http://columbiaspectator.com/main/2017/07/13/columbia-settles-nungesser-title-ix-lawsuit/
Although the terms were nto disclosed (as is normal) it is interesting that Columbia’s statement appears to be conciliatory and apologetic. That was very likely part of the negotiation, as assumedly was Columbia’s promise to reform its policies.
I just read that this morning. They definitely owed that kid an apology. I think Columbia saw the writing on the wall as far as where the legal system was headed.
^ I think the 2nd Circuit decision from a couple months ago was a pretty clear sign they would not get out before discovery at least, yeah. And as always, none of these schools want to go through the discovery process.
^Yep, on all counts.
Columbia did not “fail” Matress Girl but they did fail the young man by letting the harassment continue up to and including his graduation. I hope he got buckets of money.
This is a classic ‘he said’ vs ‘she said’ story. I haven’t read through all of the court filings, but it looks like there was enough evidence to cast doubt on the rape charges.
However this brought up something else. What is the best way to teach college students about consensual sex? How best should this be documented?
“What is the best way to teach college students about consensual sex? How best should this be documented?”
I wonder the same thing. A few years ago there was a college (or HS?) that was teaching students to ask for consent at each step during the make out stage and even during the act itself. People laughed at it, but this case seems to give it credibility. From what I read, apparently they were having consensual sex. The disagreement came when, in the middle of the act, he proceeded to anal sex and she said that she did not consent to that or that he didn’t stop when she told him to.
And I am thinking about that trilogy “50 shade of grey” where the guy had the girl sign a contract before they engaged in sex that deviated from the missionary position. Maybe that’s the solution!!
The college you’re likely thinking of was Antioch College and it was implemented more than 2 decades ago(1992 as far as I remember). And those policies were widely ridiculed in the mass media press from that period when I read about it as a young HS student.
2 decades ago!! Not possible! I wasn’t even born then :))
^ ^
A link from an Antioch student writing to refute critics of the policy from 1993:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/20/opinion/l-antioch-s-policy-on-sex-is-humanizing-150393.html
And a retrospective 2+ decades later:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-antioch-college-got-rape-right-20-years-ago
I am just guessing here, but I read the article linked by the OP, then re-read the posting in post 3.
Again, I say this is my interpretation, but what I believe the U means that they will “review its policies” is that if a person is found not guilty as this fellow was, then the accuser cannot continue to go around still accusing.
In that sense, Ms. Halley is correct that in the future someone like Ms. Sulkowics might have her speech limited.
But isn’t that the way speech is supposed to be limited? If a guy has his first-ever court appearance for shoplifting, and is guilty then he can rightly be called a thief. But if he’s found not guilty, then anyone calling him a thief could be subject to libel or slander laws. In that sense, their speech could be limited, but its as a result of his rights since he was acquitted.
We should all take a breath and stop with the victim blaming. Just because the university didn’t discipline him doesn’t mean he wasn’t responsible. Ms. Sulkowics was not the only person to claim he engaged in sexual misconduct. There were two other women. Ms. Sulkowics claimed she was brutally raped and beaten
Columbia did not see the writing on the wall. Sorry. Nungessers suit was dismissed twice by the Federal district court. Nungesser had threatened to appeal the second dismissal. It was most likely settled for nuisance value, nothing more.If he had such a great case why didn’t he sue Ms. Sulkowics? Good cases don’t get dismissed twice by Federal District Courts.
There is no such thing as “acceptable rape”
Because litigation is expensive and it’s highly doubtful Ms. Sulkowics has enough assets to be worth suing.
@collegedad13 I don’t see anyone “victim blaming”. People are saying that Columbia should stand by it’s own rulings and consider Mr. N exonerated, not guilty. By letting Ms. S carry her mattress to commencement, they are implicitly taking her side --which is that he is guilty. Therefore Mr. N deserves an apology from Columbia.
Also Ms. S is not a “victim” technically because Mr.N was found not guilty. She is the accuser.
I’ve always thought these should be matters for law enforcement only.
She harassed him and the college should have stopped that pronto and they did not, they sanctioned the harassment by allowing her to call it a senior project. She is a hot mess but the college actions were very poor and they could have stopped the harassment. There is no “but” at all in this situation…the university sanctioned her continued harassment and I bet they will never do it again. The police shouldn’t even have needed to be involved in the harassment, the uni could have put a stop to it pretty easily. Now the uni pays the price for their inability to think clearly.
No, their insurance companies pays. And I agree with @collegedad13 this was most likely no settlement to write home about.
bestmom has such a god point in post 14. Past examples of “victim blaming” were that a woman got raped because her skirt was so short, a guy couldn’t resist forcing her into sex. Or that a wallet was stolen from inside a car because a car door wasn’t locked. Those are real examples of victims of crime where the victim was unfairly blamed for something done wrong.
In this case, as bestmom has noted, according to the article, the alleged perp was found not guilty. It would be unfair to call him a rapist after this finding, similarly it would be improper to call this young woman a victim of his crime.
Victim blaming is real, and is a despicable, shady tactic to excuse a criminal act, but it does not apply here.
In this case, it’s not just that they didn’t discipline him, it’s that he was found not guilty, according to the article. They did, in fact, determine he was not responsible.
According to the article, his case was dismissed because it was brought using title 9, so the dismissal was not on the merits of the case but rather based on a mis-application of title 9.
“Also Ms. S is not a “victim” technically because Mr.N was found not guilty. She is the accuser.”
Well OJ was not found guilty either but there sure were victims, as well as Michael Jackson. In the OJ case the the jury was out to lunch, one said she voted not guilty to get back at LAPD for Rodney King. At least in the MJ case the jurors said that they thought he was guilty but the evidence wasn’t presented by the prosecution to convict him.