- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,369
- Reaction score
- 4,278
That was fair and balanced..../sarcasm
Isn't that his wife's website?Our fav court case is finally going to trial next week
http://www.speakingofchina.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Dkt.-138-Amended-Order-Setting-Trial.pdf
http://www.speakingofchina.com/wp-c...r.-Shannon-Chavez-Korell_redacted.pdf#page=14“The university has the obligation and responsibility to award Mr. Yu a Ph.D. in general psychology at a minimum. Mr. Yu successfully completed all doctoral level program requirements of the Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, including successful defense of a doctoral dissertation, with the sole exception of successful completion of internship.” – Expert report of Dr. Shannon Chavez-Korell, page 7
I've heard about such practices. Obviously, very rare circumstances. Mostly I've heard it for students that decided that the practice-orientated degree would not be necessary for their career, so why waste a year on internship.Is this a thing? The university can award someone a doctorate in "general psychology" even if they don't actually complete the requirements of their specific program?
Hmm, interesting. This whole case is super weird and we really only hear information from one side, because the student's wife is so active in pursuing his case on the internet.I've heard about such practices. Obviously, very rare circumstances. Mostly I've heard it for students that decided that the practice-orientated degree would not be necessary for their career, so why waste a year on internship.
I've heard about such practices. Obviously, very rare circumstances. Mostly I've heard it for students that decided that the practice-orientated degree would not be necessary for their career, so why waste a year on internship.
I know a couple people who did this. One is working as a consultant and the other is in industry.
One of the documents I read stated the faculty were aware of his low hours and had concerns. The approved him to apply for internship with the stipulation that he apply to sites where his Chinese language would be considered an asset as they felt he might do better in his native language. But he only applied to 2 sites (out of 14) that met that criteria. The exhibits in Docket 105 have many many details not provided in the initial article. The externship he was dismissed from was at a psych hospital to do testing and he had difficulty in many areas. There are the student evaluations from each semester, indicating where he was below expectations. He attempted his proposed internship in Cleveland and by the first week his supervisor had concerns about his ability to complete tasks. There appear to be some areas that ISU could have done better, or maybe need to revise policies, but there is also information that Yu lacked self-awareness of his limitations and needed more training before going on internship. Interesting case all around.I'm still flabbergasted that he applied to internship with less than 200 face-to-face clinical hours. How did he think he would match to any sites like that? What was he doing with his time in the program?
From the documents, does it appear that the faculty at his program realized he had so few hours?
Hmm, that's even more interesting. I'm sympathetic to the argument that everyone has blind spots and trainees don't necessary know where their deficiencies lie without guidance, but it seems like the program did inform him of at least some of their concerns and some other things are quite manifestly obvious as a graduate student (e.g., F2F hours accrued and any insufficiency therein).One of the documents I read stated the faculty were aware of his low hours and had concerns. The approved him to apply for internship with the stipulation that he apply to sites where his Chinese language would be considered an asset as they felt he might do better in his native language. But he only applied to 2 sites (out of 14) that met that criteria. The exhibits in Docket 105 have many many details not provided in the initial article. The externship he was dismissed from was at a psych hospital to do testing and he had difficulty in many areas. There are the student evaluations from each semester, indicating where he was below expectations. He attempted his proposed internship in Cleveland and by the first week his supervisor had concerns about his ability to complete tasks. There appear to be some areas that ISU could have done better, or maybe need to revise policies, but there is also information that Yu lacked self-awareness of his limitations and needed more training before going on internship. Interesting case all around.
seems like a pretty open and shut case. Student was warned numerous times during practicum of problems. He was provided remediation plans and was dismissed from every external clinical position. Hope the judge doesn't **** this one up.Bench trial completed, closing arguments posted, just waiting for judge’s decision.
Justice for Jun | Speaking of China
Stop AAPI Hate co-founder + 13 organizations support Jun's discrimination case. Help him fight racism.www.speakingofchina.com
Yeah, the plaintiff's case seems pretty weak and relies on some fairly disingenuous readings of comments made by his supervisors.seems like a pretty open and shut case. Student was warned numerous times during practicum of problems. He was provided remediation plans and was dismissed from every external clinical position. Hope the judge doesn't **** this one up.
Nevertheless, Dr. Lynch wrote the following in her letter to Mr. Yu denying his appeal from dismissal from the doctoral program in clinical psychology: “Most importantly, your demonstrated failure at the Cleveland Clinic provided explicit evidence that your lack of satisfactory progress is not the result of a linguistic problem alone.” See the second page, Argument 3 of Defendant’s Exhibit 536 (Emphasis added). Based on the evidence presented at trial and the plain language of Defendant’s Exhibit 536, there is no doubt that Mr. Yu’s accent Case 4:15-cv-00430-REB Document 177 Filed 03/25/19 Page 9 of 26 PLAINTIFF JUN YU’S CLOSING ARGUMENT Page 5 of 20 and/or speech pattern played a motivating part in Mr. Yu’s dismissal from ISU. Therefore, Mr. Yu has established by direct evidence that he was the victim of national origin discrimination.
At least now we have a list of people that don’t know what they are agreeing to sign. Sad to see Norcross on that list.Sign on to Ask APA to Support Important Student Case
docs.google.com
From the Div. 17 listserv. It isn't over yet.
Sign on to Ask APA to Support Important Student Case
docs.google.com
From the Div. 17 listserv. It isn't over yet.
Do you mean "no one who was sharing it"?It would seem that blindly putting your name on something these days is the only way to be woke. This came up on our listserv. It was very clear that everyone who was sharing it, had read anything about this case.
I don't doubt that at all. There's no way anyone who has read the facts of the case can side with the student or believe that this is a matter of discrimination or bias. Moreover, his demands in the original trial are absolutely absurd.It would seem that blindly putting your name on something these days is the only way to be woke. This came up on our listserv. It was very clear that everyone who was sharing it, had read anything about this case.
I suspect that the reason for so many signing is in the framing of the objection and not the underlying case. For the D17 letter above it talks about how psychologist expert testimony was dismissed "out of hand" and not considered. I assume that got a lot of people to sign on, regardless of the case and regardless of if that was an accurate representation of events/rationale of the Judge (I have no idea frankly).I don't doubt that at all. There's no way anyone who has read the facts of the case can side with the student or believe that this is a matter of discrimination or bias. Moreover, his demands in the original trial are absolutely absurd.
Ha, yes, thanks for the correction. I was firing off a bunch of e-mails and replies in a short period of time. Def affected my coherence!Do you mean "no one who was sharing it"?
That's just gross.Home - Justice for Jun
Co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate + 13 organizations support Jun’s discrimination case. Help him fight racism. Donate Now “Mr. Yu’s experience exemplifies and exposes the pervasive ways in which implicit bias and racial discrimination against Asians can manifest in education and in the judiciary.” –...justiceforjun.com
APA refused to sign on as an amicus curiae. A new hearing date has been set for his appeal. The case has been rebranded.
Would love to read the initial final judgment and ruling in the case from last year. The wife took down her website awhile back and along with it went the legal documents and affidavits that had been uploaded. Oh well.
I just read the court document. The judge was quite unimpressed by the testimony of Dr. Zorwick. His (the judge's) criticisms of the logical flaws in Zorwick's argument reminded me of the discussion on the recent "Defining Violence" thread regarding the problems of an overly inclusive definition (in this case, "aversive racism").Jun Yu v. Idaho State Univ., Case No.: 4:15-cv-00430-REB | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Jun Yu v. Idaho State Univ., Case No.: 4:15-cv-00430-REB, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal databasecasetext.com
I just read the court document. The judge was quite unimpressed by the testimony of Dr. Zorwick. His (the judge's) criticisms of the logical flaws in Zorwick's argument reminded me of the discussion on the recent "Defining Violence" thread regarding the problems of an overly inclusive definition (in this case, "aversive racism").
I just read the court document. The judge was quite unimpressed by the testimony of Dr. Zorwick. His (the judge's) criticisms of the logical flaws in Zorwick's argument reminded me of the discussion on the recent "Defining Violence" thread regarding the problems of an overly inclusive definition (in this case, "aversive racism").
He calls her out multiple times for the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." In summary, her argument is that aversive racism can lead to unfair dismissal of an ethnic/racial/cultural/linguistical minority student, and thus any dismissal of such a student is therefore the result of aversion racism. As someone who believes that this type of discrimination does occur, I'm bothered by this faulty logic, as I think it distracts from some of the reality of the issue."As to Dr. Zorwick's criticism of Dr. Robert's recommendation letter as a hallmark piece of ambiguity indicating aversive racism, the Court finds no credibility whatsoever. Dr. Zorwick either missed or overlooked the fact that after Dr. Roberts wrote Yu's letter of recommendation in support of his APPIC application in October 2011 and before ISU dismissed Yu from the doctoral program in May 2013, Yu had multiple clinical psychologists tell the University that Yu was not competent to work in their clinics - one of whom said expressly that Yu was a potential danger to any clinical patients with whom he might work - all of which also led to Yu's dismissal from two separate clinical placements.
Dr. Zorwick's testimony that these two events are an example of ambiguity that constitutes aversive racism is not credible. Rather, it is incredulous to such a degree that it impairs the entirety of her testimony"
Yikes.
He calls her out multiple times for the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." In summary, her argument is that aversive racism can lead to unfair dismissal of an ethnic/racial/cultural/linguistical minority student, and thus any dismissal of such a student is therefore the result of aversion racism. As someone who believes that this type of discrimination does occur, I'm bothered by this faulty logic, as I think it distracts from some of the reality of the issue.
I like his response to Koocher, too. Basically "yeah, that could all be true, but it's in no way related to a violation of title VI." In effect " you've wasted everyone's time"
How did this person afford to bring so many expert witnesses. Are they a Chinese billionaire or relation? Honestly, the dude sounds like a nightmare. The autism clinic one really bothers me. They were trying to help a dude out, and he thanks them by bringing them to court. I sure hope the internship supervisors had good self care during the stress of a trial.
You talking about this: "Yu's testimony and in the testimony of the professors and clinical psychologists who worked with Yu, revealed someone who didn't want to hear that there were any shortcomings in his work. Put bluntly, the Court's objective assessment of the evidence on such matters led to a conclusion that Yu's response was more often a stubborn denial of any shortcomings, apparently from a lack of self-awareness and self-reflection. Hence, the Court was not surprised to hear from Dr. Lynch that in all her years of teaching, she had never felt such disrespect from a student as she did from Yu."The court’s observation of Yu during the trial was also interesting to read.
Dude couldn't speak english good enough to build rapport. Was a danger in an inpatient adult setting (internship #1) because he just wasn't able to communicate. Internship #2 was an autism placement and the dude couldn't give a good test, etc. When they brought up concerns to him, he'd just ignore them or didn't comprehend.Wow.
What is the cliff notes version of why he was dismissed from the two clinical placements / considered a danger to patients?