We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
https://www.scribd.com/document/373372308/Compainant-s-Letter-to-CPSH-of-AUD
As for the case itself, Liang filed a case in 2018 against AUD challenging the findings and named the survivor as a respondent. Liang is being represented by Senior Advocate Jawahar Raja. The las hearing took place on 10 December 2019, with the next listing for 18 March 2020. Nothing since then.
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhc_case_status_oj_list.asp?pno=890371
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: https://asiatimes.com/2018/03/indian-university-finds-top-academic-guilty-sexual-harassment/
https://asiatimes.com/2018/03/indias-culture-silence-around-sexual-harassment-campus/
I think the committee's finding is supported by the Vishakha case, where the SC said:
. Sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behavior as physical contacts and advance, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/
I am not sure on what grounds Liang has gone to the Delhi HC and why he has impleaded the girl who made the complaint. In my view, the only valid ground could be that what happened at ALF is not material to the proceeding. But I don't think that alters the substance of the finding.
Tells you all about the man. Just another petty sovereign. The silence of NLS' woke alumni is deafening.
And what if they don't? At that point all left of centre NLS grads are automatically hypocrites?
2. These handful do often insert themselves into conversations nothing to do with them.
3. In these conversations they purport to speak for those negatively affected by power imbalances.
4. They are still under no obligation to speak out against all issue of power imbalances. But...
4a. It would be nice if they did when things are related to academia.
4b. More specifically, they should when things are related to a person from their institution.
4c. More emphatically, they ought to when things are related to someone they shared that institution space with.
Hope you get it now, either a simple minded Kian or a head up the ass Kian.
PS: I do hope you do not censor my last para where I try to bring out your hypocrisy. You are after all a public figure here and have willingly chosen to speak out here.
#3.1 - NLS almni
#3.2 - NLS alumni (marked trollish)
#3.2.1 - Liang's peers
#3.2.1.B (LI) - "all left of centre NLS grads"
I think there is one major problem at work here - the inability of people to speak without unendingly widening the group being referred.
- NALSAR student arrested for taking upskirt photos of air hostess. Unlike Liang, he was a student at the time so NALSAR is involved. Did NALSAR suspend him? Don't think so.
https://www.lawctopus.com/nalsar-student-arrested-misbehaving-indigo-stewardess/
https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-law-student-arrested-for-allegedly-harassing-indigo-stewardess-2120713
- NUJS PhD student from Bangladesh arrested for virtual sexual harassment of a girl (LLB alum). Later charged with passport offence as well. NUJS suspended him according to TOI, but was he expelled? Don't think so.
https://www.telegraphindia.com/west-bengal/scholar-in-harass-net/cid/1403540a
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/man-stalks-classmate-for-9-years-held/articleshow/59346362.cms
By the way, not that it is relevant, but that NUJS student was indeed expelled. Your thinking doesn't really make any difference to reality, you see.
The petition against the nalsar guy was withdrawn by the air hostess who made it without completion of investigation, whereas the Liang was held responsible for SH by a lawfully set up committee.
That said, I am willing to call out [...] scum of the earth for doing what he did. I really hope the complaint has not been dropped and that he should have been brought to heel by the law.
Hopefully, you could do the same about Liang.
The up skirt photo thing isn’t even the worst thing thats happened in nalsar. I just think it’s funny that folks want to drag nls down while doing nothing to acknowledge the rot in their own house. Like the bodies of women are simply a pawn to win some silly game of one upmanship.
http://altlawforum.org/about/our-team-2/
Would LI be willing to approach the old guard for comments?
https://aud.ac.in/faculty/prof-lawrence-liang
https://www.orfonline.org/people-expert/saikat-datta/
The nonsense seems to be all over the internet.
[...]
How being well-educated, aware of criminal laws and contacting women lawyers to seek guidance can work against rape complainants.
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/litigation-columns/tarun-tejpal-acquittal-judgment-new-principles-criminal-jurisprudence
An Indian court’s judgment in a high-profile rape case is a giant leap backward for women
https://qz.com/india/2014367/tarun-tejpal-judgment-by-kshama-joshi-is-the-antithesis-of-metoo/
In Tarun Tejpal acquittal, judge questions 'appropriate' behaviour for rape victims
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-57266447
The regressive mindset behind the Tarun Tejpal judgment
https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/the-regressive-mindset-behind-the-tejpal-judgment-101622191811755.html
Tarun Tejpal Judgment Underlines How Little the Judiciary Has Learnt on Sexual Violence
https://thewire.in/law/the-tarun-tejpal-judgement-underlines-how-little-the-judiciary-has-learnt-on-sexual-violence
For the Judge, It Was a Feminist Who Was on Trial, Not Tarun Tejpal
https://thewire.in/women/for-the-judge-it-was-a-feminist-who-was-on-trial-not-tarun-tejpal
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/lawsikho-piece
https://www.thequint.com/author/1298737/shwetasree-majumder
1. In my view, the Wire gave the best headline of all the media outlets covering the issue: In Finding Dean Guilty, University Panel Expands Jurisdiction Over Sexual Harassment. The key issue is whether a university internal committee look into alleged acts before employment in the university? If not, the alleged acts at ALF are irrelevant and the decision should be quashed in entirety.
2. It is also questionable if AUD has jurisdiction to examine complaints during the employment of the university but outside the course of employment and outside the premises. In this case, alleged acts at a party, at JNU etc are being alleged. Can AUD have jurisdiction over something that allegedly happened at JNU, where Lawrence was a PhD student? Shouldn't JNU look into it?
Thus, on the fundamental ground that jurisdiction was improperly exercised Lawrence can make a strong argument. Beyond that there are substantive grounds as well.
This assertion is laughable. Should the alumni create a full time working committee to release statements everytime someone errs? I guess DU, IIT or IIM alumni groups will need to have full time working members to make this happen.
Lets be clear, the intention is clearly to malign and institution and no one is buying it based on the flimsy argument that some people are woke.
Thank you, next.
Imagine an individual from the minority community scouring the news reports for any instance of terrorism perpetrated by people from any other community. Then he would highlight it over tweet, and occasionally write op-eds about it, and condemn people for not taking actions. Then he gets to hear that his next door neighbour from his own community, with whom he has grown up, has committed such an act. The neighbour is also trying to hush it up and blaming the victims of terrorism instead of taking responsibility. He is also privileged enough to succeed. Now our writer comes to know all of that, shrugs, says, "Meh!", and then goes back to scouring reports and continues his tirade against others. Now again imagine the same thing occur for 30 years. Then when people are asking questions about his hypocrisy, he starts deflecting it to be minority discrimination, and grumbles that everyone is against his community. Though only he's been the one to bring his community up in terms of being selective.
[ad hominem redacted...]
I also think the RW is using this case to pursue an agenda.
[...]
If you are a happy hypocrite, show your rage!
If you are a happy hypocrite, show your rage!
If your own does something bad,
Still you don't have to be sad
All you need to do is walk off that stage!
In your rage!
NLSIU alumni when NLSIU alumni accused of SH: 🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐
Dear Committee members of CPSH-AUD,
I am writing to you to thank you for taking up my complaint, and acting on it swiftly and proactively
ensuring that my perpetrator Lawrence Liang is convicted, and evidences brought into light against
sexual harassment and predatory behaviour of Ned Bertz is also taken into account following due
process, and his home university at Hawaii, US be notified.
However, after having read the report several times, I have come to the conclusion that despite
conviction of perpetrators, which essentially means that the charges of sexual harassment against them
– especially Lawrence Liang, the defendant of my primary complaint – have been proven, there are a
number of instances in course of these proceedings that, I feel, have systematically removed me as a
victim/complainant from accessing justice – both substantive and restorative – in a more tangible form
that could help me heal from the trauma of his repeat sexual assaults (the chronology of some of which
he has mangled, and others he denied, making me out to be a liar in his deposition). I would therefore
like to request the committee to consider with sensitivity the following points, which I am well within my
rights to demand your attention to for reasons stated alongside each of them.
1. Lawrence Liang continues to hold his position of authority and power despite his conviction, which he
uses to influence the outcome of the due process to work in his favour as much as possible. It has been
brought to my notice by sources (who cannot be revealed for obvious reasons) that Liang had
immediately written to the VC appealing that the report of the IC stating his conviction may not be
handed over to me. This is just another instance of how he continues to abuse his authority and
proximity to those in power to impede the justice delivery mechanism.
The committee must bear in mind at all times that his position inside AUD, not only as an administrator
of a Centre/School but also as a faculty member, provides him powers and access to derail due process
to the point of disregarding its binding nature on him as a convict, which not only defeats the primary
purpose the sexual harassment laws, but also goes against the prevention of sexual harassment policy at
AUD, as it fails the institution from preventing a "hostile environment" under clauses (ii) and (iii), and
Explanation of subsection (1) of section 2, under which my complaint was registered in the first place.
2. Preventing access to transcripts of my own deposition in verbatim including at least the proceedings
(questions by committee members and my responses to them) at the time of my deposition by reading
the confidentiality clause against my interest. Throughout the course of due process in this case, the
confidentiality clause has been read to serve the interest of my perpetrator while undermining my rights
to have a copy of what I deposed, thereby, distancing me from my own narrative of the incident. Even
after pointing this out on previous occasions I have only been reminded of consequences of not keeping
matters to myself after the commencement of the inquiry. This is unfortunately more like a gag order,
and not something to protect my confidentiality or in the interest of my safety or well-being.
To do this with a restrictive and almost antagonist reading of the confidentiality/secrecy clause to work
against me as the victim, the IC is expecting me to have a photographic memory of the my deposition
and related proceedings. This as we all know is humanly impossible, especially if one takes into account
how trauma of having abused and repeatedly harassed already makes recounting things in front of
others so much more harder, and not just because of ensuing humiliation one feels for not being
believed or understood. What is has led to is counter questions such as "did you mention this
(compensation or apology from my perpetrator) in my deposition?" Irrespective of the fact of my
mentioning what I would need to heal from the impact of the sexual harassment, which any way have
not really been taken into account, making my own deposition transcripts inaccessible to me makes it
impossible for me to answer such retroactive counter questions with certainty, which causes further
confusion, trauma, helplessness, and thereby, harassment. I feel further victimised by being treated as
an alien to parts of my own experience, which I had made every possible effort to narrate with clarity
and honesty, trusting the good will and competency of such a body because they so assured at the time
of registering the complaint. Such treatment of complainant and her witnesses is explicitly prohibited by
AUD CPSH policy under clause (i) of subsection (1) of section 4.
This along with comments, such as, the committee is in no way obliged to listen to what I have to say
once the report has been prepared (meaning, inquiry closed), because then would also have to entertain
the queries of the defendant. This makes little sense because it means that the committee continues to
treat the convicted individual at par with the victim, because to their minds the idea of giving the
feelings of the person who is a victim (and has suffered), and the person who is a perpetrator (who has
harmed the complainant and also the credibility of the institution(s) that he is associated with, and
therefore has been rightly indicted by the IC) equal weightage somehow sound reasonable – as if the
conviction ought to be status quoist when it involves a person in position of power, as if the committee is
obliged to be considerate to his view of what consent and "borderline romance" hinging on criminal
behaviour mean even as it indicts him under external pressure of formalities related to SHW laws. This
kind of treatment is not actually neutral or objective at all, but it could be interpreted as discriminatory
based on status, power, and affiliation, all of which in this specific case is stacked in favour of my
perpetrator.
3. No steps have been taken, or no recommendations have been made to ensure or facilitate my well-
being, or compensate for the loss of health or mental health caused due to the assault/sexual
harassment that I have suffered in the hands of my perpetrator. While the IC has shown great sensitivity
to ensure scope of rehabilitation of my perpetrator, it appears from the report that it has treated my
trauma from the sexual harassment and from the harrowing process of seeking justice quite casually
even after the charges brought against Liang have been proven. This they have done in the following
ways:
(i) They have provided me with a hard copy of a report that to my shock does not contain Lawrence
Liang's and Ned Bertz's names. It convicts an anonymous D (Liang), and makes some preliminary note of
Z's (Bertz) history of sexual misconduct and abuse of power. This is unacceptable because it is a further
breach of my basic right as a complainant/survivor to have the least bit of satisfaction of seeing their
names on this document – as some concrete proof that the due processes at least recognise in practice,
and not just on paper, that this kind of sexual misconduct and casual disregard for boundaries and
consent is indeed sexual harassment – that my perpetrators could be held guilty of SH despite gaping
holes in the system, despite their rank and social standing, and despite "certain lacunae in reporting to,
or consulting with CPSH on matters of sexual harassment by AUD faculty, that too by faculty in
administratively responsible positions" by IC's own admission (p.15, Report on SH Case 2017-2).
A copy of the report with Lawrence Liang's conviction and recommendations against Ned Bertz's
misconduct must be made available to me and IC can't possibly be allowed to treat me as an outsider to
my own case, the benefit of all of which goes to the perpetrators. Moreover, as a survivor, I should not
be bearing the additional emotional or psychological cost of these "lacunae" or the ways in which the
various institutional authorities have fallen short due to lack of prior experience of handling cases of this
nature (as i was informed), or due to the fact that the IC consists of academics and not social work
professionals and lawyers. This is not my fault, and in fact it works against me, so the outcome should
not make me pay the price of such due process failures by making recommendations against my interest.
(ii) The IC report has also not drafted in a single recommendation toward monetary compensation to be
made available to me by the person(s) found guilty of sexually harassing me for me having to go through
this inquiry process that in no way is an easy task for me as a single female student, especially as a
[redacted] woman from [redacted] who has had to fight several other battles to be able to access
academic spaces and be safe in a place away from home. I would like to go in for therapy as soon as
possible, but good long-term therapy is expensive. Yet it is important that I have some agency over
choosing my therapist myself because I have social anxieties and C-PTSD related mental health issues
which make travelling long distances in public transport or seeing new people very hard for me.
My trauma, the financial and emotional costs I have had to go through, and continue to bear till this day,
due to these incidents of sexual harassment in my working environment by powerful men in academia –
who by the way I still might encounter time and again with even more hostility for having spoken out –
have been completely overlooked in the IC report despite the conviction, leaving basically nothing in it
for me to feel restored in any manner, or get justice in some tangible manner that would also make my
perpetrator realise what he did to me is not okay, and can never be, no matter who he is, or what
becomes of him, that he is wrong to assault me and others like me, and there is cost to the damage that
he glibly inflicts upon women, while narrating with bravado in his own defence, his own history of serial
sexual misconducts to appear magnanimous to his own faults.
(Not to mention, reading the IC report with just extracts of his deposition therein was traumatic for me.
He is blatantly gaslighting his victim(s), and exploiting the reputation of his former organisation and the
efforts of so many committed lawyers and activists who work for it to his advantage, to distract the IC
and add weight to his defence against having to take responsibility for his unethical and predatory
behaviour, and to redeem himself in the eyes of the audience.)
(iii) The disciplinary actions and penalties against Lawrence Liang drafted into the report are inadequate.
It is barely doing justice to the what the IC members had promised to me in the beginning of the inquiry
that there is a list of penalties mentioned in the policy but it's not exhaustive, and they would do their
best to ensure that I get justice because they understand how hard it is for victims like me to speak out
against powerful perpetrators, which is why such complaints never come up.
By depriving me of even the barest minimum access to some sense of restorative justice, the IC is
discouraging victims of sexual harassment from speaking up against their powerful perpetrators, and
continuing to keep these academic spaces unsafe for women and nonmale stakeholders. If I remember
correctly, while I had said in my deposition that anything other than his removal from
administrative/teaching post would be a compromise, I had also asked for a written apology, and
suspension, and some form of compensation for what I had gone through. In fact the AUD policy actually
also has a provision for the perpetrator to tender an apology through "Form VIII".
In the light of the aforementioned points, I feel that the conviction of Lawrence Liang and the
recommendations of the IC report do not do justice to the implementation of the AUD CPSH policy or
the SHW Act, thereby, making the conviction of my sexual harassers, Lawrence Liang and Ned Bertz,
especially the former, a mere [redacted] fact on paper that only the committee and University
authorities could have access to, but not even me as a complainant/victim/survivor.
Not only has the committee not followed zero tolerance policy towards sexual harassment as the AUD
policy states, the punitive actions recommended cause minimal impact to his position as a powerful
academic and person of authority. While under the specific clauses (xv) and (xvi) of subsection (2) of
section 9 of the AUD policy makes no distinction in penalties awarded to administrative or teaching staff,
the most stringent of the recommendations against Lawrence Liang, is of nominal nature that asks of
him to step down from his administrative position, while he continues to enjoy all other benefits as a
regular employee in teaching position.
If not dismissal from service, at least a suspension for a period of time from all university roles and
responsibilities, along with undergoing mandatory gender sensitisation and orientation training, and an
undertaking that he understands the ethical responsibilities that come with his position as an educator
and how any further complaints of such nature would require him to resign would have felt substantive,
or fair to the cause to gender justice.
https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2021/05/06/fulbright-history-professor-research-tanzania/
Post the Tarun Tejpal judgment, where the court set high standards for urban educated women and slut-shamed the survivor, we cannot be sure which way the court will rule in this case. Lawrence might just win. He has A-list counsels on his side whereas the girl does not have any big name lawyers.
[img]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9drRLkvWDw8[/img]
I guess he didn't get in, and now had made it his life ambition to raise this dumb hypocrisy point everytime they get a chance.
Please.. Continue..
This is about as dumb as asking Muslims to condemn all acts of terrorism, or basically bashing feminists..
It feels like one person with a lot of hot air to expend.. continue.. get it out of your system.. Rejection hurts. Get that anger and poison out.
Please also note that Lawrence has challenged the AUD report in court and also impleaded the student who complained as a respondent. There is a very legitimate question to ask here: if the alleged harassment happened outside the AUD campus, how does AUD claim jurisdiction? Furthermore, the AUD report refers to incidents of alleged SH involving interns at ALF in Bangalore. Why is AUD comments on interns at ALF? There is every chance the court will find the report to be ultra vires. Remember that Tarun Tejpal was also vilified by the RW but came out clean in court. Please let us leave it to the court.
Finally, pro-BJP people attacking Lawrence on LI should speak up on MJ Akbar and Suhel Seth. LI should have a thread on them too.
According to Right Wingers - that maybe the case.