Are That Many Students Really Faking Disabilities?

The University of New Hampshire’s disability-services team operates at full capacity during finals week, managing 13 camera-monitored cubicles equipped with noise-reduction headphones, screen magnifiers, and specialized software for students requiring accommodations. Faculty scramble to find proctored testing spaces for hundreds of students needing quiet environments or extended time, often straining departments already impacted by budget-driven staffing cuts. Approximately 15% of the university’s 12,000 undergraduates have approved accommodations, primarily for mental health conditions like anxiety, depression, and ADHD. Scott Lapinski, executive director of health and well-being, notes that 64 students have five or more disabilities, highlighting the complexity of cases. Faculty express frustration over the volume of requests, though Lapinski emphasizes the life-saving impact accommodations have for many students. A growing perception among faculty and media suggests some students exploit the system for unfair advantages, but experts argue the reality is more nuanced. Wendy S. Harbour, director of the National Center for College Students With Disabilities, states that while misuse occurs, it is not the norm. She warns that bureaucratic delays and faculty resistance—often fueled by skepticism—deny legitimate students access to essential services. Harbour, who is deaf, reports a rise in calls from students denied accommodations or facing faculty refusal to implement them. The issue is exacerbated by assumptions that students are ‘faking’ disabilities, creating systemic barriers. Data from the U.S. Government Accountability Office shows the proportion of college students with registered disabilities nearly doubled from 11% in 2004 to 21% in 2020, reflecting broader trends in higher education. Critics acknowledge systemic challenges, including overwhelmed disability staff and high turnover, which hinder support for students with intersecting needs. Without accommodations, disabled students graduate at significantly lower rates, raising concerns that increased scrutiny could erode hard-won progress in accessibility. The debate underscores tensions between ensuring fairness and addressing legitimate concerns about system abuse.