OJ was found guilty in the civil trial. The burden of proof in a Title IX proceeding is much lower than that of a criminal trial.
@theloniusmonk That’s right – OJ was found not guilty, and it would have been wrong of the Police Dept or the Court if they were to continue to harass him after the verdict. By allowing Ms. S to carry her mattress to Commencement, an official Columbia event, Columbia supported the harassment of Mr. N even though it had found Mr. N not guilty. For that, Mr. N deserves the apology from Columbia.
Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were victims, which has everything to do with the fact that they were murdered and nothing to do with whether or not OJ was the killer. But was Ms. S a “victim”? According to Columbia she wasn’t. They determined that there was no rape, therefore, no “rape victim” exists, technically.
While Columbia was wrong to continue to support the harassment of Mr. N after it’s own verdict, Ms. S is entitled to her free speech and to continue to call him a rapist, just like the Nicole and Ron’s families are free to continue to call OJ a murderer.
“And I agree with @collegedad13 this was most likely no settlement to write home about.”
@HarvestMoon1 Depends on what Mr. N was aiming for – money, principle or more protection for future accused? Personally I would have been satisfied with a public apology and a promise to revise and change policies for the future, in addition to have my litigation costs paid of course.
All three I’m sure. Two he got so would guess he got the third and perhaps more.
I see a lot more gray area here than other posters relative to what Columbia’s responsibilities were relative to Ms. Sulkowicz.
While perhaps many of us would have chosen alternate means, what Emma Sulkowicz did in essence was protest a verdict – the verdict of the disciplinary committee that she did not prove her case of sexual assault. People protest verdicts all the time and rightly or wrongly those acquitted pay the price.
As posters have noted above OJ was harassed by the public at large, so was Casey Anthony after her acquittal – she still lives under a pseudonym. They were called “murderers” in every media outlet on earth despite the fact that a jury declared both innocent. Ruth Madoff who also lives in exile comes to mind as do the police officers acquitted in the Back Lives Matter cases. Did anyone step in and shut down the speech or harassment in any of those cases? Should they have?
And would it have made any difference if Emma Sulkowicz had carried around a large placard with a picture of the mattress or the room where she alleges she was assaulted? Would she have had a right to carry that placard around campus?
Title IX explicitly prohibits sexual harassment on colleges…title IX does not say that men may not sexually harass but it is OK for females to sexually harass. Title IX should cover males and females on campuses. There are clear laws in society outside the college setting that also govern what is harassment and what is not but this case was specifically about what the universities responsibilities were around what students can and can’t do to each other.
In my opinion the fact the university let her drag that thing at commencement sealed the university’s fate legally. Good heavens did they not have anyone near the graduates who could grab it and tell this woman her so called senior project was over and her mattress was inappropriate at graduation?
The issue here had to do with concepts like hate speech, safe spaces and sexual harrasment as those terms were being defined by the previous administration’s OCR and by extension many colleges. I seriously doubt that anyone involved spent a lot of time debating whether Sulkowicz had a right to allege she was raped by Nungesser. The question was always did Columbia have a duty to shut down the obviously harrassing conduct, and would they have done so if Nungesser was walking around campus (and getting academic credit) while holding up signs saying Sulkowicz was fat. And in point of fact, several such posters were placed around campus right before the students’ graduation and then taken down by the administration because they were harrassing. There was great gnashing of teeth here about the posters, many finding body shaming to be far beyond the pale of polite discourse, while at the same time being proudly supportive of accusing someone of rape. The case was always about the obvious different standards applied by Columbia to conduct aimed at men from that aimed at women.
As far as the settlement amount, we will never know the amount. You can certainly make a great argument that most people understand at this point that Nungesser was a victim of a very controversial system and a clearly troubled young woman. So it is probable that his “harm” going forward will not be extensive. On the other hand, those same facts make it more likely a jury could become inflamed by emotion and choose to “punish” Columbia (who everyone on the jury will know is obscenely wealthy) with a seven figure verdict. Damages in a case like this are very amorphous, and therefore it is always hard for the lawyers to get in the same ballpark on valuation. That said, and for those of you in the nuisance value camp, I would make a couple points. First, in almost thirty years of civil practice, and after handling many cases where a settlement in the low six figures could be considered “nuisance” value, I have never been involved in a case with a negotiated apology/statement from the defendant that did not settle at or above the midpoint of my own value determination going in. No one likes to apologize publicly. And do not kid yourself, Columbia’s statement here could create problems for it down the pike in other filed or threatened lawsuits. Second, the high watermark for Columbia in this suit was shortly after the intial complaint was dismissed (which only happened once IIRC). If it was going to settle for cheap, it would have at that point. I guarantee a phone call got made shortly after that decision with some offer calculated to cover the lawyer’s costs and expenses (with maybe a touch of sugar) shortly after that decision. Since that point, the ground has shifted under Columbia, most specifically with the 2nd Circuit’s decisions in Doe and Littlejohn. Given those two decisions, and even with an extraordinarily sympathetic trial judge, competent lawyers advising Columbia (and you can bet they are competent) were telling Columbia that it was very likely some depositions would be taken and paper discovery conducted before they would get another chance to get the case tossed. There is no way Columbia wanted that to happen, given the way public opinion is running and not insignificantly Sulkowicz’s more recent conduct. There is just no likely upside.
Yes agree, but what posters here are discussing is her right to protest the finding that he did not sexually assault her. And Columbia’s responsibilities in response to that protest.
Well no, the specific issues under the first complaint were did Sulkowicz’s actions constitute gender based discrimination and did Columbia violate Nungesser’s rights under Title IX by offering her credit for the “performance art?” Judge Gregory Wood said “nope” on both counts and dismissed the complaint, but gave Nungesser the chance to file an amended complaint and better plead his case.
On the second go around Nungesser attacked Columbia’s policy itself saying it promoted a stereotype of the “sex-driven male” and this constituted gender based discrimination under Title IX. Again, Judge Gregory Woods dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of action.
Nungesser then prepared an appeal and they just settled before it was filed. So yes he pled his Title IX case in federal court and twice it was dismissed.
Not sure if we are talking about the same signs but Columbia did not take down those “fat” signs-- it was my understanding that city took down some of them because they did not get a permit and supporters of Sulkowicz took down others.
@HarvestMoon1 I didn’t realize that Wood had dismissed the refiled complaint. Given Doe, it is hard to see how that would have survived the 2nd circuit though. But yes, Wood has done everything in his power to signal he doesn’t think the case has legs. And that is certainly something Columbia would have used in settlement negotiations to deflate the ultimate number.
And I am not sure what distinctions you are making between my language of “harrasing conduct” and your formulation of “promoting the stereotype of the sex driven male”. Either way, it seems very obvious that the case was about double standards and not Sulkowiz’s “free speech”.
And I have no specific memory of whether the posters were removed by the school or the city. But I do have a pretty clear memory that many/most of the posters were placed on the physical campus. Not sure why the city would be quickly removing posters on Columbia’s campus proper.
I was just pointing out that Nungesser switched targets in the second complaint – from Sulkowicz and Columbia to the Title IX policy itself. He claimed for example the policies gave no examples of sexual violence against a male by a female perpetrator but only vice versa. He further alleged that all the videos shown during the assault awareness programs focused on violence against women and never men. Then he topped off that argument with pointing out that Columbia’s sexual violence policy focused only on penetration and never addressed a man being “made to penetrate.” No idea where he was going with that one.
^ He was going with the argument that women were being treated differently than men. That’s the point. And I am not so sure the theory of the case (that Columbia treated women differently than men) changed as much from complaint one to complaint two. I think the formulation of the claim changed in part because Wood said (IIRC) that you needed to have actual evidence of disparate treatment based on sex/gender to survive a 12(b) motion in a Title IX case, which for the obvious reasons meant that no such claims would survive to discovery. So they redrafted the allegations in a way to try and get by an obviously hostile judge. Turns out it would have likely been immaterial anyway given the Doe case, which as I said above I think had a ton to do with the settlement here.
Yes I get what he was trying to argue and think the first 2 examples make some sense. The last one not so much.
The key point for the actual suit and the settling of it is as Ohiodad wrote “Since that point, the ground has shifted under Columbia, most specifically with the 2nd Circuit’s decisions in Doe and Littlejohn. Given those two decisions, and even with an extraordinarily sympathetic trial judge, competent lawyers advising Columbia (and you can bet they are competent) were telling Columbia that it was very likely some depositions would be taken and paper discovery conducted before they would get another chance to get the case tossed.”
Having read all about this case in multiple sources over a long period of time I don’t need to take a breath. I suggest that you read about ALL of the details of this case, including the emails Emma S sent to him, before you take it upon yourself to decide that he is the liar here.
@Consolation I have read All of details of the case. In fact I used Pacer and went through the court file. Have you done the same? Have you read the court file?
Mr. Nungesser had no case. His case was dismissed. Columbia upon dismissal was legally entitled to their costs. Since this was an attorneys fees case Columbia could have asked for their attorneys fees. Further Nungesser was potentially subject to an action for Malicious Prosecution by the Columbia defendants. Nungesser in point in fact faced a potential claim for hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Columbia defendants. The settlement terms are confidential. It is just as likely that Nungesser paid Columbia money to settle the case as the other way around.
Here is specifically what the judge said in dismissing the case
" Instead, the Court’s role is limited to determining whether, viewed through the lens of the relevant pleading standards, Nungesser has stated a claim for relief within the meaning of the substantive law that he invokes based upon the facts that he pleads. See Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831F.3d 46, 48 (2d Cir. 2016) ("[A] court at this stage of our proceeding is not engaged in an effort to determine the true facts. The issue is simply whether the facts the plaintiff alleges, if true, are plausibly sufficient to state a legal claim."). Because Nungesser has not cured the deficiencies identified in the Court’s March 11, 2016 opinion, the Court concludes that he has not adequately pleaded the claims that he has chosen to pursue here. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED."
@Ohiodad51 as you can see the Judge specifically addressed the Doe case and said it was not relevant.
Further the judge noted as part of the factual record that THREE other people accused Nungesser of misconduct
“Three other individuals (two women and one man) did so. SAC15 n.5.” (SAC means second amended complaint)
In sum Nungesser had NO case against Columbia. In fact he could have paid them money to avoid a malicious prosecution claim. Four separate people filed complaints of sexual misconduct against Nungesser. Lets stop blaming the victims. There is no such thing as “legitimate rape”
That is a unique perspective given what is known.
@momofthreeboys I would be happy to share with you the Docket and courts opinion in the case if you would like. It is about 65 pages total. It is the courts perspective.
No need. The defense got their case together and I’ve been watching it as it progressed plus the case was not about rape. The uni and the police had settled that issue several years ago by declining to pursue in the case of the police and the uni finding that all the accusations were unsupported. As with most of the cases, thus one is about universities acting in a prejudicial manner as in this case or denying fundamental civil rights as in other cases. The issues that have bothered me the most since the Dear College letter was released.
That is correct the 4 accusers believed in regards to their claims of rape and beating women up
For the record Columbia never said the claims were unsupported only that the office of Gender based misconduct declined to take action based upon the claims
Do you really not know or are you being sarcastic?