Berkeley Removes 20,000* Free Online Videos to Comply with Insane Department of Justice Ruling

In the name of equality, destroy your valuable public resource


Public Domain

This story has been updated. See below.

The handicappers general in the Department of Justice strike again: the University of California, Berkeley, is deleting a massive amount of free, online content in order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Berkeley previously housed an online library consisting of more than 20,000 videos of lectures. These videos were free and accessible to the public. But they are free no longer: next week, administrators will withdraw access to anyone who isn't a Berkeley student or professor.

Why? Because the federal government left them no other choice.

Two employees of Gallaudet University—a school for the deaf in Washington, D.C.—filed a complaint with DOJ alleging that Berkeley's online content was inaccessible to the hearing-disabled community. After looking into the matter, DOJ determined that Berkeley had indeed violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to Inside Higher Ed.

Berkeley had two choices: spend a fortune adding closed captioning to the videos, or remove them from public view. Cost-conscious administrators chose the latter option.

I can't imagine the authors of the ADA intended to destroy a valuable public resource because it wasn't perfectly accessible to all, but here we are. Taking the quality out of equality: that's clumsy federal regulation for you.

Updated: The number of videos Berkeley must remove from public access has been corrected: it's 20,000, not 200,000. I regret the error.

NEXT: Brickbat: Too Much, Magic Bus

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shouldn’t that be handicappers general?

    1. Yes, thank you.

      1. I’m just impressed that you made a Harrison Bergeron reference.

    2. Yes, thank you.

      1. The squirrels even attack staff around here.

        1. “See that look in his eye? That’s not fear. That’s rage.”

  2. Such is the world in which we now live; if EVERYONE isn’t happy, ain’t nobody gonna be happy.

    1. Even if Berkeley wanted to close caption the videos, they would still violate ADA.

      I am certain that much of the content is inaccessible to the learning disabled with or without captions. If Berkeley is unable to provide satisfactory explanations of content, they fail to make accommodation to the Down Syndrome community. Certain learning-disabled attorneys at the Justice Department can sympathize with that.

      1. Furthermore, fairness to America’s immigrant communities demands that all be close captioned in Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin, Laotian, Swahili, and about a hundred other languages.

      2. Can screenreaders narrate video yet? Those blind web surfers would like a chat with you, Berkley.

    2. Which fits great with our culture of convincing everyone they should be unhappy.

  3. Berkeley had two choices: spend a fortune adding closed captioning to the videos, or remove them from public view. Cost-conscious administrators chose the latter option.

    How do you sign “but that’s not what we meant”?

    1. You have to wonder what the complainers thought was going to happen. Did they think they could force another school to spend that kind of money or were they trying to tell everyone else to zark off?

      1. That’s how statists of every stripe think — “So let it be written, so let it be done”, or whatever Pharoah / Yul Brynner said. Just pass a law even vaguely related to their intentions, and the rest follows. Statists, who think peasants are inordinately stupid, naive, and ignorant, somehow think mere words on paper can work magic that even Harry Potter magic can’t manage.

        1. All we need to do is transfer the resources wasted on all those unnecessary varieties of deodorant to more important tasks like this.

          1. I wonder if anyone ever asked Bernie why we need so many different kinds of politicians? How inefficient! Of course his answer would be that he was the only one necessary.

      2. I actually expect that this is exactly what the complainers (or their backers) wanted to happen. It removed a major online competitor from the marketplace. What if Berkeley had gotten the idea that they could sell those lectures and give degrees based on them?

      3. I suspect that they absolutely believed that their action would force the school to add subtitles. Cost be damned.
        I’d bet that they never even conceived of a possible outcome other than subtitled videos.

        Complainers like this don’t seem to have a strong grasp on concepts like logic and cause/effect.

        1. Although, it sounds like this organization is in the business of this kind of conflict and might have foreseen the result. Either way, they figure they’ll come out looking like heroic crusaders and Berkeley will be the assholes. For a place like UCB that is focused on these kinds of identity politics, it wouldn’t surprise me if they caved and spent the money to avoid being the insensitive and unaccommodating asshole.

      4. Typical leftist — the point is not to elevate those below to a higher level…. The point is to drag everyone above down.

    2. How do you sign “but that’s not what we meant”?

      *Extends index finger and thumb. Puts finger to temple. Depresses thumb.*

    3. Does it really cost a fortune to convert speech to text? Shouldn’t there be free apps online by now that do that?

      1. yes, and aren’t we all breathairians now, and doesn’t money grow on trees, and where *is* my flying rainbow unicorn car ? ? ?
        I’m sure your voluntary efforts on their behalf would get all of one or two lectures transcribed per month, at that rate, you will be done in 833.33 years (the calculator actually had many more threes, but I figure this website only has several decimal places of accuracy 8^)
        oh, wait, they are still doing lectures, so, you will never be done…
        based on a true story…

  4. Who wants to watch Berkeley’s proggy videos anyway?
    Still winning!

  5. Thanks Gallaudet. You could have helped make them accessible for the deaf or you could choose to be assholes.

    Maybe we need to repeal the ADA since lawyers and academics cannot control themselves.

    1. Based on what I know about Gallaudet, choosing to be assholes is kind of their thing. They seem to be the center of deaf identity politics.

      1. Is that where the “cochlar implants are genocide against the deaf community” meme started? I guess that would make sense then.

        1. If they don’t want cochlears, let them not have cochlears. It’s more like a crude prosthesis than a real “cure” for deafness anyway.

          Since long before I learned to be weary and wary of “identity politics,” I have always thought Deaf identity is kind of cool. It makes sense that they are the only disability that has such a strong sense of culture, since their condition gives them a shared language. I’d even have some affection for the (slightly less universal) refusal to consider Deafness a disability, difficult as it is to see how not having a sens could be anything other than exactly that, if not for the fact that such “militancy” normally comes with militancy in making demands on society to accommodate them as disabled. That is just obnoxious.

          1. I will admit I have thought about getting a cochlear implant, but could not decide on a size which might not be cultural appropriation, so I settled for a strap-on…
            to be honest, I’m not sure my real doll cares either way…

        2. “Cultural genocide”. Get it right.

        3. Feeding people, and eating for that matter, is genocide against the “starving to death community”!

          1. In more detail, it’s next to impossible to get “pray away the gay” therapy today, most especially if we are dealing with Government Almighty certified therapists… “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”, and I mean that most sincerely… I do NOT believe in getting in the way of ***ANY*** genuine (free will, un-coerced) Love on this planet! Love is utterly precious enough already!
            But… How long till we are NOT allowed to “therapeutricize” (to coin a new? verb) away, anorexia nervosa, because it “stigmatizes” the starving-away-to-death community?
            Which brings up a VERY impotent question:
            Q: What’s the similarity between a lady with anorexia nervosa and a yeast infection, and the best offering at your local McDonald’s?
            A: Both are “a quarter pounder with cheese”!

      2. And they could’ve easily gotten Berkeley or one of its rich Alumni to sponsor a program for Gallaudet students to work with Berkeley ASL students to CC the videos, and maybe even create ASL versions. I mean, it’s not like the U of C system would reject a proposal like that, they’d be all over it, FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

        1. yea since a computer can speak written words why can’t a program be created to convert words into writing. I wouldn’t be surprised if one already existed

          1. If not maybe I should create one. Whenever I say that I always find that there is one

          2. It does exist. It is used in nearly every YouTube video. Click the CC button and choose which language you want to see of Google’s automated transcription and translation.

            It’s not perfect, but in situations with cleanly recorded audio it is very accurate.

            1. Even when humans are involved, there are some absolute howlers in CC.

          3. I use one every day. On my phone. To send text messages.

      3. They’re the ones that came up with “cultural genocide” when cochlear implants became a go-to solution for hearing impairment.

  6. What are the chances that anyone at Berkeley learned a damn thing from this?

    1. I think it is very amusing but even if the administration learns something, the students won’t.

  7. Perfect example of the federal,government’s insanity.

    1. But the federal government values fairness and equality above all other values, with the possible exception of revenues.

      Perfect example of why liberty is a superior value to equality.

      1. Perfect example of “nothing left to cut!”

  8. I can’t imagine the authors of the ADA intended to destroy a valuable public resource because it wasn’t perfectly accessible to all, but here we are.

    Their intentions, like all purveyors of regulation, are unknown. Never assume anyone who works to force a change in the behaviors of others is doing so benevolently.

    However, follow the money. Are those who filed the complaint perhaps engaging in a competing enterprise, or offering services? Perhaps they sell closed captioning or their own online lectures?

    1. Perhaps they sell closed captioning or their own online lectures?

      It’s a school for the deaf, who wants to watch people silently waving their hands around?

      1. Jazz hands?

      2. did you just assume their disability

    2. The intention is to humiliate and to demoralize people, to let them know that they are subject to and must comply with the orders of their betters.

  9. I can’t imagine the authors of the ADA intended to destroy a valuable public resource because it wasn’t perfectly accessible to all.

    The ADA is almost 30 years old now, and it has operated this way from square one, only with ever increasing boldness. This is just the latest step, perfectly reasonable in context, and it won’t stop here. Be thankful we (perhaps) don’t have a President who has made it his mission to use his branch to push this monstrosity to greater lengths of insanity as well. (We will never have another minigolf course built that is not wheelchair-accessible, for example, thanks to Mr. O.)
    Maybe the politicians who passed the ADA with barely a peep did not “intend” it to work this way. That is because they are morons. I assure you, its real authors knew exactly what they were doing. This shit is not a bug; it’s a feature.

    1. It is like peta trying to kill all the livestock.

      1. PETA kills the vast majority of animals they “rescue”.

        1. I had to read this again because I somehow misread it as

          PETA kills the vast majority of humans they “rescue”.

          Still not wrong I guess.

        2. Yes. They actually do operate this way. PETA thinks that service to man is a subjugation condition for animals that makes their lives not worth living, so they would be better off dead. They are, in fact, aware that all domestic species were engineered by man to serve him, so they regard their entire existence as a perversion. They are also rather “breedist” (especially, for example, determined to exterminate pitbulls).

          If PETA were to take control of the world tomorrow, what would they do to all the world’s farm animals? They would sterilize and “retire” a few to humane farms, but once that puny capacity were filled they would exterminate every remaining one from the face of the earth as their highest priority. They are quite coherent in their worldview, and quite principled in their own way. But their principles permit them to dissimulate to useful idiots, and they are great at it. How many casual supporters, “animal lovers” and such, truly understand their philosophy?

    2. Worth repeating: This shit is not a bug; it’s a feature.

      Just like Title IX and the transgender locker room controversy, it is intended to humiliate and to demoralize people.

      If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face ? forever.

      Basically, it’s Cloward-Piven strategy for crashing the economy via the welfare system applied to non-economic civil society.

      1. I’m not really convinced that these things are part of some scheme to deliberately crash the economy, or to humiliate or demoralize anyone. Though it does seem like some people try to use it that way.
        I think that these laws were passed by people with good intentions. Of course, good intentions are worth jack shit, particularly when you ignore consequences of your feel-good bullshit that should be foreseen.

        The people making the laws and rules aren’t radicals trying to reboot society, they are true believers that technocrats can fix all the little problems of society through law and regulation. Which is more dangerous in a lot of ways.

        1. “Crazy, Evil, or Stupid?” is the question of our generation.

          It’s kind of like “Fuck, Kill, or Marry?” but without the fun parts.

          1. How about crazy, evil, AND stupid?

        2. I used to think that way.

          As every year passes, I realize how naive I was five years ago.

        3. It is about equality of outcome. That is the goal. It rarely results in universal excellence.

    3. What really pisses me off is that I’m not allowed to offer to work for less to make up for my disability. So I can’t get hardly any work at all. Thanks ADA.

    4. I’ll bet the construction industry had a lot to do with getting this POS legislation enacted.
      The additional cost to businesses, through the requirement of “access” has been a boon to architects, engineers and builders, but has probably cost the average citizen untold amounts, to try to accommodate a small percentage of the population.
      As stated, earlier: the consequence of replacing “liberty” with “equality” as the basis of the justification for legislation has upended the intent of the Founders. The word “equal” wasn’t included in the original document.

  10. One for the Rand-Branden “Horror File” for sure. The complainants had no actual moral right to stand on; the ADA is an immoral law which seems to embody the notion that other people owe you something just because you have a problem. But, they stood on their legal right, and now real value is destroyed, without helping them at all.

    Reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron.

    1. Reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron.

      That’s why Robby called them “the handicappers general.”

  11. Why can’t the markets caption all those videos?

  12. YouTube captions automatically. Google couldn’t help with this?

    1. Well, YouTube captions are usually hilariously inaccurate.

    2. YouTube captions aren’t ADA compliant.

  13. Reading the comments in the article is instructive for how casual the complainers are about spending other people’s money, even where the estimates rise into the millions. The main argument seems to be that Berkeley spent x on a football stadium, or x on administrator salaries, therefore they should be forced to spend what ever amount we feel is necessary to accommodate a special interest group. Because all of the universities money sits in one big pot and every dollar spent get the same return and their interests should be the exact same as our interests.

    1. Anything is possible when you don’t have a fucking clue about economics. Imagine the paradise that a totalitarian communist state could bring. It just has to reallocate resources to more “just” goals with equivalent efficiency to that achieved by the market in achieving it’s wasteful goals like all those deodorant varieties.

  14. Equality is the lowest common denominator.

  15. Once again a group claiming they want equality when what they really want is special treatment. The blacks in the 50s and 60s wanted a equal playing field which they deserved. Since then the atheists, homosexuals, transgenders, vegans, criminals and even pedophiles say they want equality but in reality they want special treatment. The handicap deserve easy access to public building and if dealing government agencies or public schools accommodations should be made for their disabilities but that is where it should end. If an atheist doesn’t believe in god that is their right, but they have no right to never be offended if others disagree with them or choose not to associate with them. That applies to the rest of the whining groups out there. I happen to be an atheist, a non interventionist, an Autarchist. These are things that I believe but a world full of people identical to me would be really boring. As Wiccans would say do and believe what you will but do no harm.

  16. And let’s not forget this was created by the first Bush in one of his “proudest moments”. Like Nixon going to China, when the side that is supposed to be guarding against this shit decides to do it, we’re left with a one-stupid-fucking-party system.

    1. And it will probably never be repealed because that would mean that you hate disabled people.

    2. “The difference between single-party and multiparty democracy is like the difference between a malignant tumor and a benign one.”

  17. Gallaudet.. home of the MILITANT DEAF

    1. Shouting like that doesn’t help, you know.

      1. *hollers from next room without turning the TV down*


  18. I blame Berkeley for not having the balls to argue that the “choices” offered to them by the federal government impose an undue burden and violate the First Amendment.

    1. Litigating that claim would probably run upwards of a half million bucks. Did they really want to spend that kind of cash litigating something that wasn’t all that important to them?

      1. Then shame on them for not caring.

    2. They probably wanted to retain the ability to fuck over somebody else in exactly this same way sometime in the future.

  19. Equality of outcome can only be reliably achieved by making everyone equally ignorant.

  20. Now we just need somebody to leak all the videos online, and then get driven to suicide by Federal prosecutors.

    1. There may be folks on it, but it’ll be a big project. And maybe not a very valuable one. I just checked the channel for vids I may want to download in the next week, and I was surprised to find that, at least for the ones at the top (at least a year old) they don’t seem to be that great in quality.
      None of them even look familiar to me, a voracious consumer of YouTube lectures; and, come to think of it, I’ve watched plenty of Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Oxford, MIT, Cal Tech, even Indian Institute of Technology, but probably no Cal. Weird, since their school has such a great reputation.
      The real threat, it seems, lies in the future. The DOJ is poised to destroy online education (and not just from universities) and potentially endanger the Web itself as an informational tool. Hopefully AG Sessions will buy it some time. So don’t push it, universities; maybe just don’t post any pro-pot or anti-White Citizens Council course content for the time being I guess.

  21. I’m color-blind. I demand the entire universe use no color contrasts that I cannot see. It’s only fair!

    1. Imagine there’s no color. It’s easy if you try.

      1. I’ve just decided to self-identify as able-to-distinguish-colors.

        1. You’re doing it wrong. I should be self-identifying as color blind. Way more than you, in fact. And your “joke” dehumanizes me and trivializes my condition, shitlord.

          1. I identify as not being able to see light outside the visible light spectrum. I demand all forms of radiation other than visible light be banned.

  22. Maybe they could just add one video with close captioning that teaches lip reading.

  23. the University of California, Berkeley, is deleting a massive amount of free, online content in order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Better that no one have access to free online lecture videos than have some deaf people feel left out. Just like it’s better that everyone be poor than some people be “rich”. /sarc

    1. One could suppose that they could release it under creative commons and post it on a public youtube channel. At that point there’s no “access” issues, because it is just some videos that were released to the public. Like a press release. What others do with them at that point is not up to the university.

  24. “I can’t imagine the authors of the ADA intended to destroy a valuable public resource because it wasn’t perfectly accessible to all”

    Just cause you can’t imagine it, don’t make it untrue.

  25. When will SCOTUS grow a pair and rule Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 and Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstutional. They both violate the first amendment to the constitution and out freedom of assocation/freedom of speech.

  26. I was going to make a comment about how many litigious assholes there are in the deaf community, but that’s unfair. A litigious asshole is a litigious asshole, whether deaf, blind, crippled, or unscarred straight white male.

  27. Good article. It’s rare that you here the words ‘cost conscious’ and ‘college admin’ together.

  28. My disability to do homework on time in high school left me unable to attend Berkeley. Therefore they should have accommodated my procrastination or denied access to those with more studious habits.

    In fact, I think Berkeley should fully embrace the equity they espouse and have their student body exactly reflect the general population regarding intelligence and work habits. I mean it’s only fair, right?

  29. All they had to do was turn up the volume to 11, and they would be OK.

  30. I can’t imagine the authors of the ADA intended to destroy a valuable public resource because it wasn’t perfectly accessible to all, but here we are. Taking the quality out of equality: that’s clumsy federal regulation for you.

    You’ve never met any of the activists behind this pressure. I spent an afternoon at a workshop for IT policy geeks listening to one of the major lawyers involved in most of these ADA lawsuits. He really believes that ‘if everyone can’t access it, no one should be able to’, and he’s an arrogant, self-righteous jerk about it. His answer to those who say ‘we can’t afford it’ is to quote Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive “I don’t care”

  31. and they still won’t have access. good going, retards!

  32. Oh but wait – California. Could this be a rude attempt at some kind of political statement … I mean, something other than a necessity created by an administration that isn’t so half-witted corrupt that other half-wits can think there’s some link between their bullshit and a lost Nirvana created by total control? I mean seriously – it’s California!

  33. If they upload the video to Youtube there is a automatic close caption that woulds solve the problem and cost nothing. Free market to the rescue again.

    1. Not ADA compliant.

  34. So why aren’t the blind suing libraries for not making all books available in Braille, with descriptions of the illustrations in Braille)? This would seem to be an exact analogue. For that matter, why is radio allowed to continue to exist?

    1. For that matter, why is radio allowed to continue to exist?

      You beat me to the blind, but I didn’t even think of radio.

      Two points for you!

  35. Berkeley had a third option: appeal the stupid order. I suspect that it didn’t because the powers that be there approved of the order. It would be entirely in character.

  36. Watch many someones start to download ALL of the lecture videos and then repost them on YouTube for public consumption. Wiling to bet Berkley wouldn’t object.

    Or hell just a smart person write some sort of simple script to download and then re-upload the videos to a cloud-based service.

  37. I find it hard to believe that all of the comments I’ve read think that UC Berkeley caved into unreasonable pressure from a special interest group.

    This was what the framers of the ADA had in mind. They weren’t gleefully hoping that thousands of videos would be removed from UC Berkeley’s website, but rather that institutions that make their resources available to the public do so in a manner that everyone has access, not just those with the ability to hear.

    This is why the University has to comply with the law to make every classroom accessible. It’s why I have an accessible seat when I go to events on campus.

    Don’t blame Gallaudet for pulling the videos. Blame UC Berkeley for choosing to not spend the money on captioning. The same issue has come up with videos posted by MIT.

    Ableism is real and I see it everyday. You can learn more about ableism by reading all of the comments before me (and I’m sure in the replies to my post here).


    1. Well, Mr. “Ableism”, answer the questions:
      Why are libraries allowed to exist if they don’t make all of their books able to be “read” by the blind?
      Why does radio exist, at all, or television, or cars? The blind and deaf cant fully utilize those things.
      Shit, the entire nation that has an incline greater than that which a wheelchair can ascend should be brought down.
      The Rockies, the Appalachians, the Sierra-Nevada – all of them should be razed to where any wheelchair-bound individual can freely go over them.
      Your situation is unfortunate, but to expect the rest of the world to “accommodate” you is unrealistic and tremendously selfish. Legislating such defies logic.

      1. Dear Retiredfire,

        First off, I don’t consider my situation unfortunate. We all get handed something to deal with in life and I’m no different than you, even if you don’t have a physical disability. You probably are dealing with some physical issues if you’re a retired fireman.

        I do expect a level playing field when the barriers exist because of indifference to the needs of everyone. And I do expect the University, a public entity, one that I pay taxes for, to not provide free services at the exclusion of those who cannot hear.

        I deal with both sides of this issue. A friend of mine had a bar in the Sierras. There was a step into the place. If he or his landlady put in a wheelchair ramp, they’d be forced to update the bathrooms. Do I like that they didn’t put in the ramp? No. Do I understand what was involved and why they didn’t do it? Yes.

        The rest of your post isn’t worth my time addressing. I don’t feel that your analogies are realistic enough to respond to.

        Any of us, if we live long enough, will acquired a disability in their lifetime. The word “accommodation” isn’t a dirty word. In most cases, it’s something that allows more of us to live full lives. And that ramp or captioning will be there when you or someone you love needs it.

        Don’t call us a special interest group. We’re a group that anyone can join at any moment.


        1. fuck off, jim, you statist hack.

          1. I came in here to try and provide an opposing view, because belittling the need for access for the disabled is a problem I and other have fought for for decades.

            If all you have is a Fuck Off, then you don’t have anything to add to the discussion.

            One doesn’t have to be a Statist to want to speak up when my fight for rights is being lumped into any issue involving access for the disabled.

            Where do you think millions of people with disabilities would be if there were no laws requiring accessibility or non-discrimination? How much more money would it cost society to warehouse us in institutions or allow us to die in public hospitals?

  38. The UC Berkeley campus newspaper’s response to the removal of the videos:…..te-fixing/

  39. This article doesn’t mention that the reason for this action was to avoid lawsuits, and also that there were paid/subscription sites embedding the content within their own site (claiming it as their own).…..e-capture/

  40. A professor says this problem is much worse than UCB:…..materials/

    The current federal regulations for accessibility is resulting in massive amounts of educational content being destroyed. You would think this is dumbing down an already dumb country. Everyone should share these stories so we can stop the destruction of education and free internet info.

    1. The regulations are not ‘forcing’ Berkeley to ‘destroy’ this material. The University is ‘choosing’ to put in behind a paywall. I am willing to bet that Berkeley could find enough volunteers and donors to add closed captions to ALL material of any value. Where’s the profit in that?

  41. I remember reading that Harrison Bergeron story in High School. I don’t think there has been a truer story written, even if the author is a lefty.

    Their idea of making people equal is by making hearing people deaf.

  42. Again, we all know Berkeley is Proggy Central, so why are we fretting over their proggy videos being put out of reach of vulnerable and impressionable potential Republicans?

    1. Excuse my ignorance DanO, but what is a ‘proggy’? I Duck Duck Go’ed it and found this: “n. 1. Any computer program that is considered a full application. 2. Any computer program that is made up of or otherwise contains proglets. 3. Any computer program that is large enough to be…” As far as I know Berkeley (or sometimes known as Chinese girls school because of the large percentage of Chinese ancestry students) doesn’t have a large programming department. Could you enlighten me on this?

  43. Chevy: Our top story tonight…
    Garrett: OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT…!!!
    Chevy: …a Harris poll has revealed that Humphrey is ahead of both Ford and Reagan.

  44. Those two employees of Gallaudet University not only did not get what they wanted but ruined it for the rest of us. Bet those two never considered contacting Berkeley officials and trying to negotiate a voluntary improvement. If money was an issue, they could have launched a GoFundMe campaign and raise the money that way.

  45. The two employees of Gallaudet University got what they wanted — reducing the power of a competitor. The students of Gallaudent also got what they wanted: equality.

    1. Videos for none! Equality at last!

  46. I agree that it is a shame to have these videos removed by something so stupid. HOWEVER, it is also hilarious that this liberal nonsense in Washington D.C. just ruined the day of the liberals in Berkeley. They have reaped what they’ve sowed.

  47. Pity this blog post – and many of the comments to it – are turning this occurrence into a battle. Berkeley is for accessibility compliance, and the DoJ recognized Berkeley’s efforts to implement it.

    Berkeley’s decision to remove its older inaccessible videos from public view does not mean that they are “destroyed”, just no longer generally available. It is a cost-related decision. It would be great if Berkeley provided a list of the affected videos, for people /organizations who might be willing to work at / finance their accessibility

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.