The terms of the performance art don’t mention the name of the attacker, though, do they? Here’s a YouTube with Sulkowicz explaining the piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9hHZbuYVnU
Suppose instead it was Nungesser, who was carrying around a mattress to symbolize the weight unjust accusations against him. Or an anvil, since the mattress is uniquely symbolic of Sulkowicz’s claimed violation of private space. Would a professor feel justified in refusing to allow that piece? I don’t know. Maybe.
Alsimon2, I have to think about your theoretical. A guilty verdict is a little different than a not guilty verdict.
And Emma wasn’t found to be guilty or not guilty.
Edit…plus what CF said.
Anyway, I want to know more about “Adam’s accusation.”
It sounds like Adam’s accusation was independent of Emma’s. If that is true…Alsimon2, you work with probalities… the probability that Paul is telling the truth just declined quite a bit.
The article implied that Adam’s original complaint was made to ADP, with which he, Nungesser, and Sulkowicz were all associated. If that’s true, and it was made at the time of the incident, it would have to be independent of Sulkowicz’s complaint, because it would have predated Sulkowicz’s complaint by at least a year. His Title IX complaint came a few months ago, and was clearly inspired by Sulkowicz. (Which doesn’t mean it’s not true, of course.)
It’s difficult to know the truth in these highly publicized cases. I believe the Cosby accusers, because there are so many of them and they’re unconnected. I believe the accusers of Jian Ghomeshi (a Canadian celebrity accused of choking and raping many young women) because there are so many and they’re unconnected. But with Nungesser? I don’t know, and this latest accusation doesn’t sway me as much as it could, because I can see how it could be fabricated. There could be an effect of people at Columbia rallying around Sulkowicz and making supporting accusations, that I don’t imagine happening in the Cosby and Ghomeshi cases.
For me, if someone at ADP came forward and said that Adam had made his accusation to ADP before Sulkowicz’ complaint was made, that would be the final nail in the coffin for Nungesser.
I believe Emma did not include Nungesser’s name in her piece and would likely argue it was others, not her as part oof the project, that put his name out there. However, the publicity beyond Columbia is due to her project and her stating that Nungesser is a serial rapist, even if not as part of her project. With his name so closely aligned with this, it seems to be causing harassment, even if not the stated intest of the project.
Why Adam did not come forward sooner to support Sulkowicz or why nobody brought this up before, is now, is a bit surprising. The Jezebel blog says Adam told (what is assumed to be) ADP which may be why ADP wanted Nungesser out. Adam also said he had told some others. If so, and it can be shown he told them back in freshman year, Nungesser may well be in for another hearing and possibly being expelled (unless limits on timing are an issue).
The Jian Ghomeshi accusations were a shocker, but certainly believable.
I assume that people Adam told (if such people exist) would not feel free to come forward without his permission. ETA: Suppose it was you whom he had told. Once you heard Sulkowicz’ accusations, you might tell your friends that you believe the accusations because another person had told you of a similar claim, but you certainly would not go to the media.
Dstark – yes, I agree with you that the fact that there are multiple accusers is very damning, so damning that in my mind it probably overrides the judgment of the Columbia panel. That’s a pretty strong statement. I disagree with your reading of the parents’ letter that details procedural complaints against Columbia. I don’t think Emma was denied due process, at least in the context of the procedure’s (possibly flawed) rules. I think I mentioned a couple months ago that I’ve dealt with several parents’ letters in the past, so I read the letter with that prior background and my alarm bells go off in places that most peoples’ wouldn’t. If those are their biggest complaints then I’d say the procedure was in fact pretty clean.
The biggest genuine complaint they seem to raise is that the existence of other accusations couldn’t be introduced into consideration unless there was a guilty finding. I assume Columbia’s hands were tied by their rules of evidence (if they had violated these rules then Paul would probably easily win an appeal). A plaintiff’s lawyer would say that filing the 3 complaints simultaneously was a tactical mistake; Emma should have filed her complaint last.
CF - I haven’t checked to see whether any of Emma’s public statements (other than the civil suit she filed) mentioned Paul by name or not. In the articles I read she referred to him only as “her rapist”. If I were her lawyer as well as her senior thesis advisor, I’d tell her never to mention him by name as a condition of agreeing to sponsor her thesis. Emma already got his name out there in the complaint she filed with the court – pleadings made in a complaint have special protections against libel/defamation claims. She could then count on media to spread his name without her needing to. I view this as a moderately clever but transparent strategy. It’s not even necessary anymore since he’s given an interview now.
(Added: maybe it was a police report instead of a civil suit. I think my points still apply though.)
HarvestMoon1 - To me, it isn’t a question of whether Emma has a first amendment right to make her statements or carry around her mattress. She does. To me, the question is whether Columbia’s code of conduct prohibits harassment of this sort against a fellow student and whether they should enforce the prohibition, regardless of whether her project is being sponsored or not. I think most colleges have such prohibitions – they’d never allow a student to wear Ku Klux Klan garb around campus, nor should they. The fact that she isn’t mentioning him by name is helpful to her case, but I’d look through that. The fact that a professor is sponsoring the performance art does make it harder for Columbia to enforce anti-harassment policies, since it introduces a host of issues around the academic freedom of the professor and Emma. If Columbia isn’t willing to sanction Emma for harassment then they certainly can’t stop a professor from sponsoring the project.
Honestly, if I were Columbia, I’d think the right thing to do would be to make Emma stop, but cowardice and fear of a retaliation lawsuit would probably prevent me from acting.
In May 2014 due to Emma’s filing a police report, as well as a flyer with his name on it (along with 3 or 4 others) circulating in campus bathrooms.
I believe Emma started carrying the mattress around campus in September 2014, so after Nungesser’s name and the fact that he had been found not responsible were out there.
It would be obvious, even if she never specifically used his name, that when she spoke of her “serial rapist” she would have been referring to Nungesser.
My initial reaction to her mattress carrying was that it is a powerful, courageous act, especially in the context of historical silencing of women. We have had several cases in the news this last year where women whose rapists were convicted, were prohibited from making public statements about those men. I support women making a stink. I wonder how Emma has impacted other young women’s willingness to immediately report rapes. She gives a model that didn’t exist before. imho
Jonri had an excellent post on the other thread, exploring the ramifications of Paul being innocent of rape. Some of you on this thread had me feeling sorry for him. IF the Jezebel story is true, that is interesting. I am fascinated by how this is playing out in the media. Why is Paul going public? Will that elicit more reports? If so, will it be possible to substantiate them? Is it possible a few students just decided to destroy a classmate? I guess so. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Agree CF I meant in the context of Emma’s case, not in the media. If I had heard that accusation as the victim of another, I might have said that there was at least one other accusation that was made, but the accuser did not want to pursue charges. If I was the person confided in, I would have urged Adam to support Emma with his charges, even if he wanted to maintain his privacy. But Adam may have felt that would be all but impossible, especially if he is the only gay man in ADP.
A2S: Wouldn’t the panel have been aware of the one complaint in which he was found responsible, but then reversed, whether or not is was officially part of the record? But it was a very different kind of complaint. It sounded like the ex girlfriend would not cooperate and it is not clear what, if any, details she gave in her initial complaint and there may not have been enough to determine if the complaint had any substance.
Not saying it wouldn’t have been a factor to sway in the victim’s favor, but likely not enough.
@alh, I skimmed the comments too. There was nothing about Adam’s accusation, but plenty of Cathy Young bashing.
FWIW, there were also five or maybe more comments from other people who said they’d been raped by people they had been friendly with, and afterwards they maintained an on-the-surface cordial, friendly or even sexual relationship for a time. They said their assaults were so unexpected, such shocks, so out of character with the people they thought their attackers were, that they couldn’t initially process the situation. They were trying to proceed normally in a situation that was far from normal.
mom2and: Quote #1 is from the parents’ letter. It says that the complaint in which he was found responsible was not allowed as evidence because it was being appealed. If you are asking if the panel was aware of it anyway, then I obviously don’t know, but they could easily have not been aware of it. I would be very surprised if the same panel members heard both cases. Columbia should also be keeping these these records private, at least at this stage of the process. Regardless, the panel needs to write-up the basis for their decision, and they couldn’t use the other complaints as a basis for their decision if they had found Paul guilty.
In fact, if you read the parents’ letter closely (Quote #2) it’s possible that Emma was removed from the hearing room because she tried to introduce the other complaints as evidence (or at least get them in the minds of the panel members) in violation of her instructions, which could cause the equivalent of a “mistrial”. Of course, Emma’s parents have a different spin on it, ascribing it to Columbia’s bungling and personal malice on the part of Emma’s adviser, Ms. Siler. If this is the case then I don’t believe for one second that Ms. Siler didn’t tell Emma why she was removed (this is an example of one of my alarm bells).
Personally, since Emma is young and probably distraught I’d say that it was probably an innocent mistake on Emma’s part. If Emma were an experienced executive advised by good legal counsel then I might think she was playing games Maybe she was anyway.
That Emma was not allowed to explain the timing of her reporting is a serious problem, if true. If I were on the panel and wanted to know why she waited seven months, “I found out he was doing the same thing to other people and I realized I needed to stop him,” would be a lot more damning that, “Oh, I felt like it.”
Maybe she was anyway.