@HarvestMoon1 I’m fully aware of who Lee Bollinger is. His credentials and prior accolades does not change my opinion that he and Columbia have completely caved to a faction of activists that care little for truth but rather seem interested only in making political points regardless who may be harmed.
It continues to rankle me that Kirsten Gillenbrand gave legitimacy to this woman, whose words and behavior cast serious doubt about her character and legitimacy.
But that is my point @scoop85, Bollinger has not “caved” to anything, freedom of expression has been his life’s work.
Bollinger and his ilk are all for ‘freedom of expression’ until some kid feels like they’ve been “microaggressed” or is made to feel “unsafe”. I’m sure if the male student had walked around campus with a poster showing the Facebook message where mattress girl solicits him for anal sex Bollinger would have a different take on artistic expression.
Thank you @AsleepAtTheWheel for articulating my point far better than I managed to do.
Not to split hairs, but a university representing itself as a “citadel of free speech” may indeed be the case, and arguably should be the case – but it is not a right or a First Amendment issue. It just irks me when people shout “freedom of speech! First Amendment!” when the matter at hand has nothing to do with the government preventing or allowing speech.
Anyway, carry on.
I think there’s a red line where free speech crosses over to harassment. To me, Nungesser has clearly been harassed by Mattress Girl and her followers, aided and abetted by Columbia, the art professor, the TV station, ADP fraternity, rape victim advocates, the student newspaper, the global media, FaceBook, “Carry that Weight” and “No Red Tape” apparatchiks, a professional publicist and a member of the United States Senate. And the next step is to harass him at his graduation ceremony. Or intimidate him and his parents to stay away.
Would this kind of harassment been acceptable had the victim been a woman and the harasser a male? I don’t think so, and that’s where Title IX comes in.
I was in New York at the time of the 1968 protests at Columbia. That situation came to a bad end and this one will too unless Columbia takes decisive action before graduation.
If they grant a diploma to a mattress carrying Sulkowicz, then Columbia is endorsing the harassment. If they ban the mattress then they’re sure to have an onslaught of noisy, disruptive protests. They should never have let it get to this point.
Mattress Girl’s parents are psychiatrists. Maybe her father will become a consultant to Columbia now (that’s his business)? Her younger sister’s Twitter description is, “I’ll do it, but only for the attention.” Who knows what she might do for attention? Emma is a tough act to follow!
I think I acknowledge that when I say:
[QUOTE=@HarvestMoon]
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.{/QUOTE]
I’m sure that Senator Gillibrand is well-meaning in her concern for sexual assault victims, but her staff should have done a better job of vetting this one. The lovey-dovey messages were available when she decided to take Sulkowicz to the State of the Union. The solicitation of anal sex is new to me, at least. That’s the capper, IMHO.
I predict that the senator will begin disassociating herself, if she hasn’t already.
@bearpanther #32. I agree and that is what the court is now charged with figuring out. They have to balance out there rights of Sulkowicz and Nungesser and come to a legal determination on whether Columbia had some obligation to intervene.
I think it is a bit more complicated than that. If Columbia doesn’t, in your phrase, have an obligation to intervene, then Title XI as it is currently being viewed, is unenforceable. No more safe spaces, no more defunding conservative groups, no more preponderance of the evidence standard and investigations of schools who don’t toe the line. As you reap, you sow.
Elsewhere in Columbia Title IX lawsuits, earlier this week a New York judge dismissed a different lawsuit brought by different Columbia student, John Doe, who claimed Columbia discriminated against him in his Title IX hearing and penalty. (He was suspended for 1.5 years)
The judge didn’t attempt to re-litigate the case or to determine whether the proceeding or the penalty was unfair. He focused on the claim of discrimination and found that John Doe didn’t present sufficient evidence to prove that he was discriminated against.
Furman concluded:
“In fact, it is not even the court’s task to decide whether Columbia treated the plaintiff fairly or unfairly. instead, the court’s task is limited to determining whether the complaint plausibly alleges that Columbia treated the plaintiff differently because of his sex.”
So forget fair, forget due process!
This outcome is setback for men who claim they were discriminated against in their colleges’ Title IX proceedings. If I understand the impact of this opinion correctly, Nungesser would not only have to prove that Columbia failed to protect him from harassment, but also to prove that Columbia did so because he was male.
John Doe’s attorney calls this “an insurmountable pleading standard; requiring us to basically provide evidence that the panel members uttered statements specifically reflecting gender bias.”
http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2015/04/22/men-face-high-bar-to-claim-discrimination-by-campus-sex-assault-tribunals/
http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202724417306/Gender-Bias-Claims-Rejected-in-Sexual-Misconduct-Case?slreturn=20150326000301
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/due-process-denied-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-from-accused-columbia-student/article/2563594
Is Nungesser alleging gender discrimination or breach of contract?
As I understand it, the Twombly and Iqbal cases are relevant here as to what the plaintiff has to allege is true. To prove gender discrimination in these cases, it’s not enough to demonstrate that men are disproportionately disciplined in sexual misconduct cases. The plaintiff has to prove that men are disproportionately disciplined because they’re men and not for some other reason. The case was thrown out because even if everything John Doe alleged turned out to be true, it wouldn’t have been enough to prove that he was targeted because he was a man.
I must observe that a lot of people who don’t like the Twombly/Iqbal rules when a man alleges discrimination like them just fine when a woman or a person of color alleges discrimination.
Paul won his cases at Columbia.
So…
So…how is Paul going to argue sex discrimination? Columbia ruled in Paul’s favor. Columbia did not rule in favor of the woman carrying the mattress. Columbia allowed the woman to carry the mattress after she lost the ruling.
[ quote]John Doe’s attorney calls this “an insurmountable pleading standard; requiring us to basically provide evidence that the panel members uttered statements specifically reflecting gender bias.”
[/quote]
Is the above rhetoric or truth?
It is going to be hard to prove the president of the school uttered statements reflecting gender bias in Paul’s case. I didn’t see the proof in the filing.
The judge’s statement about the focus of the case refers to the other Columbia Title IX lawsuit not Nungesser’s. In that case John Doe was found responsible and suspended.
Nungesser’s suit is not so much about his Title IX hearing but rather about how he was treated by the college in its aftermath. What I can’t get my head around is if he has to prove discrimination in order to prove that the college failed to protect him from harassment.
Momrath, I know what the judge’s statement was about.
I have the same question as you.
Anyone know what Mattress Girl’s plans are after college?
@cardinal fang, as I read the complaint, Count 1 is a straight Title IX harassment claim. Effectively he is saying the conduct of Sulkowicz makes him feel unsafe and that the fact Columbia has done nothing to combat what is alleged as a fairly widespread and blatant flouting of the rules makes them complicit. I do not think this is a discrimination case really. I think it is in attempt to find out if Title IX can be used by men as well as women.
I am really not sure what your point is about Twombly and Iqbal. Those are really civil procedure cases that deal with pleading requirements.