MESSAGE
| DATE | 2017-03-15 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Hangout-NYLXS] end the ADA
|
On February 11, 2015, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) and
four deaf and hard of hearing individuals filed two federal class action
lawsuits against Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), charging that the schools discriminate against deaf
and hard of hearing people by failing to caption the vast and varied
array of online content they make available to the general public,
including massive open online courses (MOOCs).
The cases, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, assert that
these universities violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act by denying deaf and hard of hearing people access to
thousands of videos and audio tracks that each university makes publicly
available, for free, on broad-ranging topics of general interest. These
include, for example, campus talks by luminaries such as President
Barack Obama and Microsoft founder Bill Gates; educational videos made
by MIT students for use by K-12 students; “self-help” talks; entire
semesters’-worth of courses; and regular podcasts such as the “HBR
IdeaCast” by the Harvard Business Review. The universities boast that
their content is available free to anyone with an Internet connection.
Millions of people have visited the websites.
The MIT Plaintiffs are represented by the NAD; the Civil Rights
Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC); the Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund (DREDF); and The Disability Law Center (DLC).
The Harvard Plaintiffs are represented by the same lawyers, with the
exception of DREDF.
Each university moved to stay the case against it until the Department
of Justice issued promised regulations governing website accessibility
or to simply dismiss the case. The Department of Justice filed
statements of interest in both cases supporting plaintiffs’ position
that the universities’ provision of free online video content to the
public discriminates against Deaf and hard of hearing individuals by
failing to provide equal access in the form of captions. In decisions
issued on February 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson
recommended denial of the universities’ motions in full and included
excellent language affirming the digital communication rights of people
who are Deaf or hard of hearing. The court issued a lengthy decision in
the Harvard case and adopted the same reasoning in the MIT case.
Key case documents:
Harvard complaint
MIT complaint
DOJ Statement of Interest – Harvard
DOJ Statement of Interest – MIT
Report and Recommendation Recommending Denial of Harvard’s Motion to
Dismiss/Stay
Report and Recommendation Recommending Denial of MIT’s Motion to
Dismiss/Stay
For press coverage on the cases, see: The New York Times, Boston Globe,
Reuters, Ability Magazine, FastCompany, UPI, ABC News, Boston Herald,
The Huffington Post, The Verge, The Chronicle of Higher Education. and
Harvard’s student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
