I’m sorry you were raped. That must have been horrible.
Thanks. Sorry to interject this into the discussion. I am obviously biased and can see it only from a certain point of view, which is probably not fair.
If you are like many women in the Parents Forum, your college days were long ago, a time when acquaintance rape wasn’t as much talked about as it is now. I was wondering whether survivors of acquaintance rape were well represented in your rape support group, or whether it was mostly survivors of stranger rape. I wouldn’t expect that those two groups of survivors would necessarily behave the same way during or after their rapes-- but from what I’ve heard, both groups are (unfortunately) reluctant to report their rapes, and might not report them at once as you did.
@Susanna but even if Sulkowicz alleged rape is not one of the stronger cases we see in the media, I still find it strange that the accused, Nungesser, has only just come out with his side of the story. Why, for the past year and a half, has he allowed his reputation to tarnish like this?
I think Nungesser is credible with the text messages, but it’s still odd to me that he just came out with his own side of the story.
I’ve always wondered why victims tell the school and don’t go straight to the cops. It’s one thing if you are in a college town and you only have campus police. But if you are in NYC, you have regular cops at your disposal as well. Why risk it by telling the administration? Like, would you rather the perpetrator be expelled or freaking locked up? Just my take.
The inflection point of the Sulkowicz case is that the three complainers met each other, talked about the guy and then all three decided to file complaints with the school at the same time and long after the fact. I think that is pretty fishy. Certainly those three complaints have less credibility than if they are made independently and also timely.
The other two complaints seem pretty weak. One was for trying to kiss a girl uninvited. Seriously? Seems to me like a slap or drink in the face is what’s warranted there. The other was from a girlfriend who found the guy “emotionally and sexually abusive” during the course of that relationship. What does that mean? Another fishy fact is that neither of those two complainers bothered to follow through because it was too draining or too inconvenient. Smells like the other two complaints were made only for the purpose of buttressing Sulkowicz’s beef.
The camel’s back breaks for me with the fame, notoriety and status that Sulkowicz has garnered from her experience. While you can read that as someone standing up for themself, it reminds me a bit of how UVA Jackie seemed to find her place and identity by embracing (falsely) victim status.
My guess is that this guy is a bit pushy/awkward/creepy around girls but not much more. Nothing that a kick in the nuts wouldn’t take care of.
Is it odd to you that Emma took 7-8 months to file a rape complaint?
An European kid on a foreign land, with no rich and connected parents to guide him, and with no familiarity with the curious and idiotic American practice of Trial by Media - what else should one expect him to do?
If I were in his shoes, though, I would file a complaint to the college to expel Emma based on the repeated harrassment.
Based on the quote below, it seems he did have parents guiding him through. I have no idea if they are rich and connected.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.html
http://thepeoplesrec.com/post/99232311224/tw-rape-sexual-assault-an-open-letter-to
Columbia Spectator is changing tunes.
http://columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2015/02/05/our-role-unofficial-conviction-paul-nungesser
Emphasis mine.
Susanna: I am so very sorry.
Guiding a kid by getting a lawyer for him and guiding a kid on how to fight a media war including organizing an internet campaign for an open letter are two totally different things.
How many American school teacher parents will be able to launch a media campaign in Germany?
From the Columbia Spectator:
http://columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2015/02/05/our-role-unofficial-conviction-paul-nungesser
"The true question here is why the public so easily raced to convict Nungesser without the presentation of any real evidence. In fact, the most concrete account of the relationship between the two is the Facebook conversation that has only recently come to light. Until now, the media has fed upon the claims and spectacles produced by one side of the story…
The mistake we’ve all made has been substituting belief in an ideal with certainty about a specific case. There was never enough evidence presented to the public to expel Nungesser from school or convict him in court, so there should not have been enough to convict him in the media. No matter how fiercely we may have believed Sulkowicz, we just don’t know what happened that night. The university adjudication system, especially the concept of due process that is meant to protect all of us, failed Paul Nungesser, who was officially found innocent and yet still presumed guilty by the masses."
Also this one from the Spectator:
http://columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2015/02/03/better-media-coverage-sexual-assault-survivors
"But I think we—not just the opinion page, not just Spec—but we, the members of the campus media, failed specifically with Sulkowicz’s story by not being thorough and impartial.
Instead, campus media’s goal to promote discussion about sexual assault and to support survivors became conflated with a fear of rigorous reporting. Personally, I felt that if I covered the existence of a different perspective—say, that due process should be respected—not only would I have been excoriated, but many would have said that I was harming survivors and the fight against sexual assault…
This raises the question: Is it possible for the media to be true to a mission of supporting individual survivors and still have critical coverage? Not only do I think it is—I think it’s necessary. Critical coverage isn’t only for the benefit of the accused, but for the public and the survivors themselves. Thorough and impartial reporting can only serve to validate a survivor’s claims, while biased or incomplete reporting can only serve to fuel doubt and mistrust. The media helps no one by remaining lax in its coverage."
Just thought it interesting to get some campus perspective on the new revelations.
There is also the other side who wants to shut up anyone accused of rape, as it will “muddy the truth”.
http://flavorwire.com/502931/the-smearing-of-carry-that-weight-activist-emma-sulkowicz-begins
Or perhaps he is just a scared kid accused of a serious crime in a foreign country, where the trial by media circus is far more common than his fatherland, and being harassed every day for charges that has been dismissed not once, but twice? Perhaps he thought in this land of the free being cleared twice by the administration would be enough for the people to accept that he, after all, is not guilty? Perhaps he thought that as a student his job is to study and not to launch a political campaign that appeals to the trend of the day?
I will tell you this. I am an American, but it wouldn’t occur to me to hire a media adviser if I were in his shoes. Who does that? Regular middle class people? I would get a lawyer, of course. And since I am vindictive, if I were in his shoes I would file a report of harrassment every time the mattress was carried and the claim serial rapist was made without any proof whatsoever. I would want Emma expelled, as the proof is clear that she was indeed engaging in harrassment.
How would people feel if the genders were reversed and a female student was being harrassed similarly by a male student?
Aside, have these same people also speculated as to why Emma waited 7 months before filing a report? Or is it just the accused who need to behave in a certain manner?
Why would you think about suing a kid who doesn’t have much money? Why not just try to get her expelled from college instead? The burden of proof is much lower in a college tribunal than in a real court, because Title IX wants to create a learning place without harrassment.
At any rate, the point is that Nungesser has full and complete right to choose or not choose to tell his side of the story, only when he decides, and on his own terms, just like Emma had full and complete right to file a complaint when she chose to, and on her own terms. You can’t have one without the other.
Note how even the Columbia Spectator reporter shows bias without even realizing it simply by leaving out an entire side of the possible outcomes.
The above is only half of the possibilities, and the media coverage should read independent of whatever determined outcome, which people reach.
A truly unbiased reporter would have written something closer to this:
“Thorough and impartial reporting can only serve to validate” or invalidate “a survivor’s claims, while biased or incomplete reporting can only serve to fuel doubt and mistrust” about the entire case. “The media helps no one by remaining lax in its coverage.”
Uhm, awcntdb I would insert the word “an alleged survivor’s” claims 
Mostly, thorough and impartial reporting will neither validate nor invalidate an accuser’s claims. And there’s not much that could be brought forward that would validate or invalidate Sulkowicz’s claim. The only thing I can imagine that would move me off the fence, other than either Sulkowicz or Nungesser changing their story, would be more independent accusers coming forward. And I don’t expect that to happen.
Well, in my opinion, that whole article was wishy-washy (the Daniel Garisto one). While he says this:
"It was our responsibility to be impartial about Sulkowicz’s story, and being impartial means more than prefacing rapist with “alleged,” which is just a technicality. We should have been critical and brought Sulkowicz’s problems with the University procedure and Nungesser’s Facebook conversations to light sooner. This failure matters, because the media—even undergraduate media—can help in the fight against sexual assault with strong, impartial journalism, as evidenced by reports on rape statistics, sexual assault policy, or commentary on rape culture…
I wish there was some other way to reason this out—to support Sulkowicz as a survivor without labeling a potentially innocent Nungesser as a rapist, or to believe Nungesser’s innocence without believing that Sulkowicz lied."
He also says this:
“…my own view that Nungesser is probably guilty…while Nungesser is statistically guilty, that is not justification for the treatment he has received at the hands of the media.”
What is “statistically guilty?”
Also this:
“Young’s article implicitly calls out Nungesser’s treatment by his fellow students as harassment. I’m not concerned about that.”
I think he had doubts about the way the story was reported all along, and now he is coming somewhat clean about it, but still hedging his bets by saying “Oh, but even though we treated him unfairly, obviously he still did it, amirite?” If he is writing about how the media should cover these cases, why does his personal opinion on guilt or innocence even enter into it?