Disability Inclusion Requires More Than a Lanyard
The Sunflower Lanyard program started with good intentions. It’s meant to be a discreet way for people with invisible disabilities to signal that they may need additional help, patience, or understanding. But like many well-meaning ideas, it falls short because it tries to band-aid a problem rather than solve it.
Inclusive access is not about placing the burden on individuals with disabilities to make themselves visible. Inclusive access is about designing systems, environments, and policies that don’t require someone to ask for the bare minimum of human decency.
The Lanyard Puts the Responsibility on Disabled People
The biggest issue with the Sunflower Lanyard is that it shifts the burden of accessibility onto the person with the disability. The premise is: “If you need help, wear this symbol so others know.” That’s backwards.
Access shouldn’t require a permission slip. It shouldn’t require broadcasting personal information to receive a basic level of inclusion. Disabled people shouldn’t have to declare themselves just to be treated equitably.
It Creates a Two-Tier System of Access
When organizations train staff to look for a lanyard before offering assistance, they are saying, “We will help you, but only if you publicly identify as needing help.” This creates an environment where people who choose not to wear the lanyard or are unaware of the program are ignored.
Most disabilities aren’t visible. Access should not be conditional on wearing a sign that says, “I am allowed to exist in this space.”
Performative Inclusion vs. Structural Change
Adopting the Sunflower Lanyard scheme is easy. Training staff to universally offer help, redesigning policies to assume varied abilities, and building inclusive environments; that’s challenging. Too many organizations opt for the quick fix instead of doing the real work.
Lanyard programs become a way for organizations to claim they are providing inclusive access without committing to transforming their systems. It becomes a checkbox instead of a culture shift.
Privacy and Safety Concerns
Not every disabled person wants to advertise their condition. Some may have experienced harassment or discrimination in the past. Many have been bullied after disclosure. Forcing people to choose between revealing their disability or risking being ignored is not inclusion. It’s coercion.
It’s a Substitute for Proper Training
Making staff aware of invisible disabilities, which is the core issue the lanyard aims to address, should be achieved through comprehensive training, not visual symbols. Every employee should be trained to offer assistance universally, without assumptions, and without requiring a visual trigger. Every employee should be trained on how to respond when a customer discloses a disability.
Saying “good for you” when a person with a disability discloses they are traveling alone is inspiration p0rn.
Asking more questions than allowed under the ADA about a service animal is unlawful and can result in hefty fines.
Replying that “X is not a disability” or “My aunt’s grand-daughter’s cousin’s gardener had that, and they don’t consider themselves disabled” is offensive.
“Why aren’t you wearing a lanyard then?” is disrespectful.
What a staff member does AFTER the disclosure is the most important part of the process.
Accessibility Should Never Be Opt-In
Accessibility is not a courtesy; it’s a civil right that should be continuously available. Systems that rely on people opting in to be treated fairly are inherently flawed. A ramp doesn’t ask if you need to use it. Captions don’t check if you’re Deaf (in fact, 80% of people who use captions don’t have hearing loss). These are examples of accessibility that work because they’re built in, not contingent on disclosure.
The Bottom Line
The Sunflower Lanyard isn't inherently bad. For some, it’s a preferred tool. However, it should never be the only method for disabled people to access what they need. If your accessibility strategy begins and ends with, “Wear this, and we’ll help you,” you’re not truly solving the access issue. You’re just outsourcing it and shifting the burden to the group of people you are discriminating against. Genuine accessibility isn’t about making disabled individuals work harder or requiring them to self-identify to participate. It’s about designing systems that eliminate the need for workarounds in the first place.