One, I believe it has been established that the guy Lena Dunham identified by name and other identifying characteristics did not rape her as she stated in her book. She has even kinda sort of apologized for that if I remember correctly. Two, I never said it was justified. I said that the reaction here to a presumed sexual bias in a phrase used on a poster was nuts given that the subject of the poster had falsely accused someone of rape. Three, if we are talking about Emma, I believe that she has forfeited any right to complain about being identified as a liar since she has done so much to try and drive her alleged assailant out of school and to smear his reputation. You can’t act that way for an entire year, seek out as much publicity as possible, and then complain when someone puts up a poster of you and calls you a pretty little liar because your current version of events does not match what we have of the historical record. Sauce for the goose.
One interesting feature of the Columbia case is that neither of the main parties chose to sue the other in civil court (although the accused has now sued Columbia). She could have sued him for assault, and the standard of proof would have been the preponderance of the evidence. She didn’t do that. He could have sued her for defamation, and the standard of proof would have been the preponderance of the evidence. He didn’t do that, either.
Yes, both probably have decent lawyers. Her lawyer, for sure, would have counseled not trying to sue since her neck is waay out on the chopping block after failing twice. His lawyer probably chose the path with the greatest chance for settlement and/or the stronger case.
Too bad that people get distracted by the trivial cheap shots instead of focusing on the important issues.
@Ohiodad51 My impression was that the Dunham matter was a case of mistaken identity coupled with someone who thought he could get a quick settlement from Dunham or her publisher. I do know that the copyright page of the book contains the disclaimer that “some names and identifying details have been changed.”
My understanding is that she chose the name “Barry” to describe someone she had a questionable sexual encounter with but also provided many other details about him. There was a “Barry” that attended Oberlin during that same period, but besides the name, the only other thing he had in common with the "Barry"described in her book was that he was a republican. I believe he sued and the publisher acknowledged there may have been cause for confusion and offered to pay his legal fees. No settlement as far as I know. Then the name was altered in the book and Dunham apologized. The two acknowledged that they had never met so I do not believe Dunham intended to accuse this particular person of rape.
In general I agree with this sentiment. So perhaps you would also be in agreement with changing the definition of that word we discussed earlier in posts #429 through #431.
Well, I think there is a bit more to the Lena Dunham story than the disclaimer in the book. Like when she uses a pseudonym in other places in the book she specifically says so, in the text. But when she is talking about Barry she doesn’t. And it is not like she jumped right out and apologized or even said that she was using a pseudonym. As far as I remember, she waited until people found “Barry the Republican”, pretty much established that he couldn’t have been her rapist, and then she said oh yeah, it was a pseudonym, look at the disclaimer in my book.
I don’t know what you mean by changing the definition? Words mean certain things. People may choose to imply different motivations to their usage, like whether Big Fat Liar means the person is untruthful regardless of sex or whether it is an unfair sexist characterization when directed at a woman. Personally, I don’t care at all about others sexual proclivities. I have been married twenty plus years and have “caught my limit” as my father in law used to say. Other than my own kids, I could care less who sleeps with whom or how often. So I am not really interested in whether someone is a “slut” or a “c**khound” or anything else. I just refuse to get worked up over a hypothetical comparatively minor insult being used against a woman who has done everything possible to destroy a guy.
We don’t know what she believes (and absent an injection of truth serum, we never will). All we know for certain is that she made an “art” project for which she got course credit and a boatload of publicity.
Well not yet anyway. His complaint against Columbia cites numerous examples where he claims she used the term “rapist” or “raped me.” It has always troubled me that the act she complained about does not technically constitute “rape” under New York law. So I am thinking that particular term would be problematic whether what she alleged happened or not. He may also be technically outside what I think is a one year SOL in New York for defamation claims – not sure when she last uttered that word.
In addition, it appears that the actual person was a Democrat based on the original book proposal. Weird that she decided to change it to Republican and “campus’s resident conservative” instead.
Me either. So maybe we should just agree to keep those sorts of terms out of the discussion. Fair enough?
Sure. Maybe I am dense, but I think I am just now getting that what you are offended by is my use of the term in a hypothetical example (for shock value), and not necessarily the potential use of the term in a dispute like we are discussing. If that’s true, then, wow I feel like an idiot.
“One interesting feature of the Columbia case is that neither of the main parties chose to sue the other in civil court (although the accused has now sued Columbia).”
People rarely sue shallow pockets.
No lawyer is going to take a case on contingency where the target can’t pay serious bucks. Which means that Emma or Paul themselves would have to pay a lawyer by the hour to sue the other. That’s expensive and you get nothing (other than “I told you so”) if you win.
Just the typical easy way out. Much easier to focus on fat and ugly than having to confront the fact that she is most likely a liar that and people are left supporting another seemingly off-kilter female. However, the college president did not hide his disgust, as he even refused to look at her.
I highly suspect the college president never saw her Facebook posts and texts prior to them coming out in the complaint. And I bet he so wanted to believe her at some level. Then it turns out what she told Columbia and her follow-on public story about what she and Paul discussed are contradicted by her own words and conversations with Paul. Columbia may not have messed up legally (it may win), but betting he darn sure feels used by Emma.
@Ohiodad51 I think we would both agree that the terms are not “relevant” to this discussion or to any intelligent discourse relating to the merits of the Sulkowicz or Dunham matters.
Came across this today - Zeit online article on the case. I thought it interesting to see a German paper’s point of view.
http://www.zeit.de/studium/uni-leben/2015-05/columbia-university-sexual-assault-trial
^^^^Thanks for posting, that was interesting to read. Did not know about the PR guy.
From the NYT Sunday Magazine:
I think this is a good balanced summary of the case and also the issues surrounding investigating and judging these cases effectively. Worth a read.
Some quotes:
"Both feel that they are victims. Sulkowicz has concluded that “the system is broken because it is so much based on proof that a lot of rape survivors don’t have.” She sees it this way: “Even if you have physical evidence, you can prove that violence occurred but not that someone didn’t want the sex to be violent.” Nungesser, of course, sees a different kind of failing. “Some part of me will never move on from this,” he said. “It will forever change how I walk into a room. I had immense trust in people and institutions, perhaps naïvely, and that trust is very much gone.”
“Sulkowicz and Nungesser’s case is unusual in the exhausting intensity of the media circus that has attended it. But the swirl of accusations and counteraccusations, and the reaction to them, reflects the current moment — a transitional period in the evolution of how universities handle sexual assault. The Obama administration has demanded that institutions do more to investigate and adjudicate complaints of sexual assault and harassment, but it’s not clear that they have shown that their disciplinary processes have the requisite legitimacy. It is a moment in which, as the tumult at Columbia shows, we can’t afford to stay for long.”
The German article carefully avoids mentioning Nungesser’s other assault issues, then brings up the DOJ rape numbers as a rebuttal. They could have done better.
The German article didn’t really get the standard of proof correct in most of the settings - the administrative hearing, the criminal case and I don’t think did a good job on the current case, but I don’t think that really matters.
I found it interesting that Paul had a job offer withdrawn. Now he has damages for his suit.
This was posted in another thread but thought I’d link it here too:
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/emma-sulkowiczs-rape-referencing-video-305180
https://news.artnet.com/people/emma-sulkowicz-interview-305268
The video project is linked in the above articles (warning, comments on the video site include graphic images and the video is supposed to be extremely graphic and NSFW as well).