A statement on online course content and accessibility
Fyi ... a related (not duplicate) HN discussion from Feb 2015:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039798" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039798</a><p>In both this case about UC Berkeley and the lawsuit against Harvard & MIT, the legal attacks seem very wrong.<p>What I see is:<p>- Scenario A:  spend $X to release free courses that benefits most of humanity<p>- Scenario B:  spend $X+$Y to release free courses that also benefits the disabled population<p>(The $Y is extra costs to close-caption, transcribe to braille, etc.)<p>That these lawsuits are obstinate in that you <i>must spend</i> that extra $Y to fulfill Scenario B or humanity can't have the knowledge at all is nonsensical to me.<p>E.g. The school budget has <i>finite</i> money.  Let's say It can release 15 free courses by spending just $X but to avoid a lawsuits, it can only release 10 courses by spending $X+$Y ... or release none at all because it's not worth the legal minefield.  Why is the 2nd scenario more optimized for humanity?<p>Sure, we should <i>encourage</i> the universal accessibility of the video courses but to formalize it into the nastiness of lawsuits?  It doesn't seem right.