A woman does not rape herself. She is not responsible for her rape. The person who rapes her is responsible. Saying a woman is responsible for her rape is victim blaming.
@dstark, I never said Emma could not be part of a force for change. Your mom can be a force too. But their messages will appeal to different segments of the population. The guy I posted about who works with fraternities and sports teams at Brown seems to have a real rapport with them and a way to get the message across to those guys. I don’t know that they would feel the same message and understanding from Emma’s protest.
Abstinence, sobriety, yes means yes, mattresses—they will work on some but not others. But maybe through all the different messages EVERYONE can find a way to fix this issue.
After all of this discussion and the different points of view, I believe that there will never be one way to change everybody’s thinking and behavior.
We need different methods for different people, is all I’ve been trying to say.
Bearpanther, thanks for your explanation. Although it no longer affects me, I do not want my mom to be a force for change. 
Inside Higher Education relative to Columbia…
I’d like to comment on @Cardinalfang’s comment on my comment.
I don’t expect Sulkowicz to feel vindicated by anything less than Nungesser’s expulsion from Columbia. That’s the red line she drawn and she’s not going to back away from it. What I was disturbed by was Kirsten Gillibrand’s claim that Sulkowicz is “a woman of great courage who got no justice.”
As a United States senator and a lawyer, Gillibrand should be aware of the specifics of this case. That Sulkowicz’s complaint was heard by Columbia’s sexual misconduct board and the respondent was found not responsible (under the low bar preponderance of evidence standard). That Sulkowicz’s appeal was denied by Columbia for the same reasons. That Sulkowicz has joined a complaint filed with the OCR which is currently under investigation. That Sulkowicz has not pursued a criminal or civil case against Nungesser. That there is no direct evidence supporting either party’s claim.
The end result may not be to Gillibrand’s and Sulkowicz’s liking, but “no justice” is a severe and unfair indictment.
As a senator representing the State of New York, Gillibrand should consider all sides of this case – Sulkowicz’s, Nungesser’s and Columbia’s. By taking Sulkowicz’s part in the “no justice” stakes, she is in effect convicting Nungesser and slamming Columbia’s Title IX procedures. She has by inference accused Columbia as being part “the system that all too often sweeps sexual assaults under the rug,” an accusation which is incendiary and unfounded.
Like many college adjudications of felony sexual assault, Columbia’s proceedings were not perfect. As professors and administrators – undertrained and inexperienced in criminal law – seek to follow the OCR’s muddled instructions while protecting the rights of all students, the proceedings may be sometimes awkward and improvisional. But in no way did Columbia sweep the problem under the rug. They faced the problem as directed by the OCR and came to a reasonable conclusion, twice.
Gillibrand also wrote that Sulkowicz will carry her mattress as long as " her rapist" remains on campus – not her accused rapist, not her alleged rapist – but her rapist period. A lawyer should know better, unless her objective is to railroad and incite.
Inviting Sulkowicz to the State of the Union address was to me a blatant politicization of victim advocacy. Gillibrand is a sponsor of the Campus Accountability and Safety Act. CASA which has wide bi-partisan support consists of uncontroversial common sense suggestions. I don’t have a problem with it. But Gillibrand’s public support of Sulkowicz implies that had Columbia been in compliance with CASA, Sulkowicz would have got justice. I see that as a politician’s rhetorical leap.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-kirsten-gillibrand/carrying-their-weight-giv_b_6516630.html
I was very disappointed that Gillibrand injected herself into this matter, and as a constituent who has supported her in the past, I sent her an e-mail letting her know that I thought she was out of line
I agree with you, as I wrote in Post #659:
However, you seem to be so stuck in the victim, survivor, counselor mode that you seem not to want to acknowledge that there is more than one aspect to why a crime occurs.
A crime, including rape, is not all about the perpetrator, even though it ends with the culprit. A crime is also the result of a certain series of events and is often not the result of random events, even when it is a seemingly random crime (Hannah was a random crime of opportunity, for example).
Your post is essentially a statement of the obvious of whom is ultimately responsible, but it totally useless information to a female who has not been raped AND who desires to reduce her chances of ever being raped as much as possible. And more importantly, it does absolutely nothing to stop or reduce the number of rape victims overall.
Everybody gets who is responsible, even the perpetrator. But, in my view, I would think the main goal (and message) is to deliver useful, proactive information which actually stops a rape and reduces the number of rapes. The post has a medicinal-type quality after one gets sick, not a vaccination-type approach to prevent the sickness. It is nice, but its kind of late, as to be useful, as the rape happened. I also get it is important in the healing process. I do understand better now you are in the counselor mode, and I am in the highly proactive, shut-it-down as much as possible mode.
We differ here, I suspect: As an operating life principle, I truly believe every individual is a potential victim and thus has the foremost duty and personal responsible to look out for oneself. This duty and responsibility are ever existent, even when, say, shopping in the mall. And to forgo this duty voluntarily is a tantamount abdication of responsibility to self. No one is responsible for your immediate person and body, except you. Well, if one thinks about it, that is just common sense. (Talking about adults here, not young minors)
Others may not see and accept this personal responsibility and safety directive, as the overriding factor in a crime scenario, but I do. And I am sure most parents do when thinking about how to teach daughters and sons about staying safe.
I highly doubt parents keep repeating the mantra, you are not responsible if you are raped or attacked. What most parents would say is something like, “Whatever the situation, be smart, and do whatever you need to do to make sure you do not get into bad situation that you cannot at least try and help yourself get out of. Vigilance is important because you never really know who might want to harm you. The world is large and fun, but comes with its pitfalls as well. Always look out for them.” I would be shocked if parents are saying otherwise.
As for rape specifically, the quickest and most permanent way to actually reduce rape is to reduce the size of the playing field on which rape occurs. And said playing field involves the right environment and the right targets. Hum… There are identifiable targets in rape? Yes. And these targets can actually think and take decisions? Yes. Therefore, the easiest, fastest, and most effective way to reduce the number of rapes is to teach the targets what the playing field and conditions are, i.e., what the environments look like, how to avoid them and, if in such an environment, what not to do in them to raise one’s target acquisition profile.
I know the problem for many with the above is I did not mention the offending males. There is a reason for that - because I believe in real empowerment, not the rhetorical stuff. And the best way to really empower someone is to give them the skills to reduce and to change something in a way that is not dependent on actions of another. So frankly, if I want my sister, nieces and SILs to reduce their chances of rape as much as possible, I would advice them of methods independent of males, so that they are always in control, regardless of what a male does or tries.
But there is another reason I did not mention males, and that is males in general is not the problem, it is a subset of males who could care less what you say to them or teach them. It is a bit of wishful thinking to believe that someone who does not care what you say can be taught to think and act otherwise.
That said, all the ideas about teaching consent etc. to both males and females are definitely worthwhile, but it should be understood that such teaching will work only on males and females who follow rules and who are sober when the rules are needed to be implemented. More importantly though, bona fide rapists do not care what the rules are at all. Therefore the only way to stop them is by actual preventive actions from an outside source, especially starting with the potential targets.
I’ve wondered if Gillibrand has herself been raped. I too was surprised at what she said.
@momrath I really love your comment on this. I’ve though about Emma’s case for a few days. I originally stood by her side (and I think she’s done a good job of raising awareness of sexual assault), but you’re right - it’s not fair for her to taunt her alleged assailant like this. Gillibrand should have stayed out of the matter. He was found not guilty by Columbia, and that’s something she’ll just have to deal with. I’m still somewhat suspicious about Nungesser (who now has a whopping 4 accusers), but there’s not enough evidence to convict him of any crime. Emma shouldn’t have called him a “serial rapist,” nor should she have dropped her charges with the police to do the project.
It would have been better if his name wasn’t leaked to the press, and she did the “Carry That Weight” project to raise awareness in general. I think it’s a thoughtful project, but she didn’t have the “I want my rapist expelled” aspect of it.
I think both Nungesser and Sulkowicz have flawed narratives, but I don’t think we can do anything at this point. I’m not on anyone’s side anymore. Who really knows what happened.
Here is an interesting document I wish we’d had before in this discussion: sample accusation scenarios, together with the punishment (if any) that such accusations would result in, from Yale.
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/09/10/sexual-misconduct-scenarios-released/
I think you have to download the actual scenarios onto your own computer, so I can’t post a link, but I urge people in this thread to download them. A sample:
Note that in all cases, the listed penalty assumes that the facts have been determined and are as stated, and it’s a first offense.
Yale explicitly says that their sexual conduct rules prohibit some behavior that is legal: that is, students can be expelled for sexual behavior that is unambiguously not criminal sexual conduct. And they also say that if someone accuses someone of a crime, they’ll report the crime to the Yale police.
@al2simon your focus on Columbia’s anti-harassment policy perplexes me. You have already agreed that she has a First Amendment right to carry the mattress, and courts usually afford speech the same protection no matter how offensive it is. Ultimately the question is not whether any of us think Columbia’s anti-harrassment policy trumps her constitutional rights, but whether the law says it does.
Your posts indicate to me more than just a casual familiarity with the law, so I am not going to elaborate on the Supremacy Clause, but Columbia’s policy is secondary when the Constitution or a federal law offers her protection. If the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a protestor’s right to burn our flag in the name of self expression (sad but true), and struck down a Massachusetts law that required protestors to provide a 35 foot “buffer zone” to people trying to enter a building, do you honestly think any court is going to prevent Emma Sulkowicz from carrying a mattress around Columbia’s campus? So where does that leave Columbia?
As often is the case, Columbia’s anti-harassment policies may very well be overly broad and conflict with constitutional law. But until they are on the receiving end of a constitutional challenge, Columbia is free to enforce their policy as they see fit. But most certainly Columbia knows what federal law is and takes that into consideration when deciding if they should intervene in a particular case. I am sure they are very circumspect with situations that involve a student’s constitutional rights. Now of course Paul could have forced their hand, but he did not.
I took a very quick look at Columbia’s Student Policies and Procedures on Discrimination and Harassment. As expected the language is very broad, and rightly so as they want to encourage students to come forward. Seems to me that Paul could certainly have filed a viable complaint, and in fact I actually think he could have filed 2. He could have first filed a complaint against Emma with the Dean of the School of the Arts. That complaint would most likely allege a violation of either Columbia’s “discriminatory harassment policy” or their “gender-based harassment policy.” But he could have also gone to Columbia’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action which handles complaints by students against faculty members. If he is alleging harassment by Emma, by extension he could possibly allege harassment by the professor for approving and supervising the project.
But Paul did none of those things and I assume that Columbia knows that it would be on very tenuous legal ground to intervene. So the project continues. I have always said I am on the fence on this case, but quite frankly if Paul was feeling harassed he should have taken advantage of the remedies available to him. Your guess is as good as mine as to why he did not.
al2simon said he would allow Emma to carry the mattress, but would prohibit her from talking about Nunberger, either by name or as “her rapist”, and would require her to halt the part of the project that talks about her rapist leaving campus. Or at least, that was my understanding of his response.
Those requirements wouldn’t change the project very much.
Right, but she most likely would not agree to those prohibitions. And again, if you take a gander at the case law, speech is very much protected.
I think this case has passed the point of negotiation. That ship has sailed.
Since this thread is already all over the place, I’ll go ahead and post my thoughts on an earlier post.
al2simon posted this from a book:
al2simon went on to post:
Reportedly, Brandon Vandenburg (Vanderbilt rape trial) has two younger brothers. Cory Batey (also Vanderbilt trial) is, reportedly, one of thirteen siblings (no idea about their genders/ages). I wonder if Vandenburg’s parents and Batey’s mom are wondering how they can educate potential future victims about how to avoid being victims or if they are looking at what went wrong in their rapist boys’ lives and preventing their other kids from following in their brothers’ footsteps.
ETA: Sorry, al2simon! Not picking on you…coincidence that last two posts were somehow intertwined with mine. Love your posts!
Slate tries to untangle what’s fair when both parties are drunk.
I agree with the summary sentence of the above linked article and I agree that there are kids on college campuses that aren’t very fully formed adults and I support additional counseling services either contractually with their “town” relationships or on campus. It “feels” to me like many of these situations could use more counseling of both the kids involved.
I certainly think that multiple accusers makes it more likely that a person is an offender, especially if they are independent. But you always have to look at the specifics of the case. In the Columbia case, the accusations (at least the three that we really know something about) aren’t independent. Also, two of the three aren’t allegations of rape at all. I will confess a personal bias as well: bizarre behavior causes me to think that a person is less credible, and I consider Emma’s behavior to be bizarre in a number of respects. I know I will be told that bizarre behavior is normal in a rape victim, but in a case in which we have no hard evidence and have to draw inferences from the subsequent behavior of the people involved, I can’t really accept the idea that the accuser’s behavior whatever it is is proof that her claims are true. My best guess, based on my limited understanding of the facts, is that Paul is sexually exploitive. I wouldn’t want to guess whether he is a rapist or not–although I am influenced by the fact that the only tribunal that had the opportunity to review the facts was unable to say that he was.
Well, @Cardinal Fang, my question was a bit mean–it was in the context of your demand that another poster define “rape” after she said several times that it’s defined by state law. I will say, though, that a claim that you were screaming is really only useful if somebody else heard it–and could interpret what kind of screaming it was. Otherwise, it is the kind of detail that lawyers tease out to make the case more compelling.
Finally, I’d just like to note that there is there’s a strange conflict, in my mind, between the insistence that any reference to self-protection is victim-blaming and the reference to victims as “survivors.”
@HarvestMoon1. Here are some thoughts in response to the points you raise. Before, I was focused on taking a principled stand. But now I’ll try to think pragmatically from the perspective of the president of Columbia. You’ll probably know the legal issues better than I though. As you know, I have 0 problems with Emma’s project other than wanting her to stop talking about Paul and calling for his expulsion.
- How much 1st amendment scrutiny will the anti-harassment policy withstand? If Columbia were public, there’d be no hope. But private universities are allowed some latitude; it’s best if their policies are narrowly tailored and protect legitimate instructional goals. There isn’t much case law to know exactly where the boundaries are, but I think the general principle is accepted.
I don’t know about Columbia’s overall anti-harassment policy. But in this specific application - where an individual is being targeted for removal from campus, being called a serial rapist after being cleared, etc, and all that’s being asked is to stop the elements of the project that target the individual – I believe Columbia has a legitimate interest in seeing that Paul’s right to receive an education isn’t being significantly interfered with, and the remedy is narrowly tailored. I think it’ll survive 1st amendment scrutiny.
- But the reason I wasn’t that concerned with 1st amendment issues is that Emma has much stronger defenses:
A) Anti-Retaliation - Retaliation occurs when an alleged perpetrator … deter a reasonable person from opposing a discriminatory or harassing practice …
B ) Academic Freedom - “Prohibitions against discrimination and harassment do not extend to statements or written materials that are germane to the classroom subject matter.”
C) OCR – Columbia is now under Title IX Compliance Review
D) PR – Media attention if Emma’s project is interfered with, especially given public support from Sen. Gillibrand (NY).
I’m terrified of A. I’m pretty scared about B and C (B because Emma’s project is an academic assignment). And D ain’t no picnic.
-
If Paul doesn’t file a complaint, what do I do? Looking at this, the answer is clear – nothing. Doubt talking to Emma will be productive. Maybe see if her thesis advisor can keep Emma’s project focused on the bigger issues rather than Paul in particular.
-
If Paul does file a complaint? I’m stuck between Scylla and Charybdis. Talk to the general counsel to figure out the best thing to do, but I’m probably mentally taking a $500,000 reserve for legal fees etc. no matter what I do. Holler over to the bursar to jack next year’s tuition by another $100, and move on to the next thing on my plate.
Columbia isn’t going to do anything for Paul, other than give him his diploma. If it wanted to do anything for him, it would have let him finish up his education abroad.