Using the new disability human rights paradigm to create higher education leadership opportunities

Abstract

Driven by anti-discrimination laws and a desire to promote human rights, universities have made strategic efforts to support their students with disabilities and provided some support to their staff with disabilities. However, persons with disabilities are not visible in senior leadership positions in universities. It is time for change. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has established new human rights expectations that require representation of persons with disabilities across all of society, and at all levels, at percentages which reflect their proportion within the population. Even though States are slow to introduce regulatory reforms to transform society and realize ability equality, some in the higher education sector are seeking to go above compliance and move their institutions, and the broader sector, to a more inclusive place. This paper maps out the efforts led at one Australian institution to use existing structures in disability discrimination laws to provide leadership opportunities for persons with disabilities as a blueprint for further change.

Introduction

Persons with disabilities do not enjoy their rights to education and work on an equal basis as the wider community. Currently, only 53% of Australians with a disability are in employment, compared to 84% of their peers without a disability. ¹ The statistics within the higher education sector are unknown, although it is likely to reflect these numbers. As only 17% of persons aged 20 and over with a disability have a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 35% of the community who live without a disability, ² it’s possible the lack of staff with a disability impacts on student success as well. This lack of visibility of leaders with a disability in education is concerning, especially when compared to the successes of other diversity groups in recent years. This raises questions about how our higher education institutions are fulfilling their obligations and expectations to realise disability equality.

Legislative efforts to reduce discrimination in Australia have been largely influenced by international human rights norms and changes in cultural attitudes towards diversity. ³ With the exception of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)’s adverse action provisions, ⁴ anti-discrimination frameworks provide direct and indirect provisions, as well as provisions which enable compliance through registering action plans. ⁵ Such plans and compliance activities are especially important to supporting persons with a disabilities’ career success in higher education.

This paper will explore how the higher education sector in Australia has been encouraged by the new disability human rights paradigm introduced by the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to use these existing compliance models and create new ways of realizing disability human rights. A key concept in this paper is that of visibility, as it is common for people to hide their disabilities in order to advance their careers. ⁶ The Australian context has been chosen as both authors work in an Australian university, and the first author chairs both a university and sector-wide group focused on improving disability inclusion, ⁷ as well as serves as a member on the Universities Australia Ministerial Reference Group. ⁸

Firstly, an analysis of the extent of the normative shift created by the introduction of the CRPD will provide the justification and context for reimagining leadership. Part 2 will illustrate how the catchcry of “nothing about us unless it is led by us” is translated into reality through an investigation of disability visibility in senior leadership positions within the Australian higher education sector. Finally, this paper offers a case study to demonstrate the effective use of these new disability policies at one Australian University, the University of Queensland, as a potential blueprint to further the enactment of the CRPD and realise true disability equality.

Part 1. A normative shift in ability equality, led by the CRPD.

The CRPD has created a raft of rights relevant to universities, which are motivated by widespread normative acceptance of the disability human rights paradigm. This is vital to compensate for the weakness of disability anti-discrimination laws that fall short of requiring true equality.

1(a) Disability Human Rights Norms and Universities

During the latter half of the 20^th century, disability advocates and scholars began to use a social constructionist approach to resist problematising disability. ⁹ This approach emphasised the role social attitudes had in disabling people with impairments, rather than purely resulting from the impairment, and became known as the social model. ¹⁰ The disability rights movement developed alongside the civil rights movement, emphasising disability equality as a human right. ¹¹ Both the disability rights as human rights movement and the social model of disability are integral to the CRPD. ¹²

The CRPD was adopted by the United Nations to address the denial of the rights of persons with disabilities. ¹³ This specialised human rights convention states that old approaches of exclusion and rights denials are unacceptable, and that new norms of inclusion and equality are now required from States. ¹⁴ A key feature of the CRPD is the marked shift from society approaching persons with disabilities through charity, medical, or welfare lenses, ¹⁵ instead promoting the social model and human rights elements of disability. ¹⁶ Relevant to this paper, the social model has been adopted in article one of the CRPD to explain the role society has in disabling people with impairments. ¹⁷ Specifically, the CRPD highlights that society causes the disablement of persons with impairments more than the physical elements (as dictated by the social model) and recognises persons with a disability as rights holders and equal citizens ¹⁸ Indeed, the CRPD promotes inclusion and equal accessibility in society as a fundamental human right and rejects the notion that persons with disabilities should have their rights discounted due to ability differences. ¹⁹ Under this human rights paradigm, the notion of ability equality is not a privilege, but a human right entitlement that the State must help realize. ²⁰

The CRPD preamble focuses on achieving equalization of opportunities, mainstreaming disability protections for persons requiring different levels of support. The CRPD then has introductory articles in articles 1 and 2, posits rights of universal application in articles 3 – 9, posits substantive rights in articles 10 – 30, develops implementation and monitoring schemes in articles 31 – 40, and explains how the CRPD should be governed in articles 41 – 50. As such, the CRPD is a general human rights instrument and posits rights across all human activities. ²¹

Many rights in the CRPD are directly relevant to Australian universities, which educate over 1.4 million students each year, employ over 130,000 people in academic and professional roles, and produce research and innovation which contributes to a better world. ²² The extension of the right to education in article 24 to include life-long learning is especially pertinent to universities. The CRPD governing Committee explains in General Comment 4, that article 24 ensures equal access for all persons with disabilities to affordable and quality technical, vocational, and tertiary education. ²³ The CRPD Committee has provided further guidance on the requirements for universities demanded by the CRPD. Illustratively, the CRPD Committee’s Concluding Observation on Japan explains that the State party must develop a national comprehensive policy, addressing barriers for students with disabilities in higher education, including university entrance exams and study. ²⁴

Universities are not just places of education, work, and research; universities often resemble a town. A town where people sleep, socialise, shop, seek health care, and engage in many other daily activities. Accordingly, many other rights in the CRPD are relevant to university activities, including rights to access roads, transport, information technologies and communications; ²⁵ to live independently in the community; ²⁶ to privacy; ²⁷ to health; ²⁸ to political engagement; ²⁹ and to participate in sport and culture. ³⁰

Universities also employ thousands of staff, and thus the right to work and employment in article 27 provides details on how workplaces should be inclusive. The CRPD also requires research to promote disability inclusion, including research and development of universally designed goods and technologies, ³¹ data collection, ³² the facilitation and cooperation in research and access to scientific and technical knowledge, ³³ as well as research on the development of standards in areas including access and health. ³⁴ The CRPD Committee also explained that State parties have obligations to adopt measures to support the research careers of persons with disabilities. ³⁵

The new paradigm created by the convention requires equality. Equality requires States and other actors to enable persons with disabilities to be present, at a number which represents their proportion of society. This extends to all areas of society, whether it is education or the workplace, and to all levels, including leadership positions. ³⁶

In addition to including persons with disabilities, the participatory dynamic requires that they are then given a voice for implementing the disability human rights paradigm. Indeed, this participatory dynamic is core to the CRPD as represented by the mantra “nothing about us without us”. ³⁷ This reflected persons with a disability fight for representation in matters concerning them. ³⁸ Since this initial push, this catchcry has evolved into “nothing about us unless it is led by us”, demanding that issues relating to persons with a disability are responded to by initiatives led by the people involved. This new paradigm has emerged from the Conference on States Parties to the CRPD almost exclusively appointing persons with disabilities to the CRPD Committee, and the way in which the CRPD Committee has interpreted the CRPD to demand persons with disabilities have a right to lead initiatives impacting upon the disability community (Harpur and Stein, 2022). ³⁹

The CRPD’s general principles include “full and effective participation and inclusion in society” and “equality of opportunity” in articles 3 (c) and (e). These general principles are supported by the CRPD’s general obligations in article 4. Articles 4 (3) and 4 (1) (i) require State parties to closely consult and involve persons with disabilities in decisions, policies, and laws concerning them “through their representative organizations” and to promote Disabled Persons Organizations (DPO) development.

In addition to supporting the development of DPOs, the CRPD requires States to include persons with disabilities in the implementation of the CRPD. CRPD article 33 (1) requires States to designate parts of government responsible for implementing the CRPD. ⁴⁰ Article 33 (3) also requires States to involve civil society, in particular DPOs, in this monitoring process. ⁴¹ Read together with the CRPD article 38, these articles provide persons with disabilities the right to fully participate in the CRPD’s implementation and monitoring. ⁴² This empowers persons with disabilities to demand that their role in designing, implementing, and monitoring rights to education, work, access, and other CRPD rights is recognized as pivotal and respected in the university sector.

1(b) Universities normative obligation to follow the CRPD

The State of Australia, as a State party, has an enforceable duty under international law to implement the CRPD. ⁴³  As Australia has not enacted the CRPD into its national jurisdiction, there is no domestic remedy specifically for a breach of the convention, as the Optional Protocol to the CRPD only provides a remedy against States parties themselves. Universities, as private and non-State actors, only attract normative pressure to comply with the CRPD. While such pressure can result in an international law treaty being enacted into Australian domestic law, ⁴⁴ this has not yet occurred. Thus, breaches of this convention are only actionable under international law and normative pressure. Normative pressure is created when States debate and ratify conventions. ⁴⁵ This process of treaty ratification can provide information on what the majority of a State believes and thus serve to change or reinforce what society expects and will sanction socially. Arguably, Australia’s ratification of the CRPD was a coalescing moment that mobilised the population to start to change and embrace the disability human rights paradigm. This process has directly impacted on how universities approach disability. ⁴⁶

Even though universities are not legally bound by domestic laws to follow the CRPD, the public nature of Australian universities causes them to attract significant normative pressure to embrace the disability human rights paradigm. Whereas many universities in the United States are privately owned, the Australian landscape is dominated by universities that were commenced by the State with public funds. Out of the 39 members of Universities Australia, Australia’s peak university body, all universities are public, with the exception of Bond University, the Australian Catholic University, and the University of Notre Dame Australia. ⁴⁷ This is due to the fact that Australian universities have their status formalised through an act of Parliament. As such, the founding statutes of universities often mandate that the university advance public good and equality measures. For example, the University of Melbourne Act (2009) (VIC) s 5(e), (f) and (g) and the Monash University Act 2009 (VIC) s 5(e), (f) and (g) require the universities to serve the local and international community, advance Indigenous rights, and provide programs and services in a way that reflects principles of equity and social justice.

The public nature of universities is reinforced by the fact that a majority of funding from universities comes from the Government. ⁴⁸ With respect to disability, the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) provides universities funding for students with a disability but does not set targets for numbers in higher education or their transition into leadership. This lack of attention to promoting the leadership of persons with disabilities can be contrasted with the approach to promoting indigenous leadership. The Indigenous Student Success Program is administered under Part 2-2A of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth). To be eligible for funding from the Indigenous Student Success Program, a university must have at least two Indigenous Australians involved in the university’s governance, consisting of at least one senior academic and a committee constituted by a majority of Indigenous persons, each of whom has skills and experience relevant to the role. ⁴⁹ This has resulted in a rapid increase of Deputy Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors who are indigenous. ⁵⁰ The success of such measures provides opportunities for Indigenous leaders with disabilities, as well as providing a potential roadmap for other underrepresented groups in the sector. ⁵¹

1(c) Anti-discrimination laws reduce discrimination, but are weak on advancing equality in higher education

Anti-discrimination laws are key to reducing disability inequalities. Existing anti-discrimination laws focus on reducing discrimination in defined attributes, ⁵² but they are not targeted at achieving equality and struggle to support minority groups into leadership within higher education. ⁵³

Disability discrimination laws in Australia prohibit discrimination through direct and indirect discrimination in a range of defined categories. Universities attract anti-discrimination duties primarily through the relationships of educator and student and employer and employee. Direct discrimination uses a technical legal test to limit the capacity of a university from treating a person less favourably due to their disability. The High Court of Australia drastically limited the scope of direct discrimination when it held a student could be lawfully discriminated against due to their conduct, perceived as misbehaviour, which was a manifestation of their disability, providing that the school would have sanctioned a student for such conduct where disability was not present. ⁵⁴ In contrast, indirect discrimination prohibits universities from requiring persons to comply with a requirement or policy where a majority of individuals with a certain attribute (such as gender, disability) cannot comply, where a majority of people with such an attribute are able to comply. Even though indirect discrimination provisions do require employers to attempt avoiding discriminatory barriers before they are experienced, legal technicalities, the expense of accessing justice and the time of resolving a dispute, all combine to make it challenging to impugn policies in academia which are indirectly discriminatory. ⁵⁵

Prohibiting discrimination can reduce discrimination, but negative duties alone will never achieve equality. ⁵⁶ Australian anti-discrimination laws do little to require duty holders to engage in positive action. ⁵⁷ Whereas the Equality Act 2010 (UK) s 149 binds all public authorities, including universities, ⁵⁸ and is enforceable by judicial review, there is no equivalent in Australia. There are some limited positive duties in Part 3 of the State of Victoria’s Equality Act 2010 (VIC), however these provisions are not enforceable, and accordingly have limited impact. ⁵⁹

Even though Australian disability anti-discrimination laws do not mandate positive conduct, they do facilitate compliance activities. For example, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and various State laws create a framework which encourages duty holders, including universities, to develop Disability Action Plans (DAPs). The Federal scheme is entirely voluntary, ⁶⁰ and plans may be lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission for public posting. ⁶¹ Equality laws in various State jurisdictions within Australia mandate that certain public bodies develop, implement, review, and privately report on plans that promote equality. These laws exist in New South Wales, ⁶² South Australia, ⁶³ Victoria, ⁶⁴ and Western Australia. ⁶⁵ Unfortunately, these statutory frameworks (outside of Western Australia) do not extend the requirement to develop, enforce and monitor universities’ plans. As such, the impact of these plans is unknown.

In contrast to universities in other Australian jurisdictions, universities in Western Australia are mandated to have State-based Disability Action Plans. The Disability Services Act 1993 (WA) s3 defines public authority to include various Government departments, those named under the relevant public servant statute, ⁶⁶ and to include entities specifically named in the regulations. The Disability Services Regulations 2004 (WA) Schedule one specifically names all public universities founded by the government through Western Australian Statutes. Consequently, aside from the private catholic University of Notre Dame Australia, ⁶⁷ the Disability Services Act 1993 (WA) requires that universities in Western Australia must have a disability access and inclusion plan extending to interactions with the public. The performance of those functions furthers the principles in Schedule one and meets the objectives in Schedule 2. ⁶⁸ Schedule one contains a comprehensive list and Schedule two includes objectives for services. Unfortunately, the reporting on this process is not required to be made public. ⁶⁹ It is also unfortunate that the development, implementation, and monitoring of such plans are not required to include persons with a disability. Thus, the realization of “nothing about us unless it is led by us”, or even the less demanding “nothing about us without us”, in Western Australian is unclear.

Part 2. Finding Visible Leaders

This lack of regulation to promote representation of persons with disabilities has arguably contributed to a lack of disability visibility in higher education leadership. To understand the status of visible leaders with a disability within higher education, this research project included a search of three data sets. These focused on mentions of disability on members of the chancellery’s profiles and leadership within disability specific areas such as DAP reference groups.

Methodology

The data collection spanned December of 2021 and January of 2022. The involvement of persons with disabilities in higher education leadership was reviewed to understand the extent to which universities are realizing the mantra of “nothing about us unless it is led by us”. This was achieved by analysing universities’ primary strategic document on disability, typically a Disability Action Plan (DAP), Accessibility Action Plan, or equivalent. For ease, these plans will be referred to as DAPs. University organizational charts and leadership role-holders were also checked. Reports that provide updates and accountability of the plans are also considered central to the investigation of DAPs, despite their nearly universal lack of availability.

Data Set 1

This data set involved the collection of all publicly available DAPs. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) requires that all DAPs must contain reference to who within the organization will implement the plan, so were checked for the explicit involvement of persons with disabilities. The research team searched every Australian University (listed by the Australian Government) website for the plans and cross checked the results with the Australian Human Rights Commission’s website list of registered plans. ⁷⁰ Not all universities reported plans on any of these platforms.

University websites were searched for the acknowledged creators or those responsible for the drafting of DAPs, as well as references within the plans themselves. The plans were searched for explicit reference of leadership, involvement, or consultation of persons with disabilities. This was through explicit acknowledgement, inclusion in Key Point Indicators (KPIs), and authorship. Plans that used data sourced from persons with disabilities (such as surveys) as an initial foundation for the plan but included no further involvement from them were not counted as involving persons with disabilities since they were not involved in the plan creation or leadership. Plans that included wider community or university wide consultation were also not counted if they did not acknowledge that there were persons with disabilities included in this consultation. When these plans identified groups within the university, such as a Disability Working Group, then the university website was further analysed to ascertain if a person with a disability was leading this group.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) requires that DAPs include the setting of goals and targets, which may reasonably be determined against the success of the plan in achieving the objects of the Act may be assessed. To find available DAP annual reports, a search using the Google search engine and individual university websites was undertaken. It was expected that there would be at least one annual report from each university that reported having a current DAP. Unfortunately, this was not the case. ⁷¹ It is impossible to determine the extent to which most universities comply with their reporting obligations under the DAP, as majority of universities do not make their DAP annual reports publicly available. While multiple DAPs included a positive change or impacts of previous DAPs section, these were not included due to the positive nature of the reports in comparison to accountability reports. This lack of accountability is of note to this conversation about disability inclusion and visibility, as the impact of DAPs and other efforts are not publicly available.

Plans that expired in or before 2018, or have newer iterations which were analysed, were not included as they are no longer current.

Data set 2

The second data set aimed to understand the extent to which the aphorism of “nothing about us unless it is led by us” is being realized within initiatives that aim to support persons with a disability. ⁷² To test this, the leadership of disability related committees (i.e., committees that oversaw policy supporting disability inclusion and DAPs) was investigated.

These groups were identified from the main Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) or disability website pages of all universities in Australia, if such pages existed. If not listed there, each University’s DAP or equivalent was searched, and then googled directly. Universities that wielded no results at this point had their websites searched with variations of the known names for disability committees combined with the university name. We understand groups do exist which are not on university websites, but as this paper is focusing on visible representations of disability, we are limiting our search to groups which have a public profile.

The groups that were located and had public membership lists had their chairs identified, and these chairs were searched through Google to see if they publicly identified or celebrated having a disability on their official university and LinkedIn profiles (when available). Membership reference lists were also accessed, if available.

Data set 3

The third data set aimed to profile visible representation of persons with disabilities in higher education senior leadership in Australia. This phase commenced with an analysis of Australian university Vice-Chancellors, Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Provosts, and Pro Vice-Chancellors. They were identified from university websites. Next, the names of those on boards and the executives of all university groupings were gathered. These groups were the Group of Eight (Go8), Innovative Research Universities (IRU), Rural University Network (RUN), the Technology Network, and Universities Australia. Those who were in acting or interim roles and on overseas campuses were not included due to the scope of the project. When available, official biographies, LinkedIn profiles, and Wikipedia pages of the leaders identified were gathered and analysed to determine if any mentioned living with a disability.

Results and analysis

Data set 1 – Nothing about us without us

Twenty-two publicly available DAPs were accessed. Of these, 15 plans had no mention or were unclear if persons with disability specifically were consulted. ⁷³ Three DAPs explicitly consulted with persons with disabilities, who were regarded as stakeholders but not co-creators. ⁷⁴ One other plan profiled a leader with a disability who benefited from the implementation of a DAP, but not that they were involved in the creation process. ⁷⁵ External/other community groups were consulted in one plan, which appears to have been chosen due to their role as a disability advocacy group. ⁷⁶ This group is not named, and it is unclear how they represent the university community. Only three were explicitly created by/with persons with disabilities, which were acknowledged as an integral part of the creation process. ⁷⁷

This shows that a majority of the plans that exist to help universities to realise their obligations under the CRPD are not incorporating the mantra of “nothing about us without us”. While 15 plans don’t incorporate this into their philosophy or acknowledgements at all, only three promote leadership of the plan by persons with a disability. Although it is possible that such people were included in the process and not acknowledged, this lack of acknowledgement reduces the benefits of having visible disability involvement and fails to realise “nothing about us unless it is led by us”.

Data set 2 Results – Nothing about unless it is led by us

Although numerous DAPs have dedicated groups assigned to monitor the plan, they were often merely mentioned within the plan and unable to be located outside of this reference. Many of those that were mentioned were larger groups that concern themselves with accessibility and other matters supporting community members with a disability, including DAP creation and implementation. Only five were able to be fully identified and included employee advisory networks and working groups. ⁷⁸

Of these groups, the following was gathered: one chair lives with a disability, one chair has lived experience of disability, and three chairs were not able to have their status confirmed through our methodology. Of these, two also had explicit involvement of persons with disability at the committee level.

The University of Queensland Disability Inclusion Group (UQ DIG), which is a consultative mechanism for developing and implementing disability inclusion initiatives across the university, ⁷⁹ illustrates this point. To illustrate, the UQ DIG explicitly states their mission to realise “nothing about us without us”, and supports this statement in their terms of reference by requiring at least two staff members and two students with a disability to be members of the committee. This inclusion in the terms of reference is also followed by the Griffith University Disability Advisory Committee.

This contrasts with other universities statements that do not explicitly state the need to include persons with disability. For example, the University of South Australia Disability Inclusion Employee Advisory Network only requires “sound knowledge, experience or understanding of disability access and inclusion issues.”

Documents associated with other Disability Committees had no reference to the expected qualities and relation to disability, which could mean that persons with disabilities aren’t being included in this decision-making process that is intended to impact their access to the right to education.

Data set 3 Results – Visible representation of persons with disabilities in senior leadership

There were no Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, or Provost profiles which mentioned disability. Out of the 153 non-unique Pro-Vice Chancellor profiles analysed, there was one which disclosed a disability

It is worth noting that one person with disability is identified as a Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice President and was profiled within their respective DAP (University of Technology Sydney). This information is not available outside of the plan or found through our targeted methodology. However, research on a related project has identified others who have not disclosed on their profiles. ⁸⁰ What can be done to improve this situation is the focus of our follow up study which interviews these leaders for the reasons they have not disclosed. These findings place further importance on the topic of visibility in leadership and the fear of public disclosure explored in this paper. ⁸¹

However, it is not sufficient to have persons with a disability present in leadership positions if they are not empowered to make change and are not heard. Indeed, such positions are at risk of being tokenistic if not properly structured and supported. Part 3 will explain one way to empower leaders with a disability and fulfil the demands of the CRPD.

Part 3. Disability steering group and leadership: From university-wide to sector wide

As the search for visible leaders with a disability in the Australian higher education sector detailed in Part 2 has only produced one visible leader, an inequality in representation and a fear of visibility has been exposed. Indeed, it is time for the entire sector to empower persons with disabilities to drive ability equality in higher education. The success of the UQ DIG, which inherently provides leadership opportunities and changes the experience of those with a disability in higher education, provides a model to help universities realise “nothing about us unless it is led by us”.

UQ DIG approach to leading university responses to disability inclusion

Demonstrating leadership skills is necessary to progress as a staff member in universities. Other EDI identities have realized the importance of developing pipelines and have consequently developed groups and training to support their respective groups into leadership. ⁸²  As no formal groups or programs existed for disability within his institution, Dr Harpur created an opportunity for persons with disabilities to demonstrate leadership on operational strategic issues impacting universities. Through a group committed to realising “nothing about us unless it is led by us”, opportunity to practice leadership at a strategic level became a reality for staff with a disability. This was the catalyst for realising the participatory dynamic at UQ and has established the university as a champion of disability inclusion within the sector. ⁸³

Although the university had EDI groups embedded within different organizational bodies, and institution-wide groups for other diversity attributes, there was no place for persons with disabilities to advocate for ability equality at the operational or strategic levels. While drafting the 2014 DAP, Dr Harpur lobbied to create leadership opportunities for persons with disabilities to create ability equality. ⁸⁴ The goals of Dr Harpur and the university aligned, and a DAP enactment/monitoring group (the UQ DIG) was written into the 2016-2018 DAP. Dr Harpur (who is blind) was made chair.

The DIG has been able to effect lasting change through increased strategic attention to accessibility issues. ⁸⁵ This has included aligning disability inclusion with university strategy and leader’s KPIs connected to achieving strategic goals and an emphasis on co-design with stakeholders. ⁸⁶ An important aspect to the success of this group is the alignment with strategy, as there are considerable resources held by senior leadership to advance strategic priorities and to champion substantial change. ⁸⁷ Attention of disability issues is brought to senior leadership by direct reporting to the UQ Senate Sub-committee for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which includes the Vice-Chancellor and Provost as members. As a result, the DIG has been successful in gaining leadership attention on ability equality, and to supporting members of the DIG into leadership roles

Beyond university and national awards and prizes, the tangible impact of the DIG can be illustrated by analysing one successful initiative: the Staff with Disability Travel Fund. ⁸⁸ This was created in response to challenges staff with a disability had when needing to travel for work.

When people with a disability travel, they incur additional expenses which could prevent their participation, and future career progression. In Dr Harpur’s case, he is totally blind. He has flown around the world as a Paralympian and academic, but his 2020 Fulbright Future Fellowship to the Harvard Law School Project on Disability and the Burton Blatt at Syracuse University was the first time he had planned on travelling overseas for a 3-months block by himself. Reliance on taxis and challenges in sourcing food were not sufficiently funded by existing grants. Dr Harpur raised this issue to the DIG and discovered that other staff were paying for additional expenses themselves or with other work budgets. He collaborated with tourism academics Dr Marion Karl and Dr Shane Pegg to successfully obtain funding to survey UQ staff and to present the findings at a workshop attended by leading figures and the Federal Disability Human Rights Commissioner. ⁸⁹ At the workshop the then Pro Vice-Chancellor, Professor Tim Dunne, announced UQ was establishing a Disability Travel Fund for staff. This commitment to supporting staff with disabilities that travel for career progression and excellence has continued into the launch of the new university travel policy announced in March 2022. ⁹⁰

It is significant that such an initiative was able to be successfully implemented and pioneered by a leader with a disability who was given the support needed to achieve. The insight and understanding of the problem provided by someone who lives with a disability was crucial to addressing this issue and has been demonstrated through other DIG operations, serving as a model to realise the participation of leaders with a disability.

The successes of the DIG led to academic publications and other capacity building exercises on campus. ⁹¹ Additionally, UQ gained international recognition for its innovation in this space, which has helped secure collaborations on future research grants. ⁹² Staff with disabilities at the University of Queensland have used their university’s commitment to meaningful and co-created DAPs to develop and demonstrate strategic leadership qualities; qualities that have helped secure promotions and may 1 day contribute to elevation to other opportunities that are not exclusive to disability.

This paper clearly demonstrates the need to celebrate disability in leadership and the widely recognised benefits of creating specific leadership opportunities for those with disabilities. As a result of the wider research of the authorship team, Dr Harpur has founded Universities Enable, a sector-wide group that will make the next change in leadership through a sector-wide response.

Conclusion

The CRPD has led to a normative shift in how disability is approached in Australia. It is accordingly timely to seek far reaching reforms to further advance the disability human rights paradigm. We believe that the enactment of positive duties in Australia, similar to those found in the United Kingdom, would have a profoundly positive impact upon all anti-discrimination law relationships, and thus would benefit persons with disabilities in universities. However, we recognise that the prospects of widespread anti-discrimination reforms are limited. An intervention which is more achievable is for the State to perform a pilot to explore the possibility of introducing disability leadership measures in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth), similar to those found in the Indigenous Student Success Program.

While there has been support to help persons with disabilities attend university, they should not just be seen as knowledge learners, they should also be seen as knowledge producers and thought leaders. Now is the time to extend that support to create leaders at universities.

Equality, as envisaged by the CRPD, will only be achieved when persons with disabilities are represented at all levels in the sector, at numbers which reflect their proportion in society. The disability human rights paradigm is motivating key actors to use regulatory frameworks to achieve more inclusive results. Universities, acting individually and collectively, should be willing to embrace the disability human rights paradigm, and help realize a more inclusive sector. Through this process, universities can become the machines which will drive us all to a more inclusive tomorrow.