Emma Sulkowicz's Alleged Attacker speaks again in new article

Parents Forum
541

The Jezebel article and the one in New York Magazine are somewhat contradictory. Could just be imprecise wording on New York’s part.

From New York:

Jezebel:

I would think that the Jezebel quote means that he’s filed a complaint or intends to file a complaint with Columbia’s office of sexual misconduct. In that event we’ll hear more about it soon enough.

I can’t figure out what the New York quote means. If he filed a complaint against Nungesser with Columbia in the Fall it would have already been into the hearing stage and would not be pending as Columbia is obligated to investigate all complaints. If he filed a complaint directly with the OCR, it’s unclear whom or what he’s complaining about.

542

CF - Am I Mr. Consistency? I hesitate to crown myself, but if it comes with a substantial cash prize and you insist …

Your argument isn’t with me; it’s really with hundreds of years of American/English jurisprudence. I never went to law school, but here’s my understanding (lawyers in the audience, please help !) - In Scenario 2, Alice and Clare are giving evidence about the same crime. Call it Crime #1. That’s why it counts to figuring out if Bob is guilty of Crime #1. In Scenario 3, you are trying to introduce evidence that Bob was guilty of Crime #2 to show he’s guilty of Crime #1. Doesn’t count. Mr. Consistency retains his title.

It may be a good rule to live by, but it isn’t part of what we consider to be a fair trial. You need to show that Crime #1 and Crime #2 are directly linked, like two murders caused by the same bullet or something. Without that protection, if there was a robbery, cops would just arrest the last guy that was convicted of robbery and put him a trial. He would always have an uphill battle.

Reminds me of Casablanca - “Round up the usual suspects”. I’m sure some countries operate that way - but none that I’d ever want to live in.

I assume your next point is going to be “Courts is courts; tribunals is tribunals. Let’s have different procedures”. It’s just really not something I’m comfortable with … using completely unproven accusations to help convict someone? It conjures up images of The Crucible / Salem witch trials, which was an allegory for the McCarthy hearings as I’m sure you know.

FYI - I am open to using proven prior rape convictions to convict someone of rape in a campus hearing. But I think they should often be expelled the first time anyway, so whatever.

As an aside, that’s why assuming non-independence between rape events is important to the math. But it isn’t allowed by the courts.

Also, I tried to follow your formula in post #499. I don’t think I understand your derivation and/or your mathematical definitions of true vs. false, rapist vs. non-rapist. Can’t comment further unless you want to detail it more.

dstark - Sorry if you thought my post was below the belt. I obviously missed the mark with my humor. But on a serious note - when people are saying “Completely unproven accusations can be used to help convict someone” then I have to get off that train. It’s fine bravado, but if you’re in a position of responsibility then you just can’t go there. You’re right “fair” is a cultural construction - I’m guilty, but I believe I’m well in the center of American jurisprudence.

Also - your question about extreme cases - as I said, it’s not a realistic model but considering extreme cases is a typical line of reasoning used in an applied math class. It’s often a simple way to check if a formula is right without having to do a lot of work. But if those weren’t the type of classes you took in college then I think we should try to find approaches we both are familiar with instead.

543

If Clare and Alice were part of the same hearing and thus both had to present evidence and could be questioned, that would be ok. But not if the accusation by Clare, is used to find bob guilty of assault on Alice. And then the now proven assault on Alice could be used to find him guilty of assault on Clare. That sounds contrary to any definition of a fair proceeding.

The school certainly should investigate a second complaint and look for evidence to support it. If none, then really has no place in Alice’s hearing.

544

@momrath the Jezebel article also refers to a Title IX complaint:

"Adam filed a complaint against Paul with a student organization to which both men belonged. But it wasn’t until after Sulkowicz’s story went public that Adam seriously considered reporting the alleged assault to Columbia. Last fall, after years of agonizing over whether or not to come forward, he filed a Title IX complaint. That case is currently pending.

Cathy Young did not reach out to Adam. It’s not clear she even knows that Adam exists, or that Paul—who Adam says is aware that another sexual assault charge dangles over his technically clean record—told Young. When we reached out to Young about the omission, Young replied, “As I’m sure you are aware, all pending sexual assault investigations at CU (and other schools, I’m sure) are supposed to be kept strictly confidential.”

Of the Daily Beast piece, Adam scoffs that apart from the disservice it does to Paul’s alleged victims, it “invalidates and completely erases my entire experience.” "

545

Al and CF, I’m not sure how you can model when the charges are so different, groping may be harassment or a misdemeanor conduct in the criminal system ifi that but is not the same as a charge of rape. So to predict that someone who gets charged with a misdemeanor would accelerate their criminal behavior to a felony offense feels well improbable. It would be like saying that a kid caught with less than an ounce of pot would have x probability of later being caught with heroin or the kid that sells their Ritalin is going to start selling crack. I’m just not sure you could ever reach a probability that would be accurate and/or would not be considered profiling. I’m just not a statistician obviously.

546

@marie1234 said similar many a pages ago - “Advocates will never be satisfied” (paraphrased, but very close). And they are proving marie correct.

It is not difficult to see what happened for college females got sold a bill of goods by the language used by advocates in describing and pushing tribunals.

Being encouraged not to go the police (too difficult a task to go through) and guided towards the tribunals (presented as an easier path to some finding of guilt, as compared to the police), many heard this as tribunals are essentially a rubber stamp of their accusation if they just show up and make it. Kind of hard not to take it that way.

Well, it turns out the only way the tribunals are actually easier is if the process runs rough shod over the accused’ ability to defend themselves and the accuser is not directly challenged as to her claims. That process is being challenged vigorously.

The end result is many females making accusations went into the tribunals thinking they were going to get some disciplinary action by the schools, even if their cases were weak to non-existent. Pretty much a guilt by accusation meme. We see it here in this thread - this concept that if one is accused then one is probably guilty. That is really stuff of repressive totalitarian regimes.

Therefore, anything short of getting 100% of what alleged victims want in terms of punishment seems like a loss because tribunals were supposed to be whole lot easier for all female accusations, not just some. Thus, no one is happy from the accuser to the accused and everyone in between.

547

This is a litlle condescending… In the legal system, we aren’t going for 100 percent proof. There are various standards. We don’t need to use extreme cases.

If extreme cases prevent us from disciplining actual guilty parties, we may be moving beyond reasonable doubt. I am talking about reasonable doubt when looking at multiple cases… Not a specific case.

Preventing us from discipling actual guilty parties might be fair. What is fair is subjective.

I feel better. I did not say Paul abused Emma. I did say Paul did it. I meant at least one of the two assaults.

I did say Adam’s accusation increases the chance Emma’s accusation is more probable. I said something like that.

548

The one thing that resonates with me about trying cases in a tribunal is self incrimination.

If what the accused says in a tribunal can be used in a court of law that is scary.

I understand not using multiple accusations to discipline somebody. That is fair to the accused.

I can see why victims don’t report.

549

The claim made by Adam seems like the words “sexual assault” might have been carefully chosen. I think if he was alleging rape he would have said so. What he is claiming could be similar to Josie’s story (forced attempt to kiss), or it could be much more serious. I too am waiting for more independent verification of his complaint.

I also wondered if the organization Adam and Paul both belonged to was the same one Emma was in, because reaction in the literary club was swift once Emma filed.

"On April 29, Nungesser was startled to find in his inbox an email to the ADP listserv from a senior officer of the society announcing that a male ADP member and house resident had been accused of rape by a female member who was pressing charges within the university system. Saying that other members had said they “feel uncomfortable” around the accused, the ADP officer wrote, “separate from the case itself, the E[xecutive] Board believes that the male member has flagrantly violated his vows, disregarded his obligations as a Member, and has transgressed the rules of life—violations that calls (sic) for the immediate expulsion of the male undergraduate member.”

The ADP officer went on to say that the alleged offender would be offered a chance to resign voluntarily and that if he refused, a hearing would be held on his termination. In a follow-up email the next day, the officer reported that the accused had said the university was allowing him to stay at ADP, and concluded by acknowledging that “all members deserve due process, as well as an opportunity to tell their side of the story.” (The ADP officer did not respond to requests for comment on this article.)"—from the Daily Beast article

Also, here is an organization that thinks a complaint is enough to get rid of you:

http://columbiaspectator.com/news/2014/10/01/columbia-university-marching-bands-sexual-assault-policy-stems-members-personal

"The Community Standards Agreement treats all allegations of assault as truth, and stipulates that Bored members must take steps against any member reported as an alleged assailant.

“We don’t care if something is not confirmed, we aren’t interested in having alleged perpetrators in our group,” CUMB Head Manager Edith Lerner, BC ’16, said in an official statement. “We recognize that there could be problems with the policy, but we wanted it implement it [sic] right away so that our new members this year knew right off the bat what our values are and how serious we are about our community.”

According to the band, the policy has already been used to prohibit two alumni from coming to band events.

One of the alumni was expelled at the request of another band member, who asked to remain anonymous because she had reported her alleged assault anonymously to the Title IX Office. The student told Spectator that the alumnus allegedly rubbed her back, kissed her neck, and tried to pick her up at a band member’s personal party in January 2014.

The anonymous band member responded that she did not consider the incident sexual harassment, but rather sexual assault, and the zero tolerance policy should be enacted immediately. The band followed through."

Not saying people would necessarily abuse this policy, but gosh, what if you REALLY wanted to be 1st Clarinet? Make an allegation, and it’s yours! Just kidding.

550

bearpanther I don’t care of you are kidding or not, that is shocking that an organization would choose that stance. Frankly kids are better off if they DO NOT participate in such a closed and narrow minded group. Yuck and double yuck. If that’s the type of society our young people envision, I sincerely hope I’m feeble minded before they rise to the ranks of power. Where are they getting this perverse ideas about our constitution - or are they no longer teaching American history? OMG.

551

Bearpanther, thanks for the link. I liked your Stanford link too.

That policy is pretty damn tough. How prevalent was sexual harassment in that band? To come up with a policy like that…

552

@bearpanther it does look other media outlets are having an issue independently verifying the “Adam” story. It has been out there long enough that there should be other reports that do not just quote the Jezebel article.

Despicable if someone would pull a stunt like that to set Ryan up.

553

dstark - It sounds like there was some miscommunication. As they say, “Words are the source of misunderstandings.” But just so you know that I’m not crazy, here’s how the probability conversation between us began. I believe the first post was yours, directed at me by name (#201)

Since the only thing Paul had said was that he didn’t rape Emma, it seemed like you were saying that the odds he was guilty of raping Emma had gone up by virtue of Adam’s accusation (let’s ignore the other two non-Adam people, which I hope you agree isn’t a relevant issue). And I read the later use of the pronoun “it” literally - as referred to one thing. Hope you can see why I’d interpret those comments as I did.

The only thing I conclude is that trying to talk statistics through a series of posts is impossible. Let’s talk about other, more interesting, stuff. Like the best way to watch paint dry.

554

@bearpanther the thing that struck me a while go when I read the quote from the ADP officer was the wording:
“separate from the case itself……………” Leading me to believe that there were issues with him separate and apart from the whole Emma thing.

555

Ok…

We have a legal system that is slanted. The system favors the accused. I am ok with this.

The schools are also slanted towards the accused.

So calling these systems fair is a little bizarre to me.

The systems in place are not fair to victims. As a society, we have decided we would rather punish fewer guilty parties than punish innocent people.

So…

What should a victim decide to do after she has been assaulted?

Common sense says pursuing a case against an attacker is a losing battle in a vast majority of cases. The process is also horrible.

So you end up with victims not pursuing cases, losing cases, or not getting the results they think is fair.

Common sense…what works better? Changing the way we look at sexual assaults so there are fewer sexual assaults. By definition, this will give us fewer victims. Eventually this will also give us fewer false accusations. Eventually.

People like Emma, the girl you mentioned at UNC, the so called activists, are trying to change to culture so there are fewer sexual assaults. Our culture does not change by itself.

556

Education for sure but perhaps starting in high school or junior high… not college…I think young people and on surface it sounds like women are “confused” about what is criminal sexual behavior and what is not and how to handle teenage to young adult interpersonal relationships. How sad is it for this young women that she didn’t “get” that she should get up and walk away…and instead turns to the organization to solve her social issues or anxieties. How woefully naive is her interpretation of interpersonal behavior must be. By this age even if you aren’t sexually active you should have learned some independence and ability to navigate with the opposite sex. You can start spewing at me, but I do this this is very sad that she’s now a young adult and has what sounds like no comprehension about social interaction. So yes, college is too late to start teaching kids social skill and education. I thought that happened in the home, but apparently not.

557

Focus on prevention first. By the time we’re having a hearing, a tragedy has occurred. We’re spending too much time debating rules of procedure, not enough on prevention.

For Men - agree with momofthreeboys that we should start teaching them in high school and continue it in college. What is consent, how to treat a woman, not to take advantage of drunk girls, bystander intervention. If you’re having sex with a girl for the first time, for God’s sake talk to her. Otherwise you’re just doing it wrong, son. Appeal to their best natures. Make heroes of the good guys. The two guys who stopped the rapist at Stanford should be given the damn keys to the University. They shouldn’t have to pay for a meal in Palo Alto for the next 4 years. I’m open to disbanding fraternities. I think big-time college athletics has corrupted and is corrupted by colleges. Seems to be a source of problems. Give the accused a fair trial with appropriate due process, but show no mercy to the guilty ones.

For Women - teach them how to stop an acquaintance rape by yelling/ slapping before it happens, don’t binge drink, which they seem to be doing a lot more of. Freshman year is especially dangerous - older women can help with “street smarts”. Stay away from whatever it is that seems to draw women to “rapey” frats. Give them detailed information on what to do if something happens - call this number immediately, none of this waiting around 8 months stuff, if you want justice we need to get the evidence now. File a report with somebody immediately, even if you end up not wanting to pursue. They need to be taught this on day 1 of college because after something happens they’ll be too upset to think straight. Good, compassionate handholding through the possible processes - police, college office, etc. Hire more women into the sexual assault units of police forces. Maybe rely on police more. And for God’s sake, don’t text your rapist “I love you”.

558

Do you really believe that DStark (your post 554)? In courts of law, the accuser has the state behind him or her. The case is not John Doe against John Smith it is the state against John Smith. The accuser has the benefit of law enforcement and prosecutors and the the general belief among many in the public that the accusation probably means the accused is guilty. The defendant, if he or she has a lot of money,has a good team of defense lawyers. If not, an overworked public defender who is much more likely to plea the case out. In general, but not always, the police are more interested in closing the case and the prosecutor is more interested in getting the win, than they are with the absolute truth. The reason we have laws to protect defendants is precisely because the odds are so stacked against them. No way is the slant against the accuser.

OTOH, a prosecutor does not want a loss. Thus, if the case is weak they are more likely to plea it down or find they can’t indict. In that sense, there are bad guys that get away with crimes. Not because the system is stacked against the victims, but because there is just no evidence to support the charges. As said over and over, the basic tenet of our legal system is that the state has to prove its case using evidence.

Rape, especially acquaintance rape and especially a case that starts consensual and turns criminal, is very difficult to prosecute because (as has been said before), sexual activity is legal among two consenting adults. Other crimes are always illegal, yet criminals still get off because there is no evidence. \

Yes we need to believe the accusers in rape cases. But with no other evidence but her word, it is often impossible to find the accused guilty.

559

ETA sorry , intervening posts. Referring to post 555

^^^^And here is why I think some people dismiss a lot of women who claim to have been assaulted. This guy sounds like he was trying to get something going, and maybe creeped her out—I would have felt cool with it HAD she called it harrassment, as I think you could make a case for that, but sexual assault? I mean, I don’t think the police would press charges for a back rub and a bad pick up line. Saying that this event and say, what happened at Vanderbilt are both sexual assault is what causes problems in belief and understanding for a some of the population.

You know, in life, there are lots of people you don’t like. They make you uncomfortable, or “rub you the wrong way”, or just annoy you. But none of those things is a crime

And no, I wasn’t really kidding. I think the policy is terrible. I would not recommend joining the Columbia marching band for 2 reasons:

  1. The policy is ridiculous and I could not agree with its enforcement as written (no substantiating proof required, just an accusation)

  2. If the sexual assault climate is that bad in the band, why subject yourself to that environment?

560

Someone (sorry, so many posts that I can’t remember whose) asked about the evidentiary distinction between two scenarios - 1) victim is assaulted - witness hears/sees assault and is permitted to testify; 2) victim is assaulted - witness also claims assault by same perpetrator and may not be permitted to testify - and asked why the distinction.

In the first scenario the witness is providing direct evidence about the occurrence of the crime that is charged. In the second scenario, the witness will not be permitted to testify if her testimony is judged to be intended to speak to the character of the accused. To put it simply, in our criminal justice system, we don’t want the prosecutor to be able to argue that because the defendant is a jerk or even because he has perhaps done something similar in the past that this means he is guilty of the crime in question. However, if the evidence is being introduced for a purpose other than to impugn the character of the defendant, it may be allowed. So, for example, if a new victim came forward to accuse Bill Cosby of a recent rape, the court might allow testimony of other women with similar claims if that testimony spoke to a signature aspect of the crime (that Cosby encouraged his victims to drink something he provided, that they then felt woozy and passed out; that they awoke to find themselves having been sexually assaulted).

The evidentiary rules and burden of proof in the criminal court are intended to protect the defendant because his personal liberty is at stake. In the college setting, the accused has chosen to attend a private institution. That institution is entitled to have standards for keeping its campus safe. As long as everyone understands how grievances will be adjudicated, I think it’s okay for the evidentiary standards and burden of proof to be different than what is applied in the criminal justice system. We may not want to convict a person of rape against victim A based on evidence that he is a rapist and therefore must have raped in this instance (scenario one above), but I think we do want him removed from a college campus.