![Group of people sitting in a circle in a discussion](/sites/g/files/omnuum13021/files/styles/hwp_21_9__1920x825/public/2026-07/admin-ajax.png?itok=sYKbnBQ9) 

 



 

#  Ethics of Disability Accommodation 

 





April 22, 2026

 

 

On Wednesday, April 22, a group of students ranging in class year and concentration gathered in the Leverett Library Theater to reflect and discuss the ethics of disability accommodations in higher education. The conversation, with Dr. Michael Stein, an antidiscrimination lawyer at Harvard Law School, Dr. Gina Schouten, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Harvard College, and Dr. Sara Hendren, an Associate Professor in Art and Design at Northeastern University, who specializes in design for disability, offered a lively discussion where various viewpoints and perspectives were shared and discussed.

The event, sponsored by Intellectual Vitality Initiatives, hoped to unpack the ways in which accommodations might simultaneously help “level the playing field” among all students by making higher education more accessible for students with disabilities. The conversation also raised questions about the role of accommodations: are they meant to standardize performance or to cultivate different forms of intellectual flourishing? Should neurodivergence be understood as a deficit requiring adjustment or as a difference that calls for rethinking the norms by which ability—and thus the very need for accommodations—is defined? To anchor the conversation, panelists and students focused on the fundamental concept of fairness and what it “truly” means. One speaker expressed that the purpose of a liberal education is to prepare an individual for self-governance. To truly be free, one needs to experience “good friction,” the kind of transformative adversity that is conducive to self-actualization. They argued that accommodations exist to ensure equitable access to this “good friction.” Citing The Atlantic’s provocative article “Accommodation Nation,” some panelists felt that the resistance against disability accommodations comes from a misplaced sense of resentment towards those who are perceived to acquire an advantage over others.

Other panelists were jarred by the rise in accommodation requests over the past decade, positing that appealing to disability diagnostics locks young people into limiting categories. Through a phenomenon known as “prognostic pessimism,” they suggested, gratuitous accommodations culminate in an impoverished version of the self. While some panelists worried about young people submitting to fixed biogenetic conditions assigned to them, others advanced arguments in favor of more flexibility, generally in academic settings. For example, questions such as “Should assignment deadlines be made less rigid?” and “Do timed tests serve a pedagogical purpose?” elicited a variety of thoughts.

Although a diversity of insights were shared, one point on which nearly everyone converged was that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) pathologizes conditions that should be considered “normal.” The conversation pushed participants to set aside their visceral responses to perceived unfairness and interrogate their assumptions.



 

 

 



 

 

 Share on:- [     Facebook ](#)
- [     Twitter ](#)
- [     Linkedin ](#)