2 ms·
Berkeley is a terrible example, if you have ever read DoJ’s findings. Berkeley had university resources available for teachers to assist with making accessible
by bladegash 5y ago
Berkeley is a terrible example, if you have ever read DoJ’s findings.
Berkeley had university resources available for teachers to assist with making accessible content, as well as policies in place requiring accessibility. Professors chose not to follow those policies or make use of those resources.
Never mind the fact that regardless of where Berkeley hosts/distributes the content, they are a publicly funded institution and still need to make the content accessible even if not distributed to the public.
In other words, they pulled the content down out of spite, not necessity. That is not the fault of laws requiring disabilities, that’s a toddler having a temper tantrum.
- profile53 5y agoI disagree. They were a byproduct of the regular teaching which followed accessibility standards. If a student in a class needed accommodations, they were provided, however the videos were similar to someone posting a video of their security camera rather than Berkeley orchestrating a recorded class session. The point of the ADA is social good and not one single person benefitted, directly or indirectly, from the Berkeley videos being taken down.