Blind people can’t see the screens of Amazon’s Kindle DX e-readers. This is the rationale the university gave when explaining its refusal to incorporate the device into classrooms. In making this decision, the university has turned a blind eye toward inevitable technological progress, to environmental well being and to students’ financial struggles. Much more on that to come.

But first, a few basic, helpful facts about the Kindle DX, straight from Amazon.com: “It’s $489; it’s just over 1/3 of an inch [thick], as thin as most magazines; it holds up to 3,500 books, periodicals, and documents; New York Times Best Sellers and New Releases are only $9.99, unless marked otherwise; [and] you get free wireless delivery of books in less than 60 seconds.” E-books and e-textbooks, lacking the otherwise necessary printing, packaging and distribution overhead fees, are significantly cheaper to purchase than regular textbooks. The one-time financial blow of roughly $500 for the Kindle DX pales in comparison to the $500-plus many students shell out to purchase antiquated, heavy textbooks on a semester basis. In short, this thing totally kicks ass and looks like the future of books as we know it.

Now, back to business. As reported by the The Badger Herald,”While the Kindle DX provides text-to-speech technology in the reading of texts, the operation of the menu lacks this feature, making the device difficult to use by the blind.” (“UW dismisses Kindles for classroom education”, Nov. 13).

Let’s all take a collective deep breath and ponder all of this for a second. (pause…) Together now: Are you kidding me?! There’s gotta be more to the decision than that. After all, blind people can’t see the pages of regular textbooks, can’t see things posted on Learn@UW, can’t see video clips professors use in class, can’t see PowerPoint presentations used in lectures and, well, you get the point. Many methods professors use to distribute class materials are “difficult to use by the blind.”

We must all then ask: Is this decision even about the equal access to classroom materials for blind students at all? The above examples point to a simple answer: No, not in the least. It just doesn’t make any logical sense whatsoever.

Here’s my theory: this is a convenient way for the university to continue kowtowing to the big money, deep-pocket interests of textbook publishing companies. This decision will help keep them, and the bookstores that sell their books, in business. It is immoral to use a disabled group to disguise a gross capitalistic motive of keeping textbook publishing companies and textbook stores afloat, aiding them in continuing to profit off of the products of yesteryear. Yet, this is what the university seems to be doing.

Also, let’s not forget this: many UW professors have written textbooks and other publications and have a vested interest in continuing to profit off the sweat from college students’ backs (not just from lugging around their heavy textbooks) who struggle financially and take out loans to afford these highly over-priced textbooks. Don’t expect any dissent coming from that direction.

In the Darwinian capitalistic business world, survival of the fittest reigns supreme. Innovative companies prosper (think Google), while non-innovative companies eventually fall by the wayside (think Ford, GM and Chrysler). To borrow the words of The New York Times’ opinion columnist Thomas Friedman and apply them to the university’s Kindle decision, rather than the federal government’s choice to bail out the non-innovative, “sleeping” American auto industry, the university’s decision “will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into the CD music business on the eve of the birth of the iPod and iTunes … [and] as pouring billions of dollars into improving typewriters on the eve of the birth of the PC and the Internet” (“When Detroit Slept,” Dec. 10, 2008). The university is pouring scores of money into book publishers and bookstores when we should have Kindles.

It appears textbook publishing and textbook vendors have convinced the university their short-term monetary interests are more important than long-term technological progress. Instead of being “concerned for the blind,” the university should provide students with an innovative way to purchase cheaper textbooks that would be less heavy to carry to class and better for the environment in the long run by saving paper.

On the verge of extinction, it is foolish to stave off the inevitable demise of the printed textbook, deceivingly and manipulatively using disabled people as a trump card. The only blind people to worry about on this issue are those blind toward the consequences and immorality of their decisions.

Steve Horn ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and legal studies.