DoJ:If Disabled People Can't Use Berkeley's Free Online Courses, No One Can

[dead0man]

link=Berkeley News

The short of it is:Berkeley offered some of it's courses, online, for free, for anyone to use.  2 deaf people who are not students (but are both educators) complained to the DoJ.  The DoJ tells Berkeley to fix it so that blind and deaf people can use their free stuff too.  The problem is that that would be expensive.  So they might end up shutting down the free online courses for everyone.

and justice prevails!

[Ebsy]

So it's the DOJ's fault for following the directives laid out by an act of Congress, the Americans with Disabilities Act?

[Wells]

and justice prevails!

Yes it does. I'm sure you'd be opposed to a hospital having to build a ramp for disabled people because it's "too expensive" according to that hospital.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

It just seems odd that something 'free' would fall under that category, but I'm obviously not a legal expert. It's an odd limitation on a public benefit.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Not totally against this ruling if it actually required the state to fund their public university system adequately. Alas...

[DC Al Fine]

It just seems odd that something 'free' would fall under that category, but I'm obviously not a legal expert. It's an odd limitation on a public benefit.

That was my first thought as well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not totally against this ruling if it actually required the state to fund their public university system adequately. Alas...

Indeed, that's where the problem comes from.

[Ebsy]

"Free" services aren't actually free and are paid for by the taxpayer, making them subject to nondiscrimination clauses. And since these were actual courses, they have to be available to everyone

From the UC Berkley Website:

The University of California, in accordance with applicable Federal and State Law, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual harassment), gender identity, pregnancy/childbirth and medical conditions related thereto, disability, age, medical condition (cancer-related), ancestry, marital status, citizenship, sexual orientation, or status as a Vietnam-era veteran or special disabled veteran. This nondiscrimination policy covers student admission, access, and treatment in University programs and activities. It also covers faculty (Senate and non-Senate) and staff in their employment.


Pretty clear to me why this decision was made.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not totally against this ruling if it actually required the state to fund their public university system adequately. Alas...

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

"Free" services aren't actually free and are paid for by the taxpayer, making them subject to nondiscrimination clauses. And since these were actual courses, they have to be available to everyone

From the UC Berkley Website:

The University of California, in accordance with applicable Federal and State Law, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual harassment), gender identity, pregnancy/childbirth and medical conditions related thereto, disability, age, medical condition (cancer-related), ancestry, marital status, citizenship, sexual orientation, or status as a Vietnam-era veteran or special disabled veteran. This nondiscrimination policy covers student admission, access, and treatment in University programs and activities. It also covers faculty (Senate and non-Senate) and staff in their employment.


Pretty clear to me why this decision was made.

OK, makes sense. Yes, this is pretty clear cut then. I think I was just confused on just how in depth they had been, but they appear to be serious courses in that case. Echo the sentiments on proper funding for all state university systems.

[Cory]

One small group of people take something good and ruin it for everybody. News at 11.

[Indy Texas]

It just seems odd that something 'free' would fall under that category, but I'm obviously not a legal expert. It's an odd limitation on a public benefit.

That was my first thought as well.

An art museum that is open to the public free of charge still must have wheelchair ramps.

[Mercenary]

I don't think adding subtitles for deaf people would really be too entirely difficult.
And blind people could already hear the lectures.

What exactly would be the problem?

[Vosem]

and justice prevails!

Yes it does. I'm sure you'd be opposed to a hospital having to build a ramp for disabled people because it's "too expensive" according to that hospital.

I'd be opposed to shutting down a hospital that refused to build that ramp, dick move though that might be, which seems like a better analogy to the situation in dead0man's post.

[Ebsy]

and justice prevails!

Yes it does. I'm sure you'd be opposed to a hospital having to build a ramp for disabled people because it's "too expensive" according to that hospital.

I'd be opposed to shutting down a hospital that refused to build that ramp, dick move though that might be, which seems like a better analogy to the situation in dead0man's post.

How is that a good analogy? Every hospital has disability access and has had it for decades.

[Vosem]

and justice prevails!

Yes it does. I'm sure you'd be opposed to a hospital having to build a ramp for disabled people because it's "too expensive" according to that hospital.

I'd be opposed to shutting down a hospital that refused to build that ramp, dick move though that might be, which seems like a better analogy to the situation in dead0man's post.

How is that a good analogy? Every hospital has disability access and has had it for decades.

Analogies aren't perfect. In dead0man's example, people are trying to prevent an organization that doesn't provide service to disabled people from providing service to anyone. So Left's analogy seemed inaccurate in that it leaves access to the hospital open for those who are not disabled.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I don't think adding subtitles for deaf people would really be too entirely difficult.
And blind people could already hear the lectures.

What exactly would be the problem?

Not exactly. You need to make all of the lectures and lessons available not just on YouTube, and iTunes, but also on the edX platform. That includes problem sets, lectures, discussion materials, lecture notes, etc. for many courses.

Some of the complaints are as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/20/berkeley-may-remove-free-online-content-rather-complying-disability-law

My friend who I worked with in the CS department at Berkeley estimates that transcription alone is >5k per course. As is, the university's own DSP services office is already underfunded and various other parts of the campus require more funding to function reasonably.  It's just cheaper to spend the money on the classes where there are already students with disabilities and put it on other immediate needs, like hiring more instructors for courses where waitlists numbered in the hundreds.

[dead0man]

and justice prevails!

Yes it does. I'm sure you'd be opposed to a hospital having to build a ramp for disabled people because it's "too expensive" according to that hospital.

If it caused the hospital to shut down, yes that would be stupid.  You'd rather close the hospital (or any other public "good") than leave it open without a ramp?  You people are freaking weird.


and yes it would be nice if schools were properly funded....wait, they are, they just waste a ton of those funds on things totally unrelated to educating the students.  But it's best to not talk about that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If it caused the hospital to shut down, yes that would be stupid.  You'd rather close the hospital (or any other public "good") than leave it open without a ramp?  You people are freaking weird.

...why would you have a hospital without wheelchair access that would be beyond bizarre.

[dead0man]

I don't know why that sh**tty hospital analogy came up, talk to Left about that.  I think he was trying for a "gotcha", but failed miserably.

[angus]

Now there's no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law:  the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw.

[dead0man]

Now there's no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law:  the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

"Free" services aren't actually free and are paid for by the taxpayer, making them subject to nondiscrimination clauses. And since these were actual courses, they have to be available to everyone

From the UC Berkley Website:

The University of California, in accordance with applicable Federal and State Law, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual harassment), gender identity, pregnancy/childbirth and medical conditions related thereto, disability, age, medical condition (cancer-related), ancestry, marital status, citizenship, sexual orientation, or status as a Vietnam-era veteran or special disabled veteran. This nondiscrimination policy covers student admission, access, and treatment in University programs and activities. It also covers faculty (Senate and non-Senate) and staff in their employment.


Pretty clear to me why this decision was made.

You can't get credit for these courses correct?   But because it's funded by the taxpayer, every piece of information on a website has to be fully accessible by people with visual and auditory disabilities or it gets shut down?  Seems like that'd rule out most government websites.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

"Free" services aren't actually free and are paid for by the taxpayer, making them subject to nondiscrimination clauses. And since these were actual courses, they have to be available to everyone

From the UC Berkley Website:

The University of California, in accordance with applicable Federal and State Law, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual harassment), gender identity, pregnancy/childbirth and medical conditions related thereto, disability, age, medical condition (cancer-related), ancestry, marital status, citizenship, sexual orientation, or status as a Vietnam-era veteran or special disabled veteran. This nondiscrimination policy covers student admission, access, and treatment in University programs and activities. It also covers faculty (Senate and non-Senate) and staff in their employment.


Pretty clear to me why this decision was made.

You can't get credit for these courses correct?   But because it's funded by the taxpayer, every piece of information on a website has to be fully accessible by people with visual and auditory disabilities or it gets shut down?  Seems like that'd rule out most government websites.

Some of them, you can, like the courses on the edX platform which is part of the complaint.

[Mr. Reactionary]

It just seems odd that something 'free' would fall under that category, but I'm obviously not a legal expert. It's an odd limitation on a public benefit.

That was my first thought as well.

An art museum that is open to the public free of charge still must have wheelchair ramps.

How should the art museum accommodate the blind?