> If there is no penalty for not making them available for the deaf, why would any institution pay for captioning?
Do you realize the insanity of that kind of logic? If there is no penalty for not curing HIV, how can McDonald's sell hamburgers? Where does it end?
If there's no penalty to making cars without seatbelts, then carmakers will make cars without seatbelts. So we outlaw cars without seatbelts. This is exactly the society we live in.
Sure, a car with no seatbelts might be better than no car at all. But society has decided that cost is worth it, in order to incentivize widespread installation of seatbelts.
Berkeley has chosen to throw its car away rather than install the legally required seatbelts.
Not all regulations are good (and this one may not be), but I think the logic behind them is understandable, not insane.
The deaf OR hard of hearing population of the united states is roughly 4.1% (10.6 million).
A closer example would maybe be: if paraplegics needed special seatbelts to be safe in cars, should we mandate that all car makers be required to install special seatbelts that are paraplegic compatible? (Paraplegics make up a small fraction of the population of the United States - somewhere around 300,000).
Obviously that comparison has holes in it as well, but it is a lot closer. And I would think the answer would be no, not because of heartlessness, but simply because it doesn't make sense. I assume, again not heartlessly, that most paraplegics do not drive. Likewise, most deaf people will not access these videos.
It seems closer to insanity than reasonableness to mandate either of these things.
People pay for cars with seatbelt. Free videos don't earn income.
Or going to court and challenging the government's interpretation, as, in fact, the ADA requires only reasonable accommodation.
The university chose that it would be a better use of its time to spend the effort making future content more accessible than establishing, as it quite possibly could, that it had no obligation to do so for this kind of content in the circumstances in which it was offered. Which is clearly it's decision to make, but when the University deliberately chose not to seek an authoritative resolution of it's obligations under the law, it is misleading to claim that the outcome represents it's obligation under the law.
If I'm deaf, I know that you have no advantage over me merely because you can hear. I think that's "good". The laws are in place to protect minorities.
Surely you jest. As the parent noted, such reasoning is squarely on the path to insanity.
What a society could possibly attempt to ensure is "equity". What you are suggesting should be sought is "equality". Since this is (trivially) impossible to attain, to attempt to do so is a fool's errand.
You may be measurably more intelligent than me. Should society force some crippling drug on you, to ensure I am not relatively hindered, merely because you can think more effectively than me?
Some appear to believe so...
What's insane is people comparing the government drugging us to equalize our IQ to the enforcement of a law that requires a publicly funded institution to put closed captions on their videos if they're to be publicly available.
I'll bet a reasonable solution comes from this, sets a precedent for the future, and the huffing and puffing will be for naught.
I agree.
>The law cannot eliminate that. All it can do is make reasonable compromises to mitigate it.
I also agree with this. And I believe that's what this law is doing: saying "you may be at a disadvantage in these ways, but you won't be in this way if we can help it."
Edit: I understand the downvotes, relatively (e.g. as seen by Californians relatively to the US in general). Just know that I speak from France, a country where regulation has gone way, way overboard insofar as it cripples the economy moreso than it protects individuals, by ultimately preventing any reform/change/disruption whatsoever in many, many sectors. There's such a thing as "balance" and "intelligence in regulating". On a general level I very much advocate for a strict body of regulation; I just think it should be as minimal, solid, logical and simple (intelligible) as possible. Which is very much not the case in my country.
Regulation is more about creating incentives than conditioning.
> The study of reinforcement has produced an enormous body of reproducible experimental results. Reinforcement is the central concept and procedure in special education, applied behavior analysis, and the experimental analysis of behavior and is a core concept in some medical and psychopharmacology models, particularly addiction, dependence, and compulsion.
Which also confirms pretty much everything an ex-gf, who completed a master in Psychology when we were dating, told me about positive versus negative reinforcement. Basically, stick doesn't work much, carrot does.
I agree that it's a widely different topic for regulation. I probably shouldn't have mixed the two so directly, there are many discrepancies. However it's been shown that incentives (i.e. rewards, positive reinforcement of some behaviors) work at the societal level, e.g. family/reproduction incentives (giving money to people who have children; I don't know how these policies are called in the US), or incentives to buy houses, newer cars, etc.
> more about creating incentives than conditioning
I fail to grasp how the former isn't a particular subset of the latter.