Join us! How you can get involved and be part of the change: 

• Share your input and feedback on the Community Blueprint through this form
• Read Blueprint Memo to Governor-Elect Mikie Sherrill
• Review the list of workgroups
• Join a workgroup by completing this survey or sending your contact information to Kerry McGrath, Kerry.McGrath@njcdd.org
• Sign up for updates by sending your contact information to Kyoko Coco, Kyoko.Coco@njcdd.org

Individuals with disabilities, families, guardians, Direct Support Professionals, Self-Directed Employees, Support Coordinators, Care Managers, service providers, state government staff, and all who care about these critical issues are welcome and strongly encouraged to join us.

Paul Aronsohn | Special to the USA TODAY Network
Editor’s note: This piece was updated on Oct. 9 to correct the date of the start of a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs initiative.

With October being National Disability Employment Awareness Month, now is a good time to start a national conversation regarding the concept of “rehabilitation” in the context of disability employment services.

Rehabilitation has long played a central role in the disability rights movement — one that stretches back more than a century and was originally focused on American veterans returning from war in Europe. Indeed, it was in 1918 that Congress adopted the Soldiers Rehabilitation Act, which provided federal assistance to help ensure honorably discharged veterans could be employed in civilian jobs. This was soon followed by the 1920 Civilian Vocational Rehabilitation Act, which extended employment-related support to non-veterans with disabilities.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was another critical milestone in the disability rights journey. The law sought to build on the work done over the preceding half-century by prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities in federal jobs or in organizations that receive federal funding. It also created the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration, currently housed in the U.S. Department of Education, which has been responsible for providing “resources to assist state and other agencies in providing vocational rehabilitation and other services to individuals with disabilities.”

And all throughout this disability employment rights journey — from 1918 to 1973 to the present — rehabilitation programs and offices have been established in Washington, D.C., and across the country to facilitate employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

Taken together, it has been a good, largely constructive history. Many people with disabilities have been well served by it all. However, it is now time to take this important, century-long effort to the next level by actually phasing out the concept of rehabilitation as an approach to disability employment practices — changing the nomenclature to better align with an evolving, more enlightened view of people with disabilities.

The reason is simple: Rehabilitation wrongly suggests that people with disabilities need to be fixed — that they are broken and need to be repaired. And simply stated, that just isn’t true.

Disabilities vary, and people with disabilities — like all people everywhere — are diverse and unique with respect to their strengths and their challenges. Some have limitations. Some require workplace accommodations. But to suggest that they are broken is just plain wrong and just plain hurtful.

Granted, the concept of rehabilitation remains important and useful in other contexts. Without question, from time to time, we all need to be fixed or repaired or healed in some way. Sometimes, such as after a stay in an acute care hospital, we need to spend time in a rehabilitation facility to get back to baseline — back to where we were before the incident that led us to the hospital in the first place. However, that is a whole lot different from suggesting that an entire group of people needs to be fixed in order to be employed, because they have autism or cerebral palsy or Down syndrome or spina bifida or any number of other disabilities.

As such, we should end the use of the concept of rehabilitation in the world of disability employment services and programs. Like the other “R” word that outlived its usefulness and became increasingly offensive with respect to people with intellectual disabilities, “rehabilitation” should no longer be used, because it can create and perpetuate a mistaken mindset and misguided set of expectations with respect to people with disabilities.

To this end, we should follow the lead of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, which took important steps to eliminate the use of the concept in its services and programs soon after President Joe Biden took office. In fact, in 2020, the VA removed the word “rehabilitation” from its employment-related division, replacing it with the more fitting “readiness.”

In similar fashion, while honoring its important history, we should move beyond rehabilitation as a leading concept in disability employment matters and embrace a more positive, more empowering, and more appropriate concept that embodies a most important truth: that while some people have special needs, all people — each and every one of us — has special gifts, talents and skills, and each of us deserves the opportunity to realize our full potential.

After all, words matter.

Paul Aronsohn, who comes from a family with disabilities, is New Jersey’s Ombudsman for Individuals with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities and Their Families and is also a member of the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities.

Throughout Black History Month, we celebrate the contributions of Black Americans with disabilities who made a significant impact on our world. This week, we highlight the work of civil rights advocate Johnnie Lacy .

Johnnie Lacy (1937–2010), was a Black civil rights pioneer and an activist for the Independent Living Movement. She wanted to pursue a degree at San Francisco State University in speech pathology but was initially denied, barred by the directors of the program because of her disability. She graduated in 1960 but was not allowed to participate in the ceremony.

Lacy helped found the Center for Independent Living at Berkeley.

Throughout her career, she spoke out against the systemic barriers that prevented people with disabilities from accessing essential services and from participating in mainstream society. Her advocacy efforts helped to raise awareness about the challenges faced by people with disabilities and to pave the way for the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990.

Johnnie Lacy had physical disabilities as a result of polio. She was mostly paralyzed.

Did You Know:

There are a growing number of resources to help build awareness of and support for the vital role of Black Americans in the disability movement. Here are a few:

Throughout Black History Month, we celebrate the contributions of Black Americans with disabilities who made a significant impact on our world. This week, we highlight the work of civil rights advocate Thomas Wiggins.

Thomas Wiggins (1849–1908), was a Black American musician and composer. Born into slavery in Georgia, he was blind from birth. Based on accounts, it is believed that he also had autism. He was spared death at a time when it was common to kill Black infants with disabilities.

Because of his disabilities, Tom was not forced to work in the same ways other Black men were. A naturally gifted pianist, he began performing at the age of six. He became famous for his imitations of bird calls, trains, and other sounds of nature which he incorporated into his music. At the age of 11, he was invited to perform at the White House by President James Buchanan.

His young age, status as a slave, and delayed emotional development made him vulnerable to exploitation by his owners. After abolition, his owners became his legal guardians. They controlled his income and managed his career. Historical accounts suggest that the money the family made from Tom’s talents was used to support the Confederacy.

He became one of the most sought-after musicians of his time. His compositions embody 19th-century romanticism with a great range of emotion and narrative detail.

Did you know:
​The Council’s grant process is one of the ways in which we accomplish our goals. Beginning in 2022, the NJCDD funded a two-year project to expand the range and comprehensiveness of the Council’s ability to empower Black communities by providing information that enhances access to information and services. The grantee, LeDerick Horne Speaks and Bill Davis, developed and continue to facilitate the NJ Black I/DD Consortium. Comprised of members from organizations, school districts and local advocates, the Consortium is guiding the development of strategies to access information that maximizes academic, employment and quality life outcomes for Black NJ residents with I/DD and their families.

A new grant, which will be funded this spring, will provide education, training, technical assistance, and advocacy support to help parents, guardians, and caregivers of Black and Hispanic students with disabilities engage in advocacy work at the local level to eliminate the inappropriate use of seclusion, restraint, suspension, and expulsion in school. The desired outcome of this funding initiative will lead to a reduction in the use of these procedures and an increase in parent, caregiver, and guardian engagement in local advocacy.

Throughout Black History Month, we celebrate the contributions of Black Americans with disabilities who made a significant impact on our world. This week, we highlight the work of civil rights advocate Bradley Lomax.

Bradley Lomax (1950­–1984), was a civil rights leader and disability advocate. The founder of the Washington, D.C. chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP), he also rose to become a leader in the disability rights movement.

When disability rights activists staged a successful sit-in to urge the government to implement Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Lomax was there. He stayed in the building for nearly a month in protest, even after the government cut off the water supply and phone lines. Lomax asked the BPP to help, and they quickly began delivering food and supplies to the protesters. Many believe that the sit-in would have quickly fizzled out without this assistance.

Bradley Lomax had Multiple Sclerosis and used a wheelchair. His personal caregiver, Chuck Jackson, also a Black Panther, was one of the pivotal figures ensuring that the Black Panthers more explicitly included disability rights in their social activism.

Did you Know:
The New Jersey Council on Developmental Disabilities formed a standing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion sub-committee in 2021, and has hired a DEI consultant. Deeply committed to improving cultural competency, diversity, equity, inclusion and linguistic responsiveness, the Council has taken steps to define the ways in which we strive to apply these principles in all aspects of our work. To learn more about the importance of this work, click here: https://njcdd.org/deicclr/

Throughout Black History Month, we celebrate the contributions of Black Americans with disabilities who made a significant impact on our world. This week, we highlight the work of civil rights advocate Fannie Lou Hamer Townsend.

Fannie Lou Hamer Townsend (1917–1977), was a civil rights leader and community activist. She promoted voting rights and employment/economic opportunities for Black Americans. She was also a co-founder of the National Women’s Political Caucus, an organization created to recruit, train, and support women of all races who wish to seek election to government office.

Throughout her career as an advocate, she was threatened, harassed, shot at, and assaulted while trying to register for and exercise her right to vote. She helped and encouraged thousands of African Americans in Mississippi to become registered voters.

Twice she ran for political office: In 1964, she made a bid for the US Senate; and in 1971, she ran for the Mississippi State Senate.

Fannie Lou Hamer Townsend had polio as a child and experienced permanent injury as a result of being beaten when arrested for her activism.

Did You Know: 
Through our 5-Year State Plan, the NJCDD has prioritized outreach and education efforts aimed at better supporting New Jersey’s Black I/DD community. In forming that 5-Year State Plan, the NJCDD Chairperson, Paul Blaustein appointed an ad hoc committee on diversity, equity and inclusion to help inform the Council’s  efforts. Now, through that plan, NJCDD is funding projects and engaging in outreach designed to ensure increased levels of diversity, equity, cultural competency, and linguistic responsiveness in all aspects of the work carried out by the Council, and its staff. One of our objectives focuses on building collaborations and coalitions designed to reduce barriers to service access and delivery, with an emphasis on reducing inequities experienced by historically underserved populations, including individuals who are Black. Learn more about our state plan, click here: https://njcdd.org/njcdd-5-year-planning-2022-2026/

.

Every February, the U.S., Canada, Ireland, and the UK officially celebrate Black History Month.

Black disabled history is an important aspect of Black history, and a vital part of U.S. and world history.

Black people with disabilities are multiply marginalized. More awareness of the contributions and achievements of Black leaders with disabilities can help drive and inform systems change.​

Throughout Black History Month, we celebrate the contributions of Black Americans with disabilities who made a significant impact on our world. Each Thursday during the month of February, we will highlight a person whose life story and work needs more awareness.

By Jeremy Einbinder

In an impending Supreme Court case, a hotel business seeks to capitalize on an unfortunate perception of people with disabilities and their advocates in order to escape from having to make plainly necessary accessibility accommodations.  For the broader public, a common association with the Americans with Disabilities Act evokes the image of a sleazy attorney looking for an easy settlement and a freeloading plaintiff who is engaging in frivolous lawsuits. As a result, it appears that these charges unfairly persecute businesses that are only trying their best to serve the community. This is a clever and insidious public relations trick. However, the frequency of lawsuits concerning the ADA which result only in a cash settlement, and not in fixing an insufficiently accessible environment serve only to further this damaging narrative.

The ADA is, by reputation, a broad set of policies that function to serve the needs of people with all sorts of disabilities and guarantee that all can participate in both civic and commercial environments. This is not the case.

Explicit loopholes, such as the possibility of compliance with the ADA placing an “undue financial burden” on a business, and the fact that some businesses are considered too small to be subject to the standards of the ADA, mean that inaccessibility is not nearly as universal as it is meant to seem. In practice, ableist discrimination remains perfectly legal.

Then there are glaring de facto loopholes: First off, a disproportionate amount of people with disabilities are poor and do not have the resources to compel a place of public accommodation to follow ADA standards, even if, by the letter of the law, they are required to do so. Secondly, the cost of defending against ADA lawsuits can be substantial, and frankly, they are almost a complete waste of time if the violating business in question does not fix its accessibility issues. The instance of a cash settlement as a result of an impending lawsuit that does not result in the accessibility issue in question being rectified is a common stereotype that unfortunately has some basis.

When this practice does occur, it undermines the importance of accessibility. Its recognition as a common action only serves to portray people with disabilities as money-grubbing freeloaders who don’t need the accommodations that they claim are necessary. This is dangerous.

Instead, we need to undergo a massive architectural project that transforms our society to ensure universal access to all places of public accommodation.

The pursuit of equality of social power and accessibility for persons with disabilities remains a vision that must be rendered as completely and as universally as possible. Whether in our workplaces, educational institutions, or places of public accommodation, the goal is clear: to ensure universal access for everyone and ensure the ability of all people to participate in all areas of public life.

The Supreme Court case in question, Acheson Hotels LLC v. Deborah Laufer, detailed in USA Today, emphasizes the critical importance of universal access and the prioritization of the needs of people with disabilities concerning places of public accommodation, such as the plaintiff of the case.  Lauffer acted as an accessibility “tester,” booking a room in which she did not actually intend to stay, but that nonetheless should have been sufficiently accessible nonetheless. Laufer has sued hundreds of businesses for ADA violations. Acheson Hotels LLC alleges that, because Lauffer was not actually a customer, her case does not have standing.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues that she does. They state, “Laufer has every right to assert disabled people’s right to access knowledge of accessibility features; without it, how can we make informed decisions about where we will stay? How do we know the rooms will preserve our dignity by not leaving us to sit on the floor of showers or sleep in our wheelchairs? Allowing ‘testers’ like Laufer to bring suit is a necessary component of enforcing disability law and promoting broad compliance with the ADA.”

In other words, if the court finds for Acheson, does that mean that a patron booking a room that is insufficiently accessible is just out of luck, with no recourse? That seems ridiculous.

The ACLU makes a compelling point, but the crux of the issue remains incompletely addressed, even if Laufer wins her case.

Just as we argued for universally accessible housing and living spaces in a previous article for the Council, we must also advocate for the same transformative processes to apply to all businesses, organizations, institutions, clubs, and any other places in which people with disabilities might ever be a patron.

This case serves as a focal point in the ongoing discourse about disability rights. The case challenges the interpretation and application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the context of public accommodation. However, the potential outcomes of this case, whether in favor of the prospective patron or the business establishment, fall well short of creating the transformative change needed.

A victory for Lauffer, while partially addressing her specific grievance, may leave systemic issues unaddressed. It may also continue to perpetuate the practice of attorneys settling with inaccessible businesses financially without ensuring the problem of inaccessibility is ever rectified.  Similarly, a ruling in favor of the business establishment might prioritize profit over the fundamental rights of individuals with disabilities. This would perpetuate a cycle of inaccessibility. This cycle can only be broken with a genuinely transformative project which would make universal accessibility a reality.

Much like the housing approach we advocated for in the article titled, “A Universal Approach to Housing”- which calls for consultation with diverse communities regarding housing and living spaces – an Accessibility Revolution would prioritize extensive input from various disability communities to ensure that the transformation is holistic and inclusive in all public spaces.

The parallels between housing and public accommodation are clear. Just as accessible housing is essential for independent living, accessible public spaces are vital for full participation in society.

We need a massive public works project aimed at proactively and retroactively making all places of public accommodation universally accessible to all patrons, just as changes to the building of houses and layouts of neighborhoods would make all living spaces universally accessible.

Central to such an Accessibility Revolution is the idea of consultation and collaboration. Everyone involved in the process of design and construction must engage with communities and individuals to understand their unique needs. By consulting extensively with various disability communities, the Accessibility Revolution would ensure that the transformation is not a one-size-fits-all solution but a tailored approach that caters to diverse needs.

As we await the ruling of Acheson v. Laufer, we recognize the limitations of both possible outcomes. To truly transform our society into one that champions accessibility and inclusivity, we must embrace the transformative potential of a future Accessibility Revolution.

We must create a world where accessibility is not an afterthought but a fundamental aspect of our public spaces. It transcends the boundaries of mere compliance and ushers in an era of true universality.Top of Form

By Jeremy Einbinder

As our society becomes more inclusive and equitable, we are starting to see a shift in how we think about disability. While the traditional medical model of disability views it as an individual problem to be fixed or cured, and the social model recognizes disability as a socially constructed experience shaped by societal attitudes, beliefs, and structures, there is another model that offers a more nuanced and complex understanding of disability: the dialectical model.

What is the Dialectical Model of Disability?

The dialectical model of disability, also known as the critical disability theory, is a framework that recognizes disability as a product of the interaction between the individual and their environment. It views disability as a dynamic, ongoing process that is constantly changing and evolving.

The dialectical model is rooted in the philosophy of Dialectical Materialism. Dialectical Materialism postulates that everything constantly changes and develops, and the contradictions and conflicts within and between things drive such change. In the case of disability, these contradictions and conflicts arise from the tension between the individual and their environment.

According to this model, disability is not simply a medical condition or a social construct but rather a complex and dialectical relationship between the two. The dialectical model recognizes that while biological and medical factors can contribute to the experience of disability, social, economic, and political factors also play a significant role in shaping disability experiences.

A 2012 study by Louise Bøttcher and Jesper Dammeyer titled, in part, “Disability as a dialectical concept,” explains as follows, using cerebral palsy as an example.

“The impairments of the child with, e.g., cerebral palsy (CP) have biological origins, but the disability has evolved from the incongruence between the child and its social conditions for development. A child with a disability differs from his peers without disabilities not only due to the biological defect but also because of the defect, and the incongruence it gives rise to makes development much more difficult for this child. From the cultural-historical vantage point, the shortcoming of the biomedical understanding of disability is exactly that it fails to notice how a child with a biological defect has to act in social institutions first and foremost adapted to children with normal psychophysical constitutions.”

This excerpt illustrates that while the phenomena that people with disabilities experience are not wholly contingent on social factors, the idea of what is considered “defective” or “disabling,” as opposed to merely a natural variation of the human experience, varies by context. It may even be highly culturally specific. Overall, there are a few crucial aspects of the dialectical model of disability to remember.

Key Features of the Dialectical Model

Several key features of the dialectical model of disability set it apart from other models of disability. These include:

1. Emphasis on Agency and Autonomy: The dialectical model recognizes that disabled individuals have agency and autonomy and actively participate in constructing their disability experiences. Disabled individuals are not passive victims of their disability or environment but active agents who can shape and change their experiences.
2. Focus on Social and Political Context: The dialectical model recognizes that disability is not just a medical or individual issue but a social and political issue. Societal attitudes, beliefs, structures, and economic and political systems shape disability.
3. Recognition of Diversity: The dialectical model recognizes that disability experiences are diverse and complex. This model does not attempt to reduce these experiences to a single category or definition. Depending on personal and social context, affected individuals can be said to “have disabilities,” be “disabled,” or both. These individuals have different needs, experiences, and identities, which any complete and competent framework of disability must consider.
4. Critical Analysis: The dialectical model is based on a critical analysis of disability, recognizing societal power imbalances and social injustices. It seeks to challenge and transform these power imbalances and injustices to create a more equitable and inclusive world.

The study continues to elaborate on how someone classified as having a disability may thrive:

“Dammeyer (2010) studied families with children with deaf-blindness and how they manage the incongruence of the child’s development and the cultural institutions. The parents’ experience of fighting with the public service system was understood as a result of the incongruence. Taking care of the children’s development was difficult because of the incongruence. Bøttcher (2012) has included neuroscience approaches to biological defects in a wider cultural-historical understanding of disability and the children’s developmental trajectories in the complex systems of educational practices and support systems in which exceptional children often carry out their educational careers.”

The critical thing to recognize is that while differences, whether cognitive, physical, emotional, or intellectual, influence disability, the same is true of vice versa. What is considered an impairment may also affect what is seen as a disability. Neither is wholly and separately true, and both phenomena interact and complement each other.

Challenges and Complements to Other Models of Disability

The dialectical model of disability challenges and complements other models of disability, such as the medical and social models.

While the medical model focuses on the individual and their impairment, and the social model focuses on the societal barriers and structures that limit the opportunities and experiences of individuals with disabilities, the dialectical model recognizes the complex and dialectical relationship between the two.

The dialectical model challenges the medical model by recognizing that disability is not just a medical condition but a product of the interaction between the individual and their environment. It also challenges the social model by acknowledging that disabled individuals have agency and autonomy and can actively shape and change their disability experiences.

At the same time, the dialectical model complements the medical and social adapted models by recognizing the importance of biological and medical factors, as well as social and environmental factors, in shaping the disability experience. This model acknowledges that medical conditions or individual impairments are not the exclusive causes of disability, but instead, the dialectical interaction of personal, social, and environmental factors also causes disability.

The dialectical model also emphasizes the dynamic and evolving nature of disability. Disability is not a static condition but a fluid experience that can change over time based on the interaction of individual, social, and environmental factors. As such, disability is not an inherent characteristic of an individual but rather a dynamic and contextual experience that societal attitudes and policies can influence.

Moreover, the dialectical model recognizes that disability is not a monolithic experience but a diverse and intersectional one. Disability intersects with other aspects of identity, such as race, gender, and sexuality, and these intersections can shape the disability experience in unique ways. For instance, a person with a disability who is also a member of a marginalized racial or ethnic group may face additional barriers and discrimination that compound the impact of their disability.

It is for this reason why, for instance, the debate about the merits of “person-first language” as opposed to “identity-first language” becomes personal and sometimes even circumstantial. When describing a substantial challenge a person might have, it might be most appropriate to refer to someone as a “person with a disability.” However, when describing barriers that a person faces due to the physical and social infrastructure in place throughout society, it might make sense to refer to the same person as being “disabled.” Neither of these things can necessarily be separated.

The dialectical model has implications for policy and practice. It suggests that interventions should aim to address both the individual and societal factors that contribute to disability. These interventions could include improving medical treatments and accommodations for anyone who might need them and promoting social and environmental changes that remove barriers and promote inclusion.

The relationship between disability, society, and the self, and how all these things mutually interact, is full of contradictions. An individual’s relationship to each of these contradictions may vary. These contractions are what the dialectical model of disability attempts, in part, to solve.

By Jeremy Einbinder

March is Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month, a time to celebrate and advocate for the rights and inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. One important aspect of this is the representation of people with disabilities in the media. While progress has been made, there is still a long way to go in terms of accurate and diverse representation. To commemorate this month, we’ll explore the impact of media representation on disability rights and inclusion, and how better representation can lead to real-world benefits for people with disabilities.

First, let’s consider the power of representation itself. As disability rights activist and writer Alice Wong notes, “Representation is more than just seeing people who look like you—it’s also about who gets to tell their stories and who gets to frame the conversation.” When people with disabilities are left out of the stories we tell, or are only portrayed through harmful stereotypes, it reinforces the notion that they are “other” and reinforces harmful attitudes and practices towards them. On the other hand, when people with disabilities are portrayed as complex, nuanced characters, it can challenge these assumptions and shift attitudes towards greater acceptance and understanding.

But representation isn’t just about changing hearts and minds—it can also lead to material benefits for people with disabilities. For example, increased visibility of disabled people in the media can lead to greater awareness of the issues they face, which in turn can lead to policy changes, better accommodations, and increased funding for disability-related services. As disability rights lawyer Haben Girma notes, “Representation is the first step towards equality. Without visibility, we cannot exist in the world.”

Unfortunately, accurate, and diverse representation of people with disabilities is still sorely lacking in many areas of the media. According to a study by the Ruderman Family Foundation, less than 3% of characters on television are disabled, and even when disabled characters do appear, they are often played by non-disabled actors. This lack of representation not only erases the experiences of disabled people, but also reinforces harmful stereotypes and exclusionary practices.

However, there are some positive examples of representation in the media. Some of the best portrayals of autistic people in movies and television have been accidental, according to writer and autism advocate Sarah Kurchak, who notes that “some of the most endearing portrayals of autistic people on screen are the ones that aren’t actually intended to be autistic at all.”

For example, characters like Chidi Annagonye from The Good Place, Jessica Day from New Girl, and Beth Harmon from The Queen’s Gambit have all been speculated by fans and critics to be autistic and/or some other form of neurodivergent. While these characters were not explicitly written as autistic or neurodivergent, their portrayals have resonated with many people who see themselves reflected in these characters. In other instances, the autistic traits, for example, may be subtle and briefly explored as a possibility, but not made a focal point. The character of Abed Nadir from Community is a special case, in that the protagonist, Jeff Winger, briefly and dismissively declared, “You have Asperger’s!” to Abed in the pilot episode, presumably as an insult. In the ensuing seasons, autistic fans related so strongly to Abed’s character that the reception inspired showrunner Dan Harmon to formally pursue an Autism diagnosis.  In some cases, it may be very powerful to have characters that allow for the acknowledgement of developmental and neurological differences, as well as the differences that come with other disabilities, without making that a heavy-handed aspect of the story.

Disability representation needs to be broad, varied, and rich, for us to feel truly seen, and Wong has been attempting to create just that sort of representation. Wong is the director of the Disability Visibility Project, “an online community dedicated to creating, sharing and amplifying disability media and culture,” disabilityvisibilityproject.com. In 2021, Wong updated a collection of essays and edited the release of “Disability Visibility (Adapted for Young Adults): 17 First-Person Stories for Today,” featuring reflections of 17 disabled individuals on the topics of being, becoming, doing, and connecting.

Though many of the featured authors share distressing stories about what they’ve endured as people with disabilities, there is a strong current of humor and a determined sense of self throughout this anthology that will make readers challenge their own thoughts about disability, accessibility ,and ableism. Ableism is a social prejudice against people with disabilities based on the belief that archetypical abilities are superior.

“Disability Visibility” challenges readers to avoid viewing people with disabilities as broken, or faulty and in need of being fixed. Readers are encouraged to view people with disabilities as members of a thriving community with its own history, culture, and social importance.

There may be an innate desire in many disabled people to make their mark on the world in ways that are very different from the “typical” adult life. The average person’s vocation is not that of a writer, director, actor, or any form of content creator. However, it’s worth noting that there is an overrepresentation of neurodivergent people in the dramatic arts, as compared to the general public. According to a study by the British television network Channel 4, people with disabilities, including neurodivergent people, are overrepresented in the television industry by about 5%. This may be due in part to the fact that the arts offer a unique space for people who don’t fit into traditional workplace structures to thrive, but it also highlights the importance of self-awareness among creators, writers, and actors when conceiving of and portraying neurodivergent characters.

We are far from the ideal of being adequately represented. We are not fully integrated into society alongside the abled public. We have not realized genuine social equality. Awareness is just one stop on that long journey, but we must keep going. Wong offers reassurance for young people with disabilities. “You are enough,” Wong writes. “Don’t let anyone ever make you feel less than or unworthy of love, access, attention and care. You deserve everything.”