3 ms·

Initially I was quite confused about why the ADA/Rehabilitation Act applied to Harvard/MIT. It seemed like it was largely about employers and federal agencies,

by Eridrus 10y ago

Initially I was quite confused about why the ADA/Rehabilitation Act applied to Harvard/MIT. It seemed like it was largely about employers and federal agencies, but at least the Rehabilitation Act covers "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance", so I'm guessing that's why it applied to edX, though I wonder if it would apply if edX was an entirely separate entity that licensed the content from Harvard/MIT, or if they would still have an obligation to provide captions when licensing their content.

DanBC 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990#Title_III.E2.80.94public_accommodations_.28and_commercial_facilities.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac... > Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. Public accommodations include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays. [...] > The statutory definition of "readily achievable" calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed "fix" and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business. It's a 25 year old law. I don't have much sympathy for large organisations that are still choosing to discriminate against disabled people.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  How exactly are they perpetrating an unjust or prejudicial treatment of the differently abled on the basis of them being differently abled?
  - DanBC 10y ago
    They have chosen to not make the material accessible to deaf people, even though laws around closed captioning equipment started coming in 25 years ago (more recent changes include Internet streaming), and even though the ADA is 25 years old. There's no excuse to not know about it. They knew about it (because they provide reasonable adjustments to very many students all the time, and they have departments to do so), but they chose to ignore it. It is clearly, unambiguously, discrimination. It might be legal (for the reasons I quoted around practicability), but that legality does not stop it being discriminatory.
    - davidivadavid 10y ago
      It seems like what you're saying in your first paragraph supports the idea that what they're doing is wrong because it's illegal. But then you do a 180 and say it's wrong because it's immoral. Obviously, it could be both, but even if the first argument is kind of a "duh" it seems more cogent than going back and forth between those two positions (as many people seem to do in the thread).
      - DanBC 10y ago
        I'm not good at communicating. Society decided it was immoral to discriminate against people with disabilities. We tried asking nicely, and got ignored, and so we passed laws to drive change. Those laws were made some time ago, and while it takes time for change to happen we've had long enough for people to bring things into compliance with those laws. This is especially true for large well funded organisations producing new material. There's not much excuse for a large well funded organisation, who is well aware of reasonable adjustments, to not make new material accessible. Arguments against making material accessible are "it's too hard" or "it's too expensive". That's covered by the law (I included reference to it in my post). But the fact that we still don't have useful speech-to-text or good transcription shows the contempt much of the tech industry has for people with disabilities. See also the choice to exclude people by choosing pale grey text on a bright white background. (Note that this doesn't just exclude people with disability levels of eyesight loss, but also people with mild visual loss).
- Eridrus 10y ago
  Thank you, I missed Title III.

by Eridrus 10y ago

DanBC 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990#Title_III.E2.80.94public_accommodations_.28and_commercial_facilities.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac... > Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. Public accommodations include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays. [...] > The statutory definition of "readily achievable" calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed "fix" and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business. It's a 25 year old law. I don't have much sympathy for large organisations that are still choosing to discriminate against disabled people.

bobwaycott 10y ago
How exactly are they perpetrating an unjust or prejudicial treatment of the differently abled on the basis of them being differently abled?
- DanBC 10y ago
  They have chosen to not make the material accessible to deaf people, even though laws around closed captioning equipment started coming in 25 years ago (more recent changes include Internet streaming), and even though the ADA is 25 years old. There's no excuse to not know about it. They knew about it (because they provide reasonable adjustments to very many students all the time, and they have departments to do so), but they chose to ignore it. It is clearly, unambiguously, discrimination. It might be legal (for the reasons I quoted around practicability), but that legality does not stop it being discriminatory.
  - davidivadavid 10y ago
    It seems like what you're saying in your first paragraph supports the idea that what they're doing is wrong because it's illegal. But then you do a 180 and say it's wrong because it's immoral. Obviously, it could be both, but even if the first argument is kind of a "duh" it seems more cogent than going back and forth between those two positions (as many people seem to do in the thread).
    - DanBC 10y ago
      I'm not good at communicating. Society decided it was immoral to discriminate against people with disabilities. We tried asking nicely, and got ignored, and so we passed laws to drive change. Those laws were made some time ago, and while it takes time for change to happen we've had long enough for people to bring things into compliance with those laws. This is especially true for large well funded organisations producing new material. There's not much excuse for a large well funded organisation, who is well aware of reasonable adjustments, to not make new material accessible. Arguments against making material accessible are "it's too hard" or "it's too expensive". That's covered by the law (I included reference to it in my post). But the fact that we still don't have useful speech-to-text or good transcription shows the contempt much of the tech industry has for people with disabilities. See also the choice to exclude people by choosing pale grey text on a bright white background. (Note that this doesn't just exclude people with disability levels of eyesight loss, but also people with mild visual loss).
Eridrus 10y ago
Thank you, I missed Title III.