>I'm not involved in the previous discussion at all, but given my limited knowledge of the facts, I'd propose a solution like: "Berkeley should keep these videos up, and work to add subtitles and accessibility features to them in a reasonable timeframe, consistent with funding and personnel availability."
The issue is that this is not an option. Any institution that gets federal money is required to comply with ADA rules. They either need to make it more accessible or take it down.
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted for this. I am not saying I agree with the rule. I am pointing out the reason UCB has to take this action. The option proposed by the commenter is not one that UCB can legally take.
If my interpretation of the ruling/law is wrong, please correct me.
I'm downvoting you because you're not engaging with the arguments of those who disagree with you, and therefore not adding to the discussion. It's clear that one can both agree with "you can't always be 100% utilitarian", and that accommodation is good, and still think this particular application of it is not an optimal resolution.
Simply repeating back that "we need to accommodate the disabled" is not responding to anyone, and does not account for the points raised by the other side on those discussions.
Note that you have yet to answer even the challenge I presented in this thread: are you opposed to the private hosting of these videos? If not,then you're saying, "allow Berkeley to post them, as long as they back channel it".
>I'm downvoting you because you're not engaging with the arguments of those who disagree with you, and therefore not adding to the discussion.
I am in two separate threads. My question was in this thread, where I was downvoted with no response. I cannot engage with arguments that are not put forth.
>It's clear that one can both agree with "you can't always be 100% utilitarian", and that accommodation is good, and still think this particular application of it is not an optimal resolution.
Something I have not disputed.
I've said it before, but I think I need to put an "I neither agree nor disagree with UCB's decision" in every comment I make in this thread. I am not defending their decision. I am, however, pointing out flaws in the criticisms of the decision. It is OK to say you do not agree with the decision. But when you give a reason that is problematic, I can highlight that.
>Simply repeating back that "we need to accommodate the disabled" is not responding to anyone,
I agree, but this is not what I said. I am pointing out what I think the law says, and how I am guessing UCB is interpreting it (it is definitely how the DOJ is interpreting it).
>Note that you have yet to answer even the challenge I presented in this thread: are you opposed to the private hosting of these videos?
Can you supply me with a reason to answer that, when I do not have an opinion on UCB's decision? Your demand from me is part of the problem you are complaining about. Making an issue binary without accepting the nuances.
Okay, to clarify, you are making two different arguments in two differently places; I am saying that neither adds to the discussion, and I only focused on the more interesting one. The arguments were
1) "The law says ... ." Okay, this thread (as well as the previous discussions) wasn't speaking to the issue of whether it's a technically correct application of the law, but whether it's stupid for the law to require something like this. Hence, not adding to the discussion, at least where you added it.
2) "We should accommodate the disabled even when it fails a simple cost/benefit test." The others side already agrees with you! Hence why it's frustrating to hear you keep claiming that "golly, it just comes down to utililitarianism vs caring about the disabled; some of us have a little sympathy" -- no, those ones who disagree with you do support accommodations for the disabled, even at the cost of the greater good, just not this one, when it's impact is to make the materials less available, as it puts UCB in a "no good deed goes unpunished" situation.
I have yet to see you attempt to address that argument beyond "yep, some of us want to help the disabled". That adds nothing.
>>Note that you have yet to answer even the challenge I presented in this thread: are you opposed to the private hosting of these videos?
>Can you supply me with a reason to answer that, when I do not have an opinion on UCB's decision?
I just gave it in the original thread. If you support forcing the accommodation requirements on materials given for free, which results in Berkeley taking the materials down, then you're saying that "it's okay to release these materials as long as you back-channel it". That does not sound like it logically follows from a coherent policy to support the disabled.
That is why I don't think your comments built onto the existing discussion.
Your interpretation of the law is incorrect, and there was no ruling, as this never went to trial. Berkeley removed the content instead of negotiating for a reasonable timeframe to update it.
>Your interpretation of the law is incorrect, and there was no ruling, as this never went to trial. Berkeley removed the content instead of negotiating for a reasonable timeframe to update it.
Yes, I realize now that this did not go to court. However, you have not shown how my interpretation is incorrect.
Thanks for the link! It's interesting to me that captioning the videos wouldn't have been enough to solve all the accessibility issues. In some cases, the preference to just record the lecture again is obvious, as in "the lecturer pointed to and talked about parts of a drawing without describing the drawing first, making it inaccessible to vision-impaired people".
The issue is that this is not an option. Any institution that gets federal money is required to comply with ADA rules. They either need to make it more accessible or take it down.