https://youtu.be/LLCX71sk_MU
I watched this the other day and thought it was a nice talk.

Well, those folks in that 28 minutes never explicitly said what exact behavior he was exhibiting (other than recording the session and his attempt to ascertain the basis the panel was operating on), or what was wrong, other than attempting to characterize his behavior, and they were using/used it to determine whether he stayed in med school, despite him trying to illicit that from them. They gas lit him.


Even if he is a punk, this punk kid gets accused of something, something that is unclear, but requires a assessment from mental health, he attempt to get them to state specifically what is wrong, and they say becasue he is acting abnormal, but unable to explain to him what is abnormal, but essentially calls him crazy for trying to find out.

I think just a blanket "you aren't acting within the professional standards required for continuing in this program unless X Y Z are met" is fine . The school certainly can abuse these powers and the courts are the correct remedy to keep them in check. But this doesn't seem like an instance of that.

The Bottom line is law and medicine need to have very high codes of conduct to protect the field and these borderline individuals because the degree comes with expectations of licences and legal responsibilities for most that finish. It's actually good for him to simply get kicked out now rather than engage in unhinged behavior as an actual physician which it's easy to imagine could venture into criminal conduct.

I find this statement pretty scary.

I haven't followed this closely but it seems you are using very dangerous results based thinking.

It is not ok, imo, to lie about a person's actions that seemed more than reasonable at the time and seek to destroy their life and then say 'after all that was done it turns out we found out he was pretty crazy, therefore our actions based on the prior are justified'.

Indeed it's a very strange approach to justify judgements based on the reaction to it. But it's quite possible there was more cause for concern before the judgement than we have had presented. Or sometimes you convict someone badly and they did it.

This seems like the most relevant section from the article ecriture linked:

His behaviour in the initial micro-agressions lecture certainly shouldn't have resulted in any disciplinary action. The bolded is the most important part though, in that the actual disciplinary hearing had very little to do with that initial issue. Assuming there is actually some evidence of his online behaviour then the disciplinary actions could well have been justified by the panel (as opposed to a purely post-hoc justification). As the author notes though, it raises a tricky question as to how to handle the situation when the initial action was unjustified but the subsequent behaviour raised legitimate concerns.

I don't think that's accurate.


In the 28 minute soundcloud meeting I linked, the student kept trying to get the hearing officials to explain what behavior warranted concern. They highlighted his interactions with two people, students and faculty, while never stating what specific behavior was at issue. Those two people are the ones who told him he needed to get evaluated by CAPS (i.e. mental health) as a response to his behavior at the microaggression forum. Those two meetings were only conducted as response to the microaggression issue. He questioned the mental health requirement, and that questioning is what they are alluding to as troublesome. As mid point through the meeting one of the hearing officer asked if he had an issue with going to CAPS. The idea this is based on social media post, at that point, is bullshit. His questioning of the requirement to get seen by CAPS, is the behavior they had issue with. Just as they seemed to have issues with him challenging them for facts they were using in the hearing.


That article ED linked is bullshit.

Go to 19:40 of the sound cloud link I provided.

Their rebuttal to him challenging them is to call him crazy.

And the issue is he's a student trying to get something (a degree) from UVA. We all agree he he has to obey certain rules to complete UVA's degree program like pass tests, go to class, not cheat not be disruptive or abusive etc. The only issue is whether UVA created an unreasonable rule for him and the burden is on the student to show that they did. Unfortunately for him, his subsequent behavior makes it almost impossible to conclude that the school was being unreasonable given counseling seems like exactly what this guy needs.

I'll also say, I had to complete a 3 or 4 session alcohol counseling program in grad school. I showed up pretty hungover to a TA led study group (mistakenly admitted that) and one of the undergrads filed a complaint with the deans office. I could have flat out canceled the group but I felt bad bc they had a midterm coming up and some might not be able to make it if I rescheduled. My adviser laughed it off and said he would back me up so I probably could have gotten out of counseling if I fought it. But it's just far less work to to jump through the hoops. A lesson you need to apply over and over again in the real world.

In rejecting UVA's motion to dismiss Bhattacharya's lawsuit, the judge said that the legal issue under dispute is whether UVA retaliated against the student for exercising his free speech rights.

Right. A school can kick you out for any reason without involving the courts. If you want a court to force them to let you back in, the burden is on you to show they violated some of your rights.

They did:


All of this occured, and the judge found all speech in question to be protected speech. And, yes, I know it has not been legally proven in court, yet, but the soundcloud of the hearing makes clear this is what occurred. Ironically, the very thing they found "unusual" is one of the things being used to confirm they violated his 1A rights, i.e. recording the hearing.

He’s claiming his first amendment rights were violated. The school is saying they weren’t. The macro non legal view is this guy should not be a doctor and either UVA acted properly to or they need to rewrite/retrain wrt their policies on how to deal with students falling below professional conduct standards.

Admittedly I have not read all the details behind this so I am mostly going off what is in this thread.

But if this student 'should not be a doctor', is it not fair to those reporting him should not work in education and arguably no where in society?

I am far more concerned with a quick willingness to lie about and smear someone to potentially ruin them then i am at their angry reaction to it happening. Again but, fine if he exposed after he should not be a doctor, but what about them and what they did??

The first amendment is the macro view.

Not really. The homophobic and antisemetic stuff is protected by the first amendment but I think we’d all be fine with kicking someone out of med school for it.

See, there's audio evidence demonstrating this isn't the issue the administrators had with him. They specifically said it was his behavior in regards to challenging the microaggression speaker, challenging the demand for him to get seen by CAPS, him challenging them for what specific behavior that led to the hearing in the first place... and you still perpetuate a lie. Just so you know, UVA never cited those social media post (because they weren't discovered until after this went down) in their response to his suit. They essentially called him crazy for challenging them. The social media posts are only being used to discredit him.

The broader issue is not whether or not this guy becomes a doctor or not. This is about the ability of a student to question what he's being taught, and ultimately defend himself from persecution for challenging what he's being taught.

That has far greater implications for students in public universities. The same thing happened in this case too:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...was-questioned

Then get a better test case than this guy who nobody thinks should end up being a medical doctor in the first place. Should be easy if this is such a big problem as you claim.

Me: Clear evidence the first amendment was violated by a public institution.

ED: find a better example.

I didn’t know getting a medical degree was guaranteed under the first amendment.

You: Public institutions are not allowing students to question what they are taught!! See the case of this possibly crazy homophobic anti-Semite who we all agree should not be an MD not being allowed to be an MD!!!

Why stop here? Wrong answers are protected by the first amendment also. Just go after schools for kicking out students that fail exams.

JFC, they mandated psychiatric evaluation based on him questioning the concept of microaggressions. What the f*** is wrong with you people? Then they further penalized him for questioning the need for that psychiatric evaluation.

Maybe they also picked up something in his behavior that indicated he was the kind of person to make those racist homophobic posts and not bat an eye when someone gave him advice one whom to target in a mass shooting.

Nope, they clearly indicated as part of their rationale was his behavior during the hearing, and that was the behavior that was concerning to them, and that behavior was similar to the two faculty he engaged with. That hearing was entirely about him challenging them to articulate what exactly he was being accused of, to which they equivocated and provided zero specifics.

You are lying, and making s*** up to defend a public institution violating a US citizens first amendment rights. There's no other conclusion than you're a fascist, and you're willing to make stuff up to rationalize that fascism.

You’re becoming unhinged. I understand you support the homophobia and antisemetism but universities don’t have an absolute obligation to tolerate that kind of crap.

Now your gaslighting me. If there wasn't any one particular issue on this forum that was clear-cut, this is it and you guys take the side of fascist.