4 ms·

If ramps are not available, does shutting down the building's access to the general public justify it? Does this benefit everyone/anyone in any way? I think tha

If ramps are not available, does shutting down the building's access to the general public justify it? Does this benefit everyone/anyone in any way? I think that's the point the parent comment is trying to make. I'm not from USA so I don't know how the law works there. I feel that the law should enable/empower/assist institutes like OCW/UCB to incentivise or help them to create captions for the groups that the law is campaigning for. What good is going to come out of punishing access to general public is something I don't understand. When someone does something out of their goodwill using their time and money you should at least help them to enhance their goodwill for your cause, in this case, the govt or NAD employing people who can transcribe the videos for a fee. I feel the law is doing more harm than good to the general public.

gumby 5y ago
> I feel the law is doing more harm than good to the general public. Seems like you don’t know how the law works (see below). In terms of “good to the general public”: there are meant developers whose code you depend on who have various sensory restrictions. Since this is an Internet site, I’ll give an example of Vint Cerf. Aren’t you glad he was able to be productive, attend university etc? > If ramps are not available, does shutting down the building's access to the general public justify it? The ADA does not work that way. Nobody has to make prospective changes. But if you build a new building, or do significant renovation, then you must do that work up the the modern code, which includes ADA accommodation. If you rebuild the building entrance you must include ramps, modern crash bars etc. That doesn’t also mean you must add elevators, to other floors, etc. This is common in other countries I’ve lived in as well. There’s an additional wrinkle: unlike MIT (the original OCW), the UCs are government institutions (specifically of California) and that adds more stringent requirements. A private business (like MIT) have more nuance: they both has to serve anyone yet can refuse service “for any reason” (modulo some constraints). Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be spent on things that benefit everyone. There are limits (ballots don’t have to be printed in Aramaic; speed limit signs don’t have to be printed in Braille) but it’s a good fundamental assumption. And all the UCs can afford to support their mission; it’s their choice to make a petulant point by withdrawing the OCW site.
- analognoise 5y ago
  The upshot is I don't like the ADA and hope it gets repealed or otherwise destroyed. I've seen it do damage to both OCW content, and small restaurants, so I no longer support it.
- 8589934591 5y ago
  I'm not from USA so yes I don't know how the law works in USA. > The ADA does not work that way. Nobody has to make prospective changes. But if you build a new building, or do significant renovation, then you must do that work up the the modern code, which includes ADA accommodation. But this didn't apply for the existing MIT/UCB courses did it? For any new courses, I might agree that the mandate might be necessary. But imposing this on older courses does not seem right to me. Someone is doing something for free out of their own money and time. Someone else comes along, who has the power to sue and win, says that the service that was provided for free didn't include them and hence the rest of the folks who were beneficiaries of the free service should not benefit from it unless they were also benefited. It's one thing to ask for and mandate accommodations for things you pay for, it's another to ask for accommodations for a free service. I wholeheartedly disagree with this opinion and idea. Because of ADA's law thousands if not millions across the world are losing out on wonderful resources for education which might not be available. On the one hand I can see some people do not get the benefit without captions while many people benefit from the free service. What the law has done is to accommodate the some, now no one will receive the free service. The intention behind the law seems noble, but the outcome does not remotely justify it. Neither party wins. Is there any benefit of robbing someone else's education because you're not able to get it? > Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be spent on things that benefit everyone. Again, not from USA. But if i'm in such a position, my questions would be why aren't there closed captions for which I paid tax for? Is the tax dollars actually budgeted for creating captions? What and where is the budget being allocated for govt institutions like UCs? From the univ's perspective, captions might be available for the students, but should/is there budget for accommodating the general public? Is there a budget split up of taxpayer dollars which mandates that univ's should allocate some amount for captions for the public (note- for the public, not the students who pay for the education)? Is there difficulty in hiring? And so on. But the way I see it as a general outsider is that a "law" has been put forth saying it should accommodate deaf people too. I'm sure UCs and other universities are doing everything they can to accommodate for disabled students, I believe they have zero obligation to do anything out their goodwill for people who don't pay for their services. I believe the law pretty much backfired for whatever intentions it had. > I’ll give an example of Vint Cerf. Aren’t you glad he was able to be productive, attend university IMO this is the wrong example to give. Vint Cerf went to university which he paid for which would have probably accommodated for his disabilities. It'd help me see a better viewpoint of your side if you can cite examples of people who were deaf and benefited from the captions and significantly moved forward in life in comparison to Vint Cerf.

gumby 5y ago

> I feel the law is doing more harm than good to the general public. Seems like you don’t know how the law works (see below). In terms of “good to the general public”: there are meant developers whose code you depend on who have various sensory restrictions. Since this is an Internet site, I’ll give an example of Vint Cerf. Aren’t you glad he was able to be productive, attend university etc? > If ramps are not available, does shutting down the building's access to the general public justify it? The ADA does not work that way. Nobody has to make prospective changes. But if you build a new building, or do significant renovation, then you must do that work up the the modern code, which includes ADA accommodation. If you rebuild the building entrance you must include ramps, modern crash bars etc. That doesn’t also mean you must add elevators, to other floors, etc. This is common in other countries I’ve lived in as well. There’s an additional wrinkle: unlike MIT (the original OCW), the UCs are government institutions (specifically of California) and that adds more stringent requirements. A private business (like MIT) have more nuance: they both has to serve anyone yet can refuse service “for any reason” (modulo some constraints). Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be spent on things that benefit everyone. There are limits (ballots don’t have to be printed in Aramaic; speed limit signs don’t have to be printed in Braille) but it’s a good fundamental assumption. And all the UCs can afford to support their mission; it’s their choice to make a petulant point by withdrawing the OCW site.

analognoise 5y ago
The upshot is I don't like the ADA and hope it gets repealed or otherwise destroyed. I've seen it do damage to both OCW content, and small restaurants, so I no longer support it.
8589934591 5y ago
I'm not from USA so yes I don't know how the law works in USA. > The ADA does not work that way. Nobody has to make prospective changes. But if you build a new building, or do significant renovation, then you must do that work up the the modern code, which includes ADA accommodation. But this didn't apply for the existing MIT/UCB courses did it? For any new courses, I might agree that the mandate might be necessary. But imposing this on older courses does not seem right to me. Someone is doing something for free out of their own money and time. Someone else comes along, who has the power to sue and win, says that the service that was provided for free didn't include them and hence the rest of the folks who were beneficiaries of the free service should not benefit from it unless they were also benefited. It's one thing to ask for and mandate accommodations for things you pay for, it's another to ask for accommodations for a free service. I wholeheartedly disagree with this opinion and idea. Because of ADA's law thousands if not millions across the world are losing out on wonderful resources for education which might not be available. On the one hand I can see some people do not get the benefit without captions while many people benefit from the free service. What the law has done is to accommodate the some, now no one will receive the free service. The intention behind the law seems noble, but the outcome does not remotely justify it. Neither party wins. Is there any benefit of robbing someone else's education because you're not able to get it? > Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be spent on things that benefit everyone. Again, not from USA. But if i'm in such a position, my questions would be why aren't there closed captions for which I paid tax for? Is the tax dollars actually budgeted for creating captions? What and where is the budget being allocated for govt institutions like UCs? From the univ's perspective, captions might be available for the students, but should/is there budget for accommodating the general public? Is there a budget split up of taxpayer dollars which mandates that univ's should allocate some amount for captions for the public (note- for the public, not the students who pay for the education)? Is there difficulty in hiring? And so on. But the way I see it as a general outsider is that a "law" has been put forth saying it should accommodate deaf people too. I'm sure UCs and other universities are doing everything they can to accommodate for disabled students, I believe they have zero obligation to do anything out their goodwill for people who don't pay for their services. I believe the law pretty much backfired for whatever intentions it had. > I’ll give an example of Vint Cerf. Aren’t you glad he was able to be productive, attend university IMO this is the wrong example to give. Vint Cerf went to university which he paid for which would have probably accommodated for his disabilities. It'd help me see a better viewpoint of your side if you can cite examples of people who were deaf and benefited from the captions and significantly moved forward in life in comparison to Vint Cerf.