Abstract
A content analysis of 50 U.S. university homepages, selected via a randomized Google Gemini request, revealed only 4% featured a visual representation of people with visible disabilities (e.g., wheelchair, walker, prosthetic limb use). This sociological visible erasure, which omits a marginalized group's identity, is framed as active ableism, explained by symbolic annihilation and performativity.
Introduction
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 28.7% of Americans have a disability (CDC, 2025), and within higher education, 21% of undergraduates and 11% of graduate students reported having a disability in the 2019–2020 academic year (Postsecondary National Policy Institute, 2025). A critical examination of United States college and university websites reveals that individuals with visible disabilities are frequently absent from these primary visual spaces. This study examines this phenomenon of visible erasure, a sociological process where the history or identity of a marginalized group are ignored or left out of the narrative. This is not merely an oversight but a practice that reflects and reinforces pervasive, systemic ableism within higher education. Disabled students are part of each and every college and university system, yet practically none are seen on the homepage of the institution, a school's first impression to any web browser. This visible erasure significantly undermines the sense of belonging for disabled students, communicating that their presence is neither valued nor expected (Vaccaro et al., 2015).
The central argument of this paper is that the underrepresentation of individuals with visible disabilities on university websites reflects institutional ableism and broader societal marginalization. This absence isn't accidental; it reveals biases shaping an idealized, exclusionary image of academia. While we viewed visible disabilities, it in no way discredits individuals that may have invisible disabilities. As the study only accounted for homepage photographs, visible disabilities were able to be “seen” while invisible disabilities would need to be verified through interviews.
This issue is critical now, as anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) movements threaten to further marginalize disabled individuals. This study establishes a baseline of visual representation at a pivotal moment, questioning past DEI commitments and warning of future exclusion. We ask: To what extent are individuals with visible disabilities represented on U.S. university homepages, and what does this visible erasure reveal about institutional ableism and symbolic representation? Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, n.d.), postsecondary institutions are required not only to ensure physical and digital accessibility but also to avoid exclusionary practices that could be interpreted as discriminatory. While visual representation is not currently a regulated accessibility requirement, its exclusionary effects warrant closer scrutiny by legal scholars and disability rights advocates. True inclusion demands proactive efforts beyond mere legal compliance to foster a sense of belonging for all students.
Ableism and Its Manifestations
Fiona Kumari Campbell defines ableism as a societal framework where the able-bodied and neurotypical are the default human standard, deeply embedded within culture and shaping institutional ideals (2008). Universities actively produce this norm by consistently centering able-bodied students into their imagery. This cycle reinforces the idea that “abled-ness” is natural, or more aptly ‘the norm’, making it challenging for institutions to integrate disability as a valued form of diversity without fundamentally re-evaluating their own constructed ideals.
Institutions also engage in a form of “passing,” akin to Goffman's concept of individuals concealing discreditable identities (1963). By excluding visibly disabled bodies from their “front stage” (the homepage), universities project an idealized, “normal” image of their community. This performance reinforces the idea that disability should be hidden, potentially pressuring disabled students to conceal their identities to conform.
This absence constitutes symbolic annihilation, a concept describing the erasure or trivialization of marginalized groups in media (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). The lack of visibly disabled people on university homepages symbolically erases them from the campus community, signaling they are not a significant part of the represented world. This omission contributes to “disability invisibility,” questioning the legitimacy of disabled identity within the institution (Visagie & Swartz, 2017).
The politics of visibility are at play. Institutions control who is seen and how, using visual discourse to produce a specific reality and define “rituals of truth” (Foucault, 1977). By consistently presenting an able-bodied ideal, universities create a “regime of truth” that defines a “normal” student, a disciplinary mechanism that pressures all students to conform to this visual norm and reinforces power structures (Butler, 1990).
Methodology
This study utilized a purposive sampling strategy to analyze the visual content of 50 U.S. college and university homepages. To ensure broad geographic representation and enhance the external validity of the findings, one institution was selected from each of the 50 states. This sampling was done via a Google Gemini prompt to select one institution from each state with selections ranging from public to private institutions and from large research facilities to small colleges. This was done to take the researcher out of the equation for school choice.
The primary data source was the official homepage of each institution, chosen because it serves as the digital “front door” and represents the curated public face intended to attract prospective students and stakeholders. Data collection occurred in the last week of June 2025 and involved capturing full-page screenshots of each homepage, focusing on primary hero/banner images and carousels with GoFullPage. No other website pages were studied, where imagery may have been more represented, because we wanted to get the full sense of that first impression that can only be achieved with the homepage.
The captured imagery was systematically coded to identify the presence of individuals with very visible disabilities. This study's focus on very visible disability is a specific, measurable proxy and a symbolic omission that is discernable. The researcher looked for any sign of a wheelchair (full chair, wheel, etc.), a walker or rollator, or a prosthetic limb (clear amputee, visible prosthetic, etc.). Those with invisible disabilities are harder to code using only images. The coding scheme was designed to be concrete and replicable, focusing on clear, visible indicators:
None: No individual with a visible disability present. Wheel: Wheelchair user represented. Walker: Walker user represented. Prosthetic: Prosthetic limb represented.
In addition to this quantitative count, a descriptive analysis was conducted on the two instances where representation was found, noting the positioning of the individual (e.g., prominent vs. background) to provide context for how disability was depicted when visible (at the forefront vs. hidden). While this coding scheme only accounts for very visible disabilities and may be perceived as narrow-viewed, visualizing the homepages without speaking to the individuals for the purpose of inclusion needed a more “in your face” form of disability.
Results
The analysis of 50 university homepages reveals a stark pattern of erasure. The overwhelming majority of institutions, 48 out of 50 (96%), had no visible representation of a person with a disability in their primary homepage imagery. This finding underscores an exclusion of individuals with visible disabilities from the digital “front doors” of American higher education. This aligns with findings from similar studies in other contexts, such as tourism marketing and UK universities, which also found a significant lack of disability representation (Benjamin et al., 2020) (Table 1).
All Schools Were Accessed 6/28/2025.
Only two universities (4%) in the sample included an individual with a visible disability:
Clemson University: Featured a prominent image of a wheelchair user with high visibility, coded as ‘Wheel’. University of Alaska Anchorage: Included a person using a wheelchair in the background of a group photograph, which had a filter applied that reduced overall visibility. This was coded as ‘Wheel’ and noted as ‘Background’ in the descriptive analysis.
No representations of individuals using walkers or with prosthetic limbs were found in the sample.
Discussion
The absence of individuals with visible disabilities on university homepages, with 96% showing no representation, signifies a powerful statement made through omission. This visible erasure, where members of a marginalized group are omitted, highlights how “abled-ness” is actively produced as the visual norm in higher education. By nearly universally excluding visibly disabled bodies, universities contribute to a self-perpetuating cycle where the absence of disability makes being able-bodied appear to be the natural, default student state, a bodily standard if you will (Campbell, 2009).
This ableism manifests as symbolic annihilation, effectively erasing disabled individuals from the institutional narrative and implying they aren't a valued part of the community. Even isolated instances of representation, like a person in a wheelchair in the background, can be seen as lack of meaningful inclusion, reflecting how institutions control who is seen. By rendering disabled bodies invisible, universities subtly define the ideal student as able-bodied. This visual exclusion profoundly impacts disabled students’ sense of belonging and trust (Stewart, 2023), conveying a message of “you are not part of our imagined community,” which can lead to alienation and affect enrollment and retention. The visible erasure on the “front stage” often reflects deeper structural ableism “backstage,” perpetuating inequalities.
Limitations and Strengths
This study has limitations. Its methodology, focusing on very visible indicators of disability such as wheelchairs, prosthetics, rollators, canes, etc., inherently cannot account for many disabilities that are non-visible, such as chronic illnesses, learning disabilities, or mental health conditions. Therefore, this research provides a snapshot of one specific dimension of disability representation, not a complete picture. The scope is also limited to a small sample of university homepages (50), which may not reflect the visual content across an institution's entire digital presence such as their student services or accessibility pages. However, the first page of any university or college website serves a great function and are not random, as they are the first thing that potential students or faculty see when perusing the website. Finally, with only two instances of representation found, any descriptive observations about how disability is portrayed are illustrative rather than generalizable.
Despite these limitations, the study's strength lies in its strong theoretical grounding and systematic methodology. It provides powerful, concrete quantitative evidence of a pervasive visible erasure, substantiating claims of exclusion with data and highlighting the gap between institutional rhetoric and symbolic practice. The study shows that there are conversations needing to be had about what projection the college or university is showing to the vast number of disabled students looking for their next educational institution.
Conclusion and Implications
The visible erasure of disability on university homepages is a powerful statement about belonging, value, and institutional priorities. The findings demonstrate that this visual erasure of the disabled body is a systemic issue reflecting and reinforcing deeply embedded ableism within higher education. Challenging this visual ableism is a necessary step toward creating truly equitable and inclusive spaces for students, faculty, and staff. The recommendations drawn from this study extend beyond the simple addition of images, suggesting the need for comprehensive policy changes that foster institutional commitment to authentic inclusion.
University leaders should recognize their homepage as more than just a marketing asset; it's a vital indicator. The visual underrepresentation of people with disabilities on these prominent pages, as highlighted in this study, can serve as an early warning sign, prompting deeper, institution-wide discussions. If the university's most visible “front door” appears exclusionary, it raises crucial questions about where else ableism might exist—whether in physical infrastructure, digital accessibility, student support services, or broader campus culture. To achieve genuine inclusion universities should move toward portraying a wide range of disabilities and showcasing disabled individuals as active, integrated members of the community, rather than as symbolic gestures or “super-crips” meant solely to inspire. In the face of anti-DEI sentiment, reaffirming a commitment to disability inclusion is essential. Visual representation should be a deliberate component of a university's strategic goals for enrollment, student success, and campus culture, sending a clear message that disabled students are not an afterthought but an integral and valued part of the academic community.
Research could broaden the scope of analysis beyond homepages to other institutional media, including departmental websites, recruitment materials, and social media feeds. Additionally, new studies are needed to investigate audience reception by examining how prospective students, both disabled and non-disabled, perceive this visible erasure and how it impacts their sense of belonging and application decisions. It is also crucial to examine the production process through qualitative research, such as interviews with university communications professionals, to uncover the decision-making that leads to exclusionary content.
Future studies can add the intersectionality of other marginalized identities such as gender and race. Research that could see if how disability and queer studies, or critical race theory and disability are dealt with on the higher educational forefront . Finally, a longitudinal analysis that repeats this study in the future would track whether representation changes within the evolving landscape of DEI.
While various steps can be taken to correct the homepage's ‘abled-as-the-norm’ view, conducting thorough research is the essential first step. Given the current trend of stripping DEI initiatives from higher educational facilities, this research is more important and urgent than ever. The concepts behind the outreach are being put in the dark, but a simple reassessment of media choice on the homepage can still silently signal that the school, and its stakeholders, believe in the power of student community and belonging.
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. The author has no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article. This study involved publicly available data and did not involve human subjects. The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Footnotes
Author Contribution(s)
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.