Today’s blacklisted American: Student is persecuted by university for asking a question
No longer exists at the University of Virginia
They’re coming for you next: Because medical student Kieran Bhattacharya dared to question the scientific validity of the term “microaggressions” during a panel discussion, the University of Virginia’s School of Medicine began an investigation that accused Bhattacharya of being a threat to others and banned him from the campus.
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.
You can listen to the audio of this exchange here, beginning at about 28 minutes. Bhattacharya is respectful and calm, and is asking legitimate questions. It appears his main concern was the blanket vagueness of the term that allows anyone to claim a microaggression for almost any statement or act.
Apparently, the organizers of the event then decided that his questions were a microaggression in themselves, for which he must be punished.
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.”
In the end the school demanded Bhattacharya get psychological counseling or be banned from the campus. In addition, they used as part of their evidence his own attempts to defend himself, including his repeated requests for some specific charges against him, all of which were never forthcoming.
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 [Bhattacharya’s subsequent] 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.
The university tried to get Bhattacharya’s lawsuit dismissed, but the judge instead dismissed that motion and is allowing the case to go forward.
Any dissent or skepticism to this one component of modern leftist academic thought, designed to close students’ minds to hearing alternative perspectives, can no longer be tolerated in today’s universities. The medical school at the University of Virginia is now apparently a Stalinist camp, where no dissent or open discussion is allowed. And if you try it you will be smacked down for committing a “microaggression” against the new lords and masters of society.
Are you sending your children there? Are you attending the school? If so, you or your kids should get out, now. What this school is teaching is not something any of us want our children to learn.
Have any of your doctors gotten their degree there? If so, you should ask them if they agree with what the UVA is doing to Bhattacharya, and if they say yes, you better find another doctor. One should have grave doubts about such a doctor’s training or medical competence.
And is any state money being used by this school as it squelches free speech and independent thought? If so, maybe you need to find out what your state elected officials are going to do about it. Or maybe you should vote in different state elected officials who might better represent both you and the Bill of Rights.
Time is growing short. The people in America who still believe in liberty and free speech had been become outraged or there will no longer be any such thing left.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
No longer exists at the University of Virginia
They’re coming for you next: Because medical student Kieran Bhattacharya dared to question the scientific validity of the term “microaggressions” during a panel discussion, the University of Virginia’s School of Medicine began an investigation that accused Bhattacharya of being a threat to others and banned him from the campus.
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.
You can listen to the audio of this exchange here, beginning at about 28 minutes. Bhattacharya is respectful and calm, and is asking legitimate questions. It appears his main concern was the blanket vagueness of the term that allows anyone to claim a microaggression for almost any statement or act.
Apparently, the organizers of the event then decided that his questions were a microaggression in themselves, for which he must be punished.
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.”
In the end the school demanded Bhattacharya get psychological counseling or be banned from the campus. In addition, they used as part of their evidence his own attempts to defend himself, including his repeated requests for some specific charges against him, all of which were never forthcoming.
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 [Bhattacharya’s subsequent] 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.
The university tried to get Bhattacharya’s lawsuit dismissed, but the judge instead dismissed that motion and is allowing the case to go forward.
Any dissent or skepticism to this one component of modern leftist academic thought, designed to close students’ minds to hearing alternative perspectives, can no longer be tolerated in today’s universities. The medical school at the University of Virginia is now apparently a Stalinist camp, where no dissent or open discussion is allowed. And if you try it you will be smacked down for committing a “microaggression” against the new lords and masters of society.
Are you sending your children there? Are you attending the school? If so, you or your kids should get out, now. What this school is teaching is not something any of us want our children to learn.
Have any of your doctors gotten their degree there? If so, you should ask them if they agree with what the UVA is doing to Bhattacharya, and if they say yes, you better find another doctor. One should have grave doubts about such a doctor’s training or medical competence.
And is any state money being used by this school as it squelches free speech and independent thought? If so, maybe you need to find out what your state elected officials are going to do about it. Or maybe you should vote in different state elected officials who might better represent both you and the Bill of Rights.
Time is growing short. The people in America who still believe in liberty and free speech had been become outraged or there will no longer be any such thing left.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
“In the end the school demanded Bhattacharya get psychological counseling or be banned from the campus.”
A classic technique by the totalitarians – declare any who dare to dissent as being “mad” and lock them up “for their own protection” and to prevent them from “polluting” other minds
“n almost every case, dissidents were examined at the Serbsky Central Research Institute for Forensic Psychiatry[ in Moscow, where persons being prosecuted in court for committing political crimes were subjected to a forensic-psychiatric expert evaluation. Once certified, the accused and convicted were sent for involuntary treatment to the Special Psychiatric Hospitals controlled by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.,
A well-documented practice was the use of psychiatric hospitals as temporary prisons during the two or three weeks around the 7 November (October Revolution) Day and May Day celebrations, to isolate “socially dangerous” persons who otherwise might protest in public or manifest other deviant behavior”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union#Examination_and_hospitalization
I just completed my company’s annual harassment and discrimination class. Everything the left does is a violation of the law, but their loophole is “marginalized groups”. If you don’t fit their definition you’re not part of their club.
95% of the people in my department at the company I work at are from India. “Kieran” and “Bhattacharya” are common names in India so I’m guessing he or his parents are immigrants from there.
Hire Lin Wood’s law firm and like Nicholas Sandmann he’ll be set for life.
In this 3 minute segment from a movie about Pope John Paul 2 a Roman Orthodox Priest talks about his 11 years of torture in a Communist prison to be reeducated. It’s marked to start at the 6:35 mark:
https://youtu.be/wLeo_ZG-E7c?t=395
Now grammar teachers have to bite their tongues when someone wants to axe a question-else they get the axe.
As for me-I call Lizzy Bordon an ask murderess and wait to pounce upon any who correct me.
“Isn’t it Borden?”
Shut up, you!
Jeff–
…almost spewed my coffee, onto my keyboard!
–>Hilarious.
(“They” definitely won’t let you & I sit next to each other, in re-education class!)
Half a century ago, it was recommended that we question authority. Now that these same questioners are the authorities, such questioning is seen as microaggressions and must be punished in a macro way.
I guess all good drama is really a horror story in micro aggressions
The Church of Woke is a fundamentalist sect … fundamentalists gotta fundie …
SO being a “marginalized group” qualifies you to do and SAY things that others can’t?? Aren’t we REAL AMERICANS now a “marginalized group”? We’re being harassed and persecuted by an illegitimate junta that was INSTALLED by corrupt means so that makes US a “marginalized group” and should be exempt from any QUESTIONING of our thoughts and comments!! Can’t have it both ways dems!!
It is clear, social justice means injustice, politically correct means incorrect, they don’t hate your speech, they hate you, gender and genetics are not decision based. This all started with 2nd wave Feminists lying to your face and calling you names if you dare disagree. This is our first feminist pandemic, are we having fun?
“I guess all good drama is really a horror story in micro aggressions” Thanks, Chris. I may have to borrow this line to get through to some of the ladies I know, who have trouble seeing what madness now enfolds them.
Maybe if the Powers thwack enough Bhattacharyans, the Hindus of America will reconsider their recent voting patterns (fully 90% Democrat).
The Progressive Left is a dogmatic cult. “Truth” is whatever they say it is. Like Biden’s Iowa state Fair speech: “We choose truth over facts.” Inconvenient reality is entirely outside their bubble of comprehension. Threats to burst that bubble cannot be tolerated. If their “truth” is a geocentric universe, so be it. Once spoken, “the word” is truth. Until it becomes inconvenient, then it’s “That truth is no longer operative. The New truth is…” Like Orwell’s Memory Hole.
I have identified thee representative song from the 70’s that encompasses what went on then, and what in going on right now in America:
https://youtu.be/D5P7x4vh_ts Listen to the lyrics.
And these are ALL manipulations by master manipulators, this is cultural evolution in real time. Good, bad or otherwise.
And the only potential hope in all of this? THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Cotour: And the only potential hope in all of this? THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The Constitution contains HOW we maintain hope – the Declaration of Independence delinates WHAT gives us hope: those unalienable rights, that give legitimate government a reason for being.
Without recognition and respect for the WHAT, on the part of our government and society – above anything else deemed to be the “greater good – we get the folding/spindling/mutilating of the HOW we have seen all our lives.
We have to get back to governance that makes its primary focus respect for those unalienable rights – a solution that, because it is so simple, doesn’t register in the mind of the hero-playing social technocrats.
Point.
But the Constitution is the framework that it all exists within, it is the primary structure.
High ideals and goals are just high ideals and goals without the means to manifest them.
Counterpoint.
The Constitution is the structure built upon the foundation of the Declaration’s self-evident truths, to secure those rights.
We have been remodeling the structure – in most cases skipping the amendatory “permits” for that remodeling – without regard for the foundation, building instead upon penumbras and emmanations to justify our desires. And the ramshackle results show it.
Clarification: When I write “Point” in response to your observation I am indicating my agreement with your point.
“Self evident truths” are concepts of man and remain only concepts of man without the structure that allows their manifestation. The Constitution is the structure without which chaos and death reigns. That is how I interpret and see these things.
Look at it this way. Politics is like an MMA cage match with all and every threatening and or deadly move that a man or woman could ever think of using. And the cage is the Constitution within which the battle rages. The concept of the aspirations of what the MMA would be existed before the cage was built. But they were only concepts.
The battle rages within the structure, and as long as you strive to preserve the structure and within that structure their are certain rules then there is hope that in the end you will not kill each other.
So the battle rages whether their is a structure or not. And I, as you, prefer the structure and it is primary for success. And without it, if there are only aspirations without a way to facilitate those aspirations, there is no hope.
The Romans had no hope, all they had was the transfer of power through warfare and blood, they had no structure.
The rules and structure of the Constitution was what the Roman’s lacked, and the Founders were able to understand, articulate and manifest that key missing piece of the political puzzle.
That is how I see things.
I now better understand your response. Thanks.
I respectfully submit that those self-evident truths are more than concepts of man – they are recognition of the pressure points of human nature: life, happiness, and the freedom to keep the one and pursue the other. Pressure points that are influences upon human conduct transcending cultural/racial/religious differences to be as universal as the law of gravity – no matter how tyrants and fanatics big and small want to ignore that.
When indivduals live in a system that recognizes those truths, they are predisposed to live peaceful and productive lives because these pressure points are not being pushed – and can raise up structures so that indivdiuals face discipline when they seek to get ahead by pressing upon their neighbors’ pressure points.
When those self-evident truths are not respected, pushing the pressure points becomes accepted by those who have the capability to push them … and they are willing to tear holes in the cage to get to them, That has what has happened with our Constitution over the last century or so.
Given enough time and zeal, the teardown can continue to the point of human interactions turning deadly, as we have seen in many places around the world in recent history.
Without individual freedom – and respect for/protection of it by those charged with governance – the only sure peace is that of the grave.
I do not disagree with you.
The structure of the Constitution was designed to withstand everything that you list that threatens it and more.
The more you push against it and try to destroy it the more obvious what is being attempted becomes.
I only make the distinction here that without the brilliant structure of the Constitution none of the ideals that you list could ever be realized. And that is why I prioritize the Constitution over everything else. The structure and rules of the Constitution is the fulfillment and the realization of the ideals.
In this debate I agree with Cotour. The concepts as outlined in the Declaration of Independence might form the heart of the American experiment, but the laws as established by the Constitution made it possible for that experiment to work. The former is only an idea, while the latter is the execution of that idea.
Remember, for more than a decade after the Declaration they had a different constitution, the Articles of Confederation. It did not work well, despite those ideals, and required a major rewrite. The Constitution was the result, and it worked better than anyone could have possibly dreamed.
The Constitution means nothing and protects nothing without moral, ethical citizens. Such is the state of the American nation presently.
The golden rule is restated: do others before they do you.
“The Constitution means nothing and protects nothing without moral, ethical citizens.”. (Not exactly)
The citizens morality? Yes.
But what is being discussed here is the politics and those who acquire and become powered within government.
There are two realms, the Pedestrian Realm where morality exists, and the Political Realm where morality is optional, two very different realities.
From: Strategy Over Morality:
” EXPLANATION: Strategy Over Morality describes a two-tiered “conversation” between a Public and their Empowered Leadership where the Public believes there is only a single, no tiered conversation occurring and that single conversation is assumed by the Public to relate to the Public’s morality and truth model perspective. “
Is Kieran Bhattacharya related perchance to Jay Bhattacharya, MD of Stanford, one of the real heroes of the stand against the Covid-19 groupthink ( co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration)?
When we’re talking about the “Constitution,” which version are actually talking about?
I would put forth the proposition, we’ve dangerously strayed from original manufactures specifications, and have been operating under bizzaro world conditions, for quite some time.
— the 16th amendment — the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
That firewall had to be breached. No way to accumulate 30 trillion in debt without letting the king tax every single thing.
What about the 17th amendment– it turned the Senate into the House of Reps.
If the Senate isn’t responsible to their respective State Legislature, what purpose do they serve?
–>https://conventionofstates.com/
Question: was the Constitution itself – as good as it is – sufficient to stop the stretching of the Commerce Clause via Wickard v. Filburn … or the redefinition of Obamacare’s individual mandate as a “tax” to make it legal and not unconstitutional? The move from assuring civil rights, to the reverse racism we are seeing today?
And adding to wayne’s list of amendments … Prohibition? The fact that one amendment could impose that, and a second could repeal it, is both evidence of our founding citizens’ wisdom to design a fault-tolerant government, and evidence that the design can temporarily allow our rights to be trampled upon … which is not supposed to happen to rights that are unalienable, beyond the reach of even a majority vote, only to be restricted when their exercise tramples upon the unalienable rights of others.
The Constitution is the structure we use to assure respect for those self-evident truths – but it requires that respect as a precondition for its proper use. And the problem behind the problems, is that we have replaced that respect with slavish devotion to today’s flavor of the “greater good”, as defined by those society deems more-equal-than-others.
Such as lockdowns, mask mandates, Church of Woke cancel culture, and destruction via “mostly-peaceful” protests.
Jester–
-thanks for bringing up Prohibition. Not the perfect example of fault-tolerance however, but I’m not going to quibble that point too much.
Unfortunately, these people are diabolical. The lesson they learned from the whole affair, “never let the people have a choice to repeal anything ever again.”
Where it once took an Amendment to outlaw alcohol, now the EPA, FDA & DEA can ban pretty much anything by Administrative fiat.
The Progressive Era
Murray Rothbard
[lecture 9 of 13 The American Economy & the End of Laisse Fair: 1870-WW-2]
https://youtu.be/t-0X81v-NvI
1:27:51
Jester:
“Respect” is a Pedestrian realm term and concept, government or the Political Realm does not respect you, me or anyone else.
Example: The other day in president Biden’s speech he made a related statement that was fundamentally incorrect and either a function of ignorance or manipulation. Choose one. Probably both.
He said: “We (meaning the people of America) we are the government”.
That is correct, but its incorrect and misleading.
We the people are the citizens of America, government is a separate entity and is a direct threat to the citizens Rights and freedoms.
The government IS populated with citizens, but upon becoming politically empowered and imbued with the fiduciary responsibilities that comes along with such an elevation they are transformed. And at that point they become the embodiment of the threat to the citizens freedoms and Rights.
The entity / concept government has no respect, it has no morality, it is necessary, but it is a necessary evil. Be in love with it not.
Once you become aware of these difference in concepts and ideals you tend to see things in an entirely different manner.
From Strategy Over Morality:
“CONCLUSION: The public lives and operates under a subjective moral code or within a “Pedestrian Realm” perspective which they assume their leadership which exists within the “Political Realm” is constrained by. This is a subjective false perspective conclusion on the part of the public. Leadership at its existential core is not about morality, truth and honesty, leadership is about the fundamental exercise of power and survival.”
Time to cut off all funding to these Universities end leftists Brainwashing/Indoctrination by Big Brother
Maybe one of you learned people can help me. I am looking for the provsion in the Soviet Constitution that Stalin relied on to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. It was a subjective exception for actions and statements that were not in the best interests of the state. The interests of the state were, of course, defined by those in power, mostly to mean whatever protected their personal interests. The meaning changed according to their need. It seems to me that Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Google use the idea if “community standards” in much the same way to silence anybody who isn’t in ideological lockstep with their thought police.
Maybe one of you learned people can help me. I am looking for the provsion in the Soviet Constitution that Stalin relied on to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. It was a subjective exception for actions and statements that were not in the best interests of the state. The interests of the state were, of course, defined by those in power, mostly to mean whatever protected their personal interests. The meaning changed according to their need. It seems to me that Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Google use the idea if “community standards” in much the same way to silence anybody who isn’t in ideological lockstep with their thought police.
Why am I getting a rejection for already having said this? I have never been on this site before today.
Thomas: You should read the box right above the reply box. You haven’t commented before and need to be approved the first time.
I am only one person. I ask people to simply have patience.
I see. Well carry on the good fight.