Why Not the “New Flexible”?: The Argument for Not Returning to “Normal” After COVID-19

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disparate impact across demographic groups, resulting in BIPOC and disabled people experiencing transmission, hospitalization, and death at higher rates than White and non-disabled populations. However, responses within the pandemic created new avenues for access to people with disabilities, including telehealth, work from home opportunities, and virtual participation, which were the very solutions and accommodations they have been requesting, but denied, for years. The call for a "return to normal" is steeped in ableist thinking. Society was made aware of the inequities for disabled people throughout the pandemic, and flexible solutions must be retained and refined to continue the access provided during this time. As a start to a discourse on reflection and action, the authors suggest four areas to target for change toward health equity: (a) messaging and communication, (b) accessibility, (c) addressing attitudinal barriers, and (d) seeking and using the input of disabled people. The following presents an overview of each factor and action steps, with resources to guide them.Author note: Although APA style conventions and professional discourse support the use of person-first language in academic writing about disability, both person-first and identity-first language was used throughout this paper. One of the authors identifies as disabled, and we chose to use both out of respect for the disabled community about whom we speak.

Same Old New Normal: The Ableist Fallacy of “Post-Pandemic” Work

“…For people like me, and many of my closest colleagues, normal was always anything but. Rather, it remains a violent status quo "steeped in ableism" that reinforces interlocking systems of power and inequality, especially for academics facing intersecting forms of socioeconomic oppression (Saia et al, 2021). The concept of normalcy has long served as a "generic process" in the reproduction of ableism and associated social inequality (see Schwalbe et al, 2000).…”

Ethics of Technology Practice: Beliefs and Behaviors of Certified Rehabilitation Counselors During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…This has included an elevated risk of severe health outcomes due to co-morbidities and poor social determinants of health such as unsafe housing and limited transportation (Shakespeare et al, 2021; Wong et al, 2022). With this in mind, a return to pre-pandemic technology practice may not be ethically possible or desirable (Saia et al, 2021). With clients and counselors becoming comfortable with distance services, many government policies put in place during the first year of the pandemic have remained (Adolph et al, 2022; Oesterle et al, 2020).…”

“Is this a new dawn for accessibility?” A qualitative interview study assessing remote working experiences in adults with physical disabilities post COVID-19

“…If telework returns to being a special benefit, participants question whether the recent surge in acceptance and wellbeing support will "taper off" (P8) for those that remain homeworking permanently. Saia and colleagues [12] advocate for the new flexible, where a cultural shift to widespread teleworking that can address the inequities laid bare by the pandemic should be the preferred outcome.…”