Clarifying and Complicating Conceptualizations of Diversity

In her preface to DMR, Steinberg (2009b) recognizes the dilemma of decades-old attempts by educators to define diversity and multiculturalism, acknowledging that there's little agreement about the terms. She criticizes tokenistic attempts to show diversity asserting, "…these sustain a dominant culture of whiteness, of ableness, of heterosexualness, and of English languageness as the real culture" (p. xi) and concludes rather pessimistically, "…we have not made a lot of progress" (ibid). The book seeks to address inadequate ways that curricula have been developed and taught. Of note is that the chapters on race place Whiteness within diversity, and in doing so, foregrounds it as the bearer of the dominant culture, a meta narrative capable of self-obscuring while holding all other standards against itself.

Steinberg recognizes disability as a marker of identity akin to race, ethnicity, and gender, named within a list of descriptors, sometimes referred to obliquely as "ableness." Interestingly, the section that contains three chapters on disability is titled "Physical Diversity." While an obvious and much needed nod toward corporeal difference, it does not convey "invisible" disability categories such as learning disabilities (LD), emotional disturbance (ED), cognitive impairment/mental retardation (CI/MR), and speech and language disorder (SLD), which account for 85% of all students labeled in schools (Hehir, 2005). That said, Steinberg and Kincheloe (2009) do also openly critique the institution of special education equating it with "programs that teach discipline and low expectations" (2009, p. 13).

The largest of the three books by far, HSJE offers a comprehensive overview of social justice issues. The introductory section is firmly anchored in broad historical and rich theoretical perspectives, counterbalanced with many chapters dedicated to ways of teaching social justice. Given the size of the volume, most "groups" and attendant topics (such as globilization) are featured in dedicated chapters. That said, unlike Steinberg's text, it does not have dedicated chapters on regional/rural concerns, or nationalities other than what is traditionally called "American."

The editors' preface (Ayres, Quinn, & Stoval, 2009b) is succinct, framing the issues of social justice as built upon three pillars or principles: (1) Equity, "…the principle of fairness, equal access to the most challenging and nourishing educational experiences (p. xiv); (2) Activism, "…the principle of agency, full participation, preparing youngsters to see and understand, when necessary, to change all that is before them…a move from passivity, cynicism and despair" (p. xiv); and (3) Social Literacy, "…the principle of relevance, resisting and flattening effects of materialism and consumerism and the power of the abiding social evils of white supremacy, patriarchy, homophobia…" (p. xvi). The authors raise the importance of interrelated issues of helping "others" to regain hope, and actively participate in forging a more equitable society.

In the foreword of SJPAC, Nieto and Bode note that "…a close look at U.S. educational history makes it obvious that few controversies have been unrelated to social justice in education, whether these have focused on segregated schools, bilingual education, education for youngsters with special needs, or gender-fair education, among others" (p. x). Perhaps it is because all of these and other issues that the overarching concept of social justice can appear so widespread, causing concern to Chapman and Hobbel who acknowledge, "The increased use of the term 'social justice' has led to a diffusion of meaning that threatens to make the concept of social justice ineffective and difficult to document through empirical research" (2010c, p. 3). The authors themselves caution that, "Even when scholars present definitions of social justice education, their articulations seem convenient to their arguments, rather than comprehensive across points of inquiry" (ibid). Chapman and Hobbel's concerns are well placed, raising the question of how can scholars drawn to social justice in education consider ways in which they are united, and use this common ground to help forge greater cohesion within research?

Taking Action: Responding to Diversity

While much is discussed about recognizing, understanding, and celebrating diversity, all three texts recognize the imbalance of power among diverse groups, and the moral imperative to take action. In the introduction of HSJE, the editors state their claim that "Social justice education embraces these three R's: Relevant, Rigorous, and Revolutionary. We change our lives, we change the world" (p. xiv). Here, they share their beliefs that individuals who shift from merely contemplating ideas to being proactive in addressing inequalities among diverse populations can create the change they seek. In their corresponding conclusion of the text, after so many ideas have been shared by dozens of scholars, activists, and practitioners, the editors also acknowledge the sometimes amorphous nature of doing social justice work in education:

We were able to assemble a small temporary community of educators and thinkers, artists and activists and writers who have helped to identify, name, and represent an array of issues that matter when we think about teaching and schooling and social justice. But the effort is still sketchy, and that is surely the permanent condition of the thing: in this dynamic, forward-charging, imperfect human endeavor, there is always more to know, more to uncover, more to expand and embrace (Ayres, Quinn, & Stovall, 2009, p. 725).

Whereas the title of the third book, Social Justice Pedagogy Across the Curriculum, emphasizes action, the contents pay equal attention to the need for cultivating a strong theoretical grounding from which practical social justice work can flourish. While being the shortest of the three texts, this book includes perspectives from critical theory, Black feminist theory, queer theory, multicultural theory, poststructuralist theory, indigenous perspectives, disability studies, and, importantly, a host of classroom practitioners.

In their preface to SJPAC, editors Chapman and Hobbel frame issues of social justice, multiculturalism, and diversity as best understood when simultaneously contemplating history, theory, and practice. Influenced by the work of Nieto, the authors use her words as a general guide. Through incorporating points of inquiry and points of praxis, Chapman and Hobbel's text encourages the reader to consider the when, where, and how of using ideas from social justice to shape and inform research and practice. They believe that the points included, "should guide us in creating praxis that is appropriate to our individual schooling contexts" (2010b, p. xi). Such ideas encourage educators to think in complex and critical terms versus simple and uncritical ways. Nieto and Bode (2009) state, "…one could argue that it is impossible to be a teacher without taking into account such issues as gender, sexuality, language, race, social class, ability, and other individual and group differences because these are at the very heart of equitable education, and they always have been" (p. ix). At the same time in DMR, Steinberg passionately calls attention to the inadequacy of current curricula to address desired social changes writing, "…we—teachers and instructors—are the agents of social and cultural change" (p. xiii).

What all three texts reveal, in some shape or form, is "the call" for educators drawn to teaching about diversity, for within diversity lies the promise of social change born from their own inability to accept everyday injustices, no matter how pervasive they may seem.

An Accepted Marker of Identity

In analyzing when disability is mentioned and how it connects to other concepts or issues, a clear pattern emerges of (dis)ability being included within a list of accepted markers of identity. For example in DMR, Johnson (2009) reports that The Council for the Advancement of Standards identified eight dimensions of diversity that ought to be addressed: "race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, socioeconomic class, and ability" (p. 24), arranging them in a table form complete with corresponding "isms" (p. 32). In another example, within a chapter on sexual diversity, Meyer (2009) alludes to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Protected under the Law, including disability. Similarly within HSJE, several authors incorporate disability into their chain of identity-markers, such as in Leistyna's (2009) comment, "…young people are experiencing a great deal of discrimination along the lines of race, language, disability, religion, gender, and sexuality" (p. 52). In SJPAC, Quijada-Cerecer, Alvarez-Gutiérrez, and Rios (2010) open the diversity umbrella that includes "nationality, class, gender, disability, spiritual practice, age and sexual orientation which, along with race and ethnicity make up 'the big nine'" (p. 153), with eight (barring social class, tellingly) encoded to different degrees of protection within the law.

A Social Construct

Generally speaking across all three texts, disability increasingly appears to be understood as a social construct rather than a medicalized condition. Authors are cognizant that notions of disability have risen in a certain time, place, and culture, and should always be understood as highly contingent upon context. Within DMR, Airtons' (2009) detailed discussion of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), calls attention to how these "disabilities" are researched almost always exclusively with boys and neglect a social context for analysis. She notes how most of the research is predicated on gender-binarisms, and challenges the widely accepted idea of transferring a 'syndrome' from one culture to another, expecting to find an identical response. In noting "genderist ideologies" (p. 238), the author illustrates how girls displaying the same characteristics of ADD/ADHD are more likely to be given the label of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), and are subsequently seen as pathologically defiant.

One chapter featured in HSJE where disability is clearly understood as social construct in contrast to a medicalized condition is Thumann and Simms' (2009) open discussion of cultural versus pathological viewpoints of Deafness. The authors state that because of teachers "…already trained in a pathological view" (p. 198), Deaf children are seen as deficient, contrary to assertions of the Deaf community. While claiming Deaf people are not disabled people, this particular chapter resonates with issues of interest within DSE. As Thumann and Simms point out, "Experts in the scientific, medical, and education establishments who purport to serve the Deaf in fact do them a great harm when they address the realities of our lives, and portray Deaf people as disabled" (p. 204). Arguably, this comment may be applied to any form for any physical, sensory, emotional, and cognitive difference that is determined a "disability" (see, for example, authors who understand their ADD/ADHD as integral to who they are, such as: Mooney, 2008; O'Connor, 2001; Piziali, 2001).

Interestingly, in planning their book, the editors of SJPAC recognized disability as a socially constructed minority category. Ironically, when initially contacting potential authors, they automatically thought in terms of special education, the default box into which seemingly almost everything pertaining to disability and education becomes placed. However, the traditional scholars in special education who were originally invited were limited by their conceptualizion of disability through a medicalized, deficit-based lens, leaving them unable to identify with the editors' proposal of featuring disability as a form of oppression framed within a minority perspective. It was then that came to seek critical special educators who write within DSE (Chapman & Hobbel, 2009).

A Minority Model

In many respects, viewing disability as a social construct allows disability to be understood as a minority model akin to other markers of identity. In turn, by recognizing disability as a minority category and part of the larger umbrella of social justice, many of the issues discussed in other chapters have direct application to issues of disability. For example, Loutzenheiser (2009) seeks to queer all categories claiming,

It is the work of these theories to disrupt the uncritical usage of categorizations and labeling, to require interrogations of when these constructions are useful and when they further stereotype, or merely encourage a lack of complexity in favor of ease of understanding (p. 136).

Similarly, Quijada-Cerecer, Alvarez-Guitiérrez, and Rios (2010) reaffirm a rejection of the deficit perspective that characterizes much of the education of all marginalized students, and advocate for a shift that views all students (not only those from privileged backgrounds) as possessing resources that should be foundational for their learning. They further state that "…critical multicultural education has advanced the field by advocating an activist orientation to teaching and learning and recognizing the post-modern orientations around identity and culture as dynamic" (p. 156). As previously mentioned, the transformative power of social justice education is about enacting change, including providing students with knowledge and tools to facilitate their refusal of inherited inscriptions, including "disability."

In keeping with a minority perspective, it is noticeable that when disability is mentioned in several chapters throughout the book it is often in connection with civil rights. Sleeter's (2010) chapter in SJPAC on how federal education promoted equity policies, "although not very systematically" (p. 42), illustrates attempts made to improve education for students according to their race, language minority status, and disabilities. She narrates a brief history from late 1950s that includes landmark legislation for children with disabilities, such as Section 504 and Public Law 94-142 known as Education for All Handicapped Children Act. When describing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its subsequent reauthorizations, Sleeter emphasizes its change in focus onto student achievement rather than the provision of services.

For example, she claims that, "…the work of OCR [Office of Civil Rights] has shifted away from race and toward disability, partly because parents of children with disabilities have learned to use the detailed regulations to argue on their behalf" (p. 51). Interestingly, Sleeter also notes that, "Civil rights legislation, based on the larger Civil Rights Act, initially framed race, disability, and gender discrimination in institutionalized terms, although that framing shifted to individual acts of discrimination, especially under Republican administrations" (p. 53), shedding light on how attempts at structural change can be diverted to legal protection on a case-by-case basis.

How disability is understood as a minority model akin to other markers of identity varies among chapters in HJSE. In some instances, disability is included, whereas another group is not, such as Kenway and Hickey-Moody's (2009) commentary on abjectifying aboriginality. The authors problematize how the Australian Tourist Board makes provision for GLBTQ and/or disabled travelers, but maintain a marked absence of Aboriginal people represented as integrated into the larger community. In contrast, sometimes the topic of disability is excluded as other rights-based groups are included. For example, Arnove (2009) writes, "In the 1960s and 1970s, the women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, and anti-war movements all undertook processes of internal education, organizing teach-ins, setting up study circles, and creating an alternative networks of newspapers, books, and other publications" (p. 89). Here is an instance where the disability rights movement also belongs.

On a related note, the segregation of students according to race and ability is of concern to scholars working within disability studies (Ferri & Connor, 2006) and critical race theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) who call attention to the injustices of such commonplace practices. In his chapter on Whiteness in DMR, Rodriguez (2009) calls attention to making it visible within teacher education with view to understanding the complexities of privilege and placement in schools. Other authors incorporate disability and race as integral to the points they make. For example, in HSJE, Hursh's (2009) critiques current policies, contending that educational inequality has increased as a result of these neoliberal reforms noting, "Quantitative evidence from New York suggests that high-stakes testing has harmed educational achievement. Fewer students, especially students of color and students with disabilities, are completing high school. From 1998 to 2000, the drop out rate increased by 17%" (p. 159).

A Result of Practices in School Culture

Within and across the three texts, a school culture of perceived deficits is also questioned, and seen as a contributing factor to the active disabling of some of the most vulnerable children. In DMR, Shields (2009) calls attention to the demands of No Child Left Behind Act and the belief that

…either low income, a specific ethnic group, or perhaps refugee and immigrant children—are not as capable as those from the dominant group. They are perceived to have learning deficits, and their culture is seen as deficient in that it impedes their school success; thus, they are treated as second class citizens (p. 477).

To counter the rampant exclusion of various students from the mainstream, including those with various disabilities, Evans-Winters and Ivie (2009), suggested the use of Critical Multicultural Feminism to ensure that educators afford all students receive the same opportunities.

While various types of disabilities are featured throughout HSJE, several authors address the educational contexts and lived realities of students with learning disabilities. In her analysis of limited access to general education classes for students with LD, Blanchett (2009) observes, "Students with learning disabilities who are in general education classrooms for 75% or more of their day are more likely to receive HIV/AIDS education than their peers who spent 25% or more of their time in special education classes" (p. 347). This sobering instance is symbolic of how knowledge is withheld from students who are at greater risk of infection (Blanchett, 2000). In sum, instead of the hyper focus upon "deficits within children" that is a common aspect of special education, several chapters shift their gaze to the pathology of school culture.

An Aspect of Intersectionality

Another area of interest that emerged across the texts is that of disability as an intersectional aspect of identity, although this phenomenon varies in level of awareness. For example, the potential between disability and other markers of identity is implicit, but not stated, in DMR. Steinberg and Kincheloe acknowledge the intersectional nature of each marker of identity stating, "Indeed, the way one experiences race, class, and gender is contingent on their intersections with other hierarchies of inequality—other hierarchies in which the privileges of some grow out of the oppression of others" (p. 6-7). Here the authors allude to the complexities of oppression, although unfortunately without elaboration. On the other hand, Daffin and Anderson (2009) do illustrate the intersectional nature of oppression claiming, "While issues of disability receive more attention than issues of class, they too have become entangled with issues of gender and race. Males and students of color are disproportionately referred to special education programs" (p. 443).

One of the nine sections within HSJE, Bodies, Disability, and the Fight for Social Justice in Education, indicates the editors give disability equal status with other markers of identity. In her introduction to this edited section, Hulseboch (2009) narrates first hand experience with the absurdities of reductionist classifications within schools, describing how her daughter went from being "an ordinary Deaf kid with learning strengths and needs that no one in the school could see or respond to one her parents had worked to have labeled learning disabled in order to provide some extraordinary support" (p. 376), to ultimately being labeled emotionally disturbed. In contrast, when closing this part of the book, the poet Jim Ferris (2009) meditates upon the expansiveness of the human condition, its inherent beauty, and natural variety concluding, "…disabled people are at once vulnerable, adaptable, and strong, are humanity writ large, writ plain. Disabled people are where humanity comes clear" (p. 447).

The individual chapters within HJSE encompass numerous theories and historical perspectives, many of which implicitly or explicitly connect to disability, in terms of intersectionality (McCready, 2009) or its absence (Kenway & Hickey-Moody, 2009), illustrating the complexities involved in this work that have only just begun to be explored. In McCready's chapter, for example, what can be learned from individuals who are simultaneously positioned as Black, male, gay, working class, and learning disabled? How does each marker of identity (and all that it entails) impact upon the others within a person? In Kenway and Hickey-Moody's piece, what does the absence of Aboriginal Australians say and/or (re)enforce about other groups, including "progressive" inclusions of GLBTQ and disabled communities?

A Tool for Analogizing

Finally, in addition to be part of a larger group that reflects diversity, disability can be evoked to make a point that is generalizable to other markers of identity. For example, DMR's chapter on religious diversity provocatively titled Kill Santa, Sensoy (2009) seeks to inform readers on how to understand institutionalized oppression and privilege. To illuminate the concept of unearned privileges she begins by using left-handedness before moving onto the concept of ableism, deftly linking the key criterion of being privileged as social power. She writes,

As persons who fit a fluid category of 'normal' able bodied-ness, we can go through entire days, weeks, and even months never having to consider the limits of our ability to physically access any social environment…the social environment was set up to accommodate us as normal, giving us social privilege, protecting us from ever having to think about life without such "rights" (p. 325).

Sensoy notes that although the able bodied person does not seek to discriminate, "…the closer your values, ideas, language, faith, and body are to what is 'normal' in a society, the more privilege you have" (p. 326). This is an interesting instance of using ableism as analogous to another form of privilege (in this case Christianity), making the concept of disability integral to the premise of the argument. In contrast to mentioning disability in passing or to help bolster a substantial point, it is omitted altogether from several chapters among all three texts, including those on notions of minority (Davis, 2009), whiteness (Helfand, 2009), multi-ethnic individuals (Mohan, 2009), sexual orientation (Walton, 2009), colonialism (Stanley, 2009), and critical theory (Ndimande, 2010).

The Damage of (Pseudo) Science in Defining Disability

McDermot and Raley's (2009) "The Tell-Tale Body": The Constitution of Disabilities in School provides a systematic and scathing critique of "The Body Politic," how children are falsely labeled and pigeon-holed into common constructs such as the clumsy child or the hyperactive child, and how these very acts indicate "Democracy [is] Disabled" (p. 441). With great clarity, McDermott and Raley undermine the sacred cows of positivism and "scientific" testing, noting how the US was the first society to institutionalize a narrow definition of intelligence as measured via IQ tests, and was the first society to institutionalize the search for LD. They also show the globalization of disability constructs, and their exportation to other nations, where they are ostensibly employed to help individuals, but in reality, "mark" bodies in ways that their culture had not previously done so.

In Impediments to Social Justice: Hierarchy, Science, Faith, and Imposed Identity, Brantlinger (2009) addresses the taken for granted practices of disability classification in schools. In her own words, she describes the damage wreaked by using pseudo-science to reify student differences, and urges "scientifically-minded" education professionals to instead call upon morality and social reciprocity. In advocating this, Brantlinger brings a DSE critique to the purposes of hierarchy production, and the official imposition of a "damaged identity" (that is, receiving the inscription of a disability label), and the relentless overreliance on a scientifically-justified knowledge base used in traditional special education to defend ideas of difference. She notes that, "Just as powerful individuals evade fighting in wars they create, those who structure stratified schooling are rarely positioned at the bottom rung of school hierarchy" (p. 403).

Berry's (2009) Health and Diversity: What Does it Mean for Inclusion and Social Justice? addresses broad notions of physical health and "healthy" conditions. In recalling her own career and disability, she states, "…I struggled, however, even teaching because of the societal and institutional abnormalizing and exclusion of a body made different in childhood by the polio virus" (p. 335). She urges the use of local knowledge over the powerful influence of science that has wrested knowledge, influence, and care from the hands of females. While no overt reference is made to DS, the author's position of primarily viewing disability within a social context, and refuting the power claims of a medicalized lens, fits within a DSE paradigm.

Replacing Misleading and Oppressive Models of Disability

As the title makes clear, in Doing a (Dis)Service: Reimagining Special Education from a Disability Studies Perspective Ferri (2009) takes on the daily practices and habits of special education, revealing them to be highly questionable at best, and undeniably oppressive at worst. By foregrounding individuals who experience receiving labels, special placements, and limited opportunities, she paints a contrasting picture to the benevolent framing of special education classes found in introductory text books (Brantlinger, 2005). Ferri makes a compelling argument that it is only through reforming schools for everyone that such widespread, damaging practices can change, and argues that it is a moral imperative of scholars working within DSE to help envision and implement practices that will improve the educational experiences for students with disabilities along with their nondisabled peers.

In focusing on college life for students with disabilities, Ware's (2009) The Hegemonic Impulse for Health and Well-being: A Saga of the Less Well and the Less Worthy, addresses the glossy sheen that universities attempt to project in relation both accessibility and cultural diversity. The author also focuses on the real issues of undergraduate students, campus access, and administrative responsibilities in relation to what she terms, "Awareness Beyond the Nod" (p. 372). Combining issues of ableism, agency, and education, she critiques the current state of disability within multiculturalism. Although it is ostensibly "infused" throughout curricula and various administrative documents, institutionalized discourses of disability are still trapped in restrictive notions. And while diversity is celebrated on paper, Ware shares the comment of a student with a disability who concluded "there were no venues on campus to discuss any aspect of disability except those framed by treatment, cure, and correction" (p. 371).

In Welcoming the Unwelcome: Disability as Diversity, Connor and Gabel (2010) challenge widespread misconceptions and stereotypes about how disability is conceived in relation to social judgments. First, they highlight the limited and oppressive conceptions of disability within traditional special education. Second, using DS they question the very concept of disability, elaborate upon the benefit of using a social model to accurately understand the lived reality and concerns of people with disabilities. Third, the authors argue for the value of DSE in unlearning pervasive stereotypes in order to rethink and re-teach disability across the entire curriculum, from kindergarten to college. Connor and Gabel believe instead of seeking purported "intrinsic deficits" within children and youth, DS believes more can be gained by holding a mirror up to the institution of schooling and its commonplace practices. By doing so, what becomes revealed is "…the ways that bodies interact with the socially engineered environment and confirm to social expectations [and] determine the varying degrees of disability or able-bodiedness, or extra-ordinariness" (Garland Thomson, 1997, p. 7). In closing, the authors make an unabashed pitch for the increased use of DSE with other social justice related disciplines, stating

Disability, the formerly uninvited guest at the table of diversity in academia and all that it influences, now brings new ways of seeing where and how discrimination exists, and ways to counter social injustices based on physical, cognitive, behavioral, and sensory differences. Turning "normalcy" on its head by refuting its solidity and contesting its stability, DSE invites us all to rethink some of our most fundamental assumptions about where and how to educate everyone in a democracy (Connor & Gabel, 2010, p. 356).

Rewriting Cultural Scripts of Disability

InTipping the Scales: Disability Studies asks, "How Much Diversity Can You Take?", Connor and Baglieri (2009) posit whether disability is the proverbial straw that breaks the diversity camel's back. Topics addressed include: the need to confront ableism; challenging notions of idealized and defective citizens; the need for disability to have parity with other markers of identity; unraveling the concept of normalcy; the role of critical educators in calling attention to injustices; and recognizing the "Masterscripting" (Swartz, 1992) of ability within the medical model that pervades the teacher education programs, schools, and curricula. Through rewriting the master script, the authors advocate for teaching disability as diversity, and give examples of how to do so in elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as within teacher education.

InTheorizing Disability: Implications and Applications for Social Justice in Education Gabel and Connor (2009) trace how for many teachers, parents, scholars, and students with disabilities, the evolution of Special Education shifted from initial hope to contemporary criticism. The authors narrate the emergence of DSE as an outcome of such dissatisfaction, and the desire to create better ways of understanding and teaching about disability focused on viewing it as a form of natural diversity rather than an abnormality. Selecting the three disciplines of multicultural studies, critical race studies, and queer studies, Gabel and Connor explore applications for each when combined with DSE, creating new forms of social justice education incorporating curriculum content, providing access to curricula, and revising educational policies. They contend that each discipline has the power to interanimate one another, thereby creating a synthesis that is more rich, complicated, and potentially useful than if each discipline was employed solely.

Interestingly, of the nine chapters primarily focusing upon disability, six have an explicit DSE orientation (Brantlinger, 2009; Connor & Baglieri, 2009; Connor & Gabel, 2010; Gabel & Connor, 2010; Ferri, 2009; Ware, 2009), and the remaining three have an implicit—although not stated—DSE orientation (Berry, 2009; McDermott & Raley; Thumann & Simms, 2009). Both the level and nature of representation is promising in terms of inclusion into larger, inter-disciplinary fields of study, with one third of all chapters featuring disability, ranging from a central focus to "in passing" (see Table 3).

Description: This table describes how disability was defined in all three anthologies according to: main topic (10%); featured when making a significant point (5%); mentioned in passing (19%); and not mentioned (65%).

Inclusion at the Table(s) of Diversity: Answered Prayers?

In keeping with the critical aspect of DSE, I also seek to trouble the idea of "answered prayers." By this I mean that proponents of DSE do not breathe a collective sigh of (unquestioned) relief now that disability issues are rightfully featured in some anthologies about social justice and multiculturalism. Although DSE scholars are pleased by the recognition of disability in texts on diversity, it is of equal interest to consider what does not always fit nice and tidily into preexisting frameworks of thought. For example, what might be some divergencies, discrepancies, contradictions, tensions, and ruptures among various constituencies within these three volumes? Where are the emerging intersectional approaches to understanding bodily differences? What are some potential areas of interest to various groups but are, as yet, undertheorized? What happens when diverse issues compete with one another? The questions can be weighed alongside more general implications of these recent works.