Dear President Mahoney,

Our campus is a vibrant community united by a shared commitment to social justice. And, yet, San Francisco State University has failed to welcome disabled people fully into this community and embrace disability justice. The campus’ focus has been on compliance with accessibility and anti-discrimination laws — which is the bare minimum. Disability justice teaches us that disability is more than just a statutory requirement to check off. Disability is an identity and a culture with a history of discrimination and resistance. Importantly, disability justice understands that disability intersects with all other forms of identity. When we talk about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, disability must be at the forefront. Disability must be part of every conversation because disability is part of every community. 

The conversation doesn’t stop just in DPRC and Employee Accommodations. Disability isn’t just about services and accommodations. Equal access through accommodations should be the floor, not the ceiling. The lived experience of disability is not confined to the realms of medical documentation and legal compliance. These services on campus help us remain compliant with the law, but do not address the many attitudinal barriers to access and belonging for disabled people on this campus.

Diversity does not mean siloing an identity in a particular office. Equity demands a conscious, universal commitment to fighting ableism through the lens of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Community inclusion requires welcoming disability as a part of all communities.

The impacts of siloing disability are real:

1. Campus community members and units mistakenly assume that the DPRC handles all disability-related issues. This means that any experience a disabled person has on campus is expected to be routed through DPRC. If the stairs stop working, it’s treated as a matter for facilities. If the elevator stops working, it’s considered a matter for the DPRC. Directing all disability-related concerns to DPRC delays the resolution of problems, such as the repair of elevators and the completion of student forms. 
2. Ignorance has been allowed to flourish throughout campus. Ableism in the campus climate is not sufficiently addressed. When other units (such as Title IX) do not address ableism, DPRC becomes the de facto source of education around disability discrimination. The Longmore Institute was a resource for that proactive education work on campus, especially for advocacy around bringing disability into curriculum and pedagogy, and so their departure will further deprive this campus of disability expertise. While other units (such as CEETL) have made sporadic efforts to offer education about disability, their reach has been limited due to the voluntary nature of employee participation in training activities. As a result of this campus climate, even students who are having their accommodations met do not necessarily feel safe or a sense of belonging on this campus, which hurts retention. Other students do not have their DPRC-approved accommodations implemented in the classroom, housing, campus events and on-campus employment. SFSU is part of a broader problem: national studies indicate that disabled college students experience a “lower sense of belonging” and “more encounters with discrimination on their campus,” according to a research paper published in 2021. As we know, the sense of belonging impacts student retention. According to the 2024 NCHA, one of the top five reasons SFSU students consider leaving the university is feeling they do not fit in here. 
3. Access to the silo itself is restricted by systemic barriers: legal, medical and financial. For example, students and employees do not always know what’s possible to ask for. This especially impacts students who are BIPOC, immigrants, first-generation or holding multiple marginalized identities, and do not have the educational nor financial resources for getting disabilities documented through the medical system to begin accessing university accommodations. 
4. In order to belong on campus, disabled community members must place their disabled identities in the DPRC silo. They cannot come to campus as their full selves, as there is no space for disability outside of the silo. This is particularly destructive for multiple marginalized students and employees, who are told that they belong in one way while being forced to mask their intersectional disabled identity. 

Moving forward, we expect a workplace that embraces and celebrates disability, not just begrudgingly accommodates disability. We demand an intentional cultural transformation on campus. This requires that everyone (students, faculty, staff and administrators) everywhere on campus must be accountable for fighting ableism. We all must have a role in keeping systemic ableism out of our campus community.

We have charted a path forward:

1. In lieu of a disability-centered equity center, the existing equity centers must fold disability into their missions and work. This begins with acknowledging that disability is already a part of marginalized communities. Disability is an intersectional and integral part of human identity. Centers must view members of the communities they serve as whole human beings. 
2. The president’s extended cabinet will include one member representing the All-University Committee on Disability (in addition to any AUCD members already serving on the extended cabinet in other capacities). The role of the AUCD representative will be to incorporate disability justice and the intersection of disability into the university’s priorities and programming.
3. The university will address the lack of holistic data regarding disability within the campus community. Surveys must consider disability not just in terms of demographics and compliance, but as an intersecting identity. To facilitate this, units creating SFSU community surveys will consult with the AUCD to identify opportunities to include disability. It is more important than ever that SFSU begin to gather this data locally; the dismantling of the Department of Education and attacks on federally-funded research threaten the collection of national data on equity gaps.
4. The University will offer annual disability justice training (created in consultation with the AUCD) to staff, faculty, students and administrators. This will include delivering trainings to the Staff Council, Chair’s Council, Campus Leadership Forum and other bodies that convene students, faculty, staff and administrators.

Since Donald Trump has taken office, we have seen widespread attacks on DEI initiatives, and we anticipate that it’s only a matter of time before SFSU joins other universities that are under attack. In addition, even the laws that guide our compliance approach are in jeopardy, as Section 504 is under attack by 17 states across the US, who are suing to see it overturned. The federal attacks on our values put SFSU at a crossroads. We could abandon our commitment to DEI, like other universities. Or we could act like Gators and dig in deeper, pushing ourselves (and higher education as a whole) to expand DEI to include disability justice. We can crumble or we can lead.

We can make SFSU the destination campus for disability culture and curriculum—if we grow our support for the holistic experiences of disabled students and employees. Between our social justice commitment and the long history of disability scholar-activism from Paul Longmore, Anita Silvers and Cathy Kudlick, the foundation has been laid. The next steps will require deeper campus-wide cultural change work. 

We understand that this ask comes at an extremely precarious time for the university. However, we are not asking for a handout, but offering a hand-up: a path to recruiting and retaining more students. We are eager and ready to work with you to see these changes happen. With enrollment a greater concern than ever before, we cannot afford to put off welcoming the large and vibrant community of disabled students.

As disability justice teaches, disability is not an expense or a liability but a kind of genius. Put it to work.

Urgently,
All-University Committee on Disability

The All-University Committee on Disability is a subcommittee of the Academic Senate comprised of staff, students, faculty and administrators. This past year, they composed an open letter to President Mahoney about the campus’ failure to welcome disabled people fully into this community and embrace disability justice. Their goal is to spur the administration to make disability justice a priority for everyone on campus.