The problem was that Emma had assembled a little army of supporters who would no doubt have created a stink on the spot. The optics of campus security wrestling with a group of young women would not be good, to put it mildly.
No, @collegedad13, Columbia did NOT win. If it did, it would not have issued that apologetic statement, which will no doubt come back to further drain their pockets, as @Ohiodad51 explained. You are obviously digging in your heels and that’s who you are. @Hanna gave a great argument but you are entitled to refuse to hear.
I honestly feel like I am reading a different statement than other posters. The first seven sentences of the statement are simply a recitation of facts. The last sentence is a reference to respectful treatment of all students that specifically refers to both the accused and the accuser. What specific portion is an apology?
Media outlets first used the word “apology” but as we all know they often don’t get it right.
Well, find some media links that imply that the university didn’t “apologize”. It’s couched ever so nicely with the reflection that his final time at Columbia was not what Columbia would want for any student and that the university will continue to review it’s policies so that accuser and accused, including those like Paul who are found not responsible––are treated respectfully and as a full member of the Columbia community. Goodness me, you lawyers can fight about who “won” and who “lost” or contemplate that the “media” got it wrong as they can do, but I bet you that as far as the Nungesers are concerned their son got an apology and it seems to me that the media is reading it that way also…and hopefully feeling a tad guilty they gave so much time and space to the mattress girl or maybe they are using the word “apology” because they feel guilty. I’ll have to go see what the Columbia student newspaper is saying because that bunch outed Mr. Nungesser to begin with which appalled me.
Well who made the media the final arbiter of anything? We all have critical thinking skills. I can read and see no express or even implied apology – they admitted to nothing nor did they expressly agree to change anything going forward. They agreed to “continue” to review their policies which says to me “do what we were already doing.”
If the Nungessers believe their son got an apology I have absolutely no issue with that. I am sure this would be quite an ordeal for any family to live through, so hey whatever works for them. But if I was negotiating for an apology as part of a settlement and someone offered me that statement I would tell them to go back to the drawing board. That doesn’t even come close to an apology in my view.
@HarvestMoon1 I am no “media” and I read it as apologetic. And so did many people here who are not “media”.
That statement by Columbia is not admissible for anything at all that I can think could occur. Hanna has worked as an expert witness. Ohiodad51 has worked as a defense lawyer and I have worked as a Plaintiffs lawyer. So it would be natural for us all to have a different perspective. Here is the thing. This was an attorneys fees case. So if Nungessers attorney had won even a small amount he could possibly have gotten big attorneys fees. That is probably why he took it in the first place.
But of course, @HarvestMoon1, blaming “media” is SO in vogue right now that I really can’t blame you for calling everyone who disagrees with you here the “media”.
“That statement by Columbia is not admissible for anything at all that I can think could occur.”
You don’t think a public statement by Columbia that an exonerated male student suffered harm on their campus could be admissible to impeach Columbia’s defenses in another Title IX suit?
If Columbia “won”, why not just let the appeals court uphold the trial court judge’s ruling and be done. Time and money are on their side. Then there would have been no need for a statement that many read as an apology, no online articles by lawyers bemoaning the settlement, etc.
No
You may want to review federal rule of evidence 608
"Rule 608. A Witness
(b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:
(1) the witness; or
(2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about.
By testifying on another matter, a witness does not waive any privilege against self-incrimination for testimony that relates only to the witness’s character for truthfulness."
Do you?
Wha??
Rule 608 is wholly about character evidence. The point of using this statement against Columbia wouldn’t be to show the witness’s character for truthfulness. It would be to impeach the witness with a prior inconsistent statement per Rule 613(b). https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_613
Where do you practice?
Such a statement is admissible because it is definitionally not hearsay under 801(2)©. You don’t have to get into whether it is inconsistent or even an admission against interest. Trust me. I have had plenty of annual reports and product launch brochures shoved in my face over the years, lol.
@HarvestMoon1 I have no problem with students hiring a plane to protest Brock Turner, although I would wonder why they would do that at Stanford rather than the courthouse. I do think that is different than promising students a “safe environment” and then giving someone credit for an obvious harassment campaign, or giving her a diploma at graduation when she had been told not to bring her mattress, just because she happened to be harassing a white guy.
@Ohiodad51
I enjoy reading your responses here but have to take issue with this constant referencing of “harassing a white guy”. You do your arguement a disservice by using this tired battle cry. The world is not colluding against white men. If you want to argue he was a victim in this scenario and was maligned, fine but by bringing race into this you weaken your arguement.
People are seriously using the Weathermen and protesters from the 60s and 70s as evidence that Columbia is left-leaning?! Give me a break. Columbia today is nothing like it was during the Vietnam War. The biggest crowds occur when Accenture is on campus! By your definition, if you aren’t an evangelical Christian you are left wing. My experience is that Columbia is incredibly apathetic.
Allusions by “legal experts” to the fact that they “know more but not be able to say anything” remind me of children bragging that they know a secret. They are demeaning of the legal profession and those legal practitioners who make them are part of the reason the legal profession is held in so little regard in the United States.
@tonymom, I get your point, and generally I agree. On balance, it is better to be a white guy than any other racial/gender mix. Like the comedian said, as a white guy I can get a good table and a home loan anywhere. Understood.
But. The fact is that there is no way a university would have allowed the level of harassment undertaken by Sulkowicz if it was directed at any minority group except perhaps an Asian guy. You know that there is no way a guy would have recieved university credit for a performance art project that was designed and intended to shame and harass an ex girlfriend. I think those things can and should be acknowledged, especially because that is exactly what this case was about, without devolving into victimology (which is not my intent).
@exlibris97, do you have a point other than your terribly clever allusions to your opinion that @hanna and I are full of it because we don’t agree with you?
No one has responded yet to my question about the burden of proof, in the event that Nungesser were to sue Sulkowicz for libel (or slander, if that is more appropriate). I would assume that Nungesser would then have the burden of proof, to show that Sulkowicz’s accusations were false. I would also guess that Nungesser could no more prove that Sulkowicz’s accusations were false than she could prove that they were true. The burden of proof is a heavy thing–kind of like a mattress.
I have a great deal more sympathy for Sulkowicz than many of the people posting on this thread. In a lot of cases of a similar nature, there is no hope of actually proving that an assault occurred. A person who was assaulted and cannot prove it (in a court, beyond a reasonable doubt, and in the universities, mostly at the “clear and convincing” level still) is likely to experience a lot of emotional difficulty for years.
I also think the point of whether Sulkowicz’s actions were “harassment” or “protest” is an important one. I don’t believe in vigilante justice, obviously. On the other hand, I think that getting names into the public awareness is actually good. If Nungesser could prevail in a libel suit, so be it. I’ll believe that when I read about it.
“Allusions by “legal experts” to the fact that they “know more but not be able to say anything” remind me of children bragging that they know a secret”
Can you quote where such a statement has been made on this thread? What are you referring to?
In more general terms, not specifically with regard to Nungesser’s case but still including it, I think there is a question of the level of respect owed to someone about whom allegations have been made, when the allegations have not been substantiated at the level necessary in a court or in the university system.
I see some similarity to President Nixon’s status as an “unindicted co-conspirator.” For years, I have thought this meant that he was “guilty.” Certainly the information that was publicly available strongly suggested that. However, on later reflection, I am not so sure that prosecutors should be able to label someone as a “co-conspirator,” in the absence of proving it. They may believe that they have a slam-dunk case, and indeed they may. However, someone who has not been proven guilty needs to be assumed to be innocent. Of course, the pardon from President Ford renders this issue moot.
Still, the question remains: “To what level of respect was President Nixon actually entitled in regard to his apparent complicity in the Watergate burglary, given that he was never indicted?” In slightly different circumstances, could a person be named an “unindicted thief” in the press?
I hope that the underlying philosophical similarity to the Nungesser case is sufficient for this post to be left here. I am not intending to derail the thread, nor to drag it in a political direction, but rather to point to an underlying issue with Columbia’s statement about treating people with respect.
I feel entitled to my own judgment about the level of respect that ought to be accorded Nungesser–and for that matter, to Sulkowicz.