> The ADA does not work that way. Nobody has to make prospective changes. But if you build a new building, or do significant renovation, then you must do that work up the the modern code, which includes ADA accommodation.
But this didn't apply for the existing MIT/UCB courses did it? For any new courses, I might agree that the mandate might be necessary. But imposing this on older courses does not seem right to me.
Someone is doing something for free out of their own money and time. Someone else comes along, who has the power to sue and win, says that the service that was provided for free didn't include them and hence the rest of the folks who were beneficiaries of the free service should not benefit from it unless they were also benefited. It's one thing to ask for and mandate accommodations for things you pay for, it's another to ask for accommodations for a free service. I wholeheartedly disagree with this opinion and idea. Because of ADA's law thousands if not millions across the world are losing out on wonderful resources for education which might not be available.
On the one hand I can see some people do not get the benefit without captions while many people benefit from the free service. What the law has done is to accommodate the some, now no one will receive the free service. The intention behind the law seems noble, but the outcome does not remotely justify it. Neither party wins. Is there any benefit of robbing someone else's education because you're not able to get it?
> Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be spent on things that benefit everyone.
Again, not from USA. But if i'm in such a position, my questions would be why aren't there closed captions for which I paid tax for? Is the tax dollars actually budgeted for creating captions? What and where is the budget being allocated for govt institutions like UCs? From the univ's perspective, captions might be available for the students, but should/is there budget for accommodating the general public? Is there a budget split up of taxpayer dollars which mandates that univ's should allocate some amount for captions for the public (note- for the public, not the students who pay for the education)? Is there difficulty in hiring? And so on. But the way I see it as a general outsider is that a "law" has been put forth saying it should accommodate deaf people too. I'm sure UCs and other universities are doing everything they can to accommodate for disabled students, I believe they have zero obligation to do anything out their goodwill for people who don't pay for their services.
I believe the law pretty much backfired for whatever intentions it had.
> I’ll give an example of Vint Cerf. Aren’t you glad he was able to be productive, attend university
IMO this is the wrong example to give. Vint Cerf went to university which he paid for which would have probably accommodated for his disabilities. It'd help me see a better viewpoint of your side if you can cite examples of people who were deaf and benefited from the captions and significantly moved forward in life in comparison to Vint Cerf.