>What it comes down to is no action is being taken against a minority.
In your earlier comment, you phrased it as "Denying billions". Either it is an action, or it is not. You cannot make it an action for only one group.
>The existence of videos not optimal for the deaf (because they can certainly watch them and benefit from google's increasingly effective auto captions) isn't discrimination.
I truly appreciate you saying it, but do realize that this is your opinion. Ultimately, we will not know unless this goes to court (which I think UCB decided not to do).
>To compare that with with legitimate historical oppressions against minorities is short sighted.
Two problems with your statement:
1. "Legitimate" is used, when the very essence of the debate is whether it is legitimate or not.
2. "short sighted" is not an argument.
>This isn't utilitarian "good of the many at the expense of the few"
This is part of the debate. If public money is being used for this, then it is at the expense of everyone (including the few). The interpretation of the ADA rules is that for such uses, everyone should have fair access, for some definition of "fair". If UCB was private, and did not take public money, this would not be a debate.
What if a particular classroom has no impacted users, so there isn't (for example) a sign language translator in the class. Now the instructor left the door opened, and doesn't mind if someone loitering in the hallway overhears the lecture. Should the school be required to always provide a sign language interpreter, just in case a deaf person walks through the hallway and wants to observer part of the class from the hall?
Posting the videos online is just a larger version of leaving the classroom door open.
Disclaimer: I am not necessarily agreeing with UCB's decision.
Your argument can be made, but as I said elsewhere, we can only know if this is tested in court.
The counterargument to what you are saying is that leaving the door open is not done in order to benefit others in the hallway, whereas explicitly putting the videos on a web site is an active action. UCB would have trouble claiming that they're putting the videos up there, but not to benefit anyone.
Put another way, using your analogy, no one would complain if the professor decided to close the door. If people outside were listening, they have no say on the professor's decision.
In your earlier comment, you phrased it as "Denying billions". Either it is an action, or it is not. You cannot make it an action for only one group.
>The existence of videos not optimal for the deaf (because they can certainly watch them and benefit from google's increasingly effective auto captions) isn't discrimination.
I truly appreciate you saying it, but do realize that this is your opinion. Ultimately, we will not know unless this goes to court (which I think UCB decided not to do).
>To compare that with with legitimate historical oppressions against minorities is short sighted.
Two problems with your statement:
1. "Legitimate" is used, when the very essence of the debate is whether it is legitimate or not.
2. "short sighted" is not an argument.
>This isn't utilitarian "good of the many at the expense of the few"
This is part of the debate. If public money is being used for this, then it is at the expense of everyone (including the few). The interpretation of the ADA rules is that for such uses, everyone should have fair access, for some definition of "fair". If UCB was private, and did not take public money, this would not be a debate.