Disability paper--I have no map

Clumps of thought to explore, or The Amylea Clemons Method of Paper Writing

“There seems to be a chasm between the medical knowledge of a condition, and how it impinges on academic progress.” (Report from Queensland University of Technology on ME/CFS in post-secondary ed)
Primary texts: Compliance documents from two universities. Purdue and Florida vs Queensland
Method: Close reading of the translation of ADA required material into web information on university sites.
Goal: to discuss the attitudes, values, and assumptions that underlie the construction of official statements (read: “legally mandated statements”) of disability services at the university level. What ideologies and definitions of “disability” are embedded in the language of the document? (Here I’m thinking of J Blake Scott’s article on Confide home testing for HIV, where “normalcy” and WASP ideology are constructed despite attempts at empathy and political correctness.)

Contextualization: ADA requirements, recommendations from ed.gov
Frameworks:
Use Mezzy’s terministic screens of interpretation of legal documents for own interpretations. Grammarian problems.
Edward Schiappa’s Defining Reality asks us to consider definition not as finding an “essence” but as contextualized:

It is not that X is Y, but that X should count as Y in context C. When we do this, however, we should ask “What are our shared purposes in defining X? What interests and values are advanced by competing definitions? Whose interests are being served by a particular definition and do we want to identify with those interests? What are the consequences of the ‘essential’ characteristics promoted by a definition, given that every category ‘valorizes some point of view and silences another’ (177-178).

To what extent do the definitions in university “judicial” documents (documents that serve a legal function) serve one interest or another? What definitions are used, and what are the attitudes toward that definition? What are the attitudes toward the ADA in general, and how is the ADA definition presented (where, to what extent is it quoted, how is it explained, links?) What version of “disability” emerges from the university’s use of the ADA’s legal language? Who benefits from these definitions, and what attitudes emerge from those definitions? What consequences might there be?

How is normalcy constructed in the documents? (Davis) What is “normal” for the university? How is “university” itself constructed in the documents? More importantly, how are these arguments made, and what authorities do they draw from?

Support for close reading: AHEAD website’s comments and recommendations. Overview of judicial rhetoric research in disability studies. Criticism of university regulations for chronic illness in Australia. (three studies)