No. I linked the article which quoted her saying she thought his name should be in the public record, because you said she never said that. You then shifted to discussing her motivation for putting his name into the public domain Those are two completely different things, and in fact your current point depends on your first being wrong.
And yes she played the system. Obviously. There is no way anyone with a lick of common sense doesn’t believe that. Playing the system and thinking strategically are not inconsistent. In fact I would argue that one requires the other. Another obvious point.
And you are of course entitled to your belief that the Columbia Spectator trolls the manhattan police blotter and has sufficient staff to not only do so but pull a report where the complainant’s name is misspelled. It could happen. It could also happen that she made the police xomplaibt and then obtained a copy of the report when it was filed and fed it to the paper. We will never know.
Ohiodad51, if Sulkowicz thought the hearing would be a “cakewalk,” in my view that would actually increase the likelihood that her claim of rape was valid. But the idea that she expected the hearing to be easy seems to be to be pure conjecture on your part. I also consider the term “cakewalk” to be derogatory, with regard to Sulkowicz. Was it not intended in that way?
HarvestMoon1, I think that an undergrad is likely to follow the advice given to her by a member of the women’s resource center (or other relevant office), even if she has read the rules and knows that she might have an attorney present. An attorney who can pass notes and confer quietly could certainly help someone.
So she might be kicking herself that she followed their advice, but a young woman going into Columbia’s process (even now) might be inclined to take the advice that she was given. People waive their rights in multiple contexts in an attempt to appear cooperative.
@OhioDad51 Right, but she was quite specific in the quote I linked in my #182 what she meant --that “police now had his name on record in case he were to assault someone else.” So based on that I think her reference to “in public record” meant that now the police could draw on that record and see the guy had a history. I must admit I have a hard time with your suspicions about her reporting to the police --if she didn’t then you’d be saying her claim was less credible. This report was handled like any other report – and yes they do become public record. You haven’t had this concern with any other case where a report was made.
Agree that playing the system and strategic thinking are not inconsistent. I don’t think either are bad things when you are involved in this sort of fight. So long of course as you stay within legal limits.
Edited to add: Getting a police report is not hard – I am pretty sure most of that stuff can be done online.
Before leaving (just for a while–no applause or regrets, please), I wanted to offer a counter-scenario to the one that Ohiodad51 proposed in #197. Ohiodad51 suggested that Sulkowicz went to the police to get Nungesser’s name in the public record so that she could hound him.
I find it equally plausible, maybe more, that Sulkowicz initially felt that she could handle whatever transpired between her and Nungesser. Then, when another woman told Sulkowicz (validly or not) that she had been assaulted by Nungesser, Sulkowicz concluded that she needed to take some action to protect other women on campus. So she reported the assault on her. Then, when the university process did not result in Nungesser’s expulsion (which she might have expected), she went to the police. She might have been better off pursuing the complaint with the police as an instance of “domestic violence,” as the police officer apparently suggested to her. But that too is essentially impossible to prove.
Our local police will only release the name of an accused person when the person is actually charged (which did not happen here). I think this is appropriate and would be a little surprised if the rules are different in New York.
@QuantMech, let’s get real. In the first place, you initially misread the parental letter. They did not say that he had a lawyer AT THE HEARING. Nungesser and his parents have not made a secret of the fact that they retained a criminal attorney. (Who wouldn’t, when charged with rape or any other crime, especially in a foreign country?) But as I gather you now reluctantly accept, that attorney was not allowed in the hearing.
So the real picture is that Sulkowicz goes into the hearing “supported” by a member of the Columbia administration whose specific job is dealing with sexual assaults–not much of an endorsement there, huh? --and Nungesser goes in with a random grad student. Who has the huge advantage in that room?
All of your questions about the reporter’s reporting are based on the fact that you don’t like her politics. Again, I am surprised at you. I thought that you had more intellectual honesty.
I certainly think that different people will interpret events differently, and obviously this journalist is inclined to interpret certain things differently than a writer at Jezebel. But facts are facts, and the reporter’s facts are easily fact checked by another journalist. Do you seriously think that no one has done that? With all the interest in this case, especially at Columbia, of all places, a veritable hotbed of eager young journalists? Many of whom would love to hang a scalp on their belts?
“But there are many people including myself who would make that argument about our judicial systems handling of sexual assault cases.”
@HarvestMoon1, I think you’re raising two different issues in your post about the criminal justice system. Issue one is a thousand years of patriarchy and misogyny that we have only begun to counteract. Issue two is the fact that sexual assault in the context of an initially consensual encounter behind closed doors is almost impossible to prove.
Attacks on the justice system for manifestations of issue one are well placed and important. Attacks on the justice system for manifestations of issue two are not. It’s a feature, not a bug, if defendants go free when the evidence of wrongdoing is conflicting or thin. The conviction rate in Sokolow’s scenario probably SHOULD be in the low single digits, because in most cases there’s going to be a reasonable doubt. He condemns this pattern by calling it “Let the rapists go free,” while I call it “Don’t lock people up unless you’re darn sure they earned it.”
The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard works great in civil cases where both sides enjoy protections designed to promote fairness and accuracy, like the right to counsel, the right to cross-examine, the rules of evidence, and an impartial, professional referee. The problem with Title IX hearings is the absence of those protections, not the standard of proof.
“The problem with Title IX hearings is the absence of those protections, not the standard of proof.”
1000% right.
All the chatter about the applicable burden of proof is a waste of time. The problem isn’t whether the BOP is set at 50.1%, 75%, 90% or somewhere else. There’s two big problems in this area that have nothing to do with the BOP.
First, as Hanna correctly points out, fairness isn’t just a function one item (like what the BOP level is). It is the function of the dozens of things that make up the whole process that you have in a real courtroom. So a faux college courtroom is always going to be suspect as being unfair.
But the second problem is much bigger and, frankly, is just not solve-able. No matter how much time, resources and process you throw at your title ix processes. Which is why the title ix focus on litigation process improvements is just so ineffective and mis-guided. Because even the most slanted pro-victim/anti-accused process is still going to require some measure of proof. And these cases typically fail to generate a modicum adequate proof. And will continue to fail unless you make students wear body cams.
Emma herself tells us this:
"The system is broken because it is so much based on proof that a lot of rape survivors don’t have. Even if you have physical evidence, you can prove that violence occurred but not that someone didn’t want the sex to be violent. If we use proof in rape cases, we fall into the patterns of rape deniers.”
Unless you want to dispense with the requirement of proof, you can’t solve this problem by litigation process improvements. So the focus should be on other initiatives (victim support, prevention, etc.) that could actually help improve things.
The University’s duty is also to protect students from rapists.
I couldn’t agree more. Nungesser had three complaints of rape against him that he got out of. Were all three of the women lying? He also was found responsible for a sexual assault . How come he was not prosecuted for felonious sexual assault for that case?? I doubt this is the last time he will assault a woman. He seems to be able to keep getting away with it with little or no consequences. Emma had the courage to stand up for the rights of all students.
I will throw this out there. If he had been an African American student would everyone be so sympathetic towards him. Or is this white privilege?
A suit in civil court only makes sense if you can collect money from a deep pocket.
Which is why the schools get sued all the time no matter what they do. Sometimes by the victims (proceedings unfair to me as a victim); sometimes by the accused (proceedings unfair to me as an accused).
I’m sure there’s cases where the schools gets simultaneously sued by both sides.
Absent more collusion than I think has been demonstrated in this case, a man doesn't get three rape or sexual assault claims against him without being, at the very least, something of a pig sexually. This is not the same as being a rapist.
The fact that there might be valid psychological reasons why a woman would not immediately report a rape, and might even maintain a cordial relationship with her rapist doesn't change the fact that these things make it harder to prove than if she had gone to relevant authorities immediately after the encounter - just as, while it is psychologically understandable that a woman would want to immediately take a shower after a sexual assault once the DNA evidence is lost, it is lost.
Here is what the letter from Sulkowicz’s parents to Lee Bollinger and the Board of Trustees said, with regard to Nungesser’s lawyer:
“During the hearing, Nungesser, advised by his outside attorney, lied in order to cast doubt upon Emma’s character and present an alternative and perverse motivation for her complaint. Our daughter was instructed by Ms. Siler not to answer these allegations in any way, and not even to inform the panel that he was lying.”
This sentence is not so easy to parse. Does it mean that the Sulkowicz family thought that Nungesser was advised by his outside attorney during the hearing? It might. Does it mean that the outside attorney advised Nungesser to lie? I doubt that. Presumably that is not permissible for an attorney to do. Does “outside” mean the attorney was outside the proceedings, or just that he was “outside” of the Columbia community? I have acknowledged that the sentence might not mean that the Sulkowicz family thought that Nungesser was advised by an attorney during the hearing. However, in that case it would have been clearer had it read “During the hearing, Nungesser, who had been advised by his outside attorney . . .”
You read Cathy Young’s column on this case as balanced. My goodness! I don’t read it as balanced at all. Have you looked into Cathy Young’s other writings? She appears to be an opponent of "only ‘yes’ means ‘yes.’ " I think it would be preferable if that were adopted as the standard.
Would I rely on the reported video call in which “Michael Robison” said that he served as Nungesser’s supporter at the hearing? Not with certainty. For one thing, he would not permit his name to be used. I can understand that; but would the New York Times print something with this level of verification? My understanding is that many newspapers require 2 sources for something to be printable. Perhaps this is outdated.
“Robison” may have been Nungesser’s supporter, and he may have had no more acquaintance with the law than comes from one or two years at Columbia’s Law School. Or he might have read Law as an undergraduate in England, prior to study at Columbia . . . or, or, or . . . no way to determine, without his actual name.
“Yes means Yes” seems like an insane standard, which tries to redefine almost all consensual behavior as harassment, assault, or rape. To use a family friendly example, under affirmative consent, you should never kiss your significant other unless first obtaining permission for that specific kiss. I doubt even 1% of the population does that.
Being a pig is not a crime and should not even be considered as evidence for any Title IX proceedings, criminal court proceedings, or civil court proceeding.