Circulated documents, like mission statements, demarcate normative boundaries related to student and instructor identities, behaviors, and experiences. In attempting to create inclusive documentation, universities frequently use standardizing language. While promoting standardization, however, such documents may prove exclusive by disregarding a range of student and instructor identities and abilities. Grounded in insights from disability studies and technical and professional communication theory, this study models the use of corpus linguistic analysis for analyzing mission statements, thereby providing interdisciplinary methods for writing programs to evaluate the documents they create and circulate. The findings show that by attempting to universalize experience, composition programs may contribute to normalizing structures that circulate ableism. These findings help programs recognize the discursive impact that mission statements may have by illustrating how ableism may move across even seemingly neutral spaces. In turn, the article calls for composition studies to consider critical documentation practices that prioritize disability and offers data-driven guidelines for revising mission statements.