Ohiodad51, I am basing my belief that Sulkowicz was advised not to have a lawyer at the hearing on my own university’s practice, which bars lawyers entirely, and Hanna’s similar belief (despite my later discovery that Columbia permits a lawyer who does not speak directly to the panel).
Ohiodad51, this is the commentary about the video and its role in the hearing, which I mentioned. Admittedly, it does come from the letter from Sulkowicz’s parents to Lee Bollinger.
“He [Nungesser] repeatedly stated that there was an online video that he was not allowed to show the panelists, but wished he could, because it ‘proved that she had an irrational fear of immobilization,’ which would lead her to imagine or lie about being raped even if the experience was actually consensual. Emma begged Ms. Siler to allow her to expose the lie by explaining the video’s content to the panelists, but was refused. In the video, which was an interview posted as part of a women’s issues project, Emma, then 18 and a fencer on Columbia’s varsity team, talked only about a fencing injury and her drive to do extra strength training after her recovery because of her fear of being weak. The ‘immobilization’ was a walking cast she’d had to wear on her foot. The online project is still readily viewable, and the boldness of the lie can be easily verified.”
Do other posters think that this has been made up?
After detailing the events at the police station in this article she states what I view as her reason for reporting:
If a person reports, which is something you have always vigorously advocated for, the name is going to be made public especially in cases with this much publicity. Why in this case is that now an issue for you? It’s inevitable if they report to the police.
And it is only fair to point out that it was the Columbia Spectator that reported his name – I suppose we can say that was irresponsible, but they obviously pulled the police record which I am pretty sure they are entitled to do under the FOA.
I think that is very shaky assumption given that I am very confident Sulkowicz’s advisor was aware of the rules that existed, even if Sulkowicz herself did not take the time to read them.
And I at least have no idea what Sulkowicz’s parents knew about Nussinger’s representation at any point prior to the lawsuit. My objection is your uncritical acceptance of a statement made in their letter and then from there inferring that the lawyer was representing Nussinger at the hearing based on no positive evidence, an assertion which by the way is contradicted by the available evidence.
Ohiodad51, in post #176, you wrote of Emma’s report to the police, “The obvious point though is that she was thinking about her attack on him strategically.”
One might equally well say instead that Emma was thinking about protecting other women who might otherwise have become involved with Nungesser–so it was “strategic” in that sense only.
My main point is that truth is not knowable here.
Seriously? The quote I provided is accurate, is it not? My larger point is that she thought both globally and strategically about her attack on him. I never once said that it was wrong to go to the police. So what exactly is it that you want to argue about?
Finally, with regard to Ohiodad51’s comments about inadmissible material being mentioned: With regard to a court of law, I was asking only whether an objection would be raised.
Yes, sure, a judge is not going to dump the jury because of inadmissible material mentioned in the jury’s presence. My comments about dismissing the panel and empaneling a different group were made with the preface “If I were in charge of the process.” I was referring to the university process [where I am not in charge actually], rather than the legal process.
Can we at least agree to use the English language? How is going to the police after not obtaining a favorable result from the university not strategic thinking? What does it matter whether her motivation was to bring public pressure or to provide information to other potential victims?
@Hanna I think if you polled the people on this forum a good portion would agree with your “coin flip” and vote of no confidence in the Title IX hearings. I am much less critical of them but do see some areas where changes would be beneficial. But there are many people including myself who would make that argument about our judicial systems handling of sexual assault cases. Here is the other side of that coin taken from the article I linked in my #182:
Strategic thinking is a good thing – why are we arguing about that?? LOL doesn’t a woman have the right to think strategically? Why is that even a point in the discussion?
Where did I ever say anything remotely like that?
And I have asked you repeatedly why you feel it is an issue here.
Ohiodad51, would you rely on evidence that consists of a statement made over Skype, by a person who would not allow himself to be identified by name? Nungesser may have connected Cathy Young with “Michael Roberson.” Is it a matter of public record who the supporters are, in a case like this? Is there a second source that “Michael Roberson” acted as Nungesser’s supporter, beyond Cathy Young’s article?
I find the statement by “Roberson” and the statement by Sulkowicz’s parents that Nungesser had a lawyer to be equally plausible, in the absence of independent corroboration of the identity of the supporter.
The English language is rich in connotative meanings. Did you not mean to use the term “strategically” in a derogatory way, Ohiodad51? I read it that way, based on your earlier remarks.
@Ohiodad51 What? I did not raise the issue of “strategic thinking” and my first comment relative to it was my questioning why it was even an issue. What question have you asked me “repeatedly” that I have not answered?
@QuantMech I think that Nungesser had Roberson as a “supporter” and also had an outside lawyer advising him that did not attend the hearing. The only other explanation I can come up with is that Roberson who was described as a graduate student at Columbia was attending their law school and her parents extrapolated that into “attorney.”
But I am not sure what the significance of all that is – I have to agree with @Ohiodad51 on this issue, each party is responsible for understanding the rules and acting in their own best interests. If she wanted an attorney to accompany her she was entitled to that under the rules although he could not actively advocate on her behalf. She chose someone else and has to live with that decision.
I asked twice, in Posts 176 and 185 what your objection was to my recitation of her quote or my conclusion that she engaged in strategic thinking.
The original point, which I assume is obvious, is not different than the point you made above. A women who goes to the police to put someone’s name in the public record is not someone who is so unsophisticated that she would be expected to not read and understand what her rights were at the university hearing that she initiated. Therefore, I find the argument that the process was unfair because she was allegedly told not to bring an attorney, even though the relevant policy apparently explicitly grants her that right, unpersuasive.
HarvestMoon1, generally I agree with you, but not on the issue of Sulkowicz’s supporter. She was apparently encouraged by her adviser at Columbia not to have a lawyer at the hearing. I find this believable because it is fairly common university practice. So I would say that she followed the advice she was given. As far as I am able to tell, Sulkowicz chose someone else, based on a constrained choice set, due to her acceptance of the advice from someone connected with the hearing process at Columbia–as opposed to making a truly free, informed choice.
I think everyone should read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
It is my understanding that Title IX guidelines under the Obama administration required a “Proponderance of Evidence” to sanction an accused perp (same level of burden of proof to decide civil and family court cases involving money in favor of the Plaintiff).
Trust me @quantmech, if I intend to be deregatory I will do so explicitly. I object strongly to reading nefarious intent into generic language just because you disagree with the point being made.
As to being deragatory, my personal opinion is Sulkowicz thought the hearing would be a cakewalk, because she existed in an environment which was designed to validate her views. I think she got pissed when she lost. I think she went to the police with the sole intention of placing his name in the public record so she could hound him. I base this interpretation on the fact that she reportedly failed to cooperate with the police from very early in the process and that Nussinger’s name began appearing on campus shortly after her report. Somehow I doubt the Columbia Spectator has stringers at the local PD checking the police blotter everyday. None of which is illegal, although in my own layman’s way it does indicate someone who is troubled.
All that said, I freely acknowledge that others can honestly put a more sympathetic spin on the actions she has taken.
None of which matters in the slightest, because the issue at hand is the scope of a university’s duty to protect students from harassing behavior.
@Ohiodad51 you are mixing up my and @QuantMech posts. My initial objection was to your statement that
I don’t think she ever said that. She stated that one of her reasons was so there was a record of the assault in case other women reported. And she had no hand in releasing his name. Columbia’s paper must have pulled the report and once they had the name they published it. Happens all the time in cases of public interest.
I have zero issue with anyone thinking “strategically” in these sorts of conflicts – you better be thinking that way if you are involved in administrative hearings or litigation. But after going back and reading the exchange between you and @QuantMech on that issue, I too interpreted your comments as critical of her because she may have been thinking in that manner. Perhaps because you had earlier referenced her “playing the system” or something to that effect.
@QuantMech but the rules are quite clear that her “supporter” can be an attorney but he or she can’t participate. So if she did not read the rules then that is on her. I am quite sure she or her family did read the rules though. That’s just SOP and each party is given the rules and procedures ahead of time. And an attorney present who cannot participate was not going to help her anyway. Better she had a friend to act as a true “supporter”.