Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

Re:Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Co... by sp332 on Thursday February 12, 2015 @01:50PM (#9040538)

MIT and Harvard's "largess" is funded in part by tax money collected from deaf people. Anyway, donating to a a discriminatory cause is still discrimination even if it is generous or well-intentioned.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Co... by SamReidHughes on Thursday February 12, 2015 @05:00PM (#9041643)

What's the "discriminatory cause" you're talking about here?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Co... by sp332 on Thursday February 12, 2015 @05:08PM (#9041690)

It was hypothetical, but I guess you could say that donating courses only to non-deaf people is a cause.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Co... by sadfaceunread on Thursday February 12, 2015 @05:58PM (#9041918)

So what about any charitable effort that discriminates on the basis of a protected class. If you can't do something for free to help one group without excluding some others no charity would be possible. Should MIT/Harvard intentionally avoid captioning? No. Should the government force them to use CCing? Hell no.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Co... by sp332 on Friday February 13, 2015 @10:09AM (#9044666)

Your charitable cause is putting some people at a disadvantage then. If your charitable effort somehow must discriminate, it should do it in favor of the less-privileged group.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Co... by loco5niner on Friday February 13, 2015 @02:07PM (#9046421)

So, I should only help the bottom 1% and not help the bottom 2% - 5%?

[ Parent | on HN ]