Sharing open letter here:

[quote]
Open Letter from Concerned Alumni to the NLSIU Administration

As alumni of National Law School of India University, Bangalore (NLSIU), we wish to express our deep disappointment in how the administration has handled recent events relating to sexual assault by a member of the University and punished SHARIC facilitators for aiding the victim.

For their act of sharing details regarding an instance of sexual harassment, NLSIU found the student facilitators guilty of “major misconduct” under its disciplinary rules (DARIC). As a penalty, it directed that they either issue a public apology or pay a significant monetary fine. The student facilitators decided not to apologise as that may have had the effect of stifling the voices of any peers who wished to share their own stories of sexual harassment or violence at the hands of other students in NLSIU. Instead, they chose to pay the monetary fine imposed upon them. They were also removed from all positions of responsibility, including their positions as student facilitators under NLSIU’s SHARIC Code.

As alumni of NLSIU, we commend the courageous and principled stance taken by the student facilitators. Further, we unequivocally condemn NLSIU’s finding that the student facilitators are guilty of “major misconduct”. It has also come to our attention that the student facilitators have been barred from sharing the order of the DARIC committee, so we are unable to even peruse the logic and reasoning of the committee. This means that the proceedings are shrouded in secrecy, and the principles of natural justice are not being followed, which is deeply unfair.

The University, much like the society it is a part of, has witnessed grave instances of sexual violence in the past. It is well known that victims of sexual harassment (who are most often women) find it difficult to speak about their experiences, or take formal or legal action against the perpetrator. NLSIU ought not to perpetuate those difficulties or prevent survivors from sharing their experiences with the NLSIU community. More importantly, NLSIU must not punish student facilitators acting at the request of, or on behalf of survivors of sexual harassment, as this amounts to “victimization” as per the definition in NLSIU’s own SHARIC Code. A decision such as the current one will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on the voices of other survivors, present and future, and signal to them that NLSIU wishes for them to remain silent in the face of sexual and gender-based violence.

Further, we note that the #MeToo movement swept across the NLSIU campus in 2018, and dozens of victims of sexual harassment (who were largely women) shared their experiences over internal email, as well as on the same Facebook group where details regarding the present instance were posted. If NLSIU’s decision in the instant case were to be applied evenly, it is likely that those dozens of students would similarly be found guilty of “major misconduct” under the University’s rules. It bears emphasizing once again that no student ought to be punished for speaking about sexual harassment and violence, as well as those who perpetrate it.

NLSIU must not attempt to silence the voices of survivors of sexual harassment and those who stand in solidarity with them. Contrary to the current outcome, universities ought to encourage survivors to access redressal systems and provide them with any and all support required to do so. We emphasize that this is every university’s obligation under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and NLSIU must make every effort to comply with the law, in both letter and spirit.

In light of the above, the undersigned concerned alumni call upon NLSIU to: 1. Make the DARIC Committee’s order public, with redaction of names and other details where appropriate. 2. Reverse the finding that the student facilitators in question are guilty of “major misconduct”. 3. Reconsider its decision on survivors sharing personal accounts of sexual violence, the acts of which would themselves attract penalties under NLSIU’s Code to Combat Sexual Harassment. 4. Implement the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in both letter and spirit. 5. Refrain from punishing and penalizing survivors of sexual harassment and those who stand by them.

Sincerely, [...]
[/quote]

Related: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/159768-Fitness-Lawyer-life
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/198775-Fitness-and-Law-firms

Well, a liberal constitutional democracy exists precisely so that a 'nuisance' as you describe it, stays a mere nuisance and does not become an actual problem.

But even if there were evidence for an increase in 'nuisance', besides WhatsApp forwards and a general loosely defined fear or feeling you have, what do you think is the best way of fighting such supposed nuisance or radicalisation? By intentionally offending and trying to provoke the entire community on TV talkshows?

Can you de-radicalise a community by having vigilantes running around under cover of law, beating up and lynching people from that community, for whatever 'reasons' (be that 'love jihad', selling or eating beef, or just because they feel like it)? By passing laws that marginalise the community further? By taking away the independence of Kashmir and imposing martial law on the state, and locking up democratically elected politicians?

Or do you have to spend money, time, thought and money into in the community, improving the education, economic prospects and opportunities available to that community, while also making them feel safe to continue living their life and enjoying the freedoms guaranteed to them under the constition?

It seems like the government's gameplan is very much the former and sowing more fear in and of the 'muslim' community, which encourages radicalisation of both sides.

There are endless historical examples that you can not de-radicalise or eradicate extremism with oppression, which has exactly the opposite effect every time.

Nah, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and the 'forum' has to host you and agree with you. It just means that the government doesn't have the power to sanction you or throw you in jail for your opinions.

If you talk crap or falsehoods or are obviously trolling or abusing others or spew hate or are just generally being foolish, moderators can and should at the very least say: "with all due respect, Sir, thank you very much for your comment, but you're talking crap, please do so at your friend's house or Facebook or leave your house and shout it on the town square".

Nope, no bias, they both sound equally like not nice people (though so would most people who went through a similar media circus trial).

But sure, you can stan all over Camille / Depp as much as you like and it makes you happy.

But in the process, since you're on LI, you might as well and at least also learn a little bit about US (public media) jury trial strategy in cases such as this (as well as in rape / sexual harassment cases in general): if you as a lawyer / law firms are not thinking about how to humanise your male client to the jury and the media, then you're not doing your job of doing your utmost to represent the interests of your client.

And if you, as a lawyer, are swallowing the entire media spectacle theatre hook line and sinker, you are in the wrong profession and are being played.

You're welcome :) Now you may go back to stanning.

Very true. Corporate culture and in-house has its own problems, no doubt, but if you're competent and at some companies you can have more flexibility to move into adjacent spaces than in law firms, where the power and progression structures are much more fixed (except for a few non-legal roles).

Radicalism on which side? Or do you mean to address the typical playbook of many radical governments to encourage the radicalisation of minorities so that their own majority and supporters become more radical in turn, which becomes a virtuous cycle of radicalisation and electoral gains for them?

You're not wrong that islamic (and nearly all religious) fundamentalism is problematic for a democratic society and the values a liberal democracy espouses and upholds. But the question is whether you genuinely think radical islamism is the biggest / only threat to India's democracy, society and security, and that this is a battle Nupur Sharma waded into because she's a defender or supporter of the values of liberal democracy?