Well-known human rights activist, academic and lawyer Lawrence Liang, who is a professor of law at Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD), has been found guilty by an AUD committee of having sexually harassed a female PhD student of another university, reported Asia Times today.
The committee concluded its findings just over four months after Liang was one of dozens of Indian academics named in a crowdsourced list in late October 2017 inspired by the #MeToo movement, which was compiled from partly-anonymous complaints, alleging sexual harassment in academia.
We have reached out to Liang, who declined to comment because he said he was bound by confidentiality.
Update 20:30: Liang has made the following statement:
The Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment (CPSH) at Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD) has conducted proceedings in which I was the defendant. The CPSH has given a report and made certain recommendations. This is only one part of the process provided by the CPSH rules. Those rules provide that both/either party can appeal the recommendations. I informed the CPSH and AUD of my intention to appeal immediately on receipt of the report.
I have not commented so far on the matter because of CPSH confidentiality rules. I can, and must, however, say this – I dispute the report in its entirety, its findings and recommendations included.
Some persons have initiated selective leaks. These persons know that I have signed confidentiality rules and cannot respond. Selective leaks demonize, cause a media trial, and proclaim guilt in advance.
I am passionately committed to AUD, and have worked hard to build the school that I am a part of, and I intend to exhaust every channel open to me to clear my name.
The committee in its report dated 20 February recommended “penal action” against Liang and that he relinquish his administrative duties, according to Asia Times.
However, it stopped short of suspending him, only recommending, according to the Times, which has access to a copy of the report:
that the university issue “a warning letter” saying he would face serious consequences including “suspension from service” if there were any more complaints. The probe noted that Liang was in a position with “a large number of students and faculty under his care.”
It is understood that Liang will be filing an appeal against the committee’s findings.
The original complaint against Liang had been filed on 10 October 2017, had said that he had initiated unwanted kisses with the complainant in April 2015, while she was in Delhi for a conference, and in September 2017.
The committee also looked into an “incident with the intern” that allegedly took place at ALF, though the Asia Times report does not elaborate further.
Liang is a 1998 NLSIU Bangalore graduate, who has founded the influential human rights organisation Alternative Law Forum that aims to provide access to justice to marginalised communities, and is a prominent supporter of free speech and open source software.
In 2014, he filed a semi-serious legal notice on Penguin to surrender its copyright in Wendy Doniger’s The Hindu’s, after Penguin chickened out of fighting a fringe religious group’s case to ban it.
He also holds a Master's from Warwick following a Chevening Scholarship, and had also been awarded a Hughes Fellowship in 2014, and was Rice Visiting Scholar at Yale University between 2016-17, according to Wikipedia.
In November 2017, he had been awarded the prestigious Infosys Prize in social sciences, “in recognition of his creative scholarship on law and society:
His prodigious output in the fields of copyright law, digital technologies and media, and popular culture consistently raises probing questions about the nature of freedom, rights, and social development. His provocative answers link historical context and ethical practice in unexpected and illuminating ways.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Well done also to Raya Sarkar for circulating the list. Let's hope the other lefties in the list are also targeted. Next step: can Legally India please seek a comment from the Naxal sympathiser (ex-Jindal prof) that Raya has written about here: www.firstpost.com/india/raya-sarkar-faces-death-rape-threats-after-sexual-predators-list-takes-academia-by-storm-4181659.html
Sexual harassment is not a consequence of ideology - it is consequence of male hegemony over non-male identities and that's how it ought to be examined. Kudos to Liang's victim for pursuing redress, and more power to her.
Also, here is sample of what your beautiful secular liberal politicians have said.
1) Ashok Gehlot - Girls and boys cannot walk hand in hand: www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay.aspx?newsID=56229
2) Mulayam Singh Yadav - Justifying rape
www.dailyo.in/politics/mulayam-singh-yadav-women-gangrape-nirbhaya-badaun-rape-womens-reservation-bill-rahul-gandhi-sonia-gandhi/story/1/5751.html
A thousand examples like this exist
As far as taking digs at JNU goes- The complainant in this case also studied at JNU!! the people who found the guy guilty also work at Ambedkar University! yes, there are problems at these institutions about accommodating diversity- but at least these guys are trying to make things better.
This whole argument is rubbish because it tries to reframe and co-opt a feminist battle into one between the left and the right. and you are wasting your time trying to claim the moral high-ground here. Left wing and liberal women have decided to name, shame, and litigate sexual harassment, I am sure right wing women won't be far behind.
As I clearly pointed out (and you missed it entirely), I am not saying there is no sexual harassment within non-right circles - where there are men who feel entitled to abuse their position of power/fiduciary duties, there will be sexual harassment. The point is not one of political ideology but of hegemonic entitlement stemming from a gender that has traditionally enjoyed carte blanche.
This is your debate: look a leftie harassed someone --> all lefties are harassers.
My reply: harassers exist across ideologies - some examples cited of right wing harassers.
Your rejoinder: but what about Ashok Gehlot and M S Yadav? they are liberal secular but not pro-women.
My response to that: That is exactly my point! Harassers exist everywhere - by making it a right v. left debate and not acknowledging the role of men, you're posing an argument that misses the entire basis of sexual harassment. It's not a case of Hindutva v. the Red Book. It's a case of male v. non-male. If you still don't get it, not my problem to educate you. Clearly your law school failed to do that.
Complete silence from Kanhaiya.
Complete silence from Liang's left-wing friends in academia.
Complete silence from Amartya Sen (on jury of Infosys Prize).
Instead only Legally India covers it.
Now just imagine if a BJP sympathiser had been involved instead!
www.facebook.com/notes/zehen/public-statement-rejecting-lawrence-liangs-infosys-award-in-the-field-of-social-/1595338523822525/
Very sad that it was ignored by Nivedita Menon, Kavita Krishan and other fake feminists who were defending Liang.
- a “blue eyed” young male partner [...] looks at a
Young intern and remarks “how taut everything was” and sighes deeply.
- a managing partner of a leading law firm introducing a female partner to a client saying “She is thin but she is deep”
It’s disgusting really. And more how everyone pretends to be soo cool while saying all this crap.
And another GC of a Big bank - felt up women at an alumni event in mumbai.
It's widely known that one of [...]'s blue eyed boys from [...] in the Delhi office is nicknamed "tharkhi". I have personally seen him say to a female associate "why are you wearing makeup? Are you an HR girl?". He's also known to say very vile things about junior female lawyers. But no one every calls him out, given his exalted stature at the firm. After all, partner so quick and young. It makes my blood boil every time he's out on CNBC/Bloomberg doling out wisdom like he's Solomon, when the reality is that he's only a Harvey Weinstein in the making.
-- Woman Who Wishes She Had More Courage.
FIRM spokesperson etc is total nonsense again. You are unable to accept that one of the quiet readers is finally speaking her mind.
There is a reason why the conduct described in "ManyManyHarassers" does constitute sexual harassment.
What she is describing is a hostile work environment. Contrary to what many people think, women do not go to work to get laid, they do not go to work to engage in courtship or to find a mate or to banter about sex with their co-workers. They go to work for the same reason that men do- to do their jobs, jobs they believe has value, which they're hoping will help them achieve their dream.
Comments focussed exclusively on a woman's appearance- making that the primary discussion at the workplace, judging and sorting women based on their perceived sexual behavior, men don't do that to other men. They only do that to women. Because women are never valued for their work or their intellect, not even in a professional setting. The primary thing women are valued for is their sexuality, their bodies are open game for critique and groping, their sex lives are open game for discussion.
The point of comments like this- is to remind the woman- hey you're in the workplace but - you are still less because of your gender, you are only an object and not a human-I get to sexualise you even when you have no interest in being sexualised because of your gender- I will still dominate you because of your gender. This kind of behavior is meant to show women "their place"
Try and imagine going to work and having your boss focus on your appearance, on your sexuality. Try and imagine having to manage this kind of misogyny every day- because you cannot come right out and condemn it- you will be labeled a bitch or "uncool"- your membership within this community is conditional to your submission to this kind of bullying. This is not one person just being inappropriate- this is a hostile work environment. This IS sexual harassment.
I don't mean to say that human conduct has to be sterile in the workplace- there can still be warmth between co-workers, and even an ease. I am fine with women and men in the workplace dating even. But all of this behavior should be based on mutual consent-- and there shouldn't be a culture that coerces you to submit to it.
Li i have nothing against you appreciating comments,however; please make your process more robust so u do not have to edit comments after publication, once damage is done.
1) Some women want to shine for their brains and some looks and some use both. It's an unfortunate fact that many who rise through the ranks (not all) and survive are those who primarily use their looks for that is the only thing they have. It's not just soothing to the eyes and nerves of seniors, but also clients and counter parties. The problem arises when the pointsperson of the client is a lady. Remember firms need adequate number of salesgirls masquerading as lawyers.
2) Looks definitely count at the time of recruiting. For the tharki partner it's almost the sole criterion, provided you have the pedigree. It's a criterion he is vocal about, appreciated by the bosses and used by many a female.
3) Everyone working in a firm is competing with colleagues as well as working with them. It's a dog eats dog world out there, especially in the firm in question. Niceties are for fools. That's the culture that is encouraged and has pilfered through the ranks. You are going to be hauled for sexual harrassment only if they want to get rid of you. That means you either are useless or a threat or don't know with whom not to hit off, as some female maybe of interest to higher authorities or are closely connected to them.
But he is not the only one. There is the [...] partner who is a lot more senior but has no sense of how to behave with women. It is well known that he cant hold his drink and behaved extremely poorly with two lady partners and a young associate. What is really disgraceful is that he continues to this at each party and yet the senior partner don't do anything about it.
The level of access that these 2 partners have to the senior partners prevent young associates and perhaps even the lady partners from complaining about rampant sexual harassment. A disaster is waiting to happen, especially because of the way the [...] partner preys on the young women associates and interns.
scroll.in/article/871321/why-ambedkar-university-held-law-professor-lawrence-liang-guilty-of-sexual-harassment
www.thenewsminute.com/article/lawrence-liang-found-guilty-sexual-harassment-survivor-says-punishment-inadequate-77670
www.washingtonpost.com/video/world/meet-raya-sarkar-the-south-asian-student-who-made-a-list-of-predatory-academics/2018/03/02/1d7691e8-168d-11e8-930c-45838ad0d77a_video.html?utm_term=.baff3074457b
I want to know: Did you people report on the VC of a top 6 NLU sacked due to sexual harassment, and getting rehabilitated later?
www.indiatoday.in/magazine/society-the-arts/story/20030210-as-gender-crimes-become-a-serious-menace-in-indian-universities-no-campus-remains-safe-793505-2003-02-10
Did you people report when the ex-Dean of Pune Law was expelled for sexual harassment and then appointed as Dean of the IIT law school for many years?
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Varsity-professor-shown-the-door-for-misconduct/articleshow/44410790.cms
Did you report on the NLSIU prof named in Raya's list?
Did you report on the current controversy at NUJS?
But most of all, will you touch Senior Advocates and Judges?
Please see the film The Post and learn about true activist journalism.
- News covered by Firstpost (with more details), Swarajya, TOI, CNN News 18, News X etc.
- Complete silence from NDTV and Wire. Kafila just gives a statement saying Liang will not be writing for them. No condemnation.
Leftist hypocrisy.
- Degree from a reputed university
- Had an association with ALF
- Left wing
- Kaamchor #1
- Shameless flirting with girls
- But liked by guys because friendly and pleasant
- Not a Sikh
- Not a Parsi
- Not gay
- Has a vowel in his name
Thank you.
The phrasing of the headline was not intended to be sensational, but it is mostly due to the update of Liang's statement having come in several hours after publishing the story, after having initially said he would not comment due to confidentiality.
By the time that Liang gave his statement others were also starting to re-report the original story, so I thought it was a newsworthy update, the crux of which was worth adding to the headline.
No matter how solid the findings of the committee might appear to be, ethically (if not legally) I think Liang still retains the right for reasonable comments to be included in any story about him.
Considering that the news value of the 'vows to clear name' update is now less, I will move that update part to the end of the headline.
The LI headline is the most damning indictment of gender bias prevalent and is exactly why people like Liang, Pachauri get away. Everyone is awed by their position and power and go into denial about these accusations even when investigated by committees.
And while I don't disagree that a POSH committee's finding should be prima facie taken as fact, I'm not at all sure that a POSH committee decision has the same legal status as that of a court... Can someone clarify?
I again urge that you change the headline and think about how this panders to an impression that Liang is innocent. He WAS but has been found guilty of being a sexual predator. Now he is guilty till he proves otherwise. By writing such headlines you are giving the impression this is just some accusation or a media story. Its not and a citizen from Europe like you of all people should understand that. Or are you gender desensitized already?
@Kian: Let's pause and look at the facts and circumstances objectively:
1. #MeToo, a global movement against sexual harassment takes place. One of the triggers is the Harvey Weinstein episode.
2. Encouraged by the movement, Dr Christine Fair accuses Prof Dipesh Chakrabarty of Chicago University of multiple sexual harassment. She writes to him directly and shares the email:
shortbustoparadise.wordpress.com/2017/11/10/today-i-confronted-dipesh-chakrabarty-damned-that-email-was-decades-over-due/
3. Inspired by Christine Fair, Raya Sarkar, a victim of sexual harassment by a professor at Jindal, bravely shares a list of sexual harassers in academia. This list is a big disrupter because it is dominated by the left-liberal set, who are defenders of human rights in public (like Dipesh Chakrabarty).
4. The list names Lawrence Liang, one such person.
5. Liang's influential friends like Nivedita Menon and Kafila condemn Raya.
6.. Yet, the list encourages one woman to come forward and say that Liang touched and kissed her on multiple occasions without consent.
7. A committee not only finds him guilty, but also suggests that he has indulged in such conduct in the past with interns from ALF.
8. However, the committee does not recommend sacking Liang. The same fate had met Dipesh Chakrabarty: no sacking, just a slap on the wrist.
9. The complainant writes a public letter expressing her unhappiness at the soft punishment.
10. Nivedita Menon writes a vicious post defending Liang and smearing Raya with names like "uninformed" and "self righteous".
11. No comments from several friends of Liang who had been protesting when Justice Ganguly was accused of harassing an intern (Indira Jaising, Shamnad Basheer etc).
Clearly, this puts the #MeToo movement in a deep crisis of credibility in India. It also raises serious questions about prevalent sexual harassment is in law schools and during internships (if the ALF internship accusation is also true). Who is going to probe sexual harassment if the champions of women's rights are themselves complicit?
In this light, the headline "vows to clear name" is not wrong, but it is completely divorced from the wider context. It's as if you have not been following events, and are reporting it as a random complaint by a random person which may or may not be true.
There are very deep, difficult questions that need to be asked. Whether universities or law firms, the culture of sexual harassment in th Indian legal fraternity is just shocking. Instead, you are practising sanitised journalism.
"self-righteous and ill informed twitterati "
"From enquiry to report to appealing the decision (which can be done by complainant or accused) – these are all established stages of due process"
"Depending on the nature of the act of sexual harassment, the punishment would and should vary. The minimum punishment cannot be termination from a job, especially as in Lawrence’s case it is clear that the incident did not happen in a student-teacher interaction. "
"The AUD process includes the opportunity for both sides to appeal, only after which is the report made public. We must keep this in mind, that the process is not complete."
kafila.online/2018/03/10/in-the-wake-of-the-aud-report/
In addition to the self evident necessity of allowing the process to complete, I am not sure what AUD has to do with this incident in the first place. Without getting into a complicated legalistic debate on the Committee's jurisdiction, etc, it is alarming, to say the least, for our workplaces to assume this finger wagging guardian's role.
The workplace has no business policing our interpersonal relationships external to our work, and if one must introduce such public norms, and it is debatable if this is the way we as a society wish to deal with harassment, then lets please do it by passing appropriate legislation. Let there be more rigorous due process rather than having one's peers, with all the politics which follow our works space, determine the outcome of these proceedings.
What I am saying is this. Perhaps Prof. Liang is gentleman who has difficulty setting boundaries and regularly engages in distasteful behavior. But unless the law prohibits one from being an ass****, our peers have no business publicly drawing and quartering us in a kangaroo trial - a necessary result of involving competing interests with no education in due process - for this.
You have serious issues my friend.
Unless you have something useful to add, may I suggest you restrict your inarticulate mooing to the voting tabs which LI so helpfully features on the webpage for the likes of you.
Point 1. What Nivedita Menon is saying is shameful because she claims to be a feminist, she claims to be a proponent for gender justice. She freely satires people and policies that are vaguely gender insensitive (quite self righteously too but I let that pass) but here she is voicing supporting for someone found guilty of sexual harassment. What else to say except that its shameful.
Point 2. AUD has jurisdiction, go see the Act. It was designed precisely to avoid people like you bringing up technical objections. But just to throw you a bone what difference does it make whether it is good or bad that AUD has jurisdiction. The fact remains that a committee of scholars (not police or bureaucrats) headed by an eminent female scholar found Liang guilty.
Point 3. You're tone deaf to the meaning of sexual harassment. To you that kind of behaviour (which creeps out any woman, is an affront to dignity and a form of abuse) is "interpersonal relationship". You mean like the "interpersonal relationship" that Tukaram had with Mathura? Or maybe you mean the "interpersonal relationship" that Sohanlal had with Aruna? NEWSFLASH : SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS NOT COOL IN ANY PLACE, INCLUDING WORKPLACE.
"Prof. Liang is gentleman who has difficulty setting boundaries "
I am speechless.
Kian, I request you delete the post as impressionable minds will read it and allow it to influence their notions of what is acceptable and not. Already too many f-g sexual predators out there, don't need another.
Prof. Liang's actions are quite beside the point. The legal process is not complete. And yes, I refuse to condemn him until the full facts are publicly known. This selective leaking of facts to the media is simply ridiculous and an affront to basic commonsense.
Ms. Menon, you would note if you had taken the time out to read her post, endorses the AUD Report and the suggestions therein. The point she makes has obviously slipped your blunt nub, so I wont bother trying to educate you on it, except to ask you to attempt taking the time to study her position on the issue.
Now coming to to my comment:
AUD's attempts at arrogating jurisdiction where the Act does not allow the Uni to police extra-workplace relationships leaps out at the most superficial reading of the Act. But I ll leave this be, considering statutory interpretation does not appear to be your strongest suit. Rather, consider this: do you think it fair for someone from last Friday night's drunk misadventures complain to your workplace about your misdirected courting attempts, and a committee constituting your potential professional competitors sit over judgment on this? And before you misquote me again, I am not suggesting that Prof. Liang's actions can be captured by this mild example.
Do forgive me if I do not have any faith in having one's social interactions judged by "a committee of scholars". If this is the way to go then lets do away with Courts; and why even stop at sexual harassment? Surely there are other wrongs which have moral implications. Think bullying, corruption, theft, marital cheating, abandonment...no? The Act delicately balances the competing interests of ensuring speedy and effective complaint redressal for victims, and to maintain some semblance of due process while at it. This precisely makes the issue of Committee's jurisdiction so important. Workplace harassment is pretty much the farthest we as a legal system go with peer judgment (think trials, the Nanavati case). And the even the most enthusiastic proponents of the Act would admit that the present solution is an imperfect one, at best.
Oh, also for before you start digging the thesaurus further, you might want to check yourself and let "impressionable minds" form their own impressions, before you start accusing others of condescension.
Youre unhappy with scholars judging Liang, well guess what THATS THE LAW. and THATS THE CULMINATION OF A LEGAL PROCESS. If don't like it go ahead and petition the legislature to change it. I'm also not ok with stupid incompetent judges (morons who don't know a thing about IP) presiding over my IP cases in High Court but I have to accept their judgment because thats the law. But nice try shifting the argument from Liang's case to a wider general issue.
Its super-easy to point out weaknesses in any system. But what is the alternative to the Act...go to court??? Police??? Do you have any idea how HUMILIATING that is??? Are you so insensitive that you understand NOTHING about why judicial process fails women.
Something I learnt in law school..when defendants start with arguments on technicalities like jurisdiction you know they are in deep shit. Enjoy your losing argument you f-g apologist for sexual abuse.
The AUD Report is not public, we just know select excerpts of it through media leaks and corridor whispers. Prof. Liang did demur on jurisdiction but formally forewent his opportunity to legally contest it. Quite frankly I am aghast that after years of legal training you do not see the merits in allowing an appellate process to complete or to at least seek the public release of the AUD Report. This itself demonstrates the problematic aspects of peer judgment.
The farthest I will go based on media reports and taking into consideration the process is incomplete is what I stated in my previous post. And if you concede on the limited judicial capacity of the AUD Committee then you would have to also admit that all the appellate remedies, at least so far as fact finding is concerned, must be exhausted before we can even think notionally about this incidence. (FYI-Presidential Pardon is not by way of appeal)
Scholars judging Liang's life outside the Uni is not the law. And you hope to the lord that it remains so unless all and sundry in your office gather tomorrow to judge your weekend activities. The office will become humanity's elusive court of universal jurisdiction haha
Both of you have failed to engage in the substance of the previous comments which I can't say I am surprised by given that you fit the classical definition of the hollow self righteous chest thumping keyboard warrior keen to flash your feminist credentials without actually working for it. Judging by your pathetic uninformed bleating, its safe to say Ms. Menon has done more for the cause than you can over a couple of lifetimes. Again, just go educate yourself on the issue before rushing into drafting a reply.
The point I raise has nothing to do with Prof. Liang. Query whether you would wish your office and colleagues to police all your social engagements. They are neither independent nor unbiased due to the fact that they work closely with you and pursue the same opportunities and interests. This, when coupled with the shortcomings of peer judgment makes any fact finding outside of the workplace incidents suspect.
You do not appear to understand the basics of due process, the law quite clearly is that until a matter is sub-judice no opinion either way is justified.
The substance of the Committee's recommendations is built on certain findings on fact, and my position is that the Committee is not allowed by law to make these findings of fact. So where does that leave us? If one were to adopt your position, then in the interest your "sense of justice", we should be glad to have people approach the workplace rather than the courts for relief. If this indeed is your position, then why stop at sexual harassment. There are legal wrongs which have much greater moral and societal implications. How about having everything adjudicated at first instance at the office.
As for explaining Ms. Menon, her position on this coincides with yours. So I am unclear on what are you going on about?
The Liang Case, as far as I am concerned, ought not be discussed and no legitimate opinion , howsoever prima facie, can be formed on it unless, at the very least, the AUD Report is out. Think about this: on what basis are you so enthusiastically gunning for the Committee's recommendations? - Media Reports? And since you are unaware of the findings on fact, on what basis do you opine on the sufficiency of the recco?
If my position makes me a Liang apologist, then yours makes you a mindless quacking duck.
I found the argument on jurisdiction appalling; Liang himself has agreed to appear before the committee and could have filed a writ on that ground alone but did not. So that entire argument is bogus.
Another argument is an allegation of bias. That's true in any judicial forum and is a structural problem that affect every litigant. Lower court judges are appointed by the state government and decide 99% of criminal trials where the state is a party. So it is not particularly a unique problem that Liang faces. Another bogus argument. The worst part is that it shows how insensitive Mr Alarmed Bystander is to the plight of woman who have earlier required to go to the ordinary court / thana for redressal.
@Soleful, spot on with your comment that in gender crimes traditional redressal has failed due to insensitivity and lack of training. As a woman I would definitely prefer an internal committee to going to the police station especially for non-violent sexual offences.
Another argument is that the committee cannot make findings of fact. That is rubbish. The committee has powers of a court to make inquiry, call for statements, arrive at a finding. Arguing that the committee has no power to find facts can only be done by someone who has not read the law.
The last argument is that proper appellate process is yet to be done, blah blah. That is true for any criminal convict except that once convicted burden of proof is on the convict to establish his innocence.
As a woman lawyer I do not agree with you. The Sexual Harassment of *Women at Workplace...Act" does not address harassment outside of the workplace (understood as a notion, not a physical area ofc). Period. And for good reason - peer judgment is a problematic idea, and extending this to cover all social interactions is dangerous for the reasons I outlined previously and wont reiterate again. Your point on State appointed judges is a false analogy for a range of reasons not least of which is judges do not engage and share interests with the State the way colleagues in a workplace do, and the State ofc is not an interested party the way a defendant is. And last I checked, we have a free and independent judiciary. Would you now claim that workplace colleagues are also free and independent in the same fashion as the judiciary?
Once convicted at first instance the burden does not shift. This is Crim Law 101 stuff.
I don't have any views on Liang's decision to submit to the jurisdiction of the Committee. I am more concerned with the Committee's arrogation of this jurisdiction.
As for the rights of the victim in a country such as ours with all its attendant problems, this is ofc an urgent and alarming issue which needs careful attention. I would be the last person to suggest that victims of sexual harassment have sufficient recourse under the current legal and social framework. We have to think hard on how to build systems to support and provide effective access to justice to victims. I do not presume to have any ready answers to this complex problem.
But what I am certain of is that I do not want my colleagues and peers to sit over judgment on all and sundry complaints outside of my work.
Does anyone really have any choice when so pubicly accused? This solution of gg to internal committees is a risky quick fix. We should all ponder ovr this...let the law tske its course for lawrence, i say.
Kian, pls dnt publish these shrill mob cries. These duffers dunno law and are immune to logic
I suggest (as others have done) that you first read the law before commenting. You can also critique the law (assuming you manage to read it) but that is nothing to do with Liang's sexual abuse.
As I said before you know the opposite party is on a bad position when they start disputing jurisdiction, calling the law bad at the outset. Yawn, I'm starting to get bored here. What will you come up with next? That committees use torture to extract confessions? Come up with something original and I'll humour you.
PS: Keep downvoting my replies in rage ! :) Nobody's watching you !
www.firstpost.com/india/raya-sarkar-faces-death-rape-threats-after-sexual-predators-list-takes-academia-by-storm-4181659.html
Best regards
twitter.com/AmbaAzaad/status/972408822462590976
twitter.com/rsidd120/status/972503787020607488
twitter.com/swatipash/status/972522485521506304
twitter.com/sohni_c/status/972782481790423040
twitter.com/visually_kei/status/972784159457533952
twitter.com/monteskw/status/972688212828327936
twitter.com/Miminality/status/972414083692728320
twitter.com/SanjanaPegu/status/972357261023625217
twitter.com/aindri/status/972365047744815104
twitter.com/Miminality/status/972414083692728320
twitter.com/swatipash/status/972496769501327367
I _____________(qualifications), age_____father/ brother/ son/ husband of __________residing at ______________state as follows:
I am fully aware that I am joining _______ institute/college/law firm/company with the intent of providing my services . I am aware that I shall be compensated for my services by way of salary/ fees by the organization which shall be adequate consideration.
I undertake to render services to my workplace and shall not be engaged in any sexual behaviour, flirting, dating, stalking, ogling, stay/ over night stay, unwelcome touching with the members of the opposite sex within and outside the workplace in my capacity and position as employee of this organization.
I undertake to use my position to attain the objectives of institute/college/law firm/ company . I shall not use my position or power or connections for sexual demands and shall not directly or indirectly coerce a member of the opposite sex for it. I understand that profanity is not welcome and I shall refrain from it.I shall refrain from the physical and mental shaming of members of the opposite sex. I shall refrain from behaviour which amounts to lowering the dignity of women. I shall not single out a person which may amount to using pressure or creating hostile environment.
I undertake to respect my colleagues/ students and shall refrain from indulging in inappropriate talks and behaviour which may cause damage at individual level and organizational level.
In the event of me failing in the terms of this Undertaking I shall agree to resign / be terminated / apologize / demoted / be subject to criminal and civil proceedings.
__________
Sd/-
Date:
Place:
thewire.in/231475/indias-weinsteins-have-nothing-to-worry-about/
Agree with every word of yoda.
1. Tradition of sexual ragging. Many years ago a notorious incident happened where a perpetrator let off as his father was a powerful person close to Congress top brass.
2. Harassment of women. It comes from an arrogance stemming from a belief that NLSIU is Harvard of the East which leads people to think all girls from other colleges are fresh meat who will fall for them (reality: no Indian law school in QS world ranking of top 300 law schools).
It's just that Lawrence Liang got caught. Many other "star" NLSIU people are pervs.
www.atimes.com/article/indias-culture-silence-around-sexual-harassment-campus/
:)
It would also be useful to encourage general debate and highlight the scale of the problem, even with the names eventually moderated.
We will NOT be publishing any identifying details of any anonymous complaints.
However, they are useful to us as tip-offs, and we will be happy to discreetly and robustly investigate any such tips, rather than just publishing these without any research.
Please also feel free to send a tip completely anonymously, for our eyes only, via the "Send Tip" button on the very top left of the page.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first