See now there’s a term I never heard until this thread: bunny boiler? Just looked it up and quite the throw back to Fatal Attraction. Have yet to read the NY Time article so no comment on the story.
@alh - Well, the fact that some fraternities are off campus is true, but I think it’s a bit of a red herring. Colleges don’t really enforce drinking laws for parties that are on campus, in university dorms, etc. Why?
Big picture, I’d say it’s because, by and large, no one really wants them to – not the boys, not the girls, not the parents, not the alumni, not the town, not the public health officials. Society views underage drinking by college students as “normal” foolish behavior that most people do.
People drink plenty outside of fraternities. Prohibition didn’t work a hundred years ago. It’s like whack-a-mole. If they shut down frat parties with alcohol then the parties would just occur somewhere else. If colleges targeted just the frats then the frat members and alumni would complain, but if they targeted underage drinking in general then everyone would complain. And the university does have some limited influence over an organization like a fraternity; they have none over a decentralized set of dorm and apartment parties.
The public health argument is the best one. Most people believe that all you’ll do is force the drinking underground, where it’ll take even more dangerous forms – think pre-gaming taken to an extreme. Binge drinking, alcohol poisoning will go up. Colleges focus on the health issues, not the legal issues. For example, if a kid is found incapacitated, he’ll be taken to the student medical center and treated (or just observed until he’s sober), but not face any consequences at all. The reason for this is to encourage students to get help for their friends who need it – nobody wants a kid to die from alcohol poisoning because their friends were afraid of getting disciplined.
I don’t think anyone seriously proposed trying to ban drinking. People have focused on trying to eliminate the worst aspects of it, like binge drinking, hazing, or students doing stupid things while drink like falling into a canyon. Success has been limited.
Colleges will shut down dorm parties, but only if they get out of hand. Otherwise they turn a blind eye. Off campus frat parties require the municipal police, but colleges don’t want their students arrested and try to work with city officials to keep them out of trouble. Every decade or so a mayor mounts a crackdown, but this is usually either because some town residents were vandalized and are complaining, or because town-gown relations have gotten poor and this is a way to retaliate against the university. It’s not about the drinking. Police don’t really have the resources either.
Are powerful frat alumni to blame? I guess it’s possible, but IMHO this isn’t really the problem. Society views underage drinking by college students as “normal” foolish behavior. If there were a big cocaine problem and the colleges decided to crack down on cocaine use then I think everyone including the frat alumni would be supportive.
Oh, and I never heard “bunny boiler” before either. Not sure I’ll use it too much myself.
^thanks
“Please stop called female students “coeds.””
I type with only two fingers. “Coed” is much more efficient than “female undergraduate college student.”
The Stanford gal in the NY Times story seems to have issues; the Stanford mentor seems to as well. Pretty juicy story – she’s a professional model in addition to being a Stanford student; he’s a wealthy tech entrepreneur that likes things rough. The alleged rapes happen in fancy houses and swank hotels. More 50 Shades than bunny boiler.
Unbelievable that she winds up at UVA of all places and gets woven into the Rolling Stone thing…
tbf: many parents who post on cc view underage drinking as “normal” behavior.
The NYT Magazine and the CBS article posted by @consolation have to be read together as their perspective is somewhat different. Business insider provides highly graphic details of Clougherty’s lawsuit, which go so far and beyond the NYT article, that it’s hard to believe it’s the same case.
What I don’t understand is why Stanford paid a settlement to Clougherty. Was it because they didn’t initially investigate Lonsdale for sexual assault as claimed by Clougherty? Ultimately Stanford found him responsible for sexual misconduct and harassment. The misconduct I get, though it seems the rules concerning relationships between mentors and students were not clearly defined. Harassment, though? It’s either too much or not enough.
If Clougherty provided Stanford with the same allegations presented in her lawsuit, it doesn’t make sense that Stanford didn’t investigate Lonsdale responsible for sexual abuse, not just misconduct. Something doesn’t add up.
Clougherty’s UVA + Rolling Stone connection is a chilling example of how rape victim advocacy stories take on a life of their own: UVA’s president called Clougherty " the survivor of a ‘brutal assault inflicted on her at another university.’ " No “alleged” here either.
The NYT author Emily Bazelton has a law background and writes about the legal aspect of women’s issues. I hope she comments further as both civil cases unfold.
Edit: forget Business Insider, this Clougherty’s lawsuit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/254025411/Formation-8-Joe-Lonsdale-Lawsuit
Major discrepancies here (so it seems) between the details in the lawsuit and the scenario described by Bazelton, who said she gathered information over seven months. Also, it seems unbelievable that had Stanford had access to the information in the lawsuit that they wouldn’t have acted more forcefully.
It seems reasonably clear that Clougherty’s allegations have been a work in progress that has, um, evolved over time. It also seems like – as in some of the other cases – her mother has a lot to do with things. Not that I condone the guy’s behavior at all – I am not weeping big tears for his public humiliation here.
But I will say this: Protecting screwed-up, gold-digging models and their tiger moms from developmentally stunted twenty-something zillionaires, and vice versa, is not a core mission of a university, any more than deciding when exactly Casey withdrew consent mid-coitus and whether whatever Ryo was doing at the time constituted restraint or hugging. It is crazy, just crazy, to make the university the centerpiece of this. It should kick whatsisname out of the mentoring program – you don’t need a fancy hearing for that – and make certain that Clougherty’s grade was not affected, either way, by her affair and its end. It should educate resident students about consent, and isolate and remove those whose conduct clearly falls outside of the normal range of awkward young-adult behavior. That’s it.
Same reason companies settle lawsuits from employees and former employees every day, even though the Company may not be more than 1% involved. Even if the claim has zero basis (any lawyer can take a case on contingency and it doesn’t cost much to file a complaint; like venture capitalists, PI attorneys work on volume) the companies settle to make it ‘go away’; it reduces future legal fees and bad press.
Your reading seems way too political (read as lenient) in its approach because you agree with her position. And, I am pretty sure it would not pass in other situations.
I am not saying shut down her free speech; I am saying that another student should not be allowed to label or to call another student names in demand for an action to said student by the university. In short, I see this no different than trying to get vigilante justice, in addition to harassment.
I do not see Emma’s actions any different than if I got into an argument with my roommate, then went to dean and charged him with stealing $1000 and punching me. The school adjudicates and finds my roommate not responsible, and I did not prove my case. I appeal, and I lose again.
And in advent of the school’s decision, I then to walk around with a large sign with a picture of a burglar saying that “abusive ghetto thieves and thugs should not be allowed on campus.” It is my project to protest the school does not do enough to protect students and to signify applicant screening is inept.
And when asked, I make clear to the university I am not stopping until my roommate is expelled because he hit me and stole from me. Everyone knows who my roommate is, and everyone on campus knows of whom I am referring. Yet, even though my charges were found not to substantiated, I say and act like my roommate is guilty.
And if my roommate were black and I did that, I bet hands down that Columbia would ask me to stop or would charge me with harassment of him.
Therefore, I do find such actions that clearly refer to a known student on a college campus to be harassment, and essentially not stopping such activity codifies that gossip and name-calling of a specific student are just fine, even if charges are not substantiated. I could have just made up the charges too, and my roommate is innocent. Just like Emma could have easily exaggerated what took place between Paul and her. And clearly the tribunal thought she did and she escalated something into sexual misconduct that the tribunal could not find substantiated.
In the same vein, as my roommate name-calling, I do think using the word rapist and the entire school knowing who Paul is crosses the line into harassment.
This is morally-weak ground.
We do not have to go but back to the early 20th Century where many horrible things happened in the South to certain people because others chose not to complain or say anything, and just looked the other way. History is replete hundreds of other examples in other countries as well.
Thus, no one complaining is not an indication that what is happening should not be stopped, or is no one complaining acceptable ground to hide behind to do nothing. Many a bad and wrong things are allowed to happen in silence.
yes
I have always said I am “on the fence” in this case relative to the rape. What I will always stand up for is a persons right to freedom of expression. Now in any society or community you have to balance that right against the rights of other community members. That is why we have laws and universities have rules. The university does prohibit certain speech but have specifically stated in the Student Rules of Conduct which speech will be prohibited. See my post #872. She has not broken any student rule, what do you expect the university to do?
And you are free to think that but it is irrelevant to Columbia what you, or I for that matter, think. They have their own rules which they must follow.
Well that certainly sounds good awc, but an odd statement coming from someone who is always advocating that women learn to protect themselves and that they should not be depending on the good will of others. If Paul has not gone to the administration and complained that he feels harassed, and has not filed a formal complaint under the school’s Student Polices and Procedures relating to harassment, is it your position that the university could just unilaterally step in?
Given your thoughts in your last post could you then tell me if the Goldman family should have been silenced? Should all those people who harassed Casey Anthony have been silenced?
Though I agree with @JHS that Clougherty and Lonsdale probably deserved each other, what is significant to me about this case and the claim brought by one of Nusgesser’s accusers is that they involve not just one instance of physical sexual assault, but a claim of ongoing mental and emotional coercion over time.
Thus, the territory covered by Title IX has again expanded and evolved to include sexual activities in long term relationships which the claimant now contends were not consensual because she was mentally or emotionally forced to participate in actions that she didn’t particularly like. Thus far, I haven’t seen any evidence of colleges or courts accepting this rationale, but to me it’s a scary trend.
A thoughtful legal perspective from a Harvard law professor analyzing several of the types of cases we’ve been discussing, including cases arising from the breakup of long-term intimate relationships.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/
But this is the one that must have Kafka spinning in his grave:
The author’s bio: http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10356/Halley
Excellent link @momrath, thanks for posting it. She certainly sets out all the issues we have been addressing on these threads quite nicely.
One of the things she is obviously very unhappy with is the language in the university policy governing cases of incapacitation and impairment. She says the language is “asymmetrical” as to consequences relative to the complainant and the respondent, resulting in an advantage to the complainant. The language might in some cases do that, but in each particular case the facts and available evidence will be pivotal in applying that language. I think she is on firmer ground when she cites the “asymmetry” for the consequences of becoming impaired - for complainant it is the basis for a “per se finding” that the sexual conduct is unwelcome, whereas in the respondent’s case the incapacitation has no mitigating effect on his conduct at all. I think her criticism of the language here is well founded, however it is clear that the university has some sort of policy goal that it is looking to further by enacting such language. I think she acknowledges that, but can only postulate as to what the thinking was when enacting that language.
What struck me when I read her commentary was how valuable individuals such as Janet Halley could be in arriving at rules that are fair and equitable to both males and females. She is on the faculty after all and her legal background makes her uniquely qualified to sit on whatever committee might be convened to draft the language of rules that govern these university proceedings. So If universities are to be the forum for resolving these sorts of disputes, then one would think that the language would be arrived at by both men and women who would each advocate for language that would be equitable to both sides. The university certainly is not short on intellect or research, and certainly both men and women are sitting on these committees. So how is it that this language finds its way into the rules at some of our nation’s most prestigious institutions?
I have to believe that there is some underlying policy that the university is trying to further based on their collective beliefs regarding sexual assault on their campus. Halley postulates that it is an attempt to bring equilibrium to a power imbalance between males and females that exists in the drinking culture on campus. She may well be right. But it could also be that their experiences with these cases has led them to conclude that women are often at a disadvantage when it comes to meeting evidentiary thresholds because of the very nature of these incapacitation cases. But it does beg the question why we are left guessing and why there is not more transparency in what the university is trying to accomplish.
thanks for posting that link, momrath.
Re Post #911:
True-to-form, we do look at this very differently, as this thread has shown in more ways than one among disparate posters.
On the fundamentals alone, your overall take and reasoning simply does not pass common sense extrapolation.
According to your position, several sets set of students could essentially start a campaign calling another several sets of students false names and false accusations, as if the accused committed a felony. And you expect me to buy the fact that Columbia would just allow groups of students walk around campus openly disparaging other groups of students? Highly doubt it, and I doubly highly doubt it if the races of the students were deemed politically volatile. Just for the sake of how it would look in terms of campus tours, Columbia would shut it down pronto. Most importantly, I am pretty sure such actions are definitely not the intent of rulebook passages you cite.
And that is a major point you ignore, the intent of Columbia rules you cite, in both meaning and application.
I seriously doubt the intent of the Columbia rules is to allow malicious, false information and misrepresentations targeted at specific students, as a form of getting the college to do something to said students. The rules were never meant to allow such harassing and verbal bullying of another.
I also do not think, in terms of the rules’ application, that the intent is to treat Columbia campus, i.e., its private property and Columbia students as public figures, because they are not public; Columbia students signed an enrollment agreement and agree to inhabit Columbia’s private campus. Goldman family and Anthony were, public arrests, public trials and public people. Therefore, your analogy is flawed, as these were / are notoriously public figures and none of these parties were under contractual obligation to behave in a certain way on Columbia campus, as are Columbia students re Emma and Paul. I am comfortable assuming that Columbia’s intent was and is to apply the rules to foster general student well-being, each free from harassment and bullying by other students.
Additionally, I do not buy your reasoning that Columbia is following its own rules, specifically in terms of being a guardian of general student safety, of all students.
The passage you cite contains, but two possible relevant codes. You wrote as if these codes supersede all others in the rulebook. Not buying the implicit argument that these are the controlling codes. I do believe Emma’s actions, even if seemingly allowed technically by one code, has made it uncomfortable and probably even unsafe for Paul on campus ala the brick throwing at UVA where someone could have been hurt and the frat members requiring a hotel due to the vigilante atmosphere created against them from an unsubstantiated story. I am sure in the rulebooks Columbia can find more than ample grounds to stop her name-calling and harassing etc. against Paul. I understand it seems to choose not to, as of right now, but Paul is starting to use words such as defamation and harassment. Columbia knows what’s coming next.
As to Columbia acting unilaterally, I find it rather limiting how you think about it; you are definitely not thinking, as someone who leads.
Re Columbia admin and its President, in particular, it is their school, so yes, they can act unilaterally. Columbia is not some employee who is hamstrung by a rulebook, which he cannot amend. Columbia wrote said rulebook, and it can easily say that what Emma is doing runs counter to the spirit of promoting the type of cooperative student atmosphere it desires and tell her to stop. This what someone or an entity that actually leads and runs things do; they amend as needed to address new situations, not act like employees who are essentially powerless. Leaders do not hide behind rulebooks when things are awry; they take action and modify, as required.
In short, Columbia, as an entity, is acting like a coward employee when it refuses to step up and act like the leader and director of the general student environment, which it is. It is easy to read something technically, right until it is realized that what is happening was not intended to be allowed or is not representative of how a rule is to be applied. My overall take is Columbia is acting wimpy because of the politics of the situation.
At the core, Emma is just lucky that Paul is foreign, has European heritage, and did not have aggressive representation.
Things though seems to be changing with Paul. I hope so because it is about time, and I like how he called out Senator Gillibrand. I get this feeling that Columbia is going to make him quite comfortable monetarily.
It will be interesting to see what happens…
I have not a clue exactly what you mean here, but you seem to be confusing general public self-defense and contractual protection and obligations on private property by a private party.
Columbia is private school with private property. It accepted Emma and Paul, as students who both agreed to certain rules of conduct. Upon signing the enrollment agreement, both students agreed to enter the environment created by Columbia and cede part of their personal protection to the university, e.g., students cannot put their own locks on doors, and there is campus police, e.g, students cannot hire their own security guards. In this vein, I am quite sure part of that campus environment is students’ expectations to be free from harassing and bullying from other students, which I believe Emma is doing.
Therefore, on a private campus, students can be and are dependent on others to do certain things re their defense because they ceded that power as part of becoming a student.
This is not even close to the same as a female out in public, who has not ceded her self-defense to anyone else. The female in public can give up her right to most forcibly defend herself, but that is a choice. Paul has no choice based on being a student; he is dependent on the university in several respects to protect him from ill-treatment from other students, in this case, Emma.
I seem to recall a poster or two earlier saying they weren’t sure if Emma was going around calling Paul a rapist. I haven’t heard her say on camera “Paul Nungesser is a serial rapist and my rapist”, but on the video from the link in post #915, she is giving interviews saying she was raped by a serial rapist who raped her and “two other women.”
Everyone knows now she means Paul (certainly on the Columbia campus, if not the world at large), so does it matter if she doesn’t use his name? Is that a technicality to get around slander laws or Columbia honor code or something?
Anyone who hasn’t read about this case will hear her and think he raped 3 women and got away with it. I think most posters here have indicated at least some reluctance to say he raped the other 2, even if they believe he raped Emma.
Yes, I understand the scenario here.
As for me, I do not even entertain the other two. Emma is just using them to make her losing case appear publicly stronger. Those two have never filed anything against Paul with Columbia.
The people behind Emma are playing too cute by half and think they are getting away with something, but they are not. I do not know one person who does not think exactly as you write above, even if she has not said it on camera in full sentences. And I do think Paul may have an attorney now who knows how to navigate this, as Paul’s language has changed, and he is more public.
There is not one person who does not know who she is and who he is. It is lawyerly foolishness to argue otherwise that she is not referring to anyone specific when she keeps talking about her rapist.
I understand that there are posters and others who do not think what she is doing is harassment or bullying, but I do believe turnaround will be fair play soon and that her costs will come due. This is a pyrrhic victory at best, in the short term.
Since she lost twice, people are on to the fact that even those behind the tribunals do not respect the decisions, unless they win or a guy gets punished, even if found not responsible. Once that is understood, no one trusts people like that, except themselves.
I stated in my post #911 that I think universities balance the interests and rights of all community members. Freedom of expression is a very slippery slope though, especially in the university setting. But the case we are discussing doesn’t fall into the category of pulling things out of the air with no history - there IS a history here including an alleged sexual assault, a hearing and a protest regarding the finding in that hearing.
But even in totally baseless cases like those you say COULD arise, I think you would be very surprised at what one person could call another without risking reprisal in New York (although I do agree with the “reasoning” of the court in the below case):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/nyregion/court-rules-calling-someone-gay-is-not-defamatory.html
I am certain that many prospective students on campus tours have observed the protests relating to this case. This does not appear to have led them to “shut it down pronto.” As to the “intent” of the rules, courts look to “intent” when language is ambiguous, but the behavior or language complained about is so close to the rule that a “stretching” seems appropriate. I do not think there is anything ambiguous about the language prohibited in the student rules. It is quite clear what speech they will prohibit. That is NOT to say that the university could not find some other grounds upon which to shut down speech that isn’t specifically prohibited by the rules. Again they would balance one students right to freedom of expression against the rights of other students or the community at large. Did they do so in this case? At present they have not stopped any part of her protest. So I do think that says something about where they stand. I think the university has another opportunity to do that “balancing” with the upcoming graduation ceremony. It will be interesting to see what they do.
I think you should keep in mind that the president of the university is on the law school faculty and teaches classes on freedom of speech. Here is an excerpt from his bio and I do think he might have some inkling on matters relating to free speech:
OK well let’s take a look at how someone who leads thinks on this issue. In fact, the president of the university on the very subject of freedom of speech when a group of Columbia students tried to shut down speakers whose views they did not agree with:
Paul has in fact consulted with a very savvy and knowledgeable NY attorney who has experience with representing the accused in sexual assault cases. He has had the benefit of that counsel as far as I know since at least last September. I am sure he has evaluated a case for defamation and Paul’s other options under Columbia’s policies and procedures. So far nothing has been formally filed.