|
Quasimodo
|
Jan 10 2016, 08:45 AM
Post #1
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,130
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22214/
Columbia shelled out for ‘Mattress Girl’ and condemned accused student, suit says APRIL 27, 2015
From ignoring broken confidentiality to paying for rally’s cleanup, an issue of favoritism
Columbia University systematically used its own resources to attack a student whom it cleared of sexual-assault allegations, according to a lawsuit by Paul Nungesser against school leaders.
(snip)
Columbia took the “politically correct route” in promoting Sulkowicz’s “Carry that Weight” art project, Nungesser attorney Paul Byler told The College Fix in a phone interview.
By toting her mattress around campus as a protest of Columbia’s refusal to expel Nungesser, Sulkowicz has enchanted national figures such as Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who brought her to this year’s State of the Union address and flat-out called Nungesser a “rapist.”
The campus judgment directed at Nungesser and his defenders throughout the ordeal bothered even one of Sulkowicz’s supporters, who wrote a letter in the Columbia Spectator asking students to “end Emma’s story.”
School failed to protect a student it exonerated
Though Columbia cleared Nungesser under the low “preponderance of evidence” standard and a subsequent New York County investigation ended for lack of evidence, Columbia continued to promote and fund – both directly and indirectly – many of Sulkowicz’s exploits, the lawsuit claims.
Lawyer Byler told The Fix the school had an obligation to protect Nungesser.
“If you’re a male and you’re exonerated,” the only conclusion is there’s “no merit at all to the accusation,” Byler said.
The problems started when the university began tolerating “and then embraced” Sulkowicz’s behavior, Byler said.
Columbia gave course credit to Sulkowicz for her mattress-oriented performance art project and paid most of a bill for a rally against sexual assault headlined by Sulkowicz, the suit says.
Efforts “to wreak havoc on Paul’s life” were aided by Professor Jon Kessler, named as a defendant, who “jointly designed” the mattress project with Sulkowicz as her senior thesis.
By allowing “Emma to carry the mattress into each of her classes, the library, and on Columbia campus-provided transportation,” Columbia is facilitating gender-based harassment and stalking of Nungesser, the suit claims.
School guilty of ‘sponsoring a defamation and harassment movement’
President Lee Bollinger, another defendant, showed “contemptible moral cowardice in bowing down to the witch hunt against an innocent student” by repeatedly praising Sulkowicz’s project, the suit says.
University resources were used to slur Nungesser: Columbia’s Institute for Research on Women and Gender published articles praising Sulkowicz on its blog and promoted her art project, the suit says.
Columbia bent its own rules to help Sulkowicz’s cause, according to the suit.
Following the rally where Sulkowicz spoke of her own alleged rape by Nungesser, Columbia picked up $1,000 of the $1,500 cost of cleanup rather than requiring its student organization sponsors to pay the full cost – “effectively sponsoring a defamation and harassment movement against Paul.”
The lawsuit alleges the university failed to protect Nungesser numerous times, including after Sulkowicz broke the confidentiality agreement.
It failed to penalize students who broke confidentiality agreements by speaking with the Spectator and allowed the paper to name Nungesser as the alleged rapist.
Bollinger patted the university on the back in an October New Republic article, praising its efforts against sexual assault, while ignoring the universities’ activities and omissions “that had falsely branded Paul a rapist and constituted gender based harassment,” the suit says.
Contradicting the DA
Throughout the ordeal, Sulkowicz repeatedly lied or bended the truth, according to the lawsuit.
During the investigation by the university, she “was able to continuously alter and tweak important facts,” and she claimed at her April 2014 press conference with Sen. Gillibrand that her “serial rapist” was on campus, despite knowing that he was studying abroad in Prague.
In August 2014, after the New York County district attorney’s office cited a lack of “reasonable suspicion” as its reason for not bringing charges, Sulkowicz claimed that it was she who had decided against pressing charges against Nungesser, citing the long wait to go to trial.
(snip)
Columbia University declined to comment and Sulkowicz did not respond to requests for comment.
|
|
Quasimodo
|
Jan 10 2016, 08:46 AM
Post #2
|
|
Quasimodo
|
Jan 10 2016, 08:56 AM
Post #3
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,130
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
POSTER COMMENTS at site: (how familiar they sound...)
The problem being, that clearly Academia has learned nothing from the lax case...
The Brodhead/Steel response is still used as the template (appease the mob, and save the school from appearing to be non-PC; and do both of those even if it means sacrificing the innocent as collateral damage)
- Quote:
-
I foresee the shelling out of "buckazoids" from C.Us' deep pockets going to Mr. Nungesser. [sorry, unlikely to happen]
--------------
is there any evidence anywhere that he committed sexual assault other than her say so?
If the veracity of her claim were debunked, would she still get credit for her [art] project?
When the professor approved her project, was he aware that the young man would be an unwilling participant in it? (and yes, I am aware that the act of rape also involves an unwilling participant) Was he prepared for the possibility that no rape was committed, especially in light of the college judicial boards findings?
Prior to the lawsuit, have we heard from the young man? Have we heard his side of the story? Was anybody interested in it, or did they flatly dismiss it?
--------------
So rape is illegal. Lying under oath is also illegal. However, lying to a school official is not illegal. This woman falsely claimed, "i was raped." As a result, the falsely accused guy literally went through hell, and the girl (whom let's face it... is obviously crazy) received absolutely no punishment.
This is a problem. At the very least, these ridiculous college arbitration committees must impose some sort of mechanism with which to protect innocent people from being slandered - like the real criminal justice system. Rape is a very serious and terrible thing. By financially condoning this woman's "crying wolf" and sponsoring defamation of the falsely accused, Columbia University is criminally culpable.
This is a slam-dunk lawsuit, and Columbia would be wise to settle out of court for a seven-figure sum rather than have all of the embarrassing details of this case come out in a very public case.
|