Hacker News Reader

I think the crux of the matter, and opinion of the majority of people in those threads, was that the decision against Berkeley was decidedly unjustified.

To me, so long as the university provides resources to its disable students, which I assume they do given they're not involved in an even bigger lawsuit, what they provide to the public is community service. Denying billions of people across the world access to quality information because of the needs of maybe a million deaf in the US is ridiculous and a loss for the world.

>Denying billions of people across the world access to quality information because of the needs of maybe a million deaf in the US is ridiculous and a loss for the world.

While I don't take sides on the issue, I will point out that this line of reasoning can be used to justify anything against any minority.

The whole point of having this law is to negate this argument. It is (almost by definition) counterproductive to invoke this. The law is saying a particular minority has a right, and as with most/all rights, it is irrelevant how inconvenient it is.

We could keep going back and forth about this, but this is essentially the utilitarianism vs individualism debate. It hasn't been settled for centuries.

What it comes down to is no action is being taken against a minority. 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. To compare that with with legitimate historical oppressions against minorities is short sighted. This isn't utilitarian "good of the many at the expense of the few" this is good of the many with slightly less good for some of the few; with the solution being "good for no one".

>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.

Berkeley is shutting the virtual door by removing all the videos, and people ARE complaining.

Laws are often written with good intentions but enforced rigidly and with little common sense. A balance is needed between individualism and utilitarianism. At what point do my civil rights, when enforced by the state, infringe on yours? Who gets to determine which rights are worth protecting? Who draws the cost/benefit line in the sand? Not all men are created equal, but in a liberal democracy we mold society into one that provides equality in spite of our innate disparities. In my opinion, this equalization should be done by raising up those less fortunate, not by punishing those with advantages.

I think the real issue here is the fact that Berkeley was giving away the videos for free. If they were charging for those videos, they could incorporate the cost of ACA compliance into the price of the video. As it stands though, the state has the right to force work without providing any compensation. ACA compliance then becomes a form of servitude. (being a public university, UC Berkeley does get some state revenue, but it is only 14-25% of the total [1][2] and much of it comes in the form of contracts & grants which can only be used for the specific project they are awarded for). To me that is the real issue here, a simple matter of being compensated for one's work. I think they shouldn't be held to the same standards as someone selling a product, but that doesn't seem to be the lay of the land. I guess this is why we can't have nice things (for free).

[1] http://ucop.edu/operating-budget/_files/rbudget/2016-17budge... (page 47) [2] http://cfo.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2013-14%20UC%20B... (Page 1)

I completely agree. The issue is that these are 'free' 'as is'.

The correct solution should be an exemption for public access/domain materials, which OTHERS can provide additional materials for as they desire, from being compliant.

There is a difference in contributing to the common good, and discriminating against differently-abled CUSTOMERS.

This is a great example of where a different group, such as a charity or some group benefiting from it (maybe students who produce and release to P.D. transcripts for extra credit) could continue the effort of making the content a more vibrant part of the knowledge of our species.

>Laws are often written with good intentions but enforced rigidly and with little common sense. A balance is needed between individualism and utilitarianism. At what point do my civil rights, when enforced by the state, infringe on yours? Who gets to determine which rights are worth protecting? Who draws the cost/benefit line in the sand? Not all men are created equal, but in a liberal democracy we mold society into one that provides equality in spite of our innate disparities.

Yes, as I said: The old individualism vs utilitarianism debate.

My point in highlighting that this is a centuries old debate is that:

1. There will be no clear obvious answer.

2. Hence a topic like this will usually garner a very lively discussion, with (mostly) no outcome.

The ADA already reconciles these viewpoints, by allowing for people who would otherwise be in violation to claim exemption because complying would cause an undue burden. So we shouldn't expect a random person on the internet to pay for captioning 20,000 videos, because that would be (presumably) ridiculously outside their means. On the other hand, it's reasonable to assume that a university that could recently afford a $400 million dollar renovation to their athletics stadium could afford to caption 20,000 videos.

It's fun to assume things!

Anecdotal evidence I hear from UC Berkeley employees is that there just is no money to be had. The real solution is spend the money to make the videos ADA compliant. I don't know how much that would be but UC Berkeley isn't interested in spending the amount it would take, whatever it is.

The multi hundred dollar stadium renovation is now, with laser like 20/20 hindsight, considered a disaster. The football team's management has a new scandal every few months. The team's record is abysmal. The theory was that spending money to develop the football team results in greater alumni donations.

In UC Berkeley's defense, the state of California and the legislature is profoundly uninterested in funding the UC system at the levels it used to. The university has to get money from somewhere. Renovating Memorial Stadium was a part of that.

> Anecdotal evidence I hear from UC Berkeley employees is that there just is no money to be had.

I think this is missing a trailing "... due to the budget being allocated elsewhere."

> The multi hundred [million] dollar stadium renovation is now, with laser like 20/20 hindsight, considered a disaster

Is it though? The Pac-12 distribution per school is over $25m/yr, and despite lagging the Big-10 and SEC, it's only expected to go up. Given the efforts of the conference to launch the new network and compete with those other conferences, it's likely that there's a certain facility level expected of their member schools. If there was any chance that Cal would be dropped from the conference without the renovations, they start to seem a lot more reasonable...a 5-7% APY isn't really that bad.

Also, while fielding a competitive team might have been a nice benefit, there's at least one other significant benefit I see to retrofitting a stadium that sits directly on top of an earthquake fault line. See if you can guess what it is :)

But to your point, it does seem disingenuous to talk about money spent on a revenue-generating portion of the school when trying to justify the need to spend in ways that are revenue negative. Even considering the abysmal record and scandals, the football team brings in money to the University. If I were an AD at a University, I'd be very worried about football-related liability when former players start to experience the effects of CTE, but until those lawsuits start happening, it's natural that Universities will keep spending large amounts of money on Football.

>On the other hand, it's reasonable to assume that a university that could recently afford a $400 million dollar renovation to their athletics stadium could afford to caption 20,000 videos.

The blanket assumption that the benefit of captioning those videos is greater than the benefit of everything else that is done with those funds is not reasonable without some really good evidence.

And yet, it does nothing to a university that simply takes down the free materials rather than pay that much more to host them. That doesn't seem like it's reconciling anything, beyond "yep, we're okay with the absurd implications".

I think this would be a good project for crowdsourcing, because as you point out, it's something many people do care a lot about, so it ought to be possible to recruit some enthusiastic volunteers.

For all the talk about these types of issues, it seems to be very rare for tech conference videos to be captioned (presumably due to cost).

You can see here, something like 800 out of 18,000 videos from tech conferences are captioned:

https://www.findlectures.com/?p=1&type1=Conference&talk_type...

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."

>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.

Here's the letter the DoJ sent to Berkeley. Note the lack of hard deadlines or requirements the content be removed. Also note the date.

https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...

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".

You also have c) they had already released the videos, so now they need to follow the law and make them accessible.

My personal feeling on this -- if the videos were created as part of their primary mission, then they would be required to add accessibility. But it seems that these videos were a side effect of their primary mission, which is providing education to enrolled people. In that case, appropriate accommodations were most likely made in those specific classes, where needed.

> if the videos were created as part of their primary mission, then they would be required to add accessibility

Even Berkeley said that all videos created must be accessible. They required people to sign off on that accessibility.

https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...

> Prior to July 1, 2015, UC Berkeley also allowed faculty and instructors to design, develop and publish courses through a self-service model, which did not include support from BRCOE. Beginning July 1, 2015, UC Berkeley advised the Department that all faculty using the selfservice model will be asked to sign off on a list of accessibility resource reviews prior to publishing the course. The sign-off statements include:

There's a list of statements saying things like "I have reviewed and implemented edX’s “Guidelines for Creating Accessible Content.”2"

I hold both views.

The subtitle requirement doesn't apply to members of the general public. It applies to large institutions which know better, and have the resources to comply.

If Berkeley is embarrassed, some other university takes the time to subtitle its video content in the future to avoid a similar mess, and the public gets to keep the Berkeley videos, that's the best possible outcome short of Berkeley captioning its videos and continuing to host them.

The point isn't "if people with disabilities can't have it, no one can." That's just an unfortunate cost of enforcement. The point is to apply some mild coercion to make more of the world accessible to people with disabilities, and if this debacle has that effect, it's working as intended.

Is it? Places will just not publish rather than deal with the hassle, no?

> The point isn't "if people with disabilities can't have it, no one can." That's just an unfortunate cost of enforcement.

That adds substantial costs, and the end result, without additional funding, is no one gets it.

Thanks for nothing.

>That adds substantial costs, and the end result, without additional funding, is no one gets it.

What do you mean "without additional funding"?

All federal grants to universities are by definition "additional funding".

And they only have to comply because they are getting this "additional funding". The university is deciding not to allocate this "additional funding" for this purpose, which is being construed as a violation.

There are a couple of things that are interesting to me about this.

1) If you don't have any vision-impaired people in your course, would you continue to 'downgrade' the curriculum to a vision-impaired level?

2) The funding that they get applies to curriculum, but I do sort of wonder whether this isn't an addition to that.

To point 1: The nuance here is that if I have to describe drawings that I present, even where the audience is fully sighted, it seems like it brings down the quality of education for those in the room. Of course non-sighted persons should be accommodated when they are present, though that adds the additional wrinkle of students perhaps trying to game the system so that they're not in an accommodating classroom, as they'd have more time for lecture, questions, etc.

If we accept that you can hold a class appropriate to sighted persons, but not acceptable to sighted persons when there are only sighted persons in attendance, then what is the meaningful distinction between publishing a recording of that class on your website versus just publishing it on YouTube as "Professor X talks about such and such @UCB"? The latter seems like it would be clearly allowed, while the former seems like it is clearly forbidden, which just reminds us that rules are complicated.

To point 2: This seems akin to saying that "Everything on the menu has to have nutritional information". Okay, everything on the menu does have nutritional information, but in addition to the menu items, I'm also offering you this amuse-bouche free of charge. It's not on the menu, and because we change it daily from ingredients that were delivered to us accidentally, we do not have the ability to generate nutritional information. Can I serve the amuse without nutritional info? It is not part of the menu, for which I receive funds, and it is extra, so the rules should suggest that I am allowed to offer it, but you're either living up to the spirit of or violating the spirit of the rule depending on how charitably you interpret the requirements.

>This seems akin to saying that "Everything on the menu has to have nutritional information".

We're playing a semantics game. I can easily change it to:

"Every thing you serve has to have nutritional information" and remove all ambiguity.

Sure, and then I could (probably a better analogy here really) just put it on a table and say "Take One", bypassing the definition of 'serving', depending on how it's been defined.

Whether we like it or not, law is largely just semantic arguments. The point (and reviewing my previous comment) is that it was something extra, for which your previous "funds have already been allocated to curriculum" comment does not apply -- I've taken the federal grants, applied them to curriculum, and then graciously tried to do something extra, but because the extra bit doesn't meet the requirements attached to the funds, I can't.

I'm not opining on whether that's wrong or right, but it is indeed curious. If we view the rules narrowly, as lawyers are taught to do, then the extra bit wouldn't be applicable. If we view them broadly, then logos and mascots might not be allowed unless accompanied by audio and braille descriptions wherever they are used.

My curiosity here derives from wondering where, since the law is being interpreted more broadly than it must be, the line is, and how this might impact future decisions by universities (or other entities that receive strings-attached funding).

> The university is deciding not to allocate this "additional funding" for this purpose

These grants were not made for the purpose of subtitling videos.

>These grants were not made for the purpose of subtitling videos.

When my advisor gets a half a million dollars to do research on quantum computers, do you think he gets to use half a million dollars for it?

If you do, you clearly have not been exposed to how grants are processed at universities.

The university takes a cut - I've often heard numbers in the ballpark of 50% - to fund infrastructure. See:

https://www.quora.com/What-percentages-of-research-grant-mon...

This is not a scheme - this is how universities have always dealt with grants.

It's entirely up to the university to decide where to spend this money.

So from the Federal government's perspective, they are funding them for it, and instead the university is choosing not to spend money on this.

It's "working as intended" that the material is out there, just a little harder to find and just as disability-incompliant?

The purpose is not to remove material. The purpose is to maximize the set of content accessible to people with disabilities, by encouraging producers to make their content accessible in a way that asking nicely won't.

This has been enough of an ordeal that captioning is likely to be taken more seriously in the future. The law has successfully separated Berkeley from its self-interest in the videos (prestige, etc.) It doesn't really matter that the public gets to keep them.

Outlawing inaccessible material does not necessarily lead to maximizing accessible material. I think a strong argument could be made to the contrary, in fact. Material could become incrementally more accessible over time with motivated volunteers; outlawed material has no chance to become so.

> deaf-unusable videos

Not just deaf people. The video was inaccessible to a wide range of people.

If private citizens want to take the content and torrent it that's fine.

If Berkeley want to release video they should obey the nearly 30 year old law --and their own policies-- and make the content accessible, especially when they're taking both fees from students and government grants.