Which Hills to Die On?
A med student at UVA, Kieran Bhattacharya, was expelled allegedly for expressing skepticism at a seminar on microaggressions. I say allegedly because as Trace Underwood uncovers, the university had plenty of grounds completely unrelated to microaggression skepticism to give him the boot.
One of which is an interaction that was recorded. Trace highlights excerpts of the conversation, where the student basically comes across as a total fucking pain to deal with. Trace writes:
The whole time, the professors emphasize that what he is doing is unusual, is coming across as threatening, and is inappropriate for the meeting. He replies at one point that they’re simply projecting aggression onto him. Listening to the audio, I can find no way to disagree with them. I want to. I came in rooting for the student, unfairly railroaded by an uncaring establishment. But even making allowances for the stress and difficulty of the circumstances, he does not come off well. He comes in positively spoiling for a fight, refusing to give an inch, arguing even trivial points at length, openly laughing in their faces.
Obviously, it’s reasonable to expect hostility from an individual finding themselves in a highly antagonistic tête-à-tête with a powerful institution. This is further magnified by the severe negative consequences that are hanging in the balance, including expulsion and further career derailment. At the same time, the fact that he was so unapologetically hostile very likely increased the likelihood of an adverse resolution for his case. Does a system ostensibly based on the principles of due process require it to turn a blind eye to this type of response from the student?
I would say no, because it’s a recognition that even if you stack due process to the moon, you still have the machinery operated by fallible humans. And I say this with explicit and direct experience from the criminal justice system.
I'm an anarchist that abhors hierarchy and authority, and yet here I am standing up when some self-important goober wearing a silly-looking robe walks into the room. I don't do this for my own mother, and I love my mom. I call the judge "Your Honor" at the end of every complete sentence, and I talk to them in the third person by referring to them as an institution "The Court" rather than an individual.
I hate everything about this song and dance, but I do the pirouette because my ultimate goal is to advocate for my clients. The goal isn't dying on petty hills.
By definition, my clientele tends to select from a segment of the population with higher than average impulsivity. A big part of my job is euphemistically referred to as "client control", and the majority of that is making sure they never talk. A client of mine yelling in court to a judge "THIS IS FUCKED UP" after they just deny a release motion (this has happened, of course) might release some catharsis and feel stellar in the immediate moment, but goddamn does it harpoon my ability to convince the judge in the future that you are a safe bet to release to the public.
Is it unfair that individuals get scrutinized under extremely unfavorable and stressful conditions? Absolutely! Maybe you've never committed a violent felony (so far), but can you really blame someone for having an outburst after some government official sentences them to months in a cage? Add the fact that you're handcuffed, and attired in a humiliatingly large orange smock and also wearing Crocs for shoes.
Which hills are worth dying over? Kieran probably felt a lot of gratification from being a complete asshole to people in power. So now what? He's still kicked out of school. He's sinking thousands of dollars in legal fees to sue the school, and his conduct has given the judge multiple legitimate legal reasons to dismiss his case, but also personal bias reasons to dismiss his case too (Public interest law firms like the ACLU spend a looooong time "Plaintiff Shopping" for a reason) The latter is undeniably unfair, there's no disputing that. But to recall one of the adages I rely on too often when talking to my clients: "Do you want to be right or do you want to win?"
People should be aware when pursuing a goal will come at the expense of another (potentially more important) goal. If they push forth regardless, it's difficult to muster up sympathy for their decision.