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.
Bhattacharya suggested that this was contradictory, since a slide in her presentation had defined microaggressions as negative interactions with members of marginalized groups. Adams and Bhattacharya then clashed for a few minutes about how to define the term. It was a polite disagreement. Adams generally maintained that microaggression theory was a broad and important topic and that the slights caused real harm. Bhattacharya expressed a scientific skepticism that a microaggression could be distinguished from an unintentionally rude statement. His doubts were well founded given that microaggression theory is not a particularly rigorous concept.
But Nora Kern, an assistant professor who helped to organize the event, thought Bhattacharya's questions were a bit too pointed. Immediately following the panel, she filed a "professionalism concern card" — a kind of record of a student's violations of university policy.
"This student asked a series of questions that were quite antagonistic toward the panel," wrote Kern. "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."
According to Bhattacharya's lawsuit, the concern card generated interest from an assistant dean in the medical school, who emailed him and offered to meet. The assistant dean assured him that "I simply want to help you understand and be able to cope with unintended consequences of conversations."
Bhattacharya responded that contrary to anyone's assertions, he had not lost his temper or become frustrated with the panel:
Your observed discomfort of me from wherever you sat was not at all how I felt. 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.Then a dean of student affairs asked to meet as well.
Meanwhile, the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee met to to discuss the concern card. This committee voted to send Bhattacharya a written reminder to "show mutual respect" to faculty members and "express yourself appropriately." The committee also suggested that he get counseling.
On November 26, this suggestion became a mandate: The student was informed that he must be evaluated by psychological services before returning to classes. Bhattacharya repeatedly asked university officials to clarify what exactly he was accused of, under whose authority his counseling had been mandated, and why his enrollment status was suddenly in doubt, according to the lawsuit. These queries only appear to have made UVA officials more determined to punish him: Bhattacharya's mounting frustration with these baseless accusations of unspecified wrongdoings was essentially treated as evidence that he was guilty. At his hearing, he was accused of being "extremely defensive" and ordered to change his "aggressive, threatening behavior."
He was ultimately suspended for "aggressive and inappropriate interactions in multiple situations." On December 30, UVA police ordered him to leave campus.
UVA's administration engaged in behavior that can be described as "gaslighting." Administrators asserted that Bhattacharya had behaved aggressively when he hadn't, and then cited his increasing confusion, frustration, and hostility toward the disciplinary process as evidence that he was aggressive. And all of this because Bhattacharya asked an entirely fair question about microaggressions, a fraught subject.
His lawsuit contends that UVA violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for speaking his mind. UVA filed a motion to dismiss the case, but a district court judge ruled that the suit could proceed.
"Bhattacharya sufficiently alleges that Defendants retaliated against him," wrote the court. "Indeed, they issued a Professionalism Concern Card against him, suspended him from UVA Medical School, required him to undergo counseling and obtain 'medical clearance' as a prerequisite for remaining enrolled, and prevented him from appealing his suspension or applying for readmission."
It is vital that UVA lose this case, and lose badly. Students must have the right to question administrators about poorly formed concepts from social psychology without fearing that they will be branded as threats to public order. That's the difference between a public university and an asylum.
Reader Comments
R.C.
Just skimming through the article, it sounds like Dr. P. should have been a lawyer. I'm impressed.
RC
Ps, Yupo, supra: It's not an 'old story' now. As is more common than anyone can imagine, the lower court said 'he didn't have a case.' BUT, he just won that appeal and the trial court has been ORDERED to let him present his case to a trier of fact. (Colloquially known as 'his day in court.')
That's a big deal!
Kudos Dr. P!
RC
RC
Yes, it's all quite beyond scary.
For some interesting stuff (call it a strange distraction if you wish) check the posts I've just now exchanged with Joyly, CW et al. At the Joyly reply, I post links to some of the other comments, all within the last half hour.)
(I easily lose track of stuff like this so I hope these links are the right ones - I'm trying to get this out while these events are ongoing.)
New nova visible in Cassiopeia constellation discovered by amateur astronomer
At around 7 P.M. JST on the evening of March 18, Japanese amateur astronomer Yuji Nakamura spotted something strange: A new point of light in the familiar constellation Cassiopeia the Queen....Here's where I provide her links to other comments in that time frame:
A Damned Murder Inc: Kennedy's Battle Against the Leviathan
The Eisenhower presidency would see Washington taken over by business executives, Wall Street lawyers, and investment bankers — and by a closely aligned warrior caste that had emerged into public...Just FYI if you're interested. If not, no worries.
RC
she very recently got herself in the crosshairs of one of these committees (over absolutely nothing), and a serious big deal it is! Well, it sure snapped her out of it, enough to rethink her plans for professional training at a school in the same league. I hope she will rethink a whole lot of other stuff, too. I'm watching with interest, standing by to help if she needs a specialty attorney, etc.
Somewhere, (I forget where) I recently commented here at SOTT where I told a story about a great professor I had in undergrad.
Just a thought but it seems to me (I actually don't know this) that good universities down here in the South* would have the greatest resistance/inertia/lack of 'woke' momentum that they are probably (and still) far more reasonable, libertarian, etc.
Also, girls love Florida. (Too damn hot for me.)
RC
*I think the grammarianesque** types (God, I hate 'em ) would say that should be "south." To them I say...
** "grammatarianesque."?
rc
RC
Brings to my mind, a new Revolutionary War era flag that should be modified and reissued for such proper minded folks: rc
RC