A Medical Student Questioned Microaggressions. UVA Branded Him a Threat and Banished Him from Campus.

Kieran Bhattacharya is a student at the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine. On October 25, 2018, he attended a panel discussion on the subject of microaggressions. Dissatisfied with the definition of a microaggression offered by the presenter—Beverly Cowell Adams, an assistant dean—Bhattacharya raised his hand.

Within a few weeks, as a result of the fallout from Bhattacharya's question about microagressions, the administration had branded him a threat to the university and banned him from campus. He is now suing UVA for violating his First Amendment rights, and a judge recently ruled that his suit should proceed.

Here was what the student said.

"Thank you for your presentation," said Bhattacharya, according to an audio recording of the event. "I had a few questions, just to clarify your definition of microaggressions. Is it a requirement, to be a victim of microaggression, that you are a member of a marginalized group?"

Adams replied that it wasn't a requirement.


https://reason.com/2021/04/07/microaggressions-uva-student-kieran-bhattacharya-threat/

I despair at what is happening in the west with Universities

More to read on link

All for political power. We're all pawns in their stupid fucking games.

The University of Virginia, lately, has been a creature of the Koch Bros.  David Koch tried to make the revered Charlottesville university into his own conservative think-tank.

When David met massive resistance from the faculty of that ancient institution (started by Thomas Jefferson), he retreated and started funding upstart George Mason University—a spin-off of the University of Virginia—instead.  See, MacLean, Nancy, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America (2017).  The Boston Review comments:

Boston Review wrote:…the University of Virginia's status as a bastion of white supremacy and white-supremacist-validating scholarship is exactly what was at issue both during the period MacLean writes about it and today…

David, now deceased, has left the University of Virginia in a heap of ideological controversy.  By asking his question, Kieran Bhattacharya stirred up an old controversy: “…can negative or hostile communication be only toward the marginalized group?”  That’s basically the philosophical question of whether affirmative action is, in fact, discrimination, as we have been discussing it here.

I can imagine, at the University of Virginia these days, that question had the effect of dropping an F-bomb at a Baptist prayer meeting.  Had he asked the question at any other bee-hive, it could not have aroused more controversy and vicious reaction.

Maddog wrote:All for political power. We're all pawns in their stupid fucking games.

Its a joke mate

We rightly speak out against the far right, but Universities have been captured by the far left

This is authoritarian madness

I cannot believe people still think far leftism is okay

Its as abhorrent as far rightism

People never learn from history

Original Quill wrote:The University of Virginia, lately, has been a creature of the Koch Bros.  David Koch tried to make the revered Charlottesville university into his own conservative think-tank.

When David met massive resistance from the faculty of that ancient institution (started by Thomas Jefferson), he retreated and started funding upstart George Mason University—a spin-off of the University of Virginia—instead.  See, MacLean, Nancy, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America (2017).  The Boston Review comments:

Boston Review wrote:…the University of Virginia's status as a bastion of white supremacy and white-supremacist-validating scholarship is exactly what was at issue both during the period MacLean writes about it and today…

David, now deceased, has left the University of Virginia in a heap of ideological controversy.  By asking his question, Kieran Bhattacharya stirred up an old controversy: “…can negative or hostile communication be only toward the marginalized group?”  That’s basically the philosophical question of whether affirmative action is, in fact, discrimination, as we have been discussing it here.

I can imagine, at the University of Virginia these days, that question had the effect of dropping an F-bomb at a Baptist prayer meeting.  Had he asked the question at any other bee-hive, it could not have aroused more controversy and vicious reaction.

So you're making an excuse for this atrocity?

Per as usual, you and your thinking keep holding us back.

Oh my...crocodile tears.

Oh dear. “Microaggression.”  Yet another silly wokeism (as Humpty Dumpty famously told Alice in Through the Looking Glass: When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less) that has been  invented by the perpetually offended to cover every perceived offence, real or imagined, to ensure that they never run out of opportunities to complain about being offended.

In my days, university students were encouraged (and taught) to question, discuss, research the facts and reach a sensible conclusion.

I’ve just read a social media post from an ardent (and obviously quite batty) extreme feminist carrying out a vicious character association on some poor unsuspecting sod who committed the unforgivable “microaggression” of offering her his seat on a bus!

Thank God I’ll probably shuffle off this mortal coil before this sort of lunacy becomes punishable by being put in the stocks and and pelted with rotten fruit.

Fred M. wrote:Yet another silly wokeism (as Humpty Dumpty famously told Alice in Through the Looking Glass: When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less) that has been invented by the perpetually offended to cover every perceived offence, real or imagined, to ensure that they never run out of opportunities to complain about being offended.

'Wokeism' is generally associated with the LW, as it is a disparaging term for attentiveness to claims for equality and representation from minority groups. But here, all the noise comes from the RW.

The University of Virginia has replaced the University of Chicago as the far-right bastion of academic discussion.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:Yet another silly wokeism (as Humpty Dumpty famously told Alice in Through the Looking Glass: When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less) that has been  invented by the perpetually offended to cover every perceived offence, real or imagined, to ensure that they never run out of opportunities to complain about being offended.

'Wokeism' is generally associated with the LW, as it is a disparaging term for attentiveness to claims for equality and representation from minority groups.  But here, all the noise comes from the RW.

The University of Virginia has replaced the University of Chicago as the far-right bastion of academic discussion.

Exactly why I quoted Lewis Carroll, old chap!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

'Wokeism' is generally associated with the LW, as it is a disparaging term for attentiveness to claims for equality and representation from minority groups.  But here, all the noise comes from the RW.

The University of Virginia has replaced the University of Chicago as the far-right bastion of academic discussion.

Exactly why I quoted Lewis Carroll, old chap!

It reminds me of an old professor of mine, who shared appointments at Oxford and Berkeley, David Daube, now deceased, god bless. He became embroiled in the old tale of Humpty-Dumpty. See,
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/daube/steinGreenBag.pdf;

and... https://pachofaunfinished.wordpress.com/tag/profssor-david-daube/

David's specific expertise was the History of Roman Law, not a handy study if you're looking to pass the Bar examination. But I found him fascinating, and developed a close friendship with him. Whenever he was lecturing on the east coast (Princeton, NYU, Columbia) I would manage to get a ticket, and we would share a lunch, etc.

http://publications.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/pubs/proc/files/111p429.pdf

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Exactly why I quoted Lewis Carroll, old chap!

It reminds me of an old professor of mine, who shared appointments at Oxford and Berkeley, David Daube, now deceased, god bless.  He became embroiled in the old tale of Humpty-Dumpty.  See,
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/daube/steinGreenBag.pdf;

and...  https://pachofaunfinished.wordpress.com/tag/profssor-david-daube/

David's specific expertise was the History of Roman Law, not a handy study if you're looking to pass the Bar examination.  But I found him fascinating, and developed a close friendship with him.  Whenever he was lecturing on the east coast (Princeton, NYU, Columbia) I would manage to get a ticket, and we would share a lunch, etc.

http://publications.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/pubs/proc/files/111p429.pdf

I always quote Humpty Dumpty whenever my sometimes infuriating demonstrations of sesquipedalianism are called into question....

I had a hard time believing this reporting from the get-go, so I dug into it further.

It turns out that even the right-leaning New York Post describes what happened in this situation quite differently:

The trouble for Bhattacharya began in October 2018, when the then-second-year medical student attended a panel discussion on the subject of microaggressions. The term is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority).”

During a question-and-answer portion of the panel, Bhattacharya sought clarification on the definition of microaggression, asking the presenter, assistant dean Beverly Cowell Adams, if only marginalized groups were impacted by it, court records show.

Kieran Bhattacharya sued the prestigious state university for violating his First Amendment rights
Kieran Bhattacharya sued the prestigious state university for violating his First Amendment rights.
campusunmasked.com
Adams said it was a “very good question” and the answer is “no” and then Bhattacharya cut in and said her slide indicated victims of microaggressions must be members of marginalized groups.

“So that’s contradictory,” Bhattacharya said, according to court documents.


“What I had there is kind of the generalized definition. In fact, I extend it beyond that. As you see, I extend it to any marginalized group, and sometimes it’s not a marginalized group. There are examples that you would think maybe not fit, such as body size, height, [or] weight. And if that is how you would like to see me expand it, yes, indeed, that’s how I do,” Adams replied.

“Yeah, follow-up question. Exactly how do you define marginalized and who is a marginalized group? Where does that go? I mean, it seems extremely nonspecific,” Bhattacharya followed up.

Adams replied “that’s intention” and it’s “intentional to make it more nonspecific” while Bhattacharya continued to challenge her, essentially arguing that the definition and logic behind microaggressions were anecdotal and not backed up with hard, scientific data.
Another dean stepped in and told a story about how former peers and colleagues subjected her to “harmless jokes” and microaggressions related to stereotypes about people who come from rural states, like she did.

In total, Bhattacharya, Adams and the other dean debated back and forth on the semantics of the term for just over five minutes during the event.


Beverly Cowell Adams, an assistant dean at UVA
Beverly Cowell Adams was involved in the panel discussion on the subject of microaggressions.
UVA
Later that day, assistant urology professor Nora Kern, who helped organize the panel and was in attendance, filed a “Professionalism Concern Card” against Bhattacharya, saying he “asked a series of questions that were quite antagonistic.”

“He pressed on and stated one faculty member was being contradictory. His level of frustration/anger seemed to escalate until another faculty member defused the situation by calling on another student for questions. I am shocked that a med student would show so little respect toward faculty members. It worries me how he will do on wards,” Kern wrote, court records show.


An assistant dean at the school then asked to meet with Bhattacharya, saying he observed his “discomfort” during the panel and wanted to help him “understand and be able to cope with unintended consequences of conversations.”

The student wrote back and said any perceived discomfort was false.

“I was quite happy that the panel gave me so much time to engage with them about the semantics regarding the comparison of microaggressions and barbs. I have no problems with anyone on the panel; I simply wanted to give them some basic challenges regarding the topic. And I understand that there is a wide range of acceptable interpretations on this. I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this further,” the student replied.

While another dean asked to meet with Bhattacharya, the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee met to discuss the concern card and decided to send the student a letter to remind him to be respectful and professional and to suggest he get counseling.

However, that suggestion soon became a mandate, court records show.

Bhattacharya received an email in late November saying he must be evaluated by the school’s Counseling and Psychological Services Office before he could return to class.

When he asked what exactly he did wrong and under what authority the school could mandate that he be psychologically evaluated, he was invited to attend an ASAC meeting that was convened to discuss his enrollment status, court documents say.

UVA'a academic standards and achievement committee
Bhattacharya was suspended following a hearing with UVA’s Academic Standards and Achievement Committee.
campusunmasked.com
At the hearing, which Bhattacharya claims he was only given three hours to prepare for, the student recorded audio and took photographs of the attendees and was criticized for doing so. He was told the reason for the hearing was because of recent concerning behaviors and interactions at the panel meeting and after.

The group voted to suspend Bhattacharya for “aggressive and inappropriate interactions in multiple situations” and about a month later, UVA police demanded he leave the campus for allegedly making threatening comments on social media platforms.

Bhattacharya later brought a suit against the school, alleging it violated his First Amendment rights, his 14th Amendment right to due process and conspired to interfere with his civil rights and injure him professionally. The school said Bhattacharya didn’t have a claim, calling the allegations “baseless,” and wrote in a brief that he was thrown out because he violated the school’s professionalism standards. A federal judge agreed with the school in part and dismissed every count except for the First Amendment violation, which he upheld, allowing the case to move forward.

A UVA spokesperson told The Post in an email “as a matter of practice, the University does not comment on the specifics of pending litigation” but did say “it is worth noting… the court’s recent ruling is based only on the facts as alleged by the plaintiff, and must accept all of those allegations as true at this stage of the proceedings.”

“All but one of the claims in this case have been dismissed,” the spokesperson continued.

“And we are confident that the remaining claim is without merit.”

***

Reason.com is a biased site, pushing an agenda.

Ben Reilly wrote:I had a hard time believing this reporting from the get-go, so I dug into it further.

It turns out that even the right-leaning New York Post describes what happened in this situation quite differently:

The trouble for Bhattacharya began in October 2018, when the then-second-year medical student attended a panel discussion on the subject of microaggressions. The term is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority).”

During a question-and-answer portion of the panel, Bhattacharya sought clarification on the definition of microaggression, asking the presenter, assistant dean Beverly Cowell Adams, if only marginalized groups were impacted by it, court records show.

Kieran Bhattacharya sued the prestigious state university for violating his First Amendment rights
Kieran Bhattacharya sued the prestigious state university for violating his First Amendment rights.
campusunmasked.com
Adams said it was a “very good question” and the answer is “no” and then Bhattacharya cut in and said her slide indicated victims of microaggressions must be members of marginalized groups.

“So that’s contradictory,” Bhattacharya said, according to court documents.


“What I had there is kind of the generalized definition. In fact, I extend it beyond that. As you see, I extend it to any marginalized group, and sometimes it’s not a marginalized group. There are examples that you would think maybe not fit, such as body size, height, [or] weight. And if that is how you would like to see me expand it, yes, indeed, that’s how I do,” Adams replied.

“Yeah, follow-up question. Exactly how do you define marginalized and who is a marginalized group? Where does that go? I mean, it seems extremely nonspecific,” Bhattacharya followed up.

Adams replied “that’s intention” and it’s “intentional to make it more nonspecific” while Bhattacharya continued to challenge her, essentially arguing that the definition and logic behind microaggressions were anecdotal and not backed up with hard, scientific data.
Another dean stepped in and told a story about how former peers and colleagues subjected her to “harmless jokes” and microaggressions related to stereotypes about people who come from rural states, like she did.

In total, Bhattacharya, Adams and the other dean debated back and forth on the semantics of the term for just over five minutes during the event.


Beverly Cowell Adams, an assistant dean at UVA
Beverly Cowell Adams was involved in the panel discussion on the subject of microaggressions.
UVA
Later that day, assistant urology professor Nora Kern, who helped organize the panel and was in attendance, filed a “Professionalism Concern Card” against Bhattacharya, saying he “asked a series of questions that were quite antagonistic.”

“He pressed on and stated one faculty member was being contradictory. His level of frustration/anger seemed to escalate until another faculty member defused the situation by calling on another student for questions. I am shocked that a med student would show so little respect toward faculty members. It worries me how he will do on wards,” Kern wrote, court records show.


An assistant dean at the school then asked to meet with Bhattacharya, saying he observed his “discomfort” during the panel and wanted to help him “understand and be able to cope with unintended consequences of conversations.”

The student wrote back and said any perceived discomfort was false.

“I was quite happy that the panel gave me so much time to engage with them about the semantics regarding the comparison of microaggressions and barbs. I have no problems with anyone on the panel; I simply wanted to give them some basic challenges regarding the topic. And I understand that there is a wide range of acceptable interpretations on this. I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this further,” the student replied.

While another dean asked to meet with Bhattacharya, the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee met to discuss the concern card and decided to send the student a letter to remind him to be respectful and professional and to suggest he get counseling.

However, that suggestion soon became a mandate, court records show.

Bhattacharya received an email in late November saying he must be evaluated by the school’s Counseling and Psychological Services Office before he could return to class.

When he asked what exactly he did wrong and under what authority the school could mandate that he be psychologically evaluated, he was invited to attend an ASAC meeting that was convened to discuss his enrollment status, court documents say.

UVA'a academic standards and achievement committee
Bhattacharya was suspended following a hearing with UVA’s Academic Standards and Achievement Committee.
campusunmasked.com
At the hearing, which Bhattacharya claims he was only given three hours to prepare for, the student recorded audio and took photographs of the attendees and was criticized for doing so. He was told the reason for the hearing was because of recent concerning behaviors and interactions at the panel meeting and after.

The group voted to suspend Bhattacharya for “aggressive and inappropriate interactions in multiple situations” and about a month later, UVA police demanded he leave the campus for allegedly making threatening comments on social media platforms.

Bhattacharya later brought a suit against the school, alleging it violated his First Amendment rights, his 14th Amendment right to due process and conspired to interfere with his civil rights and injure him professionally. The school said Bhattacharya didn’t have a claim, calling the allegations “baseless,” and wrote in a brief that he was thrown out because he violated the school’s professionalism standards. A federal judge agreed with the school in part and dismissed every count except for the First Amendment violation, which he upheld, allowing the case to move forward.

A UVA spokesperson told The Post in an email “as a matter of practice, the University does not comment on the specifics of pending litigation” but did say “it is worth noting… the court’s recent ruling is based only on the facts as alleged by the plaintiff, and must accept all of those allegations as true at this stage of the proceedings.”

“All but one of the claims in this case have been dismissed,” the spokesperson continued.

“And we are confident that the remaining claim is without merit.”

***

Reason.com is a biased site, pushing an agenda.

Yeah, a free speech agenda. It's biased like the ACLU.

Ben, Reason does a very good job of citing sources. Look at underlined words in the article on their page. You have to read it on their link for it to work.

In this case, the actual court case that has been allowed to proceed is cited in the article.

Read the case and you will see how this guy was gaslighted. He was basically kicked out because they thought his beliefs on microaggressions made him in need of counseling. He challenged their beliefs and that set this whole thing off.

As you can see, the University of Virginia is a boiling hot caldron of controversy right now, highly oversensitive, with a faculty that is uncharacteristically reactionary. Academic politics can get bitter.

It all goes back to David Koch's attempts to influence the political persuasion at the UVA. Read Nancy MacLean's book, it explains it all.

Original Quill wrote:As you can see, the University of Virginia is a boiling hot caldron of controversy right now, highly oversensitive, with a faculty that is uncharacteristically reactionary.  Academic politics can get bitter.

It all goes back to David Koch's attempts to influence the political persuasion at the UVA.  Read Nancy MacLean's book, it explains it all.

Seems like many colleges that have little tolerance for diversity of thought.

No different than say Berkley.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:As you can see, the University of Virginia is a boiling hot caldron of controversy right now, highly oversensitive, with a faculty that is uncharacteristically reactionary.  Academic politics can get bitter.

It all goes back to David Koch's attempts to influence the political persuasion at the UVA.  Read Nancy MacLean's book, it explains it all.

Seems like many colleges that have little tolerance for diversity of thought.

No different than say Berkley.  

Academic freedom prevails in most universities.  That is precisely why the Koch Bros. interference at the University of Virginia elicited such a response and lit this fuse.

Maddog wrote:Ben, Reason does a very good job of citing sources. Look at underlined words in the article on their page. You have to read it on their link for it to work.

In this case, the actual court case that has been allowed to proceed is cited in the article.

Read the case and you will see how this guy was gaslighted. He was basically kicked out because they thought his beliefs on microaggressions made him in need of counseling.  He challenged their beliefs and that set this whole thing off.

The hell it is. Reason has reported that this kid was kicked out because he asked a question or questions about microaggressions.

The full reporting shows that everyone was cool with his questions, they agreed with him in general, but that they felt he became aggressive and, more importantly, that he posted threats on social media.

Reason left all of that out -- because it's fucking biased.

So individual thinking and free speech is no longer required at universities anymore?
Okay then! We are producing nice little robots.

Let’s see how that turns out.

A university at war is like a nation at war: on edge, less tolerant and anxious to strike back.

You saw yourself, during the Iraq war: individual thinking and free speech is the first to go. And yes, we're talking about war.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Ben, Reason does a very good job of citing sources. Look at underlined words in the article on their page. You have to read it on their link for it to work.

In this case, the actual court case that has been allowed to proceed is cited in the article.

Read the case and you will see how this guy was gaslighted. He was basically kicked out because they thought his beliefs on microaggressions made him in need of counseling.  He challenged their beliefs and that set this whole thing off.

The hell it is. Reason has reported that this kid was kicked out because he asked a question or questions about microaggressions.

The full reporting shows that everyone was cool with his questions, they agreed with him in general, but that they felt he became aggressive and, more importantly, that he posted threats on social media.

Reason left all of that out -- because it's fucking biased.

Did you read the case? It's part of the article.

Can you provide the threats he made on social media?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Ben, Reason does a very good job of citing sources. Look at underlined words in the article on their page. You have to read it on their link for it to work.

In this case, the actual court case that has been allowed to proceed is cited in the article.

Read the case and you will see how this guy was gaslighted. He was basically kicked out because they thought his beliefs on microaggressions made him in need of counseling.  He challenged their beliefs and that set this whole thing off.

The hell it is. Reason has reported that this kid was kicked out because he asked a question or questions about microaggressions.

The full reporting shows that everyone was cool with his questions, they agreed with him in general, but that they felt he became aggressive and, more importantly, that he posted threats on social media.

Reason left all of that out -- because it's fucking biased.

Well you clearly did not research that well considering you are a journalist Ben, because on the link I presented is the actual talk is on the link I gave and you could have listened to what happened yourself Ben

So why did you fail to do that?

You can listen from 28:45

https://soundcloud.com/user-381804527/microagressions-presented-by-amwa

Then explain to me how then how the complaint was justified against him?

This all boils down to how his body language was perceived. Are you kidding me?

So yeah mate have a listen and see if the faculty were justified in their actions against him

Sorry that is bullshit they were not and this is the kind of bullshit being seen by the far left in uni's today

So be a proper journalist and actually listen to the talk before jumping to quite poor conclusions and why (Nora Kern, who helped organize the panel and was in attendance, filed a “Professionalism Concern Card” against Bhattacharya, saying he “asked a series of questions that were quite antagonistic.”) did what she did. as there was simple a discussion and it seemed to me they shut him off, because they could not respond to his points

So have a listen and then come back and say what you think before jumping in reaching the incorrect conclusion. As how is it antagonistic to be critical of views. This is shielding the speaker through a mollycoddling nature, which is utterly pathetic

Thanks

Didgee wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

The hell it is. Reason has reported that this kid was kicked out because he asked a question or questions about microaggressions.

The full reporting shows that everyone was cool with his questions, they agreed with him in general, but that they felt he became aggressive and, more importantly, that he posted threats on social media.

Reason left all of that out -- because it's fucking biased.

Well you clearly did not research that well considering you are a journalist Ben, because on the link I presented is the actual talk is on the link I gave and you could have listened to what happened yourself Ben

So why did you fail to do that?

You can listen from 28:45

https://soundcloud.com/user-381804527/microagressions-presented-by-amwa

Then explain to me how then how the complaint was justified against him?

This all boils down to how his body language was perceived. Are you kidding me?

So yeah mate have a listen and see if the faculty were justified in their actions against him

Sorry that is bullshit they were not and this is the kind of bullshit being seen by the far left in uni's today

So be a proper journalist and actually listen to the talk before jumping to quite poor conclusions and why (Nora Kern, who helped organize the panel and was in attendance, filed a “Professionalism Concern Card” against Bhattacharya, saying he “asked a series of questions that were quite antagonistic.”) did what she did. as there was simple a discussion and it seemed to me they shut him off, because they could not respond to his points

So have a listen and then come back and say what you think before jumping in reaching the incorrect conclusion. As how is it antagonistic to be critical of views. This is shielding the speaker through a mollycoddling nature, which is utterly pathetic

Thanks

Bravo, didge

well said

If I were this boy’s parent, I’d look at suing the arse out of them.

Didge and Gels, you two aren't getting what I'm trying to say.

He engaged in the discussion of microaggressions and a faculty member filed a complaint later the same day, because "I am shocked that a med student would show so little respect toward faculty members," saying he was increasingly aggressive.

He says he was dismissed because he dared to question microaggressions. The university says he was being aggressive and disrespectful.

We have a classic he said, she said. You can't conclude he was dismissed because he asked questions about microaggressions based on what we know; there isn't enough evidence.

It might make for a story you both find satisfying, but there isn't enough to back it up at this point.

Ben Reilly wrote:Didge and Gels, you two aren't getting what I'm trying to say.

He engaged in the discussion of microaggressions and a faculty member filed a complaint later the same day, because "I am shocked that a med student would show so little respect toward faculty members," saying he was increasingly aggressive.

He says he was dismissed because he dared to question microaggressions. The university says he was being aggressive and disrespectful.

We have a classic he said, she said. You can't conclude he was dismissed because he asked questions about microaggressions based on what we know; there isn't enough evidence.

It might make for a story you both find satisfying, but there isn't enough to back it up at this point.

Read the court filing.

And without evidence, how can they kick him out of school?

Maddog wrote:And without evidence, how can they kick him out of school?

The evidence exists; I just said it's not available to us. I imagine more will come out.

The school said he made threats on social media. Did he? What did they say? Were they truly threats? Did they pull that out of their ass or big it up?

Ben Reilly wrote:Didge and Gels, you two aren't getting what I'm trying to say.

He engaged in the discussion of microaggressions and a faculty member filed a complaint later the same day, because "I am shocked that a med student would show so little respect toward faculty members," saying he was increasingly aggressive.

He says he was dismissed because he dared to question microaggressions. The university says he was being aggressive and disrespectful.

We have a classic he said, she said. You can't conclude he was dismissed because he asked questions about microaggressions based on what we know; there isn't enough evidence.

It might make for a story you both find satisfying, but there isn't enough to back it up at this point.

No Ben you are missing the point

What led to all this escalating situatiions?

The person being wrongfully reported for claimed perception of agression

None of the other events would have escalated or even happened if he had not been wrongfully pulled up with such a false accusation. The very point you are missing

Of course I would be also pissed and go online on social media if I had been called into a meeting for a claimed agression when as seen from listening to this there was none whatsoever

He was pulled i n for one simple reason. Because they did not like him pulling apart the poor views being presented. The faculty clearly took issue, because they believe in this really ridiculous far left nonsense theories and hence why it was the faculty frustrated and annoyed. Because someone had dared toi challenge the gibberish they were presenting. The issue is the faculty cannot take constructive criticism

That is it period, it had nothing to do with respect. It had everything to do with a mollycoddling nature and trying to shut down an individual having free speech

What you fail to see is all events that led after this was due to the faculty pulling him up simple for being critical of a really dumb concept called micro agressions. Uni's are there exactly for chanlling all ideas, no matter if people dislike and disagree

What happened here was wrong and we are seeing more and more of this happen all the time

@Gelico, thanks

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:And without evidence, how can they kick him out of school?

The evidence exists; I just said it's not available to us. I imagine more will come out.

The school said he made threats on social media. Did he? What did they say? Were they truly threats? Did they pull that out of their ass or big it up?

No screen shots of the threats?

Did you read the court filing that the judge is letting go forward?