NAD Sues Harvard and MIT Over Online Captioning Access
Author: Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center
Published: 2015/02/12 - Updated: 2026/05/18
Publication Type: Announcement
Category Topic: Laws and Rights - Related Publications
Contents: Synopsis - Introduction - Main - Insights, Updates
Synopsis: This report describes two federal class action lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts by the National Association of the Deaf and four deaf and hard of hearing plaintiffs against Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, alleging that both institutions violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to caption the public online content they offer for free, including massive open online courses, full semester lecture series, campus talks, and podcasts such as the Harvard Business Review's "HBR IdeaCast." It quotes NAD CEO Howard A. Rosenblum, attorneys from the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and the Disability Law Center, who argue that federal civil rights protections extend to online programs and services and that uncaptioned or inaccurately captioned video effectively excludes roughly 48 million Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing. The article notes that the suits seek injunctive reform rather than monetary damages. The information is useful for deaf and hard of hearing students, disability rights advocates, accessibility professionals, and university administrators tracking how the ADA and Section 504 apply to digital learning - Disabled World (DW).
- Topic Definition: NAD Lawsuits Against Harvard and MIT
The NAD lawsuits against Harvard and MIT refer to two federal class action complaints filed in 2015 by the National Association of the Deaf and four individual plaintiffs in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, alleging that the universities discriminate against deaf and hard of hearing users by offering vast libraries of free public online content - including massive open online courses, lectures, campus events, and podcasts - without accurate closed captioning, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The cases seek injunctive relief rather than damages, asking the courts to require both institutions to caption their publicly available audio and video so that approximately 48 million Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing have equal access to the same educational programming offered to the general public.
Introduction
National Association of the Deaf Sues Harvard and MIT for Discrimination
The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) and four deaf and hard of hearing individuals filed two federal class action lawsuits against Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), charging that the schools discriminate by failing to caption the vast array of online content they make available to the general public, including massive open online courses (MOOCs).
Main Content
The cases, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, assert that these universities violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by denying deaf and hard of hearing people access to thousands of videos and audio tracks that each university makes publicly available, for free, on broad-ranging topics of general interest. These include entire semesters'-worth of courses; campus talks by luminaries such as President Barack Obama; and regular podcasts such as the "HBR IdeaCast" by the Harvard Business Review. The universities boast that their content is available free to anyone and that millions of people have visited the websites.
"Online content represents the next frontier for learning and lifelong education," said Howard A. Rosenblum, NAD's CEO. "Yet both Harvard and MIT betray their legendary leadership in quality education by denying access to approximately 48 million Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing."
"Federal law prohibits MIT and Harvard from denying individuals with disabilities the benefits of their programs and services, including those provided to the public on the Internet," said Timothy Fox, of the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center in Denver, explained.
"It is right that Harvard and MIT, which both receive millions of dollars of federal tax support, are mandated by our civil rights laws to provide equal access," said Bill Lann Lee, plaintiffs' lawyer and a former head of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. "These laws apply whether in a brick and mortar classroom, or online," Lee explained.
Arlene Mayerson, of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund said;
"The ADA was passed to make sure that these opportunities for learning are not foreclosed based on disability. Having no captions is equivalent to stating 'people with disabilities may not enter.'"
Christine M. Griffin, of the Disability Law Center in Boston, said;
"Our hope is that this lawsuit will set an example for other universities to follow. These lawsuits seek to have the schools reform their conduct, not money damages."
Many videos simply aren't captioned at all. For example, a 2013 Harvard Q&A with Bill Gates lacks closed captions.
"Worse still," said attorney Fox, "are videos with inaccurate captioning - they are sometimes completely unintelligible."
He cited a video of students welcoming Lady Gaga to the Harvard campus, where a student said, "...on our campus..." but was transcribed as saying, "hot Campen good."
Insights, Analysis, and Developments
Editorial Note: The questions raised in these filings reach well beyond two universities, since the same captioning gaps and auto-generated transcription errors that exclude deaf and hard of hearing users from elite MOOCs are widespread across higher education, public broadcasting, and corporate training platforms. As more learning, professional development, and civic information moves online, accurate captions, transcripts, and accessible media players are increasingly the difference between full participation and effective exclusion. Institutions producing public video content should treat accessibility as a baseline production cost rather than a retrofit, and viewers who encounter persistent barriers can file complaints with the U.S. Department of Justice or the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to put their experiences on the record - Disabled World (DW).Attribution/Source(s): This quality-reviewed publication was selected for publishing by the editors of Disabled World (DW) due to its relevance to the disability community. Originally authored by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center and published on 2015/02/12, this content may have been edited for style, clarity, or brevity.