, and institutional practices. 

Understanding Disability Beyond the Medical Model 

One of the most important ideas discussed in the lecture was the shift from the medical model of disability to the social model of disability. Traditionally, disability has often been viewed as an individual problem that needs to be fixed or cured. However, the speakers argued that disability is created through inaccessible environments and exclusionary attitudes rather than simply through bodily impairments. 

Dr. Antonios illustrated this idea using the example of a wheelchair user being unable to access a building because of stairs. Instead of seeing the wheelchair user as the problem, he argued that the real issue lies in the design of the building itself. This example made me realise how deeply society normalises able-bodied experiences. Before engaging with disability studies, I often thought of accessibility mainly in terms of ramps or lifts. However, the lecture helped me understand that access is much broader and includes emotional, intellectual, social, and institutional dimensions. 

This discussion also made me reflect on my own educational experiences. In schools and universities, there are many assumptions about what a “good student” should look like. Students are expected to sit still for long hours, maintain eye contact, respond quickly, and perform continuously. These expectations appear normal because they are deeply embedded in educational culture. However, as Dr. Antonios explained, such expectations can disadvantage neurodivergent students, students with chronic illnesses, or students with different communication styles. I realised that many educational practices considered “professional” or “disciplined” may actually be forms of ableism. 

Access as Social Justice 

Another powerful argument from the lecture was the idea that access should not be treated as a technical adjustment or an afterthought. Instead, access should be understood as a matter of social justice. This perspective was particularly meaningful because it moved beyond tokenistic inclusion. 

Many institutions claim to be inclusive because they provide certain facilities or accommodations. However, the lecture highlighted the difference between performative inclusion and genuine inclusion. For example, universities may have disability support systems on paper, but disabled students often continue to face exclusion, stigma, and bureaucratic difficulties in practice. This contradiction between institutional rhetoric and lived reality was strongly discussed by both speakers. 

Dr. Karuna Rajev’s discussion of the Indian higher education system especially stood out to me. She explained how students with disabilities are often made to feel that they are receiving “special treatment” when they ask for accommodations such as extra exam time. Statements like “If you are intelligent enough to study here, why do you need extra time?” reveal how meritocracy itself can become ableist. These comments assume that everyone’s body and mind function in the same way. 

This discussion forced me to critically think about the idea of merit. Universities often celebrate productivity, speed, competition, and efficiency. However, these standards privilege certain kinds of bodies and minds while marginalising others. Before this lecture, I rarely questioned why speed is associated with intelligence or why overwork is considered a sign of academic success. I now recognise that these standards are socially constructed and exclusionary. 

The lecture also connected disability with larger issues of caste, class, language, and gender. In the Indian context, access is not only about disability but also about economic privilege, digital access, and social identity. Students from marginalised backgrounds may experience multiple forms of exclusion simultaneously. This intersectional understanding of disability was extremely important because it challenged simplistic ideas of inclusion. 

Reflexivity and Internalised Ableism 

A major strength of the lecture was its emphasis on reflexivity. Rather than presenting ableism as something practised only by “bad” or openly discriminatory people, the speakers explained that ableism can also exist in subtle and everyday forms. This idea was uncomfortable but necessary. 

Dr. Karuna discussed how even seemingly harmless comments such as “You are so inspiring” can become patronising because they position disabled people as objects of admiration rather than as individuals with rights and dignity. This made me reflect on how language can unintentionally reproduce inequality. 

The lecture repeatedly encouraged listeners to examine their own internalised assumptions. I found this personally significant because I realised that I have also unconsciously accepted many ableist norms. For example, I often associate academic competence with fluency, confidence, and quick responses. I had not seriously considered how these standards disadvantage people with different cognitive or communication styles. 

The session also made me reflect on my understanding of independence. Society often treats independence as the ideal human condition. However, disability studies challenges this assumption by arguing that all people are interdependent in different ways. No one exists completely independently. We all rely on support systems, relationships, and social structures. This idea changed my understanding of care and support. Instead of seeing support as weakness, disability studies reframes care as an essential part of human life. 

The concept of “access intimacy,” discussed through Mia Mingus’s work, was another idea that deeply affected me. Access intimacy refers to the comfort and ease a disabled person feels when their access needs are understood and respected without shame or explanation. I found this concept emotionally powerful because it showed that accessibility is not just about infrastructure; it is also about relationships, empathy, and emotional safety. 

Anti-Ableist Pedagogy and the University Space 

The lecture strongly argued that universities should become spaces of collective care rather than spaces of competition and exclusion. Dr. Antonios discussed how he attempts to create anti-ableist classrooms by challenging traditional expectations around behaviour and participation. He encourages movement, different forms of communication, comfort breaks, and flexible engagement. 

I found this approach transformative because most educational systems prioritise discipline and standardisation. The idea that students should listen to their body-minds rather than force themselves into rigid expectations felt radical within the context of higher education. 

Similarly, Dr. Karuna questioned the culture of overwork within universities. She explained how long working hours, endless assessments, conference pressures, and administrative overload create exhaustion and exclusion. Her argument made me realise that neoliberal university culture harms not only disabled people but many others as well. 

At the same time, disabled people experience these pressures more intensely because institutions are rarely designed around diverse bodily and cognitive needs. This discussion helped me understand that accessibility is connected to larger political and economic systems. 

The lecture also emphasised the importance of including disabled voices within academic spaces. The phrase “nothing about us without us” highlights that disabled people should not simply be subjects of research or policy but active participants in knowledge production. I appreciated this argument because it challenged hierarchical ideas about who is considered an expert. 

One particularly moving moment discussed in the lecture involved a visually impaired student connecting personally with a literary text about disability. Her interpretation changed the classroom discussion and revealed how lived experience can transform academic understanding. This example demonstrated the importance of creating spaces where students feel safe enough to share their experiences. 

Conclusion 

Overall, the lecture fundamentally changed the way I think about disability, inclusion, and higher education. It challenged me to move beyond narrow understandings of accessibility and to recognise ableism as a structural and cultural issue. I now understand that accessibility is not simply about ramps, lifts, or accommodations. It is also about dignity, belonging, emotional safety, and institutional transformation. 

The session also encouraged me to critically examine my own assumptions about productivity, intelligence, independence, and merit. Through this reflexive process, I realised that ableism is deeply embedded in everyday educational practices and social attitudes. Recognising this is uncomfortable, but it is also necessary if more inclusive academic spaces are to be created. 

This lecture therefore did not simply teach me about disability studies as an academic field. It pushed me to rethink how knowledge, education, and humanity itself are organised within society. In this sense, disability studies becomes not only a critique of exclusion but also a powerful framework for imagining more ethical, caring, and socially just futures.