“Messy Inclusion”: A Call for Dignity of Risk in Inclusive Postsecondary Education

Abstract

As inclusive postsecondary education (IPSE) programs emerge and expand across the United States, many young people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have access to higher education for the first time. To support growth and identity development, students with IDD should have access to all aspects of college life (e.g., activities, relationships, opportunities). Furthermore, students with IDD should have the freedom to take emotional, physical, and intellectual risks relative to those of their peers without disabilities. This leading edge article is written by practitioners and researchers with and without disabilities associated with the University of Missouri St. Louis IPSE program, Succeed. To center the voices of persons with disabilities, any direct quotations are in italics. In this article, we advocate for increased dignity of risk in IPSE, present a model to assess and make programmatic decisions regarding dignity of risk in IPSE, and highlight five philosophical values that guide our work toward “messy inclusion.”

Keywords

dignity of risk intellectual and developmental disabilities inclusive postsecondary education college experience

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bacon

Baglieri

(2021). Perspectives of students labeled intellectually disabled at college: Using disability studies in education as a lens to contemplate inclusive postsecondary education. Journal of Disability Studies in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1163/25888803-bja10007

Blatt

(1987). The community imperative and human values. In Antonak

R. F.

Mulick

J. A.

(Eds.), Transition in mental retardation: The community imperative revisited (pp. 236–247). Ablex.

Chickering

A. W.

Reisser

(1993). Education and identity. The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. Jossey-Bass.

Dolmage

J. T.

(2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press.

Donnellan

A. M.

(1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874298400900201

Francis

G. L.

Duke

J. M.

Fujita

Sutton

J. C.

(2019). “It’s a constant fight”: Experiences of college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(3), 247–262.

Grigal

Hart

Papay

Lazo

Smith

Domin

(2021). Annual Report of the Cohort 2 TPSID Model Demonstration Projects (Year 5, 2019–2020). Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.

Grigal

Hart

Weir

(2011). Think College standards, quality indicators, and benchmarks for inclusive higher education. Institute for Community Inclusion. https://www.mass.edu/strategic/maicei/documents/think-college-standards.pdf

Jones

Boyle

May

Prohn

Updike

Wheeler

(2015). Building inclusive communities: A framework for inclusion. Institute for Community Inclusion. https://fcihe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/26_inclusivecommunities_F.pdf

10.

Kunc

(2000). Integration: Being realistic isn’t realistic. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 1(3), Article 2.

11.

Nirje

(1969). The normalization principle and its human management implications. In Kugel

Wolfensberger

(Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (pp. 179–195). President’s Commission on Mental Retardation.

12.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

(2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

13.

Patton

L. D.

Renn

K. A.

Guido

F. M.

Quaye

S. J.

(2016). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. John Wiley.

14.

Perske

(1972). The dignity of risk. In Wolfensberger

(Ed.), Normalization: The principle of normalization in human services (pp. 194–200). National Institute on Mental Retardation.

15.

Schloss

P. J.

Alper

Jayne

(1993). Self-determination for persons with disabilities: Choice, risk, and dignity. Exceptional Children, 60(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299406000303

16.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Forber-Pratt

A. J.

Little

T. J.

Lopez

(2015). Causal agency theory: Reconceptualizing a functional model of self-determination. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(3), 251–263. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24827508

17.

Singh

Gilson

(2020). Toward an inclusive definition of college student development. Journal of Inclusive Postsecondary Education, 2(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.13021/jipe.2020.2719

18.

Slayter

E. M.

(2007). Substance abuse and mental retardation: Balancing risk management with the “dignity of risk.” Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 88(4), 651–659. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3688

19.

Think College. (2021). Think college search. https://www.thinkcollege.net/college-search

20.

Uditsky

Hughson

(2012). Inclusive postsecondary education: An evidence-based moral imperative. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 298–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12005

21.

Ward

M. J.

(2005). An historical perspective of self-determination in special education: Accomplishments and challenges. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30(3), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.30.3.108

22.

Wiesel

Bigby

Kamstra

Farmer

(2021). Possibility and risk in encounter between people with and without intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 46(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2020.1837606