What a silly requirement? Since 1% cannot benefit, let's remove it for the 99%
Clearly the result of a regulation that meant well. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It's a bit reminiscent of a law that prevents institutions from continually offering employees non-permanent work contracts. As in, after two fixed-term contracts, the third one must be permanent. The idea is to guarantee workers more stable and long-term perspectives. The result, however, is that the employee's contract won't get renewed at all after the second one, and instead someone else will be hired on a non-permanent contract.
The longer I live the more the truth of this gets reinforced. We humans really are kind of bad at designing systems and/or solving problems (especially problems of our own making). Most of us are like Ralph Wiggum with a crayon sticking out of our noises saying, "I'm helping!"
But the print form was even less accessible, and they kept publishing that...
I'm somewhat tempted to think that whoever sued berkeley and had the whole thing taken down in this specific case was just being a knob, but OTOH there's issues even with that POV in terms of letting precedents be set that will de facto still become "screw over deaf people entirely" even when everybody involved is doing their best to act in good faith.
Hopefully speech-to-text and text-to-speech will make the question moot in the medium term.
I really think this and other tech advances are going to be our saviors. It's still early days and it sometimes gets things wrong, but it's going to get good and it will basically allow us to have our cake and eat it too (as long as we can prevent having automated solutions banned).