Emma Sulkowicz's Alleged Attacker speaks again in new article

Parents Forum
721

I agree all these things are relevant to Columbia when considering their options. Although I think an argument could be made that with regard to the Academic Freedom clause that the project is not “germane to classroom subject matter.” The project is first and foremost a response/protest of one individual student against a finding by a university tribunal in a sexual assault case. But I will acknowledge I have absolutely no experience with these sorts of clauses.

But it does beg the question that if the university wanted to put some parameters on this project, why would the administration not work directly with the professor to define those parameters BEFORE the project was approved?? It would have been then that the university would have had the most leverage. If Emma did not agree to some boundaries then sorry no approval. And would the protest have continued for so long if there was not academic credit involved? I don’t know.

But by far I think your “D” is what Columbia might be most concerned with. And rightfully so. Distinguished universities like Columbia pride themselves on being havens of free speech and thought. And when you add to that the climate we currently have on campuses along with the national focus on sexual assault, it appears that Columbia understands quite well that stopping the project might not bode well for its reputation. But thats the way the world works in general. You can have all the policies and contractual obligations that you want, but if practical considerations such as loss of reputation or loss of a substantial client or revenue come into play, the contracts or policies go out the window.

But more importantly, Paul is not asking Columbia to do anything. And I cannot help but take note that despite all the criticism lobbed at Emma for not following through with formal prosecution, here we have Paul doing the same thing by failing to file complaints with the university for harassment.

722

JHS, remember that the Yale scenarios assume that the facts are proved. In the case of Ryo and Casey, where Casey said “Stop” and Ryo didn’t stop, in practice they’re not going to expel unless Ryo admits that he/she did it. Notice that in the scenario, Ryo does admit that they did it: “Ryo apologizes, but says they were past the point of interruption.” So, if Ryo defends themself not by saying they didn’t do it, but by admitting they did it but asserting that they were past the point of interruption, then the board is going to say, “Your studies, however, are not past the point of interruption. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

JHS, IIRC you’ve previously said that in preponderance of the evidence cases, the board has to decide whether the preponderance of the evidence favors the accuser or the accused. I don’t agree with this-- I take dstark’s view that in a lot of cases, there isn’t any preponderance of evidence. In the case of Ryo and Casey, if there was nothing but their words, and Ryo denied it, I wouldn’t say the preponderance of the evidence favored Ryo, I wouldn’t say it favored Casey, I’d say there wasn’t any preponderance, and I wouldn’t impose discipline.

Someone on this board, I can’t remember who, actually gave the Ryo excuse: they asserted that there would be cases they wouldn’t be able to stop if told to stop, because they were beyond the limit of being able to stop. So I can see Ryo saying that to the disciplinary board.

723

She did that. That’s how his name got out-- it was on the complaint.

724

CF I am not clear the difference between 1 and 2 in the level of bad behavior. 2 seems just as bad as 1, but 1 is definite expulsion (assuming that Ryo concedes the facts as presented). Ainsley seems to have withdrawn consent earlier in the activity.

725

Re the new Yale policy:

Changes zilch. All these types of policies do is change the goal post at which the accuser is kicking at. So now the new goal post is time. Great - something that no one can keep track of without video or audio.

Female: “I told him to stop, but he kept going.”

Male: “I did stop once she told me to.”

Female: “He seemed not to care about what I was saying.”

Male: "I did care, and I did stop.’

Female: “But it took him a long time.”

Male’ “I am sure I stopped immediately.”

Adjudicators to Female and Male: “Were you drinking?”

Both Male and Female; “Yes, we were.”

Adjudicators: "So exactly how do both of you know exactly what was said and how much time elapsed between these events? Do you have video or audio about what happened?

Female: “No, but I am positive this happened like I said.”

Male: “No, but I am positive this happened like I said.”

Adjudicators: “Case closed.” or in the new regime both get punished somehow.

This is an issue is mainly of intoxicated young people who are confused about what they are doing, and then trying to talk with certainty as if they were sober and now Yale want non-sober people to keep track of time. These kids cannot even keep track of their darn clothes, much less seconds and minutes on a clock.

I am convinced that the new, and inevitable, push to punish both parities somehow comes from the fact that possibly some doctors or public health officials got to the schools and told them that it is impossible to determine what occurred between people who are drinking, and that what people say happened is automatically suspect.

As I stated earlier in the thread, there is no doctor on the planet that would be an expert witness for a drinking female to support the fact that even though she was drinking, she knew what she was doing and is accurate in her account. Same goes for the male, no doctor would support him in that regard. Therefore, it becomes a wash real fast.

And this once push that it is all up to the male to determine if both parties are capable of consent will go by the wayside towards a more equal it requires both parties to have some level of responsibility` about giving and receiving consent (incapacitation cases excepted). Basic common sense in my book.

726

@mom2and, You’re talking about the scenarios labelled 1- Ryo and Casey, and 5- Devin and Ansley?

Casey’s instructions to stop were clear and unambiguous: “Casey says ‘wait – stop – that hurts.’” Ryo used force. “Ryo nonetheless continues for several more minutes, **restraining Casey. **”

Ansley’s withdrawal of consent is ambiguous: “I’m not sure,” “Ansley inches backwards.” Devin does not use force. “Ansley… becomes still.”

I would make a distinction between Ryo, who heard an unambiguous withdrawal of consent and who used force while ignoring it, and Devin, who experienced a less clear lack of consent and who didn’t use force. Ansley could have stopped Devin (maybe, probably), but Casey tried to stop Ryo and couldn’t.

I don’t have experience with these disciplinary board, but al2simon, who does, says that students tend to tell the truth. If scenario 1 is as Casey says, but Ryo lies, there’s not much to be done. But Ryo might tell the truth in the mistaken belief that they are justified.

727

“No matter what skills we teach a woman, she may still be raped. It is not completely within her control, no matter how careful and savvy…”

What do you think the risk reduction would be for a female college student if she does just this and only this one thing? While at college, drink no high proof alcohol and limit yourself otherwise to one beer or glass of wine per hour.

I have no data, but my guess is that the risk probably goes down 50-90%. For my daughters, I’m putting ALL my eggs in that single basket and no eggs in any other baskerts being discussed – culture changing efforts, banning frats, title ix, college tribunals and other college policies, reforming police departments, etc. etc. etc.

It is not victim blaming to tell my daughter to wear suncreen, wear her seatbelt and refrain from getting falling down drunk doing shots of vodka or tequila. Always having a buddy probably drops the risk a good bit more in addition.

728

I agree with you northwesty and I tell my D the same and will recommend many more safeguards as well. But I would also ask you this - what do you think the risk reduction for female college students would be if male students limit themselves to one beer or glass of wine per hour and drink no high proof alcohol?

729

The restraint may be the issue in the Ryo situation. It just seems the way it was presented that Ainsley was clearly not interested. I guess the extent to which that was communicated to Devin would mean the difference between suspension or expulsion.

730

“Changes zilch. All these types of policies do is change the goal post at which the accuser is kicking at. So now the new goal post is time. Great - something that no one can keep track of without video or audio.”

Totally.

As I said up thread, in this area the proof is about 100X more important than all of the other legal considerations combined (like the preponderance standard, the definition of consent, etc.).

That’s why I tell my daughter one other thing (in addition to staying away from the vodka shots). If you have a problem, go bat-sh*t crazy. Colllege guys doing this aren’t using weapons. Scream, throw laptops, turn over furntiture, pull the fire alarm, etc. First, that will stop the dude who “can’t stop himself” immediately; a smashed flat screen TV definitely kills the mood. Second, if all the ruckus doesn’t stop the rape it will go a very long way towards proving that it happened.

FYI, it is much easier to go batsh*t crazy if you aren’t falling down drunk…

731

The risk for your daughter would go down considerably. And that’s good.

But sexual assault rate for the college would go down zero, because the rapist who was going to rape your daughter will go rape someone else. And that’s bad.

Also, why are we putting up with this? Lots of people like whisky and other high-proof alcohols. But now we’re adding yet another restriction to already circumscribed women, a restriction that men don’t have to face: Scotch tastes good but you can’t have it, though men can; it would be convenient to park your car in that lot over there but you can’t, though men can; you’d like to just walk home through those streets, but you can’t, though men can; a guy can stay at his friend’s place at night, because he’s too drunk to go home or it’s cold, but you can’t stay at your male friend’s place; a guy can network for work in another city by staying at a contact’s home, but you can’t, a guy can enjoy some sexual activities with a woman but stop at actual intercourse, but you can’t. And if you do one of those things and get raped, it’s your fault and we have no sympathy for you.

I like this story about Golda Meir, though I don’t know if it’s true:

732

Yale is finding people guilty of offending against the nonconsensual sex rules without raping, so presumably the rules are having some effect.

For me, though, the rules and the scenarios are more for establishing the expectations than for punishing people: if she says “Stop,” stop now, not in two minutes; if he says he’s not sure, wait until he is sure; don’t assume you have consent for one sex act if you have consent for another sex act; if he pulls away from you and stops moving, find out what’s going on instead of just going ahead; if she is stumbling and vomiting, this is not a good time for sex even if she is willing.

733

I find it very sad and somewhat bizarre that colleges have sex rules as though it’s some kind of regulated EC. But, if it’s not criminal conduct, fine. whatever.

734

^Yes, it is very sad that people should need to be explicitly told to stop if their partner has revoked consent.

735

@HarvestMoon1 - Well, some other posters have been criticizing Emma for not going to the police, but I don’t think I’ve been one of them. I haven’t critiqued the “too draining” line, though I think it was ill-put at best. I’m pretty matter of fact about it and agree with Hunt - there just isn’t a criminal case and everyone, including Emma, knows it. But that’s due to the nature of the case, not a sign that she’s not credible.

But I think I’ve been consistent - I said that if Paul doesn’t file a complaint then he’ll get absolutely nothing. He should stand up for his own best interests, however he determines it after getting good advice.

From the peanut gallery, I’d wish Columbia could stop the behaviors that cross the line into harassment. But if I were Columbia, I wouldn’t do it unless he filed a grievance. Peanuts get to be reckless; presidents don’t; I try to see it from both angles.

You may be right that D is foremost in Columbia’s mind. But I think A is the worst substantively. I agree with you that if Paul doesn’t complain then he’s out of luck.

Should the administration have worked with the professor? Well, at a university like Columbia a professor can be pretty autonomous when it comes to supervising academic work. That’s one of the perks. The professor may not have even asked the administration. If I were the professor, I would have asked the university for legal advice to help keep Emma and the University out of legal trouble. But I might not care what else they had to say, particularly if I were tenured.

736

Well, hang on. Revoking consent and telling him to stop are the same thing aren’t they? How else would he know? And, being in bed with him the first place for no reason is also slightly puzzling. But, then again if they are both drunk and retelling the story months later we still have the proof problem which I agree with others is ultimately the only problem after the fact. What a mess.

737

What makes you think that parents don’t tell their sons not to drink hard liquor and not to drink to excess? In addition to worries about sexual assault, there is just the plain old worry about a kid getting hurt or into trouble because they are excessively drunk. If kids abide by those rules, then there will be a great reduction in the problem. Unfortunately, there are many parents that don’t seem to give that message and/or kids that listen to this. My friend was saying that her daughter’s high school friends who are college freshman were drunk 4-5 nights per week during the fall semester. That is third-hand hearsay, but doesn’t sound like the message of controlling drinking is getting through. And probably similar for the boys, but she was telling me about girls.

The answer is that both genders should refrain from getting excessively, black-out drunk. Not necessarily to just avoid sexual assault, but to avoid many bad things. I don’t think any responsible person is saying that girls should avoid vodka shots, but the boys should go ahead and drink to excess. We also need to recognize that not drinking to excess also protects the girl from making some really bad decisions. Look at Jane in the Occidental case. She may have won, but the reality is that a large number of people reading the articles about her case, as well as the kids that saw her that night, think that she made some very bad decisions (because they made her unhappy later). Some girls (as well as guys) lose their inhibitions when drunk and do things they very much regret later. Why wouldn’t a parent point out that doing vodka shots are likely to lead down a bad road?

Of course the goal is to have drunken girls not be more vulnerable to sexual assault. I doubt that will ever happen. Even if it does, until things change, it makes sense to tell girls to take special precautions. That is a reality of life as a woman, and to some extent, even as a man. Colleges tell kids, especially women, not to walk home alone late a night but use the escort service. There are signs in many parking lots that say to take your valuables. You don’t leave your purse wide open with money hanging out and walk away. Not drinking to excess is a similar warning. Protecting ones self against bad people is a fact of life that we all have to deal with in one way or another.

If enough kids, boys and girls, followed this or colleges worked a bit harder to crack down, the overall rate would drop.

By the way, in the Occidental case it said that John was drinking to excess due to hazing requirement of his water polo team. If John was expelled, why wasn’t any action taken on the team due to hazing? Very dangerous practice. Team should have been suspended IMO.

738

The problem with this Meir quote is it does not apply to the overwhelming majority of college cases, so putting it out there like it is something useful in this discussion is a total misrepresentation and mischaracterization. Sounds like a great political talking point, but it ends there as a descriptor.

These college cases are nothing close to what Meir was talking about, which was violent rape, often preceeded by kidnapping and similar types of detention. Meir was referencing females who were in danger of simply being out in the streets.

Additionally, Meir was not even including or addressing the issue of mutual intoxication and mutual agreed to activity at some point, but with no disernible way of determining what really occurred because neither party really knew what took place. That was never part of the calculus for her statement.

Great talking point though, but this conflation that everything is equivalent to violent rape is just bizarre reasoning, and using Meir’s quote just shows how bizarre that position is.

739

"what do you think the risk reduction for female college students would be if male students limit themselves to one beer or glass of wine per hour and drink no high proof alcohol? "

If the boys and the girls both did this, I’d guess 95% reduction. Maybe more. That’s why I like what Dartmouth and UVA are doing.

Also why I would make 18-21 legal drinkers for beer and wine. If that happened, OCR could declare victory and get out of the campus sex business.

740

Well, I love the Golda Meir quote. CF , thanks for posting it.

My wife would like men to have a curfew. She has talked about this several times. 7 PM? 8 PM?

She is willing to negotiate the time. :slight_smile:

We ask women to protect themselves. Don’t get too drunk. Watch what you are wearing. Check your surroundings. Watch people. Etc…

Is it really too much to ask men not to get so drunk they are unaware of their own e@@@@@@@@and what they do with these @@@@@@@@@?

Really? That is asking too much?