9 ms·

I understand that the law may not strictly apply to me. I am making a statement on the principle of the situation. I don't think MIT or Harvard should be forced

I understand that the law may not strictly apply to me. I am making a statement on the principle of the situation. I don't think MIT or Harvard should be forced to provide captions for their videos either.

6stringmerc 12y ago
Well, I think you're misapplying your principle in this instance. I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. It's not like the ADA was passed last year, so to think that the physical Harvard/MIT facilities would be ADA compliant but online facilities would not strikes me as a necessary coming to grips with the law as it's written. Hence the lawyers will fight this out and we'll probably get an answer.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  For the purposes of armchair moralizing, who cares about the law as written? Pretend we're making the law, instead of deferring to the law as written. Should we in fact tell them "it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?"
  - jerf 12y ago
    For the second time today, I can't resist pointing out that Harvard would, in any other circumstance, be rushing to tell everybody else about how important it is to be inclusive and scrupulously comply with not just the letter "as written", but the spirit of the law. Whatever slack I might be inclined to give to others, I am not inclined to give to Harvard. This is Harvard. If the brand "Harvard" means anything, shouldn't it mean going above and beyond the call of duty in providing educational services like this?
    - fennecfoxen 12y ago
      In light of Harvard's rhetoric, it is reasonable to expect excellence of this sort. However, with respect to rhetoric about the spirit of a law, it seems to be that they ought to receive charges of hypocrisy. The civil lawsuit is a step above and beyond this, and I for one don't know that "poetic justice" is the best foundation for a legal regime...
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    My understanding of the law is that a reasonable accommodation must be made when requested, not that everything must always be ADA compliant for all disabilities. One may conceive of different disabilities for which two reasonable accommodations might be mutually exclusive, so requiring two or more mutually exclusive accommodations to always be present is by definition unreasonable. Of course, it isn't impossible or unreasonable to caption a video; but it might be so expensive to caption all videos as to have the result that some just won't bother to post them. That would be unfortunate.
  - balls187 12y ago
    >Should we in fact tell them "it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?" Yes. To prevent this exact line of thinking, laws exist. Not just to protect the majority, but to protect EVERYONE as equals, under the rule of law.
    - jes 12y ago
      I think your comment is thoughtful and well-intentioned, but I find myself wondering about the seemingly egalitarian nature of it. May I ask if are you saying that if I wanted to feed poor people, you would want to see me thwarted, unless I could feed every poor person? In other words, if an organization only has the resources to do a little bit of good in the world, unless they can treat everyone as equals, they shouldn't be allowed to act at all?
      - totony 12y ago
        Just writing this comment to approve (and follow discussion). I also would like to know parent's point of view.
      - sp332 12y ago
        If you can only do a little bit of good, you should do it for the underprivileged position and not for people who are already privileged.
        hga 12y ago
        With that attitude, MIT would never exist in the first place!!! Every undergraduate who's ever attended has been rather "privileged" in being able to do serious math (although in the post-Civil War beginning a common track had seniors ending with the calculus). Nowadays you must at minimum be ready to learn the calculus and do calculus based mechanics and E&M ... at the MIT pace. MIT (and CalTech) undergraduates have to learn at a much faster pace than is the norm, a lot of material in a fairly compressed schedule of 13 weeks of instruction if I remember correctly as of the '80s. That's not believed to be good for most STEM students, but we at least believe there's a place in the world for institutions like MIT and CalTech. One meme is that a fair amount of what you learn will be obsolete before your career is over, but there's merit in learning how to learn difficult stuff quickly.
  - dethstar 12y ago
    Take your stand to other disabilities. Should we in fact thell them "is it illegal to build a sidewalk to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the part of humanity that requires of wheelchairs"? I think we should, because I think people with disability have the same right to move or to learn than I do. And accommodating to them is important.
    - markdown 12y ago
      Do you know a disabled parent who says their non-disabled child shouldn't be provided an education unless they themselves also have access? All those countless millions living in near poverty in Africa and Asia and in that dingy corner of your city you never drive through... do you deprive them of a leg up in life just because you don't get closed captions?
    - stolio 12y ago
      Sidewalks are infrastructure. Free online courses from MIT are not. They're a luxury.
      - chucksmart 12y ago
        Some of these courses have "certificates" awarded for fees; and said certificates are the entry point to some businesses; just like the steep steps in front of the building.
        hga 12y ago
        And if you read the PR release carefully, no where does it specifically say one of those courses isn't properly captioned. The examples it gives of non- or poorly captioned items aren't even courses at all (http://nad.org/news/2015/2/nad-sues-harvard-and-mit-discrimination-public-online-content http://nad.org/news/2015/2/nad-sues-harvard-and-mit-discrimi... which is a really nasty piece of work). Without looking at the lawsuit (waiting for lawyers like the Instapundit to tear into it, he's big on non-traditional learning like this), I suspect the mention of MOOCs is bullshit, confounding perhaps a MIT Open CourseWare (OCW) offering with the edX ones you're talking about, which others in this discussion have ensured us are properly treated.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > For the purposes of armchair moralizing, who cares about the law as written? Because the law embodies certain moral conclusions. The ADA is premised on the idea that businesses have an obligation to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled. At least in 1990, this moral conclusion was compelling enough that the ADA carried a 377-28 margin in the House, and a 91-6 margin in the Senate. As an aside, to me, laws like the ADA are one of the things that make America great. It is a virtuous people that decides that the lucky among them should take on the burden of enabling the unlucky among them to live life as normally as their disabilities allow.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    >"it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?" You're forgetting the part where these Universities are taking public funds as well
  - handojin 12y ago
    Nobody is telling them it's illegal to do so. Merely that they must pay for excluding the 'deaf part of humanity'.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. As long as you're willing to pay for it, you can take this stance.
murbard2 12y ago
I agree with you and find it immoral to compel MIT and Harvard to close caption their courses. This is because I embrace a deontological ethic. If I were to be the devil's advocate however, I would say that the difference between you putting a video out there, and MIT doing it is one of elasticity. The effort of putting closed captions on your informal video would be much too great and would be very likely to prevent you from releasing the video. However, for large, well endowed organisations like MIT and Harvard, mandating close captioning of their videos is much more likely to result in them incurring the cost of closed captioning than in them not releasing the video. By focusing on businesses, the law attempts to target those inelastic actors.
- jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
  > The effort of putting closed captions on your informal video would be much too great. $1 per minute (if you farm it out) or even less if you do it yourself. In exchange you get 7-15% more views - is that really an unbearable deal?
  - murbard2 12y ago
    It totally depends on your means, your audience, your goals, etc.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Wikipedia suggests that it costs more like $40 per minute. For movies anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window_Captioning_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window_Captioning_System I have no idea why it would be "even less if you do it yourself", unless you do not value your own labour.
    - jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
      Captioning celluloid film is a wholly different thing to transcribing an online video - the prices are in no way comparable. I create captions for hundreds of hours of video every year - I know exactly how much work it can be, and, at the same time, exactly how easy it can be.
eli 12y ago
So lobby to change the law?
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Perhaps a good first step would be to have a discussion "For the purposes of armchair moralizing", not about the law as it is written, but how it should be.
  - handojin 12y ago
    Why? To discuss the law 'as it should be' invites nothing but a cacophony of opinion. On what basis could such a conversation proceed? If I were uncharitable, I would suggest that such a discussion would serve only one function: that is , to create a distraction from the law 'as is'. I'd prefer to assume your intent is to understand or construct a notion of morality. In that spirit, I offer the following question: What is just?
handojin 12y ago
Harvard and MIT receive (accept) grants from the federal government for producing their content. It's reasonable to expect that in making this content available, they will accommodate all taxpayers. IOW, I'm not sure you understand the principle of the situation.

6stringmerc 12y ago

Well, I think you're misapplying your principle in this instance. I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. It's not like the ADA was passed last year, so to think that the physical Harvard/MIT facilities would be ADA compliant but online facilities would not strikes me as a necessary coming to grips with the law as it's written. Hence the lawyers will fight this out and we'll probably get an answer.

fennecfoxen 12y ago
For the purposes of armchair moralizing, who cares about the law as written? Pretend we're making the law, instead of deferring to the law as written. Should we in fact tell them "it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?"
- jerf 12y ago
  For the second time today, I can't resist pointing out that Harvard would, in any other circumstance, be rushing to tell everybody else about how important it is to be inclusive and scrupulously comply with not just the letter "as written", but the spirit of the law. Whatever slack I might be inclined to give to others, I am not inclined to give to Harvard. This is Harvard. If the brand "Harvard" means anything, shouldn't it mean going above and beyond the call of duty in providing educational services like this?
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    In light of Harvard's rhetoric, it is reasonable to expect excellence of this sort. However, with respect to rhetoric about the spirit of a law, it seems to be that they ought to receive charges of hypocrisy. The civil lawsuit is a step above and beyond this, and I for one don't know that "poetic justice" is the best foundation for a legal regime...
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  My understanding of the law is that a reasonable accommodation must be made when requested, not that everything must always be ADA compliant for all disabilities. One may conceive of different disabilities for which two reasonable accommodations might be mutually exclusive, so requiring two or more mutually exclusive accommodations to always be present is by definition unreasonable. Of course, it isn't impossible or unreasonable to caption a video; but it might be so expensive to caption all videos as to have the result that some just won't bother to post them. That would be unfortunate.
- balls187 12y ago
  >Should we in fact tell them "it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?" Yes. To prevent this exact line of thinking, laws exist. Not just to protect the majority, but to protect EVERYONE as equals, under the rule of law.
  - jes 12y ago
    I think your comment is thoughtful and well-intentioned, but I find myself wondering about the seemingly egalitarian nature of it. May I ask if are you saying that if I wanted to feed poor people, you would want to see me thwarted, unless I could feed every poor person? In other words, if an organization only has the resources to do a little bit of good in the world, unless they can treat everyone as equals, they shouldn't be allowed to act at all?
    - totony 12y ago
      Just writing this comment to approve (and follow discussion). I also would like to know parent's point of view.
    - sp332 12y ago
      If you can only do a little bit of good, you should do it for the underprivileged position and not for people who are already privileged.
      - hga 12y ago
        With that attitude, MIT would never exist in the first place!!! Every undergraduate who's ever attended has been rather "privileged" in being able to do serious math (although in the post-Civil War beginning a common track had seniors ending with the calculus). Nowadays you must at minimum be ready to learn the calculus and do calculus based mechanics and E&M ... at the MIT pace. MIT (and CalTech) undergraduates have to learn at a much faster pace than is the norm, a lot of material in a fairly compressed schedule of 13 weeks of instruction if I remember correctly as of the '80s. That's not believed to be good for most STEM students, but we at least believe there's a place in the world for institutions like MIT and CalTech. One meme is that a fair amount of what you learn will be obsolete before your career is over, but there's merit in learning how to learn difficult stuff quickly.
- dethstar 12y ago
  Take your stand to other disabilities. Should we in fact thell them "is it illegal to build a sidewalk to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the part of humanity that requires of wheelchairs"? I think we should, because I think people with disability have the same right to move or to learn than I do. And accommodating to them is important.
  - markdown 12y ago
    Do you know a disabled parent who says their non-disabled child shouldn't be provided an education unless they themselves also have access? All those countless millions living in near poverty in Africa and Asia and in that dingy corner of your city you never drive through... do you deprive them of a leg up in life just because you don't get closed captions?
  - stolio 12y ago
    Sidewalks are infrastructure. Free online courses from MIT are not. They're a luxury.
    - chucksmart 12y ago
      Some of these courses have "certificates" awarded for fees; and said certificates are the entry point to some businesses; just like the steep steps in front of the building.
      - hga 12y ago
        And if you read the PR release carefully, no where does it specifically say one of those courses isn't properly captioned. The examples it gives of non- or poorly captioned items aren't even courses at all (http://nad.org/news/2015/2/nad-sues-harvard-and-mit-discrimination-public-online-content http://nad.org/news/2015/2/nad-sues-harvard-and-mit-discrimi... which is a really nasty piece of work). Without looking at the lawsuit (waiting for lawyers like the Instapundit to tear into it, he's big on non-traditional learning like this), I suspect the mention of MOOCs is bullshit, confounding perhaps a MIT Open CourseWare (OCW) offering with the edX ones you're talking about, which others in this discussion have ensured us are properly treated.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > For the purposes of armchair moralizing, who cares about the law as written? Because the law embodies certain moral conclusions. The ADA is premised on the idea that businesses have an obligation to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled. At least in 1990, this moral conclusion was compelling enough that the ADA carried a 377-28 margin in the House, and a 91-6 margin in the Senate. As an aside, to me, laws like the ADA are one of the things that make America great. It is a virtuous people that decides that the lucky among them should take on the burden of enabling the unlucky among them to live life as normally as their disabilities allow.
- rtpg 12y ago
  >"it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?" You're forgetting the part where these Universities are taking public funds as well
- handojin 12y ago
  Nobody is telling them it's illegal to do so. Merely that they must pay for excluding the 'deaf part of humanity'.
toomuchtodo 12y ago
> I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. As long as you're willing to pay for it, you can take this stance.

murbard2 12y ago

I agree with you and find it immoral to compel MIT and Harvard to close caption their courses. This is because I embrace a deontological ethic. If I were to be the devil's advocate however, I would say that the difference between you putting a video out there, and MIT doing it is one of elasticity. The effort of putting closed captions on your informal video would be much too great and would be very likely to prevent you from releasing the video. However, for large, well endowed organisations like MIT and Harvard, mandating close captioning of their videos is much more likely to result in them incurring the cost of closed captioning than in them not releasing the video. By focusing on businesses, the law attempts to target those inelastic actors.

jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
> The effort of putting closed captions on your informal video would be much too great. $1 per minute (if you farm it out) or even less if you do it yourself. In exchange you get 7-15% more views - is that really an unbearable deal?
- murbard2 12y ago
  It totally depends on your means, your audience, your goals, etc.
- Crito 12y ago
  Wikipedia suggests that it costs more like $40 per minute. For movies anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window_Captioning_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window_Captioning_System I have no idea why it would be "even less if you do it yourself", unless you do not value your own labour.
  - jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
    Captioning celluloid film is a wholly different thing to transcribing an online video - the prices are in no way comparable. I create captions for hundreds of hours of video every year - I know exactly how much work it can be, and, at the same time, exactly how easy it can be.

eli 12y ago

So lobby to change the law?

seanflyon 12y ago
Perhaps a good first step would be to have a discussion "For the purposes of armchair moralizing", not about the law as it is written, but how it should be.
- handojin 12y ago
  Why? To discuss the law 'as it should be' invites nothing but a cacophony of opinion. On what basis could such a conversation proceed? If I were uncharitable, I would suggest that such a discussion would serve only one function: that is , to create a distraction from the law 'as is'. I'd prefer to assume your intent is to understand or construct a notion of morality. In that spirit, I offer the following question: What is just?

handojin 12y ago

Harvard and MIT receive (accept) grants from the federal government for producing their content. It's reasonable to expect that in making this content available, they will accommodate all taxpayers. IOW, I'm not sure you understand the principle of the situation.