DDM SCORING GUIDE

This rubric provides a consistent framework for evaluating public statements about people with disabilities. The scoring system operates on a four-point scale, ranging from the most harmful to the most respectful language. Each score reflects a distinct category based on the tone, content, and context of the statement.

1

Uses hate/ableist speech and/or encourages violence toward individuals with disabilities

Dehumanizing Rhetoric.

Statements in this category are the most severe. They use hate speech, slurs, or language that encourages harm or social rejection. These statements deny the humanity of people with disabilities and promote fear, disgust, or aggression.

Characteristics:

Uses derogatory or outdated slurs

Frames disability as inhuman or threatening

Encourages harm, separation, or mistreatment

Denies personal dignity or worth

Examples:

“Cripple,” “spastic,” “mongoloid,” “crazy,” “insane,” the r-word

Statements suggesting violence, confinement, or segregation

Statements in this category contribute to hostile environments and social stigma.

Critical and Demeaning Language.

This score applies to statements that question the ability, value, or potential of people with disabilities. These statements may treat disability as a flaw or burden and may discourage full participation in daily life. They often imply that disabled individuals are less capable or undeserving of opportunity.

Characteristics:

Suggests disabled people are incompetent, unemployable, or unsafe

Frames disability as a negative outcome or source of failure

Treats disability as something to eliminate or avoid

Examples:

“Burden on society,” “helpless,” “slow,” “shouldn’t be hired,” “need to be fixed”

Alarmist framing of diagnosis trends as threats to health or education

This language promotes negative generalizations about people with disabilities.

2

Critical of the social, cognitive, physical, and/or employment abilities of individuals with disabilities

3

Uses a deficit frame regarding the social, cognitive, physical, and/or employment abilities of individuals with disabilities

Deficit-Framed Language.

Statements in this category may sound neutral or well-intended, but they reflect a limited understanding of disability. This framing focuses on what people with disabilities cannot do, often portraying them as objects of pity or care rather than full participants in society. While not overtly harmful, this language can reinforce outdated assumptions.

Characteristics:

Emphasizes need, dependency, or limitation without highlighting ability or agency

Fails to reference rights, protections, or systemic supports (e.g., IDEA, ADA) when relevant

Uses outdated or passive language (e.g., “wheelchair-bound,” “a disabled person”)

Frames disability as something to be fixed or minimized, rather than acknowledged and supported

Examples:

“Burden on family,” “handicapped,” “in need of fixing”

Statements that avoid clear positions on disability rights or policy enforcement

Descriptions of disabled individuals as passive recipients of care

Though not openly negative, these statements overlook the autonomy and potential of people with disabilities.

Affirming Language.

Statements in this category affirm the worth, abilities, and full participation of people with disabilities. They reflect an understanding of the importance of fair treatment, appropriate support, and legal protections. Language in this category recognizes disability as part of the human experience and supports meaningful access to education, employment, and civic life.

Characteristics:

Uses person-first or identity-affirming language (e.g., “person with a disability”)

Highlights contributions, capabilities, and self-determination

Supports legal protections and access (e.g., IDEA, ADA, accommodations)

Treats people with disabilities as full participants in schools, workplaces, and communities

Examples:

“People with disabilities contribute meaningfully to society”

“Support under IDEA ensures equal opportunity in education”

“Accommodations enable independence and participation”

This type of language promotes understanding and respect for all individuals, regardless of ability.

4

Values the social, cognitive, physical, and/or employment abilities of individuals with disabilities

AI Scoring Considerations

To ensure a consistent, content-focused evaluation process, AI is prompted with the following guidelines when evaluating and scoring public statements related to disability:

Context matters. When a quote is vague or technical, the analysis and surrounding context should guide interpretation.

Omissions are relevant. Failure to mention legal protections (e.g., IDEA, ADA) in relevant policy contexts may lower the score.

Tone and impact are distinct. A polite tone does not automatically signal respect. Likewise, strong or urgent language can still be appropriate when advocating for necessary support.

Intent does not override impact. Well-meaning statements may still reinforce stereotypes or outdated thinking if they emphasize pity, dependency, or limitations.

Advocacy is not penalized. Statements that describe challenges or systemic problems can still receive a high score if they promote appropriate support, accountability, or policy enforcement.