I just have to point out that you used (and the FAQ uses) the term “legacy”, while the OP and the OP’s cite do not. That alone is a “nuance” that calls the OP (and its cite) into question for accuracy.
Let’s say for the sake of argument the original post was a link not to someone with a half-baked complaint about the issue (throwing in some shots about liberals in general), but to Berkeley’s page discussing the issue. We probably could have a meaningful discussion on whether it is a fair application of the ADA to force Berkeley to remove lecture content from their youTube channel (where it was freely publicly accessible), with the school choosing to move the content to their bConnected/Google site, which requires a Berkeley user account. The recorded lectures haven’t been tossed onto some kind of digital bonfire and lost, it’s worth pointing out; they’re now back to being solely accessible by Berkeley students and faculty, as was the case before youTube even existed.
I can see why the school should not be forced into the position. If material from the last 3 to ten years isn’t dubbed and is not worth the school’s time or money to have dubbed, is anyone really hurt if it’s made publicly available anyway, if the school makes reasonable accommodation for its lecture videos from this point forward?
So, you’re not going to quote the nuance. I didn’t think there was any. And, no, “legacy” isn’t nuance. It jus means the the old stuff. Ask yourself: Are we, as a society, better off if no one is allowed to view those 10 years worth of lectures? Seems like a simple, non-nuance answer to me. We are not better off.
This is something put up for free on the internet. I don’t even see how the ADA applies. I could understand if it were commerce in some way, but this is like wikipedia.
Ok, this gets to the heart of the issue. I don’t think anyone would argue the simple numbers, as in it’s a bigger tragedy if no one had access to the lectures than just the disabled students. It’s a simple numbers thing. However, I’ve yet to see an actual dollar amount quoted for how much it would cost Berkeley to correct their online course issues. Until that number is known, how do we know it would be an “unreasonable” burden? I think the optimal resolution would be to correct the matter and let all benefit.
I did, and it’s merely the first nuance of several which the OP and the OP’s cite overlooked or ignored in the rush to bash liberals.
Well, it’s not “no-one” (saying otherwise isn’t just ignoring a nuance, it’s flat-out incorrect), but I have no problem with Berkeley making the material available to the public for free.[sup][/sup] Was Berkelely ever obligated under the terms of the ADA to supply closed-captioning for all published videos? That could muddy the issue up a bit.
[sup][/sup]There’s a parallel issue about other sites pirating the content, and I can see why Berkeley would have some concerns about that. I suppose if they just said “this is all now public-domain material - we relinquish all copyright and legal responsibility”, there might not be basis for an ADA complaint, though I claim no expertise.
Well, if Berkeley operates the way my alma mater does (Go Stingers!), a deaf student can arrange for a sign-language interpreter during a lecture. For that student to review the material later… yes, there’s a reasonable accommodation issue at play (in my lay opinion) and basis for an ADA claim.
Possibly the solution to this is technical, with improvements in text-to-speech computerized translation, though there will remain the time-intensive process of someone familiar with the topic having to review the entire video, clean up low-quality audio (as well as deal with foreign-born instructors who have difficult accents) and interpret technical terms, jargon and names. There’s still quite a way to go, but I’m confident the overall movement is forward.
If I’m reading Wiki right, the Americans with Disabilities Act – which was, apparently, a big deal to Bob Dole – got signed into law by President Bush.
This sounds like one of the rare but sadly expected consequences of legislation like this. Ten steps forward, one step back type of thing. Using this as a reason to attack the ADA is not something you will get a lot of support for. By that logic no white males should be allowed to own guns because of Tim McVeigh, The Bundy clan, Dylan roof, etc.
Two or three years ago, desperate to get the Senate to ratify the otherwise-meaningless-to-the-US (at least policy-wise) UN policy that was basically support for countries to adopt an equivalent of the ADA, they rolled Bob Dole onto the Senate floor and it still failed ratification.
I’m not quite sure how this even works. I know other educational YouTube videos without captioning–or that use YouTube’s program to caption things–essentially crowdsourcing it, and all they have to do is approve it.
What specifically makes this violate the ADA? Sure, for actual classroom use, don’t use the YouTube version. Spin off the rest to some private person if you need to (like Brady Haran does for MSRI).
I admit to being slightly confused. I thought this was about the disabled students at Berkeley. Is that still the main issue here? Because if the courses are inaccessible for disabled members of the public, they’re inaccessible to the disabled students too. And why is it considered to be this horrible thing for people who aren’t even going to the school to have access to parts of the students’ curriculum?
As regards your first question, neither, obviously. The ADA has done a huge amount of good in helping people with disabilities actually function in society. Like literally every rule ever devised by humans, there are some situations where applying the law leads to outcomes that nobody actually wants. It sucks that Berkeley’s courses aren’t available online for free. I’d support amending the law in some regard to allow them to continue offering these courses, provided the amendment doesn’t gut the ADA of the provisions that actually work. As much as I, personally, would like to have access to all of those free videos, I’d generally prefer it if people like Ambivalid have access to things like grocery stores.
I am, however, grateful for the spectacle of a conservative griping because he doesn’t have as much access to free stuff as he used to. If Mr. (checks byline) Ferguson wants access to a Berkeley education, maybe he should get off his ass and go pay for it, instead of whining about how he can’t get a free lunch anymore.
According to the article linked to in the OP, this is fallout of a lawsuit brought against Berkeley by a professor at Gallaudet.
There’s probably a verbal avenue to twisting this into accusing Ditka of being an entitled liberal pussy parasite for lamenting the loss of something free. Go back to Russia, ya damned commie pinko!
The suit was brought by two individuals who are not students, but members of the public who have disabilities and want to use UC Berkeley’s free courseware for their own projects.
UC Berkeley is a public entity and subject to the ADA. They don’t have to offer this free content to anyone but if they do they have to ensure that it’s accessible to everyone.
This is really a non-issue, or more accurately it is an issue that every public entity and private business with government contracts has had to resolve one way or another with regard to supporting legacy products.
It isn’t clear to me why they weren’t made with that in mind in the first place since the ADA predates the videos.
It also isn’t clear to me why the OP thinks this is a partisan issue.