Questioning details of Critical Race Theory is verboten

Second-year medical student, Kieran Bhattacharya, was expelled from the University of Virginia after he repeatedly asked questions about apparent contradictions within a presentation about Critical Race Theory (CRT) from administrators and faculty. Bhattacharya’s lawsuit over the expulsion is moving forward in federal court. For details see:

Here is the ruling from April:
Bhattacharya v. Murray, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-00054 | Casetext Search + Citator

From what I see Critical Race Theory is reminiscent of early pseudo-science used to promote racist political agendas. A hundred years ago, the state of Virginia was using the “science” of eugenics to justify racial segregation and forced sterilization:
A Shameful History: Eugenics in Virginia | ACLU of Virginia (

National Socialists in Germany developed a similar racial theory, Aryanism. Aryanism taught that Germanic peoples were the master race, and virtually everyone else was genetically inferior. Slavs and Jews were inherently evil, but curiously Japanese were treated as honorary Aryans.

Is CRT just a modern example of a race-based pseudoscience used to justify a political ideology?

Is the real message not to question authorities about CRT’s inconsistencies and contradictions?

1 Like

The presentation in question was about micro aggressions.

This is one of those times where it seems the entire story isn’t being told. It’s quite possible this student was unfairly removed from the university. It’s also possible the school had good reason to have him removed. It’s hard to say.

One paragraph that seems important that the Post seems to glaze over …

The group voted to suspend Bhattacharya for “aggressive and inappropriate interactions in multiple situations” and about a month later, UVA police demanded he leave the campus for allegedly making threatening comments on social media platforms.

Seems important context as to why he was ultimately kicked out of school.

1 Like

The article isn’t about Critical Race Theory.

Bur the OPer clearly displayed the tactics being used by the CEC…label everything they don’t like as CRT and hammer away.



That’s what I was wondering while I read the article. How does microaggression equal critical race theory? Based on information given in the article I’d say the school was wrong in their actions. Would need to know the full story though.

“Is CRT just a modern example of a race-based pseudoscience used to justify a political ideology?”

“Is the real message not to question authorities about CRT’s inconsistencies and contradictions?”

I would say yes and yes.

I hope the kid cleans the school out. :+1:

I would agree. Seems like the university over reacted and then things went south after that.

I remember hearing lecture in college from someone who grew up in pre-war Germany. He described a visit at his school by a scholar from Japan who explained how the Germans and Japanese shared a common Aryan history that makes them inherently racially superior.

I suspect a student who asked critical questions about Aryanism would have been expelled or worse based on similar logic to that used by the University of Virginia.

1 Like


Are you going to correct your OP to explain the article you linked is not talking about CRT?

Or are you going to continue to contribute to the confusion and misdirection?

This story is less about what the student was reacting to, and more about how he and the school reacted.

Also. This has nothing to do with CRT.

1 Like

Did you post the wrong link? Even the NYpost article didn’t associate this story to CRT. They associated it to first amendment.

Can you change the OP to reflect the actual content you posted?


Yes, the court case is based on First Amendment arguments.

On the other hand, the specific issue is whether students are free to question the definition of microaggression and other elements of Critical Race Theory without fear of retaliation by university administrators.

My experience is that people in authority are fine with free speech so long as they agree with it. Speech that expresses opposing opinions is frequently the target.

It’s really not at all.

So you’re going to double down instead of be accurate?

Come on man.

Your article has zero to do with CRT. Nothing. Zilch.

How are you stretching from a first amendment college case to “fear of questioning CRT”?

The better question is why he’s doing the stretching.

Because it’s what the latest CEC Narrative demands.

1 Like

Here is an academic article that is clear that microaggressions are understood within the framework of Critical Race Theory.

For background, here are a critiques of Critical Race Theory and microaggressions:

Bhattacharya’s mistake was to expect a rational definition of a “marginalized group” in regard to microaggressions. Word salads and academic double talk are the rule.

You didn’t read the paper you linked, did you?

Also what does a UC Irvine paper have to do with the case you linked in the OP? The UC Irvine paper author stated they were using CRT to examine micro aggressions.

CRT IS NOT about micro aggressions. It’s not talked about in any CRT literature.

Bold statement.

Some institutions are deciding to present their versions of CRT as something else then. My training at a college is designed to make anyone who isn’t a minority feel uncomfortable according to the presenters. The sessions are ongoing with bi-weekly mandatory virtual meetings. We’re told this is our foundation learning. I get a feeling things are being created as they go along :woman_shrugging: