In the wake of the #metoo and #blacklivesmatter movements, the masculine and ‘methodologically white’ nature of the core of the international legal profession has received renewed attention, and attempts to diversify it are well underway. Absent from the conversations that accompany such diversification efforts are reflections on the pervasiveness of ableism in the profession. Ableism describes implicit assumptions about the species-typical condition of the human body and the ways in which it interacts with the material and social world. The importance of ableism in excluding and marginalizing persons with disabling differences in international legal academia has widely been overlooked. This neglect simultaneously contributes to ableist re-productions of the profession and affects how international law understands and governs disability.

Many ethical theorists believe that a given distribution of healthcare is morally justified only if (1) it is cost-effective and (2) it does not discriminate against older adults and disabled people. However, if (3) cost-effectiveness involves maximizing the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) added by a given unit of healthcare resource, or cost, it seems the pursuit of cost-effectiveness will inevitably discriminate against older adults and disabled patients. I show why this trilemma is harder to escape than some theorists think. We cannot avoid it by using age- or disability-weighted QALY scores, for example. I then explain why there is no sense of “discrimination” on which discrimination is both unjust, and thus something healthcare rationing must avoid, and something cost-effective healthcare rationing inevitably involves. I go on to argue that many of the reasons we have for not favoring rationing that maximizes QALYs outside the healthcare context apply in healthcare as well. Thus, claim (1) above is dubious.

In this article, I call for a cripping of environmental education as a necessary move in shifting away from the field’s current conceptions of disability as defect and deficiency, and towards disrupting the structures and processes that operate as normalizing technologies within ableism/sanism. Through an examination of the ways that the field of environmental education has/has not engaged critical disability politics, I illuminate how disability is not often included within environmental education literature. When it is, it is often through the use of disability as metaphor or through recommendations for best practices in accommodating disabilities. More often though within environmental education, disability has operated as a hidden curriculum, underpinning much of the field’s curricular, pedagogical, and even philosophical foundations. Through a cripping of the field these compulsory able-bodied/able-minded assumptions are made apparent. I suggest that by centering crip bodies and minds through cripistemologies, we might enable new ways of knowing, being in, connecting to, and understanding the natural world.

Ageism is a widely used term that is not (yet) well understood. We propose a redefinition of ageism and to separate it from ableism. We believe this to be important as remedies may depend on whether someone is experiencing ageism or ableism. While focusing the discussion on older workers as a sub-group of older people who (can) experience ageism, we assess the usefulness of critical (feminist) disability studies for ageism research. We hope that redefining ageism and analytically separating it from ableism (without suggesting that both concepts should be studied independently from one another) will provide guidance for researchers who study ageism and will allow for more specific policy guidance on how to solve difficulties experienced by older workers.