For everything that is wonderful in the world, please let’s NOT start re-trying the Sulkowicz case again. The uni adjudicated and she declined to work with the police and somewhere I’m sure there is a rather lengthy thread with her parents letters and his parents interviews and the Columbia spectators opinions on whether she had a legitimate complaint or not. It’s all out there text messages and all. This thread is about the settlement with Nungesser and his issues with the university. If Mr. and Mrs. parents of mattress girl want to fund a lawsuit for their daughter they are more than welcome to.
Not retrying the case, momofthreeboys, but have you read the letter written by Sulkowicz’s parents, which alh linked? Whether I think Columbia was right to settle depends on the terms of the settlement, which I do not know.
momofthreeboys, I hope that you will acknowledge that a young woman can be assaulted under circumstances that offer no hope of proving that the assault actually occurred, with the standard of proof that is required in a court, or even in a university setting.
I have acknowledged that there can be false accusations. I have also acknowledged that the legal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the right one–no doubt about that. On other threads, I have said that the standard within a university really ought to be “clear and convincing,” rather than “preponderance of evidence.”
I have to accept that it will be impossible in many cases to meet the burden of proof that an assault has occurred, and that therefore an assailant will be found “not guilty” or not even indicted, because I cherish the principles of American law.
But I actually think it was fine for Columbia to allow Sulkowicz to bring the mattress on stage at graduation.
To add to #121, in my opinion, it would have been fine if Columbia allowed Nungesser to carry an anvil to graduation, with the words, “I am not a rapist. I have been falsely accused.”
An anvil, huh? That would show him. But he might not be smart enough to get the point. Maybe it would be better if he rolled a boulder across the stage. You know pour encourager les autres.
"I have said that the standard within a university really ought to be “clear and convincing,” rather than “preponderance of evidence.”
But it isn’t. That’s a very involved discussion – for a different thread. However imperfect Columbia’s rules are, Sukowicz agreed to abide by it. No one forced her, she could have gone to through the court system. The discussion here is about the aftermath of that verdict and the behavior of the three main parties that lead to Columbia’s recent settlement with Nungesser.
Maybe Columbia let her carry the mattress to commemcement and everything else because they know they screwed up and would rather deal with Nungesser in court, who did get off, rather than Sulcowicz.
@alh
Thank you for the link. While many here don’t want to rehash through the “details” of the case and focus only on the recent settlement, I found this piece helpful in understanding the POV of one of the parties involved.
Re: 121, of course but her need for counseling ( or any women who feels she has been attacked and could benefit from counseling) has nada to do with the university sanctioning harassment of one student against another.
bestmom888–A point I have been trying to make is that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very high standard of proof–exactly as it should be. The idea that a woman who has been raped should seek relief from the courts is often unrealistic and comes across as harsh. If the two people knew each other in advance and interacted in private, then it is virtually impossible to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (except in quite unusual circumstances). It is unlikely that the prosecutor will even file charges.
It is hard enough to meet the university standard of proof, when two people who know each other have interacted in private. What the actual university standard is–that is not so clear. I believe that the “preponderance of evidence” standard is set out in a “Dear Colleague” letter. (Does this come from the Department of Education? I am sure the lawyers on this thread know.) To the best of my knowledge, this standard has not yet been adopted in practice by some major universities; they are still adhering to “clear and convincing.” Of course, they may be under Title IX investigation, as a consequence.
As far as seeking relief in the courts, I hope the Sulkowicz family will consider their options vis a vis Columbia. If the elements of their letter to President Bollinger can be proven, then I think they have a case, based on the process as it actually occurred. I would also suspect that a number of the key elements of their letter in regard to the process can be proven, because there should be transcripts of the hearing, or at least multiple witnesses who recall what happened.
Of course, I am not a lawyer. Lawyers may say that it is inadvisable for the Sulkowicz family to bring a case against Columbia. In my view, that would be regrettable, if so.
@QuantMech: The DCL does indeed come from the Department of Education. It is allegedly guidance on how the DOE interprets its regulations and the applicable statutes.
I’m also a little unclear on for what Sulkowicz would sue Columbia. Didn’t they do the IX investigation? I haven’t kept up to date with this case, but I don’t recall any allegations that they tainted the investigation/hearing to find Nungesser not responsible.
The stuff in the letter form her parents in post # 118
Demosthenes49, her parents think the hearing was mishandled. They never said what they thought of the local police.
“Of course, I am not a lawyer. Lawyers may say that it is inadvisable for the Sulkowicz family to bring a case against Columbia. In my view, that would be regrettable, if so”
Sue for what? Columbia followed Title IX and had the hearings. If there was an appeals process, she should have followed it at the time. She’d have to have a reason to sue other than that she didn’t like the outcome. If you don’t like the outcome, you appeal, you don’t just keep filing new actions.
I thought the letter from the parents was pretty whiny. They don’t understand that every piece of evidence presented by the opposing side can’t be rebutted immediately. Yes, they didn’t agree with his testimony, they think he was lying. How is that different than him claiming she was lying, that she did consent?
I, for one, DID read the parental letter, and I DID read the text messages and I DID read all of the other stuff publicly available about the dispute between the two students, including her interactions with the police, and if you are just discovering it now I wish that for the love of pete you would go read the old thread on the subject or start a new one. OR READ EVERYTHING NOT JUST WHAT HER PARENTS SAY BEFORE OPINING!!! Please!
Yes, you can post whatever you want. But for doG’s sake…
I disagree with your assumption a women has to prove anything in a Title IX proceeding. Preponderance of the evidence only in theory favors the accused. In practice, as Hanna has pointed out, a smart lawyer will often advise an accused student not to say anything if there’s the slimmest possibility of criminal charges. Rules of evidence, such as a prohibition on cross-examining the accuser favor the accuser.
@consolation did you read the statements of the two other women who claimed he raped them. Did you read the hearing transcript where he was found responsible for groping and assault. “The fact that Nungesser had previously been found “responsible” by a Columbia panel for following another Columbia student to her room, shoving his way in, forcefully pinning, and groping her was not allowed as evidence in Emma’s hearing” Did you read the court file?
Why was he still allowed on campus after he was found responsible for the sexual battery of another student? Why was he not criminally prosecuted or required to register as a sex offender for the event that he was found responsible for??
I applaud @quantmech efforts on this thread
@Consolation – while @QuantMech clarified what she meant, the “slur” you refer to in your #104 has been repeated many, many times on these Title IX threads. I agree with you that it is highly insulting and am surprised this is the first time you mention it.
The opposition on this forum to the Title IX hearings has in part been based on the assertion that the panels are populated solely with women who for some unbeknownst reason have it out for men, and are predisposed to find them responsible. They have been described as “witch hunts,” “star chamber tribunals” and worse. Never mind that new panel members are assigned for each hearing, both men and women sit on the panels and many, many schools have Title IX coordinators that are male.
The idea that because we are women and are thus incapable of being impartial when adjudicating a case involving a college aged male is ridiculous and really a pure fabrication. Many of us have sons, husbands, brothers, fathers and other men in our lives with whom we have enjoyed long term and successful relationships. The idea that we would target men like that is ludicrous. I have always found painting women with that broad stoke of vindictiveness highly insulting. I have always pushed back against it.
Consolation, a Google search for Sulkowicz and the police report turns up articles that portray the police as callous and indicate the difficulty in charging assault by a man with whom a woman has previously been intimate consensually. That’s pretty much it on the first page of Google hits. Could you provide a link to the article on the police report that you wish people would read?
I am pretty sure Sulkowicz did join a prior lawsuit against Columbia alleging that Columbia’s policies violated Title IX…
I have no idea how that came out. I will say that if she was offended by the police or university questioning her and failing to conform to her schedule, she will really be in for a treat when Columbia’s blood sucking lawyers go after her in civil discovery. The cynic in me says that she or at least her parents are aware of this and that makes it very unlikely she would bring suit at this point.
@HarvestMoon1, it is not necessarily the significant gender imbalance in Title IX administrators/investigators/decision makers that is the problem. The real problem is the self selection bias. Most people who make a career administering Title IX, or voluntarily give up time to sit on panels etc, will do so because they believe in their understanding of the mission of the system. Which until these recent spat of cases brought by men has been commonly understood as a mechanism to coerce colleges to give women a “fair shake” vis men. It is not that people who are involved do not believe themselves to be fair or sober minded, it is just that most start from an intellectual place where they are inclined to be sympathetic to the accuser. That creates problems in a system that is superficially intended to be unbiased. There is a reason we pull juries randomly.
@Ohiodad51 we have discussed this issue many times and I don’t want to de-rail this thread. But I have taken the time to read many of these policies and have never seen one where the composition of the panel is “volunteers” and they certainly do not “self-select.” Quite to the contrary they come recommended, screened and have to undergo training before serving. Here is selection criteria for Yale’s University Wide Committee:
Equally important is that most policies contain a right for either party to object to a panel member hearing their case. This is Yale’s language in that regard:
And I can’t help but point out that you don’t seem to see the same potential for bias that male members of a panel could have toward women.