1st Amendment lawsuit - UVA Student Questions Microaggressions

[Captain Proton]

As endus already pointed out other people also asked questions... they're not being punished... the issue was the attitude of the person.

Endus also pointed out that the person in question raised his voice... never happened. Also points to the fact that his speech is fast, which is likely a result of nerves and asking the question in front of a group. Dude's attitude was fine. He brought up legitimate points. He did talk over the presentor once at the end when they were skipping over his response. Blaming his attitude is a joke.

[Nellise]

As endus already pointed out other people also asked questions... they're not being punished... the issue was the attitude of the person.

So if he said exactly the same things, but slower and with a smile, it would have been fine?

[Themius]

So if he said exactly the same things, but slower and with a smile, it would have been fine?

Do you suddenly not understand the concept of what it means to berate?

[Nellise]

Do you suddenly not understand the concept of what it means to berate?

Do we have different definitions of berating? Did you listen to the audio? He didn't insult them or cuss them out or anything. He asked questions relevant to the topic being discussed.

Given that they weren't consistent on the definition of microaggression in the presentation (the subject of his first question), that should obviously lead to some probing questions about their research if they're trying to pass it off as scientific.

[Endus]

What does this even mean? He's belligerent and dismissive for asking a question that was a good question but shouldn't be asked because it might show they made a mistake?

No. You keep ignoring what happened to manufacture a fantasy.

He was not disciplined for asking questions. Plenty of other students asked probing questions. He was disciplined for his demeanor and conduct.

Quote me where he disputed their entire body of work, you're making that up.

I fucking am not.

"So the evidence that you've provided, and you said you've studied this for years, which is one anecdotal case, I mean, did you study anything else about microaggressions, that you know, in the last few years?"

"I mean, where are you getting [this places] on this, how are you studying this, collecting evidence on this, and making presentations on it?"

"What you're providing is anecdotal evidence. That's what you provided, that's what she provided."
"No, I think what she's provided is a lot of citations from the literature."

And that's where they cut him off.

That's exactly what he's doing there; disputing her entire body of work and her professionalism as a researcher. If you can't see that, then I have to assume you have no training in academic procedures, because it's really fucking blatant.

(the one bit in square quotes is difficult to make out, he may have just been stumbling on his words, and it wouldn't affect the reading regardless, just explaining why I put them there and why it may not line up with what others hear. I really don't think it's relevant to anything.)

Edit: maybe you've just not been around socially awkward or nervous people so don't know what that sounds like. Half the people in my classes sounded like this guy.

If you're so socially awkward or nervous that you come off this way in public discussions, that's unprofessional conduct. This shit could easily get you fired, with cause, from any professional position, if it's repeated (and this was, over multiple encounters).

So if he said exactly the same things, but slower and with a smile, it would have been fine?

Not the bits I highlit above.

The initial question, asking about where she diverged from the definition of microaggressions that she quoted? That was fine and she gave a full answer that explained it. People keep pretending that question was the problem, and there is nothing that indicates that's the case.

[Nellise]

"So the evidence that you've provided, and you said you've studied this for years, which is one anecdotal case, I mean, did you study anything else about microaggressions, that you know, in the last few years?"

"I mean, where are you getting [this places] on this, how are you studying this, collecting evidence on this, and making presentations on it?"

"What you're providing is anecdotal evidence. That's what you provided, that's what she provided."
"No, I think what she's provided is a lot of citations from the literature."

And that's where they cut him off.

That's exactly what he's doing there; disputing her entire body of work and her professionalism as a researcher. If you can't see that, then I have to assume you have no training in academic procedures, because it's really fucking blatant.

It wasn't covered well during the presentation. The only real examples she gives during the presentation are her own personal ones. She doesn't give any data or other references or citations. Most scientific presentations I've seen have always included a list of citations at the end or footnotes on each slide as things are presented. Obviously, I couldn't see the slides here, but I'm assuming they didn't have any if he had to ask.

edit: The answer "she provided a lot of citations from the literature" is referring to the generic statements she was using as examples, they weren't real data. It's a non-answer. They were made up quotes to illustrate points.

People keep pretending that question was the problem, and there is nothing that indicates that's the case.

I showed you that the first thing listed in the complaint against him was that he asked about a contradiction, which is what his first question was.


I don't think we'll agree on this. I just think it's scary that asking relevant questions during a Q&A section can ruin someone's education just because someone misreads your body language and tone. I think this bothers me because I would ask similar questions when I found something off in a presentation and I suck at speaking in front of people and talk fast and shaky especially if I know it might be slightly controversial. (And maybe I've been to too many Physics lectures where presenters are pounded with questions about the tiniest details.)

[Stormspellz]

y'all are still just as authoritarian as the right wing. y'all still use the same racist justifications to strike out at the race you feel is undesirable in society. yall still use the same degusting tactics of oppression you claim to be against. Enjoy your victory built on the lives of those yall gleefully mislabel and lie about so as to justify them being torn down to society's bottom rung by the mob masses of y'alls movement.

and whats your evidence of this? random no names on twitter with 2 followers? what tactics specifically, your whole game is warped victim complex full of generalizations and little specifics

[Endus]

It wasn't covered well during the presentation. The only real examples she gives during the presentation are her own personal ones. She doesn't give any data or other references or citations. Most scientific presentations I've seen have always included a list of citations at the end or footnotes on each slide as things are presented. Obviously, I couldn't see the slides here, but I'm assuming they didn't have any if he had to ask.

And you've seen her presentation, and know there were no citations, right? Because the other panelist clearly points to her citations, explicitly.

I showed you that the first thing listed in the complaint against him was that he asked about a contradiction, which is what his first question was.

That was a description of the circumstances, not a list of grievances.

Stop trying to rewrite facts.

I don't think we'll agree on this. I just think it's scary that asking relevant questions during a Q&A section can ruin someone's education just because someone misreads your body language and tone.

There was no "misread"; it's audible in the recording.
It wasn't just this one incident. It was repeatedly recurring in subsequent interactions.
It had nothing to do with "asking relevant questions"; that's disinformation.

Also, this isn't an "agree to disagree" type situation. You're ignoring the facts of the case because they're inconvenient to the conclusion you pre-determined you'd hold.

[Krakan]

And you've seen her presentation, and know there were no citations, right? Because the other panelist clearly points to her citations, explicitly.



That was a description of the circumstances, not a list of grievances.

Stop trying to rewrite facts.



There was no "misread"; it's audible in the recording.
It wasn't just this one incident. It was repeatedly recurring in subsequent interactions.
It had nothing to do with "asking relevant questions"; that's disinformation.

Also, this isn't an "agree to disagree" type situation. You're ignoring the facts of the case because they're inconvenient to the conclusion you pre-determined you'd hold.

I think some people just assume a university is a center of education rather the a job certificate printing press.

Some people honestly believe you should be able to challenge anyone's notions it's a silly thing of begone days.

[Endus]

I think some people just assume a university is a center of education rather the a job certificate printing press.

Some people honestly believe you should be able to challenge anyone's notions it's a silly thing of begone days.

Where did you people ever get the idea that academic discussion involved insulting people's research skills in a public question period?

He wasn't "challenging her notions" at that point. The one point where he did, he was answered, he just didn't want to accept her answer.

[Krakan]

Where did you people ever get the idea that academic discussion involved insulting people's research skills in a public question period?

He wasn't "challenging her notions" at that point. The one point where he did, he was answered, he just didn't want to accept her answer.

That is the crucible of airing your ideas publicly it's how you ensure the best ideas survive intellectual darwinism at its finest.

[Endus]

That is the crucible of airing your ideas publicly it's how you ensure the best ideas survive intellectual darwinism at its finest.

No, that's a lunatic concept that has no place in academic discourse, and never has. The way you ensure "the best ideas survive" is through reasoned criticism and peer review. Not upbraiding colleagues publicly without having fully reviewed their research.

What you're talking about is some anti-intellectual concept where you wish just shouting louder and scaring people away means your ideas are "better", which is absolute fucking nonsense.

[Krakan]

No, that's a lunatic concept that has no place in academic discourse, and never has. The way you ensure "the best ideas survive" is through reasoned criticism and peer review. Not upbraiding colleagues publicly without having fully reviewed their research.

What you're talking about is some anti-intellectual concept where you wish just shouting louder and scaring people away means your ideas are "better", which is absolute fucking nonsense.

We simply disagree. You don't get the best ideas by having peers who agree with your outcomes rubber stamp your work.

If you want to air things to the public you accept what that means.

[Endus]

We simply disagree.

The two of us? Yeah, this isn't between the two of us.

I don't know a single university on the planet that operates the way you seem to think they should.

You don't get the best ideas by having peers who agree with your outcomes rubber stamp your work.

Hey, look, a straw man that literally no one argued.

This case has nothing to do with a disagreement with someone's argument. Nothing. It's about the student's conduct, not that he disagreed with a panelist.

[Nellise]

And you've seen her presentation, and know there were no citations, right? Because the other panelist clearly points to her citations, explicitly.

Did you listen to the whole presentation? The only concrete examples given are personal ones by the author. The citations the other person refers to are the generic quotes that presenter used that I've seen in every discussion of microaggressions. That's what they were talking about. Those aren't actual citations like references to other studies. If there were actual citations they could have just said to look at the footnotes or the slide with the citations.

And the reason he had to ask was the presenter only used personal examples which is generally frowned upon in research. Researchers aren't supposed to make themselves a test subject or data point because it introduces a huge source of bias. So that's why he wanted to know about the extent of her research to my best guess.

That was a description of the circumstances, not a list of grievances.

Stop trying to rewrite facts.

If it wasn't relevant to his write-up why include it? "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..." The contradictory part could be left out if it wasn't material to the issue. It adds nothing if that's not part of the grievance. The rest of his questions aren't described so why is that one in particular if they were just describing the circumstances? (And that write-up is incorrect because it was his first question that pointed out the contradiction, so I don't know how he pressed on while asking the first question.)

There was no "misread"; it's audible in the recording.
It wasn't just this one incident. It was repeatedly recurring in subsequent interactions.
It had nothing to do with "asking relevant questions"; that's disinformation.
Also, this isn't an "agree to disagree" type situation. You're ignoring the facts of the case because they're inconvenient to the conclusion you pre-determined you'd hold.

How do you know I was pre-determined to hold any viewpoint? I listened to the audio before commenting and gave my opinion after. Are you assuming I hold some particular viewpoint? You read his voice one way and I read it another based on my experiences in similar situations.

[Antipathy1018]

Given that the disciplinary measures have nothing to do with the content of his speech, he's got more than an uphill battle.

Just for others who want to look, I know the OP linked it I'm just doubling up for clarity, in the audio link in question, the guy starts talking around 28:45. So you don't have to listen to the whole thing (it's just the question period for the panel, not the panel itself).

Having listened to it, he's coming off aggressive and dismissive. Rapid speech, sharp phrasing, raising his voice, etc. Directly insulting to the speaker at one point, calling into question the validity of her research. If that's how the subsequent encounters went, then he's probably up shit creek; repeatedly refusing to adjust his demeanor in encounters with faculty demonstrates that he is the problem.

This case really isn't about speech at all. It's about a student's dismissive and aggressive conduct towards faculty, not the content of what he was saying.

His responses in his own words, challenging the university's authority itself, just underscores how probably-valid the action taken against him is. Hell, trying to make this a First Amendment case probably works to demonstrate what a belligerent guy this is and how completely unwilling he is to take any responsibility for his own poor conduct.

Edit: oh, and Reason's editorializing here is just fucking gross. Hugely biased bullshit. They don't seem to have made any attempt to give UVA's faculty any benefit of the doubt.

Like, they say "all of this because Bhattacharya asked an entirely fair question about microaggressions, a fraught subject." First, microaggressions are only a "fraught subject" for far-right types upset that they're being called to account for hostile conduct. Second, his question was not "fair", he dismissed the panelist's answers and called her research into question based on nothing but his personal desire to discard her findings. Third, not just because of that question, based on "aggressive and inappropriate interactions in multiple situations" as he continued to refuse to amend his conduct as UVA gave him multiple opportunities to do so.

I am just going to say first that you and I apparently have differing views on what it sounds like to be aggressive, maybe I just have a high threshold before I feel someone is being aggressive or hostile.

As for him dismissing her work that only comes after he askes about a contradictory slide in regards to her saying you don't have to be marginalized to be subject to microagressions.

As for it being a "fraught subject" I would contend that it is since it has only been around as a main stream subject since the early to mid 2010's. I know the term was first coined in 1970, but it did not enter any main stream debate or wide recognition till about 5 to 10 years ago or so. Anything regardless if years later is proven to be true needs to be robustly academically and scientifically debated from all angles. Just pointing at a fairly new concept and automatically saying it is a proven fact without such discourse is broken on a fundamental level. For 2 examples look up The Blank Slate theory and Cold fusion as things that were, at the time, believed to be true by many academics of the time, but later turned out to be wrong.

And lastly just by your language alone in your post, things like "just fucking gross. Hugely biased bullshit.", show that you might be a bit biased here and because of that you hear him being aggressive, hostile, and not even viewing his line of questioning as fair, when the faculty member contradicted her own slides during the presentation. You are more concerned by what you perceive as his tone when the 1st Amendment, last I checked, does not take tone of any sort into account.

[Krakan]

The two of us? Yeah, this isn't between the two of us.

I don't know a single university on the planet that operates the way you seem to think they should.



Hey, look, a straw man that literally no one argued.

This case has nothing to do with a disagreement with someone's argument. Nothing. It's about the student's conduct, not that he disagreed with a panelist.

I would hope more did function that was. Ideas can't be protected to the extent you penalize hecklers with anything other then removal from the presentation as the most extreme action.

[Powerogue]

I would think the distinction wouldn't be hard to make between being unintentionally rude and "microaggressions."

When pointed out that you were being rude, do you apologize and attempt to change that behavior in the future?

It hardly seems an unanswerable question to bring up. We should always seek to clearly define terms when having conversations, or we wind up talking past each other.

[Kaleredar]

Where did you people ever get the idea that academic discussion involved insulting people's research skills in a public question period?

He wasn't "challenging her notions" at that point. The one point where he did, he was answered, he just didn't want to accept her answer.

Also worth noting this guy wasn’t exactly her “peer.” He was a student, and she was a professor.

Trying to academically berate a professor in the Q&A section of a lecture probably isn’t the best idea.

- - - Updated - - -

I am just going to say first that you and I apparently have differing views on what it sounds like to be aggressive, maybe I just have a high threshold before I feel someone is being aggressive or hostile.

As for him dismissing her work that only comes after he askes about a contradictory slide in regards to her saying you don't have to be marginalized to be subject to microagressions.

As for it being a "fraught subject" I would contend that it is since it has only been around as a main stream subject since the early to mid 2010's. I know the term was first coined in 1970, but it did not enter any main stream debate or wide recognition till about 5 to 10 years ago or so. Anything regardless if years later is proven to be true needs to be robustly academically and scientifically debated from all angles. Just pointing at a fairly new concept and automatically saying it is a proven fact without such discourse is broken on a fundamental level. For 2 examples look up The Blank Slate theory and Cold fusion as things that were, at the time, believed to be true by many academics of the time, but later turned out to be wrong.

And lastly just by your language alone in your post, things like "just fucking gross. Hugely biased bullshit.", show that you might be a bit biased here and because of that you hear him being aggressive, hostile, and not even viewing his line of questioning as fair, when the faculty member contradicted her own slides during the presentation. You are more concerned by what you perceive as his tone when the 1st Amendment, last I checked, does not take tone of any sort into account.

I’d say you have very little grounds to comment on “bias” if you blindly posted that piece of drek article editorializing the whole affair.

And given the writing caliber of the website you cited, I hope for your sake you don’t frequent it, and instead heard of or found it accidentally. Because holy heck is that some stinted writing.