The ADA Attack on Online Courses Hurts the Disabled, Too – Article by Alex Tabarrok

The ADA Attack on Online Courses Hurts the Disabled, Too – Article by Alex Tabarrok

The New Renaissance HatAlex Tabarrok

The Department of Justice has sent a letter to UC Berkeley threatening a lawsuit unless the university modifies all of its free online educational materials to meet conditions of accessibility. In response the Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Education writes:

…we have attempted to maximize the accessibility of free, online content that we have made available to the public. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice has recently asserted that the University is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because, in its view, not all of the free course and lecture content UC Berkeley makes available on certain online platforms is fully accessible to individuals with hearing, visual or manual disabilities.

…We look forward to continued dialog with the Department of Justice regarding the requirements of the ADA and options for compliance. Yet we do so with the realization that, due to our current financial constraints, we might not be able to continue to provide free public content under the conditions laid out by the Department of Justice to the extent we have in the past.

In many cases the requirements proposed by the department would require the university to implement extremely expensive measures to continue to make these resources available to the public for free. We believe that in a time of substantial budget deficits and shrinking state financial support, our first obligation is to use our limited resources to support our enrolled students. Therefore, we must strongly consider the unenviable option of whether to remove content from public access.

In short, the DOJ is saying that unless all have access, none can and UC Berkeley is replying that none will. I sympathize with UC Berkeley’s position. The cost of making materials accessible can be high and the cost is extremely high per disabled student. It would likely be much cheaper to help each disabled student on an individual basis than requiring all the material to be rewritten, re-formatted and reprogrammed (à la one famous example).

An even greater absurdity is that online materials are typically much easier to access than classroom materials even when they do not fully meet accessibility rules. How many teachers, for example, come with captions? (And in multiple languages?) How about volume control? How easy is it for the blind to get to campus? In theory, in-class materials are also subject to the ADA but in practice everyone knows that that is basically unworkable. I guarantee, for example, that professors throughout the UC-system routinely show videos or use powerpoints that do not meet accessibility guidelines. Thus, by raising the costs of online education, the most accessible educational format, the ADA may have the unintended consequence of slowing access. Put simply, raising the costs of online education makes it more difficult for anyone to access educational materials including the disabled.

Addendum: By the way, if you are wondering, all of MRU’s videos for our Principles of Microeconomics and Principles of Macroeconomics courses are captioned in English and most are also professionally captioned in Spanish, Arabic and Chinese.

This post first appeared at Marginal Revolution.

Alex Tabarrok is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He blogs at Marginal Revolution with Tyler Cowen.

3 thoughts on “The ADA Attack on Online Courses Hurts the Disabled, Too – Article by Alex Tabarrok

  1. This is simple tyranny. The school should tell the gov’t to drop dead. If anyone from the gov’t tries to impede the functioning of the school they should be jailed or shot.

    Enslavers always try to justify their tyranny be saying they’re acting for the “common good,” “greater good,” “public good,” etc. But these are false and evil social ideals. Even if they weren’t, gov’t has no right to tell schools how to educate or behave.

  2. Greetings, Mr. Zantonavitch. While I agree that the US Department of Justice has no justification for dictating the content or format of online courses to universities, and I also agree that the threat to sue Berkeley and other schools that offer free online courses is a dire imposition and attempt at prior restraint of Constitutionally protected free speech, I also strongly oppose any calls to violence. The proper way to resolve this situation is through a vocal defense of the existing free online course offerings – through speech, writing, and – if necessary for the affected schools – through the court system in hopes of establishing a precedent against this ridiculously expansive reading of the ADA. Enough public outcry against the US Department of Justice’s threats might lead the Department of Justice to relent, realizing how unpopular this attempt to restrict access in the name of broadening access would be. Violence on any side for any reason would, however, be counterproductive in the extreme to the goal of protecting the rights of universities to offer as many online courses as they decide and in the manner/format(s) they see fit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.