One concern teachers should be aware of is that access for the abled is presented as natural, timely, immediate, or, perhaps, as a right. But for those that are disabled, access is an act of continued disablization, because physical or, in this case, technological access proves to be too much trouble for those abled folks to deal with. The Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation and the Disability Alliance (1997) endorse, "Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments, by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society" ("Fundamental Principle of Disability," p. 3). There is another access that goes beyond the physical or technological access--that of "participation, meaningfulness, and belonging" (Titchkosky, 2011, p. 7). This involvement is exactly where technology can provide inclusion. Instead of being exclusive (e.g. students registering with Disability Services or the similar office on an "inclusive" campus), this impression provides a community for disabled scholars to engage with other scholars in such a way that is more equitable. The way to engage is to provide for multiple learning processes. Indeed, Marc Prensky (2005) explains, "All of these learning processes [listening, observing, imitating, questioning, reflecting, trying, estimating, predicting, speculating, and practicing] can be supported through cell phones" (2np). Prensky continues and advises us that "cell phones complement the short-burst, casual, multitasking style of today's 'Digital Native'" (2np).

Kimber Barber-Fendley and Chris Hamel (2004) point out, "conversations concerning accommodation lead to an absence of dialogue needed to create awareness, concern, and ultimately action" (p. 515). Barber-Fendley and Hamel argue for "alternative assistance" programs that involve the Learning Disabilities (LD) and the Rhetoric and Composition fields (p. 522). These programs operate on a "liberal, need-driven system of equality" (p. 523). But they also point out the "problematic" nature of "LD diagnosis and treatment" (p. 518). If diagnosing and treating learning disabilities is difficult, what further problems can arise by attempting to install a "need-driven system of equality"? Although Barber-Fendley and Hamel make a persuasive case relative to accommodation, it seems that they have merely rubber-stamped a new term strikethrough over it. I'm not arguing for accommodation, which I think only reestablishes the us/them dichotomy; I'm arguing for access. Access for all, not the ones that qualify.