“I want to know what it’s going to take for people to stop treating us like we’re less than. Why aren’t we being trusted to speak about our experiences and to represent our community?”

“Being disabled in this profession is such an exhausting experience. We’ve had to beat the odds to get here in the first place and we have to prove we should get to stay every single day. It doesn’t feel like they get that.”

“Is there even a point to this committee if it doesn’t focus on disabled experiences? It feels like another thinly veiled attempt to ‘help’ us for credit without actually helping.”

“The fact that they only accommodations they mention are for caregivers makes me so angry. Caregiving is something that absolutely deserves support but it’s an entirely different thing to what we need. We shouldn’t have to repeat this for the disability community.”

“If this were happening with other identity status committees… I actually don’t know what I think would be happening. I can’t imagine a man being approved as the chair of the women’s status committee in the first place.”

“It feels like they don’t think we exist or that there won’t be enough of us to be on the committee in the long run. If one of the main goals of this committee is to get & keep disabled people in political science it’s contrary to assume failure from the beginning.”

“How are we supposed to expect people who are already dismissing our concerns to represent us in the discipline?”

“The fact that they’ve mentioned in-person conference accessibility without addressing COVID is absurd. We’re still in a pandemic and disabled academics are getting pushed out over and over for not being willing to put our lives on the line for high-risk networking events.”

“It’s frustrating how much of this is about supporting disability studies research. I’m all for that happening but as someone in a different subfield I feel like an afterthought.”

“The fact that none of us knew this committee was being formed until after it was announced is irritating. Who picked who was on this committee and why weren’t we asked for our input?”

The current committee has repeatedly told disabled political scientists that they don’t see these norms as necessary to the committee they’ve formed.

Why should the disability status committee be any different from the others?

(Hint: It Shouldn’t)

The descriptive, substantive, & symbolic representation these committees are meant to embody is critical to their success.

Setting up disability as an exception to maintaining these norms sets a dangerous precedent that furthers the othering of disabled folks in the discipline.

“Taking up space in advocacy for a marginalized group is a privilege; one that you can wield to make the public sphere more inclusive or one you can use to center yourself. Ally-ship requires you to do the former, anything else is performance.” -Disabled Activist @imanibarbarin.bsky.social

APSA status committees are a DEI initiative meant to support scholars from underrepresented groups within the discipline. These committees have always been comprised of members of that group.

We don’t think that there’s any reason for disability to be an exception.

Conversations with current committee members have made it clear that they do not believe it is necessary or realistic to ensure that all members of this committee be disabled.

We need your help to change this.

Seconded.

2022: Do Revenge
2021: Being The Ricardos
2020: Eurovision: The Story of Fire Saga
2019: Little Women
2018: Hearts Beat Loud
2017: Lady Bird
2016: Hidden Figures
2015: Spy
2014: Paddington
2013: The Butler

[Both Downton Abbey movies were omitted but truthfully they'd take both 2019 & 2022]

Relatedly, I am extremely impressed that it manages to still be the most realistic pandemic show despite being made before any of the vast influx of those post-COVID.