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
Yup. I always added this advice: Be very careful how you reject a young girl’s or young woman’s advances or affection. Very very careful. Assume instability.
You probably want to be careful with statements about the fairer sex. Somebody in the Ricochet FB group has made a Men’s Rights post and has gotten blocked because criticizing womyn is taboo.
Is that what happened? I wondered.
As a mother of two daughters and one son, I feel like I have a foot in both worlds. :) And I have really fantastic kids, by the way. No problems here. But out there . . .
I have no problem with universities enforcing their own bizarre version of vigilante justice. They are (usually) private institutions and every student is willingly attending.
I agree that it is illogical (and legally dubious) for the university’s justice system to replace public law. But I see no reason why the two can’t exist simultaneously.
And frankly, I’m fine with top universities implementing an unfair system. Let the most talented young minds of today be forced to choose whether they want a great degree which guarantees them a well-paying job, or whether they want to be promiscuous. Either the students will learn that they can’t have it all in life, or the universities will learn that they are not immune from the effects of the marketplace.
Tom, after reading the comments, it seems you were overly fair to the accuser here. Every accusation she’s made has been thrown out after investigation. And, then she literally carried a mattress around with her, calling constant attention to what she claims was an extremely painful event for her. I don’t think that’s something that mentally-well people do. Perhaps the alleged rape affected her so deeply that she now engages in such behavior, but the mattress lugging, in and of itself, calls her credibility into doubt.
I’ll own up to that.
My point is that the university’s endorsement of her project is despicable even if he did actually commit the crime she accuses him (for which he should be assumed to be innocent of, regardless).
The college is participating in the defamation of a student by another student who has been acquitted through their due process, which is insanely and wrongly weighted against the accused. Again, regardless of the facts of what actually happened, that’s terrible and speaks to how crazy this has all gotten.
I will get behind this statement 100%
Actually the universities choice makes perfect sense. It is always best to side with the female over a male especially in cases of rape. If you are correct and the man is guilty then you have championed womyn and all is good. If you are incorrect and the womyn that is accusing the man unfairly then the whole issue will be dismissed and forgotten with little or no repercussions.
In this case it looks like the womyn might be less than honest about what happened but even if Nungesseris wins his case he will only get a token amount of money and no recovery of his reputation. His professional career has been greatly altered maybe even destroyed before it started, many business will not hire him or even do business with him in the future. Why take the chance? He is damaged goods.
Read this article from Conrad Black. There’s something wrong when 97% of cases (this is federal, not sure of the state numbers) end with plea bargains rather than jury trials, the control of such things being almost entirely in the hands of the prosecutor who has all the resources of the state to bring against each defendant, guilty or innocent. Or consider what happened to Koch Industries. They spent tens of millions defending against 97 felony charges that were bargained down to a single charge and a $10M settlement. A normal citizen and his own resources (intellectual and financial) against the the power of the state stands little chance of vindication and will be ruined by the experience anyway.
Hmm, marching around campus with a mattress, sounds like a marketing major to me. That’s the one thing I didn’t see when I spent some time working a vice car.
Yes, just like there’s something wrong when women make 78 cents on the dollar or whatever the number is supposed to be. First, where is that 97% coming from? Second, even if the 97% is correct, is presumption of guilt or some other nefariousness really the most plausible explanation for that? Do you really think that the feminist crowd can’t find an anecdote where some company intentionally paid women less simply because they were women? Would such an anecdote prove the general proposition that women are being unfairly treated?
Now you throw in another broad generalization, that citizens stand little chance of vindication, for which you have no real evidence. Do you really suggest that most juries won’t sort out the facts of the case they’re presented? How is your hypothetical innocent man getting railroaded? On what basis are innocent men being charged? On what basis are they being convicted? Is the prosecution making up evidence? Does that happen so often as to be a general truth?
@ed g: I suspect that you have never been charged or had anybody close to you charged with a serious crime. If you had you would realize how unfair the system is. How it is gamed to produce guilty pleas the truth not only be damned but totally irrelevant to the proceedings. Most people do not have the money to defend themselves while the government has basically unlimited resources to develop evidence, witnesses and to scare your witnesses off.
What FJG said. The cost to successfully defend yourself is ruinous to all but the wealthiest. And even with great resources it’s still a craps shoot. As for the statistics, I was merely relaying what Black had in his article. Considering that he went all the way to the Supreme Court to be vindicated I’ll listen to his voice in the matter.
Lord Black was not saved by his great wealth, which has since rather withered. We live in a political world, so money just is not that important. It is not that people cannot defend themselves because they’re poor–it’s facing up to the great being of the state that’s the problem.
Maybe the cases of politicians who suffered judicial evils impotently further serves to make the point–to name the GOP politicians, Mr. Ted Stevens, of Alaska & a few more from Texas: Mrs. Kay Hutchinson, Mr. Tom Delay, recently, Mr. Rick Perry.
I guess everyone knows what happened to Gov. Walker’s supporters–you’ve seen the thread, too, maybe–some were treated to the romance of dawn raids with battering rams.
Whether this means the criminal justice system is itself compromised, as Lord Black contends, or that politics trumps law, just like it trumps money, is yet to be established. I suppose we all hope law wins out in the end, or at least anytime soon-
I have had someone close to me charged with a serious crime. He was guilty, and was convicted justly.
I followed KP’s account of his travails, and it seems to me like the authorities seriously treated the serious charges that were brought against him. And he prevailed. It wasn’t the system being unfair to upstanding citizen KP, it was that someone credibly bore false witness against him. Our system sussed it out, but it’s hardly ever immediately apparent what is going on, who is truthful/lying/culpable/innocent.
Well so have I. The person was innocent but was force to plead guilty because they did not have the resources to fight the charge. Even with that they lost everything, house, family, job and ended up in bankruptcy. Their life was destroyed. That is our system and it is a total joke.
I disagree. No one is forced to plead guilty. Everyone has access to legal defense. Yes, when credible and serious charges are brought against someone it’s going to have an effect on someone’s life. Do you claim it’s possible for things to be otherwise? On what basis do you claim it’s a joke rather than simply the tragic way of things? Is our medical system a joke because the access a poor person has can’t compare to the access a rich person has?
Disagree all you want. You are still wrong. I have several friends and family that have been involved in legal issues. I have seem innocent sent to jail and guilty set free. The facts matter little and justice even less. Yes that is the “tragic way of things” and that is why it is a joke. The whole system is set up to extract as much money as possible from every person, but mainly the taxpayer for the sole purpose of supporting itself. If you wish to continue to believe in this farce that is your right and I hope you never have that illusion ripped from you. It is brutal when the truth is revealed. It is a hard truth to live with.
As for forced to plead guilty that is what it is. When you are given the option of 3 years in jail if you plead guilty or the possibility of 30 years if you go to trial, then watch the prosecutor intimidate all your witnesses so they will not testify for you and the government spend tens of thousands of dollars developing evidence against you while your attorney tells you it will take $150,000 for you to get your day in court with no guarantees. Yes you are forced to take the plea because the other option is just this side of offing yourself. And when I say this side of it I mean it because suicide looks like a real attractive option at this point.
Despite all of that, no one is forcing you to either plea out or commit suicide. Everyone has access to a public defender. I don’t claim this is pleasant, but what else do you propose for when someone brings serious charges?
That’s not conversation – that’s lashing out. Answer the questions. Provide evidence for your broad claims rather than examples of narrow incidents.
A public defender? Now you are joking. You honestly suggest being defended by a person that is paid by the very government that is trying to take away their freedom first place. Much safer to take the plea or eat a bullet. In the old days a person could run, start over elsewhere but computers have sort of stopped that stuff.
If you are genuinely interested in learning about the serious issues America faces because of overcriminalization, deliberate overcharging and other forms of prosecutorial abuse, go read the numerous articles linked at http://www.instapundit.com.
If you are genuinely interested.
No lashing, just a statement of fact as I see it. If I called you a name, that would be lashing out.
There are cities in this country that are burning, rioting in the streets because of the callousness of our justice system and still you demand more proof. I understand that, I was that way myself at one time. Then the system got a piece of me and mine a few times and my eyes were opened to the reality of it. How cruel, uncaring, destructive, corrupt the system actually is. How it is mainly about extorting money and political ambition, no justice, no truth, no right. It cares for nothing but supporting itself.
Thanks for the link. I read it regularly already. Good stuff.
Here is a link to Instapundit’s prosecutorial misconduct heading.
This is one that is pretty egregious – prosecutorial charging power
Of course it happens. What I’m disputing is that it’s a general truth or a general condition.
What is the proposal for fixing whatever problems we have? Is it systemic or operator malfeasance? Does the same apply to healthcare? Simply because the rich can more easily buy a better outcome (when such an outcome is possible) than the poor, does that make the healthcare system broken too? You think it’s broken yet you laugh at the concept of a public defender. What else is left?