Dare you to reply!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
fiji128 said:
Great way to blow up your own medical career for absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
The guy is going to be walking away with a multimillion dollar settlement, so probably not for nothing.

Unless UVA produces something (really, anything) concrete as to why they kicked him out of school (which they never did in the hearing or emails) beyond "we didn't like that he asked pointed and potentially unpopular questions of an invited panelist" he's winning this lawsuit in a landslide. "but-for" cause is really his only hurdle to clear for him. But-for the questions he asked, would any of this happened? It's laughable to say "Yes, definitely!".

EDIT: I'm not a lawyer, not legal advice
 
Last edited:
The worst part of that panel was they never provided him with a single example of behavior that informed their kicking him out. It was "We're doctors. We think patients would be scared of you." Ummm.... okay? Why? "Various interactions." Can you cite any single one? "Various. Just look how aggressive and defensive you're being now." Yes, I was asked to come defend my self, so..... "Tell me why we're here." I don't know, you requested this meeting 3 hours ago. Why don't you tell me. "I'm not going to parse words with you. This is atypical, we're adjourning. You'll know by tomorrow."

I'm a bit surprised the violation of due process was dismissed.
 
Also made to the Post. Look at this welcoming non-micro-aggressing tribunal he showed up to be grilled by. I think he held it together pretty damn great. I mean you're barely out of your teenage years as a MS2. I wasn't even shaving then I think. Given his documentation efforts re: this whole process, he should at least be great w/ EMRs.

uva-microaggression-court-02.jpg
 
Mandelin Rain said:
The guy is going to be walking away with a multimillion dollar settlement, so probably not for nothing.

Unless UVA produces something (really, anything) concrete as to why they kicked him out of school (which they never did in the hearing or emails) beyond "we didn't like that he asked pointed and potentially unpopular questions of an invited panelist" he's winning this lawsuit in a landslide. "but-for" cause is really his only hurdle to clear for him. But-for the questions he asked, would any of this happened? It's laughable to say "Yes, definitely!".

EDIT: I'm not a lawyer, not legal advice
Click to expand...
Good points. But-for discussed within. Also this nugget:

tNCbSDW.png
 
"Engaged in conduct that threatened the well-being of members of the community...compromised safety and security and caused fear"


You know what causes fear for me? Enormous institutions using their power to crush ideological dissent and ruin someone's life for daring to question logically weak/essentially unfounded claims, but cloaking it in a veil of "safety and security" for the community.
 
OTN said:
"Engaged in conduct that threatened the well-being of members of the community...compromised safety and security and caused fear"


You know what causes fear for me? Enormous institutions using their power to crush ideological dissent and ruin someone's life for daring to question logically weak/essentially unfounded claims, but cloaking it in a veil of "safety and security" for the community.
Click to expand...
All of this is described in Lukianoff and Haidt's book 'The Coddling of the AMerican Mind". Safetyism is ubiquitous in the academy. A convenient excuse to stifle dissent. Sadly a majority of those <26 don't believe in free speech (i don't have the exact reference but i think Pew research found this as well as other survey groups).

Once the backlash grows and the majority no longer supports institutions of higher ed they will be labeled as "anti-intellectual".
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
All of this is described in Lukianoff and Haidt's book 'The Coddling of the AMerican Mind". Safetyism is ubiquitous in the academy. A convenient excuse to stifle dissent. Sadly a majority of those <26 don't believe in free speech (i don't have the exact reference but i think Pew research found this as well as other survey groups).

Once the backlash grows and the majority no longer supports institutions of higher ed they will be labeled as "anti-intellectual".
Click to expand...
Plenty of boomers hate free speech and the free press too, not just a millennial phenomenon.

How many members of the press were threatened and assaulted at Trump rallies the last several years?

www.theatlantic.com

Trump’s Warped Definition of Free Speech

The president is attempting to bring social-media platforms into his authoritarian infrastructure—or otherwise censor them.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
All of this is described in Lukianoff and Haidt's book 'The Coddling of the AMerican Mind". Safetyism is ubiquitous in the academy. A convenient excuse to stifle dissent. Sadly a majority of those <26 don't believe in free speech (i don't have the exact reference but i think Pew research found this as well as other survey groups).

Once the backlash grows and the majority no longer supports institutions of higher ed they will be labeled as "anti-intellectual".
Click to expand...
I don’t get it... if someone isn’t allowed to say something I disagree with, I would miss out on telling them why they are wrong.
 
medgator said:
Plenty of boomers hate free speech and the free press too, not just a millennial phenomenon.

How many members of the press were threatened and assaulted at Trump rallies the last several years?

www.theatlantic.com

Trump’s Warped Definition of Free Speech

The president is attempting to bring social-media platforms into his authoritarian infrastructure—or otherwise censor them.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
Click to expand...
I used the younger folks as an example because they are more involved with IHE and they should know better.
WRT the press I feel little sympathy. CBS 60 Minutes latest example of framing to perpetuate the narrative. There are countries where journalists are in danger but not here
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
I used the younger folks as an example because they are more involved with IHE and they should know better.
WRT the press I feel little sympathy. CBS 60 Minutes latest example of framing to perpetuate the narrative. There are countries where journalists are in danger but not here
Click to expand...
60 minutes got it half right, the part desantis didn't want to acknowledge (out of state wealthy non residents getting the vaccine first along with connected certain board members/trustees at health systems and facilities, atrocious vaccination rates of URM elderly etc). Now he thinks he can dictate how the cruise industry can reopen in opposition to CDC recommendations

Glossing over physical assaults on members of the press the last few years at 45's rallies including his statements encouraging it doesn't make it less true that it happened, nor his attacks on the 1A rights of his critics
 
Last edited:
Chartreuse Wombat said:
All of this is described in Lukianoff and Haidt's book 'The Coddling of the AMerican Mind". Safetyism is ubiquitous in the academy. A convenient excuse to stifle dissent. Sadly a majority of those <26 don't believe in free speech (i don't have the exact reference but i think Pew research found this as well as other survey groups).

Once the backlash grows and the majority no longer supports institutions of higher ed they will be labeled as "anti-intellectual".
Click to expand...
Free speech does not mean spreading lies on Parler and QAnon. By their definition, openly threatening to assassinate the President or threatening to hold an insurrection at the Capitol is also "free speech".
 
FrostyHammer said:
Free speech does not mean spreading lies on Parler and QAnon. By their definition, openly threatening to assassinate the President or threatening to hold an insurrection at the Capitol is also "free speech".
Click to expand...
Have you read the book? If you had you would know that Lukianoff and Haidt do not consider the examples you gave as being protected by 1A.
 
The tide has turned my friends. Just like George Orwell's 1984, the only way to survive is to keep your head down and your yap shut. If the powers that be say that you have committed a thought crime you are finished.

Don't engage or you will be steamrolled.
 
Gfunk6 said:
The tide has turned my friends. Just like George Orwell's 1984, the only way to survive is to keep your head down and your yap shut. If the powers that be say that you have committed a thought crime you are finished.

Don't engage or you will be steamrolled.
Click to expand...
Or engage anonymously... thank you SDN!
 
Gfunk6 said:
The tide has turned my friends. Just like George Orwell's 1984, the only way to survive is to keep your head down and your yap shut. If the powers that be say that you have committed a thought crime you are finished.

Don't engage or you will be steamrolled.
Click to expand...
I think what we are seeing is not Orwell but rather an older, less well known writer with a dark vision-Aldous Huxley.

Quoting directly from the foreword of the late, great Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves to Death".

"Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think."

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one."
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
I think what we are seeing is not Orwell but rather an older, less well known writer with a dark vision-Aldous Huxley.

Quoting directly from the foreword of the late, great Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves to Death".

"Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think."

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one."
Click to expand...
Yo, we are reading the same books. 100% agree with you. We are too comfortable that we have no reason to fight. Huxley, Orwell, and Postman (and Haidt in fact) are incredible.
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
I think what we are seeing is not Orwell but rather an older, less well known writer with a dark vision-Aldous Huxley.

Quoting directly from the foreword of the late, great Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves to Death".

"Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think."

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one."
Click to expand...
In the end, we can't escape that there's a savage somewhere in all of us. As much as I hated the most recent admins approach to reality, I was at least comforted by some part of what it represented, which obviously had nothing to do with reading books.
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
I think what we are seeing is not Orwell but rather an older, less well known writer with a dark vision-Aldous Huxley.

Quoting directly from the foreword of the late, great Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves to Death".

"Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think."

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one."
Click to expand...

While I agree that cancel culture is real and has needlessly ended many careers... it doesn't feel like this is what happened a UVA.

My guess is that he was perceived as being obnoxious and argumentative, so rather than endure it or try to help him reform, they simply burned him down. Wokism seems more like the excuse the administrators used than the underlying cause... as evidenced by the fact that they couldn't articulate what he said or did that was over the line. Listening to the tape, you can almost hear the internal dialogue of the dean asking "who does this little ______ think he is?" This sort of vindictive narcissism is not a new phenomenon. The problem is, he caught them... and its going hard for UVA to defend their actions.

Obviously we have absolutely no way of knowing their motivations. I just get the feeling that, 30 years ago, the same guy could have had the same thing happen to him... only under different pretenses. The only difference is that he would have just gone away and there wouldn't be any recording.
 
Lamount said:
While I agree that cancel culture is real and has needlessly ended many careers... it doesn't feel like this is what happened a UVA.

My guess is that he was perceived as being obnoxious and argumentative, so rather than endure it or try to help him reform, they simply burned him down. Wokism seems more like the excuse the administrators used than the underlying cause... as evidenced by the fact that they couldn't articulate what he said or did that was over the line. Listening to the tape, you can almost hear the internal dialogue of the dean asking "who does this little ______ think he is?" This sort of vindictive narcissism is not a new phenomenon. The problem is, he caught them... and its going hard for UVA to defend their actions.

Obviously we have absolutely no way of knowing their motivations. I just get the feeling that, 30 years ago, the same guy could have had the same thing happen to him... only under different pretenses. The only difference is that he would have just gone away and there wouldn't be any recording.
Click to expand...
The quote from the complaint form was something about his tone with attending physicians or something. Speaking truth to power was, I thought, kind of a woke mantra. I'm kinda confused about the wording.
 
Lamount said:
While I agree that cancel culture is real and has needlessly ended many careers... it doesn't feel like this is what happened a UVA.

My guess is that he was perceived as being obnoxious and argumentative, so rather than endure it or try to help him reform, they simply burned him down. Wokism seems more like the excuse the administrators used than the underlying cause... as evidenced by the fact that they couldn't articulate what he said or did that was over the line. Listening to the tape, you can almost hear the internal dialogue of the dean asking "who does this little ______ think he is?" This sort of vindictive narcissism is not a new phenomenon. The problem is, he caught them... and its going hard for UVA to defend their actions.

Obviously we have absolutely no way of knowing their motivations. I just get the feeling that, 30 years ago, the same guy could have had the same thing happen to him... only under different pretenses. The only difference is that he would have just gone away and there wouldn't be any recording.
Click to expand...
I agree with this to an extent, but I think if the initial incident was about something less charged, say a point of clarification about the Krebs cycle, none of this happens. Someone probably pulls him aside and says, "What's up? You okay?" None of the rest happens. Of course, perhaps he'd have been less impassioned about the Krebs cycle and such an incident never happens at all. However, when you invite a political speaker you're also inviting political discussion. In 2021, the norm is that political discussion is impassioned and certain. That is something they should have been prepared for.

From there, it seems like he had no chance, even if he came in contrite. It's certainly what they were expecting.
 
The CDC has found a new indication for rad onc - We are saved! Racism ain’t nuthin’ SRS 100 Gy to the PTV_White_Male_Front_Lobe can’t handle. Best thing is no OAR constraints just make the plan hot hot hot! :flame:

 
RadOncMegatron said:
The CDC has found a new indication for rad onc - We are saved! Racism ain’t nuthin’ SRS 100 Gy to the PTV_White_Male_Front_Lobe can’t handle. Best thing is no OAR constraints just make the plan hot hot hot! :flame:

Click to expand...

What would you call disparities to treatment/access based on race? Doesn't seem that far off the mark.

That being said, i don't think a woke statement from the CDC will change anything until they try to deal with it with more granularity
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
reason.com

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

Kieran Bhattacharya's First Amendment lawsuit can proceed, a court said.
reason.com reason.com

Nice summary here for those whose institutions block various forms of social media
Click to expand...
Totally agree we should be able to express contrarian ideas safely. UVA sucks for being so snowflakey. But this audio clip from his professionalism hearing sheds a little light on the other side.



I honestly would not want this guy to be my doctor. He seems smart, but so obnoxious and almost anti-social. I get that he’s probably under distress, but hell, this is not how I would be acting if I was worried about getting kicked out of med school. Guy is super antagonistic and always trying to play “gotcha” to the point of being tangential in conversation. I guess there is no legal basis for the school to force him to get a psych evaluation, but after listening to part of that clip, I wonder if the guy does have some sort of personality/mood disorder. The way he is acting shows really poor insight. The school probably saved him from paying two more years of tuition to end up with poor evaluations on clinicals and no job. I’m all for free speech, but this guy seems like a real life troll. To me, he started off as a ‘brave’ kid by questioning the speaker’s concept of microaggressions but at some point crossed the line into ‘stupid’ territory.
Both parties did not handle the situation well.
 
It amazes me that we will take a microscope to a well done randomized trial and wait 10 years for follow up before changing practice....but bring in some feel good hocus pocus “ data “ on implicit bias testing and implement it as mandatory training like it’s some kind of time tested, level 1 intervention to build your department on.

*shakes head*

 
Mandelin Rain said:
My dude is clearly confrontational and perhaps a bit unhinged, but it also seems like UVA almost certainly violated his rights and I suspect they will lose in spectacular fashion in court. I think the kid did a decent job and was wise to record the proceedings. A real attorney is going to steamroll this collection of knuckleheads who felt that they were above being challenged by a medical student.
Click to expand...
UVA kinda back in the news but in a good way.

SDN: may it always be a place of free and open inquiry

news.virginia.edu

Statement of the Committee on Free Expression and Free Inquiry

A statement from UVA’s Committee on Free Expression and Free Inquiry, endorsed by the Board of Visitors
news.virginia.edu news.virginia.edu
 
fiji128 said:
It’s something that’s easy for academics to focus on when substantive clinic research proves to be too difficult.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about??? All you have to do is take an existing trial and subtract 1-2 fractions, prove non-inferiority (don’t worry about that little thing called toxicity) = Full Professor 🙌
 
A forum "doesn't," sweetheart.
Ray D. Ayshun said:
A forum "doesn't," sweetheart.
Click to expand...
So, how would this forum categorize the way "big radonc" is treating "little radonc"? Seems like we little radonc are the victims of microagressions. Hence, I figured you'd be warmed by the concept.
 
StuDocNet4dummies said:
A forum "doesn't," sweetheart.

So, how would this forum categorize the way "big radonc" is treating "little radonc"? Seems like we little radonc are the victims of microagressions. Hence, I figured you'd be warmed by the concept.
Click to expand...

Oh uh, another person who just hook line and sinker eats and believes in "microaggressions," "implicit bias," and "systemic racism." Sorry, but those beliefs are from your religious/worldview beliefs and not reality.

Edit: This forum has discussed this ad nauseum. Please take a perusal.
 
StuDocNet4dummies said:
A forum "doesn't," sweetheart.

So, how would this forum categorize the way "big radonc" is treating "little radonc"? Seems like we little radonc are the victims of microagressions. Hence, I figured you'd be warmed by the concept.
Click to expand...

Aggressively expanding residency numbers while using monopolistic pricing practices to drive freestanding centers out of business and replacing them with lower-cost employed radoncs would be a macroaggression. Nothing micro about it.
 
StuDocNet4dummies said:
A forum "doesn't," sweetheart.

So, how would this forum categorize the way "big radonc" is treating "little radonc"? Seems like we little radonc are the victims of microagressions. Hence, I figured you'd be warmed by the concept.
Click to expand...
I think it's microagressive to improperly conjugate verbs. Forum is singular, hence a forum doesn't.
 
RadOncMegatron said:
Oh uh, another person who just hook line and sinker eats and believes in "microaggressions," "implicit bias," and "systemic racism." Sorry, but those beliefs are from your religious/worldview beliefs and not reality.

Edit: This forum has discussed this ad nauseum. Please take a perusal.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on a lot of stuff ROMG, but you're wrong on this and we have plenty of historical evidence to support that.

www.pressherald.com

So you never knew about the Tulsa Race Massacre. Why not?

When it comes to teaching history in our schools, we still have a lot to learn.
www.pressherald.com www.pressherald.com

www.apa.org

Policing in black & white

Police departments are eager for ways to reduce racial disparities.
www.apa.org www.apa.org

www.cbsnews.com

Redlining's legacy: Maps are gone, but the problem hasn't disappeared

Mike Bloomberg claims the practice ultimately triggered the 2008 housing crash — but where does the term come from?
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
medgator said:
I agree with you on a lot of stuff ROMG, but you're wrong on this and we have plenty of historical evidence to support that.

www.pressherald.com

So you never knew about the Tulsa Race Massacre. Why not?

When it comes to teaching history in our schools, we still have a lot to learn.
www.pressherald.com www.pressherald.com

www.apa.org

Policing in black & white

Police departments are eager for ways to reduce racial disparities.
www.apa.org www.apa.org

www.cbsnews.com

Redlining's legacy: Maps are gone, but the problem hasn't disappeared

Mike Bloomberg claims the practice ultimately triggered the 2008 housing crash — but where does the term come from?
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...
It is clear that the IAT (a measure of implicit bias) is hogwash. The entire story is well described in the book below.

The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills-Jesse Singal​

 
RadOncMegatron said:
Oh uh, another person who just hook line and sinker eats and believes in "microaggressions," "implicit bias," and "systemic racism." Sorry, but those beliefs are from your religious/worldview beliefs and not reality.

Edit: This forum has discussed this ad nauseum. Please take a perusal.
Click to expand...
I thought this was an open minded forum for debate on all topics from all sides.... but you're saying it's not okay to believe in Santa, Jesus, and microagressions in this pantheon of free thought?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CurbYourExpectations
  • Poll Poll
Would you apply today?
2 3
Replies
103
Views
11K
TheWallnerus
TheWallnerus
CurbYourExpectations
  • Locked
Thank you all
Replies
8
Views
2K
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa
CurbYourExpectations
  • Poll Poll
Do you support encroachment into the field?
Replies
46
Views
3K
medgator
M
DoctwoB
Which of you is irradiating Joel Embiid?
Replies
8
Views
2K
SneakyBooger
SneakyBooger
Anthodite
To rad oncs who acknowledge rt students, I love you
Replies
0
Views
868
Anthodite
Anthodite
Top