Advocate for Disability Inclusion and Refugee Rights
For many refugees, a university scholarship represents far more than an opportunity to earn a degree. It can be a pathway to self-reliance, professional development, leadership and meaningful contribution to society. For refugees with disabilities, access to higher education can be even more transformative because it can help overcome barriers that have affected their educational and economic opportunities for years.
This is why the DAFI Tertiary Scholarship Programme is so important. The programme has provided higher education opportunities to refugee students in Uganda for decades. Its contribution to refugee education deserves recognition. At the same time, there is a question that deserves greater public attention: how inclusive is DAFI for refugees with disabilities?
My interest in this question is informed by a personal experience with the programme.
I have applied for the DAFI scholarship several times. During a previous application cycle, I was shortlisted for an interview, participated in the interview and subsequently waited for the final results. The process was later interrupted following changes affecting refugee-related programmes under the United States administration.
When the programme resumed, previous applicants were required to go through a new application process. I accepted that requirement and applied again using essentially the same qualifications and profile that had previously taken me to the interview stage. However, this time I was informed that I did not meet the criteria for shortlisting.
I recognize that previous shortlisting does not guarantee selection in a new application cycle. Every new cycle can have different levels of competition and requirements. My concern, therefore, is not that I should automatically have been shortlisted again. My concern is understanding what changed.
Were the eligibility requirements different? Was the assessment methodology changed? Were previous applicants treated under a different framework? Were there new priorities or conditions that affected eligibility?
And as a refugee with a disability, this experience leads me to a broader question: how does DAFI ensure that disability does not become a direct or indirect barrier within its selection process?
I raise this question without alleging that my disability was the reason for my rejection. I do not have evidence to make that claim. Rather, the lack of publicly visible information about disability inclusion makes it difficult for applicants and the wider refugee community to understand how persons with disabilities are represented and supported within the programme.
The question of criteria
Academic criteria are understandably important for a competitive scholarship programme. However, when assessing applicants with disabilities, it is worth considering the educational conditions under which their academic results were achieved.
Many learners with disabilities face significant barriers from primary school through secondary education. These can include inaccessible classrooms and sanitation facilities, inadequate transportation, lack of assistive devices and learning materials, communication barriers, limited access to sign-language interpretation or Braille, insufficient learning support, stigma, discrimination and low expectations from communities or institutions.
For refugee learners with disabilities, these challenges can be compounded by displacement, poverty, interrupted education and limited access to specialized services.
Consequently, academic results may not always tell the entire story of a student’s ability or potential. A learner who has had to study without appropriate assistive technology, accessible materials or communication support may have faced obstacles that are not reflected on a transcript or certificate.
This does not mean that scholarship programmes should lower academic standards. Rather, it raises the issue of equity in assessment.
There is a difference between lowering a standard and removing barriers that prevent someone from demonstrating that they can meet the standard. Reasonable accommodation, accessible application procedures and appropriate consideration of disability-related educational barriers can help ensure that academic merit is assessed fairly.
The question, therefore, is whether DAFI’s criteria and selection procedures sufficiently recognize these realities.
Where are refugees with disabilities in the DAFI story?
Another concern is the limited publicly available information specifically showing the participation of refugees with disabilities in DAFI in Uganda.
Programme reporting provides information about beneficiaries and other characteristics, but it is difficult to identify a clear, publicly reported cumulative figure for refugees with disabilities who have benefited from DAFI in Uganda.
This creates an important information gap.
We should be able to ask: how many refugees with disabilities apply each year? How many are shortlisted? How many are interviewed? How many receive scholarships? How many complete their studies?
These figures would not only tell us who benefits. They could also reveal where barriers may exist in the scholarship pathway.
If applicants with disabilities apply in significant numbers but rarely reach the shortlist, that may require examination of the eligibility and screening process. If they reach interviews but are rarely selected, it may be necessary to examine interview accessibility, reasonable accommodation and assessment procedures. If they are selected but struggle to graduate, the issue may lie in the support available during university education.
Without disability-disaggregated data, these questions remain difficult to answer.
What disability inclusion strategy is being used?
This brings the discussion to what I believe is the central issue.
What disability inclusion strategy is currently being used by the DAFI programme to ensure that refugees with disabilities can access, compete for and successfully benefit from higher education scholarships?
Is disability-disaggregated data collected throughout the application and scholarship cycle? Are application systems accessible? Can applicants request reasonable accommodation during interviews? Are selection committees trained in disability inclusion and unconscious bias? Does the programme consider the educational barriers that learners with disabilities may have experienced before reaching university? What support is available to scholars who require assistive technology, accessible learning materials or communication support?
There is also a need for clarity around accountability. If an applicant believes that an application process was inaccessible or that they were unfairly assessed, is there an accessible mechanism to request clarification or review?
These are not demands for preferential treatment. They are questions about whether equal opportunity is being translated into practice.
Inclusion should be measurable
The absence of publicly available disability-disaggregated data should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of discrimination. However, it makes it difficult to assess the extent to which the programme is reaching refugees with disabilities.
If disability inclusion is a genuine programme priority, it should be possible to demonstrate progress through evidence while protecting the privacy of individual applicants and scholars.
Inclusion should therefore be visible across the entire journey:
Application → Shortlisting → Interview → Selection → University support → Graduation.
This would allow programme managers, refugee-led organisations and disability-rights actors to identify gaps and work together on solutions.
Refugees with disabilities should be part of the solution
Disability inclusion should also involve those who experience the barriers themselves.
Refugee-led organisations of persons with disabilities can contribute practical knowledge on accessibility, reasonable accommodation, communication barriers and other challenges that may not be immediately visible to programme administrators.
Their involvement should go beyond consultation. They should have meaningful opportunities to contribute to the design, monitoring and evaluation of scholarship programmes.
The principle is simple: nothing about us should be designed without us.
A call for transparency and meaningful inclusion
My experience has prompted a broader conversation, not simply about one application outcome, but about how refugee scholarship programmes can ensure that disability does not become an invisible barrier to higher education.
I therefore respectfully call upon UNHCR, Windle International Uganda and the DAFI programme to provide greater clarity on disability inclusion within the programme in Uganda. This should include information on the participation of refugees with disabilities, the availability of reasonable accommodation, the accessibility of application and interview procedures, the training of selection committees, support available to scholars with disabilities, and mechanisms through which applicants can seek clarification or review.
Most importantly, I encourage the programme to engage directly with refugees with disabilities and their representative organisations in strengthening these measures.
DAFI has played an important role in expanding higher education opportunities for refugees. The next step should be ensuring that refugees with disabilities are not only eligible to apply, but are able to participate in the process on an equal basis and have their educational potential fairly assessed.
The question is therefore not whether refugees with disabilities deserve a lower academic standard.
They do not.
The question is whether the system provides them with a fair opportunity to meet the standard.
That is the conversation we need to have.
Who gets to study?
And more importantly, who is being left behind and why?