The Only One in the Room

For more than two decades, I've worked across Christian broadcasting, churches and charities—in boardrooms, studios, production meetings and leadership tables. One thing has remained remarkably consistent: I've always been the only person in the room with a visible disability.

I began presenting radio at 13 and went on to host national breakfast programmes for UCB and Premier, work with the BBC and commercial networks, serve as a trustee, develop partnerships for Trinity Broadcasting Network, lead in churches, produce award-winning radio and support ministries in reaching global audiences through broadcasting, media and PR.

I've spent a lifetime proving what I can do. So when I talk about ableism in Christian workplaces, I'm not talking about a theoretical problem. I'm talking about what happens when you are the person in the room who looks different.

What Disability Discrimination Looks Like

Ableism is the assumption that certain bodies, appearances and abilities are more capable, desirable or appropriate than others. Not always an overt prejudice, it often operates through a pattern of undermining, exclusion, excessive expectations, ridicule and attacks on credibility.

The organisation may never name disability as the reason for repeatedly targeting the same individual. In fact, disability discrimination is more sophisticated and can be hidden behind supposedly neutral judgements about “character” and “personality,” including ideology like:

"You're not leadership material."

"You're difficult."

"You're too much."

"People won't be attracted to you."

"You don't have the right personality."

In practice, it can mean being trusted to do the work but not trusted to lead; used for your skills but excluded from visibility; expected to overwork while being criticised for requesting support; praised publicly while being mocked privately. You become the person who must continually prove your competence while others quietly construct a case against your character.

The First Mechanism: Keeping Disabled People from Progressing

The first sign of discrimination isn't always dismissal. Sometimes it's the ceiling.

A disabled employee can be highly competent yet find their career simply stops moving. They may be trusted with the work but not with greater authority. Capable enough to deliver, but somehow never capable enough to progress.

An organisation may gladly accept someone's expertise, loyalty, creativity, long hours and experience while withholding visibility, authority and influence. Valued for labour, but not leadership. Useful enough to work for us, but not acceptable enough to represent us.

When disability cannot be openly cited as the reason for exclusion, personality and character become convenient substitutes. Confidence becomes arrogance. Self-advocacy becomes being difficult. Boundaries become stubbornness. Speaking up becomes being “too sensitive”. “They don't fit our culture” becomes a convenient explanation for excluding someone from leadership or public-facing roles. “They need to be more humble” is treating confidence and professional ambition like character flaws.

The disability is never named, but it sits beneath the judgement.

This can take more deliberate forms: creating a paper trail of supposed poor performance, turning colleagues against the employee, portraying them as unreliable or incapable of handling pressure, or quietly withholding training and development opportunities. A disabled employee may be kept “back of house” while less experienced non-disabled colleagues are given leadership, on-air or public-facing opportunities.

This is unequal investment: accepting someone's contribution while withholding the opportunities that allow them to progress.

And the contradiction is obvious: you cannot prove someone isn't capable if you never give them the opportunity to demonstrate what they can do. When someone has already demonstrated their ability yet continues to be overlooked while less experienced colleagues progress, it is reasonable to question what assumptions are really influencing the decision.

The Second Mechanism: Overwork and Proving Yourself

Disability workers may feel compelled to continually prove their competence when their disability is viewed through a prejudiced lens. The result is an impossible paradox: “You’re disabled, so you’re less capable” while simultaneously, “You’re disabled, so we’ll expect you to compensate by doing more.”

This creates a cycle of overwork. Doing the job well is not enough to progress, earn more or gain greater opportunities. Instead, the employee takes on increasing responsibility, often proving themselves more than their colleagues, yet management refuses to recognise or reward their contribution.

No matter how much is achieved, how much overtime is worked or how many weekends are given, the ceiling remains. Worse, the employee may then face ridicule about their appearance, speech, confidence or capabilities.

So they:

• take on more;
• work harder;
• avoid asking for help;
• don't want adjustments to be interpreted as weakness;
• become exhausted;
• eventually struggle;
• then have their capability questioned.

It’s a vicious cycle laced with cruelty and punishment:

Prove yourself → take on more → become exhausted → struggle → have your capability questioned → work even harder to prove yourself.

Pushing a disabled employee to continually overachieve is a way of forcing them out. Rather than openly dismissing someone they deem undesirable, an employer may create such hostile and unsustainable conditions that the employee eventually feels they have no choice but to resign.

When Discrimination Becomes Bullying and Harassment

Disability-related bullying and harassment can be overt or subtle: behaviour that humiliates, intimidates, isolates or disadvantages a disabled employee. It can include:

• Unfair criticism — repeatedly questioning someone's competence while overlooking identical performance from others.
• Unrealistic workloads — deliberately piling on work or impossible deadlines, then using exhaustion as evidence of incapability.
• Ridicule and humiliation — mocking, making jokes, mimicking speech or movements, commenting on appearance or repeatedly drawing attention to someone's disability.
• Invalidating disability — suggesting a condition isn't real, that someone is “playing the disability card” or receiving unfair advantages. Dismissing their lived experience as untrue or imagined.
• Exclusion — withholding training, promotion and development opportunities, or keeping someone out of leadership, meetings and public-facing roles.
• Undermining — ignoring expertise, questioning authority, isolating the employee or turning colleagues against them.
• Reputation and retaliation — spreading rumours, labelling someone “difficult”, “unstable”, “arrogant” or “not leadership material”, or punishing them for requesting adjustments or challenging discrimination.

There can be two cultures operating simultaneously: the public culture that says "we are inclusive" and the private culture where people mock or discredit the differently abled person when they're not in the room.

That gap between public inclusion and private contempt is where bullying thrives.

And the damage can continue after employment ends. The employee may leave, but the rumours and character assassination can remain—the person leaves the organisation, but the story told about them remains.

When the Attack Moves from Ability to Character

Character assassination is what happens when the question shifts from “Can they do the job?” to “What are they like?” When disability cannot be openly used to justify exclusion, character becomes the weapon.

A disabled employee with a strong track record can suddenly be described as unreliable, unstable, unreasonable, arrogant, incapable, too ambitious, too sensitive or “crazy.” Challenging discrimination becomes being “confrontational” or “not a team player”. Self-advocacy becomes being difficult. Boundaries become stubbornness.

Character assassination weaponised for discrimination looks like:

So they:

• portraying someone as self-important because they know their value;
• questioning their motives rather than assessing their performance;
• suggesting their success is due to special treatment or favouritism;
• calling them lazy when they're actually carrying a disproportionate workload;
• circulating doubts about whether they can handle responsibility, lead or fit the organisation’s image;
• telling others, they are difficult to work with or manage, without evidence.

A single criticism may be legitimate. The danger is repetition. Someone says, “She's difficult.” Someone else hears it and says, “I've heard she's difficult to work with. ”Eventually the organisation has created a reputation that appears to exist independently of its original source. That can become particularly damaging when the person has little opportunity to challenge what is being said about them.

A strong track record of achievement can be undermined by a story told about your character.

Once the narrative has been established, subsequent exclusion can be presented as reasonable management rather than discrimination.

The attack has moved from the person’s work to their credibility. That's the mechanism of character assassination.

So Why Isn’t the Church Different?

If Christians believe every person bears the image of God, why should disability diminish someone's dignity, authority or opportunity?

Churches and charities readily receive tithes, offerings and donations from people regardless of gender, race or disability. If we are willing to receive from everyone to fund the vision, how can we justify excluding workers who are equally willing and able to advance the Gospel?

Compassion doesn't mean lowering standards. It means removing prejudice so people can be judged by their gifts, character, faith and work.

And what place does gossip have in Christian leadership? There are only ten commandments. The ninth says: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.” (Exodus 20:16)

Discrimination, gossip and character assassination don't strengthen a Christian organisation's witness—they undermine it. How can we expect people to trust Christian media, church leaders or ministries if those representing them use their positions to sow discord, discriminate or demean others?

The church should be different in how it treats the people who serve within it.

Representation Without Power Isn’t Inclusion

Why does disability discrimination persist in Christian organisations? The lack of representation is a revealing place to start.

Throughout my working life—not that I consider ministry a career—I have repeatedly fought my way into spaces where I was more than capable of contributing as a producer, national radio host, leader and board member. I have always been the only person with a visible disability.

This doesn’t mean I think of myself as a “disabled person”, but it does signal to someone with prejudice that I somehow “don’t belong.” By failing to create a safe, amicable and equitable working environment for people like me, organisations leave people with disabilities to advocate not only for ourselves, but for those who have yet to enter the room.

This isn't self-interest. It's advocacy. It's justice.

Representation is more than being ‘allowed’ into the workplace. When people with disabilities are excluded from positions of power – in management, the board room and on the air –organisations create cultures where ridicule, harassment, character assassination and other forms of discrimination go unchecked – causing lasting damage to reputations, wellbeing and relationships.

What Do You Believe?

I believe colleagues in Christian organisations need to understand that not all experiences are equal. Just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Dismissing these lived experiences—by framing harassment as "a misunderstanding" or denying the reality of discrimination—silences victims, invalidates their trauma, and prevents effective accountability or institutional support.

Disability discrimination is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010, yet legislation alone has not transformed the experience of many disabled workers in Christian workplaces. I would encourage those who follow Christ to choose to be allies, not participants, in practices that single out and diminish disabled colleagues.

I know I am not the only person considered “different” who is capable of leading, broadcasting, creating, speaking or serving. I am simply someone who refused to let prejudice keep me out.

The question isn't whether differently abled people have something to contribute. It is whether Christian organisations are willing to put down their weapons of contempt long enough to make room for what they bring.

Remember this:

1. Discrimination isn’t always explicit.

2. It keeps people from promotion and visibility.

3. It creates pressure to overwork and prove yourself.

4. It becomes bulling and harassment.

5. It involves character assassination: unfair attacks on a worker’s reputation to mask discrimination, force them out or warrant denying promotions. And once someone’s credibility is destroyed, their exclusion starts to look justified.

6. Christian organisations should operate differently and hold themselves to a higher standard.

7. Inclusion is allowing disabled people to have a voice, authority, opportunity, power and visibility.