Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Another College Rape Fiasco
Like the rest of the world, I have no idea what happened between Columbia University undergrads Emma Sulkowicz and Paul Nungesser in 2012. From what I gather, there’s evidence both to support her claims that she is the victim of rape by him, and that he’s the victim of defamation by her. At least one of them is, clearly, a nasty piece of work, though it’s difficult to tell which.
To recap, Sulkowicz accused Nungesser — whom whom she’d previously had consensual sex — of raping her. Some seven months after the event, she filed a report with the campus who eventually dismissed the case. Six month after that, she filed criminal charges against Nungesser which were also dismissed. Sulkowicz, a visual arts major, then turned her frustration into a sort of performance art titled “Mattress Performance” by carrying her mattress around with her on campus, denouncing Nungesser, and shaming the university for allowing him to stay on campus. She subsequently received a great deal of media attention and was even Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s guest at the 2015 State of the Union.
But the the extraordinary detail in all this is that Sulkowicz received credit for the Matress Performance, as her senior thesis no less. In other words, Columbia University and Professor Jon Kessler — who signed-off on the thesis and has made public statements in its defense — officially approved of one student making specific allegations against another that the university itself could not substantiate after an equally-official investigation. Nungesser is suing the university, its president, and Professor Kessler over their endorsement of the project (though not Sulkowicz).
Now, it goes without saying that if Nungesseris a rapist who managed to get away with it, then Sulkowicz’s campaign against him is (morally) justified and (arguably) laudable, however odd and legally demfamatory. But that’s not a position Columbia should take, given the results of the investigation it carried out. Due process isn’t supposed to be about reaching the right outcome, but about ensuring that things are done correctly, so that right outcomes can be respected.
Published in Culture
This sentence doesn’t make sense to me. Can you expound on it some? If things are done correctly should the outcomes, to a fair degree of certainty, be the right ones?
The crazy lady kept sending him loving and sexual texts long after this incident. There’s a good reason he was cleared and it appears the university did not protect the male student.
All sex on campus is rape apparently. Is there a list of campuses that are anti-male or is that all of them?
I don’t think it’s hard to tell at all. The Daily Beast wrote about this a couple of months ago. Nungesser is part of a witch hunt started by a very strange and confused girl, abetted by a broken system run by leftist ideologues. I hope he wins and brings Columbia to it’s knees. Emma Sulkowicz should be in jail for drumming up these calumnies. The whole thing is beyond belief.
I suspect it has to do with making sure that outcome is the result of going through the correct procedures rather than being the result of fitting a narrative. The last thing you want to do is frame a guilty person of a crime, since it just creates doubt and mistrust in the justice system, rather than hand out a fair verdict.
Our “justice system” has an entry cost well beyond most Americans. The multitude of “laws” stacks the deck heavily against anyone caught in it. This makes sure the guilty don’t too often get away with their crimes, but it also renders the innocent at an enormous disadvantage against a very powerful state. I don’t know what the solution is, but the problem is as clear as day.
If a rape is reported to a college / university, their only action should be to report it to the proper authorities (police) and assist the authorities in the execution of their duty. That is why we have such authorities. The college should not have its own set of laws, regulation, rules in order to enforce vigilante justice according to the administrations and faculties “code”.
I think that’s exactly what he is trying to say — that the end doesn’t justify the means, and that in matters of justice and the law, the correct means are usually those most likely to lead to a just end anyway.
I think he meant “right” in the sense of “acceptable” rather than “factually correct.”
How Nature Says, “Don’t Touch.”
The means are now construed so that the state’s end is all but inevitable.
Yes, I’d like that list as well.
Not my best sentence. Second attempt:
In particular instances due process can get in the way of actual justice (i.e., someone escaping justice because of statute of limitations, or because of penitentiary mishandling, etc). When this happens, it’s often tempting to lament the existence of such rules, as they let a guilty person escape as — according to Sulkowicz — happened here.
That’s understandable, but really dangerous.
Members are clearer than I.
I’ve been a litigation lawyer for about 17 years now. The fundamental problem is that people lie, and there is no reliable way to determine who is lying.
From what I understand, Nungesser had other accusers as well, though their accusations were also dismissed. That hardly proves anything, but it’s enough to make one’s eyebrows arch.
Regardless, here’s the thing: if the charges against Nungesser aren’t the result of a witch-hunt, it’s hard to tell. That says a lot about his accusers.
Witch hunt or not, our founding principles start with innocence and put the onus on the state to prove otherwise. That is hardly the case most of the time now. I’d link, but work computers don’t do NR.
The article I linked to addressed these other accusers. These accusers only came forward after very dubious interactions with the original accuser and by investigators, who it seems likely put these women up to making false accusations. Both of these other accusations were dismissed, and one was withdrawn altogether. They were bogus. Read the Daily Beast article.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.html
Pretty much why our system only works with a moral people.
1/2
2/2
Is it Title IX that has caused this kangaroo court system at universities? It reminds me of the Canon Law courts or Inquisition, which was to remove sacrilege from the purview of civil courts. Why shouldn’t the process be the same inside a University as outside? Why no rules of evidence? Why no right to confront an accuser? And — conversely, how is it that a finding of rape would allow the accused to walk free? Isn’t a convicted person a danger to society?
Who made these people officers of the court?
All that lends credence to Nungesser.
We’re not in disagreement here.
If I were asked for words of advice from a young man headed off to college, it would be, “Stick to the townies, lad.”
Don’t flirt with girls on campus, don’t be alone with them, and whatever you do, don’t have sex with them.
Here is the lawsuit filed by Nungesser. Warning: it does get explicit at times but it is worth reading. It details how ridiculous the rape claim was/is.
KP, the bolded part is a pretty bold statement. I’d usually chalk it up to well-placed hyperbole, but I know you’ve beating that drum for awhile now. I think you should back up that statement if you’re going to continue using it.
I was thinking this too. My speech would go something like this:
I fear that even that good advice is insufficient in this climate in middle schools, high schools, and college campuses, and probably workplaces.
There are a great many very sick, very disturbed young women out there.
It is scary.
This situation has been coming on for a long time.
When my kids were in high school, there was a sensational sexual assault case on Cape Cod in which, because of a new law that had just been passed–federal or state, I can’t remember which–it was suddenly permissible to publish the names of the accused.
Five young men’s lives were forever changed, and on the basis of scurrilous charges.
At the time, I formed the opinion that I still hold:
There can be no exceptions to the due process protections–admitting, KP, that even those are insufficient.
No witnesses, no proof, no evidence, no case. And I mean real evidence, not planted evidence, not trumped up evidence.
I’m sorry, but it has to be that way for everyone’s sake.
The one thing missing in children’s education that would change the world is a year-long course on the rules of evidence.
Give me something real or go home.
And one more point: Defamation is wrong. If a person has been found innocent, I’m sorry but the punishment stops.
What happened to William Kennedy Smith and Justice Thomas at the hands of their accusers was wrong. Instead of worldwide press tours, the women should have realized they lost their case. And that’s the end of the story.