Professor Minow argues that Emens’ analysis is problematically built out of the view of the individual as “distinctive, alone, and unique” which results in “pervasive inattention to relational, iterative, and collective features of social experience.” Minow suggests a variety of “alternative frames” that would conceptualize “inclusive human settings . . . that benefit everyone” and better serve Emens’ integrative purposes.

Professor Sunstein proposes that the foundations of Emens’ approach can be linked with the notion that “morally irrelevant differences have been turned, without sufficient justification, into a systematic source of social disadvantage” and, thus, may be seen as a reflection of an anticaste principle that underlies American law. Thus, Emens’ focus on third-party benefits should be seen “not as a diversion from the fundamental goals of the ADA, but as an effort to reconceive and deepen them.”

Professor Sturm locates Emens’ proposal within the context of broader approaches that “encourage institutional redesign as a strategy for achieving inclusion and full participation of marginalized groups.” Sturm, however, suggests a further step that would move past individual cases and “shift the focus into the institution.” This move would then “encourage integration of the structure and process of accommodation into day-to-day governance” of institutions themselves.