Yes. Who can forget the long history of fascists removing ANTI Semites from universities. Someone is gaslighting.

I'm not calling you crazy. I'm calling you wrong. The student wasn't removed for antisemitism.

Not when it’s cops murdering a black man.

That’s why it’s a bad test case like I said, because even you who clearly sympathize with him, don’t want to argue UVA students should be allowed to say the stuff in those posts without counseling. I mean if you do argue it, otherwise you agree with UVA that he needs psych help to be an MD.

It seems like there are two parts to the situation. The first is the initial suspension, which is certainly highly dubious as to it's justification. By itself this would obviously still be a fairly big deal but he could have appealed it and/or re-enrolled the next year. However the second part is the NTO, which did specifically cite social media/forum posts, and seems to be justified if he has anything to do with those 4chan posts. The consequence of the NTO is that the suspension essentially became an expulsion because he was no longer able to appeal it or re-enroll.

Given your line of argument in the other thread about whether or not Chauvin actually broke the law this is a very inconsistent statement. You might think that that there is "clear evidence" of the university breaking the law but the details are far less obvious in this case than the Chauvin one so your position on the two is completely contradictory. You are doing in this thread exactly what you constantly criticise others for doing in that thread.

To be clear, the judge's ruling here is simply that the complaint is at least somewhat plausible, not that there is "clear evidence" that the university broke the law:

I disagree. Some of the facts in this case are indisputable. One, he challenged a speaker's conclusions, and was given a concern card as a result.

The specific criticisms within the concern card indicated that he stated the speaker was being contradictory and using anecdotal evidence, and that was characterized as being hostile. You can listen to the audio, and decide for yourself.


He was reprimanded for his behavior at the speaking engagement, and challenging this concern card with the faculty. As a result they mandated psychiatric evaluation, because they viewed his behavior as hostile and defensive, similar to how he behaved at the microaggression forum.

He challenged the need for psychiatric evaluation, twitch garnered the same response that he was being defensive and hostile.

This led to the hearing, he was challenging the previous indictments, to which he again was called defensive and hostile.

That defensive and hostile behavior was unprofessional to them to which they indicated was why that hearing was taking place.

The judge ruled that all speech involved in this dispute is protected speech. What she didn't state for legal certainty was whether or not it violated his first amendment right, as obviously that would have to be determined by a jury or a judge. However, the judge indicating it's protected speech pretty much makes any of their punitive actions in response to that speech illegal. That 28 minute audio clip clearly indicated what and how he was saying was the behavior they had an issue with. It's a mere formality that UVA is going to lose this. They used his protected speech, at least in part, to take punitive action against him.

The odds of UVA winning the case > the chance Chauvin is cleared of all charges and it's not particularly close.

The level of proof required for a retaliation lawsuit to succeed is incredibly high and, although they happened after the suspension, his online posts make it really difficult to meet the "but-for" standard as it lends credence to other claims regarding his behaviour. It's not enough to show that the speech was protected, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that his suspension was specifically because of his speech and not the manner in which he made the speech and behaved subsequently.

Edit: Covering the last sentence you added, it being "in part" is essentially irrelevant if the suspension can be justified without it.

I don't think you are right:
I also think the standard is preponderance of evidence not reasonable doubt.

This is directly from the judge's ruling in this case (emphasis mine):

I still don't think that supports the argument. They penalize his speech, then he makes more speech, and they use that as the justification for the initial penalties. It's clear the motive caused the initial injuries in this case.

That's only to survive the motion to dismiss.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The part I emphasised was explicitly talking about what is required to succeed in a summary judgement and that the standard was much lower in the judges ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Another quote from the judge's ruling:

It seems fairly clear cut that for the case to succeed at judgement it must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the suspension was due to the content of his speech and not the manner of his speech/behaviour. That's a very high bar to clear.

Reasonable doubt isn't the standard in the civil rights trial, it is preponderance of the evidence, unless I'm missing something. With that said, the card of concern indicated specific words he said "contradiction". I'm not sure how you convey antagonism without words. I guess you can take an antagonistic tone, but to get antagonism, you have to use words. Same thing with being overly-defensive, which they explicitly stated as one of the concerns they had with his behavior in all the interactions they had with them after the microaggression forum.

I also don't think a university simply labeling a students criticisms as hostile is going to fly. With that said the audio that he has demonstrates he wasn't being hostile, antagonistic, or overly defensive in the hearing, or the microaggression seminar. UVA will be put in the position to where they use the events where it wasn't recorded in order to dismiss him. That seems farfetched, because they specifically indicated that the behavior he was exhibiting in the hearing was similar to what he was exhibiting with those two other people that wasn't recorded inextricably linking them.

And this dude does not seem to be a dream plaintiff for being dismissed "unreasonably" due to the content of his speech and not because of his general unprofessional asshatary

Interesting - I heard pretty much nothing but hostility and defensiveness in the hearing audio I listened to.

This guy seems to have an almost pathological inability to read a room. Right wind media is framing it as "student gets kicked out for questioning concept of microagressions" but it's really "student gets kicked out after massive escalation of unprofessional behavior after warning".

This seems more accurate to me. Also there is an authority in college lectures/etc. They dont always have to be correct but it is their job to control any conversation and move things along.

This.

If one is a university student these days, one must learn to patiently endure all manner of nonsense. Best just to (quietly) laugh under your breath at the stupidity , and be a dutiful drone and tell the prof what s/he wants to hear on the exam.

Also, "free speech" does not apply in a classroom. For the student or the teacher.

That 's going far too far. In particular, I remember some very heated and agitated logic lectures.

Unfortunately it does seem that any questioning or dissent of 'woke' issues tends to immediately draw the most extreme charges of 'discrimination'.

On so many forums you see people demonized, shouted down, and unable to even clarify before being judged and expelled as a very bad person with very bad intent.

We have seen that in this forum when trying to be accommodating around trans in sports issues but also sensitive to the needs of bio women. I have seen it happen over debates for safe spaces for Bio women in rape shelters, etc where the presence of a bio man/transwomen, is difficult for them.

There is a strong 'shut up about any challenges', air to a lot of it.

And it really doesn't apply in professional schools. It would be necessary to kick out a Med student who can't shut up about how vaccines cause autism or a law student who tells everybody that income taxes are illegal. I think it's a big difference from PhD programs where I'd have no problem with a creationist getting a degree in cosmology if they can do all the HW problems in a grad level GR text and complete an adequate thesis. There is just no need to protect the public from a crazy cosmologist while the whole point of MDs/JD degrees is to protect the public from people who don't know what they are talking about.

Presumably it also gets old when person number 200 repeats the exact same talking point about indoctrination and lack of free thinking.

Think the game is over.

Seems fair enough. A policeman who donates money to a person charged with murder erodes public trust.

Another example of why there needs to be be employment tribunals

Not at all sure what the finding should be but if funding criminal defenses is common then it might be unfair dismissal.

Well, he used his work e-mail and made a point about being a policeman. Seems fairly straightforward to me.