<p>I read a blog post the other day about a deaf student and her experiences in a film class. Apparently, she was completely deaf, yet her professor refused to use subtitles for the films in class saying that it would “ruin the cinematic experience.” Eventually, she was able to work out a deal where she could watch the films on her own with the subtitles on, but she had to make sure to return the films before they would be screened. Unfortunately, the disability office in the school didn’t end up doing much to help with the situation.</p>
<p>Assuming that the story is true, I was shocked by the pretense of the professor, and I can’t believe a disabled student was allowed to be treated that way. Is it just me, or was what happened completely unjustifiable?</p>
<p>Here’s what I guess might be the prof’s case: subtitles affect the experience of watching a film because the text appears a nanosecond before the actor speaks the same words with more nuance and emotion. Also, captions interrupt the cinematographer’s artistry of the full visual screen photograph. </p>
<p>But I’d side with the student. In my experience, unless it’s a foreign language film, I don’t need English captions so soon begin to ignore them. I’ve noticed this watching English-captioned movies and close-captioned shows on a TV with hearing-impaired relatives. </p>
<p>The professor strikes me as priggish here. Each student is important. It sounds to me that the deaf student must view the film independently and alone, so is losing some of the educational experience to see it within an audience and observe others’ reactions. I’d make a case that the prof is depriving the student of educational value by making her view alone.</p>
<p>So even though I see the professor’s point artistically, I’d argue with him a lot on behalf of the deaf student to show the captioned film to the entire class. I’d also argue that he’d benefit some students with slight English Second Language needs by displaying the English captions. </p>
<p>Sounds like a professor who needs to get over him/herself.</p>
<p>Assuming this happened, and assuming it happened at a public university (not sure about the enforcement history against private Us), ADA would seemingly apply here. ADA is about equality of access, and mandates reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodations for deaf students generally include interpreters in classes and at university sponsored events. I would argue that closed captioning would be a reasonable and, hence, legally required accommodation, but at the very least the student should have been provided an interpreter so that she could participate in the class as all other students are allowed to. The law is fairly straightforward in this regard, and is fairly broadly applied, so it would shock me that a university’s disability services office wouldn’t be able to do anything.</p>
<p>IMHO, that Professor is acting like a jackass and needs to be taken down a peg or two by the disability office. Unfortunately, it seems they cannot be bothered to do their job. What an a<em>&&</em>(e!</p>
<p>This really sets me off because that Prof reminds me of a jackass HS teacher who attempted to deny an older HS classmate with documented disabilities the extra test time he was lawfully entitled to and only complied when the NYC Board of Ed ORDERED HIM TO grant that extra time.</p>
<p>My experience has been different. Even though I am a native English speaker and I don’t have a significant hearing problem (that I know of), I always use subtitles when I can because I find that I am always missing out on crucial pieces of dialogue.</p>
<p>I have seen movies where some of the dialogue was unintelligible due to loud background music or noise in the scene, or because the actors were mumbling. It really helped to see the movie again, or ask someone what that parting shot was that the actor said under his breath, because I didn’t hear it the first time!</p>
<p>So subtitles could help anyone. Unless the INTENT of the filmmaker was to be obscure or something. In that case, excuuuse me for being an ignorant filmgoer! :D</p>
<p>I think the ADA rules with deaf and HOH can be stretched (and are) because they have the option of assimilating or going to a school for the deaf. Frequently they try to survive in an environment that caters to hearing and non-hearing, but many realize they need to be at a school just for the deaf.</p>
<p>It does sound like the scenario described by OP accommodated the student, but just in a way that isn’t to the OP’s liking. Perhaps there should have been somebody signing for the student. Subtitles weren’t the ONLY option.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with a professor making a decision that is best for the majority of the students. If each student is important (which I believe they are!) then we must remember that this deaf student is not the only one who is affected.</p>
<p>I find that when the subtitles are on, I spend more time trying to read them than I do paying attention to the action going on.</p>
<p>From reading threads on this board, I know of lots of cases of college profs not giving accomodations. Not good, but not surprising.</p>
<p>H is pretty hard of hearing, so we have the subtitles on a lot. When we get to the “unintelligible diaglogue” parts that we can understand with the subtitles, I always wonder if we were supposed to understand.</p>
<p>I would think if he refuses subtitles, there would have to be an interpreter offered. It is interesting to me that apparently none of the classmates of this student spoke up in protest… We have a deaf student at our school, and after 3 grades most of her classmates now are fairly fluent in basic ASL conversation, which is pretty darn cool.</p>
<p>Well, we seem to be ignoring that an accommodation was provided. The student was given access to the films with subtitles. ADA requires access. She was given that. ADA requires reasonable accommodation be made. I think the institution could successfully argue that the accommodation was reasonable. It was not ideal, but the law doesn’t require ideal. </p>
<p>Whether or not we think the professor was horse’s rump is immaterial. WHether we think the accommodation could have been better is immaterial. What matters is, under the law, did the institution meet the requirment of requiring equal access to the course material. </p>
<p>By the way, if a student refuses a reasonable accommodation, the instituion does not have to provide a different one.</p>
<p>Generally, the Americans With Disabilities Act (a federal law) requires reasonable accommodation. It sounds as though this was not provided at first, and that the disability office in the school is not doing what is required. The school risks losing federal funds and faces legal penalties for things like that.</p>
<p>I think unless we were there, we don’t know the entire story. The student was given accomodation. Did the student thne go on to take up entire class time? Just becuase someone is deaf doesnt mean they can not also be annoying and unreasonable.</p>
<p>Put down the torches and pitchforks and vats of boiling tar. Poster #12 comments on the fact that accommodation was made, outside of the normal classroom along the lines of what ADA requires.</p>
<p>A better solution would be to have the deaf student watch the film with subtitles on her laptop while the non-subtitles version was shown to the class. Then, she would not miss out on discussion and such.</p>
<p>I see now. jym, you were ahead of our time:)</p>
<p>I am being snarky but if it’s something people can resolve on their own, why don’t they just do it instead of making political issues out of everything?</p>