Emma Sulkowicz's Alleged Attacker speaks again in new article

Parents Forum
421

@momofthreeboys‌, you are the one (I believe) who raised the important issue of language and being precise with language. I find some of your points about due process and fairness to be valid and worthy of thought and consideration. I’m the mother of a teenage boy and I too worry about false accusations of sexual assault. But the reality is that my teenage girl is more likely to be assaulted than my son falsely accused. What concerns me is my perception from reading all of your posts that perhaps underlying some of your comments is a belief that the real act of rape only occurs when a stranger forcefully penetrates his victim. Your refusal to answer @"Cardinal Fang"‌ further supports this presumption. Is that truly what you believe? If so, we need to be having a whole different conversation.

Getting back to the big picture issue of how to address rape culture, I do think that the criminal court system is the better place to handle these cases. The key will be convincing the victims to file their complaints there. I recently heard a piece on NPR about a community (cannot recall where or the specifics) where the local government (police and prosecutors) were working hard to encourage more college students to report and prosecute sexual assault cases. The system from initial report through intake, medical exam, etc. was designed to make it as comfortable and accessible as possible and I believe that they were seeing an increase in women choosing to file criminal charges.

422

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8135653

http://sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf

423

I note that this is the exact same thing, almost identical in substance, was said after the Duke rape allegations, when UVA Jackie’s rape allegation first came out, and now Emma. However, this can only occur if the general public has confidence in the logic of the arguments presented.

Illogical arguments and policies and overreach beget just the opposite; they decrease focus on the real issues and people step back from doing anything substantive because they do not trust the positions and arguments being forwarded.

This puch-back, in media and elsewhere, is what is happening now: trust in college tribunals is zero essentially; there is an icky yikes reaction to government trying to dictate how people communicate in the bedroom (that is just creepy really that people accept that as a rational solution); and, the biggest is women who actually know how to say Yes and No and how to navigate consent are wondering where are these college females coming from and are making sure others know they are not that naive or in some cases stupid, so do not lump them in with females such as Emma, Accuser #2, etc.

A major message that is now coming out more and more, from other females no less, is how hell-bent advocates are in promoting cases of alleged rape even when nothing happened at all (Duke), nothing checks out and is filled with imaginary boyfriends (UVA), and when the accuser fails to make her case, not once, but twice (Columbia). Therefore, there are growing numbers of people (females and males) who find this just bizarre to attach to such fakery and to females who cannot even convince a sympathetic college that rape occurred.

Bottom line is no improvement can come from cases where there is no there there either in fact, in substance, or in strength of accusation. Lots of noise, but nothing useful, and in actuality may even set back the issue, irrespective of an SOTU invite.

424

Pittsburghscribe, I see that you are new here. Welcome! I suppose you haven’t read both this entire thread and its predecessor, the UVa thread-- and who can blame you, they’re the length of a Russian novel.

We have had long discussions on whether colleges should adjudicate rape accusations. I’ll try to summarize the case for colleges doing these adjudications. It’s all about the standard of proof and timeliness.

Convicting someone of a criminal offense like rape/sexual assault requires a high standard of proof. The jury must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused person committed the crime. People who are convicted of crimes can be deprived of their liberty, so we rightly have a high standard to convict them.

But in the ordinary course of college discipline for matters other than sexual assault, and for that matter in the ordinary course of civil litigation, we don’t have such a high standard. We are satisfied with clear and convincing evidence or even (in civil litigation) a preponderance of the evidence.

Colleges have the duty to make their campus safe for their students. Therefore, if they are satisfied, under a fair proceeding, that there is clear and convincing evidence that Student A has raped Student B, those of us who advocate for college discipline say that Student A should be thrown out of college. We don’t think that colleges should keep students on campus who, they are convinced, have raped other students. Raping students is a violation of college conduct rules as well as being a crime.

There is also the issue of timeliness. The justice system takes a long time. For example, the Vanderbilt rapists raped their victim June 23, 2013. They were just convicted of the crime last week. Should they have been allowed to remain on campus for a year and a half while the justice system did its work? I say they should not.

Some have argued that a mere arrest for a sexual assault ought to be enough for expulsion, but that cannot be right-- two Duke lacrosse players were charged, and so were the William Paterson kids, but then the charges were dropped.

We have also had discussions here about the currently required standard of proof for sexual assault at colleges. According to the OCR, the standard of proof must be preponderance of the evidence. I don’t think anyone here supports that; I believe we have agreed that clear and convincing evidence ought to be the standard. So there’s no interesting dispute about that to be found here.

425

From yesterday’s NY Times:

“The fourth step, however, may be the most important. Though schools have the right to uphold their own standards of conduct, the government is currently scaring them into creating big, expensive bureaucracies and designing unduly cumbersome policies. Meanwhile, there are many more 18- to 25-year-old rape victims outside the walls of colleges than inside them. The smarter and more public-spirited thing for schools to do would be to divert at least some of their time and energy to forming partnerships with local law enforcement agencies.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-best-way-to-address-campus-rape.html?_r=0

The OCR policy on campus rape makes as much sense as the Feds deciding to regulate something in just the 10 states that have two words in their name because, as a matter of serendipity, they happen to have funding and legal leverage over just those 10 states. Crack down in NY, NJ, RI and NH (because they can) but do nothing in VT, MA, CT, PA, DE, MD or OH.

I know (and the data backs me up) that my two college age daughters are safer at college than they are at home and than they will be wherever they go after college. If they listen to me and stay away from the vodka shots (especially in their first semester freshman year), they are going to be incredibly safe at college from a rape perspective. They will never ever be safer.

If the Feds and the civil rights folks really have my daughter’s best interests at heart, they should do things that will provide more protection to my daughters in all those non-college places and all those non-college years. Which, by the way, would help improve the system that college students use too.

As HLS prof Elizabeth Bartholet said “I believe that history will demonstrate the federal government’s position to be wrong [and] that our society will look back on this time as a moment of madness…"

426

I don’t think that’s true as a matter of fact-- but this is a factual dispute.

If Sulkowicz is fabricating her charges, she is beneath contempt and there can be no justification for her actions.

But if by seeing her actions (which may or may not be justified) true victims are encouraged to come forward, to step out of the shadows and refuse to be shamed, that’s an improvement. And this seems to be what is happening. Assuming arguendo that Sulkowicz is fabricating, then there are good changes resulting from her evil action. That’s no justification for evil, but it’s the true state of affairs.

427

If false accusations encourage true victims to come forward, then are false accusations justified?

428

Actually, the data doesn’t back you up. I became curious about the study you referred to. I emailed the author, Lynn Laughton, who very kindly discussed the paper with me. She acknowledged that they couldn’t tell whether the difference in rape rates that they saw was due to the students being in college, or to their socioeconomic status. That is, we know that students are richer than nonstudents, and we know that poorer people are more at risk for violent crimes including rape that richer people. So we can’t whether the difference in rape rates is due to college status or socioeconomic status, or whether it’s some of both. Unfortunately, the data they have (which I loaded up on my computer) is unable to distinguish the socioeconomic status of students; it doesn’t ask the right questions.

She also acknowledged that there was underreporting. And there sure was. For 2012, the crime victims survey interviewed 160,000 people. They found 18 completed rapes in 2012. That’s not a rate; that’s the total number of completed rapes, among 160,000 people. That’s a vastly lower number than is found in any other survey. I don’t believe it is correct, and neither does BJS.

I would like to know whether students at residential colleges are more or less at risk for rape than similar people who are not students at residential colleges. Unfortunately, even if I believe the BJS numbers, I still can’t use their data to answer that question.

429

Or if she is not outright fabricating, she is, perhaps unconsciously, exaggerating and revising her memories to fit the narrative she needs to believe. Some of the articles say she was pinned down by her arms, others that she was choked and hit.

My point AWC, is the recent newsworthy cases notwithstanding, the history on rape convictions was very much against the women and that had to change. If you’ve read my posts, I certainly don’t think the answer is to consider every accusation as true; there has to be proof. I don’t agree with Emma’s tactics and think it is harassment. I don’t agree that women should be free to continue to name a guy as a rapist even when he has been cleared or that there should be a rush to judgement as in UVA and in the recent William Paterson case. But it is true that her mattress has brought needed attention to the issue, although at the expense of Paul’s reputation. Does that justify what she has done in trying to drive him off campus? Seems like some at Columbia, and in the media at large, have started to think about that aspect of this as well (reference recent Spectator oped).

430

I think young boys should be taught these 5 things if we want to stop the campus rape epidemic and the general rape culture.

  1. Don’t be aggressive towards women. Let women make the first move. Let women take the relationship to the next level.
  2. Don’t try to extract sexual favors from women that matches what you saw on some free online porn. Better yet, stop watching porn.
  3. Don’t dump women. Be serious about starting a relationship, and maintaining it.
  4. Understand that when in love women will be willing to do many things that they wouldn’t do otherwise. Don’t take advantage of a woman’s love. Don’t make her do things for you that she will regret later after you have dumped her. Regret is rape.
  5. Even in consensual sexual relationships, ask the woman in every single step whether she is OK with what you are going to do next. Don’t just take yes for an answer. Really try to understand whether she is saying yes because she is going to enjoy it, or saying yes just to please you. If it is the latter, don’t do it. No always means no, but yes doesn’t always mean yes. Be understanding of that and read the situation well.
431

This is total speculation, but I’d guess that both Sulkowicz and Nungesser believe what they are saying. That makes the whole situation more difficult.

432

I just have to respectfully disagree with this line of thinking. I could use the old “The ends don’t justify the means” argument, but I think a more pertinent way to look at it is through our tradition of “Better 10 guilty men go free than one wrongly convicted” or in this case smeared. But we know there have also been wrongful convictions in the past from false accusations. Saying, or even hinting, that the good that results from false allegations is a silver lining (I know you didn’t say it was actually OK, but you are saying some good came from it) strikes me as a very dangerous and slippery slope.

Besides, it might be a very short term “good” in any case. If down the road he does win some kind of civil penalty against her, or she (or someone else in another case) got charged criminally for filing a false report, then it might send far more victims back into the shadows than would ever have come out.

433

That should be true. Most young people don’t go to college and the number of kids who go to residential colleges is even smaller.

Northwesty, my kids were safer at home except for drunk driving.

You should compare apples to apples. Comparing numbers by socio-economic class would be a good start.

434

Should we then have stricter rape shield laws that grants immunity to anyone accusing another person of rape (whether or not the accusation is true, as we just can’t know)? How can we get more rape accusations? Should we also use a guilty until proven innocent standard in rape trials so that more rapists get punished for their crimes?

435

@fallenchemist, you don’t seem to be disagreeing with what I am saying. There are two issues here: (1) should Sulkowicz be doing what she is doing, and (2) is what she is doing making an improvement. They are separate. (1) is an ethical judgement. (2) is an issue of fact; it is either true or false. We can determine whether (2) is true independent of our beliefs about (1).

That’s not saying the ends justify the means. It’s merely determining what the ends are.

I can believe that Sulkowicz is unjustified, and at the same time believe her unjustified actions are producing good results. That’s not endorsing her actions, merely examining their consequences.

436

Is it really so hard for men to treat their girlfriends well? Why dump her after she agreed to anal sex with you, that’s the question I would ask Paul. He did this to not one, but two women. He is a jerk and jerks like him deserve to be thrown out of Columbia.

437

dstark - I actually disagree with the logic here. Such an analysis may actually support northwesty’s argument. I don’t think anyone believes that simply being an affluent women casts a protective shield over potential victims. Here’s how I would dissect the logic.

  1. Affluent people tend to avoid bad areas and to live in good areas - yes, like residential colleges. But that’s exactly what northwesty’s saying (this is actually more complicated then I am portraying it, but this is at least the starting point. I don’t think anyone cares to read a treatise).
  2. Affluent men tend not to be rapists, and affluent women tend to hang around them - That’s an interesting one. If you look at literally every other crime statistic, college educated men don’t really commit crimes like robbery, homicide, physical violence, etc. in anywhere near the proportions of poor men. People are arguing that rape is the one exception. Because of this variable in your analysis, what you’re actually saying is that college men are less likely to be rapists, so we’ll hold them to a higher standard. The logic seems wrong to me. I think an honest reading supports northwesty’s argument.
  3. Affluent women are smarter about putting themselves in problematic situations then non affluent women; they practice better behaviors, so we need to control for this - this would support your argument.
  4. How many affluent women don’t go to college? Well, 65% of the current age cohort of women go on to college (they may not graduate though). That’s all women, not just affluent women. Among women from above median households the proportion is almost certainly much much higher. Those 18-24 year old women who don’t are quite a small fraction. They probably have characteristics that make them highly non-representative.

Bottom line, it’s complicated. My own feeling is that the analysis you propose is fatally flawed, and on balance the factors support northwesty’s argument. I don’t blame you for suggesting it. It’s a quite natural thought. But it wouldn’t surprise me if some of the academicians who propose it know full well the level of intellectual dishonesty they are engaging in.

Here’s an old book, but an interesting one: “How to Lie with Statistics”.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

438

Actually not, every state as a different definition of what constitutes rape - I happen to live in a state that doesn’t use the word. I don’t define that word, state law defines the word. Look at it this way - I believe (even if I don’t agree) that a person can call themselves whatever they want, I don’t think it furthers the cause with people who put themselves out there as media spokespeople, but whatever. So people can say I’m a survivor, I’m a rape victim, I’m a jolly green giant…what people should not do is label someone else a rapist unless that person has indeed been charged and found guilty of that crime. Someone technically could call another person a rapist but would simultaneously be opening themselves up to a defamation lawsuit… At a minimum a person who calls someone awful names is a bully or mean etc.

439

@"Cardinal Fang"‌

I get that, but I guess I would have made a bigger point that no amount of good results justifies a false accusation that results in a destroyed reputation or a wrongful conviction. Also, I would continue to question the “stickiness” of these positive consequences that you see coming from her actions. One big backfire and it all could go away and then some. I guess to put it in the terms you use for “(2) is an issue of fact”, all the facts might not be in yet.

440

That’s my argument, alsimon2.

I want to compare like and like. If I do that, my area is safer.

There are no rapes where I live. Ok…that is a lie…maybe 1 a year. Maybe the one is a sexual assault. :slight_smile:

I am responding to this…

Where I live is safer than a college campus.