Intersectionality
Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (Crenshaw, 2016) concept of intersectionality argues that identities cannot be separated into neat categories because experiences are shaped through overlapping systems of power. This theory exposes how disability is interpreted too narrowly by society and institutions who continuously perpetuate ableism. Intersectionality provides a framework for recognising diversity and questioning whether current ideas of inclusion are genuinely equitable. Rather than simply adding accommodations, institutions need to rethink whose needs are prioritised in the design of education, work and public life.
Christine Sun Kim’s film offers a refreshing perspective on disability, intersectionality and ableism, as well as society’s expectations around gender, race and culture, which really spoke to me. Kim sits at the intersection of being Korean-American, deaf and also a mother, navigating the very exclusive and ableist contemporary art scene, where spoken language carries enormous cultural capital, often placing Kim at the margins of the sector. This piece explores how disability is shaped not only by physical or mental impairments but also by social attitudes, institutional barriers and unequal access to opportunities.
Kim’s positionality not only resists exclusion but also challenges the meaning of sound and communication through her work, using creativity and humour to communicate powerful messages. A recurring theme of this piece is the distinction between accessibility and inclusion, with disabled people expected to adapt themselves to dominant social norms.
Another recurring theme in Adepitan (ParalympicsGB 2020) and Kim’s films is that institutional ideas of “accessibility” can be reductive and superficial placing more importance on accommodations and policy adjustments than on changing perceptions and attitudes towards disability and intersectionality, thereby creating areas of social exclusion.
Watching these two pieces made me reflect on the institution I work for and my teaching practice, where I have observed mostly physical accommodations being made. However, more must be done to address the impact of disability and intersectionality towards students whose intersectional identities are often overlooked or disregarded. Accessibility in education should move beyond reactive support models and towards inclusive design from the beginning. In art and design education especially, students may face barriers linked not only to disability but also to finance, confidence, language or cultural expectations. UAL data highlights awarding and continuation gaps affecting disabled students, particularly where disability overlaps with race and class. From my teaching experience, students engage more confidently when flexibility and accessibility are normalised rather than treated as exceptional support.
The interviews also challenged the idea that disability automatically defines a person’s entire identity. There were also contrasting perspectives around disclosure and adaptation. Some individuals viewed accommodations positively because they created equal opportunities, while others expressed frustration that they constantly needed to negotiate access or explain themselves. This tension suggests that inclusion often places responsibility on disabled individuals rather than institutions.
One particularly striking experience I became aware of during my teaching practice involved a Black British student with a neurodivergent diagnosis who did not receive appropriate academic support due to discriminatory attitudes from another lecturer. The student’s reduced engagement was misattributed to race, rather than being understood through the intersectional lens of their lived experience. Intersectionality helps explain why simplified representations are harmful: they erase differences within disabled communities and flatten people’s experiences into stereotypes. This episode has since defined my own approach to teaching, strengthening my commitment to ensuring that similar oversights are recognised and addressed in my practice going forward.
Bibliography
Art21 (2023) Christine Sun Kim in “Friends & Strangers” – Season 11 | Art21 [YouTube video]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NpRaEDlLsI (Accessed: 17 May 2026).
Crenshaw, K. (2016) The urgency of intersectionality. TED Talk, TEDWomen 2016. Available at: TED Talk (Accessed: 17 May 2026)
ParalympicsGB (2020) ParalympicsGB Legends – Ade Adepitan [YouTube video]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnRjdol_j0c (Accessed: 17 May 2026)
University of the Arts London (2025) UAL EDI Report 2025 [PDF]. London: University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/561434/EDI-Report-2025.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com [Accessed: 5 July 2026].
Your blog offers a thoughtful and well-connected discussion of intersectionality and disability, particularly through your engagement with Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory and Christine Sun Kim’s work. I really liked how you moved beyond the idea of accessibility as simply “accommodations” and instead questioned whether institutions are genuinely inclusive in their structures and attitudes. The connection you make between disability, race, culture and education feels especially strong because it is grounded both in theory and in your own teaching experience, which gives the piece authenticity and depth.
The final example involving the Black British neurodivergent student is particularly impactful because it demonstrates how harmful assumptions can emerge when intersectionality is ignored in educational settings. Your reflection clearly shows critical self-awareness and a commitment to developing more inclusive teaching practices. One thing that strengthens the blog overall is the balance between academic references and personal reflection, making the discussion both analytical and relatable.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I’m pleased that the distinction between accessibility and inclusion resonated with you, as this became one of the key ideas I reflected on while engaging with the resources. The materials challenged me to think more critically about whether institutional approaches to accessibility are genuinely transformative or whether they sometimes focus too heavily on compliance and accommodations without addressing underlying attitudes and assumptions.
I also appreciate your reflection on the example of the Black British neurodivergent student. Reflecting on that experience reinforced for me how easily students’ needs can be misunderstood when viewed through a single lens rather than an intersectional one. It highlighted the importance of remaining aware of our own assumptions as educators and creating learning environments that recognise the complexity of students’ lived experiences.
I really enjoyed reading this! I was just wondering where the UAL data comes from(I think they all live on Canvas…), as I’d be interested in having a look at it too. I wasn’t sure if it’s something that should be referenced in the bibliography, but it might be worth including if it’s a published source. Not sure how to do that myself! 🙂
Thanks for your comment. I did ask Kwame for this source as I also used it in my reflective report. The data comes from the UAL EDI Report 2025, which is a publicly available report rather than something only available on Canvas. I have now referenced it in the post, thank you!
The full reference is:
University of the Arts London (2025) UAL EDI Report 2025. London: University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/561434/EDI-Report-2025.pdf (Accessed: 5 July 2026).
It made for some sobering reading. I found it really useful for understanding some of the inequalities that exist across different student groups at UAL. It definitely made me think more critically about how disability intersects with other aspects of identity and how that can shape students’ experiences of higher education.