Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
That's pretty much the purpose of anti-discrimination laws: they say that you can't provide goods or services to the majority in a way that ignores the needs of certain minorities. They can't create a bus line that doesn't have access for people with disabilities, and can't make stores with narrow walkways that can't be navigated by wheelchairs, on the grounds that "it'll be great for most people, and we don't need to deal with the needs of people with disabilities."
Businesses (in my state) are also not allowed to offer "couple's discounts" that are only good for a married man and woman, but not two married men. Nor are they allowed to offer "Free Haircuts For White People."
|
Those cases are not analogous. For one thing, nobody is denying Kindles to the visually impaired people, its just a service that is not as useful to them (not all visually impaired people would find a Kindle useless). Also, presumably, the visually impaired have other services which they can access that allow them to receive a good education, whether this be audiobooks, screen readers, or other technological devices or classroom accomodations. When I was in primary school I was permitted to use the class computer for my writing assignments (on state mandated tests I was allowed to dictate my responses) because of a neurological condition which makes my handwriting illegible. This was an accomodation that was made for me to ensure that I received the education to which I was entitled by state law (and which my parents and the school system were mandated to provide). I think it would have been wrong for some parents to object to this simply because there wasn't a computer for everyone. Similarly, it would be wrong to protest against the visually impaired being provided with screen readers to aid in their education. This argument, however, cuts both ways. It is wrong to attempt to block the introduction of technological aids which could substantially improve the education of non-visually impaired students. Absolute equality is not equity. They are two different concepts. To sacrifice equity for a mere numerical equality is unjust.
Luqman