Beyond Compliance: Institutional Accessibility and Professional Inclusion of Faculty and Staff with Visual Impairments in U.S. Public Universities
By Cristo Leon, Ph.D.
Last updated on November 4, 2026.
Introduction
Accessibility in higher education has traditionally focused on the experiences of students with disabilities, emphasizing equal access to educational opportunities, instructional materials, and campus services. However, universities are not exclusively educational environments; they are also workplaces in which faculty, researchers, administrators, and professional staff participate in the production, management, and dissemination of knowledge. Consequently, accessibility must be considered not only as a condition for student participation but also as a fundamental component of equitable academic employment and professional engagement.
For faculty and professional staff who are blind or have low vision, participation in academic work requires more than access to assistive technologies. Teaching, conducting research, managing institutional processes, communicating with colleagues, and participating in university governance increasingly depend on interconnected digital systems. Although screen readers, refreshable Braille displays, magnification software, and voice-based interfaces can facilitate these activities, their effectiveness depends on accessible institutional infrastructure and adequate organizational support. Having assistive technology does not necessarily guarantee that an individual can participate effectively in the institutional environment.
This distinction raises an important question: To what extent do public universities in the United States provide the technological, administrative, and organizational conditions necessary for faculty and professional staff with visual impairments to participate equitably in academic and professional activities?
From Legal Compliance to Institutional Accessibility
In the United States (2023), overlapping legal frameworks govern institutional accessibility, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)[1] and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[2] Title I of the ADA addresses employment discrimination and reasonable accommodations, while Title II establishes accessibility obligations for public entities, including public universities. Section 504 further prohibits disability discrimination in institutions receiving federal financial assistance.
These protections establish a legal foundation for accessibility, but legal obligations and their implementation represent different dimensions of institutional responsibility. Compliance sets minimum requirements, whereas effective inclusion depends on how organizations integrate accessibility principles into procedures, technology procurement, professional development, and everyday practices.
Bradbard et al. (2010), examining web accessibility policies at land-grant universities, identified deficiencies in institutional policies intended to guide accessible web development. Their findings suggested that the existence of formal policies did not necessarily ensure comprehensive accessibility practices.
More recently, Cudjoe and Asilevi (2026) examined digital accessibility policy readiness among 20 leading U.S. public universities using the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework. Their analysis identified substantial institutional commitments to accessibility standards, including the adoption of WCAG 2.1 AA across the institutions studied. Nevertheless, their findings also highlighted continuing challenges involving technological interoperability and the accessibility of specialized academic content.
Together, these studies suggest that institutional readiness is multidimensional. Published policies and technical standards show organizational commitment, but they cannot independently establish whether faculty and staff with visual impairments have equitable access to institutional resources.
Assistive Technology and the Accessibility of Academic Work
Assistive technologies have expanded the possibilities for professional participation among individuals with visual impairments. Screen readers, Braille interfaces, digital magnification, speech recognition, and accessible electronic documents provide alternative ways to interact with information and accomplish professional tasks.
However, accessibility cannot be evaluated solely through the availability of these technologies. The practical effectiveness of assistive devices depends on their compatibility with institutional systems, the accessibility of information formats, and access to technical support.
For example, a faculty member may possess a sophisticated screen reader but encounter substantial barriers when navigating an inaccessible learning management system, reviewing an unstructured PDF, interpreting a graphical research output, or completing administrative forms. In such circumstances, the technological capability of the individual is constrained by the design of the institutional environment.
Greenvall et al. (2021) documented the experience of a blind professor teaching bioengineering, illustrating how assistive technology, accessible instructional materials, and access assistants can support teaching in a visually intensive discipline. Their account also demonstrated how alternative pedagogical strategies could foster student interaction and participation. Although the study represents a specific institutional context, it illustrates the importance of coordinating technological, human, and pedagogical resources.
These observations suggest that accessibility should be examined as an interaction among individuals, technologies, organizational structures, and professional activities rather than as an isolated characteristic of assistive equipment.
Organizational Barriers and the Burden of Accommodation
Beyond technological limitations, organizational procedures can create additional barriers to professional participation.
In a systematic review of ableism among faculty and staff in academia, Lindsay and Fuentes (2022) identified recurring challenges associated with disability disclosure, inadequate accommodations, organizational exclusion, and negative workplace attitudes. Their findings suggest that accessibility difficulties are not exclusively technological but are also embedded in institutional cultures and administrative practices.
Similarly, Castro et al. (2024), through qualitative interviews with researchers with disabilities in the United States, identified barriers involving inaccessible environments, delays in obtaining accommodations, concerns about disclosure, and experiences of professional stigma.
These findings introduce the concept of the accommodation burden: the additional administrative, cognitive, and professional effort individuals may need to invest in identifying accessibility barriers, documenting their needs, requesting accommodations, and negotiating institutional responses.
Such processes can place responsibility for achieving accessibility disproportionately on individuals who already encounter barriers to participation. Furthermore, when accommodations depend on individual disclosure and advocacy, employees may feel uncertain about their professional reputation, advancement, and relationships with colleagues.
For faculty and professional staff with visual impairments, these institutional dynamics may affect activities ranging from instructional preparation and research collaboration to administrative responsibilities and career progression.
Accordingly, evaluating accessibility requires attention not only to whether accommodations are formally available but also to how they are requested, coordinated, delivered, maintained, and experienced.
Toward an Institutional Model of Accessibility
The literature suggests that the transition from reactive accommodation to proactive accessibility requires an organizational approach.
Within this perspective, accessibility can be conceptualized through three complementary dimensions.
Formal accessibility concerns the existence of institutional policies, legal compliance mechanisms, and established accommodation procedures.
Functional accessibility concerns whether available technologies, digital environments, and institutional services enable individuals with visual impairments to perform their professional responsibilities effectively.
Institutional inclusion concerns whether organizational culture, leadership, resource allocation, and administrative processes support equitable participation without imposing unnecessary burdens on employees.
Although analytically distinguishable, these dimensions are interdependent. An institution may demonstrate formal accessibility through published policies while providing inadequate functional accessibility through incompatible software. Similarly, accessible technological infrastructure may coexist with administrative procedures or workplace cultures that discourage requests for accommodation.
This distinction suggests that accessibility should be understood as an institutional capability involving coordinated technological, administrative, and social practices rather than merely a compliance outcome.
Research Gap and Direction for the Literature Review
Despite growing scholarship on disability and accessibility in higher education, several areas require further investigation.
First, substantial attention has been directed toward student experiences, while the professional activities and institutional needs of faculty and staff have received comparatively limited examination.
Second, research frequently addresses disability as a broad category, potentially obscuring the technological and professional circumstances associated specifically with blindness and low vision.
Third, studies of institutional accessibility often emphasize policy development or technical compliance without directly evaluating how these arrangements affect everyday professional activities.
Finally, the relationship between organizational readiness, assistive technology provision, accommodation procedures, and employees’ experiences of institutional inclusion remains insufficiently integrated within the literature identified for this review.
These limitations suggest a need to examine how public universities organize accessibility support across technological systems, administrative processes, and professional environments.
Rather than asking exclusively whether universities provide assistive technologies or comply with accessibility regulations, the proposed literature review considers whether existing institutional arrangements enable faculty and professional staff with visual impairments to participate effectively and equitably in academic work.
The review is therefore guided by the following question:
How do U.S. public universities provide and coordinate assistive technologies, workplace accommodations, and institutional support for faculty and professional staff with visual impairments, and what barriers affect the adequacy of these provisions?
By synthesizing literature on assistive technology, organizational accessibility, disability accommodation, and professional inclusion, this review seeks to identify the institutional conditions that facilitate or constrain equitable participation. It aims to establish a conceptual foundation for assessing accessibility as a coordinated organizational responsibility that extends beyond minimum legal compliance.
Recommended citation
Sources
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. Pub. L. No. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. United States Code (1990). https://www.eeoc.gov/history/americans-disabilities-act-1990
Bradbard, D. A., Peters, C., & Caneva, Y. (2010). Web accessibility policies at land-grant universities. The Internet and Higher Education, Special Issue on Web 2.0, 13(4), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.05.007
Castro, F., Cerilli, C., Hu, L., Iezzoni, L. I., Varadaraj, V., & Swenor, B. K. (2024). Experiences of researchers with disabilities at academic institutions in the United States. PLOS ONE, 19(8), e0299612. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299612
Cudjoe, E. K., & Asilevi, P. A. (2026). Toward universal access to information: An analysis of digital accessibility policy readiness in U.S. public universities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 25(4), 115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-026-01379-8
Greenvall, B. R., Tiano, A. L., Chandani, A., & Minkara, M. S. (2021). The Influence of a Blind Professor in a Bioengineering Course. Biomedical Engineering Education, 1(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-021-00052-1
Lindsay, S., & Fuentes, K. (2022). It Is Time to Address Ableism in Academia: A Systematic Review of the Experiences and Impact of Ableism among Faculty and Staff. Disabilities, 2(2), 178–203. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities2020014
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2023). Visual Disabilities in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (Technical Assistance Document EEOC-NVTA-2023-3). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/visual-disabilities-workplace-and-americans-disabilities-act
[1] USEEOC. (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 1990). Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/history/americans-disabilities-act-1990
[2] USEEOC. (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2023). Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/rehabilitation-act-1973