This letter has been uploaded by a person who a Google search reveals to be a journalist at Firstpost. Prime facie the letter does not give the identity of the complainant, although the journalist probably knows it. What's also very interesting is that a SECOND person has also been alleged to be a perpetrator: Professor Ned Bertz at Hawaii University. I don't think this was known.
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.
If we assess the case legally, this is the main allegation:
Quote:
The first incident, recorded in the committee’s final report occurred on April 8 or 9 in 2015. The complainant met Liang, who was visiting Delhi for a conference. During their meeting, she alleged that Liang “forcibly kissed her, despite her asking him to stop more than once”. Liang did not deny that they had met or kissed. His defense was that “there was a physical ease between them” and although they “kissed for the briefest moment”, once she asked him “let us not do this again,” he stopped. He also told the committee that he “apologized” and the complainant told him “not to be embarrassed”.
Quote:
The complainant said he harassed her again on the same trip. After the conference, when she went to pick him up from the University’s guest room for an “after party”, he “kissed and groped” her again. After, she said Liang sent her flirtatious texts.
Quote:
The second incident occurred in February 2016 when Liang visited Delhi to deliver a lecture when the president of Jawaharlal Nehru University’s student union, Kanhiya Kumar, was arrested for sedition. On the morning of the 27th he met her and “hugged and kissed her in a way which was unwelcome”.
Quote:
The witness alleged that Liang “had a reputation of behaving similarly” and that two cases occurred when he was associated with the Alternative Law Forum (ALF), a progressive lawyers collective in Bengaluru.
In their response, the committee said that it “disagrees” with Liang “that the unwanted kisses did not constitute sexual harassment…”
Quote:
The committee went a step further to examine two other cases involving interns who had worked with Liang when he was with the Alternative Law Forum in Bengaluru. It examined the testimony made available to them and arrived at an unambiguous conclusion. Liang argued that as ALF was a “small organization of 18 people” and there was some ambiguity on what constituted sexual harassment.
But the IC’s conclusion differed. “Sexual violence or unwanted sexual overtures define sexual harassment in University spaces, as well as outside it. Therefore the incident with the intern… that of an unwelcome kiss constitutes sexual harassment even if it occurred in a non-University space.”
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.
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.
It is a well-known secret that the woke litigators (including the gender activists) do not accept cases alleging SH against other NLS alumni. A friend of mine has faced this very ordeal of being disbelieved, criticised, and ostracised for having dared to think of bringing an SH action against a globally known NLS alum. Not naming the people involved here.
@kian - how is that trollish? It is widely known that many of liang's peers did not utter a word of condemnation against him despite a lawfully constituted commitee finding him guilty of SH. The above links show how indecent his grounds of appeal are. You still call people calling out the silence trollish?
There seems to be a bit of a logical fallacy at work here. How many NLS alumni condemn other SH accused who are not from NLS? I imagine that 99% of them don't. And if a few of them, say, speak out against Weinstein or harassment in the judiciary, or support #metoo, they are therefore under an obligation to condemn all incidences or allegations of SH everywhere in the country, at every college, at every workplace, and especially so if an NLS connection is there?
And what if they don't? At that point all left of centre NLS grads are automatically hypocrites?
1. Everyone knows that 'we' are speaking about a handful of alumni here.
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.
Kian, NLS alumni were up in arms about even that Lawsikho 'dating' webinar. To the extent of written pieces expressing outrage. Look at it the other way around. How many NLS alumni have ever condemned condemnable actions of other alumni from NLS? Even when they actively protest or speak about those matters elsewhere? Exactly zero. You can't say that this is such a 'small incident' that doesn't merit their attention. I'm only talking about those who actually post/write/speak on that stuff. They are definitely 100% hypocrites. As for those who don't talk out in the open anyway, they obviously don't count here. This is not a #notallalum matter. It's definitely #yesenoughalum.
On an average, given the number of controversies that NLSIU's students and alumni have been embroiled in during the past few years, if you cannot show me a single instance of their alum who write or talk about such matters having written or talked about those at all, then your assumption of good faith unfortunately doesn't hold, Kian.
I agree with Kian. These comments are by people who are bitter and jealous of Law School, so are using Lawrence to pull Law School down. I can also bring out many examples of SH by students of other NLUs, such as:
Ooh, whataboutery. Haven't come across that before. If only you had read the comments more carefully. Then you would have realised that nobody has yet criticised NLSIU as an institution for this. Only those alumni who are eager to condemn others yet remain quiet deliberately when it comes to their own. 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.
Yeah the nalsar guy got off scot free. His batchmates and juniors even wrote a petition about how good a guy he was and how he couldn’t have done what he did. It’s easy to point fingers- it’s harder to look at your own behaviour and clean it up.
The nalsar guy was a just another student, while Liang was in a position of authority groping and kissing women.
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.
I don’t see why there has to be a comparison? I’m from nalsar btw. He harassed a woman working in the service industry - don’t tell me there’s not a power dynamic there. Nls definitely has a problem with this whole hero culture stuff. It is sexist bullshit. Doesn’t mean nalsar doesn’t or NUJS doesn’t. 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.
Can you quote any comment made in this thread that says NLSIU should be held responsible for Liang's actions? Why on earth are you trying to change the subject and turn it into a NLU v. NLU slugfest? [...]
Another NLSIU grad Arvind Narrain co-founded ALF. Many other NLU alumni have also worked there and are/were close to Liang at the time: Mayur Suresh and Siddharth Narrain from NLSIU, Prashant Iyengar and Danish Sheikh from NALSAR etc. I think the media needs to ask them questions too.Did they know of the alleged incidents at ALF? If yes, what action did they take? The current ALF team is listed here, but they seem much too young and new. It's the old guard that needs to be approached for answers.
Liang's CV says he has a forthcoming article for NUJS Law Review based on a memorial lecture. I suppose NUJS did not know when they invited him, but now that he has been found culpable by a university committee will he be cancelled and the article rejected? Or is the NUJS policy to separate him and his contribution to human rights?
Maybe you guys can now in FN 1 that the person who delivered the lecture has been held guilty of SH by a lawfully created committee. Caveat can be that he had challenged this in a court of law. Cherry on top will be if you can add his reasons for challenging - he didn't know where to draw the line as ALF was a small hedonistic place.
I can't understand why Law School is being dragged into this. During the Harvey Weinstein or MJ Akbar incident did anyone mention which university they went to? It's of zero relevance here.
If they studied at a law university whose alum make it a regular habit to speak out on such matters other than when it comes home to roost, then it would have been raised.
Is the NUJS Law Review indeed publishes Liang's article, it will be hypocrisy to the power of infinity. Governor Dhankhar was cancelled for supporting CAA, so why does Liang not get cancelled?
The case is sub judice and should not be commented on in public like this. Although Lawrence may have been found guilty by an internal committee, it has very limited force under law. Let us wait for the Delhi High Court verdict. No less than a stalwart like Mr Jawahar Raja is representing Lawrence.
Maybe we should wait for a Supreme Court appeal, and an application for Presidential pardon too. Liang has been found guilty by statutorily appointed authorities. Unless the HC reverses that, he stands convicted of the offence. And the way that he is trying to wriggle out of it by giving excuses is also distasteful.
Complete nonsense. He was not convicted. I request comment 8.2 to be flagged. An internal SH committee cannot convict, only a court can do so. An internal committee can only take disciplinary action. Please do not mislead.
Saikat Datta, who wrote the Asia Times article, is a very respected journalist, now with ORF. I believe the claims about Lawrence kissing and groping the survivor mainly because of Datta's reputation. He is not someone who will publish false facts.
I worry that Liang may eventually win. With the case getting delayed like this it will be a financial and emotional burden on the girl. She is also up against ace lawyers.
Stop talking nonsense. It is another Saikat Datta who worked for Reliance, not him! Kian, please delete this comment. This idiot did a Google search and got confused by the other Saikat Datta, whose LinkedIn profile crops up. You an see for yourself.
Damn it, I was just on my way to ring Saikat (the journalist) up and demand to know why he had been hoarding all those Christmas gift hampers from the Ambanis!
I stand with Lawrence. He has not only been an outspoken fighter for human rights and gender rights, but also a strong opponent of the BJP. It's all too convenient that this case is being raked up at a time the BJP is going after activists. I am not questioning the girl for one moment, but we should remember that SH cases depend very much on the context. There should also not be a trial by media.
The case isn't being 'raked up'. Liang could have accepted the conviction, apologised, and faced the music. He's the one who is 'raking it up' if anyone.
This is the LawSikho article being referred to. NLSIU grad happy to publicly shame a much younger NUJS alum who was just promoting bro culture and did nothing illegal, while silent on classmate/near-classmate Liang who the committee found to have physically sexually harassed someone. Bar & Bench and Quint also happy to carry the article but silent on Liang. Left-Lib ecosystem at work.
Look in the mirror if you want someone to blame. The fault is with Indian society that it allows him to continue in his position (at a university funded by taxpayer's money) despite such a shocking finding by an SH committee.
It can be in the form of an advisory saying do not intern here. Or it can be like a student boycott. The intention is to send a message that SH will not be tolerated.
If a student goes to intern there despite knowing everything, then that's really the student's call. Nobody is asking others to boycott Supreme Court internships either, despite the Gogoi fiasco.
If an institution is to be boycott because there have been past instances of SH there and the perpetrator has been allowed to go mostly scot free, then most of the tier one law firms, companies and even the Supreme Court would definitely make that list. Sad, but true.
The outrage on this website is misplaced. Firstly, we must appreciate Lawrence's enormous importance as a scholar and activist and not let this issue cloud that. Secondly, as lawyers we have to look at this case strictly from the point of view of law. There are many grey areas.
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.
No one is required to condemn every single instance of wrong doing of their alumni. 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.
Okay, holier than thou. Show me a single instance of an NLSIU alum having ever publicly condemned any atrocious activity involving harassment by any other NLSIU alum/student. You cannot. Which makes the balloon of your empty outrage deflate. Keep trying to deflect this to the institution all that you want and thereby trying to relieve culpability of the hypocritical alum. We are not asking them why they aren't outraging against Liang in the context of any valid criticism that they are making of other actions, are we? This is specifically asking people about Liang. You can't say that they haven't got opinions of their own about the incident, it is sufficiently high profile. So prove us all wrong, go ahead and comment about it in public. You are fooling no one either.
Did the alumni need such working groups every time they express their outrage over tweets, op-eds and other things? The truth does hurt, does it not? People who speak out in general, but are not doing so against Liang, either support Liang, or believe that maintaining an inner cabal and camaraderie is more important than speaking the truth.
People are free to condemn what they like. Its like asking a Muslim to condemn terrorism whenever terrorism occurs, because they chose to speak against discrimination against Muslims. No one is buying this argument you are peddling. Move on child. Move on.
Talk about false equivalence. [ad hominem redacted...] I loathe to bring up religious analogies, but yours should have been like this.
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.
If you allow condescending "move on child", and extremely problematic religious analogies, I fail to see whether a reply involving age is censored and marked trollish, Kian.
Yes, people are free to choose the subject of their condemnation. It is the hypocrisy of certain NLSIU alumni that is being condemned here. If you have got a problem with that, who cares?
Fully agree. It is laughable to try and pin the blame on NLSIU and smacks of rivalry and jealousy by competitor law schools. You are also not looking at the positive side of Lawrence. He is a human rights pioneer. Without any godfather he set up ALF from scratch in a tiny room and made it into one of the most admired NGOs in the entire country. ALF is the original fighter in the 377 case, not certain people who came in late and are hogging credit. Lawrence and ALF have also influenced an entire generation of IP scholars by introducing the copyleft concept. Ask any established Indian IP scholar and they will tell you how Lawrence changed their thinking in there young years by challenging the establishment and questioning copyright.
I also think the RW is using this case to pursue an agenda.
Yes, it is laughable. Because nobody is doing it, other than you apologists for sexual harassers. Everything you wrote is classic textbook misdirection employed by the cronies of harassers. You are the one blaming NLSIU for it, when others are talking about silence of the alumni. [...]
Your lack of knowledge is so all pervasive that it is more tragic than comic. Most of the claims that you've made about Liang re IP or CopyLeft are gross exaggerations or plain untruth. The ones which are true about HR and ALF's role hardly gives Liang the license to harass, or the hypercritical alum who are keeping shut about this any less complicit.
Actually, everyone other than people from NLSIU are buying that argument just fine. In fact, so are people from NLSIU, but it's not as if they can say that out loud. 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!
If an NLS alum is ever taken to the court on a charge of sexual harassment, the court would hold the Vishaka Guidelines unconstitutional and void ab initio so that they can be set free with costs reimbursed.
Looks like these Lawrence fan army have free time in their hands after trying to browbeat Wikipedia to ensure that SH conviction remains off his page. Sad, sad. Such waste of education.
I will say it out loud: I #StandWithLawrence and will do so even if the Delhi HC rules against him. I condemn the motivated attempt to shame Law School. The good that a man does cannot be wiped out because of one allegedly evil act. Lawrence was, is and always will be a scholar and human rights defender par excellence. Please also remember that Nelson Mandela had affairs with women. Does that make Mandela a bad man?
I have a Scribd account and downloaded the letter shared by the journalist. Below is the letter. Some shocking revelations that should make everyone hang their heads in shame, for it shows how difficult it is for victims of SH to speak out against powerful perpetrators.
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.
Ned Bertz was awarded a Fulbright scholarship recently, even though the letter says that he too has a history of SH complaints like Lawrence. Disgusting hypocrisy from the left-liberal ecosystem!
I sympathise with the girl and feel sorry that she had to undergo therapy, but we must strictly adhere to rule of law rather than rule of emotion. From what I know, Lawrence's counsels Mr Jawahar Raja and Mr Akhil Sibal are arguing colourable exercise of jurisdiction. I think the point is very valid. If some of the incidents happened at JNU when Lawrence was still registered for a PhD there, then shouldn't JNU should be the university doing the enquiry, not AUD? Shouldn't AUD separate the JNU incidents from the AUD incidents and only investigate the latter? Also, if the AUD incidents happened outside the AUD premises, does it count as happening within the course of employment? Isn't that tort law 101? For example, if an NLSIU professor visits a bar in Brigade Road and picks up a fight with someone or even does an act of SH, does NLSIU have jurisdiction to punish the professor for something done inside a bar? If not, then by the same logic the AUD finding must be struck down and Lawrence must be declared innocent.
How does the determination of the prosecuting university lead to someone being declared innocent of the crime that he's actually confessed to? I think you are confusing rule of law with procedural technicalities.
He has not confessed. On the contrary, he's defiant and hired the country's top lawyers to challenge the ruling. If you see the girl's letter and Saikat Datta's article, he says it was a "borderline romance", “there was a physical ease between them” and he only gave her "the briefest of kisses". Similarly, he says that the ALF complaint does not count as there was no definition of SH in ALF policies at the time. That doesn't sound like a confession to me.
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.
After a long hiatus, Mr Liang is now officially back in circulation in elite academic circles, as this video shows. I guess NLUs will now start inviting him again, to discuss intolerance and misogyny in Modi's India?
Someone here really has an axe to grind with law school. 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.
I agree with comment 28. Lawrence's haters are basically Law School haters and RW supporters. Would they be so aggressive if Lawrence was from another university, or if Lawrence had not participated in the JNU protests with Kanhaiya? As comment 28 rightly says, some people have an axe to grind because they could not make it to Law School and that rejection hurts. I wouldn't be surprised if these are the same people who rant about Sudhir.
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.
I support Lawrence and don't care about this case. The country needs to unite against fascism and Lawrence is an important soldier in the fight. He is without a doubt the country's foremost legal scholar after the Baxi-Chimni generation. We need his intellect to fight fascist forces in India. Also, the #MeToo movement is heavily flawed. As Nivedita Menon rightly pointed out in her defence fo Lawrence, they are "fingertip feminists".
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.
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.