3 ms·

> While I understand wanting to make things available to the deaf, making them unavailable to everyone else is nuts. Especially as they're being offered for fr

> While I understand wanting to make things available to the deaf, making them unavailable to everyone else is nuts. Especially as they're being offered for free. The "If X group cannot have it, nobody can have it" reasoning seems mad. So because the deaf cannot get value from those videos, others cannot either. I'm not deaf, but I cannot imagine many deaf people thinking this is reasonable. You might also think of other minorities. Why isn't it also illegal for free lectures not to accommodate blind people? Or those without internet access at all. If you take the "X group doesn't have it, nobody can have it" reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, it seems to me that nothing can be provided for free to anyone.

byoung2 10y ago
You might also think of other minorities. Why isn't it also illegal for free lectures not to accommodate blind people? The lawsuit addressed both deaf and blind students. In addition to captions, there should be screen-reader friendly versions of pages and documents, audio descriptions of visual data, etc. Public universities have limited budgets, so to spend possibly millions of dollars to support a free offering may not have been feasible. Compare this to a free art museum operated by a local non-profit , and suddenly being forced to bring the building up to ADA code, building wheelchair ramps, installing elevators, providing audio descriptions of artwork, braille descriptions, etc. Instead of spending millions that they don't have to complete that work, they shut down the museum. 1. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/20/berkeley-may-remove-free-online-content-rather-complying-disability-law https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/20/berkeley-may-...