DOJ: If Blind And Deaf People Can't Access Berkeley's Free, Publicly Available Online Courses, Nobody Can
Two Gallaudet University employees, both members of the National Association for the Deaf, "tried to watch some of the videos Berkeley posted online, but found that they were unable to comprehend them," reports Robby Soave at Reason.
(Gallaudet is a school for the deaf.)
The federal Department of Justice recently informed the university that the online content it makes available to the public free of charge runs afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act--blind and deaf people wouldn't be able to access it, according to the government.
The upshot?
Since accommodating two random people--activists for the disabled community, it seems--would be extremely costly, Berkeley is probably going to just get rid of the offending resources entirely, according to a press release.
And Soave gets it right:
Special thanks to the DOJ--fulfilling its role here as the Handicapper General--for ensuring equal access to public education, where "equal access" is defined as "no access for anybody."
It's always been my thinking that the world is not my oyster, meaning that all things and options are not available to me at all times, sometimes because of my genetics, my sex, or other factors.
For example, I can't be a bus driver because I get carsick after about five miles unless I take a drug I have to order off eBay from Romania or Thailand. I also can't be an NBA star because, well, if you have to ask, you aren't smart enough to be reading this.
This thinking is normal thinking -- as opposed to the special snowflake-think, encouraged by government, that people and businesses must do expensive contortions so everybody can do absolutely everything.
I should explain that I'm all for wheelchair ramps on sidewalks and other ways to see that disabled people can get around in our society.
And I sure understand that it sucks to not be able to go somewhere or hear something -- like when a movie is only available in French, and my French is too sucky to understand two hours of slang-filled adult speech.
And let's say it's a free documentary, produced by the state of France.
I don't sue France to subtitle the thing...because, "Waaah!"
Sometimes in life, you just have to say, "Crap. I'll have to do something else or get what I want another way." And sometimes, sadly, tragically, that will involve more effort and may even cost you money...
...as opposed to costing a whole lot of other people their opportunity to get some free online learning.
Gallaudet University is just as ridiculously radical as Berkeley. The students once ousted the university's president because she wasn't deaf enough.
Conan the Grammarian at September 19, 2016 7:35 AM
This is why repealing the ADA may be a good idea. Or at least rewriting it. Edge cases may make bad law but they also show the limits of good law. This is hardly the only case where the ADA has been used to deprive the majority due to a small vocal minority.
Ben at September 19, 2016 8:24 AM
So, download all of UCB's courseware, and host them in a country that won't honor either ADA or DMCA take notices.
Or maybe Gallaudet would be willing to transcribe the material, and provide everyone with a useful resource?
Or maybe just burn the libraries. Gallaudet == book burners.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 19, 2016 8:39 AM
I would first note that no one has ordered all university courses to have a deaf interpreter present, nor must every business have a deaf interpreter at the counter. So in real life it is recognized that this would be absurd. The ADA will never make all of life accessible for the disabled. The blind will never be able to drive a car or fly an airplane. The deaf can't listen to music no matter what you do. A verbal description of the latest song? huh. People in a wheelchair cannot do many things no matter how you arrange life. The market is increasingly providing fixes for many disabilities, such as prosthetics for amputees and motorized wheelchairs.
The ADA is fundamentally incompatible with the internet. There is no way to make it accessible to the blind. In this case it is verbal lectures, but accompanied by visuals. How in the world do you handle the visuals? Even if you have software that will read aloud the printed content on a webpage, how will a blind person navigate the page? For the deaf, does every movie and every TV show need to have subtitles? Who will pay for it? It is simply impossible.
Craig Loehle at September 19, 2016 9:28 AM
According to the article: "If Berkeley had not made its online courses free and public, it would not have invited this complaint."
So, if they charged, say, $0.01 for access, then does that mean they wouldn't have to comply with the ADA?
It's a shame that the content isn't totally free and public, but I wonder if they could've made it almost free and practically public...
Kenii at September 19, 2016 9:35 AM
Sorry Amy and others--you're on the wrong side of history for this one. Captioned videos, along with many of the more subtle aspects of the ADA and other access laws, have been around for 25 years. Before these laws were enforced, there were precious few video resources that were available to deaf folks. (Imagine that your only research video resources were limited to PBS productions!)
Captioned videos, along with some of the more "annoying" ADA requirements, are a very big deal to us. You should learn a little more about access issues before passing judgment on it, lest we fall into ignorance...
Derrick at September 19, 2016 11:44 AM
You should learn a little more about access issues before passing judgment on it, lest we fall into ignorance...
And yet, UCB will likely pull their on-line course catalog. This shall save us from our ignorance!
But that's the promise of big government: you shall be equal. Equally miserable, that is.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 19, 2016 1:09 PM
"...you shall be equal..."
But, of course, some will be more equal than others (with credit to Orwell).
bkmale at September 19, 2016 1:57 PM
Perhaps Derrick can explain how easy it would be to make this material accessible?
Oh, wait. That would be useful.
Bob in Texas at September 19, 2016 2:35 PM
I was going to include:
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
But I thought that was a bit over the top. Oh, and we've always been at war with Eastasia.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 19, 2016 2:40 PM
Derrick (on the "right" side of history):
in my job I DO work with closed captioning - and it is major headache.
Just think of the speed at which people talk and the rate at which people read - both are very different. So the captioning often does not keep pace with the video. It is very time consuming to say the least. And often it just cannot be done and still make sense.
And when someone (or some institution) does it for FREE - everyone has the right to complain that it isn't done to their liking; but, no one has the right to demand that it MUST be done to their liking.
And, just what is stopping you from doing these videos yourself? How about you (or even better Gallaudet) volunteer to close caption those videos? So, what is stopping you? Huh? Please speak up and let us know why YOU do not volunteer to do this.
P.S. I do love the fact that a leftist organization is going after another leftist organization - let them kill each other!
charles at September 19, 2016 5:20 PM
I'm sorry, but does the ACA even apply to content given away for free?
If so why hanst the DOJ demanded Youtube pull all non captioned videos?
lujlp at September 19, 2016 6:26 PM
My understanding of things, Lujlp, is:
1. Yes
2. No one has complained to the right people yet.
Derrick shows just why the ADA should be repealed. Also, how many video resources were available to anyone before the ADA? There is a lot more out there and a available in general. Heck, youtube is only 10 years old and the ADA is 26 years old. So having more content today is a terrible metric.
The same is true of Title IX. The law sound like a good idea. But in reality both are mainly used to prevent others from doing what they want. Which nicely ties into the pathological altruism piece for today.
Ben at September 20, 2016 5:44 AM
Charles: "How about you (or even better Gallaudet) volunteer to close caption those videos?"
Now Charles, you can not expect an organization dedicated to serving the deaf to actually take on a project that, you know, is hard and benefits the deaf. That's what the government is for.
I know, non-deaf students at other universities do amazing stuff w/computers, video, robotics, and programming but, you know, these guys are deaf so ...
Maybe just maybe Gallaudet could partner w/a sister school (non-deaf) to do some of this amazing stuff?
But that would be proactive, useful, and probably take away from school time.
They might even have to let one SJW go and hire someone to do something useful!
Better to complain to Obama (may he live forever) and get the DOJ to write a "Dear Friends" letter. It worked for Mao w/all that farming stuff.
Bob in Texas at September 20, 2016 6:00 AM
It is typical to just demand that private entities provide a service or product even if it costs them too much to do it.
Craig Loehle at September 20, 2016 10:56 AM
The Baptists: Deaf people fighting to make the world better for them, through law and coercion. The DOJ is on the case, but strangely, only a particular case: Educational Lectures.
The Bootleggers: Small colleges and their teachers who face increasing competition from the distribution of knowledge over the internet. Who will want to listen to a course of study from Small U. after Berkeley's courses are available for free?
So, there is the strange requirement/interpretation that Berkely restrict its material (non-public) or charge for it (not-free). The educational monopoly must be defended at all costs. Deference to the deaf and blind is a cover story.
Google: Bootleggers and Baptists, if needed.
Andrew Garland at September 20, 2016 6:14 PM
There's two concepts here that are important to keep in mind:
Adaptive--that's when you have to change something to make it accessible. For example, a professor who makes their own video needs to add captioning to their video to make it comply with the law.
Accessible--that's when we incorporate universal design into our videos, buildings, curriculum, etc. so that it minimizes or eliminates physical or learning barriers. It becomes "part of the design." Much cheaper and easier.
The ADA and other access laws are asking people who make multimedia projects to incorporate access into their designs. It's not a significant cost (but accommodating is) and everyone can benefit from an accessible environment.
Derrick at September 23, 2016 1:59 PM
Leave a comment