5 ms·

So I guess we'll see more of this? : 2007: https://www.cnet.com/news/uc-berkeley-first-to-post-full-lectures-to-youtube/ https://www.cnet.com/news/uc-berkeley

So I guess we'll see more of this? : 2007: https://www.cnet.com/news/uc-berkeley-first-to-post-full-lectures-to-youtube/ https://www.cnet.com/news/uc-berkeley-first-to-post-full-lec... 2017: http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/266033/obama-civil-rights-victory-berkeley-takes-down-daniel-greenfield http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/266033/obama-civil-rights-...

danso 10y ago
The ADA is a law that was passed during the first Bush administration, not a "product" of Obama's DOJ other than the expectation that the DOJ enforce the laws of the United States.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  Do you remember the HN story about the DoJ letter to UCB? Did you read the letter? There is significant leeway in which cases the DoJ pursues, and in how the DoJ pursues and investigates cases. In no way was the DoJ's finding (i.e. threat of legal action, fines, etc.) a given. It also seems obvious that UCB could have claimed that to address the complaint would have been cost-prohibitive (which the DoJ letter listed as a possible defense), yet they didn't attempt to do so. Also, this action was only pursued after two professors at a university for the deaf filed an official complaint with the DoJ. Isn't it bizarre that two professors at an institute of higher-learning filed a complaint to have educational resources, which were freely available to the entire world, deleted? > not a "product" of Obama's DOJ other than the expectation that the DOJ enforce the laws of the United States. A bizarre statement, considering how the Obama administration and DoJ simply declined to enforce laws they didn't like.
  - danso 10y ago
    > Also, this action was only pursued after two professors at a university for the deaf filed an official complaint with the DoJ. Isn't it bizarre that two professors at an institute of higher-learning filed a complaint to have educational resources, which were freely available to the entire world, deleted? No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely the population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have the monetary resources to file a complaint, were the ones who filed a complaint. That's often how lawsuits come about. Yes, the DoJ is all about priorities. Obama's administration put more resources into its civil rights division compared to the Bush (GWB) era, which looked more into voter fraud among other issues. That other administrations may have let the law go unenforced does not mean that the law should or can be ignored when litigants pursue a complaint. And yes, I have read the other HN threads on this and have occasionally chimed in the discussion [0]. The issue is a lot more nuanced than "THANKS OBAMA SJWs". But it's a path that the United States as a whole decided to walk down in 1990, in bipartisan fashion, when it passed the sweeping American Disabilities Act. The ADA has had massive costs for businesses and organizations in the past decades: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      > No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely the population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have the monetary resources to file a complaint, were the ones who filed a complaint. That's often how lawsuits come about. Sorry if I was unclear. I meant how ironic it is for people who have devoted their lives to educating others to file a complaint causing freely available educational resources to be destroyed.
      - danso 10y ago
        That's one irony to note. Another irony worth noting is that a premier publicly-funded university, in the U.S. state that is among the most proactive in enforcing ADA regulations, expended taxpayer-funded resources to produce educational videos that did not meet ADA regulations. Those educational resources may have been "freely available" because they were posted on YouTube, but the folks who did the work of curating, editing, and producing those resources for YouTube are paid with public funds, and are thus obligated to follow the rules of ADA. If "well at least it's better than nothing" is the excuse for deprioritizing access to these resources, then the ADA's ability to protect the disenfranchised becomes effectively meaningless.
DanBC 10y ago
Note that the ADA was passed in 1990, so it had been in place for 17 years before Berkeley started putting video online. And, for the years between 2007 and 2015 Berkeley staff had lied by saying that they were aware of Berkeley policies to make stuff accessible, and that the material was accessible.
- strictnein 10y ago
  This is new grounds for the ADA. Previous guidance has almost always been about having your site's core functionality accessible. So if you're TurboTax, a blind person should be able to submit their taxes. The idea that in 2007 anyone thought that all the videos your school would post online would have to be accessible to hearing-impaired users is simply inaccurate.
  - danso 10y ago
    2007 is a lot different than 2017 when it comes to online video consumption. For starters, a greater number of people, including the disabled, are consuming online video. This is not entirely different from brick and mortar facilities being hit with lawsuits for not having required wheelchair accessible facilities. Those lawsuits weren't based on new laws, but on the discovery of the inadequate facilities.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      I think it is entirely different. Physical accessibility is virtually a one-time cost: install the rails, ramps, etc, and you're done. But meeting these standards [1] is surely cost-prohibitive, especially when the only person doing it is an already overburdened professor who's merely uploading videos of his lectures, slides, etc. It would increase the preparation time of every lecture, document, etc. by several times over. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13933826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13933826
      - danso 10y ago
        For a small business, a $10,000 lawsuit + construction fees is not a trivial cost, and may be cost-prohibitive enough to force the business to close shop. But "something is better than nothing " is not justification alone for not meeting ADA regulations. I don't think anyone believes that meeting ADA regulations is cheap; the fact that Berkeley (and Harvard and MIT [0]) are in this predicament shows that the cost of producing accessible video is non-trivial. But it's the law, and advocacy groups would argue that the burden shouldn't be on the individual professor, but on the institution, or rather, the federal agencies to provide adequate funding to meet the burden imposed by law. If institutions aren't forced to realize the costs, then they aren't incentivized to pressure government budget/policymakers to make ADA funding a priority, which neuters the protections that ADA was created for in the first place. Again, it's costly, but that's the monetary price our civic society pays when it decides to extend protections to those who are disabled. Presumably, the ADA was passed because legislators and constituents thought that the price was worth it. [0] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/2/25/harvard-lawsuit-deaf-proceed/ http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/2/25/harvard-lawsuit-...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

danso 10y ago

The ADA is a law that was passed during the first Bush administration, not a "product" of Obama's DOJ other than the expectation that the DOJ enforce the laws of the United States.

alphapapa 10y ago
Do you remember the HN story about the DoJ letter to UCB? Did you read the letter? There is significant leeway in which cases the DoJ pursues, and in how the DoJ pursues and investigates cases. In no way was the DoJ's finding (i.e. threat of legal action, fines, etc.) a given. It also seems obvious that UCB could have claimed that to address the complaint would have been cost-prohibitive (which the DoJ letter listed as a possible defense), yet they didn't attempt to do so. Also, this action was only pursued after two professors at a university for the deaf filed an official complaint with the DoJ. Isn't it bizarre that two professors at an institute of higher-learning filed a complaint to have educational resources, which were freely available to the entire world, deleted? > not a "product" of Obama's DOJ other than the expectation that the DOJ enforce the laws of the United States. A bizarre statement, considering how the Obama administration and DoJ simply declined to enforce laws they didn't like.
- danso 10y ago
  > Also, this action was only pursued after two professors at a university for the deaf filed an official complaint with the DoJ. Isn't it bizarre that two professors at an institute of higher-learning filed a complaint to have educational resources, which were freely available to the entire world, deleted? No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely the population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have the monetary resources to file a complaint, were the ones who filed a complaint. That's often how lawsuits come about. Yes, the DoJ is all about priorities. Obama's administration put more resources into its civil rights division compared to the Bush (GWB) era, which looked more into voter fraud among other issues. That other administrations may have let the law go unenforced does not mean that the law should or can be ignored when litigants pursue a complaint. And yes, I have read the other HN threads on this and have occasionally chimed in the discussion [0]. The issue is a lot more nuanced than "THANKS OBAMA SJWs". But it's a path that the United States as a whole decided to walk down in 1990, in bipartisan fashion, when it passed the sweeping American Disabilities Act. The ADA has had massive costs for businesses and organizations in the past decades: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    > No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely the population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have the monetary resources to file a complaint, were the ones who filed a complaint. That's often how lawsuits come about. Sorry if I was unclear. I meant how ironic it is for people who have devoted their lives to educating others to file a complaint causing freely available educational resources to be destroyed.
    - danso 10y ago
      That's one irony to note. Another irony worth noting is that a premier publicly-funded university, in the U.S. state that is among the most proactive in enforcing ADA regulations, expended taxpayer-funded resources to produce educational videos that did not meet ADA regulations. Those educational resources may have been "freely available" because they were posted on YouTube, but the folks who did the work of curating, editing, and producing those resources for YouTube are paid with public funds, and are thus obligated to follow the rules of ADA. If "well at least it's better than nothing" is the excuse for deprioritizing access to these resources, then the ADA's ability to protect the disenfranchised becomes effectively meaningless.

DanBC 10y ago

Note that the ADA was passed in 1990, so it had been in place for 17 years before Berkeley started putting video online. And, for the years between 2007 and 2015 Berkeley staff had lied by saying that they were aware of Berkeley policies to make stuff accessible, and that the material was accessible.

strictnein 10y ago
This is new grounds for the ADA. Previous guidance has almost always been about having your site's core functionality accessible. So if you're TurboTax, a blind person should be able to submit their taxes. The idea that in 2007 anyone thought that all the videos your school would post online would have to be accessible to hearing-impaired users is simply inaccurate.
- danso 10y ago
  2007 is a lot different than 2017 when it comes to online video consumption. For starters, a greater number of people, including the disabled, are consuming online video. This is not entirely different from brick and mortar facilities being hit with lawsuits for not having required wheelchair accessible facilities. Those lawsuits weren't based on new laws, but on the discovery of the inadequate facilities.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    I think it is entirely different. Physical accessibility is virtually a one-time cost: install the rails, ramps, etc, and you're done. But meeting these standards [1] is surely cost-prohibitive, especially when the only person doing it is an already overburdened professor who's merely uploading videos of his lectures, slides, etc. It would increase the preparation time of every lecture, document, etc. by several times over. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13933826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13933826
    - danso 10y ago
      For a small business, a $10,000 lawsuit + construction fees is not a trivial cost, and may be cost-prohibitive enough to force the business to close shop. But "something is better than nothing " is not justification alone for not meeting ADA regulations. I don't think anyone believes that meeting ADA regulations is cheap; the fact that Berkeley (and Harvard and MIT [0]) are in this predicament shows that the cost of producing accessible video is non-trivial. But it's the law, and advocacy groups would argue that the burden shouldn't be on the individual professor, but on the institution, or rather, the federal agencies to provide adequate funding to meet the burden imposed by law. If institutions aren't forced to realize the costs, then they aren't incentivized to pressure government budget/policymakers to make ADA funding a priority, which neuters the protections that ADA was created for in the first place. Again, it's costly, but that's the monetary price our civic society pays when it decides to extend protections to those who are disabled. Presumably, the ADA was passed because legislators and constituents thought that the price was worth it. [0] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/2/25/harvard-lawsuit-deaf-proceed/ http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/2/25/harvard-lawsuit-...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]