Hanna, under Columbia’s rules, the “supporter” can pass notes to the person being supported and can confer quietly with him/her. That is a bit more active role than you may be envisioning. And yes, having a lawyer from the beginning of the process is an advantage, even if the person cannot be present at the hearing.
Sorry about the double post above–glitch in my internet service.
Since I have been asking for sources, I should provide my own:
“During meetings and hearings, the supporter may talk quietly with the student or pass notes in a non-disruptive manner. The supporter may not, in any way, intervene in the meeting/hearing or address the investigator/ hearing panel.”
Yeah, lol, Tanbiko #161. My remark was tongue-in-cheek. But I believe that “pro bono” is short for “pro bono public,” so if a cause is worth advocating, it really should not matter how much the client could pay. Ideally.
Good to hear that Columbia allows more attorney involvement than some other schools. Though the idea of an attorney whispering advice to an 18-year-old as the 18-year-old attempts to prosecute or defend what amounts to a felony trial remains ludicrous.
I think there have been enough years and enough lawsuit to see that the system as advanced by the DC letter isn’t working - college attorneys have issues, accusers have issues, accused have issues. The system is not serving any involved party very well. Time for change.
The hearing system set up by the DCL appears to have worked quite well for Paul Nungesser – ultimately he was absolved of responsibility in 3 separate cases.
The protest by Ms.Sulkowicz, the underwriting of her project by Prof. Jon Kessler and Columbia’s response to that are what precipitated his problems at Columbia. They are unrelated to the directives in the DCL. She most likely would have also undertaken that protest in response to a jury or judge absolving him of responsibility in an effort to get Columbia to remove him from campus. And Paul Nungesser would be in the same place.
Okay, @QuantMech, @collegedad13 here’s the bottom line: I am not going to waste my time combing through “sources” for you so that we can have a replay of a very long and very detailed discussion that many of us already had. That discussion morphed as new information became available, BTW, so kindly have the intellectual honesty not to try to hang anyone based on what they may have opined before more was revealed. That is, if you do choose to go back and revisit that thread. I doubt that you will, because it is pretty clear that you would rather take everything in the parents’ letter as gospel, and weep that poor little Emma, D of two NYC psychiatrists, may not have chosen to retain a lawyer for advice and may not have chosen to to avail herself of therapy (as she indicated later). All because poor little Emma couldn’t afford it or maybe the Dalton grad raised in NYC was just too naive? /sarcasm
I think this is well stated with two small addenda. One, the DCL is involved here, not because of what that has to say about hearing requirements or suggestions depending on your preferred term in cases of alleged sexual assault, but because of the directive that schools “take immediate and effective steps to end sexual harrassment and sexual violence”. The nut of Nussinger’s claim was that Sulkowicz’s actions against him amounted to sexual harrassment, and that Columbia either didn’t do enough to stop it or affirmatively aided it. That really is what this case, had it proceeded to a decision on the merits, would have decided. Second, if I recollect correctly, Sulkowicz was very annoyed with the police for not taking her side. So yeah, she might have followed the same path even in the absence of Columbia’s system. Then again, I believe she admitted at one point that she only went to the police to put Nussinger’s name in the pubic record to further her campaign, which certyainly implies she was motivated by things other than the college and legal process.
@consolation, everyone should always retain a lawyer!
Consolation, your link is to a piece by Cathy Young. I do not read that as balanced, though you may. I am an academic. When I request a source, it is not a “challenge,” it is just a request for information. It does help if the source can be evaluated.
This link was also provided to me by another person on CC. I won’t call the Jezebel article balanced. But the two in combination may read as balanced.
In my opinion, when two people have had intercourse before, an act occurs in private, it is said to be rape, and the charge is denied, it is going to be impossible for the accuser to meet any standard of proof. There may have been rape, there may not have been rape. Prior intercourse does not constitute agreement to all future intercourse, however. Nor does it constitute agreement to new types.
The following comments that you have made strike me as over the top (even allowing for the sarcasm) and somewhat ad personem: “I doubt that you will, because it is pretty clear that you would rather take everything in the parents’ letter as gospel, and weep that poor little Emma, D of two NYC psychiatrists, may not have chosen to retain a lawyer for advice and may not have chosen to to avail herself of therapy (as she indicated later). All because poor little Emma couldn’t afford it or maybe the Dalton grad raised in NYC was just too naive? /sarcasm”
I don’t take everything in the parent’s letter as “gospel,” but on the question of whether Nungesser had a lawyer for the hearing or not, they are probably right, especially since Columbia permits it–they just don’t permit the lawyer to speak. No real need to reiterate the fact that the lawyer can confer quietly with the accused, and pass notes.
I also don’t like the undertone of class differential that has been brought in. On the face of it, Sulkowicz is of a higher socioeconomic class than Nungesser. This tends to raise sympathy for Nungesser, which is inappropriate as a cause of sympathy in this context. But no information I have found takes the two students further back than one generation. So I don’t believe that one can tell.
I think everyone should retain a lawyer if the other side has a lawyer. Columbia advised Sulkowicz not to hire a lawyer.
She may have been too trusting of her adviser, rather than too naive.
A take-away from this: If a student on either side walks into a hearing where a lawyer may be present and the other side has a lawyer, but that student does not, that student should immediately request a postponement in order to engage a lawyer, to create a level playing field. Incidentally, one of by brothers-in-law became a graduate student in jurisprudence after completing a law degree and passing the bar (back when it was harder to pass the bar exam).
Also, I think it is wrong for a process to allow a student to refer to a video that he wishes he could bring into evidence, but is not permitted to bring into evidence. My qualms about this are doubled when it is claimed that the contents of the video are different from their representation by the accused.
In a court of law, this would presumably be grounds for objection, and the comment would have to be disregarded. Lawyers, is this right? But the hearing panel/jury can’t “unhear” it. If I were in charge of the process, I would thank the original panel for their service, and empanel a new group.
(Apologies for the multiple posts. I thought it was better to split one long post on three topics into three separate posts.)
So, you are saying that you accuse the author of the article of making everything about the graduate student who served up out of whole cloth, INCLUDING the interviews with that graduate student? Did you even READ the article?
I rest my case.
BTW, you were the one who brought up the need for pro bono lawyers and therapy. And earlier in this thread, certain people were making statements about how Nungesser’s parents would most certainly continue to litigate if they just got a break on the fees, which clearly assumes that they are rolling in dough.
“The hearing system set up by the DCL appears to have worked quite well for Paul Nungesser – ultimately he was absolved of responsibility in 3 separate cases.”
This is key. The fact that it came out in his favor doesn’t mean it worked for him. If Columbia made these decisions by flipping 3 coins and Nungesser won, we wouldn’t say the system worked for him. The system failed both parties because no one takes this “absolution” seriously, any more than we would take absolution-by-coinflip seriously. No one on any side has an ounce of confidence in the accuracy of these outcomes. And THAT is the problem.
You are basing our entire argument on your interpretation of an admittedly unspecific phrase contained in a letter written by the parents of one protagonist which is expressly contradicted by third party reporting, which includes significant passages purporting to be direct quotes from the person who you now apparently allege doesn’t exist. That is a very narrow limb you are climbing out on, don’t you think?
If Sulkowicz or her advisor failed to prepare for the hearing to such an extent that they decided they need to retain an additional advisor only upon entering the hearing room, that should be on her. The rules are there, for all to see. Certainly her own advisor was very conversant in the system given that she was a part of it. Another point, but this is a young woman who by her own admission at various points worked the system to go after this guy. She was obviously involved in coordinating the other complaints and at least implied that she only went to the police to “out” Nussinger. To argue that such a person was unprepared for the hearing is disingenuous.
In a court of law, the facebook posts/messages etc would have been admitted. It is really only in the college disciplinary arena that we have seen application of the theory that no actions taken by the accuser in the immediate aftermath of the event can be seen as contradictory and are therefore not relevant. In the “real world” they would be relevant and admissable. I don’t know what video you are referencing, but if it involves information Nussinger wanted to introduce that he believed contradicted Sulkowicz’s then current claims, I would assume the same standards would apply.
That said, if a lawyer in a court does refer to something that had been previously excluded from evidence (it happens, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not) the most likely outcome would be that the Judge would stare menacingly at the offending lawyer and give a limiting instruction telling the jury to disregard the comment. No judge is going to dump an entire jury, especially after having devoted days to voir dire and presumably at least some trial time, because of a reference to something previously held inadmissable.
@OhioDad51 The issue that Judge Woods had to decide I think is more specific than what you posted in your #168. Really it comes down to whether that alleged harassment constituted “gender based discrimination” as required under Title IX. Judge Woods decision states quite clearly why he thought it did not under applicable law.
But more importantly there was another hurdle that Nungesser had to clear to prevail under the law which he could not --he had to prove that the harassment was so pervasive that it interfered with his ability to receive an education and succeed at Columbia. Clearly that was not the case. I think Columbia either proposed those initial accolades about Nungesser in that released statement or readily agreed to them for that reason. He did quite well at Columbia which helps defeat his Title IX claim.
Could you provide a link to your statement about Emma admitting she reported to the police in order to get Nungesser’s name into the public domain? I do not think she ever made such an admission, rather it was speculation from people who opposed her. And you are always so adamant about the need for women to report to the police!!
Also, and I am truly not trying to be argumentative here, I want to correct something you wrote in your #140 – Emma Sulkowicz did not wait 18 months before filing her claim. The alleged assault took place in August of 2012 and she first reported to Columbia in April of 2013. The first hearing was in October of 2013.
And yes, I believe the appropriate response to the violent crime she maintains occurred is to report the crime rather than use some system which can not put the offender in jail. The obvious point though is that she was thinking about her attack on him strategically. What’s yours?
And you aren’t wrong about his issues legally. I was speaking in short hand, as if we are trying to be hyper technical, you are as well. Still don’t see what if any inconsistency you are trying to draw though.
And I stand corrected about when she reported the event. I guess she waited eight months, not eighteen. Fair enough.
My understanding which that article seems to confirm is that she wanted his name on public record with the police so if another woman reported they could see the prior alleged offense. I read another article where she stated the same. My point is that her stated reasons were different than what others have speculated.
Wasn’t trying to be hyper technical at all but my point is that even if he proved harassment he still had to prove it was “gender based” and that’s where the Judge said it didn’t fly under Title IX. I don’t think anyone is going to argue that he wan’t harassed.
The supporter of Nungesser mentioned in the article by Cathy Young is referred to in the article as “Michael Roberson (not his real name).” I can understand why the supporter would not want his name to be made public. On the other hand, it makes verification difficult. I am not sure how Young got access to the supporter’s name. Perhaps Nungesser provided it. Also, “Roberson” is apparently now in England.
The representations by “Roberson” may all be completely correct. This leaves open the question why the Sulkowicz family thought that Nungesser had a lawyer. Are others claiming that they made that up? Perhaps he had a lawyer already, but the lawyer did not attend the hearing? If so, did the lawyer have any contact with “Roberson” prior to the hearing?