The devil may lie in the many details in the epic nine-day row over apparently homophobic course materials that had been shared with students as part of their sociology course...
Exclusive
By
Legally India
Monday, 20 April 2020 21:59Law schoolsAn estimated 24 minute read...
NLU Jodhpur has formally begun an investigation into allegations that course materials provided to 2022-batch undergraduate law students by sociology assistant professor Dr Asha Bhandari had been homophobic, after the school’s alumni began going public about the issue on Twitter.
We have not been able to authoritatively confirm exactly in what context the materials had been shared by Bhandari, though they appeared to have been sent to students via a Google Groups email list including both Bhandari and students as part of their sociology course.
We have reached out to vice-chancellor (VC) Prof Poonam Saxena told us by message today: “The concerned teacher was asked to submit a copy of the entire material to us which she has done.”
“It is too soon to come to any conclusion. We are getting an opinion on it from subject experts,” added Saxena.
We have also received a comment from Bhandari, who has been teaching since 2001, and whose specialisation lies in gender studies, sociology and law, and applied ethics and legal reasoning.
Bhandari denied she was homophobic and told us that the entire affair has been a “very shocking and a surprising experience” for her that had “left scars on me and my image”, and had created a “lot of mental pressure”.
Bhandari also said that the materials had been shared online due to instruction taking place virtually because of the Covid-19 lockdown, that the materials shared were not “essential readings but reference readings”, and that these were only a few of many other documents she had shared in the course.
She explained: “In a Sociology class I cannot just stand in front of my students and say That 377 is unconstitutional now that means everything is good. But everybody knows that’s not the ground reality, I mean we who are privilege, well educated or are living in a good society know that its not a sin to be homosexual and that they are not vulnerable, but majority in the society still oppose homosexuality and consider it a sin.
“You go to villages or less urban areas you’ll know the ground reality. Hence it is my job to teach my students that ‘No, kids the society does not function that way, even if the law is out most of the time it doesn’t reach the masses.’"
In order “to bring the social change firstly we need to recognise them and then we star[t] altering them”, she said.
(See Bhandari’s extended comments and some of her correspondence with students below).
The materials
First off, the materials in question.
The material apparently included slides that listed “ten ways in which society could be harmed by legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’" (see below), which is clearly a homophobic sentiment.
That same text and those 10 points appear widely replicated all over the internet on sites and blogs opposing same-sex marriage. That 10-point listicle may have originally come from the US-based Family Research Council, which Wikipedia describes as a “fundamentalist Protestant activist group, with an affiliated lobbying organization”.
Bhandari’s materials also appeared to include a chapter from a paper entitled “factors affecting homosexual orientation”, which describes “ultra-conservative christians and gay theologians appear[ing] to agree that a genetic origin of homosexuality has moral significance” and is a “morally culpable choice”.
We have not been able to find out the title of that paper, but it appears to have come from a chapter of an academic research paper (since it’s hosted on Shodhganga, which aims to be a “reservoir” of Indian PhD theses. The chapter in question is available online ( cache copy here, or here).
While generally being a little confused and unclear in its writing, arguments and intent, that paper quotes a number of very obviously homophobic statements from religious groups opposed to gay marriage (without rebuttal), and it concludes that “homosexuality is not always ‘caused’ by a choice”.
That said, it also counsels that “the parents must stand by their children against all odds and should extend all support to facilitate their living and wishful life”.
The texts, on their own, certainly contain several homophobic or outdated statements.
But the crux of the matter appears to surround how those documents were presented to students.
In retrospect, without access and participation in the full course, it may be hard to determine whether such purported context was communicated clearly enough by Bhandari, or whether it was misunderstood by students, or a mixture of both.
It is also possible that neither was not helped by the fact that the course was taught in an unfamiliar online format to both students and Bhandari.
As of now, we at LI have not really been able to come to an authoritative conclusion either way.
But for those who are interested, we have included a lot more of the (sometimes voluminous) arguments and statements below, including Bhandari’s full comment explaining her position.
Chronology and background information, letters and comments
The controversy had first come to light in a Facebook post by a lawyer and non-NLU Jodhpur post-graduate student on 11 April, with him having included screenshots of the material in question.
However, that post was soon removed, apparently on the request of NLU Jodhpur students, who were presumably trying to go through official channels before going public.
On 12 April, 2020, two students had written the following email to Bhandari:
Respected Madam,
Thank you so much for taking your valuable time to write to us. We understand that there might have been a misunderstanding yesterday with regard to the course curriculum and this is our sincere effort to resolve the same.
We understand that the lockdown is something unprecedented and has caused everyone a lot of stress and anxiety. In these trying times, we have absolute admiration for you for taking the energy to send course material regularly to all of us. We understand that it is something that this is something that does require special time and efforts on your part and we are immensely grateful for that.
Madam, we did not make any presumptions that you are not aware of the latest position of the law as you are a teacher with esteemed qualifications and commendable teaching experience. However we believe, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Navtej Johar it is important that discussion in these matter should not stigmatize members of the LGBTQ+ community. Especially in the public forum such as a classroom, these discussion should be entered into with sensitivity, so as to not alienate and discriminate against members of that community. We understand you may have had the best intentions in mind, however we thought we would bring to your notice the several limitations concerning this study material that was sent to us.
We fully agree that it is important to understand the background and the social realities of any socio-legal debate, especially those of this kind of sensitivity. Due importance must be given to conservative thought as the objective is to have a balanced debate. We fully appreciate your efforts to educate us on the same. However, we believe that in educating matters of such sensitivity, the tone and context behind the same is of utmost importance.
First, you asked us to refer to these PPTs as study material of ‘homosexuality in India’(in the original mail). At no point of time in that mail was it informed to us that this was merely other side of the argument. We believe that the learning place must be a safe space for members of the community. We believe that the material introduced should be carefully vetted and contextualized.
Moreover, while due importance must be given to conservative thought, it must be backed with scholarly research. Much of the study material parrots homophobic old-wives tales without any allusion to the research it is getting them from. For example, attributing the spread of AIDS to gay men. The Supreme Court has noted in Navtej Johar that stigma has made access to condoms increasingly difficult for gay men. This has been a crucial form of discrimination against them. The study material carelessly propagates this stigma without due caution necessary. The Scribd PPT you have shared makes certain unjustified accusations. We feel that when statements such as, “Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones.” and “Freedom of conscience and liberty would be threatened” as portrayed as harms of same-sex marriage, it deserves contextualization and nuance into the theory behind these conservative thoughts. It further says that LGBTQ+ community is responsible for break down of marriages. We humbly request you to educate us on what research this is based on else it becomes a mere homophobic assertion.
Lot of the study material also has graphic description of shock treatment etc. Please understand these description sometimes trigger anxiety and fear in members of the community as this is trauma that a lot of members from the community may have faced. Introducing them into classroom needs to take the lived experience of the students into consideration. We humbly request you to get the Scribd ppt carefully and propose that it be withdrawn.
Regarding the discussion on social media, I ([...]), am extremely apologetic for the same. I was sharing my frustrations with a friend who decided to post it on social media, after which it got out of hand. When I did learn of the kind of unwarranted attention the post was getting, I immediately requested him to take it down. I do not have complete control over what other people decide to post, however, in these unfortunate circumstances, I did my very best to correct the same. If I have inadvertently caused you any form of distress or anguish, for that I am sincerely sorry.
Madam, we realize that you may not have intended to be homophobic, but we believe due care must have been taken in vetting the material or contextualising the same. We genuinely would like to thank you for taking the time and effort to clarify this with us in a professional manner. We sincerely appreciate this and hope this would clear any misinformation from our end.
Warm Regards.
Alumni go public
On Saturday, 18 April, a Twitter account that had recently been started with the handle @Pride_NLU, styling itself as the “The official twitter handle of the Pride Group of National Law University Jodhpur ?“, began posting about the issue.
The handle claimed that 150 NLU Jodhpur alumni had sent a petition to NLU Jodhpur’s VC and its general council (see transcription of full letter further below).
Before that petition, the handle had tweeted a series of posts with details of the materials, and summarising the situation as follows:
On 11th April, 2020, the students of UG Semester VI recieved certain homophobic study material from their sociology teacher, Dr. Asha Bhandari as a part of their Sociology course (1/n)
The material was given without any contextualization whatsoever and provided a poorly researched, archaic, one-sided perspective that perpetrated harmful stereotypes. Some excepts of the material are provided here. (2/n)
via @Pride_NLU Twitter: Course material shared with NLU Jodhpur students (we at LI could not confirm exactly in what context this was provided)via @Pride_NLU Twitter: Purported textbook excerpt shared with students (we at LI could not confirm the exact context)
The material portrayed homosexuality as a “sickness” that can be healed and provided detailed descriptions of conversion therapy without adequate clarification regarding its context. It also gave outdated, prejudiced views on the “causes of homosexuality” (3/n)
When questioned on the same by the students, she replied stating that such material was sent for the purpose of inculcating genuine debates. However, this response is unsatisfactory and is percieved as an afterthought. (4/n)
via @Pride_NLU
Subsequently, Dr. Asha Bhandari chose to delegate the task of finding appropriate reading material to the students instead of taking steps to correct the prejudicial views perpetrated. (5/n)
The Pride Group of NLUJ along with the Interim Student Body and the Academic Support and Literary Committee made a representation to the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor and requested the University to take appropriate action. However, this was met with no response. (6/n)
We, as Pride NLUJ, condemn Dr. Bhandari’s wanton disregard for the hateful nature of the material distributed by her, her subsequent attempts to trivialize concerns raised by students, and abdication of her responsibility as a teacher. (7/n)
Further, we are disappointed in the manner in which the college administration has made no attempts to address the concerns of the students and their failure to take appropriate action. (8/n)
On the evening of 18 April, Bhandari had sent another email to the 2022 batch, noting:
Dear students
I am writing this mail to draw your attention to the incident happened in last few days during on line class teaching in the subject Sociology III( Law and Society) To clarify the issue I am forwarding you the mail of 3 April that I have send to my own ID( which I regularly and generally do after completing my work on every day) that shows that all the material including legal development was with me on the 3rd itself and I had planned to sent each one of them every day so that the topic may be completed within 5-6 days. I also want to draw your attention that I followed same methodology in each topic- starting with origin and conceptual understanding of topic , history, sociological aspect, legal status in other countries, legal status in India and way forward and the students are aware about it, this was communicated in the physical class also , so there was no need to mentioned that again and again in every PPT..) On the said day ( 11 April) also I had first forwarded the regular PPT and then in my subsequent mail I send theses material. On previous day ie 10 April also material on homosexuality was sent, and same was done on the next day( April 13, April 12 was Sunday so no material was communicated)so this is not the case that only on the said date material was handover to students. After lock down also in online classes each topic have been covered within 5-6 days and every day the material was sent to them.
This topic have been discussed under Part IV-Socio-legal debates in India(as communicated earlier also) and in order to understand the legalization of same sex marriage it is essential to understand the concept, theories and arguments related to homosexuality( point number two under Same sex marriage). The readings were not essential reading but reference readings( as mention this will help you in understanding homosexuality in India) to construct various argument -for and against as in the online method of teaching a direct communication was not possible.
Hope this will clarify the misunderstanding created among students and they will understand the issue and study material in totality.
Full letter to admin from alumni
As described above, the below letter was sent on behalf of alumni to the NLU Jodhpur administration, which has also been shared on Twitter).
Dear Dr. Saxena, Hon’ble Chancellor, and Hon’ble Members of the General Council,
We, the undersigned alumni of National Law University, Jodhpur, much to our consternation, have learnt that current VI semester undergraduate students of the University pursuing the ‘Sociology - III Law and Society’ course were sent outright homophobic content purportedly as essential reading by Dr. Asha Bhandari, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and Member, Academic Council, on April 11, 2020 (see attached). On a perusal of the content, it is evident that the material sent by Dr. Bhandari is unscientific, uncritical, based on outdated notions of homosexuality, perpetuates dangerous stereotypes, and legitimizes prejudice against the LGBTIQ community. As you would all agree, this is unacceptable in any institute of learning, much less in one that prides itself on being a premier national law school.
By way of an example, one of the articles (ostensibly an outdated, sparsely footnoted, poorly researched chapter from an unnamed thesis), that forms part of the essential reading terms homosexuality as a “disorder” and “aims to identify the factors behind homosexual orientation.” The article states “[m]any beliefs that it is a mental disease, few believe that homosexuals are sexually obsessive beast with filthy mindset and inhumane sexual behaviour. Many belief that homosexuality is not a result of nature, but an outcome of how a person is nurtured.” The author goes on to exhort that “experts as well as the common man” hold “external factors” including “weak masculine identity, sexual abuse, sexual addiction, loss of local moral order” among others as “responsible for causing homosexual orientation in a person”. The article lists out various “implications” of homosexuality including “The homosexuals in order to express their love and fulfill their sexual desire adapt sexual practices which are unsafe (without any precautions) and not normal in nature.” The author concludes by suggesting ways of “healing homosexual attraction and behaviour”.
It is pertinent to note that the only other assigned reading on homosexuality by Dr. Bhandari, though less brazen, also crouches discriminatory, outdated ideas as “debates”. Titled “What causes homosexuality”, the reading states that one possible “scientific study” suggests that “[it] would seem that the family pattern involving a combination of a dominating, overly intimate mother plus a detached, hostile or weak father is beyond doubt related to the development of male homosexuality.” The article also attributes homosexuality to child sexual abuse, urbanization and even education, among other “factors”.
The reading material was circulated to the students without stating that these articles presented antiquated viewpoints or that material with counter-points would be circulated at a later point. Even if such material was presumably sent with a view to provide a historical account of the development of sociology surrounding homosexuality, we unequivocally condemn the action of Dr. Bhandari in prescribing as essential reading only regressive and discriminatory material, shorn of all context and critical analysis, that propagates prejudice and perpetuates entrenched stereotypes against LGBTIQ persons. It is also puzzling as to why Dr. Bhandari circulated these readings, as they do not form part of the reference material set out in the curriculum shared with the students at the beginning of the semester.
When the issues with the reading material were raised by students with Dr. Bhandari, she initially claimed that this material was only to provide “background and context” and to expose students to “different perspectives”, and to encourage a “genuine debate”. She also undertook to send further material on “legal development and recent changes”. However, till date Dr. Bhandari has not provided the students with any material dealing with sociological developments around homosexuality that are non-stigmatising. The claims of providing different perspectives is, therefore, self- refuting, and results in students being presented only with the homophobic perspective. On further questions being raised, Dr. Bhandari chose to delegate the task of finding appropriate reading material to students, which was a clear act of reprisal for the students taking the initiative of pointing out the bigotry in the material shared.
We are given to understand that the Interim Student Body has written to the Vice-Chancellor highlighting these issues on April 14, and placed on record their demand for a corrigendum to be issued to the emails sent by Dr. Bhandari, for a fresh set of reading material for the module, as well as for a sensitisation session for all faculty (see attached). We fully endorse the representation issued by the Interim Student Body and reiterate the need for a sensitisation to be conducted for all faculty and staff of the University on issues surrounding gender and sexuality.
We clarify that we do not wish to curb free and fair debate in classrooms, nor do we wish to dictate how every course ought to be administered in the University. In fact, we stand strongly in favour of fostering an environment where there is no undue interference in the administration of the course - a factor that those of us now teaching hold in extremely high regard. However, the University has to strive to be free from bias, prejudice, and intolerance of all kinds, and faculty ought to be held to the highest standards of behaviour. Members of the faculty, who are in a position to exert influence over the students, are duty-bound to ensure that legitimacy is not given to the expression of views which are discriminatory and which call into question the very humanity and dignity of a section of the society. In fact, teaching should be the last thing that exacerbates the stigma, self-doubt for students who identify themselves with non-heteronormative sexual and gender identities in an already prejudicial environment.
Giving currency to reading material that legitimises prejudice and stigma against already marginalised communities, ostensibly to provide “all sides of a debate”, is symptomatic of discrimination as we see in today’s time which is unacceptable - especially so, in light of the empathy and sensitivity that discussion on such issues require, and in light of the academic advancements in the field of both science and sociology.
Lest this be dismissed as an atypical incident, we wish to draw your attention to numerous such instances of bigotry either being promoted or actively undertaken by Dr. Bhandari. During our time as students at the University, many of us have been at the receiving end of Dr. Bhandari’s one-sided course material, casually passed off as “essential reading”. Dr. Bhandari, during the course of classroom lectures and during interactions with us outside the classroom, did not refrain from making extremely misogynistic, casteist, racist, and islamophobic statements. She has unduly exercised her position of authority in the classroom as well as as a member of various bodies and committees, including the committee for the prevention of sexual harassment, and has passed value judgments on students’ characters, personal lives, consensual relationships, and personal belief systems. The impact that such denunciations from an authority figure may have had on the psychological well-being of countless students, more so those from marginalised communities, cannot be disregarded.
While we endorse the need for course correction and remedial steps in this particular instance, this incident also highlights the institutional failure to check such bigotry and to meaningfully address student concerns. The University administration has been averse to any consultation with the alumni on all issues including those surrounding sensitisation for all staff and faculty, a rigorous audit of course material, incorporating an effective system of student feedback, and putting into place mechanisms to address emerging concerns surrounding harassment faced by female and LGBTIQ students. Any such attempt by present students is immediately thwarted, and quite often accompanied with retribution, silencing all voices seeking to bring about change.
At its core, a dual degree in law and the arts must aim to train students to serve the needs and interests of society as well as encourage progressive and critical thinking, which is also the purported aim of Dr. Bhandari’s course. It is thus doubly unfortunate that Dr. Bhandari has instead chosen to perpetuate inequalities and discrimination against already vulnerable students. This is antithetical to the role of a University, and an abuse of her position.
Therefore, we call upon you to:
(a) Constitute a committee, consisting of members of the General Council and external members of high academic repute, to conduct an inquiry forthwith into the incident and to take the requisite disciplinary action against Dr. Bhandari.
(b) Initiate an immediate external peer review of the curriculum for the ‘Sociology - III Law and Society’ course and incorporate current, rigorous, well-researched reading material for the course.
(c) Engage external academicians/lawyers/legal researchers as guest faculty for the module on homosexuality.
(d) Organise a sensitization sessions for all staff and faculty on gender and sexuality, by trained external resource-persons.
(e) Institute mechanisms to ensure that the highest standards of academic instruction are adhered to in the University, including a periodic curriculum development workshop, rigorous audit of teaching quality, course curriculum, and teaching methodology by independent peer-reviewers and senior academicians.
(f) Initiate an effective anonymous feedback system, with detailed questions, and ensure that the feedback given by students is given due consideration while updating curriculum and engaging faculty.
We look forward to engaging with the University administration and the General Council to improve the standards of teaching and learning, and to ensure that the University is a safe space for all concerned, particularly those vulnerable.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Full response by Bhandari when requested for comment
For completeness, we have included Bhandari’s full emailed response to our request for comment below.
I suppose by now you have read or understood everything which is out there on social media. Certain points raised were that the topic I was teaching was out of curriculum and homophobic or less researched. Some even went to lengths of branding me as conservative and homophobic. I had a great laugh about this with my son who is a filmmaker and thinks I am too openminded as a parent.
About the topic, well , the topic of homosexuality has been discussed under the topic ‘Same Sex Marriage’ (Part IV - Socio-Legal Debate in the course Sociology III (Law & Society).
As you might be aware that online classes are taking place due to Covid-19 pandemic and lock down in the Country thats why during one of my class I sent some study material (not a recorded material) on the said topic.
See the thing is in order to understand the concept of same sex marriage and its legalisation , it was firstly and mostly essential to understand the concept of same sex, origin , various theories about it, its social acceptance , arguments involved in-for-against social acceptance of homosexuality , legal development in the other part of the world and in India and finally a way forward. In a way thats how a Sociology class functions. It was essential to understand the arguments from both sides to justify the titles. Period.
In a Sociology class I cannot just stand in front of my students and say That 377 is unconstitutional now that means everything is good . But everybody knows thats not the ground reality, I mean we who are privilege , well educated or are living in a good society know that its not a sin. to be homosexual and that they are not vulnerable , but majority in the society still oppose homosexuality and consider it a sin . You go to villages or less urban areas you’ll know the ground reality. Hence it is my job to teach my students that No, kids the society does not function that way , even if the law is out most of the time it doesn’t reach the masses .
Now talking about the readings Yes ,the readings sent to the students were not the essential readings but reference readings
(as mention this will help you in understanding the ground reality homosexuality in India in one of the mail) to construct various argument-for and against as in the online method of teaching a direct communication was not possible.
Students were aware about my teaching methodology ,also it was communicated in the physical class .
First of all as a teacher isn’t it my right or my job to send something extra to the kids which might help them in understanding certain situations and reality and might help them in future, I believe a teacher should share as much knowledge as they can. If sending extra material for them to study is the point of argument then I worry about the situation of the education system.
Moving forward,
So to counter the argument that no material was hannded to the students i want to shed some light on these dates,
On 11th April ,also I had first forwarded the regular PPT and then in my subsequent mail I sent theses material. On previous day that was, 10 April , material on homosexuality was sent, and same was done on 13th April (12th April was Sunday so no material was communicated) on the said date material was handed over to students.( but only a specific part of material sent on 11 is highlighted) After lock down also in online classes each topic has been covered within 5-6 days and every day the material was sent .
As aftermath of sending study material the first series of the said incident happened on April 11, the material was highlighted and critically commented by two students [...] and [...] and they wrote a mail to me regarding clarification. Before I could have seen the mail and clarify their doubts ( within few hours) they have shared it to their friends outside NLUJ and students have started posting against me on social media(including the students who were not the part of Faculty of Humanities and social Science and were not aware about my teaching methodology).
Within the few hours same group of students deleted the post. I sent them a mail regarding the clarifications the very next day ie April 12, 2020 the concerned students ( [...] and [...]) had sent me apology regarding the posting on social media stating that out of ‘frustration she has communicated it to her friends and they have posted on social media’. She also stated that it was a misunderstanding and same is clarified after my mail.
In the backdrop of such incidents, I came to know that interim students body of NLUJ has submitted a representation to Honb’le Vice Chancellor against me and mentioned that I sent them response mail just to cover-up the things. (I have a proof a mail of April 3rd that shows all material was with me on April 3rd and it was not afterthought) I also came to know through social media that some of alumni with the leadership of [...] ( former student of NLUJ) also have submitted the representation regarding the study material posted and other allegation on me. I would like to draw your attention to few points to be considered:
The first communication regarding material held between me and [...] and [...] and same was sorted out( I may show you the mail regarding the same)if the matter was sort out then what was the need of sending such representations?
It was mentioned that study material is homophobic but to support that only the opposite side of arguments were highlighted. I am attaching the material (with red Highlight)to understand that whether it was really homophobic?
In order to understand the reasoning about, why material has been sent? I think I justify in the initial part of this mail. The study material was not mentioned in the curriculum as a essential reading but due to lockdown a need was felt to send some material which may help students to construct the arguments.
I was alleged that another material discussing the legal development was not posted whereas the material was posted on April 13, as April 12 was Sunday and I was not suppose to send any material to students on that day.
It was also remarked in representation that I have asked students to prepare the study material whereas that was an effort on my side to give them an opportunity to be a part of teaching pedagogy and said students were asked to submit the assignment on Homosexuality and they were supposed to submit the same by April 14,along with all the students of the batch as a test .(I have already posted all material before that on April 13)
It was also asked to have a peer review of course- reality is that all courses taught in the University are undergoing regress review by experts.
I was also alleged on me about the biased remarks on students but not a single remark was highlighted as an example.( I am enclosing the mail sent by other students to support me stating that I am like ‘mother figure’ for them and I have high morals)
Very surprisingly if you notice that in that representation in the last line it was mentioned that ‘it is not the representation of formal Alumni Association rather only a group of said students have submitted the representation’ but it was highlighted as the alumni Association has submitted the representation. The reality is the other alumni were reluctant about this approach of some students and out of approximately 1600-1700 students pass out from university hardly such number of students were able to met with allegations)
It was also highlighted in the representation of student’s body that these all were afterthought to save my side. But I have a proof( Mail of April 3, 2020indicating that all that material was with me- details about this is mentioned in last Para)
As a teacher what was my fault? Is it a fault that I wanted to teach them in-depthly, I wanted to sensitises them about the topic?
I would like to make an analogy here with the ongoing COVID-19, everyday government and medial departments share facts and figures, s and consequences for some these facts are horrifying and some of them out of anxiety commit suicide (as done by some)- do government stop talking about all facts and figures?
I think I clarify my stand that we need to understand social realities and for this reason the approach in a law class and in a sociology class would be different. I believe that to bring the social change firstly we need to recognise them and then we star altering them. I also want to contribute here that this is a special course designed to integrate law and sociology and fulfils the objective of integrated studies in law schools. This is a special course ( paper) that has been administrating only in NLUJ.
What happened in this incident were a very shocking and a surprising experience, which I had never dealt with in my entire career( I have been associated with NLUJ since its inception-about 19 years ) and it has left scars on me and my image. This is not only dimming my image as teacher and a person but also creating a lot of mental pressure for me.
The act done by only few students out of their personal anxiety is putting a question mark on all the efforts which I have been putting for the class . (though the concerned students themselves admitted that I am putting commendable and sincere efforts in class teaching) My worries are students without understanding and knowing the facts very aggressively reacting to the issue and also have been posting on the social media.. The best solution was that students directly would have approached to me before sending any representation but none of them have done this not sought any clarification( but falsely mentioned that when I approached I answered like this-----) from me except a communication through mail happened between me and [...]. I realize that the approach of students in all these series of incidents was to have a win –win situation over a teaching faculty. Repetition of same kind of action can threaten my image as teacher and person and the remaining students can be misguided easily.
Click to show 93 comments at your own risk (alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
Thanks for reporting on this issue in greater detail. Of course the jury is out and with the track record of PS there, we know how things will end. Its too early to say whether sloppy job got horribly snowballed or a lapse of let out latent homophobia. I am personally concerned about pinkwashing....harder to detect and capture.
The students definitely did not do this out of "professional anxiety" or "frustration". This is a teacher who spends her class hours reading the palms of the students predicting how many marriages they will have in the future, and teaching them the application of dowry calculators. This was probably why the alumni did not require so much deliberation to draft the email and finally speak out against her archaic methods. However, this is and NEVER was intended to be purely a personal attack against the professor. It was just a response at the inefficiency of the entire system and their role as an accomplice in propagating (even passively) several prejudices.
Prof. Bhandari might not have been homophobic, nor might have it been the case that she had a hateful intent when she sent those materials across. But as a sociaology professor in an NLU she has the responsibility to present the progressive as well as regressive side of the debate. And she should have contextualised whatever material that she sent earlier, to indicate her position that they merely intended to give a background picture. Merely being defensive and alleging the students of having taken out their professional frustration is shameful. Additionally, even the material she sent later did not really indicate anything different from the earlier batch of material.
Boss, I'm not from NLUJ, but I have occasionally taught at a few NLUs by way of credit courses. One thing I can say for certain. Any teacher worth learning from would always make it clear while sharing any material of such controversial or bigoted nature that it does not reflect her viewpoint or one that she wants the students to adhere to. That can easily be done in the mail where such material is sent, or in the class beforehand. If one doesn't do that, then either it's because she actually believes in the content herself and is now trying to hide it with very little success, or at best she is ambivalent towards it and doesn't think that taking a stand against such bigotry is important. Either way, she's unfit to take care of law school students. The fact that she's trying to dilute the accusations by citing number of alum who complained or how she's a 'mother figure' to many, or about her 'filmmaker son' (is it KJo?) all go against her. We want good and efficient teachers first and foremost in the classroom, not mothers or aunts clinging to outdated patriarchal or misogynistic notions. I daresay there are too many of those at our homes anyway.
The best thing about this VC is her art of deflecting problems and lying through her teeth to students and faculty members alike. This university would never address any problem that is raised by the students which is why they have to resort to seeking support from social media platforms. We have seen nothing happen time and time again and are tired of all these lies being perpetrated by the administration. They deflected most of the issues brought forward in the protest that happened last semester just to save their image in front of the public at large even though nothing has materialized of those promises as of yet. They have done nothing to help female students in their complaints of sexual harassment and have tried to suppress their voices at every stage of the system. They still hadn't replied or addressed the representation put forward to them in the present matter and I am pretty sure nothing is going to come from this so called external review. Their lack of caring even a little about the students has led to teachers like this one filling up a majority of the faculty positions in the university. Teachers that have never taught a subject before are assigned to those positions every single year for no reason whatsoever. They don't deserve any credit for the achievements of the students in terms of jobs, moots, sports etc. as they provide us with no support facilities at all, and it is the personal hard work of the students which enables them to achieve those heights. Future students coming to NLUJ should be aware of these ground realities of the university which this administration tries their hardest to mask behind their public propaganda.
Almost entirely true but just want to say we love M-Dawg and RoTho, if you two are reading the comments, 2 actually competent professionals who add value to students!
Renjith doesn't seem so bad just that he reaaaallllly needs to get his temper in check
It is interesting how Kian waited a full nine days to break this story and was careful to include all the rebuttals etc. from all the parties involved and was very careful in identifying everything as an allegation. Often in law school stories, LI can't wait for an hour after getting hold of leaked mails and simply says that the admin didn't respond in time to its requests for a reaction, let alone individual faculty's email refutation. Different strokes for different NLUs, eh?
Kian's obviously got problems but I'm so confused right now.......... Please clarify. the cribbing in comments that LI did not cover the story means the problem is that LI doesn't care about NLU Jodhpur, right? But now you say the problem is LI cares too much about NLU Jodhpur? And also that LI cares sometimes and sometimes doesn't. Or that LI never cares? Please help
No, simply that given the negative impression that this incident projects of the NLUJ faculty or admin (not students), LI has shown a helluva lot more caution and circumspection than they do for several other law schools.
From the article it says the students themselves didn't want to go public with it 9 days ago and asked for facebook post to be deleted. And the case the students are making is subject to interpretation + context, so you saying you want LI to have published 9 days ago, without comment from the faculty member?
"Without comment from the faculty member" - Yes. Because that's fairly standard for LI. And it usually covers such matters within hours of getting hold of any news from several other law schools, without checking with the parties involved whether they want the matter to be made public or not.
First and foremost lets be clear. This issue has been picke up 2 to 3 students who have nothing else to do with the extra time on their hands and have hence picked an easy target in Dr. Bhandari. As a student who has been taught by her I can vouch that she has not tried to be homophobic in any sense. We have several other teachers who have even threatened, failed and altered the attendance of students so as to ensure that they fail. Why has no complaints been registered against them ? Because the students do not have any guts at all, despite consequences being extremely grave. I have first hand information that the opposite view point was indeed communicated to the students through reading material. True, Dr. Bhandari is not the best faculty that we have but she has been specifically targeted and made a scapegoat [...] This material in no way represents Dr. Bhandari's personal viewpoint. Several people repeating the same thing does not make it true. Further, if this was indeed such a problem then why was it not dealt with internally. After all these students want action to be taken against the faculty. Nobody else will take action except the Vice-Chancellor. What exactly are they achieving from slandering the poor woman on social media when their recourse in fact lies withing the college administration? Unfortunately this is what our college has descended into. A few students with a grudge against a teacher misrepresenting a non-issue conveniently for their own purposes.
I am not sure you have read the entire article. The students did approach the Vice-Chancellor with a representation in this regard which was completely ignored by them like they have done with everything in the past. This inaction on the part of the administration for a prolonged period of time prompted this response on social media where the students are presenting their side of the story. And judging by the number of likes and retweets from fellow students on that tweet, I am pretty sure that is the opinion of more than 2 or 3 people as you seem to infer.
You seem to point it out as a fact that is not the teacher's opinion even though that was not made clear to the students at all through the readings or through the mails circulated by her, which is her responsibility as a teacher. No one is being made a scapegoat here, this is a culmination of several such bigoted beliefs being put forth by her which makes this not an isolated incident.
You talk about other teachers who have done reprehensible things and that might be true but one valid cause should not be undermines by the presence of equally or even more valid causes.
Can we have enough of these whataboutery arguments. We do have the right to choose our battles. Attendance issues ARE incredibly annoying - if you're actually an insider, you'd know how students have mostly worked our ways around attendance issues. How do you work your way around an incompetent professional who peddles such garbage in the name of "debate"?
Just to give some context, the points she sent across are not even a concern for most in India who don't accept homosexuality, she's just sent across the talking points of conservatives in the USA(businesses owned by homosexuals would be subsidised whattt??? In India, specifically those ones will be?) An actual analysis about homophobic thought in India would reveal different issues - stigmatization of the family of the person that takes place at times etc. (Stuff she never brought up), so her defence of bringing all kinds of thought prevalent in India up for debate is farcical.
Like+30Object-11Batch of 2020 7 weeks agointerestingtop ratedcontroversial
Mrs. Bhandari has put up a nice defence after the fact, however, there's a reason students weren't having any of this non-sense any more. In our 3rd year there was a very telling incident which can be verified by any student from the batch of 2020.
Our classroom had been littered in with plates of poha and tea cups in typical NLUJ fashion. Mrs. Bhandari said we should clean up and then went on to ask the female students to clean the class. Everyone, including the male students, were shocked to say the least. The students, left surprised, asked her why did she ask just the girls. Her response was "because saaf safai rakhna toh unka kaam hota hai na".
Just because you are a soft spoken, seemingly well mannered "lady" doesn't mean that you're a qualified sociology professor.
I hope Kian doesn't consider this to be violative of LI's policies because this comment is just to highlight the constant barrage of retrograde, pardon my langauge, BULLSHIT, that we were subject to in our classes. This is NOT about a personal attack on a professor but about highlighting the appalling faculty standards and the refusal of the administration to do anything about it.
The leftist control of university campuses has invaded even NLUs now. Prof Bhandari's material may be sub-par, but a university works on the basis of free exchange of ideas. The safe space people are the most illiberal of the lot, and cancel culture will be the end of critical thought and free speech. The place to defeat bad ideas is in the classroom with good ideas, not to shut it down. I hope the VC takes strict action against NLUJ Pride and the informal student body for this.
Like+26Object-5Blood Test 7 weeks agointerestingtop ratedcontroversial
Nobody's telling you not to share your (stupid) opinion. Asha Bhandari offered up her homophobic views to the class, they offered a rebuttal, and then took the proper recourse against hate speech.
Homophobia isn't "critical thought", and nobody needs to put up with it.
"Homophobia" is a big word. You'd be better off not labelling everyone you disagree with. Free speech and critical thinking of all forms of received wisdom is the foundation of a liberal education. That could mean asking questions about religious dogma as well as so called axioms of identity politics. If you're so well versed and confident, why not dismantle Professor Bhandari's views with your views? If anything, this is intellectual laziness to scream "I'm offended and triggered". Are NLUJ students so incompetent that they can't counter what they claim is a false view with effective argument? I don't think so. Stop infantalizing students.
"Received wisdom," damn, you're funny. It's almost as if you haven't read what Asha Bhandari sent to the students, and if you haven't, why are you on here trolling? Those "study materials" she sent comprised of nothing but homophobic content - calling homosexuality a disease, offering patently false suggestions on "curing" it, and more. There was no wisdom to be gained there, and if you'd read the students' reply to it, you'd know that they did counter everything presented in the email.
But you're more interested in trolling the "triggered liberals" than actually saying anything worth listening to.
If they "countered" it in class or otherwise through constructive engagement, then what's the point of this dirty laundry washing in public? If someone thinks "homosexuality is a disease" and you believe it isn't, then say so in the same terms the premise was conveyed by the teacher. Let that intellectual synthesis drive the Socratic method. Adopting cancel culture to shut down any and every contrarian (or even worse, merely diverse) view is a slippery slope to suppression of thinking itself. In fact, this leads to a much poorer classroom culture. So-called progressive identity politics is incrementally entrenching itself in our classrooms. That an NLU is falling prey to it, is more worrying. This form of cultural Marxism will become the new dogma if left unchecked. Today, its shutting down critical discourse in classrooms with labels like "homophobia"; tomorrow will it be some other dogma that obstructions beliefs like theology?
Critical discourse? Next you'll tell me that if I say every Brahmin student in my class is intellectually and morally superior to the others because God wills it, then that too is a form of critical discourse. In the garb of some fancy phrases, you are simply trying to justify the contents shared by the faculty as a valid argument. It is not. If she holds such views in her personal life, that's her problem. She may even talk about it personally to others. She cannot do it in her capacity as a teacher. Just like in the name of theology, she can't say that monotheism is the only valid form of worship and the others are just misguided souls waiting to be saved. This entire protest is not only to debunk her viewpoint, it is also to stop her from disseminating completely baseless, nonsensical, unscientific and hateful drivel among students.
If you do say "Brahmins are superior" or whatever else in an academic context in a classroom, that has to be dismantled through intellectual argument. The solution is to to engage in good faith (of course, if the faculty made that point in good faith). The worst thing to do is to stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to engage. That would make dullards out of the students. In fact, you might be interested to know "monotheism" is a very common crutch in jurisprudence on questions of morality, normativity and "just laws" - a lot of that traces very clearly to Judeo-Christian value systems, which in turn have had a pervasive impact on the law making ethic across the world, including in India. If, instead of understanding and engaging with it, sufficiently rebutting and deconstructing it where need be, you wouldn't even have a comprehensive understanding of the jurisprudential foundations of colonial law making. And that is the sort of intellectual dark age you will imprison NLUJ students in, if this cancel culture is allowed to run wild.
Discussing about monotheism and its different normative facets and the teacher saying that monotheism is the only 'right' thing to believe in and the those who don't are kafirs and would burn in hell are quite different things, no matter how much you seek to conflate the two. You seem to be sneakily trying to push in the good faith issue here. Good faith means I want my students to know that there are two sets of people who believe in monotheism and those who don't and these are the things they respectively believe in and these are the logical fallacies and counters involved in both. That's exactly what the students expected here and that's clearly not what the faculty did. Had she done that, the entire matter wouldn't have arisen at all. You keep trying to say students should engage with her to debunk her opinion. You forget two things, one that students in general would be afraid to do so openly if she clearly is of one opinion and derisive of the other, since that also may beget repercussions (not in an ideal world, but definitely in Indian universities including NLUs). The other is there are a lot of students who would consider that what the teacher is saying is probably the right thing, because no matter how much you say otherwise, this is not a debate of equals. That's why hate speeches are also not allowed in the form of teaching. Otherwise those could have been 'intellectually debunked' inside classrooms as a hallmark of renaissance following the dark ages. Your entire premise is very ivory towerish and considerably divorced from reality.
Its not ivory tower at all. There have been so many instances of students countering bad argument with good argument in NALSAR and NLS that I know personally. I know its anecdotal but I'm saying so only because I have been accused of living in an ivory tower.
Since when is not being a homophobe equivalent to being a leftist? Did they change the definitions since last I checked? Here I thought myself to be in favour of both a free economy and the right of people to have consensual sex with whomever they want to!
That is a very lazy attempt at a straw-man. It is the neo-Marxist cultural/identitarian politics of the victim-complex peddling safe space people that is "leftist". You, of course, are entitled to your libertarian "free economy and free sex" rootless cosmopolitanism, if you want. But the issue here is the shutting down of a teacher who merely posited and offered a different perspective (however inaccurate those theses may be). The intellectually honest thing to do is to respond to that on its terms - if you think homosexuality isn't a disease, then disprove the material in question in class. NLUJ students aren't in kindergarten that they can't evaluate arguments on their merits and form their own conclusions.
You are mistaking the class for a courtroom. Teachers and students aren't on the same level insofar as power equations are concerned. And teachers aren't supposed to be able to say just whatever it is that they want, even if that amounts to bigotry, and still be considered as simply presenting their own viewpoint in a debate. That's why there is an approved syllabus by the university. Next you'll say that while teaching maths, I can say that 2 plus 2 equals to eight on certain days and then it's the students' duty to debunk that in class. It is not. It's the university's duty to ensure that such people aren't employed as teachers. You keep trying to justify bigotry as a personal position to assume in a debate. Maybe it is to you. To me, it isn't. Regardless of you spewing buzz words nineteen a dozen, that remains true.
Wow. This is the most craven surrender to intellectual and moral laziness I've seen. One would think NLUJ aspires to the culture of critical inquiry that other law schools have tried to cultivate in Indian legal education. If that is the case, you must NOT meekly surrender to "teacher said, and that means its inherently authoritative". How is this any different from received wisdom - in the past it was the theocratic state that said "do not offend God or King" and it was to be swallowed hook line and sinker. So, it begins with questioning the premises that are presented to you, rather than shut yourself away from premises (however flawed or inaccurate you think they are). In fact, approved syllabi of universities recognise this need to be deconstructive. If you really are from NLUJ (or an alum), I really feel bad for your university that it seems to think "kids are impressionable so we should protect them from difficult thoughts". Maybe the law school model of critical thinking isn't meant for you.
As per your argument, no teacher should be prevented from making racist, casteist, hate speeches, or other discriminatory comments or teaching in those lines either. Don't know which university you come from, but almost all universities around the world have rules and policies against that and also for censoring the teacher for violating such rules including removal. You are simply building castles in the air.
Not true. In fact, in the past 5 years, universities across western liberal democracies are fighting back against the PC Police hindering critical thought. Harvard for instance has a far more open culture of discussion than cultural marxist havens like UC Berkley. I'd rather Indian law schools tilt to the former than the latter, for reasons I've repeatedly stated above.
Please do not sully the 'law school model of critical thinking' by giving it your very skewed interpretation. You are either a troll of the first order, or someone who is fine with allowing hate speeches so long as you consider that critical thinking. Either way, you aren't the product of the law school model of critical thinking as had been envisaged by those who built that model. I say that because I happen to personally know all those people.
Excuse me, dear overlord friend of founders: you labelling something hate speech doesn't make it so. In fact, not a word of the material that the Professor supplied would attract a single provision of Indian law. So all that is left, is for some illiberal PC police types to shut down any sort of deliberative culture in favour of an authoritarian identity politics dogma. In its own sick way, it would make Mao and Stalin proud.
NLUJ students have countered the said faculty multiple times, it's not like this was the first time something happened and people just outraged. This has been happening for years with this faculty member and enough is enough. She is entitled to her views, surely, but if these people can punish us with threats about attendance and the like, they shouldn't be scared of being exposed in an environment where the power dynamics aren't titled entirely in their favour.
Like+21Object-6Blood Test 7 weeks agointerestingtop ratedcontroversial
Man, oh man. As someone who's been taught by NLUJ's vaunted faculty, I can quite assuredly say that they're almost all awful. We've had a chief warden who used his position to wander around the girls' hostels at night, barging in on them unannounced, we've had professors who called students "retarded" for emailing them doubts, we've had this woman with her dowry calculating and homophobia, we've had authorities slut shame students who report sexual harassment, and so much more. Asha Bhandari isn't an exception. She's just one rusty cog in this atrocious machine.
Someone else said it above, but it bears repeating: the college deserves no acknowledgement for its students' achievements. All the moots, the placements, the accolades, they're achieved in spite of the college, not because of it.
If a nurturing and safe environment is what you're looking for, steer far clear of the mess that is NLUJ.
There are no Socioloy classes being conduted online. The "online classes" that Dr Bhandari refers to are her sending the students study materials via email. She has not included any context in any emails sent yet somehow expects the material to be considered "for reference" and one to stimulate debate, just wondering.
The number of students who have graduated from NLUJ, Undergraduate course, where she teaches, is at the most 1250. And even assuming 60% of them took BA, her classes, that would make for not more than 750. Touting an apologetic email from students whose future she still has sway over is atleast tone-deaf. These students were publically identified and therefore their motivation for such an apology would be how do i say this, "out of their personal anxiety". If Legally India is desirous of writing a follow-up piece all it has to do is contact students, past and present, who have attended her class, and they would be regaled with tales of her troubling behaviour on (fill in the blank), as many in the comments section write.
As always, the Vice Chancellor does nothing until students approach the media. Why doesn't she just resign if she wants nothing to do with student grievances
The faculty at NLUJ is made of up, mostly but not all, of people who turn a blind eye toward such things. Even after the students protested, after years of being steamrolled, the VC refused to meet and discuss grievances and the supposed agreement reached, by her representatives, to end the protests has not been implemented yet. There is a serious problem of sexism in the University, where girls are not allowed to go out of their hostel after 11pm because, as the VC said and paraphrasing here, "she knows why they want to go out at such time". The campus is fenced and no one is allowed in or out without proper formality at any time. They do not enforce this curfew on male students. They couch all of this under "security". The hostels are also in an abysmal condition, with the water filters not working properly, stary dogs roaming on all floors, showers and toilets are, in the best of cases, barely usable. The VC is almost never on campus. Rules are enforced arbitrarily. Genuine concerns are brushed aside, there is constant paranoia within the administration, and high-handedess and cover-ups are common. For insiders - remember the one faculty member(you know who) who was forced to leave as the Uni did not want the allegations to be public or take meaningful actions or even conduct a enquiry. Remember the hate being spewed at a few of our students, 'incidents' on campus, the list sadly goes on
It is no secret how some Professor(the newly minted one) openly threatens reprisals in classrooms and talks of how marks depend on what he thinks of you, not forgetting the VC and his long association, from her teaching days, and scrutiny must be paid to his appointment and rapid rise from AP to Asst.Dean to Professor.
As someone who is in the specific batch this material was sent to, she is right about the fact that her teaching methodology has been to start from the history/ characterisation of the problem and then explain the evolution of thought. She has been largely ineffective and has presented us with not too great reading material for everything she has taught, but the problem in this specific instance was exacerbated by the fact that this happened online and she decided to pick badly written pre-prepared content instead of formulating it herself. This is bad teaching, but not homophobia. I have personally heard her believably assert that she is not sexist and believe her, as many others do. In the same vein, this argument that she is homophobic deliberately confuses incomptence with malice and is untenable. Holding an internal enquiry is correct, perhaps, but circulating the teachers' name on social media before such an enquiry happened is just straight out wrong. As someone who's in the same batch, we have been taught by teachers who are far worse and much more incompetent in several other subjects as well- but always shyed away from the fight because of a sentiment of what will it achieve anyway. During the struggle for the formation of the student body some students raised the demand that this question of bad teaching standards be brought up but were outvoted because the battle didn't need fighting then apparently, and peace ought to be maintained. The present interim student body has consistently refused to bring up this, or any other controversial issue that requires taking a stance against the administration stating that there is lack of power to do so. Internal referendums through voting by all students are constantly held to decide whether an issue ought to be taken up. This is the first time, however, that they have chosen to make assertions and demands without consultation with the student body at large in a transparent manner; with not even an e-mail thread to all explaining the action being taken. This is an instance of attacking the weakest symbol of a much much larger problem and calling it a victory, and the manner in which it has been done is simply reprehensible.
This is another example of "liberal fascism" by the woke mafia. You people should focus on improving the faculty and infrastructure of your college instead of hyping non-issues.
Since you are not woke yet, you must still be sleeping. Which is perhaps why you can't recognise this effort to be also one to improve faculty quality. Which means getting rid of sub standard people who have got nothing else apart from bigotry and outdated notions to teach.
The material had gross defects. Agreed. Entirely Agreed.
But the issue has certainly been blown way out of proportion. The way the social media is capturing everything, it's just a gross exaggeration of the situation. Her methodology of teaching has always been- to introduce the concept in its abstractness; then go on to give concrete arguments; then explain the legal position of that issue. With several other topics being discussed for our course such as Suicide, Abortion- she's dealt with all of it, in a very similar way. She has told us why people are against abortion, why some religions are against abortions while she discussed the topic of abortion. She did the same with Homosexuality also. The right of homosexuals to be recognised alike, just like everyone else is so basic, that the arguments against it are ought to be vague and non-sensical, just like they were in her documents. She never said it's her opinion that homosexuality is abnormal. Not to deny that she should have been more careful and that she has not been sensitive with this entire issue. But she certainly doesn't deserve to be sloshed that bad for this! With several other subjects also, the teachers have been sending weblinks and PPTs from online sources- all of them are also not necessarily scrutinized properly- but for a subject like sociology, not scrutinizing happens to have a way more massive impact- which she should have understood and known- but at the same time, she shouldn't be punished this bad for not understanding it!
If a faculty cannot understand any of that, she should not teach at an NLU. Plenty of local colleges with the 'right' support for her views for her to teach at I'm sure.
Why? Are we lot special? Many of us also vote the current political establishment into power. This is the result of the abdication of political responsibility on our parts as citizens of India. We'll see more such idiots crop up in the law school circuit.
Above in the comments, people have mentioned about 'palm reading sessions' and 'dowry calculators' .
I distinctly remember that even in class when she mentioned that she knows palmistry, there was a big line of students who were dying to get their future ascertained, and now blaming it all on her is just wrong. I even remember that at first, she refused to look at any hands, but students were incessantly pestering, and then she agreed. Everyone was laughing and enjoying in the class and now suddenly turning the tables onto her is ridiculous. Even with dowry calculators, she told us about this concept while teaching the topic of 'marriage'. She told us that this concept still prevails in the society where people give dowry proportionate to their status, the status of groom's family, the beauty of the girl etc etc and that there are dowry calculators available online which find it for you. She didn't say it was a good practice, she has rather criticized this practice a lot of times in class, she just told us that this practice is still exists, which is infact very sadly very true.
Weaving all the things, which were said lightheartdly and in a different context, to now build a case against her, is not done!
The environment that a teacher cretes in a classroom is important. She must surely understand that the motivations of students and how influential her actions are. Feigning interest or enthusiasm may be done if they are incentivised to do so and reading her response she seems to be the kind of person who keeps "logs" and i would not be surprised to learn, students help me out here, if she favours certain groups of students for their "loyalty", and thus encourage croneyism. The tom-tomming of fawning emails she has received, and recounting of praise, her response, is just the sort of red-flag that is readily apparent. Hope there is no retribution on the students for this.
In fact, quite the contrary. I hope the strictest action is taken by the NLUJ administration against the 4-5 instigators of this circus, Pride NLUJ and the informal student body that has run this campaign, all with selfish goals in mind.
If Sociology teaches us anything, it is that we can be wrong. If she can apologise without punishing the student; she can be given another opportunity.
I commend the students for being so brave. They should expect the faculty and admin to retaliate. Please do not hesitate to reach out to alumni if you face any discrimination.
This case of homophobia should be reported to NIRF at once and marks should be deducted from NLUJ's score. Also, I can't understand why LI is censoring comments about the NLUJ NIRF data. Their salary data was just not true. NLUJ suffered in the ranking because of it.
I request Legally India to immediately remove the comments against the concerned faculty or I may have to report it. What kind of abuse and slander is this? Criticisms of gay people is bad but insulting and demeaning women and hurting a woman's character is public is good?
Toh kar na maamu! Everyone gets to have their actions questioned in a civilised democracy. If you don't want yours to be questioned, then don't engage in questionable actions. Nobody is bringing up the faculty's personal life, but her actions as a faculty inside classroom and vis-a-vis her students can very well be scrutinized and subjected to basic standards. As is being done in this case and rightly so. Her original action and subsequent reactions leave a lot to be desired.
You cannot hide her actions under the veil of her being a "mother figure" or a "loving person". Clearly, you do not understand the sort of implications the circulation of such material would have, on persons of the community, persons uninformed (yet to form an opinion) and homophobes alike. It is very well possible for one to be a "loving person", and hold ancient and uninformed views about homosexuality. It is evident she holds these views in ignorance (and innocence, since she's not a monster), since she repeatedly terms the material to be a means to bring forth to students the "ground realities" of the situation. Her act, is a blunder. Her failure to acknowledge student sentiments, offering thoughtless justifications despite giving her multiple opportunities to do so and subsequent administration inaction to address an issue of such sensititvity is what has brought us to this platform and hence cannot be termed as defamatory, but can be termed a last resort, a final attempt by students to get their requests heard and grievances redressed.
No NLU is underrated in this country. Almost every one is grossly overrated in terms of the quality of education and infrastructure that they provide vis a vis the fees that they charge.
I can tell you this one thing ,students branding her as sexist , homophobic and now islamophobic (on twitter ) might not know her work in fields of gender studies and women prisoners . For the same she was invited to the Oxford university and many other universities across the globe. The only reason she is not known for her work is because she doesn't boast about it on social media.
Now let me guide you to the reality. Actually the matter was sorted and both the students wrote an apology letter to her and there was no pressure on them and even she clarified it. But still they went public with it, it was just their decision and not the one of the entire NLUJ students .The student body normally votes on such issues or convey it through email but none was done ( and that's not how a student body should work or else what's the difference between democracy and fascism ) .
Talking about the faculties here , yes if you speak against the other faculty in NLUJ or even ask them doubts or why is the marks less in certain assignment they directly shut you down or threaten you. But nobody is talking about prof Bhandari and how she doesn't mark students out of her personal vendetta. Even if you call her at night she is available for all your queries and doesn't judge you on the basis of how loyal you are to her. She has always been there where you are going through an emotional problem or a problem in your subject.
I won't use the word overreacted but the students who raised the issue shouldn't have gone on social media and talk negative about prof Bhandari because of their frustration on the administration. Also yes the administration failed us a lot of time that's doesn't mean you'll make a person who've always supported students a Scape goat and brand her with certain titles.
Such a staunch supporter of questionable actions that you keep coming back here and make comments supporting her. Your tone of writing is rather obvious. If you have to say such good things about another person, care to do it in your own name? Just in case sceptics mistake you for the faculty concerned or someone close to her? #chamchaalert
Ma'am there's no need to defend yourself like this, we students know your rich teaching history that none of these can understand as they dont have context.
This is but a blip in the high academic standards of NLUJ. We have consistently produced the best mooters, researchers, advocates and corporate practitioners in the country. All those spewing venom here, have a look at our glorious heritage!
I fully support Professor Bhandari. I am happy that at least some students are bravely coming out and fighting the urban naxal lynch mob. This site is full of Kanhaiyas who get zero marks and are trying to vent their frustration by doing politics. As someone pointed out, these hypocrites asked her to check their palms and then accused her of being backward.
Shame on NLUJ students for harassing a kind and innocent lady in public. But bigger shame on LiveLaw and Legally India for publicising the story. Why did you reveal her identity? Both these websites are trash news.
Doesn't your great 'college' teach you Tort Law in the first semester? A tiny little thing called truth being a defence against defamation? Now instead of 'trash news', if only you had been able to specify exactly which part of the news reported is inaccurate, then your argument might have been at least palatable. Try spending more time with your books in your remaining four years.
But it is quite apparent that you do have such teachers. The best thing to do would be to put pressure on the admin to get rid of them, if you can. The admin is so high-handed that it is still requiring teachers to use the library terminals to take revision classes from tomorrow in the middle of lockdown. This has happened because the student body at NLUJ (and I use the term loosely) is so weak that they allow the admin to regularly walk all over them. No law school can reach the top levels so long as they have that kind of model.
Then start acting like it instead of trying to suppress news. Calling yourself best alone won't make you thus. Without a strong student body, no institution in the world has become the best and you are no exception.
Aww... Such conflation between freedom fighters and homophobia. You are the only one here who is making this issue political and your school of thought is quite clear either. I do not have any problem with a capitalist economy. I do have a problem with the state deciding whom one can have consensual sex with. So clearly, your point got debunked. But then, your kind never care much for facts or logic, do they now?
To Legally India, Live Law and the foolish students posting on social media: please be warned that legal action can be taken at any time for defaming comments and it can totally ruin the career of the students. So please save the careers of the students and delete all these website pages.
My comment was censored, but I wish to place on record that a left wing political lobby is behind this. Mark my word: next they they will say you cannot teach certain freedom fighters in history class, only Nehru.
A dissenting opinion is not wrong if it has it merits it should be analyzed not shunned now a days the the cancel culture has migrated from west to east and has established itself in law schools in india their is never a healthy debate. Most of the times these words gets thrown around with ease like homophobic and bigot but are they really is sometimes the question. Ther always two sides two the coin and that is true nothing exists in this world without cons and if an academician is discussing the cons of something you cannot be allowed to shut them down thats a contrary opinion and it should be heard and how is it different from discussing pro and cons of marital institute or types of punishment theories why should some countries are allowed to kill a man and others are not for punishment its and academicians job to bring out the arguments the may seem compelling and makes the student think their stand on the topic. I believe people have made topics related to LGBTQ+ community holy grail that cannot be touched or can be argued it is the ultimate truth and discussion of cons related relating to them have become the ultimate blasphemy and words like homophobia are labelled. If we want to build a community we have to have the education and for that education to be imparted there has to be discussion in academic circles first and you cannot ostracize some just because they have an opinion different then yours that is what right freedom of speech and expression means. In conclusion not only student have the right to freedom of speech and expression but same rights are available to the faculty also whether you like ot or not
Good. Let us discuss how Ram and all his three brothers were actually bastards, since Dasharath was impotent and had to get his brother-in-law Wrishyasringa to step in, and how Sita's Agnipariksha was just an indicator of the abortion for any child born out of rape by Ravana. Let's see how an Indian university allows such contrary opinion to be formally taught in class. Even better, let us discuss how the HC and SC had been completely wrong in giving Modi and Amit Shah clean chits for Gujarat riots, because the latter had not only killed/bought all witnesses, but also most of the judges. Because, you know, everything has two sides. There's a difference between having a different opinion about a potentially ambiguous issue, and talking nonsense contrary to established and proven scientific facts. Nowhere in the world are teachers allowed to spew nonsense in class. Why shouldn't teachers advocate conspiracy theories about the moon landing and that the Earth is actually the centre of the solar system either, while they are at it? Will the teacher also allow the students to tell her in class that she is actually sick in the head and has no idea about either science or economy to have such opinion? Because, you know, that's also a contrary opinion. p.s. Kian, in case this comment gets censored because of the first part, let me assure you that I have only stated those as absurd hypothetical.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Prof. Bhandari might not have been homophobic, nor might have it been the case that she had a hateful intent when she sent those materials across. But as a sociaology professor in an NLU she has the responsibility to present the progressive as well as regressive side of the debate. And she should have contextualised whatever material that she sent earlier, to indicate her position that they merely intended to give a background picture. Merely being defensive and alleging the students of having taken out their professional frustration is shameful. Additionally, even the material she sent later did not really indicate anything different from the earlier batch of material.
They deflected most of the issues brought forward in the protest that happened last semester just to save their image in front of the public at large even though nothing has materialized of those promises as of yet. They have done nothing to help female students in their complaints of sexual harassment and have tried to suppress their voices at every stage of the system. They still hadn't replied or addressed the representation put forward to them in the present matter and I am pretty sure nothing is going to come from this so called external review.
Their lack of caring even a little about the students has led to teachers like this one filling up a majority of the faculty positions in the university. Teachers that have never taught a subject before are assigned to those positions every single year for no reason whatsoever. They don't deserve any credit for the achievements of the students in terms of jobs, moots, sports etc. as they provide us with no support facilities at all, and it is the personal hard work of the students which enables them to achieve those heights.
Future students coming to NLUJ should be aware of these ground realities of the university which this administration tries their hardest to mask behind their public propaganda.
Renjith doesn't seem so bad just that he reaaaallllly needs to get his temper in check
I have first hand information that the opposite view point was indeed communicated to the students through reading material. True, Dr. Bhandari is not the best faculty that we have but she has been specifically targeted and made a scapegoat [...]
This material in no way represents Dr. Bhandari's personal viewpoint. Several people repeating the same thing does not make it true.
Further, if this was indeed such a problem then why was it not dealt with internally. After all these students want action to be taken against the faculty. Nobody else will take action except the Vice-Chancellor. What exactly are they achieving from slandering the poor woman on social media when their recourse in fact lies withing the college administration?
Unfortunately this is what our college has descended into. A few students with a grudge against a teacher misrepresenting a non-issue conveniently for their own purposes.
- An insider's 2 cents
You seem to point it out as a fact that is not the teacher's opinion even though that was not made clear to the students at all through the readings or through the mails circulated by her, which is her responsibility as a teacher. No one is being made a scapegoat here, this is a culmination of several such bigoted beliefs being put forth by her which makes this not an isolated incident.
You talk about other teachers who have done reprehensible things and that might be true but one valid cause should not be undermines by the presence of equally or even more valid causes.
Just to give some context, the points she sent across are not even a concern for most in India who don't accept homosexuality, she's just sent across the talking points of conservatives in the USA(businesses owned by homosexuals would be subsidised whattt??? In India, specifically those ones will be?) An actual analysis about homophobic thought in India would reveal different issues - stigmatization of the family of the person that takes place at times etc. (Stuff she never brought up), so her defence of bringing all kinds of thought prevalent in India up for debate is farcical.
Our classroom had been littered in with plates of poha and tea cups in typical NLUJ fashion. Mrs. Bhandari said we should clean up and then went on to ask the female students to clean the class. Everyone, including the male students, were shocked to say the least. The students, left surprised, asked her why did she ask just the girls. Her response was "because saaf safai rakhna toh unka kaam hota hai na".
Just because you are a soft spoken, seemingly well mannered "lady" doesn't mean that you're a qualified sociology professor.
I hope Kian doesn't consider this to be violative of LI's policies because this comment is just to highlight the constant barrage of retrograde, pardon my langauge, BULLSHIT, that we were subject to in our classes. This is NOT about a personal attack on a professor but about highlighting the appalling faculty standards and the refusal of the administration to do anything about it.
Homophobia isn't "critical thought", and nobody needs to put up with it.
It's almost as if you haven't read what Asha Bhandari sent to the students, and if you haven't, why are you on here trolling?
Those "study materials" she sent comprised of nothing but homophobic content - calling homosexuality a disease, offering patently false suggestions on "curing" it, and more. There was no wisdom to be gained there, and if you'd read the students' reply to it, you'd know that they did counter everything presented in the email.
But you're more interested in trolling the "triggered liberals" than actually saying anything worth listening to.
Someone else said it above, but it bears repeating: the college deserves no acknowledgement for its students' achievements. All the moots, the placements, the accolades, they're achieved in spite of the college, not because of it.
If a nurturing and safe environment is what you're looking for, steer far clear of the mess that is NLUJ.
And even assuming 60% of them took BA, her classes, that would make for not more than 750.
Touting an apologetic email from students whose future she still has sway over is atleast tone-deaf. These students were publically identified and therefore their motivation for such an apology would be how do i say this, "out of their personal anxiety".
If Legally India is desirous of writing a follow-up piece all it has to do is contact students, past and present, who have attended her class, and they would be regaled with tales of her troubling behaviour on (fill in the blank), as many in the comments section write.
There is a serious problem of sexism in the University, where girls are not allowed to go out of their hostel after 11pm because, as the VC said and paraphrasing here, "she knows why they want to go out at such time". The campus is fenced and no one is allowed in or out without proper formality at any time.
They do not enforce this curfew on male students. They couch all of this under "security".
The hostels are also in an abysmal condition, with the water filters not working properly, stary dogs roaming on all floors, showers and toilets are, in the best of cases, barely usable.
The VC is almost never on campus. Rules are enforced arbitrarily.
Genuine concerns are brushed aside, there is constant paranoia within the administration, and high-handedess and cover-ups are common. For insiders - remember the one faculty member(you know who) who was forced to leave as the Uni did not want the allegations to be public or take meaningful actions or even conduct a enquiry. Remember the hate being spewed at a few of our students, 'incidents' on campus, the list sadly goes on
1. [...]
2. [...] in NIRF ranking
3. [...] placements
4. [...] faculty (we now have proof).
5. Lots of [...]
6. Ultra-orthodox culture
But the issue has certainly been blown way out of proportion. The way the social media is capturing everything, it's just a gross exaggeration of the situation.
Her methodology of teaching has always been-
to introduce the concept in its abstractness; then go on to give concrete arguments; then explain the legal position of that issue. With several other topics being discussed for our course such as Suicide, Abortion- she's dealt with all of it, in a very similar way. She has told us why people are against abortion, why some religions are against abortions while she discussed the topic of abortion. She did the same with Homosexuality also. The right of homosexuals to be recognised alike, just like everyone else is so basic, that the arguments against it are ought to be vague and non-sensical, just like they were in her documents. She never said it's her opinion that homosexuality is abnormal. Not to deny that she should have been more careful and that she has not been sensitive with this entire issue. But she certainly doesn't deserve to be sloshed that bad for this! With several other subjects also, the teachers have been sending weblinks and PPTs from online sources- all of them are also not necessarily scrutinized properly- but for a subject like sociology, not scrutinizing happens to have a way more massive impact- which she should have understood and known- but at the same time, she shouldn't be punished this bad for not understanding it!
I distinctly remember that even in class when she mentioned that she knows palmistry, there was a big line of students who were dying to get their future ascertained, and now blaming it all on her is just wrong. I even remember that at first, she refused to look at any hands, but students were incessantly pestering, and then she agreed. Everyone was laughing and enjoying in the class and now suddenly turning the tables onto her is ridiculous. Even with dowry calculators, she told us about this concept while teaching the topic of 'marriage'. She told us that this concept still prevails in the society where people
give dowry proportionate to their status, the status of groom's family, the beauty of the girl etc etc and that there are dowry calculators available online which find it for you. She didn't say it was a good practice, she has rather criticized this practice a lot of times in class, she just told us that this practice is still exists, which is infact very sadly very true.
Weaving all the things, which were said lightheartdly and in a different context, to now build a case against her, is not done!
The tom-tomming of fawning emails she has received, and recounting of praise, her response, is just the sort of red-flag that is readily apparent. Hope there is no retribution on the students for this.
It always hurts the sycophants and trolls the most when the truth comes out.
I commend the students for being so brave. They should expect the faculty and admin to retaliate. Please do not hesitate to reach out to alumni if you face any discrimination.
I can tell you this one thing ,students branding her as sexist , homophobic and now islamophobic (on twitter ) might not know her work in fields of gender studies and women prisoners . For the same she was invited to the Oxford university and many other universities across the globe. The only reason she is not known for her work is because she doesn't boast about it on social media.
Now let me guide you to the reality. Actually the matter was sorted and both the students wrote an apology letter to her and there was no pressure on them and even she clarified it. But still they went public with it, it was just their decision and not the one of the entire NLUJ students .The student body normally votes on such issues or convey it through email but none was done ( and that's not how a student body should work or else what's the difference between democracy and fascism ) .
Talking about the faculties here , yes if you speak against the other faculty in NLUJ or even ask them doubts or why is the marks less in certain assignment they directly shut you down or threaten you. But nobody is talking about prof Bhandari and how she doesn't mark students out of her personal vendetta. Even if you call her at night she is available for all your queries and doesn't judge you on the basis of how loyal you are to her. She has always been there where you are going through an emotional problem or a problem in your subject.
I won't use the word overreacted but the students who raised the issue shouldn't have gone on social media and talk negative about prof Bhandari because of their frustration on the administration. Also yes the administration failed us a lot of time that's doesn't mean you'll make a person who've always supported students a Scape goat and brand her with certain titles.
I believe people have made topics related to LGBTQ+ community holy grail that cannot be touched or can be argued it is the ultimate truth and discussion of cons related relating to them have become the ultimate blasphemy and words like homophobia are labelled. If we want to build a community we have to have the education and for that education to be imparted there has to be discussion in academic circles first and you cannot ostracize some just because they have an opinion different then yours that is what right freedom of speech and expression means. In conclusion not only student have the right to freedom of speech and expression but same rights are available to the faculty also whether you like ot or not
p.s. Kian, in case this comment gets censored because of the first part, let me assure you that I have only stated those as absurd hypothetical.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first