This is ridiculous for a number of reasons.

well i think kamdar made big mistake using gay slurs he shud have used ethnic slurs and he would not have been suspened. currently in usa gay rights movement is massive and even that dude from gray's anatomy was kicked off the show for using the F word. so sad for kamdar bcoz no employer will hire him either. his career and life is over in USA. time for the flight bak home.

“Sometimes God likes to put two guys in a paper bag and just let ‘em rip.” Gavin (Ben Affleck), Changing Lanes.

He should have called him "cracker," "whitey" or "trailer trash." The slurs would have cancelled each other out in the absurd relativist mode. He blundered by slandering homosexuals, which you simply cannot do in America. What a shame. Another life marred in a moment of idiocy.

That being said, why is he being disciplined and not the person who provoked him in the first place?

My guess is he initiated the physical violence. Just a guess.

On a related note "fagging" is another word for smoking commonly used on Indian campuses.

“After three years of fighting cancer

Hang on, and why is he still smoking? may be its for medical marijuana??

yes risible well said. shud have called him trailor trash or redneck or hillbilly lolzzzz

gay slurs have zero tolerance in American Society.

so sad for kamdar bcoz no employer will hire him either. his career and life is over in USA. time for the flight bak home.

Where in the above article did it say Kamdar is not a U.S. citizen? What flight home and to where? Huh??

As for the expulsion thing, I dunno about AU but some colleges and high schools have you sign a copy of school policies or a pledge of conduct to the effect that you understand that breaking certain rules equals expulsion. VCU has you do that under the honor code for cheating. Perhaps that's the case?

Anyhow, yes, of course I agree with Naina on all her points, however, speaking as a teacher, it's very common for one party to tattle-"Well he/she said this first!" or "He was messin' with me, etc"

My prescription-for a similiar slur that happened in my classroom two weeks ago...

White student was being called fag by black students. They also dissed white students' mother, mom's body and called her a prositute. (White student is diagnosed ED and on meds.) White student reacted by lunging at the two students messing with him, turning over chairs and said, "I'm a cut you niggas."

All parties had to do 100 push-ups with my foot on their back, got removed by security, got a phone call home from me, suspended for the rest of the day, and a referral to the VP. One day of in-school suspension after that plus three days of detention.

How's that work for ya in terms of disciplinary action?

On a related note "fagging" is another word for smoking commonly used on Indian campuses.

ditto. a fag = a cigarette on Indian campuses

inherited from the British Raj

both of them need therapy. isn't that where isiah washington and lindsey lohan are? or is that wonderland--with shopping sprees, award shows, and restaurant breaks in between? i get all confused.

After three years of fighting cancer, I was only going to graduate a year late,” he said. “I would not throw [my education] away.”

how old is this guy? he's in the right age demographic for testicular cancer.. just curious.

coach diesel whether hez on a student visa or a resident/citizen his life is over here well maybe you are right he could drive a cab. bottom line is he will not succeed in his career. plz look at what happen with Isaiah when used the word faggot at his costar. he was out of a job in a flash. what about famous baseball closer john rocker. the media destroyed his career. so tell me who is kamdar? hez over and time to seek refugee elsewhere.

All parties had to do 100 push-ups with my foot on their back, got removed by security, got a phone call home from me, suspended for the rest of the day, and a referral to the VP. One day of in-school suspension after that plus three days of detention.

How's that work for ya in terms of disciplinary action?

Coach Diesel, you are the ultimate. Damn.

Incidents of slur-throwing are pretty common on college campuses, and if someone reports it to authorities then there's usually a disciplinary hearing + suspension. But if there's assault, it becomes a police matter, AFAIK - that was the case with the Guilford College football players who beat up and racially abused Palestinian students recently. It's not clear from the extract above if Kamdar is being charged with hate speech or assault or both.

Much as we may abhor gay slurs, it's really quite common for American boys (I use the word advisedly) to use it among themselves, even jokingly. Even on an uber-PC campus I can't say I remember a slur leading to someone being expelled. But things may have changed in the last ten years.

"Fagging" was also used in British public schools to refer to the practice of younger boys doing chores for older boys, like lighting their fires.

Thanks Mr. K.

They now know that Coach don't play...

gay slurs have zero tolerance in American Society.

This sentiment needs to be modified -- gay slurs have zero tolerance at America's overzealously politically correct, self-rightous, speech censoring universities. Those bastions of "enlightenment" have a history of going overboard with their flavor-of-the-month brand of social consciousness. Right now, dissing south asians who are taking away jobs from "real americans" is the cause du jour of the Lou Dobbs crowd, so it doesn't surprise me that there were no consequences for the other student's remarks.

Xenophobia in America...don't call it a come back.

Stupid on so many levels...

even that dude from gray's anatomy was kicked off the show for using the F word

Isaiah Washington was not kicked off the show for calling the other guy faggot. He is supposedly in 'rehab' for his actions.

White student is diagnosed ED and on meds

ED = ?

(White student is diagnosed ED and on meds.)

white student has erectile dysfunction?

oh and coach diesel...we need you in Jersey city

" He should have called him "cracker," "whitey" or "trailer trash." "

" yes risible well said. shud have called him trailor trash or redneck or hillbilly lolzzzz "

Huh? Where in the post or in the linked story is the race of the other person identified? Where are the warnings by the trigger-happy bloggers? This is not the the first time I have pointed out how on this blog calling White people all kinds of names doesn't register a blip on the administrators' uber-sensitive souls.

Sorry Ennis. ED is emotionally disturbed. We mainstream our kids so that special ed, general ed and IB all have PE/health classes together. I forget that these abreviations are mostly teacher or MD used.

Those bastions of "enlightenment" have a history of going overboard with their flavor-of-the-month brand of social consciousness.

Agree!

Jeet that's the spin they are putting on the story to downplay it. He will never return to the show.

Huh? Where in the post or in the linked story is the race of the other person identified? Where are the warnings by the trigger-happy bloggers? This is not the the first time I have pointed out how on this blog calling White people all kinds of names doesn't register a blip on the administrators' uber-sensitive souls.

jilted my point was he shud have replied in a similar manner. if someone tells u go back to mexico how will u respond? no am not saying i know u are from mexico. am just trying to give an example plz dont be so sensitive. i have read up and down this site where ppl say similar things about other races so plz control urself.

I don't think calling anyone by a racial or homophobic slur should play in society. For those of us that are queer and brown, it is a little dispiriting to read snarky comments about how it's okay to make racial slurs but not gay ones in "politically correct campuses" ( and don't get me started on how the term "politically correct" was retooled by the Right anyway). Both students were idiots for going there and then to let it descend into pushing and shoving was even dumber.
Finally, yes I know that "fag" is another term for cigarettes but I don't think that Kamdar meant to insult the dude by calling him a "cigarette". Unless by that he meant "flaming". And then he's back to Square One of Stupidity. He's been in the States long enough to know better.

Let's say everything else being the same, the other guy was identified as Black. Would you then have dared wished out loud in your comment that Mr Kamdar should have used the n word? I don't think so. And even if you did you would have summarily been banned. On the other hand if the other guy was indeed known to be White, yours and Risible's wouldn't have been the only comments badmouthing Whites. Subsequently, only moralizing warnings would have been issued.

well if the other dude was identified as being black i wud have said kamdar shud have replied - go back to africa or go swing in trees wid ur brothers lolzzz. my point is kamdar got insulted and even i have been told this many times but i never take it seriously i just reply in similar manner. not that i necessarily mean it but it justifies itself in that situation. kamdar wanted to hurt him bak but unfortunately he dissed him about being gay instead of demoralising his race.

i think u are saying on this site white bashing is tolerated but such comments on other races are strictly prohibited??? well i have read many a post making fun of indians. let me find the one i read yesterday so i can show it to u. hang on.

you can look up his friendster profile.

expelling using slurs as a rationale is maoist (fighting is a different thing). there are a few slurs, like the n-word, which have deep salience, but we might as well become deaf mutes at the rate this is going. everyone is such a over-sensitive pu**sy. oops :-)

Jilted,

My point was not to insult European-Americans (some of whom are hard-working and articulate) but rather to suggest that the social costs of using an anti-white racial slur are substantially less than victimizing homosexuals on campus (Umang put it better than I). That I am a bedfellow with a guy who employs the term lozzz in this "controversy" is not my problem. If the racialist perpetrator does turn out to be non-white, I promise to "render" myself to a Department of Homeland Security-approved "unlearning" facility.

Jilted:

I don't like the word and I don't use it- but if you must write out 'the n word' just say nigger. You are giving the word more power than it actually has. In no other circumstances would I commend gansta rappers or other 'entertainers' use of it--- However their co-opting the word /the passage of time has taken away sting. It can never effect me as much as it did any person who came before me . I'm not saying you won't be in for an a** kicking if you use it in the wrong time or place , or that people may not come to the wrong conclusions about your politics - but that's life.

You have a valid point about hypocrisy- stand by it.

My point was not to insult European-Americans (some of whom are hard-working and articulate)

heh, heh, heh

Hmmmmm, I wonder what the real story is?

Hmmmmm, I wonder what the real story is?

that is the meta-story. a lot of these tales about slurs & racism & homophobia, etc., turn out to be righteous clouds people try to throw up to obscure situational conflicts which are much more prosaic.

For those of you whining about being told to "go back to India," i want to ask what the connection is between that comment and the risk of violence on an American university campus? As opposed to, say, being called gay or a fag, which very often is the first step towards a violent attack -- for instance several Yalies, of all privileged white and non-white young people, get beaten up -- one's jaw was broken -- in San Fran about a month back.

Please don't justify harassment just because you might not be able to relate to it personally. South Asian American privilege is real, as is racism; gay bashing is real, and gayness confers no automatic community, little power, and no safety.

well bottom line is indians always take the worst of it and yes indians are tolerant lot but there comes a time when u got to stand up to these racist bastards. i see them everyday and listen to their "smart" comments well its time to take the gloves off.

apologies, razib :)

I am boringly literal. The meta-story depends somewhat on the actual facts of the case, doesn't it?

1. How physical did it get? Was there a fight and what did the fight consist of?
2. Who witnessed the event, what did they say, and who were these witnesses?
3. Have any of these people been reprimanded for anything similar before?
4. Was anyone involved already on academic probabation, or something like that?
5. Has anyone been expelled before for saying things against a speech code?
6. How do we know the veracity of any of these claims, how was this brought up, who took the information, and how was it reviewed? By a committee, board, etc? Was it open to the public? Closed? Etc, etc, etc.

Okay, it's not a complete list, but I am curious.

well also consider they just issued a warning and did not expelled kamdar then what? well there will be ppl shouting from the gay movement and trust me they wud have been shouting 100 times louder. i think the school considered expelling and warning and realized they dont want to get on the wrong side of the gay movement. a decison made wid self interest in mind.

That's ridiculous. In economic and political terms, you're far better off as a white, middle class gay person that you are as a South Asian.

maybe...but at least your parents won't disown you for being south asian.

it doesnt matter if u are middle class or low class as long as u are WHITE u are BETTER OFF in USA

...but rather to suggest that the social costs of using an anti-white racial slur are substantially less than victimizing homosexuals on campus (Umang put it better than I).

Absolutely, there's no continent called Gay-frica where gays were brought by thousands to exist as property of heterosexuals. As for "Who has it better?" it's really not an equivalent comparison in my book, because each group is identified in an absolutely different manner.

I won't say "Gays choose to be gay" or anything like that, but fact is, they are identified by more sophisticated means apart from visual. Dress, mannerism, gait, speech. Essentially, they're identified by behavior. I concede that behavior could indeed be innate, but it's still behavior none the less, and it's not a trivial difference to what people of certain races experience.

(And even sometimes that behavior is more of a caricature than reality, I've met a few gay people - after someone else told me they were gay, I don't really have what some people call "gaydar")

But everyone has "blackdar" or "browndar"

well bottom line is indians always take the worst of it

that's disgusting. try being black. i'm not a liberal on race, but i try to keep a sense of perspective. some people should go back to india (here's lookin' at you bidi, what are you waiting for?).

razib itz ppl like u that spoil a beautiful country

that's disgusting. try being black.

*clap*clap*clap*

razib itz ppl like u that spoil a beautiful country

hope i spoil it enough so that people like will leave and go back to where you can parade your ethnic narcissism with no regrets.

well u can try all u wish but u cannot scare anyone my dear friend. and plz dont try to hide ur hate itz obvious here.

Kamdar said the incident began when he asked a student on the quad for a light, and the student’s friend told Kamdar to “Go back to India.” Kamdar then used an anti-gay slur against the student and the two began pushing each other.

if kamdar said "the two began pushing each other" then he probably threw the 1st punch or push, otherwise he would have said the other kid started it. and that's probably what really got him in trouble.

in the world of classic liberal jurisprudence, this would be the critical point, though it's unclear whether AU is part of this world. however, "fighting words" are recognized in common law as an initiation of violence, and a punch in retaliation could be self-defense, as long as the defender reasonably believed an assault was imminent.

let me be explicit, when members of one of the wealthiest ethnic groups in america try and contend that they lay at the pinnacle of oppression or suffering in this country i want to barf. i'm brown, and i've lived in predominantly white areas of the USA for all my life. it isn't a picnic, but life is often a sequence of disappointments for humans, in general. there are quantitative and measurable differences in quality of life between various groups. a friend of mine once pointed out to a black man that he "got profiled when boarding airplanes." perspective people. a black man isn't just profiled when boarding airplanes, he is profiled constantly in his day to day life. if you can afford to fly, that indicates some level of privilege.

injustice exists. hopefully perspective will too.

and plz dont try to hide ur hate itz obvious here.

i won't hide it. i hate people like you. at least from the small slice of narcissism you put on display here.

"fighting words" are recognized in common law as an initiation of violence, and a punch in retaliation could be self-defense, as long as the defender reasonably believed an assault was imminent

Is this true? I think the defender would need some pretty clear evidence the assault was imminent. For example, If a guy held up a gun to another guy and said "I am going to shoot you now" but the second guy shot him back first. But then the threat is more than just verbal.

razib sahib u seem quick to rush into judgements of others. well when u quoted me saying well bottom line is indians always take the worst of it well plz read it in context. i am not claming that indians are most discrimated race in USA. i am speaking about the use of slurs and being abused verbally. and i have heard my fair share some even directed at me. and plzzz dont tell me u hear every day a white guy calling a black guy the N word????? plz restrict the discussion to the topic and dont try to put words into my mouth.

"go back to india" isn't a slur on the level as the n-word or even "f*g." perspective. and browns aren't slurred at every day. perhaps a cabbie is, but not a doctor. so, context.

p.s. i don't think someone should be expelled for using anti-gay slurs, but being the only brown guy in a high school of 900 (where only 5 other non-whites attended) was a lot less trying than being the only out gay guy from what i recall.

p.p.s. to be clear, the gay guy was beat up regularly (once every few months from what i recall). i was subject to slurpy jokes and "compliments" about my command english.

Razib, I agree with the gist of your point, but I don't think the desi kids in Queens who got beaten up post 9/11 would agree that slurs on desis are generally harmless and desis are always protected by "privilege."

South Asian American privilege is real, as is racism

This statement is a bit contradictory, isn't it? If we're "privileged", how can we be exposed to racism? Seems like there's a way to go before we can be called the oppressors.

This issue is just sad, although it's been emerging more and more. I hate that we're getting into the business of determining who's more oppressed. But, as always, there are lots of people willing to misuse identity politics (and yes, I mean BOTH racial and sexual identity). This issue reminds me of various problems around the borders of the major "gay neighborhoods" in Chicago. I predict that in the next 5 to 10 years we're going to see this happen again and again, as these two major strains of disadvantage start colliding more and more.

well yes i think itz more offensive to be called gay than be told to go back to india. but the only reason for that is everyone is making fun of the brown ppl so it has become accepted in our society. so many jokes are made on desi's these days even in recent superbowl ad where they had the indian dude saying booodlight instead of budlight. I think brown ppl have alot of tolerance and i havent seen anyone making a complaint about this ad. on the other hand the hispanics went crazy wid that yo quiero taco bell ad saying it insulted them. so just bcoz we are more tolerant shudnt mean open season on brown ppl. there is a limit. in this case maybe kamdar overeacted abit but i am sure many of us said things in the heat of the moment we regret.

Is this true? I think the defender would need some pretty clear evidence the assault was imminent.

at first, the fighting words doctrine was almost equivelent to porn or obscenity, ie certain words were so inflamatory that they had lower constitutional protection. but since then, scotus has consistently narrowed the doctrine to mean threat of immediate violence.

convictions based on the fighting words doctrine are extremely rare in this country as free speech is the critical value in a democracy. one word is ususally not enough, but if someone were to repeatedly scream obscenities at another person, the courts may uphold a conviction.

but universities have been abandoning this liberal tradition of jurisprudence, as dinesh d'souza reminds us in illiberal education. (hope u don't consider the d'souza ref a fighting word, HMF)

Like Razib I want to high school that was 95% white [8 brown students out of 750] and a couple of people who were gays. At worst I get a joke about Apu and the simpsons. But the few gay students in my school were treated like crap.

This statement is a bit contradictory, isn't it? If we're "privileged", how can we be exposed to racism? Seems like there's a way to go before we can be called the oppressors.

are you a manichaean? i've been reading this blog for more than 2 years now, and there are comments about "crackers" and "white trash" now and then and plenty of generalizations about "white people." what do you think the average SES of these people are who are making these jokes?

anyway, let me give you an example. a good looking brown dude with an M.D. is probably in a better life situation than a fat, ugly white female high school drop out. in fact, perhaps it's my own personal biases, but i think being a man of any race today might very well be a better situation than being a female of any race (depending on what your values are).

if non-whites are, no matter their looks, their wealth and their education oppressed, then i think it is a good argument go back to a national origins policy and admit only white immigrants, because no matter the skills they bring visible minorities are clearly an inevitable social stress.

I think brown ppl have alot of tolerance and i havent seen anyone making a complaint about this ad. on the other hand the hispanics went crazy wid that yo quiero taco bell ad saying it insulted them.

jokes between ethnic groups can be a signal for levels of comfort, as well as mockery and discomfort.

Neal with no 'e'.

Good point.

When systems of incentive are created (affirmative action for one, and no, I am not arguing for or against aa), or the narrative of oppression becomes the main narrative (as in, class doesn't matter), then it is a perfectly natural outcome to have groups try and 'rate' their oppression on some kind of scale. Well, not all people in a particular group. But some.

"gay slurs have zero tolerance at America's overzealously politically correct, self-rightous, speech censoring universities."

absolutely agree, umang. for example, personal experience has shown me that cornell university (the opposite of that university above) doesn't seem to care if my white roommate fails to censor herself when telling me she "doesn't date short, stumpy asian men who smell bad," or that she thinks "jewish russians and white russians should not mix and is why she will not join hillel." calling her a "cossack" or "bitch" on the other hand got this brown girl reprimanded easily (bad choice on my part entirely). but the controversy-cover-ups at universities like mine extend from race to gender and sexuality as well. even if a boy harasses me for several weeks questioning my sexuality and intimidating me by making me react to his calling me lesbian in many different ways (subversively and directly), i apparently "don't have a strong enough case" to seek higher administrative intervention. both of these boys deserve serious punishment, not just a slap on the wrist. i don't feel expulsion is the solution, but coach diesel has some good ideas :)

coach diesel,

i sure wish you were around here last year to lend me a...erm...foot or two! that is simply awesome...especially the pushups. i bet it worked to teach them that superiority and strength are not manifested in the ways they thought they were!

*i'm sending my (future) sons to military school to have them learn self-discipline and determination.*

anecdote about conflict. a friend of mine was consulted about an issue a local gay group had at a university in the midwest (he works for a civil rights group in NYC). the issue was that the gay group and the black student union petitioned for money to make a building extension to house their orgs offices from the uni, but after completion the BSU requested that they get the whole wing. the argument made in some of the meetings was that the BSU needed a comfortable "safe space," and those terrifying white gays made them uncomfortable. but a black member of the LGBTA heard through back channels that there was talk of not wanting to be next to "f**gots" everyday in some of the internal meetings of the BSU officers.

diversity is strength!

what do you think the average SES of these people are who are making these jokes

Race privelage exists within class, or SES. Compare a good looking brown dude with an MD to a good looking white dude with an MD. or a Fat white dropout with a fat non white dropout. It's really in only these contexts can racial comparisons hold any value.

I'd agree with you and say South Asians are privelaged, but it's class privelage we have, not race privelage. And it can be yanked away at any time.

Manju:

at first, the fighting words doctrine was almost equivelent to porn or obscenity, ie certain words were so inflamatory that they had lower constitutional protection

Lower constitutional protection doesn't immediately translate to sufficient and reasonable cause for violence.

Damn razib, down. I've been agreeing with most of what you say.

Sure, SES changes the way that individuals are treated by the larger society. A wealthy Indian can overcome a lot of racial baggage, the same way a wealthy African-American or Latino can. And that's great -- it's part of what makes this country so much better able to handle diversity than most of the world. But that doesn't mean the racial baggage is not present, and it may assert itself at times. The handsome brown doctor is not privileged because he's brown -- he's privileged because he's WEALTHY (and male, and good-looking to some extent).

If "South Asian privilege" exists, it's merely a reflection of American immigration policy only allowing the wealthiest/best educated immigrants in. It's not a systemic product of American social history the way that white privilege is. Brownness is considered an aberration here. It's something you have to overcome, and it's something that weighs heavily on the members of our community who happened to make it here without the graduate degrees or siginficant family investment. The day is coming when many Indians in this country are not going to be the wealthy MD types.

I'm not saying that our situation is terrible. The stereotypes about us are far less damaging than African-Americans, Latinos, or other groups. But they're still real and they still impact life chances. I don't call that "privilege".

1. What shimi said.

2. Privilege does not indicate absolute authority/power. we are ALL privileged in some areas, and face oppression in others. take me, for example: I'm a person of color in the U.S. (oppressed), but I'm well-off financially (privileged), but my family is Hindu (privileged within desi community), oh but I'm queer (oppressed) and a woman (oppressed) and trans (oppressed), but wait I'm college-educated (privileged), and I'm able-bodied (privileged).

3. IMO, the problem wasn't that one idiot used a racial/ethnic slur and the other used a gay one in particular; the problem is that they reduced each other to one dimension and used that as a basis for not getting along. And then they hit each other. D'oh.

And it can be yanked away at any time.

doubt it. america runs on $$$, and class is predominantly inherited now (look at the regression for south asian male immigrant father's educational level and their sons, and the drop off isn't very large).

I'd agree with you and say South Asians are privelaged, but it's class privelage we have, not race privelage. And it can be yanked away at any time.

well said!

Jaya: that was great. I loved that comment.

The point is: We are each individuals as well as part of a group. Anyway, in some instances (much, much rarer than the opposite, true) being white and male doesn't protect you. Duke, anyone?

the problem is that they reduced each other to one dimension and used that as a basis for not getting along. And then they hit each other. D'oh.

:) This is the best summation I've seen.

I mean it usually comes down to idiots hitting each other in these great ideological struggles, doesn't it?

but my family is Hindu (privileged within desi community)

that's a subjective perception. if you remove the confounding class factor i think christian south asians are prolly privileged because they don't "worship monkeys and cows." before 9/11 being of muslim origin was a definite positive in social situations since i could make fun of the weirdness of hinduism vis-a-vis abrahamic faiths.

The day is coming when many Indians in this country are not going to be the wealthy MD types.

last i checked the census numbers it isn't 1975, but neither are south asians mostly a cabbie community. i know many children of motel-patel's who are in medical school, so there is professional advancement (if you think that is advancement). if check the slope in drop of education over the last 25 years it's really modest (i can relook up the numbers later).

Both students were idiots for going there and then to let it descend into pushing and shoving was even dumber.

But, the question is whether the punishment (or lack thereof) meted out to each student was proportional to the crime.

You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger advocate of gay rights than me but the idea of speech police at universities (of all places!) is a bit alarming. I think the Economist wrote an interesting piece that reasoned against speech police (in the context of whether to make holocaust denial a crime), while considering both sides of the argument:

http://economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8592923

Here are some of the best quotes:

As Jacques Chirac says, Holocaust denial is a perversion of the soul and a crime against truth. But that does not mean it should be a crime in law.

Brigitte Zypries, the German justice minister, is surely justified when she says, “We believe there are limits to freedom of expression.” The question is where you draw those limits. In the liberal tradition, they have been put at the point where speech becomes a threat to others.

Holocaust-denial laws, then, may not be the best way of dealing with the problem of Holocaust denial. In addition, they impose their own, often hidden, costs. Such laws can take you down a slippery slope. One may think the Holocaust was a uniquely dreadful event. Even so, it is hard, once you have passed a Holocaust-denial law, not to extend it. Asked why the EU proposed to pass a law about the genocide victims of one of 20th-century Europe's totalitarian ideologies (fascism) but not the other (communism), Ms Zypries replied it was just a matter of timing. By implication, the EU will one day propose banning gulag-denial too.

Holocaust denial laws are wrong whoever imposes them. But they are at least understandable in countries where Nazism had indigenous roots. No such excuse can be made for the European Union as a whole.

i think christian south asians are prolly privileged because they don't "worship monkeys and cows."

wat are u saying razib????

Duke, anyone?

Are you referring to David Duke? In his day, he had quite a run. He got lot of traction when ran for Governor of Louisiana against Edwin Edwards (55% of the white vote).

Or are you referring to Duke U. recent rape case? That is also not that simple either.

No such excuse can be made for the European Union as a whole.

the "liberal tradition" differences in france in comparison to the anglo nations. for that matter, in canada they "respect" freedom of speech, they don't "worship" it.

Kush, indeed, I am referring to the Duke rape case. Have you been following K.C. Johnson?

wat are u saying razib????

i'm saying most americans think that hindus are bizarre pagans. e.g., remember the simpsons when there was a show about religious ecumenicalism and when they moved to apu they showed a 6 armed statue of kali and were uncomfortable? hindus might perceive themselves as being privileged, but christians regularly mock the religion and would certainly think that christian indians were more normal in their religious beliefs.

personally, i think all religious exhibit the same sophistication as papuans worship a penis fetish, but most religious people tend to believe their own delusion is somehow more natural and rational. that's life.

razib: that's cow worshipping idolator to you, sir! (okay, kids, I'm kidding).

Kush: there have been few people who have written as much about the case as K.C. Johnson. The details are pretty terrible and embarrassing (for Nifong).

Have you been following K.C. Johnson?

Yes, and the whole mess.

Hmmmmm.

let's try this.

MD and her ilk are so thrilled to finally find a white defendant who got screwed by the system. Hallelujah!
This of course translates to the end of institutional racism against blacks in the justice system as we now know that being a whitey in the justice system is as bad as being a black man. If you disagree with that, please read about the Duke case.

fighting words" are recognized in common law as an initiation of violence, and a punch in retaliation could be self-defense

Where in the Common Law is punching in retaliation to words constitute a self defense?

I think you might be thinking about Pushtun code of honor and not the Common Law ;)

What an incredibly rude thing to say, Al M., and after all this time commenting to each other on this blog. You know me better than that.

I'm not happy when any innocent person is railroade: white, black or brown. You read a million things into my comment that are not there. Wow. You must be proud.

I guess I was rude to you as you didnt really express that sentiment.

Ok, I apologize for overstating my case.

However, I do think there is too much chest beating in some corners of the right about this Duke case as if this case is ANYTHING BUT AN ABERRATION. You of course did not echo that there so I was wrong in lashing out at you.

yeah AMJ, that wuz rude. mebee you think it is warranted, but you're a lawyer, you know that presentation matters in argument. if your argument is angelic it sure displayed an ugly face.

Does this discussion have to be about gay ( apparently code word for white) priviledge versus brown? Where in this conversation is the place for the brown and gay? Or will that mess up the neat little dichotomy?

Once again, the two guys we're talking about=idiots.

You know, usually, I let this stuff pass because it happens all the time in the comments section. Show me where I said there was the end of all racism. Show me Al M. Show me in the comments above.

Where I say it is a much, much rarer event than the reverse? Is it when I say racism exists? Is it when I said that class exists? Point out to me where I say what you interpreted through my comments? Sheesh. My ilk, indeed. Where have I ever said that there is no such thing as racism against blacks? Where?

Okay, we missed each other in commenting, Al M. Sorry for getting mad.

I guess I do take the contrarian position a lot here, so I see how someone could misinterpret me.

keep fighting itz healthy

This of course translates to the end of institutional racism against blacks in the justice system as we now know that being a whitey in the justice system is as bad as being a black man.

And you won't even be warned! Thanks for reinforcing my characterization, in comment # 27, of this blog's lopsided policing. Why the hate though? I am curious. Oh it's not a slur it's just a metaphor for privilege, power, bla bla bla. Right?

Where in the Common Law is punching in retaliation to words constitute a self defense?

if a person could resonably construe that the words themselves are a threat to violence. If i said to you, "AMFD, i don't like you, the aclu, and your ilk, so i'm going to kick your ass"...you could launch a pre-emptive strike.

i don't know of any case law where someone retaliated as the cases in question have been govt ordinances against certain words. but right now, the standard seems to be words that "reasonably incite the average person to retaliate" and risk "an immediate breach of the peace" can be regulated. i think that would make for a good self-defense acquital.

but suffice to say, the courts have been wisely narrowing what constitutes a fighting word, while american univeristies have been expanding it. for that reason, civil libertarians like yourself should really join forces with MD and her ilk.

But everyone has "blackdar" or "browndar"

I Can Instantly Tell Whether Someone Is African-American With My Amazing 'Blackdar'

I have this amazing gift. It's called "blackdar," and it enables me to tell whether someone is African-American without even knowing anything about them. To be honest, I don't know where I got the skill. But wherever I did, I can pass somebody on the street and just instantly know.

Like that guy from Saturday Night Live? That Kenan Thompson? That guy is definitely black, no doubt about it. He gives off all the signals.

And Missy Elliot? You better believe she's black. [link]

Manju: Though you usually know what you are talking about and know a LOT for a non-lawyer, I am afraid you are confusing the issues here.

Whether a government regulation (here: criminalizing certain words) has to jump through the hoops of constitutional protection (first amendment protections of free speech) has nothing to do with the fact of whether the fighting words here (go back to India/ faggot) constitute a self-defense or even mitigating circumstances for throwing a punch under criminal law.

For example: Even if the Supreme Court were to give the highest level of First Amendment constitutional protection to all fighting words including unambiguous invitations to a physical brawl, it would have no bearing on whether they would constitute a self-defense or mitigating circumstances if a punch were thrown in retaliation to that unambiguous invitation to a brawl.

Do we actually have proof that he was provoked? He may just be playing the race card after saying something stupid. I find it hard to believe the AU would simply suspend him without first checking up on his side of the story. People usually tend to be more politically correct about race than about homosexuals.

South Asian American privilege is real

Wishful self-delusion. South asians are socially handicapped in America by their dark colored skins, their lack of athleticism, their general "uncoolness". South asians also are more likely to be below the american poverty line than whites and less likely to own their own homes, which is part and parcel of the american dream.

a good looking brown dude with an M.D. is probably in a better life situation than a fat, ugly white female high school drop out.

A typically dumb desi argument. As if the best of desis compared to the worst of whites proves desis are "privileged'!

And just for your information Razib, desis on average aren't seen as "good looking" by americans. Quite the contrary. East asian females are probably the only non-caucasian group that are considered as good-looking on average by white americans.

amfd:

interesting. i'm mixing up constitutional and criminal law. so the question is, is there any case law where a defendant was acquitted of assault because he was responding to a fighting word (said in a context that a reasonable person could interpret as an immanent threat)?

Al M picked up on the basic sentiment behind the fighting words doctrine [though Manju did mention the imminent threat aspect]. Even though the doctrine was heralded in the middle of the twentieth century [particularly during wartime - WWII and Vietnam]the basic jurisprudential view is that the word must have the effect of being an actual threat of immediate violence, and cannot be judged merely on the offensive nature of the content. That is why there is a distinction between protected and unprotected fighting words, and most fighting words are protected under the First Amendment. In response to somebody else's question that there could never be a threat without more than speech - the law looks at both objective and subjective factors, so the context/circumstance play a heavy role. Essentially, fighting words will almost always be protected. In this case, I think many are right to say that it was the violence that did it for AU. Also, I find it somewhat odd that Kamdar used the defense of fighting words as provocation, since his immediate reaction to the comment was not violence, but rather to lobby back his own slur. Of course, it all must have happened in the span of seconds, but I don't think any court [and rightly so] would ever look at the other student's comment as sufficiently provocative, just as [also right so] no court would consider the gay slur sufficient provocation.

I find it hard to believe the AU would simply suspend him without first checking up on his side of the story.

yeah, i'm skeptical too. i think he hit the guy first. however, many of these university courts have descended into kangaroo ones...totally neglecting liberal traditions--right to confront accuser (especially in sexual assault cases), tranparancy, etc. d'souza documented a lot of it in illiberal ed, ergo the title. fire is a good place to see what's gont on.

South asians are socially handicapped in America by their dark colored skins, their lack of athleticism, their general "uncoolness".

for gods sake Doordarshan; please start lifting weights, learn a sport, go out to bars and get a sense of humor. projection ain't only what happens in movie theaters.

are you a manichaean?

razib at #61, dude that's an awesome insult. what a smart ass insult that his haha!

anyway back to being relevant. um interesting the direction this conversation went. naina asked twice in her blog if someone from american university could step up and enlighten us more on what is going on. but i guess sm is not read over there.

i'd be real pissed to find out if kamdar was expelled and that was the end of it.

Anyway, in some instances (much, much rarer than the opposite, true) being white and male doesn't protect you.

I 100% agree, but those cases are when privelage and special treatment have gone so far, as to actually harm rather than protect. For example, During the Columbine incident, a SWAT team member who was one of the first on the scene wrote about how his commanders didn't storm the school right away - why? because a rich white school has people with power who can sue local police. So they (inadvertently) let more people die.

If it was a school on Crenshaw, you think they wouldn't storm that shit in 2 seconds?

This is crazy, but I would absolutely like to know more about what really happened. I'm with chitrana; I'm wary of someone pulling the "race card" when they got in trouble for saying something stupid and then getting in a fight. I don't know if it warrants expulsion, but I also don't know what really happened.

Also, for those who are worried about the "hyper-PC" U.S. university, y'all are way off. Campuses where homophobia is eschewed are absolutely in the minority, and there's a lot of difference between what a university says and the actions it takes, or the campus climate for people in the LGBTIQQ community. Same goes for issues of race, except that I think nation-wide people have done a good job of trying make racism a non-issue by ignoring it, calling it overly sensitive, co-opting the language of equality, or denying its lasting impact.

I think the whole "oppression olympics" game here is totally unuseful. As was mentioned before, privilege is dynamic and operates on numerous vectors. I think jaya had a great example of how it's complicated. Also, while I agree with 90% of what razib has said, when you're trying to quantify things, I don't think it's useful to compare apples (desi, male, M.D.) with oranges (white, high school drop out, female).

If it was a school on Crenshaw, you think they wouldn't storm that shit in 2 seconds?

AK (#98):

It's my understanding that most courts and most state penal codes treat the fighting words doctrine as an anachronism. I don't think it comes up as a legal issue anymore.

well said Doordarshan, well said.

Wow. I'm a recent AU graduate, and this story shocks me. AU does have a large and active Gay and Lesbian Community, and I'm sure that has a lot to do with what happened, but when I was in school, this sort of thing would have been a blip on the radar.

AU has like 11 total desis, and they're all the preppy NJ-doctors-kid-driving-land-crusier type, but if the dude who got expelled had any clue, he should have known better.

sriram, you're right - law schools these days give you the bottom line of: fighting words = insufficient provocation. my point was just that the reason why it's not an effective defense [also the reason why it's an anachronism] is that the level that the evolved doctrine eventually set was so high as to make it not worth it. and like i said, he first responded with words before fighting - making his particular case that much less of a candidate for the defense....

projection ain't only what happens in movie theaters.

hee hee

I'm jumping in late, but I was rather shocked when I heard about this. I actually know Rick. I met him while he was being treated for cancer and the fact that he was asking someone for a light in the first place seems like all that treatment was for nothing. I really would like to know more about what happened. He wasn't a horrible human being, but he certainly wasn't one to keep his mouth shut either. He probably came up with a reasonably witty come back. He never seemed like the kind of guy who would let things get violent though.

Razib said:
personally, i think all religious exhibit the same sophistication as papuans worship a penis fetish, but most religious people tend to believe their own delusion is somehow more natural and rational. that's life.

I was there with you on this topic, Razib, BUT not all the way! I was pretty anti-religious myself (esp. in front of my family), but then I grew up (as in learned about a wide variety of people and matured). Face it, not all people who believe in a certain religion are nuts, deluded, or doing negative things. If you are atheist, then fine, but that's YOUR choice!

South asians are socially handicapped in America by their dark colored skins, their lack of athleticism, their general "uncoolness".

for gods sake Doordarshan; please start lifting weights, learn a sport, go out to bars and get a sense of humor. projection ain't only what happens in movie theaters.

hee hee

Hmmm, so Manju and Sakshi actually think that desi-americans are seen as cool, hip, socially "privileged", fair-skinned athletic jocks who are the life of bar parties?? LOL.

This level of delusion has got to be pathological, and requires professional help. Seriously.

hee hee

before 9/11 being of muslim origin was a definite positive in social situations since i could make fun of the weirdness of hinduism vis-a-vis abrahamic faiths

The kind of americans you ingratiated yourself with in "social situations" by making fun of "the weirdness of hinduism vis-a-vis abrahamic faiths" are probably also the kind that get a thrill out of put downs of non-european races. Some desi-americans we know have made a career out of this. You have been amusing the wrong crowd pal.

Among the better educated classes in America it is the bible-thumpers from the Red States who are often the objects of ridicule for their absurd abrahamic beliefs. Abrahamists are a small minority among the members of the American Academy of Sciences for example. Or among american self-made billionaires. Yoga and meditation are far more popular in America than anything that came out of Islam. Especially among the educated elite. Close to 30% of americans believe in reincarnation, which is anathema for abrahamic true-believers.

personally, i think all religious exhibit the same sophistication as papuans worship a penis fetish

That just shows that you are incapable of thinking deeply.

Uh, years ago, in the eighties, my brother was a 'jock' and took a very pretty girl to the prom. Walking around Boston, I see a lot of very handsome young desi men. Quite fit and athletic looking, too. I catch the young girls giving those young men a look out of the corner of their eyes.....ah, life is not fair! If you are handsome, you are treated differently. So what? Learn to do what women have been enculturated to do for ages: Make the best of what you got.

Is Doordarshan some kind of subtle satirist that I don't quite get?

Hmmm, so Manju and Sakshi actually think that desi-americans are seen as cool, hip, socially "privileged", fair-skinned athletic jocks who are the life of bar parties?? LOL.

That may not be the over-riding stereotype of desis, but there are plenty of the above type people around. If you take 'fair-skinned' and 'athletic' out but leave all the other adjectives there, then you'll get even bigger numbers of desis who fit that description (cool, hip, life of the party, etc). Just hang out in NYC on any given Saturday night, you'll see droves of them.

Is Doordarshan some kind of subtle satirist that I don't quite get?

I can't help but get off topic, but one of the family members who I work with put it really nicely recently. He said, "if they did this shit to a white child, people would revolt!" He was talking about the CYA (or DJJ I guess), but the underlying premise about violence against black youth is the same.

CYA? DJJ?

Yoga and meditation are far more popular in America than anything that came out of Islam. Especially among the educated elite. Close to 30% of americans believe in reincarnation, which is anathema for abrahamic true-believers.

Thrity million Americans attend yoga classes. Many chant Sanskrit mantras. The reception of Indic spirituality is more complex than the caste/curry/cow-model - though there is truth to that too.

Anyway, in fairness to Razib, I think he grew up in a small Mormon town. I can imagine a group of provincial Abrahamics making fun of Hindus. There is, however, little question that Muslims have it worse of all brownz at the moment, and then Sikhs. The attitude to Hindus is probably neutral.

Hmmm, so Manju and Sakshi actually think that desi-americans are seen as cool, hip, socially "privileged", fair-skinned athletic jocks who are the life of bar parties??

Who cares how others see you? You spend too much time worrying about others think.

I dunno who else here works out but Abhi can't be the only cool, hip, athletic and good-looking jock.

personally, i think all religious exhibit the same sophistication as papuans worship a penis fetish

In terms of the cultural encrustation of thousands of years of practice, obviously Ganesh Chaturthi or Holy Week at the Vatican would have a sheen of sophistication that the putative phallicists (whom, anyway, you're more likely to find in India or ancient Greece than in Papua New Guinea) might not be able to compete with.

On the level of metaphysics though, all religions (whether they're the kind we laugh at, or the kind we wouldn't dare mock in public) are elaborations on the Unseen. Those elaborations are largely based on emotion and group-think, with a dose of community organizing thrown in. Of course there's much that's wonderful about religion. Atheists are just not convinced that those wonderful things need religion to exist.

I'm much more comfortable with localized superstition, earth religions, fetishes. It's the universalizing religions that really stick in my craw--they're the ones who tend to declare "my way or the highway." So any quarrel I might have with Papuan religionists would be because they're ninety-six percent Christian.

p.s. AK, thanks for breaking it down in #98. Damn, it's like university up in here. I learned me something.

I think the whole "oppression olympics" game here is totally unuseful. As was mentioned before, privilege is dynamic and operates on numerous vectors. I think jaya had a great example of how it's complicated.

Yeah, everyone is privileged in some way and disadvantaged/oppressed in another. The importance of different factors varies depending on each context.

When two groups who both have a claim to oppression in American society start trying to measure who is more oppressed, it is a waste of time and turns them against each other and away from the greater problems which cause their oppression. Last time I heard such a time-wasting conversation was when Apprentice season 4 ended, and the privilege of a white woman was being compared with that of an African-American man, when the real problem was the white man with really bad hair who was running the show.

He's just full of hatred. It's hard to believe he's even a desi.

Thats coming from someone who trivializes the human suffering in India. In my book thats hatred. Of the worst kind.

Uh, years ago, in the eighties, my brother was a 'jock' and took a very pretty girl to the prom. Walking around Boston, I see a lot of very handsome young desi men. Quite fit and athletic looking, too.

Lol. Here we go again. The usual dumb desi logic that asserts that personal anecdotes trump the general rule/stereotypes/statistics.

I'm not dumb.

And, yes, I know a personal anecdote is not as good as statistic, but it's not nothing, either! Did you miss my scientific survey of the handsomeness of desi men in Boston? Surely, it must number into the tens, in my neighborhood, sir.

BTW, what was it you said about the economic demographic of South Asians in the US? Who, in general, was poorer than whom? Sir, if I am no good at math, then neither are you. So, there. That stereotype demolished.

comment # 96 to be exact. The numbers can be crunched in different ways and you used the most negative number crunch........

*I'm still trying to decide if you are;

a. satirist.
b. troll
c. desi
d. Just plain strange......

Anyway, have a wonderful, glorious, beautiful day!

Oh, I've got it! Doordarshan is really Steve Sailer! vdare you do, vdare you don't!

When two groups who both have a claim to oppression in American society start trying to measure who is more oppressed, it is a waste of time and turns them against each other and away from the greater problems which cause their oppression.

This is true, but it doesn't necessarily imply that efforts to curtail one groups oppression seamlessly translate into helping the other, particularly in social/public opinion contexts. in legal contexts, I'd say it does. (i.e. equal protection)

On the level of metaphysics though, all religions (whether they're the kind we laugh at, or the kind we wouldn't dare mock in public) are elaborations on the Unseen.

Much of the (rather humorless) evangelical atheism that arose post 9/11 is also a (rather metaphysical) elaboration on the Unseen. The metaphysics being materialism. What's more, its a critique of belief (particularly Protestant Christian and Islamic belief). For most of the rest of the world outside these systems, so-called religion is practice - ritual, observance, and perhaps mystic experience. It would be a challenge to fashion a creed out of shamanistic African systems, e.g. There is both a surprising openness to doubt and simultaneously a Keatsian 'negative capability' (openness to mystery), which some evangelical atheists, in their righteous dogmatism, seem to lack.

Late to the party, as always.

It strikes me that what happened to Kamdar does not really reflect a double standard. This may seem like hair splitting to some of you, but there's a vast difference between "go back to where you came from" and "fag". The latter is acknowledged as a slur directed against a particular group of individuals who may or may not belong to a protected class. In that sense, it's similar to a racial slur. It's also frequently a precursor to violence against individual gays specifically, and the gay community generally.

Telling someone to go back to where they came from is not the same. The comment certainly could have racial overtones, but it's not necessarily a racial slur. Immigrants of Eastern European origin in the Midwest get this sort of thing a lot too, so it's hard to say that such comments are unequivocally motivated by race.

Just one more thing before I get off the soapbox. Is anybody bothered by the fact that "fag" can get you expelled, but telling the other guy to stop acting like a girl/woman/bitch would be a-okay, in similar circumstances?

It would be a challenge to fashion a creed out of shamanistic African systems, e.g. There is both a surprising openness to doubt and simultaneously a Keatsian 'negative capability' (openness to mystery), which some evangelical atheists, in their righteous dogmatism, seem to lack.

Risible, I agree. Now whether even shamanistic world-views are sufficiently open to what is not known (i.e. content to leave it without interpretation) is a different issue. But certainly, in comparison to the universalizing creeds, they're paragons of flexibility.

CYA? DJJ?

This is true, but it doesn't necessarily imply that efforts to curtail one groups oppression seamlessly translate into helping the other, particularly in social/public opinion contexts. in legal contexts, I'd say it does. (i.e. equal protection)

Is anybody bothered by the fact that "fag" can get you expelled, but telling the other guy to stop acting like a girl/woman/bitch would be a-okay, in similar circumstances?

hema, I really don't think they're comparable.

Oh, I agree that the situations are not comparable.

Just wondering why gendered slurs are socially/legally acceptable, but slurs with respect to sexual orientation or not. After all, gender is actually a protected class, whereas sexual orientation is not.

Your point about violence is a good one, IMO. Interestingly, I think sexual orientation slurs have a quite a bit of overlap with gender slurs. "Quit whining like a little bitch" takes on a completely different meaning when said to a gay man, I imagine.

The comment certainly could have racial overtones, but it's not necessarily a racial slur

Good point, but I think the comment clearly does have racial overtones in this instance. As a funny aside, it reminds me of the American Idol clip where a black woman who's daughter didn't get voted in said "Simon should go back to British." At least thats what my friend, BMF told me, who actually watches the show.

In any event, the context there is clearly not racial.

Just wondering why gendered slurs are socially/legally acceptable, but slurs with respect to sexual orientation or not. After all, gender is actually a protected class, whereas sexual orientation is not.

Your point about violence is a good one, IMO. Interestingly, I think sexual orientation slurs have a quite a bit of overlap with gender slurs. "Quit whining like a little bitch" takes on a completely different meaning when said to a gay man, I imagine.

Obviously, the problem we have discussing this incident is the lack of information, despite a university trial and conviction. There is no transparency, and we don't even know who the accuser or witnesses are.

This is probably why Kamdar’s lawyer advised him not to attend; universities have abandoned many of their liberal traditions, including due process of law.

Hema,
Does it really matter if the context is racial? Telling a person that he doesn't belong here (go back etc.) is offensive enough. A lot like telling a gay person that he doesn't belong to normal society.

This is probably why Kamdar’s lawyer advised him not to attend; universities have abandoned many of their liberal traditions, including due process of law.

The above is a little hyperbolic though I would say that there is some merit to what Manju is stating. My school used to have these ubiquitous signs in computer labs which would lay out some vague nonsensical proscription like 'the student will be violating the university code of conduct if the student views sexual material deemed objectionable or make other students uncomfortable' etc.

Of course private universities can get away with way more shit than public universities though in my experience there is not much difference.

Of course private universities can get away with way more shit than public universities though in my experience there is not much difference.

i would like to point out that private universities have the right to abandon the liberal traditions of education if they choose, whether it be the free speech principle or due process of law, and replace it with another framework, be it religious or some secular (usually leftist) philosophy. after all, liberal democracy allows for illiberal thought.

but this trend, usually described as political correctness, should be resisted as it bodes ill for the role of a university in a democracy.

we apparently have a situation here where a university held a closed trial, its questionable whether the right to face one's accuser was honored as we don't even know who the accuser is, and maybe individual rights were replaced with group rights, not to mention a speech code.

this is not conducive to furthering the american experiment.

Does it really matter if the context is racial? Telling a person that he doesn't belong here (go back etc.) is offensive enough. A lot like telling a gay person that he doesn't belong to normal society.

Normatively, there may be no difference, but legally, there is a considerable difference. When a university is disciplining a student, they are far more concerned about any legal consequences than about any offense given to anyone as a social matter.

If the slur is not clearly racial in nature, I can see a school taking the lesser-of-the-two-evils approach. Whether slurs on sexual orientation are the greater evil or not, I don't know.

we apparently have a situation here where a university held a closed trial, its questionable whether the right to face one's accuser was honored as we don't even know who the accuser is, and maybe individual rights were replaced with group rights, not to mention a speech code.

This goes much too far, IMO. First, you have no right to "confront your accuser", except when you have been charged with criminal conduct. Second, a university (even a public one) is not an arm of the government, and is not required to do more than abide by the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that apply to universities.

Furthermore, either a substantive right or a property right must be implicated to invoke due process. As far as I know, you have neither the substantive right to an education, or a property interest in that education. Most universities provide informal (and private) proceedings in the interests of fairness, not because due process requires them to do so.

If the slur is not clearly racial in nature, I can see a school taking the lesser-of-the-two-evils approach. Whether slurs on sexual orientation are the greater evil or not, I don't know.

But of course, this approach necessitates defining which is the "greater evil" at some point. Which will inevitably lead to the "oppression olympics" as Camille called it.

The best solution would have just been to discipline both and say "no fighting". But of course that would have led to various types of political pressure as well.

The best solution would have just been to discipline both and say "no fighting". But of course that would have led to various types of political pressure as well.

I agree. But then someone else would be complaining about how American U. had taken the path of least resistance instead of making an example out of one student so that on-campus gay-bashing could be ended forever. You just can't make everyone happy all the time, I guess.

This goes much too far, IMO. First, you have no right to "confront your accuser", except when you have been charged with criminal conduct. Second, a university (even a public one) is not an arm of the government, and is not required to do more than abide by the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that apply to universities.

hema, if you read my first sentence i concede the right of the university to do what they did. my point is the liberal university should mimic, well liberalism, and provide, for example, the right to confront your accuser in their disciplinary hearing even though it is not a legal one.

a closed trial or hearing is ripe for abuse by the (usually politically correct) powers that be. a university does not have to have an open hearing or respect liberal rights, but it should...as openness is the best way to get to truth and this preserves the integral role universities play in a democracy.

The same goes for the free speech principle.

I agree. But then someone else would be complaining about how American U. had taken the path of least resistance instead of making an example out of one student so that on-campus gay-bashing could be ended forever. You just can't make everyone happy all the time, I guess.

Exactly. This is where the various contexts of oppression come into play. Given the way discourse on immigration and cultural assimilation has been going in this country, I'd wager that there are more people concerned about gay-bashing than about xenophobia on your average university disciplinary board (though both are terrible).

This is about the first time I've ever agreed with Manju on anything, but the closed-door nature of this hearing definitely hurts more than it helps too.

Manju's scholarly discourse on Sushi is eminently agreeable.

If the slur is not clearly racial in nature, I can see a school taking the lesser-of-the-two-evils approach.

Wait. Are you saying he'd be legally accountable only if he said something like "Go back to India, Raghead!"? I think all common sense points to his statement being racially motivated.

Manju:

I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that universities have closed hearing for other, equally important and equally liberal reasons. For starters, I think certain sections of FERPA make it impossible for the university to conduct discplinary/probationary hearing in public. The student's right to privacy is practically sacrosanct.

Also, with respect to being able to confront your accuser, let's say the hearing is for sexual harrassment, for example. The accuser may not want to appear at the hearing, and with good reason, in my opinion.

Your right to free speech is subject to reasonable time/place/manner restrictions. And so it is for any other civil liberties you might have. The universities are playing a delicate balancing game in order to be as fair and liberal as possible, while also being as protective as possible. It's a tough thing to do well, and this time around, American got it wrong. But they can't have different procedures for every hearing.

slightly off topic,

does anyone know what happened in that case where that south asian kid at ucla was tasered repeatedly by a couple of UCLA cops?

Wait. Are you saying he'd be legally accountable only if he said something like "Go back to India, Raghead!"?

Did you notice where I said (in an earlier post) that white immigrants from Eastern Europe often get this sort of thing too? Why is a statement like that always construed as racial, and not say, stupidly jingoistic instead?

I concede that this statement certainly could have been racially motivated. It's just not that open-and-shut. On the other hand, calling someone "fag" leaves little room for ambiguity....

...unless of course he just wanted to bum a cigarette off the guy. :)

But isn't xenophobia as bad as racism or homophobia? "I hate you because you're an immigrant" isn't up there with "I hate you because you've got brown skin" or "I hate you because you're into dudes"?

Furthermore, either a substantive right or a property right must be implicated to invoke due process. As far as I know, you have neither the substantive right to an education, or a property interest in that education.

I am no constitutional law scholar, but if a Public University student manual promises a hearing, then the student does develop a property interest in not getting expelled without a proper hearing plus notice and all that is entailed with a hearing.

I think xenophobia should be as bad (and in fact, national origin is a protected class, but there are some murky issues there). However, in reality, racism and homophobia seem to be a much bigger deal.

I think it's because particular types of racial bias, and bias based on sexual orientation, are much more a part of mainstream culture of the last 50-60 years than bias based on xenophobia. That is, a black man who has a racial epithet hurled at him is much more likely to elicit public sympathy than an immigrant (of any color) who complains that someone told them to go back home.

does anyone know what happened in that case where that south asian kid at ucla was tasered repeatedly by a couple of UCLA cops?

It was ascertained that the kid wasNT south asian, hence we let it slide :))

if a Public University student manual promises a hearing, then the student does develop a property interest in not getting expelled without a proper hearing plus notice and all that is entailed with a hearing.

There is a great deal of debate on whether student manuals and employee manuals, etc. create the necessary property right, and whether such manuals are contractually binding. Most courts trend towards not finding a property right. This comes up a great deal in the employment law context too.

At any rate, it appears that notice and a hearing of some sort were provided, so whether there is a property right in this case is moot.

hema:

i do agree that liberal principles of govt are not precisely transferable to the liberal university (freedom of speech is a little different from academic freedom, for example) but i don't think the problem is not so much one of competing liberal values (openess vs. privacy, for example) than one of various strains of illiberal philosophies (the influence of marcuse comes to mind) becoming insitutionalized and replacing the liberal framework.

just look at cases of due-process violation and see if you see a patern.

in cases invloving academic free speech, its easy to predict whose free speech will be limitied on campus.

good point on FERPA though, i really don't know anything about it. as far as exual harassment goes, i think universities have predictably gone too far in protecting the alledged victim as it is telling that they have gone much further than the courts.

There is a great deal of debate on whether student manuals and employee manuals, etc. create the necessary property right, and whether such manuals are contractually binding. Most courts trend towards not finding a property right. This comes up a great deal in the employment law context too.

I am not talking about the employment law/contract enforcement context.

Listen, you are either completely missing the point or just being difficult. This is not a problem of contractual rights and meeting of the minds. IT DOES NOT MATTER that the student did not read the manaul and whether the manual constituted fair notice or whether the student relied on the manual. It is enough that such a right is granted by the public university and that by itself grants the student a property interest of procedural due process.

hema and amfd:

when u say "property right", is that the same as "contractural right"?

Manju: I am sorry to say that hema does not know what he/she is talking about. Hema for the most part is peddling nonsense. THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER THE STUDENTS IN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES HAVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN DISCIPLINARY HEARING. NONE, NADA. This right is well established and the only quibble is about the nature, quality of that right and its enforcement.

Manju: Read this.

It is enough that such a right is granted by the public university and that by itself grants the student a property interest of procedural due process.

Fine. For the sake of argument, I will accept that this is true (even though it remains hotly debated). The notice and trial requirements for procedural due process have been met. The guy got a hearing, and FERPA requires notification of disciplinary action to the student and the parents. There is no requirement that the hearing be formal, or public.

Manju:

I'm speaking with reference to a property right. A contractual right would be something the parties bargained for, and would require agreement or a meeting of the minds. A property right for due process purposes requires some sort property or expectation created by state action (for example, welfare benefits, or tenure at a university).

Property rights can arise out of contractual rights though they can also arise out of non-contractual rights. The 14th amendment prevents the state from taking away the life, liberty or propery interest without due process of law.

THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER THE STUDENTS IN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES HAVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN DISCIPLINARY HEARING. NONE, NADA.

Untrue. But hey, I'm just here to peddle nonsense. I bow to your infinitely greater capacity for name-calling knowledge.

Untrue. But hey, I'm just here to peddle nonsense. I bow to your infinitely greater capacity for name-calling knowledge.

Where is the debate? Can you cite to it? Where is it taking place?

AMD, if what you say is true (re: public universities), please come and enlighten the UC Regents, who have had "trials" that defy due process for over 40 years.

I'll be up front - I have no legal training/background and frankly find this running around in circles tedious. That said, if you are found in violation of University Code (which is not the same as a local, state, or federal criminal/civil code), then you are subject to different "trial" procedures. I'm not saying it's right, wrong, yellow, pink, upside down, whatever. This how many universities, public and private, operate.

Where is the debate? Can you cite to it? Where is it taking place?

There is no debate with respect to public schools, but there remain issues as to whether these rules apply to institutions of higher education. Send me an e-mail, and I'll provide you with a page full of case cites (no sense in debating this point here).

But to further my peddling of nonsense, what exactly are you complaining about? The person in question was given notice and a hearing. If there was a property right, the procedural due process requirements have been met. End of story.

Camille there is a lot of litigation on the type of procedural due process afforded to students in public universities.
Hema was asserting that a procedural due process right will not be triggered in a public university situation and it that which turned my chuddis into a twister.

Send me an e-mail, and I'll provide you with a page full of case cites (no sense in debating this point here).

hema ji, how can we send you an email. you have not provided it any where.

Please email me at al_mujahid_for_debauchery@yahoo.com

*facepalm*

It's hcatfan(at)yahoodotcom.

I am trembling in my chuddies with imminent fear of the page full of phantom cases........A wild guess that the wait is going to be long......maybe longer.

MD,
No need to rebut the comment (or something like that) from Doordarshan. If you really want to piss him off.. say that "Sathya Sai Baba" is phony. :-))

Shouldn't be that long of a wait, dude! :)

Did you notice where I said (in an earlier post) that white immigrants from Eastern Europe often get this sort of thing too? Why is a statement like that always construed as racial, and not say, stupidly jingoistic instead?

I don't consider them white. I consider them European Ethnics. They become white when they become accepted as non-foreign, They become non-foreign when they become white. The two are one and the same.
A statement like "Go back to India" in my book is clearly racially motivated, It's saying, "You look different than me, so leave"

its not fair that the other kid isn't getting in trouble.

obviously kamdar must have done something that made the administration at one of the most prestigious schools in the united states feel that he should be expelled. whoever wrote the article should include all of the facts rather than a small portion of what actually happened. On a rather unrelated note...does anyone else find it suspicious that someone who battled cancer for three years was asking someone for a light for his fag?

America is increasingly becoming more and more Orwelian with every passing hour.

I can understand shock jocks being suspended or whatever for using bad or discriminatory language on the air, but 2 people having a personal brawl cannot even using racial or other slurs against each other now??? What is this world coming to?

Our freedoms are increasingly being taken away.

instant_karma you are a moron.

Rick finished school at another college and makes more money than anyone else I know. His career is not over, nor was it ever. Get a life you racist.