Speaking only of the Title IX claim, he has to allege facts that he was harassed because he was a guy, not that he was the victim of sex discrimination. That is the primary hurdle. He attempts to do so in paragraphs 141-143. I would think that part of what he has to prove is the easier part of his case. Assuming he clears that hurdle, he would then have to prove that Columbia was either complicit in his harassment (which is why there is all the stuff about the professor, Bollinger’s comments, etc) and/or owed him a duty to provide an environment free from harassment. Unlike dstark, I assume that Columbia may argue that they owe no such legal duty, at least in the context of this case. I believe this because I believe the best way to defend the primary harassment claim is by reference to the 1st amendment, and I think one argument requires the other. Also, I am very confident that Columbia does not want to be in a position that they are responsible for every bit of harassment that happens on campus, so if this case gets gets to the 2nd circuit, they likely will be making some version of that argument. If things play out that way, then evidence that men who violate the confidentiality provisions of the disciplinary policy, for example, were punished while Sulkowicz was not becomes relevant.
@Ohiodad, why wouldn’t Columbia argue this isn’t a title 9 case?
In Furman’s opinion.
I think that Furman’s opinion is clearly wrong.
The background and conduct of Columbia’s investigator, who supplied the information used to convict him, was clearly biased and clearly displayed gender discrimination…
Other than common sense…
Probably not yet.
@dstark, yeah sure. I assume they will, I thought that was clear. But assuming that there is credible evidence that the plaintiff was harassed, how would you articulate the argument if not by saying they owe no duty in this instance?
@ohiodad51, I don’t know how Columbia is going to handle the harassment argument. I assume Columbia has access to pretty good lawyers. Can’t Columbia argue this isn’t a title 9 case and argue there was no harassment or they weren’t responsible for any harassment?
The argument about the confidentially provisions is also interesting. If you file a criminal complaint doesn’t that become public even if there are never any charges? So Paul’s name is outed?
Even after saying the above, it looks to me like Emma did not keep the case at Columbia confidential. I am curious to see how that is addressed.
Can’t Paul lose the title 9 argument and win other parts of the case? The title 9 argument seems a little political to me.
The arguments in paragraphs 141-143 are weak.
Is Emma carrying the mattress because Paul is a guy? I thought it was because Emma said Her rapist is on campus?
I was talking to S about this case last night, and he said that he thought it was a breach of ethics for the Columbia student newspaper to publish his name.
Unlike ours, Furman’s opinion has force and weight behind it.
It is not clear to me whether Sulkowicz’s ever used his name and the world “rapist” in the same sentence. Did she specifically say that publicly? Or was it just implied since everyone knew what she was claiming and knew who she was talking about?
They could argue that there was harassment, but Title IX didn’t apply to the case and they therefore had no Title 9 duty to act. Is that what you’re suggesting, ohiodad?
Nungesser did not bring this suit because he thinks he can win it. He can’t. He brought it as part of the PR campaign that he decided to launch a few months ago. Whether in an effort to seek revenge or clear his name or some other motive is anyone’s guess. I think the suit was a strategic error on his part, however. First, he opens himself up to discovery of his conduct - and whatever did or didn’t happen between him and Emma, the man is no saint. Second, I think suing Columbia will lose him sympathy overall. Certainly whatever sympathy I had for him is now out the window.
As for the Spectator naming him, the Spectator did not name him until he was named in a police complaint that was a matter of public record. No ethics issue here - not even close.
Yahoo I’m glad he finally filed. I am out of the country with minimal internet so can’t get the filing to download but am able to read everyone’s comments. Anyone that follows these threads knows that I thought Emma behavior is/was just awful and harassment of the worst kind and that I have felt that way for months and months.
@cosar I am not certain that discovery will open him up to inquiry about his past conduct with others - remember Sulkowicz is not named and this is really about what he says Columbia neglected to do on his behalf relative to Sulkowicz’s actions. Seems an inquiry like that would be beyond the scope of the issues at hand.
Momofthreeboys, although I disagree with you on many points, I am glad you are not dead. 
I just now saw a bunch of tweets of quotes from Sulkowicz under the hashtag #BrownSAAM
I guess she was giving a talk at some event in Brown.
It’s also disconcerting to me to see people on the internet cheering the filing of a lawsuit against a university - which, by the way EXONERATED the plaintiff in case anyone missed that. We live in far too litigious a society. Lawsuits are generally not the optimal vehicles for addressing issues like this. And this particular lawsuit is laughable. But I guess that’s what a societal oversupply of lawyers will do. It’s far from the first meritless lawsuit that’s ever been filed and sadly it’s far from the last.
@“Cardinal Fang” yes, I am suggesting they may argue that whether there was harassment is immaterial because Title IX doesn’t cover this situation. Which, as I said earlier may lead to a bunch of interesting questions over exactly what affirmative duty is imposed on colleges by the current interpretation of Title IX. This is, at its base, how the law works. A regulation is promulgated or a significant case comes down and then there are several cases where different aspects of the larger rule are tested to see how wide or narrow it is. It just usually not as publicized.
@harvestmoon, I believe you are correct and that to a cynic, Sulkowicz has been very careful to protect herself against a suit for defamation.
@dstark, I agree with much of what you say, but would make the point that the threshold issue is not that Sulkowicz is carrying the mattress because Nussinger is male. The threshold issue is whether there is evidence to suggest that Columbia sanctioned certain conduct because he was a guy. In other words, would Columbia have allowed Nussinger course credit and access to university facilities by carrying around a sign that says my accuser is a slut who likes anal sex? Obviously an over simplification, but I think that is the gist.
I read somewhere, in an article or perhaps the complaint itself, that while Emma has never gone around saying “Paul Nungesser is my rapist”, she has said things like “my serial rapist is on campus, and we all know who I’m talking about”, since after the Spectator published his name, everyone DID know who she was talking about.
The complaint implies that because of things Emma said in speeches or interviews, that some, if not most, people on campus knew Nungesser was the guy even before his name was published (for example, that they were both in an activity together and after she made a charge at Columbia he was asked to leave the group).
There is a faction that opines the only reason she decided to go to the cops at all was to create a public record so his name COULD be published, that she never intended to seriously pursue a case through the court system at all.
I think the strongest legal case would have been against her for defamation. And maybe that is coming. She alleged that he forcefully penetrated her anally. Well under NY law that does not constitute “rape” only forceful vaginal penetration gets that designation. Now he would have to argue that due to the publicity this case has drawn everyone “knew” who she was talking about when she used the term “rapist.”
I know Andrew Cuomo has been trying to change the definition of rape and it is currently under review by the legislature:
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/new-york-moves-forward-rape-rape-la
@Ohiodad51, ok, forgetting your example, Paul is going to need something besides idle speculation to win his case based on title 9.
Yes. I think he probably needs evidence that men at Columbia have been punished for violating the disciplinary code, or that the University has taken Affirmative steps when a woman has alleged she was harassed.