Month: July 2025

The Words We Choose: How Language Shapes Our Understanding of Disability and Ability

Language draws lines across how people are seen and understood. It can build connection or create distance. The words chosen to describe someone are never neutral. They reveal how society assigns value, how belonging is extended or withheld. A single word can offer dignity or diminish it.

Over the years, terms like physically challenged, differently abled, and diverse-ability have emerged, each coined with the intention of sounding more inclusive and respectful than the last. These phrases are usually introduced with good intentions. The hope is often to shift attention toward ability, to offer encouragement, or to distance the speaker from outdated or clinical language. Despite these motivations, the results are often mixed.

When language avoids directly naming a condition or identity, it risks sending a different kind of message—one that suggests discomfort, denial, or even shame. Replacing direct terms with softened alternatives may sound kinder, but it can create confusion or distance instead of clarity and connection. Euphemisms rarely reduce stigma. More often, they reflect the speaker’s unease rather than the needs or identity of the person being described (Dolmage, 2014).

In response to stigma and exclusion, person-first language gained popularity in the 1980s. This approach encouraged saying “person with a disability” instead of “disabled person,” placing the individual before the condition. It was meant to restore dignity in systems that often reduced people to labels or diagnoses. For many, this change felt necessary and became common in education, healthcare, and public institutions (Snow, 2007).

Organizations like the American Psychological Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continue to recommend person-first language as a respectful practice, especially in professional and academic settings (APA, 2019; CDC, 2021). The goal is to recognize people as whole, complex individuals—not just defined by their physical, mental, or psychological conditions.

However, not everyone agrees with this approach. Some individuals and communities have questioned whether separating the person from the condition truly respects their dignity or instead suggests the condition should be hidden.

This concern led to the rise of identity-first language, which views conditions as part of a person’s identity rather than something separate. For example, saying “autistic person” instead of “person with autism” reflects the belief that autism shapes a person’s experience and sense of self, rather than being just a condition they have (Botha et al., 2021).

The discussion becomes even more complicated when euphemisms like “special needs,” “handi-capable,” or “differently abled” are used. While often intended to empower or include, these terms can have the opposite effect. They tend to overlook real barriers, minimize struggles, and hide the need for real change. In doing so, they risk erasing rather than affirming the people they describe (Dolmage, 2014; Snow, 2007).

Preferences around language vary widely. Some people feel strongly about using identity-first language. Others continue to prefer the person-first model. Many shift between the two depending on context, audience, or mood. What matters most is not enforcing a single standard, but making space for individuals to define themselves on their own terms. Respect begins with listening and continues with honoring what people say about their own identities.

Language has the power to signal belonging—or to subtly mark someone as “other.” It can make people feel seen, or reduce them to a single facet of their experience. At its best, language affirms identity with honesty and respect. Language, on its own, cannot remove physical, social, or institutional barriers. It will not undo decades of exclusion or discrimination. Still, it plays a powerful role in shaping perception. Language influences policy, education, healthcare, and access. It determines who gets counted, who gets support, and who gets left out (APA, 2019; CDC, 2021).

The words we choose matter. They set the tone for relationships, environments, and entire systems. Thoughtful language isn’t judged by perfection; it’s about being open, paying attention, and asking others what they prefer instead of assuming.

There is no one-size-fits-all phrase. Language evolves—just like identity. True respect isn’t found in a fixed guideline or glossary. It’s built through conversation, through listening with intent, and by making space for people to define themselves in the words that feel most true to who they are.

References

Before the Door Opens: The Quiet Work of Making Room for Everyone

Inclusion is often described as a program or initiative. It appears in strategic plans, policy documents, and mission statements. Yet at its core, inclusion is not a checklist. It is a way of thinking, designing, and interacting that reflects dignity, belonging, and thoughtful design choices. It begins in small, everyday places: at a community bulletin board no one can reach, in a park without shaded seating, or in the way someone new is greeted—or not—at a public event.

Inclusive communities are not built through one-time actions. They take shape through ongoing attention—how spaces are constructed, how information is shared, and how participation is expected, not negotiated.

Beyond the Sidelines

Adapted sports provide structure, community, and visible celebration of ability. These programs offer a powerful starting point for inclusion. Still, inclusion must extend beyond the arena or field. It must be present in the early-morning library program, the city council meeting without captioning, or the neighborhood gathering where one family never seems to be included.

Inclusion is not only about modifying an activity. It is about rethinking who it was designed for in the first place. Inclusion starts with a quiet shift in perspective—a move from adapting existing systems to re-examining the assumptions that shaped them.

It calls for attention to purpose and design, and a readiness to question what has long been accepted. The points below reflect some of the deeper considerations that support truly inclusive thinking:

1. Who Was This Built For? Thoughtful by Design

Design often centers the needs of the majority, unintentionally placing others at a disadvantage. Individuals who use wheelchairs, people with low vision, those who process information differently, or anyone navigating unfamiliar systems may encounter spaces that were shaped without considering their ways of moving, seeing, or processing information. When design choices begin with the experiences of those most often overlooked, the result is not separation—it is connection.

A sidewalk that supports a person using a mobility device also supports a grandparent with a walker. Clear signage helps not only someone who processes information differently but also a visitor unfamiliar with the area. These are not isolated benefits. They are reminders that design, when thoughtful, can extend dignity.

This kind of design is not about doing more—it is about asking different questions. Whose presence, mobility, and mode of communication were envisioned in the creation of this space? Who was expected to move through it easily—and who was not?

Spaces built with these questions in mind communicate before anyone speaks. They invite engagement rather than hesitation, reflecting an understanding that people move, think, and experience access in diverse ways—all of which are valid

2. From Invitation to Co-Creation

An invitation is a gesture. Co-creation is a partnership. When individuals with lived experience shape policies, programs, or physical spaces, the result is more meaningful and effective.

Involvement should be more than symbolic or selective; it should be a regular part of how decisions are made. People who experience barriers firsthand offer insights that no checklist can provide.

Including their voices from the beginning, before any plans are made or designs take shape, leads to solutions that are more durable and inclusive. Co-creation is not about getting everything right. It is about being willing to listen and remaining open to being shaped by what others share

3. Communicate with Everyone in Mind

Access to information shapes who gets to participate. When communication is unclear, hard to access, or missing, it can unintentionally lead to exclusion

Plain language is clear, direct communication that avoids jargon and unnecessary complexity. It creates space for more people to engage. For example, a neighborhood bulletin that says ‘Join us for a community clean-up this Saturday’ is more welcoming than one that reads ‘Residents are invited to partake in a voluntary beautification initiative.’

Captioning allows someone who is Deaf or hard of hearing to participate without assistance. Large print can turn a blurry flyer into an open door. Clear, consistent digital design supports people who use screen readers and also helps anyone trying to read on a phone in a busy place.

Large print can turn a blurry flyer into an open door. Clear, consistent digital design benefits people who use screen readers, but also helps anyone using a mobile device on a crowded bus.

When communication is inclusive, it lessens the need for special accommodations and helps people feel recognized without having to ask.”

4. Rethinking Support

Support is part of any inclusive environment. Yet support should not define the person receiving it. When individuals are viewed only through what they need, it becomes easy to overlook what they know, what they offer, and how they lead.

Understanding deepens by letting go of the idea that people are problems to fix and instead recognizing them as individuals with stories and strengths. Everyone brings their own perspective, creativity, and value.

When someone works with a support worker, it’s not just about receiving help. They are participating in community life, contributing to shared spaces, and at times, reshaping them in ways others might not have considered.

Inclusion involves more than simply noticing who is not in the room; it also invites careful and honest reflection on whose talents, contributions, and potential may be quietly overlooked. Creating truly inclusive spaces means not only recognizing visible gaps but also being open to uncovering the more subtle dynamics and unconscious biases that can leave some individuals feeling overlooked—even when they are already present.

5. Flexible by Default

Rigid systems make participation harder than it needs to be. Many barriers are not about capacity—they are about inflexible expectations.

Rigid systems can unintentionally make community involvement more difficult than necessary. Often, challenges stem not from ability but from expectations that limit diverse ways of engaging.

Offering diverse ways to participate enables individuals to engage in ways that feel most meaningful and comfortable for them. Some people may prefer contributing by co-designing local projects or leading neighborhood walks. Others might choose to engage by sharing stories through community art or offering insights at their own pace via online platforms.

While certain individuals flourish in collaborative workshops, others may find meaningful connection through one-on-one conversations or quiet reflection during community gardens and cultural events. Each approach contributes unique value to the community. Each of these approaches brings distinct value and strengthens the community as a whole.

Flexibility isn’t something added later or reserved for select individuals. It must be intentionally incorporated from the very beginning, so participation becomes the standard rather than an exception. When flexibility is embedded from the outset, community involvement becomes genuinely inclusive and accessible for everyone.

Everyday Inclusion

Inclusion is not achieved by checking boxes. It is sustained by asking different questions:
Inclusion is not achieved by checking boxes.
It is sustained by asking different questions:

  • Who is not here?
  • What is getting in the way?
  • What assumptions shaped this space, this message, this gathering?

Design choices such as visual guides, quiet seating areas, clear audio, and multilingual materials indicate whether a space was created with everyone in mind. These elements are not special features but essential components of an inclusive standard.

Access may begin with design, but belonging is built in culture.

The Next Step

Inclusion does not begin with a policy or end with a program. Inclusion is not a one-time achievement or a simple checklist to complete. It is a continuous practice of questioning who is missing, identifying the barriers that remain, and challenging the assumptions that shape spaces and interactions. It requires shifting from making accommodations after the fact to designing from the start to meet a full range of needs.

When flexibility and thoughtful design are the foundation, participation becomes the norm—not the exception. Inclusion moves beyond presence to foster genuine belonging, where every voice is welcomed, every contribution is valued, and every individual can engage fully.

The real work of inclusion is ongoing. It requires commitment, openness, and a readiness to rethink what has long been accepted. What changes might begin to take shape when spaces are shaped to include not only those already present but also those whose participation has yet to be fully invited?

Regulatory Review Could Shift How Federal Contractors Support People with Disabilities in the Workforce

Proposed Changes to Federal Employment Requirements for People with Disabilities

People with disabilities in the United States continue to be employed at lower rates than people without disabilities. Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on disability, differences in employment outcomes have persisted. Researchers and advocates have pointed to a range of factors, including physical and digital accessibility barriers and unexamined attitudes about disability, as possible contributors.

One federal policy intended to support more inclusive employment practices is Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This law requires companies and organizations that do business with the federal government—known as federal contractors—to take proactive steps to recruit, hire, retain, and promote qualified individuals with disabilities.

In 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor issued updated guidance to clarify how contractors could meet these responsibilities. The goal was to help organizations identify and reduce barriers that might limit participation by people with disabilities in the workforce. The updates introduced several key elements:

  • Voluntary self-identification: Applicants and employees could choose to confidentially disclose that they have a disability. This information was intended to help contractors assess the effectiveness of their efforts to support people with disabilities in the workforce.
  • Utilization goal: Contractors were encouraged to aim for people with disabilities to comprise at least 7% of each job group. This figure was not a quota, but a benchmark for self-assessment.
  • Data tracking and analysis: Contractors collected information on the number of applicants, new hires, and employees with disabilities. The intent was to evaluate progress and make informed adjustments to outreach, training, or workplace policies.

These measures were designed to help organizations assess whether their practices were reaching and supporting people with disabilities, and to guide efforts to improve access and opportunity in the workplace.

From 2014 to 2023, employment indicators for people with disabilities improved. The employment-to-population ratio increased by over 11 percentage points, and the unemployment rate for people with disabilities reached its lowest recorded level in 2023.

Analysts attribute this progress to several factors, including a strong post-pandemic labor market, expanded remote work opportunities, and possible impacts of workplace policies focused on including people with disabilities.

In June 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed changes to the Section 503 regulations. If finalized, these changes would remove the requirement for federal contractors to invite voluntary self-identification of disability status and eliminate the current 7% utilization goal.

The U.S. Department of Labor referenced a recent executive order instructing federal agencies to review and, where appropriate, reduce specific diversity and inclusion requirements. It also noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) generally limits disability-related inquiries until after a job offer has been extended.

Although the ADA restricts pre-employment questions about disability, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has clarified that voluntary self-identification is allowed under current law if it is properly structured and not used in hiring decisions.

The proposed changes may have several implications:

  • Limited workforce data: Without voluntary self-identification or data collection, contractors may have fewer insights into the representation and career advancement of individuals with disabilities.
  • Elimination of a consistent benchmark: The 7% utilization goal offered a common standard for assessing inclusion efforts. Its removal may lead to differing practices and expectations among contractors.
  • Decreased data uniformity: In the absence of standardized reporting, it may be more challenging to identify trends or compare outcomes across organizations.
  • Unclear implementation pathways: Without the structure previously provided by Section 503, contractors may require additional guidance to support fair and inclusive employment practices.

Once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, a 60-day public comment period will begin. During this time, individuals, employers, researchers, and organizations can submit feedback through Regulations.gov.

Those interested in the issue may choose to:

  • Share comments about how the changes might affect hiring or keeping employees.
  • Let others know about the proposed rule.
  • Stay up to date with news from the U.S. Department of Labor.
  • Talk with colleagues about how to support people with disabilities at work using data.

The final outcome of this process may influence how federal contractors approach the recruitment, hiring, and advancement of people with disabilities in the years ahead.

The future of employment for people with disabilities will be shaped not only by federal regulations, but by how individuals, employers, and communities choose to participate in the process. Whether through submitting a comment, sharing information, or reviewing internal practices, each action contributes to a broader understanding of what inclusion can look like in the workplace.

At Wiley’s Walk, we believe that inclusion begins with the idea that everyone belongs—not just in public life, but in the decisions and systems that affect daily experience. When policies are informed by the voices of those they impact, they are more likely to meet real needs and reflect practical realities.

As the public comment period opens, this is a moment to consider how hiring practices, workplace systems, and access to opportunity can continue to improve. However the rule-making process unfolds, one thing remains clear: lasting progress depends on thoughtful participation and a shared commitment to making room for everyone.

Medicaid Reform Legislation: Scope, Provisions, and Projected Effects

Across the country, Medicaid provides critical healthcare coverage and support services to millions of people, including older adults, veterans, people with disabilities, and low-income working families. One key component of Medicaid is the provision of Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS), which allow individuals to receive care in their homes rather than in institutional settings.

Recent developments in Congress have raised concerns about the future of these services. The U.S. Senate has approved legislation that includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over the next 10 years, along with changes to other federal health insurance programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), nearly 12 million people could lose health coverage as a result.

The bill passed narrowly in a 51–50 vote, with the Vice President casting the tie-breaking vote. Compared to the House version, which proposed $800 billion in Medicaid reductions, the Senate bill introduces deeper cuts. In total, the CBO estimates that combined reductions to Medicaid, Medicare, and Affordable Care Act programs will reach $1.1 trillion. These cuts are partly intended to fund the extension of tax reductions and other federal spending priorities, including border security.

Proposed Changes to Medicaid Spending

The bill includes several policy changes intended to reduce overall Medicaid expenditures. These include:

  • Work Requirements: Some Medicaid recipients would be required to work or volunteer at least 80 hours per month. The requirements would apply to parents of older children and to childless adults without disabilities.
  • Provider Tax Restrictions: The legislation would limit the use of provider taxes—fees states collect from healthcare providers to increase federal Medicaid reimbursements.
  • Rural Health Funding: To address concerns about the impact on rural healthcare access, the bill includes increased federal support for rural hospitals beginning in 2026.

According to the CBO, the expansion of work requirements alone could result in an additional $325 billion in Medicaid savings.

Provisions That Were Removed or Delayed

Some proposals were removed or postponed due to procedural limitations under Senate rules. These included:

  • Accelerated reductions to provider taxes
  • Restrictions on Medicaid coverage for non-citizens
  • Limitations on gender-affirming care

According to Senate estimates, these exclusions prevented roughly $250 billion in additional reductions.

Arguments For and Against

Supporters of the legislation contend that the changes are designed to promote personal responsibility, reduce fraud, and encourage employment among those who are able to work. They emphasize that Medicaid should provide support while also reinforcing pathways to self-sufficiency.

Critics note that many Medicaid recipients are already employed. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that 64% of adult Medicaid enrollees aged 19 to 64 are working, with 44% employed full-time. Opponents caution that additional administrative requirements—such as verifying work status—could lead to loss of coverage for eligible individuals due to paperwork challenges or misunderstandings.

Potential Implications

This legislation represents a significant shift in federal health policy. Key areas of potential impact include:

  • Loss of Coverage: The CBO projects that millions may lose access to Medicaid, increasing pressure on hospitals, clinics, and local governments.
  • Family and Caregiver Impact: Work requirements may disproportionately affect low-income individuals and caregivers balancing employment with care responsibilities.
  • Strain on Rural Providers: While new funding is included for rural hospitals, it may not fully offset the broader effects of reduced Medicaid funding.
  • Administrative Burden: Implementing and monitoring new eligibility rules may introduce complexity and confusion for both recipients and state agencies.
  • Legal and Political Challenges: The close vote margin and contested provisions suggest the potential for litigation and ongoing policy debate.

How to Share Your Perspective

Those who wish to contact their elected representatives can use the following sample letter:

Dear Representative [Name],

I am writing to share my concerns about the proposed cuts to Medicaid in the Senate’s version of the reconciliation bill.

These reductions could significantly impact individuals who rely on Medicaid-funded services to live independently, including older adults, people with disabilities, veterans, and low-income families.

Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) in particular provide essential support that allows people to avoid institutional care and receive services in their homes and communities. Because HCBS is considered optional under Medicaid, it may be among the first services states reduce or eliminate in response to federal funding cuts.

I urge you to consider the long-term effects of these reductions and to work toward solutions that protect access to care, support family caregivers, and allow individuals to remain in the setting that best meets their needs.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[City, State]

Resources for Engagement

Staying informed and engaging with policymakers can help ensure that healthcare decisions reflect the needs and priorities of diverse communities.

A Note from Wiley’s Walk

At Wiley’s Walk, we focus on the intersection of public policy and daily life—particularly how systems and decisions affect individual choice, access to care, and community inclusion.

Our goal is to provide clear, balanced information that helps readers understand complex issues and engage constructively. We believe thoughtful, informed dialogue plays an essential role in shaping policy that meets the needs of individuals, families, and communities.

For more articles and insights, visit: https://www.wileywalk.com