|
|
|
|
|
by neoburkian
2967 days ago
|
|
I'm accepting that the bootcamp is legally required to provide an interpreter. I'm questioning whether or not that requirement is a 'reasonable' accommodation. The bootcamp probably graduates around 60 people per year, this is the first deaf applicant they have likely ever had. It may be reasonable for large institutions to have dedicated personnel for less than one percent of their customers given that their customer base is so large. That calculation becomes financially unworkable in smaller organizations. The fact that you resort to ad-hominem without addressing the example is telling. It terrifies me that people endorse the de-facto destruction of a commons just because a tiny fraction of the population can't use it. EDIT:
Some have pointed out that saying an argument is disgusting is not ad-homanim. This is correct, and I was wrong to use it in that way. However, I stand by the second part of the last paragraph. |
|
Universities receive public funds to operate in the public benefit. Our society has laws to ensure that we don’t just leave people with disabilities behind.
If bootcamps can’t “disrupt traditional education” without providing the same social benefits and complying with the law, then that’s a house that (metaphorically) needs burnin’ down.