Rick Kamdar, a senior at American University, has been expelled for calling another student a gay slur.
But there’s more to the story (reg required)…
Kamdar said the incident began when he asked a student on the quad for a light, and the student’s friend told Kamdar to “Go back to India.” Kamdar then used an anti-gay slur against the student and the two began pushing each other. The fight was quickly broken up by Public Safety.
Although Kamdar was expelled, the student who allegedly started the whole thing faces no disciplinary action whatsoever.
Kamdar is appealing the decision, hoping that he will be allowed to finish his last semester or at least have the dismissal removed from his transcript. “After three years of fighting cancer, I was only going to graduate a year late,” he said. “I would not throw [my education] away.” Kamdar said he is planning to sue the university over the hearing.
Before I go any further, I’d like to acknowledge that I couldn’t find much else about this case. So my comments are limited by what I know from this article (and if we have any readers from AU who are more familiar with this story, feel free to let me know if there are any factual errors in this post).
First, it’s never ok to use a gay slur. I don’t care what the context is — even if you’re surrounded only by straight people and you say it in jest, it’s still not ok. I’m not going to defend Kamdar’s use of it, nor am I going to defend this silly excuse of his:
“The word fag is a very common word; it doesn’t always mean gay,” Kamdar said. “Did I know he was gay? No. Apparently American University has concluded that people can look gay.”
That being said, why is he being disciplined and not the person who provoked him in the first place? Why the double standard?
And is an expulsion really necessary? If Kamdar had committed a hate crime, or had verbally harassed a gay student for no reason, then yes, I would think that an expulsion is appropriate. But this situation is a little bit more complex. And I also have to wonder: has every person who has ever used this word at AU been expelled? I assume not. If the university wants to make an example of Kamdar, fine — sentence to him community service or put him on probation. Expulsion, on the other hand, seems pretty extreme. (And yes, I would argue that if someone were to use a racial slur in a similar situation, then an expulsion wouldn’t be warranted, either.)
I’d be interested to see how this story develops. Again, feel free to let me know if you’re more familiar with this case and/or there are details that I’m unaware of.
I 100% agree, but those cases are when privelage and special treatment have gone so far, as to actually harm rather than protect. For example, During the Columbine incident, a SWAT team member who was one of the first on the scene wrote about how his commanders didn’t storm the school right away – why? because a rich white school has people with power who can sue local police. So they (inadvertently) let more people die.
If it was a school on Crenshaw, you think they wouldn’t storm that shit in 2 seconds?
This is crazy, but I would absolutely like to know more about what really happened. I’m with chitrana; I’m wary of someone pulling the “race card” when they got in trouble for saying something stupid and then getting in a fight. I don’t know if it warrants expulsion, but I also don’t know what really happened.
Also, for those who are worried about the “hyper-PC” U.S. university, y’all are way off. Campuses where homophobia is eschewed are absolutely in the minority, and there’s a lot of difference between what a university says and the actions it takes, or the campus climate for people in the LGBTIQQ community. Same goes for issues of race, except that I think nation-wide people have done a good job of trying make racism a non-issue by ignoring it, calling it overly sensitive, co-opting the language of equality, or denying its lasting impact.
I think the whole “oppression olympics” game here is totally unuseful. As was mentioned before, privilege is dynamic and operates on numerous vectors. I think jaya had a great example of how it’s complicated. Also, while I agree with 90% of what razib has said, when you’re trying to quantify things, I don’t think it’s useful to compare apples (desi, male, M.D.) with oranges (white, high school drop out, female).
I can’t help but get off topic, but one of the family members who I work with put it really nicely recently. He said, “if they did this shit to a white child, people would revolt!” He was talking about the CYA (or DJJ I guess), but the underlying premise about violence against black youth is the same.
AK (#98):
It’s my understanding that most courts and most state penal codes treat the fighting words doctrine as an anachronism. I don’t think it comes up as a legal issue anymore.
well said Doordarshan, well said.
Wow. I’m a recent AU graduate, and this story shocks me. AU does have a large and active Gay and Lesbian Community, and I’m sure that has a lot to do with what happened, but when I was in school, this sort of thing would have been a blip on the radar.
AU has like 11 total desis, and they’re all the preppy NJ-doctors-kid-driving-land-crusier type, but if the dude who got expelled had any clue, he should have known better.
sriram, you’re right – law schools these days give you the bottom line of: fighting words = insufficient provocation. my point was just that the reason why it’s not an effective defense [also the reason why it’s an anachronism] is that the level that the evolved doctrine eventually set was so high as to make it not worth it. and like i said, he first responded with words before fighting – making his particular case that much less of a candidate for the defense….
hee hee
I’m jumping in late, but I was rather shocked when I heard about this. I actually know Rick. I met him while he was being treated for cancer and the fact that he was asking someone for a light in the first place seems like all that treatment was for nothing. I really would like to know more about what happened. He wasn’t a horrible human being, but he certainly wasn’t one to keep his mouth shut either. He probably came up with a reasonably witty come back. He never seemed like the kind of guy who would let things get violent though.
Razib said: personally, i think all religious exhibit the same sophistication as papuans worship a penis fetish, but most religious people tend to believe their own delusion is somehow more natural and rational. that’s life.
I was there with you on this topic, Razib, BUT not all the way! I was pretty anti-religious myself (esp. in front of my family), but then I grew up (as in learned about a wide variety of people and matured). Face it, not all people who believe in a certain religion are nuts, deluded, or doing negative things. If you are atheist, then fine, but that’s YOUR choice!
Hmmm, so Manju and Sakshi actually think that desi-americans are seen as cool, hip, socially “privileged”, fair-skinned athletic jocks who are the life of bar parties?? LOL.
This level of delusion has got to be pathological, and requires professional help. Seriously.
hee hee
The kind of americans you ingratiated yourself with in “social situations” by making fun of “the weirdness of hinduism vis-a-vis abrahamic faiths” are probably also the kind that get a thrill out of put downs of non-european races. Some desi-americans we know have made a career out of this. You have been amusing the wrong crowd pal.
Among the better educated classes in America it is the bible-thumpers from the Red States who are often the objects of ridicule for their absurd abrahamic beliefs. Abrahamists are a small minority among the members of the American Academy of Sciences for example. Or among american self-made billionaires. Yoga and meditation are far more popular in America than anything that came out of Islam. Especially among the educated elite. Close to 30% of americans believe in reincarnation, which is anathema for abrahamic true-believers.
That just shows that you are incapable of thinking deeply.
Uh, years ago, in the eighties, my brother was a ‘jock’ and took a very pretty girl to the prom. Walking around Boston, I see a lot of very handsome young desi men. Quite fit and athletic looking, too. I catch the young girls giving those young men a look out of the corner of their eyes…..ah, life is not fair! If you are handsome, you are treated differently. So what? Learn to do what women have been enculturated to do for ages: Make the best of what you got.
Is Doordarshan some kind of subtle satirist that I don’t quite get?
That may not be the over-riding stereotype of desis, but there are plenty of the above type people around. If you take ‘fair-skinned’ and ‘athletic’ out but leave all the other adjectives there, then you’ll get even bigger numbers of desis who fit that description (cool, hip, life of the party, etc). Just hang out in NYC on any given Saturday night, you’ll see droves of them.
He’s just full of hatred. It’s hard to believe he’s even a desi.
CYA? DJJ?
Yoga and meditation are far more popular in America than anything that came out of Islam. Especially among the educated elite. Close to 30% of americans believe in reincarnation, which is anathema for abrahamic true-believers.
Thrity million Americans attend yoga classes. Many chant Sanskrit mantras. The reception of Indic spirituality is more complex than the caste/curry/cow-model – though there is truth to that too.
Anyway, in fairness to Razib, I think he grew up in a small Mormon town. I can imagine a group of provincial Abrahamics making fun of Hindus. There is, however, little question that Muslims have it worse of all brownz at the moment, and then Sikhs. The attitude to Hindus is probably neutral.
Hmmm, so Manju and Sakshi actually think that desi-americans are seen as cool, hip, socially “privileged”, fair-skinned athletic jocks who are the life of bar parties??
Who cares how others see you? You spend too much time worrying about others think.
I dunno who else here works out but Abhi can’t be the only cool, hip, athletic and good-looking jock.
In terms of the cultural encrustation of thousands of years of practice, obviously Ganesh Chaturthi or Holy Week at the Vatican would have a sheen of sophistication that the putative phallicists (whom, anyway, you’re more likely to find in India or ancient Greece than in Papua New Guinea) might not be able to compete with.
On the level of metaphysics though, all religions (whether they’re the kind we laugh at, or the kind we wouldn’t dare mock in public) are elaborations on the Unseen. Those elaborations are largely based on emotion and group-think, with a dose of community organizing thrown in. Of course there’s much that’s wonderful about religion. Atheists are just not convinced that those wonderful things need religion to exist.
I’m much more comfortable with localized superstition, earth religions, fetishes. It’s the universalizing religions that really stick in my craw–they’re the ones who tend to declare “my way or the highway.” So any quarrel I might have with Papuan religionists would be because they’re ninety-six percent Christian.
p.s. AK, thanks for breaking it down in #98. Damn, it’s like university up in here. I learned me something.
Yeah, everyone is privileged in some way and disadvantaged/oppressed in another. The importance of different factors varies depending on each context.
When two groups who both have a claim to oppression in American society start trying to measure who is more oppressed, it is a waste of time and turns them against each other and away from the greater problems which cause their oppression. Last time I heard such a time-wasting conversation was when Apprentice season 4 ended, and the privilege of a white woman was being compared with that of an African-American man, when the real problem was the white man with really bad hair who was running the show.
Thats coming from someone who trivializes the human suffering in India. In my book thats hatred. Of the worst kind.
Lol. Here we go again. The usual dumb desi logic that asserts that personal anecdotes trump the general rule/stereotypes/statistics.
I’m not dumb.
And, yes, I know a personal anecdote is not as good as statistic, but it’s not nothing, either! Did you miss my scientific survey of the handsomeness of desi men in Boston? Surely, it must number into the tens, in my neighborhood, sir.
BTW, what was it you said about the economic demographic of South Asians in the US? Who, in general, was poorer than whom? Sir, if I am no good at math, then neither are you. So, there. That stereotype demolished.
comment # 96 to be exact. The numbers can be crunched in different ways and you used the most negative number crunch……..
*I’m still trying to decide if you are;
a. satirist. b. troll c. desi d. Just plain strange……
Anyway, have a wonderful, glorious, beautiful day!
Oh, I’ve got it! Doordarshan is really Steve Sailer! vdare you do, vdare you don’t!
This is true, but it doesn’t necessarily imply that efforts to curtail one groups oppression seamlessly translate into helping the other, particularly in social/public opinion contexts. in legal contexts, I’d say it does. (i.e. equal protection)
On the level of metaphysics though, all religions (whether they’re the kind we laugh at, or the kind we wouldn’t dare mock in public) are elaborations on the Unseen.
Much of the (rather humorless) evangelical atheism that arose post 9/11 is also a (rather metaphysical) elaboration on the Unseen. The metaphysics being materialism. What’s more, its a critique of belief (particularly Protestant Christian and Islamic belief). For most of the rest of the world outside these systems, so-called religion is practice – ritual, observance, and perhaps mystic experience. It would be a challenge to fashion a creed out of shamanistic African systems, e.g. There is both a surprising openness to doubt and simultaneously a Keatsian ‘negative capability’ (openness to mystery), which some evangelical atheists, in their righteous dogmatism, seem to lack.
Late to the party, as always.
It strikes me that what happened to Kamdar does not really reflect a double standard. This may seem like hair splitting to some of you, but there’s a vast difference between “go back to where you came from” and “fag”. The latter is acknowledged as a slur directed against a particular group of individuals who may or may not belong to a protected class. In that sense, it’s similar to a racial slur. It’s also frequently a precursor to violence against individual gays specifically, and the gay community generally.
Telling someone to go back to where they came from is not the same. The comment certainly could have racial overtones, but it’s not necessarily a racial slur. Immigrants of Eastern European origin in the Midwest get this sort of thing a lot too, so it’s hard to say that such comments are unequivocally motivated by race.
Just one more thing before I get off the soapbox. Is anybody bothered by the fact that “fag” can get you expelled, but telling the other guy to stop acting like a girl/woman/bitch would be a-okay, in similar circumstances?
Risible, I agree. Now whether even shamanistic world-views are sufficiently open to what is not known (i.e. content to leave it without interpretation) is a different issue. But certainly, in comparison to the universalizing creeds, they’re paragons of flexibility.
Sorry for the acronym party of one. These stand for the California Youth Authority (CYA), recently renamed the California Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
Example of a non-legal effort, please? I can imagine they exist, just trying to picture it.
hema, I really don’t think they’re comparable. [disclaimer: the next sentence is going to be ridiculously jargonistic] There is a much larger history of violence behind the word “fag” than the gendered masculinity implied in a statement like “Stop being a little bitch.” Again, not claiming that such a phrase is “more acceptable,” but just pointing out that they have different contexts and outcomes.
hema, I really don’t think they’re comparable.
Oh, I agree that the situations are not comparable.
Just wondering why gendered slurs are socially/legally acceptable, but slurs with respect to sexual orientation or not. After all, gender is actually a protected class, whereas sexual orientation is not.
Your point about violence is a good one, IMO. Interestingly, I think sexual orientation slurs have a quite a bit of overlap with gender slurs. “Quit whining like a little bitch” takes on a completely different meaning when said to a gay man, I imagine.
Good point, but I think the comment clearly does have racial overtones in this instance. As a funny aside, it reminds me of the American Idol clip where a black woman who’s daughter didn’t get voted in said “Simon should go back to British.” At least thats what my friend, BMF told me, who actually watches the show.
In any event, the context there is clearly not racial.
I agree with you entirely 🙂 I think it’s because we’ve normalized and accepted sexism, whereas the call to really tackle homophobia has been more controversial and more “high profile.” For example, it is (in my opinion) relatively easy to point out subtle cases of racism and response. It is much harder for people to point out subtle cases of sexism. To a certain extent, I wonder if the late 90s/00s are kind of the equivalent of 2nd wave feminism (1970s) in the U.S. in terms of exposure, (lack of) legal protections, rights, etc. I also think the dialogue on these issues is at such different places in such different parts of the country.
Also agreed. It would be negligent on my part to pretend that that the social constructs of contemporary masculinity/femininity don’t cross the line into ideas around sexuality. I think they’re very closely interrelated, going back to some of the previous dialogue about the complexity and intersectionality of privilege and identity.
Obviously, the problem we have discussing this incident is the lack of information, despite a university trial and conviction. There is no transparency, and we don’t even know who the accuser or witnesses are.
This is probably why KamdarÂ’s lawyer advised him not to attend; universities have abandoned many of their liberal traditions, including due process of law.
Hema, Does it really matter if the context is racial? Telling a person that he doesn’t belong here (go back etc.) is offensive enough. A lot like telling a gay person that he doesn’t belong to normal society.
This is probably why KamdarÂ’s lawyer advised him not to attend; universities have abandoned many of their liberal traditions, including due process of law.
The above is a little hyperbolic though I would say that there is some merit to what Manju is stating. My school used to have these ubiquitous signs in computer labs which would lay out some vague nonsensical proscription like ‘the student will be violating the university code of conduct if the student views sexual material deemed objectionable or make other students uncomfortable’ etc.
Of course private universities can get away with way more shit than public universities though in my experience there is not much difference.
i would like to point out that private universities have the right to abandon the liberal traditions of education if they choose, whether it be the free speech principle or due process of law, and replace it with another framework, be it religious or some secular (usually leftist) philosophy. after all, liberal democracy allows for illiberal thought.
but this trend, usually described as political correctness, should be resisted as it bodes ill for the role of a university in a democracy.
we apparently have a situation here where a university held a closed trial, its questionable whether the right to face one’s accuser was honored as we don’t even know who the accuser is, and maybe individual rights were replaced with group rights, not to mention a speech code.
this is not conducive to furthering the american experiment.
Does it really matter if the context is racial? Telling a person that he doesn’t belong here (go back etc.) is offensive enough. A lot like telling a gay person that he doesn’t belong to normal society.
Normatively, there may be no difference, but legally, there is a considerable difference. When a university is disciplining a student, they are far more concerned about any legal consequences than about any offense given to anyone as a social matter.
If the slur is not clearly racial in nature, I can see a school taking the lesser-of-the-two-evils approach. Whether slurs on sexual orientation are the greater evil or not, I don’t know.
we apparently have a situation here where a university held a closed trial, its questionable whether the right to face one’s accuser was honored as we don’t even know who the accuser is, and maybe individual rights were replaced with group rights, not to mention a speech code.
This goes much too far, IMO. First, you have no right to “confront your accuser”, except when you have been charged with criminal conduct. Second, a university (even a public one) is not an arm of the government, and is not required to do more than abide by the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that apply to universities.
Furthermore, either a substantive right or a property right must be implicated to invoke due process. As far as I know, you have neither the substantive right to an education, or a property interest in that education. Most universities provide informal (and private) proceedings in the interests of fairness, not because due process requires them to do so.
But of course, this approach necessitates defining which is the “greater evil” at some point. Which will inevitably lead to the “oppression olympics” as Camille called it.
The best solution would have just been to discipline both and say “no fighting”. But of course that would have led to various types of political pressure as well.
The best solution would have just been to discipline both and say “no fighting”. But of course that would have led to various types of political pressure as well.
I agree. But then someone else would be complaining about how American U. had taken the path of least resistance instead of making an example out of one student so that on-campus gay-bashing could be ended forever. You just can’t make everyone happy all the time, I guess.
hema, if you read my first sentence i concede the right of the university to do what they did. my point is the liberal university should mimic, well liberalism, and provide, for example, the right to confront your accuser in their disciplinary hearing even though it is not a legal one.
a closed trial or hearing is ripe for abuse by the (usually politically correct) powers that be. a university does not have to have an open hearing or respect liberal rights, but it should…as openness is the best way to get to truth and this preserves the integral role universities play in a democracy.
The same goes for the free speech principle.
Exactly. This is where the various contexts of oppression come into play. Given the way discourse on immigration and cultural assimilation has been going in this country, I’d wager that there are more people concerned about gay-bashing than about xenophobia on your average university disciplinary board (though both are terrible).
This is about the first time I’ve ever agreed with Manju on anything, but the closed-door nature of this hearing definitely hurts more than it helps too.
Manju’s scholarly discourse on Sushi is eminently agreeable.
Wait. Are you saying he’d be legally accountable only if he said something like “Go back to India, Raghead!”? I think all common sense points to his statement being racially motivated.
Manju:
I get what you’re saying. I’m just saying that universities have closed hearing for other, equally important and equally liberal reasons. For starters, I think certain sections of FERPA make it impossible for the university to conduct discplinary/probationary hearing in public. The student’s right to privacy is practically sacrosanct.
Also, with respect to being able to confront your accuser, let’s say the hearing is for sexual harrassment, for example. The accuser may not want to appear at the hearing, and with good reason, in my opinion.
Your right to free speech is subject to reasonable time/place/manner restrictions. And so it is for any other civil liberties you might have. The universities are playing a delicate balancing game in order to be as fair and liberal as possible, while also being as protective as possible. It’s a tough thing to do well, and this time around, American got it wrong. But they can’t have different procedures for every hearing.
slightly off topic,
does anyone know what happened in that case where that south asian kid at ucla was tasered repeatedly by a couple of UCLA cops?
Wait. Are you saying he’d be legally accountable only if he said something like “Go back to India, Raghead!”?
Did you notice where I said (in an earlier post) that white immigrants from Eastern Europe often get this sort of thing too? Why is a statement like that always construed as racial, and not say, stupidly jingoistic instead?
I concede that this statement certainly could have been racially motivated. It’s just not that open-and-shut. On the other hand, calling someone “fag” leaves little room for ambiguity….
…unless of course he just wanted to bum a cigarette off the guy. 🙂
But isn’t xenophobia as bad as racism or homophobia? “I hate you because you’re an immigrant” isn’t up there with “I hate you because you’ve got brown skin” or “I hate you because you’re into dudes”?
Furthermore, either a substantive right or a property right must be implicated to invoke due process. As far as I know, you have neither the substantive right to an education, or a property interest in that education.
I am no constitutional law scholar, but if a Public University student manual promises a hearing, then the student does develop a property interest in not getting expelled without a proper hearing plus notice and all that is entailed with a hearing.