"The lawsuit added that a Columbia-owned Web site portrayed Sulkowicz’s version of the story — that Nungesser, a former friend, sexually assaulted her in 2012 — as fact, according to the Associated Press. "
Is the Columbia-owned website the school paper? I know they named him after Emma went to the police to file a report.
Here is her response to the lawsuit:
“I think it’s ridiculous that Paul would sue not only the school but one of my past professors for allowing me to make an art piece,” she wrote. “It’s ridiculous that he would read it as a ‘bullying strategy,’ especially given his continued public attempts to smear my reputation, when really it’s just an artistic expression of the personal trauma I’ve experienced at Columbia. If artists are not allowed to make art that reflect on our experiences, then how are we to heal?”
Like @bearpanther i read the document…and it’s just simply not a clear-cut case here of a woman accusing and not being taken seriously…She also chose to not file a police report because it would be too “lengthy of a process” but she has been carrying around the mattress for several months.
As the mom of a son and of a daughter, I most mourn the twisting of these stories…all stories…into black and white and accusation…and lives ruined.
Going to the police has not been a great solution for people who have been raped. Going to the police rarely works. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.
Actually I believe she did file a report with the police because as quoted in the complaint, she wanted Paul’s name on record if he was ever accused again. She claims she then chose not to pursue a criminal prosecution because it would be too draining.
Paul’s complaint indicates it was not Emma’s decision not to pursue it—the DA dropped it because there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed.
Pages 18 and 19 in the complaint
In May 2014, Emma succeeded with her plan to publish Paul s name. The Columbia Spectator (the University s student newspaper) published Emma s false rape allegation and included Paul's name.
On August 11, 2014, the New York County District Attorney s Office interviewed Paul for three hours. Immediately upon hearing of the police report, Paul (who was abroad at that time) had a criminal lawyer contact police and the District Attorney s office on his behalf, expressing Paul s intent to speak to the District Attorney to clear his name. Although Paul was never summoned, he returned to the United States and voluntarily spoke to Assistant District Attorney Kat Holderness and Assistant District Attorney Martha Bashford.
Immediately thereafter, Kat Holderness informed Paul s criminal lawyer that no charges would be brought against Paul, as there was a lack of reasonable suspicion to proceed.
Three weeks after Paul’s criminal attorney was informed that rape charges would not be brought against him, Emma falsely announced that she personally decided not to pursue criminal charges against Paul:
I decided I didn’t want to pursue it any further because they told it me it would
take nine months to a year to actually go to court, which would be after I
graduated and probably wanting to erase all of my memories of Columbia from
my brain anyway, so I decided not to pursue it.
Emma conveniently omitted the fact that the Sex Crimes Unit refused to bring any charges against Paul following its investigation, due to a lack of any reasonable suspicion.
Just to clarify what the First Amendment is, for those of you saying that she has a First Amendment right to continue her verbal campaign: The First Amendment right to free speech means that the GOVERNMENT cannot punish you for your speech.
There is no snort loud enough to respond to that nonsense. The only positive here is that after she graduates Emma will no longer have a venue and audience for her endless, ego-driven “healing”. I’m sure it’ll just be devastating not to be the center of attention anymore.
I actually hooted out loud when I read this in the Times. Good for him!!! This whole situation has bothered me terribly. I feel that Columbia is guilty for allowing Emma to harass him. Good luck Paul!
I have been on both sides of many lawsuits in my day so I would never suggest that all of the facts as presented in Paul’s complaint are true. But IF they are (or even the majority are), I think that Columbia has made a grave mistake in its handling of the matter. While I understand that a private institution may conduct its investigations per whatever rules it sees fit, and does not have to abide by our judicial system’s definition of due process, it is incomprehensible to me why they would not look at or consider the social media communications between the two. Individuals 25 and younger conduct the majority of their communication over their social media of choice or texts - it’s just a fact. So if looking at these items could help clear up a very grave situation where serious (potentially criminal) charges have been leveled, why wouldn’t they use every weapon in their quiver to get at the truth? Maybe I answered my own question there, but it is quite disconcerting to a father who is about to send his son off to college that a university would not investigate all of the facts in handling a matter of this consequence.
However, as you see from the complaint, the same is not true about a civil lawsuit - all sorts of sordid details are going to come out in open court that I’m sure neither side wants disclosed. If Columbia does not settle this quickly, they will have a whole can of worms come out about their policies, how they handled it, the whole 9 yards. Plus, as other posters have mentioned, it will likely cast a pall over graduation thereby undermining the amazing accomplishments of these two students’ classmates (not to mention their own).
Well the point of this thread is to offer opinions. And my opinion is that I think Emma’s parents did her a grave disservice and she will suffer life-long consequences from the choices they all made.
Unfortunately, MommaJ, she seems to have done an excellent job of publicizing her “art”–gag me with a spoon–and become a celebrity, taken up by fashionable circles and all that.
Of course, it may be that her star will fade as a wider audience gets to real her emails and the other things that they have probably overlooked in their sympathy for a “rape victim.”
I think people are viewing this whole public versus private university and it’s relationship to free speech as black and white. All it means is that private universities are free within the law to define their own missions in that regard. They are not bound by the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and it is within their right to restrict those rights as they see fit. It does not mean that they do so. Most elite institutions, including Columbia, represents themselves as being citadels of free speech and academic freedom. They seek religious, cultural and political multiplicity and the make-up of the student body they admit re-enforces that mission. Trying to restrict speech on such a diverse campus would be a suicide mission. It is not what the students sign up for when they enroll nor do such restrictions conform to what Columbia represents itself to be.
These universities publicize promises of free speech and academic freedom in their promotional material, handbooks and even in their contracts with professors. They are highlighted in their presentations to students who tour their campus and reinforced to donors and alumni who represent diverse cultures and backgrounds. So while Ms.Sulkowicz, Columbia and Prof.Kessler may not be able to hang their hat on the U.S Constitution, they seem to be standing on firm ground based upon the environment that the university promises to deliver to students and professors. I am going to bet that Prof. Kessler will find firm ground in his employment contract with the university and that Columbia could claim either an express or implied contract with Sulkowicz relative to her enrollment agreement or the rights set forth in the student handbook.
What’s the point of having a student handbook that lays out rules and policies re these disciplinary committees and complaint resolution, that things are supposed to be confidential and that neither side should be subject to retaliation, if you don’t enforce them?
Columbia may promise an environment of free speech, but they also promise an environment where ALL students are safe from harassment or retaliation.
Not just the ones who go to the State of the Union and get on the cover of New York magazine.
I know that there have been other threads here on the Parents Forum regarding the topic of men falsely accused of rape filing suit against their schools/universities because of the lack of due process, etc.
This one has a few more wrinkles given the high profile nature of the case (front page of the NY Times), and even NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand bought into this woman’s false allegations, and brought her as her guest to the State of the Union address. I was just aghast as I read the complaint. Thought some might find this interesting:
Confused by messages #33 & #34? AsleepAtTheWheel didn’t realize there was already a thread and created a new one. The two threads were subsequently merged. #33 & #34 are from Asleep’s thread.
Quite an in-depth and descriptive complaint. While of course it’s a one-sided document, it paints Columbia’s adminstrators as feckless toadies. And don’t get me started about Mattress Girl.
I think that the messages are really telling. I thought that before, when some of these weren’t even included.
Why is it that the most unstable, untruthful pseudo-victims seem to get most of the publicity? Extremely unfortunate for real victims, of whom there are far too many.
@scoop85 Actually the president of Columbia is a pretty impressive guy. Lee Bollinger is considered one of the most important scholars on First Amendment issues, is widely published on the subject and clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals. He teaches Constitutional law both to undergrads and law students at Columbia and used to be dean of Michigan’s law school. He is a recipient of the National Humanitarian Award and the NAACP awarded him the National Equal Justice Award. He also serves as a member of the Pulitzer Prize Board. And he has managed to lead a capital campaign that I think raised close to 6 billion for Columbia over a period of about 8 years.
He is truly committed to issues of free speech and press and is taking his efforts global by spearheading Columbia’s Global Freedom of Expression and Information project. So I think if you take into account his background and how he views the issues that surround this particular case, Columbia’s handling of the Sulkowicz matter is perfectly understandable.
You know what irks me? Students wasting their opportunities at elite universities like Columbia by throwing away their futures with crap like this. They work so hard to get in and then apparently they stop thinking and just let hormones take over.