> And they had to take down all their published courses!

No. They chose to take them down, instead of providing reasonable accommodations to those with disabilities.

Choosing to see everything in the most cynical light doesn't make that version of events true.

How is this a better outcome than not having captions on free content? Which can be Auto dubbed on YouTube anyway

Yes but it's stupid to force them to do it. If the state wants to demand this the state can pay for it. To hide free knowledge just because of a few specific pet disabilities... The content is also not accessible to someone with serious enough learning disabilities for example. Should they be forced to create an accessible version of that?

Making giving that away for free instead cost millions of dollars has an obvious and inevitable outcome.

You realize it would cost a significant resources to make the “accommodations” you are suggesting? Money, despite what you may believe, doesn’t grow on trees. Given the range of worthy competing interests where the money could be spent, the university likely had no practical choice but to take it offline, lest it face the bad press and wrath of Progressives.

You remind me of people who insist every single new apartment must be ADA compliant instead of a reasonable percentage throughout the city. Another example is banning SROs on the grounds they are “inhumane”. The moral purity results in less housing and forcing people to live in the cars or on the street.

This is really a tragedy. Make millions of people suffer harm because 1 person cant be accomodated is about as pure an example of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" as i can think.

There is no malicious intent here. Why arent these documents grandfathered in? It simply makes no sense.