Rape

Mattress Girl Lawsuit: Can Paul Nungesser Beat Columbia in Court? Experts Weigh In

"His time at college and future have been shattered"

|

Sulkowicz
Youtube

Paul Nungesser makes a strong case that he was the victim of an unjustified shaming campaign perpetuated by fellow student Emma Sulkowicz and enabled by Columbia University's quiescence. Even though the university found him innocent of raping Sulkowicz, a professor endorsed her efforts to get him kicked off campus, and administrators did nothing to prevent her from breaching confidentiality agreements and publicly repeating her accusations.

Nungesser is trying to prove that Sulkowicz maliciously defamed him. But that won't be enough for him to win his lawsuit—because he is suing Columbia, not Sulkowicz. His lawsuit argues that Columbia violated Title IX of the Higher Education Act—which prohibits gender-based harassment at colleges—by failing to protect him from Sulkowicz's hostile and defamatory activities.

It's ironic, in a way, that Nungesser's lawsuit rests on Title IX. The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights has increasingly relied on a strained interpretation of Title IX to pressure all universities that accept federal funds to crack down on sexual harassment in ways that threaten the due process rights of the accused, according to many civil libertarians (including the law faculty of Harvard University). Many alleged victims of rape who believe that they were deprived of justice have turned to Title IX when they assert that their universities are failing to honor federal requirements. In some sense, Nungesser is flipping the script by alleging that Sulkowicz's rape accusations and subsequent activism are the kind of thing that OCR believes Title IX requires universities to prevent—though he is certainly not the first accused student to take such action.

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's Samantha Harris, OCR's current thinking on Title IX lends itself to exactly this kind of lawsuit, which is emblematic of the need to separate universities from the business of adjudicating legal disputes:

This is not, as some have suggested, a "nuisance lawsuit." The current interpretation of Title IX, the law that bans sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, arguably invites the type of claims that Nungesser is making. But from FIRE's perspective, the case is notable because it illustrates just what a broken system looks like.

Here is what we know for certain: Two students at Columbia University, on both sides of a sexual assault allegation, have completely lost faith in Columbia's ability to deliver a trustworthy, reliable verdict. Emma Sulkowicz, who believes that Columbia wrongly cleared Nungesser of sexual assault in its internal disciplinary process, has devoted the remainder of her college career to highlighting that perceived injustice. Paul Nungesser, who believes that Columbia has improperly allowed him to be labeled a rapist on campus despite having cleared him of that charge, has now filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the university. And as a result of this loss of confidence on both sides, a great number of very personal details about two students' sex lives have become national news.

And yet with every new piece of federal guidance, universities like Columbia only become more and more entangled in handling claims of serious felony misconduct. Time and again, universities demonstrate—in ways that harm both victims and the accused—that they are simply not equipped to address such complicated and serious cases. Doubling down on this broken system is not the answer, and until something changes, we are likely to see more cases like this one.

Bloomberg View columnist Megan McArdle is skeptical that Nungesser can win:

I don't find [the lawsuit's] litany of complaints particularly compelling. Columbia didn't railroad him because he's a man; the university actually found him not guilty. Nor does Columbia have the power to force Sulkowicz to stop telling the world that he's a rapist. Perhaps the university shouldn't be giving her course credit for doing so, but this seems a pretty thin reed upon which to hang a lawsuit. The rest of the complaints are even thinner, for example, that President Bollinger issued some mealy-mouthed platitudes about how distressing this all is and that the university covered some of the cleanup costs for an anti-rape rally in which his case was prominently featured.

Nungesser is not the first man to sue his college over unequal treatment of men in the campus system of adjudicating sexual offenses. I've read some of the complaints, and they are wounded, outraged litanies of arbitrary treatment by a system that is opaque and far from accountable. But the cases I've looked at generally end up getting dismissed (including a recent one against Columbia), because even if all the facts were true as stated, they didn't add up to proof that these men were treated differently specifically because of their gender. Due process complaints like this one against Michigan are probably a more fruitful avenue, but that's not available against private schools.

Brooklyn College history professor KC Johnson outlines one of the most obvious ways Nungesser can demonstrate that Columbia wronged him. The university clearly failed to live up to its promise to protect Nungesser's privacy:

Despite Columbia's low evidentiary standard (preponderance of evidence) and accuser-friendly procedures, Nungesser wasn't found culpable—even though he wasn't able to present clearly exculpatory evidence (the Facebook messages) and possibly exculpatory evidence (that Sulkowicz had previously claimed that another Columbia student had raped her). Sulkowicz's lack of credibility was, it seems, more than enough for the Columbia panel.

The university instructed Nungesser that it would "make all reasonable efforts to maintain the confidentiality/privacy of the involved parties," and that he "should use the utmost discretion and not discuss the evidence with others." Sulkowicz, presumably, received the same guidance (otherwise Columbia violated Title IX by setting one procedure for the accused and another for the accuser). Columbia's policy held that "breaches of confidentiality/privacy or the complainant, respondent, witnesses, or the investigators, may result in additional disciplinary action."

Sulkowicz obviously has ignored that requirement, and responded to the not-culpable finding by going on a media spree, speaking to a wide variety of local, state, and national reporters—as well as, the complaint alleges, coverage in 35(!) other countries. No evidence exists that Columbia disciplined Sulkowicz for the breach of confidentiality. Instead, Columbia removed the promise of confidentiality in 2014, after Sulkowicz had begun her publicity effort.

I reached out to Matt Kaiser and Justin Dillon—lawyers with the firm Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon PLLC who have represented accused students in campus sexual assault disputes. They don't know whether Nungesser can win, but believe he deserves some kind of justice for his mistreatment:

Kaiser: Columbia University determined that Paul Nungesser wasn't a rapist. Then it gave course credit for a woman to launch a media campaign against him for sexual assault. If what's in his complaint is true, his time at college and future have been shattered. To be sure, this is a novel case, but the law needs to protect people like Mr. Nungesser. 

Dillon: Columbia's treatment of Paul Nungesser shows everything that is wrong with the current system.  Here is a man who was found innocent of all charges but whose primary accuser has actually been given course credit for continuing to call him a rapist—and making national news in the process.  He is living every innocent person's worst nightmare.  Some of his legal claims are stronger than others, but it seems clear that Columbia should have to pay a price for how it's treated him. If this case goes to trial, I look forward to seeing how Columbia justifies what it did and how Ms. Sulkowicz performs under cross-examination.

Read Sulkowicz's response to the lawsuit here.

NEXT: Bill O'Reilly: Zero Tolerance for Police Brutality

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Mattress Girl Lawsuit: Can Paul Nungesser Beat Columbia in Court?”

    I can hope. The school (and she) deserve to be slapped silly.

    1. …slapped silly on a mattress.

    2. slapped silly on her ass. That’s what she likes

      Lying whore. Does that fit the narrative?

    3. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… http://www.work-cash.com

  2. It’s ironic, in a way, that Nungesser’s lawsuit rests on Title IX.

    Deliciously so.

    1. The cries of woe that will result if Title IX gets flipped on those who thought it only went one way will be…entertaining. But that’s par for the course for these idiots. Their capacity to make obvious predictions is…anemic.

      1. It won’t get flipped because he isn’t going to win. It’s ironic in a bad way. He’s trying to use Title IX in the same unjust way that feminist do, to get someone punished without proving they did anything wrong.

        1. On the contrary; he isn’t attacking his accuser, who may be demented but could also be honest. He’s attacking the University for being two-faced. He’s not even saying “poor me, the system wasn’t fair”, he’s saying the system didn’t even deliver the minimal degree of fairness that it clamed to. For THAT, for not holding his accuser to the confidentiality requirements AND giving her course credit for breaking it, Columbia deserves to take a serious hit.

          Columbia isn’t innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

      2. They want consequences.

        They get consequences.

  3. “It’s ironic, in a way, that Nungesser’s lawsuit rests on Title IX. The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has increasingly relied on a strained interpretation of Title IX to pressure all universities that accept federal funds to crack down on sexual harassment in ways that threaten the due process rights of the accused,…”

    There’s nothing I love better than a good irony. A good paradox comes in a close second.

    1. I prefer bronzey or goldy.

      1. To you Zeb, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people.

      2. “Tonight, here on our stage, The Bronze Age.”

    2. A dock on the right and a dock on the left. A paradox.

        1. Or Dr Phil and Dr Dre.

      1. Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk.

  4. Nungesser is trying to prove that Sulkowicz maliciously defamed him. But that won’t be enough for him to win his lawsuit?because he is suing Columbia, not Sulkowicz.

    I don’t understand why he wouldn’t sue both parties. It seems like the facts arise out of the same case or controversy, so he could be barring his ability to sue her should this lawsuit against Columbia fail. Did he say “she’s suffered enough” or something at one point?

    1. It is a fairly creative strategy – you avoid the possible ill-will of a jury (“she accused him of rape and now he is suing her, gasp!”) and also go after the bigger fish. If he wins, this will also send a message to other schools – do this stuff at peril to your endowments.

      1. I don’t know if I was on a jury, I would be more likely to believe that she’s a liar if he was willing to sue her.
        Avoiding facing her in court makes it look like he’s guilty.

        1. I… isn’t that admitting that you would be basing your opinion as a juror on something that is completely outside the scope of a juror’s consideration? I mean, I know that there’s no such thing as a total elimination of bias, but that kind of sounds like the sort of thing that would actually be against the rules of a trial, like letting it sway you that a defendant might choose not to testify.

        2. It’s not just court. It’s public opinion and how he looks to future employers.

    2. It’s strategic. Suing her would be perceived as going after the “victim” of a crime. Ignoring her completely and going after the university leaves her with nothing at all to complain about that she hasn’t been complaining about already. All of his evidence that he didn’t rape her still comes out, as well as his evidence that she’s a nutcase, but without the appearance that he’s going after her personally.

      1. Something, something…pwnd….something.

        1. Don’t try to frighten us with your sorcerer’s ways, Swiss Servator. Your sad devotion to something something has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you enough clairvoyance to find the rebels’ hidden fortress.

            1. Release him! Immed – no, on second thought, carry on.

          1. heh, heh….laughed out loud.

      2. He’s not going to be able to prove the university did anything wrong if he doesn’t get a legal judgement that she’s lying.

        1. Isn’t he? Reagrdles of her truthfulness, or lack of same, he was promised conficdentiality. The University should have expelled her for breaking it. They didn’t. Further, they rewarded her. I can’t say he’s going to win, but I don’t see how the issue of her lying enters into it.

    3. Did he say “she’s suffered enough” or something at one point?

      It’s an art project. Pursuing her or her interaction with the university walks a thin line of being covered under the 1st Am. and he’s giving it a decent birth. The University and Student are free to go around trumpeting fictitious rapes, so long as said trumpeting doesn’t ruin anyone’s career/life.

    4. The only thing I can think of is it was a strategic decision to separate out what a juror or judge found to be a “sympathetic defendant.” It’s a bit akin to the “you’re in good hands” rule in civil cases. You aren’t allowed to discuss insurance because jurors think, “meh, it’s not THAT guy’s money, it’s the big, evil insurance company’s…let’s find damages in the amount of $10 million.”

      Here, maybe by not having Sulkowicz’s skin in the game, they are hoping the judge/jury thinks, “meh, it’s not HER money…”

        1. *feels bad about making a point of posting something first, knowing it will come back in spades*

          1. Do you feel bad, or are you just saying that?

            1. I am going to the penalty box and feeling shame.

              1. You need to stop doing things that make you ashamed while you’re in the penalty box.

                /chronic masturbater

    5. Sue her AFTER she gets the book deal.

      1. Yes. She has no money right now. And zero prospects for a decent paying career.

        I hope he gets to cut in line ahead of her student loan creditors.

        1. I think she can look forward to a career in any of several permanently aggrieved fields. She’ll alienate her employers and have to job hop every 6 months or so, but someone will always be willing to take her on so she can carry a mattress for them.

          1. Government comes to mind.

        2. What’s good for Nungesser is good for America.

          1. He is German….

            1. Makes it even more so.

              1. Amerika

                1. , fuck yeah!

                  I mean… fick ja!

    6. There’s no money in going after the girl. His lawyers probably explained that to him.

    7. If at all possible due not sure crazy people.

      Columbia’s check won’t bounce either.

      1. Do not sue crazy people.

        Or type on a ‘smart’ phone…

  5. Megan McArdle:

    Perhaps the university shouldn’t be giving her course credit for doing so, but this seems a pretty thin reed upon which to hang a lawsuit.

    Oh, I don’t know. Imagine that Emma had pissed off Paul by cheating on him. He creates the “Cheating Slut” performance art project to raise awareness of the damage done to men by cheating sluts. He gets college credit for it. Do you think Emma would have a Title IX case? I do.

    (I invite commenters to suggest good “Cheating Slut” performance art projects.)

    1. As if that would ever happen. The school would have him expelled for that kind of campaign.

    2. She shouldn’t have worn that petard if she didn’t want to be hoisted by it.

      1. At least you didn’t Britta the link.

    3. Both should be protected by the fist amendment. I’m pretty sure the first amendment is supposed to trump Title IX.

      THough if anything the “Cheating slut” art project should be less problematic as “cheating slut” is a lot more subjective a slur than “rapist” if anyone wanted to sue for libel.

      1. The problem Zeb is that they let her do an art project about it. Moreover, it doesn’t matter if they had the power to tell her to shut up. Columbia told him to shut up and didn’t tell her. That right there is unequal treatment. The fact that they didn’t have the power to tell either of them to shut up makes it worse. They respected her rights and tried to bully him into not exercising his.

        1. I agree on that end of things. If she violated the confidentiality policy by using his name, they should have disciplined her and probably not allowed her credit for the project and if she persisted, expelled her.

      2. The first amendment doesn’t cover libel and slander.

        1. And accusing someone of a loathsome crime is libel per se.

          1. And it is pretty appalling for the college to say “sure we will acquit you at the hearing but we will let your accuser libel you with a university sponsored art project”.

            1. It’s almost like the university, by virtue of its contractual relationship, owes certain fiduciary duties to its students, like not assisting in libeling them.

        2. I was trying to suggest that. Perhaps I failed. My main point was that the cheating slut project shouldn’t be a violation Title IX because it is expression protected by the first amendment. And gender is really irrelevant there.

          Well, the bar for libel/slander is pretty high in the US. I would think he would be suing her if he had a case there. Maybe not. I am not any kind of legal expert.

          Still, if he doesn’t sue her for libel, it doesn’t really matter, does it?

          1. To make the comparison more apt, the Cheating Slut project should include that she gave him an STD. That is also libel per se, like a rape charge.

            And that opens many more possibilities for the art project, which I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

      3. Both should be protected by the fist amendment.

        Being held liable for libel/slander is not prohibited by the first amendment.

      4. “Both should be protected by the fist amendment. ”

        No takers on the low hanging fruit?
        (and no, Zeb, I wasn’t calling you a low hanging fruit, NTTAWWT)

    4. This is an example of why I so loath McArdle. Here we have a case where a male student is cleared of an obviously baseless rape charge and they tell him that it “make all reasonable efforts to maintain the confidentiality/privacy of the involved parties,” and that he “should use the utmost discretion and not discuss the evidence with others.”

      They tell him “we will keep this private and you do the same.” Okay. That same university then turns around and gives the accuser course credit for a project smearing the guy as a rapist. And McCardle calls that a “thin read upon which to hang a lawsuit”. Really Megan? They tell the male to keep quiet about all of this and then give the woman course credit for slandering him and that is not unequal treatment?

      I am never quite sure if she is really this stupid or is actually just Amanda Marcottee with a more clever act.

      1. She lives in DC, so anything that smacks of SOCONZ! has to be clearly disclaimed and condemned. Kinda like she’ll have an article about, say, Democrat-run cities be shitpiles and then insert two paragraphs about how Republicans are mean to gays or something.

        1. Funny, due process and equal treatment are now issues that smack of SOCONZ! Our society has gone insane.

          1. No, it’s that due process and equal treatment without accounting for PRIVILEGE is a SOCONZ! position.
            Also, if you say anything that might present Good and Liberal People, Organizations or Institutions in bad light, you have to provide “pox on both houses (but more on SOCONZ!)” addendum or you are in league with SOCONZ!
            Seems straightforward to me.
            Then again, I live in Canada, so.

            1. You pretty much nailed it. And it is of course batshit insane.

      2. Seemed to me like she was speculating about likely outcomes, not saying what she thought was right.
        Do you think the case is likely to succeed? Maybe you do, but if not, what is wrong with her analysis?

        1. I think he has a pretty clear case for unequal treatment. And what McCardle wrote was completely dishonest and contrary to the facts. She admits they told him to be quiet and allowed her to do an art project about it but still claims there wasn’t unequal treatment.

          1. Well, I can’t be bothered to read more of what she wrote, so I’m not going to argue with you. It just seems like she might just be writing about what a court is likely to decide, not what she necessarily thinks would be the ideal outcome.

            My opinion about McArdle is that she is pretty OK as she isn’t completely idiotic about economics. But I don’t read a lot of what she puts out, so you may well be right to laoth her for all I know.

            1. I read most of her pieces. She is normally pretty good, in my opinion. I thought her piece on this particular issue was a surprising lapse in quality for her. Kind of felt like she was in a rush to get something published, without thinking too deeply about the issue or consulting experts. I’m no lawyer, but I was surprised she dismissed the unequal treatment by the school so readily. A lot of her commenters, who appear to be lawyers, made convincing arguments why she was wrong.

            2. If the sexes were reversed would there be any question of a lawsuit? Would McArdle even suggest otherwise?

    5. Suggestions? Ok, I’ll try…

      Lug a female mannequin around with a doorknob attached. After all, everybody takes a turn.

      or maybe be an anti-marriage activist. Say that men don’t take wives, they take turns.

      1. That’s good, but make it a blow-up sex doll. All I could think of was carrying around a cow heart in a jar to symbolize his broken heart, but that seemed merely cheesy and sentimental.

        1. I read that, at first, as “meaty cheesy and sentimental”….and I got hungry.

          1. Hmm, beef-heart…

            *Homer gurgle*

    6. (I invite commenters to suggest good “Cheating Slut” performance art projects.)

      #GamerGate

      1. (slow clap)

      2. Careful. You’ll summon Bo…oh. Goddammit. And he found playmates too and everything.

        1. Oh no Warty, your pure, beloved internet family is ruined! I guess you could always stop ignoring your actual one…

          1. Warty can’t ignore his real family. He can hear their screams emanating from the basement.

        2. I’m surprised he found playmates. You would’ve thought his horrible disfigurement from his mother’s failed coat hanger abortion would’ve kept him locked in a barn for most of his life.

          Also, Warty, it’s funny to note his projection about ignoring your family. I can only imagine the chaos when mamma Bo stopped letting him sleep in her bed.

          1. We don’t know that he’s not in a barn right now.

            1. Good point.

              1. Schr?dinger’s barn.

                1. Wait, how would that work? Simultaneous raping and not raping a cow?

                  Moo moo,
                  I love you
                  I know you’re a cow
                  But anything will do
                  Ooh-whee
                  Can’t you see
                  I wanna make love to you

                  How now, brown cow?

                  1. It’s this sort of stuff that got Agile Cyborg started.

    7. Here’s the thing with slut shaming: it’s only effective when women do it. When men do it, other women just conclude the guy is a pussy, and it’s no wonder she cheated on him. To really effectively accuse a woman of being a cheating slut, another woman has to do the accusing. Then it’s, “that skank stole my man,” which garners female sympathy.

      1. What form of self-policing throughout history HASN’T worked as well or better than criticism from outside one’s own group?

  6. I just realized how ugly she is.

    1. Really? I think she’s pretty.

      7/10, would rape bang.

      1. I learned along time ago to never have sex with a girl who carries a mattress around with her everywhere she goes. It’s especially a pain when you take her to a bar or the movies.

        1. She is very determined and has a strong back! I like that in a lady.

          1. Good on plow!

            1. I should not have laughed so hard at that…

        2. But it’s very convenient for a quicky behind some bushes.

          1. sure it’s quick fun, followed by monthly flairs.

          2. Exactly. I see that as a value added service.

            You have to ask yourself, why don’t *more* women carry mattresses around with them? That’s worth at least a 2 point bump in my book.

        3. (1) Don’t get involved in a land war in Asia

          (2) Never go into a deal with a Sicilian when death is on the line

          (3) ^^^^This

        4. I think a mattress is counterproductive as an item which conveys a notion of “burden” of rape.

          It just screams “get laid with me now”

      2. Those pouty lips, that crazy brain, the fact she does anal…c’mon.

        1. We all know she does anal to compensate. Sure it raises her fuckability level but not the prettiness factor.

        2. In fairness, Crusty Juggler is attracted to pretty much every crazy woman who gets mentioned on H&R.

          Don’t even get him started on Anna Merlan.

          1. Something, something, Merlan in neighbor’s eye, ESB in one’s own…

          2. ESB! ESB! ESB!

      3. Put a paper bag on that messed up face of hers and she’s doable.

        Probably put a bag on my head too to protect my identity from the probable rape allegation. Technically, that makes her a double-bagger.

    2. I think that might be letting your judgements of her character influence you. Or not. No accounting for taste.
      Objectively, I think she looks just fine. With a less unpleasant expression on her face, she could probably look quite nice.

      1. I think she’s in the same category as Lena Dunham: in her 20s both are at the peak of their attractiveness, which is perhaps slightly above average. But they have the features of women who will age terribly. E.g.: here’s a young Jean Stapleton. Similarly not bad, but she became Edith Bunker. And here’s a young Maureen Stapleton. (Not related.) Again, it was all downhill from there. And I think young Jean and young Maureen both look better than young Emma and young Lena.

        1. She is not in the same category as Lena Dunham. Dunham looks horrible now and has the fashion sense of a blind truck driver.

        2. You think Dunham was ever above average?

          Like I said, no accounting for taste.

          1. I said “perhaps slightly above average.” I was being generous, for both Lena and Emma. And I am ignoring fashion sense. And physique. And tattoos. And personality. And politics. But young and in the right light, Lena could be “perhaps slightly above average.” E.g.: 1, 2.

            1. You’re due for an appointment at the optometrist.

            2. Well, I still say that mattress girl is fairly attractive and Dunham plain at best. Like I say, no accounting for taste.

              1. Often being partly Asian is a huge plus looks-wise for women, but it doesn’t really help her in my eyes. And in 20-30 years she’ll be so homely/ugly that she’ll be utterly invisible to men.

            3. I said “perhaps slightly above average.”

              Leave her weight out of this, you cis male shitlord!

              -jcr

        3. “Heres the pearls for your photo shoot Miss Staplton.”

          “Oooooh…ain’t that Faaan-cy”

    3. I just realized how ugly she is.

      Dude. She’s hot.

      1. I’d have gotten in trouble with her. Whenever I read about Nungesser, I think, “there but for the grace of God…”

        1. Yeah, no shit, me too.

      2. Nope. She’s got a dude’s face.

    4. She looks like a young woman who isn’t immediately concerned with how she appears and isn’t wearing makeup or actively smiling. People don’t spend a lot of time being pretty, by volume.

      She looks capable and serious. If her determination has brought her onto a wrongheaded path I imagine a lot has gone into the amount of anger she carries, and not everyone is easily able to let go of anger and pride. It’s easy to fall back on a different kind of ugliness and let it run your life. Her physical appearance isn’t relevant to any of that, or to why this story is important, or to what it means for anyone involved either way.

  7. I wonder if Herr Nungesser has finally learned not to get involved with crazy at this point.

    1. There is no Emma Sulkowicz! Only Zuul!

      1. “She’s not my girlfriend. I find her interesting because she’s a client and because she sleeps above her covers… *four feet* above her covers. She barks, she drools, she claws!”

        1. It’s not the girl Peter it’s the mattress.

          1. Apparently the Gate Keeper prefers that the Key Master enter through the rear gate.

    2. How crazy would you have to be to have sex with someone that carries a mattress everywhere they go?

      1. Yu guys say it’s crazy, I say it’s being prepared for opportunities.

      2. Well, in his defense, she didn’t start with the mattress until after accusing him. But I’m sorry, crazy really isn’t that hard to see. Especially full-bore crazy like her. He really has no excuse.

        1. And also he is at Columbia. I would imagine the “not crazy” pickings are pretty thin. She was likely one of the least crazy options available.

        2. Crazy often develops with time, though. It may not have been apparent when they got involved.
          And it’s easy to say that, but crazy can be a lot of fun too. To begin with, anyway.

        3. Seriously.

          Despite Columbia’s low evidentiary standard (preponderance of evidence) and accuser-friendly procedures, Nungesser wasn’t found culpable?even though he wasn’t able to present clearly exculpatory evidence (the Facebook messages) and possibly exculpatory evidence (that Sulkowicz had previously claimed that another Columbia student had raped her).

          Is there anyone who hasn’t raped this broad?

          1. Yeah, just from the perspective of how stacked these things have been made against the accused and for the accuser, being cleared even without being able to present evidence is a huge sign that everyone involved thought she was unreliable at a minimum and probably a total loon.

            I have a feeling that he now realizes that she’s actually too nutty to sue (and that’s partly why he didn’t). Nobody wants to see him beating up on the retard.

            1. The other thing about her is that she is not even hot. I can understand going for crazy if she is hot. Sometimes our lust gets the better of us. But going for homely crazy?

              1. He’s German – maybe he got nostalgic?

        4. In a perverse (and idiotic) way, a 6 who’s crazy somehow elevates a full point in my mind. It’s similar to an old buddy’s approach of “go ugly, early.” When I asked him why, as a good looking dude, he used this methodology, he said, “that way I don’t rack up a big bar tab…plus, they do more stuff.”

          1. Yeah…crazy does nothing for me. I don’t know why people think that crazy somehow equals wildcat in the sack. I know that’s a popular conception and meme, but I’ve never seen any evidence that it’s anything but mythology.

            And it’s not even that crazy does nothing for me; it actively repels me. Because eventually, there will be trouble. And drama. And yelling. And none of that is good.

            1. . I know that’s a popular conception and meme, but I’ve never seen any evidence that it’s anything but mythology.

              How would you know. You’re always insulting those of us who have a history with the crazy-saying we should know better.

              Those of us who have experience with crazy-as-a-bag-of-cats and the sane, it’s not a myth. No, it’s not true 100% of the time, but like any stereotype, it’s got a grain of truth.

              1. I dunno I agree with that. I think it may be largely a product of the media, like the ‘bad boy’ who’s wild and beats up anyone who offends his girl’s honor, but he always respects women and never cheats. It’s fabricated stereotype that many women go for but is in direct contradiction with reality. The kinky crazy woman I think may be the same way.

                I imagine (and I admit I speak from speculation) that there are just as many crazy women who would just lie there and pretend to be dead in bed or would have a panic attack at the site of a penis. Crazy people are not invariably more uninhibited than sane ones. Often they are actually far more inhibited.

                1. True, but he had ample evidence that this one was crazy in the sack, too.

                  1. Yup. As soon as she started opening up about her past rape and sexual assaults it should have been a ginormous warning sign to stay away.

                    Story from my life, I was acquaintences with a woman whom I was interested in dating. We hung out a couple times, started dating, and as we entered the “we’re going to bang” glidepath she started to tell me about all the previous sexual traumas in her life. Initially my response was “whoa, that is terrible, you’re so strong to have gone through that,” but very quickly it became apparent that what it actually was is every guy she slept with because a rapist after-the-fact because the relationship didn’t become something out of a Disney romance.

                    Needless to say I very quickly got off that glidepath.

                    1. Very few actually fail to communicate what you need to know.

        5. Her footwear should have been a dead giveaway. Then again her Eastern European surname and his being German…

        6. Decent looking, eager for anal,…would be hard to see more than two moves ahead in that situation.

        7. He’s German. He can’t not stick it in crazy.

      3. How crazy would you have to be to have sex with someone that carries a mattress everywhere they go?

        Can I wait and see if *I* get to carry a mattress full of Columbia’s money around afterwards before I answer?

  8. He doesn’t have to prevail in court, just make a case compelling enough that Columbia will settle rather than have their staggering incompetence in this matter laid out in open court. The fact that Sulkowicz is nuttier than squirrel turd and won’t shut up is also bad for them.

  9. Re: the course credit thing-wouldn’t it violate her free speech if the college told her they wouldn’t give her credit because of what specifically she was speaking about?

    1. what was the course?

      1. Many colleges give credit for independent study projects that aren’t part of a normal course.

        Maybe he should sue the professor for having poor aesthetic taste. I’m pretty broad minded about art, but it seems like pretty weak sauce even without the ruining of a likely innocent man’s reputation part.

    2. Probably not. They don’t have to recognize everything as an art project. I think a college would be on pretty firm ground to say they didn’t want students re litigating grievance proceedings as art projects. If she has the right to do an art project about it, then he has the same right and could do something like Alyosius describes above. I think Columbia could fairly say neither could do such in the name of order and the educational environment.

      Beyond that, even if they couldn’t, they still told him to stay quiet. They let her do an art project and tried to bully him into staying quiet. That is unequal treatment.

      1. The contractual issues and different treatment there under is a separate issue. What I’m saying is, if it’s ok to do a project on campus rape or campus rape cases I can’t see how they could say ‘oh, but no credit for doing THAT case!’

        1. They could for the reasons I describe above. It would be one thing if it didn’t involve a current student and a university hearing. It is quite another, however, to let students do art projects relitigating campus disciplinary proceedings and slander each other. As I said, if they let her do one, they have to let him do one. And that creates all kinds of conflict and problems that the university has every right to avoid. We are talking about a project for credit. Columbia does not owe anyone the right to get credit for whatever art project they like. And they certainly can refuse to grant credit and sanction to a project that disrupts their campus, which this project clearly would.

          1. Again, not sure.

            Let’s say UVA allows ind studies that result in artwork about controversial topics, like police use of force. Now, that student that got his face busted by the local cops recently signs up and does his on his case. The college can say ‘oh, that topic disrupts the school, so no credit!’?

            1. Yes they can. It is their university and we are talking about credit not speech in general. As long as they do it in a neutral way, as in tell students who want to do a pro cop project no and those who want to do an anti cop project yes, they can make any rules they want.

              UVA could adopt a rule against any political content in any art project done for credit and be just fine as long as they enforced that rule uniformly and not for the benefit of certain view points. You seem to not understand that we are talking about credit for a project not the right to say something at all.

              1. He’s not stupid, he’s boring and tedious.

                1. “inability to perceive when your rhetorical strategy is failing” = stupid

              2. You seem to have missed that I said earlier that IF they’re going to allow projects on controversial topics THEN can they say ‘oh, not THAT topic!’

                1. They still have the right to say what kind of topics are allowed, as long as they do it in a coherent and neutral way. So even if htey allowed controversial art projects, they could still say “no art projects concerning university matters” and be fine just as long as they enforced that rule neutrally and uniformly.

                  They get to make whatever rules they want. They only get in trouble when they fail to live by whatever rules they have made. Now, it may be that they don’t have a rule against this and had allowed other people to do similar projects in the past. If so, then no, they couldn’t have told her no. If, however, the issue had never come up, then yes they can tell her no. They just have to apply the same rule to the next person asking to do such a project.

                  1. I’m willing to bet this is a case of it never having come up before, but because of the subject matter – campus rape – they felt that they could not really stop her without having a Title IX case on their hands.

                    1. And a lot of angry protesters and bad press.

                2. IF they’re going to allow projects on controversial topics THEN can they say ‘oh, not THAT topic!’

                  Yes. Plain and simple. As an example, I am in a class this semester where the original professor was forced to go on sabbatical for participating in a certain controversial issue. It just so happens that one student was writing a paper on this controversial issue for this class.

                  It would have been more than appropriate for the school to say “the purpose of this class is to create publishable content, and we really want to dissuade any material being published on this specific issue for a little while, at least until the PR disaster for the school blows over.” They didn’t do that, but it would have been understandable.

            2. They probably could have not intervened but not given credit.

              If a student did a project on how Joe Biden sells sex slaves would they have given credit? I don’t think so because as far as we know Biden doesn’t do that (and this is the default position) and because it opens them up to libel litigation.

              Or perhaps Brian Williams’ broadcasts were “art.”

        2. I agree with you as you’ve stated the fact pattern but I think where it steps beyond (and where John accurately points out the university has a protected interest in saying “no”) is if Sulkowicz informs the supervising professor that “Nungesser raped me and I want to carry this mattress around to highlight my personal story as a means of elevating awareness of rape.” Whether or not there was knowledge that this would involve a specific rape case and specific alleged rapist probably plays a big role.

          1. I think they can say no at that point, under the professors discretion if anything. But it seems to me to move the ball into that profs academic freedom rights court if that happens.

            There’s two things here: moving against her for violating no disclosure and privacy regs and 2. Telling her or her prof they can’t do a project because the speech is something that troubles the college or a student.

        3. The university could say nothing about whether she can engage in a protest, therefore not running afoul of speech issues. But they don’t have to give her credit for anything.

      2. They don’t have to recognize everything as an art project. I think a college would be on pretty firm ground to say they didn’t want students re litigating grievance proceedings as art projects.

        Yes, but they have to state that in advance.
        If the terms of the project allowed her to do this, they would have a problem if they just changed their minds in her specific case.

    3. That is a breathtakingly stupid statement.

      1. THIS IS BO

        1. Nice, reflexively stupid and predictable Gilmore response.

          1. Bo knows Gilmore.

      2. Laymen often say things like this when talking about complex fields which they’re not trained in. I explained it above though.

        1. Oh, so you mean you want to talk about a hypothetical situation that disqualifies all the above details of the case that is being discussed? Nevermind it’s not stupid anymore.

          1. It’s not hypothetical, it’s separate issues (and causes of action).

            1. It’s a cause of action that has nothing to do with the case in hand, as Sulkowicz had violated the rules of University by speaking about the case.

              1. There’s a couple issues here.

                1. This woman might have broke non disclosure and privacy regs. Seems like she did that to me.

                2. This woman might have defamed. Ditto.

                3. The college may be liable for defaming.

                Regarding 3 some here have said ‘well the college gave her credit for the defaming project!’

                And I’m saying, if the college let’s others do projects on controversial issues I don’t think they could just deny credit to a project because they didn’t approve of the topic here.

                So, unless you just want to pull a Gilmore and insult totally apart from the substance of what I said, what’s so stunningly stupid about it?

                1. If the this women broke a nondisclosure agreement to defame and defamed the guy with the project all while the University knew this was happening and didn’t punish her in anyway you don’t think this guy has a civil case of gender discrimination?

                  1. That’s of course different than what I was talking about, number 3 above. So again, what was stupid about that?

                    1. If she broke no disclosure and they didn’t pursue it while holding him to it, that’s a case I’d like to have. But I wouldn’t argue that by giving her credit they were obviously helping her flout the no disclosure, precisely because of what I argued. Even John agrees with me that if they’d let other projects on university matters go they might have to allow credit for this one (of course they could still discipline her for breaking disclosure, just not by denying credit).

                    2. Also wouldn’t she be in violation of some kind of academic misconduct for violation for publishing falsified information? from the handbook:

                      Academic Misconduct Procedures
                      Generally, the faculty will handle offenses related to academic misconduct and assign appropriate penalties without involving others. In such cases, the following procedure will be followed:

                      The faculty member who, upon investigation, suspects academic misconduct will, if possible, confer with the student suspected.
                      If the faculty member determines the student is not responsible for engaging in academic misconduct, the matter will be dropped.
                      If the faculty member determines the unacceptable behavior was unintentional, the violation will be explained and an alternative penalty will be imposed at the discretion of the investigating faculty member. The Provost and the Dean for Student Affairs must be notified in writing of the incident and the outcome.
                      If the student admits responsibility for academic misconduct, or if the faculty member determines there was intentional unacceptable behavior, the faculty member may impose the penalty stated in the course syllabus. In the absence of a penalty stated in the syllabus, the penalty will be a grade of F on that activity, which will be factored into the final grade. The Provost and the Dean for Student Affairs must be notified in writing of the incident and the action taken.

                    3. Writing a paper or doing a project about something that might not have been proven at something like a college hearing doesn’t really establish you ‘published false information.’

                      I mean, if that were true then writing a paper espousing the theory that FDR knew about and implicitly allowed Pearl Habor to occur would mean, even if you argued the point well in every way the teacher allowed for (used credible sources, understood the surrounding history, etc), that you should get no credit for it because you ‘published false information’ (every ‘formal’ hearing on the matter essentially absolved FDR iirc).

                    4. Jesus, Bo you just admitted she is a slanderer and now your arguing she’s not and the university shouldn’t have punished her?

                    5. There’s a couple issues here.

                      1. This woman might have broke non disclosure and privacy regs. Seems like she did that to me.

                      2. This woman might have defamed. Ditto.

                      I also answered that here:

                      (of course they could still discipline her for breaking disclosure, just not by denying credit).

                    6. BO: I would be interested to hear what you think of this when looking at how involved her program director for the Art Class was in the direction of the project.

                      John Kessler didn’t just determine whether or not the project was sufficient for credit – rather he framed, titled and suggested much of it. He also made a few troubling statements:

                      “Carrying around your university bed?which was also the site of your rape?is an amazingly significant and poignant and powerful symbol,” Kessler said. (From an interview with the Columbia Spectator)

                      That’s far from the only one Kessler put out there, where he as an agent of the University defamed Paul.

                      1. What obligation does Kessler have as an agent/employee of the university for seeing that their policies are followed. He was made aware of the “not responsible” finding by Emma. He likely broke several policies of the university in advising her on the project.

                      2. I have a huge problem with Columbia on this. They’re hiding behind the “We do not divulge information on individual student complaints of sexual misconduct” – while one of their employees is out declaring Emma’s version of events as true, and doing so in his capacity as an employee of the university. It’s sort of like the IRS using tax payer privacy as a cover for not complying with subpeonas of IRS wrongdoing.

                    7. I really think the strength of Paul’s case may be in how involved John Kessler was in creating the hostile environment. A fun take away from that piece:

                      “Kessler, citing the recently leaked email from Columbia Title IX Compliance Officer Virginia Ryan, said that “with all this evidence coming up … it’s so clear the way uni feels about this issue.”

                      “You look at the seeming significance of the [sexual assault policy] changes made over the summer, but those changes are really just there to appease the media and to appease parents. They’re not made with students’ best interests in mind.”

                      “So yeah,” he said, “I think the University would love to see this go away.”

                      Ridolfi-Starr agreed.

                      “I would not be surprised if [administrators] attempt to intervene with some kind of a policy mumbo-jumbo about a violation somewhere,” she said. “They’re dying for an excuse to get rid of her.”

                    8. No it’s not. There is a clear difference between allowing a credit for a “controversial idea” and giving someone a credit for something that the University knew violated there non-disclosure agreement. I don’t really understand why that isn’t clear to you.

                    9. Can you tell me what that difference is legally?

                    10. Again, John and Catafish are I believe lawyers and not prone to agreeing with me, but both agree with that it could be the case that they could not have denied her credit for this (for John it’s if they had before allowed credit about such university matters and for catafish it’s whether the prof knew before hand it would be about this exact case).

                    11. You could attend law school, they will explain it to you.

                    12. Would it be in your seemingly favored format, ipse dixit?

                2. And I’m saying, if the college let’s others do projects on controversial issues I don’t think they could just deny credit to a project because they didn’t approve of the topic here.

                  There is difference between controversial and libelous. Sometimes the difference is as simple as NYT v. Sullivan. A controversial project may say some factually untrue things about a public figure. A libelous project says factually untrue things about a private person.

                  I don’t see how this is in any way the same. The case law seems to be able to make a distinction between public figure and private person.

        2. I find it foolish, and I would be delighted to have only the likes of you as an adversary in court.

          And lest I sound like I am bragging – I always know there is someone better to come along. I am fairly certain I wouldn’t want to be at the other table with RC Dean in the room, for example.

          You should puff out your tiny e-chest a bit less.

          1. Maybe you could muster more than a three paragraph ipse dixit if you were across the court from me?

            1. If he’s arguing about how much you suck, it would run into the hundreds of pages.

              1. Hey, leave her alone – she found a new phrase to play with!

              2. I thought you were ignoring me, and following me around urging everyone else to (with a mattress on your back, perhaps?)?

        3. Foreign policy, statistics, et al. ‘everything’ really.

          I wouldn’t go so far to call you, a “Layman”. Layboy?

          also, please = Supra. “above” is so ‘first year’.

          1. We know you have nothing to say on the substance here Gilmore. Everyone can see that. Now tell us how these experts ties match or not.

          2. One Gilmore fashion review was more interesting than all the botarded comments taken together.

      3. I am going to assert my free speech was violated next time my professor doesn’t give me credit for something.

        1. I hope when you do you distinguish between the profs discretion or judgement that something wasn’t worth credit and the different thing I’m talking about here: saying ‘this topic, no credit for such a topic regardless and apart from what you do on it.’

          1. Oh I will, I’m sure they’ll be very receptive.

    4. That’s a reasonable question to ask, I think. And not completely obvious.

      If she was subject to a confidentiality agreement about the rape accusations, I would think that the college could still subject her to disciplinary action for violating it.

      1. I bet you they would have disciplined him had he violated it.

        1. Yeah. That seems like the big strike against the university. She violated their policy, that she presumably agreed to at some point, and they did nothing.

    5. You still have to deal with the libel/slander issue though.

      1. Of course.

      2. Never mind. Don’t think that’s in plaintiff’s claims. And also think that would require Sulkowicz to be named defendant in order to then connect the university to giving tacit approval of the libel/slander.

        1. You can sue one who publishes a slander even if they aren’t the original defamer

          1. Yeah, but don’t you have to litigate the underlying claim? Otherwise, how do you prove the element of knowledge of the falsity? It’s been a long time since I’ve looked at the slander/libel cases so I honestly can’t remember.

            1. That’s a good point, I can’t instantly recall myself.

              1. You are a student – how many defamation cases have you examined / read?

            2. The default is that people are rapists, murderers, child molesters, conflict diamond smugglers, war criminals, etc.

              If I declare that you are a child molester I would be surprised when you sue me for libel that you would have to prove that you aren’t a child molester.

    6. “Re: the course credit thing-wouldn’t it violate her free speech if the college told her they wouldn’t give her credit because of what specifically she was speaking about?”

      You can say whatever you want, the college is not required to give you course credit for it. I’m going out on a limb and saying that if she’d wanted to do a pro-Nazi art project they probably wouldn’t have let her do so.

      1. They don’t have to give credit for an art project, but once they do they can grant or deny credit based on the topic apart from the work done it???

      2. I’m going out on a limb and saying that if she’d wanted to do a pro-Nazi art project they probably wouldn’t have let her do so.

        You don’t need to go all Godwin.

        Just see the tolerance level for a Tea Party project, or a Second Amendment project.

        I’ll bet you those would be shot down (pun intended) or trigger warning / safe spaced out of relevance.

        “Liberal” tolerance is going the way of the dodo.

    7. Err, no. Where in the 1st amendment does it say ‘you have the right to receive college credit for whatever speech you choose to make.”?

      And you’re supposed to be the lawyer here.

  10. I’m not sure how an econ blogger and a history prof qualify as experts here, but at least you finally talked to two attorneys.

  11. I hope this is a sign of progressives finally getting bitten by the laws they enacted.

    But my hope is probably overblown.

    1. In the days of Jim Crow, it was illegal to murder men. Period. The statutes didn’t differentiate between a black man and a white man.

      Strangely, though, despite that piece of paper saying that it was against the law to murder black people, white people did get away with murdering black people.

      1. 9/10ths of the laws on the books are pretty much just further winnowing down of a few basic ones, as if to say “no, people, you can’t f—ing loophole your way out of this really basic law. Now we have to add more crap in here to stop you.” And then “No, you can’t loophole your way out of THAT law either, REALLY stop trying.”

        Of course, we’ll quibble over which particular group of people [we don’t like] does this more or less than other groups of people [we like more], but of course it’s in the nature of every single one of us to hold a separate set of rules for other people and for the things we feel like doing.

        Now we’ve painted ourselves into a corner because the complexity of the legal code harbors quadruple or more the natural population of lawyers, tax adjusters and similar who have their own lobby to keep it as jacked up as it is into perpetuity. And yet we still quibble over whether it’s them progressives or those blacks or SOCONZ! when really, it’s all of us. Rich, poor, corporate or individual, male and female, we’re all jerky schemers.

      2. Quite right. Title IX was made for the benefit of women, not men. It doesn’t matter if the law is gender neutral in writing, the people who made it and who enforce it do not see it that way, so that’s not how it’s going to be enforced.

        That’s why there is nothing ironic about this case. “Oh, they’re using their own weapons against them.” Yeah, and that’s precisely why he’s going to lose. This weapon was designed to be a single edged sword, and that’s how they’re going to use it.

  12. Better. Call. Saul.

  13. Nungesser is not the first man to sue his college over unequal treatment of men in the campus system of adjudicating sexual offenses. I’ve read some of the complaints, and they are wounded, outraged litanies of arbitrary treatment by a system that is opaque and far from accountable. But the cases I’ve looked at generally end up getting dismissed (including a recent one against Columbia), because even if all the facts were true as stated, they didn’t add up to proof that these men were treated differently specifically because of their gender.

    Unless they are treating women accused of rape in the exact same way, it is most definitely specific to the accused’s gender.

    Fuck you Megan.

    1. People on here always give me shit for disliking her so much. Jesus she can be appalling sometimes.

    2. The cases did get dismissed, for those reasons I assume.

      Is there reason to believe that she is saying that this is how the cases should have been decided in her view? Perhaps I am missing that. Otherwise, I don’t get the animosity.

      1. If the facts were true as stated (I’m assuming this refers to the facts of the railroading the boys took), how the heck is that not proof of widespread and systemic different treatment?

        I can’t remember the last time I ever heard a story about a girl raping a guy in college and being railroaded by the system so I just don’t buy that female students accused of rape get the same treatment that males do.

        I admit that I might be jumping to conclusions as to what her view on how the cases should be decided is.

        1. how the heck is that not proof of widespread and systemic different treatment?

          Because a single person’s treatment can’t prove that a practice is “widespread” and “systemic”?

          1. Between the multiple cases she cited and the multitude of cases Reason has covered over the years, I think it’s safe to say it’s widespread. Maybe not systemic.

          2. How about when a woman who claims to be a victim of sexual assault/rape/harassment sues the university for sex discrimination because she didn’t get the outcome she wanted?

            The use of Title IX to modify sex crime adjudication on campus was itself rooted in an entirely baseless case. None of the women or their feminist lawyers ever even tried to prove that female victims were treated worse than male victims (in fact, they are treated far better and taken far more seriously than male victims). There was no evidence of sexism. And yet, here we are, with Title IX ‘investigators’ running the show on campuses.

            So even if you are correct, there is still a clear gender double standard: that men are expected to present clear and indisputable evidence of gender discrimination to have a case, while women need present no evidence whatsoever to have a case.

        2. I can’t remember any story about a woman raping a man at college period, so I have nothing at all to go on.
          How about women raping women? This is only a guess and I can’t recall any stories of that either, but I bet that happens more often than women raping men.

          1. Reporting rates for male victims are, of course, almost 0%. If we go by survey data, than it would be clear that men, not women, are the demographic most ‘underserved’ by campus sexual assault adjudication systems.

            The whole ‘awareness’ movement is circular: women widely disproportionately accuse, ergo women are widely disproportionately victims, ergo we need programs to get more and more women to accuse, and oh, what do you know, even more women are accusing now, indicating once again that they are disproportionately the victims.

            In any case, men just don’t care about being sexually assaulted by women that often; they generally don’t consider it assault. Which we may say is fine, likely due to innate differences between men and women, except for how much women bitch about ‘double standards’ in sexuality. Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you take issue with the fact that men get to be sluts but women don’t, then you should also be demanding that every woman who gropes a man gets sent to prison. That’s my take on it.

    3. ” I’ve read some of the complaints, and they are wounded, outraged litanies of arbitrary treatment by a system that is opaque and far from accountable.”

      So…Patriarchy?

  14. “which prohibits gender-based harassment at colleges”

    Unfortunately Nungesser is not a member of a privileged class, he’s a member of a BFYTW class.

    Just as whites have no rights against institutionalized racism, men have no rights against institutionalized sexism.

  15. I foresee two more lawsuits – one against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and another against Emma Sulkowicz herself.

    If “Innocent until proven guilty” means anything, this guy has been defamed and had his name inextricably linked to rape, the “right-to-be-forgotten” notwithstanding.

    1. I would love to see Gillibrand get sued but I don’t think there is a case. Gillibrand was smart enough to be careful about what she said. She never directly said the guy was guilty. She only said “this woman tells me she is”, which is not technically libel.

      1. She pulled a Harry Reid.

        Someone tells me Mitt Romney has not paid any taxes.

      2. While I wouldn’t necessarily want the law to be this way, I could see an argument that the mere fact that Gillibrand, as a U.S. Senator, invited Sulkowicz to attend the State of the Union address in support of the Campus Accountability and Safety Act would count as assisting Sulkowicz’s libel.

        1. I’m reasonably sure that when Congress Critters say something on the floor of their House, they can’t be sued for Libel or defamation.

  16. Megan McArdle is retarded.

    1. She is the world’s best example of the stupid white girl. Someone who has spent their entire life being taken care of by first her parents, then a series of boyfriends and finally her husband and has no fucking clue how the rest of the world lives or how the world actually works.

  17. If this case goes to trial, I look forward to seeing how Columbia justifies what it did and how Ms. Sulkowicz performs under cross-examination.

    No kidding.

  18. Why isn’t he suing Ms Sulkowicz for defamation of character? And why isn’t she being prosecuted for filing a false police report?

    1. Check top of the thread for a few responses on not including Sulkowicz in the civil suit. On filing a false police report, I’m not sure she ever actually filed a report. Could be wrong about that though.

    2. because columbia has money, and she doesn’t?

      on the latter – i’d read that the police dismissed the complaint as “lacking reasonable basis for investigation”. Not “proven false”, so much as, “not worth bothering with”, apparently. I don’t know how that works really.

      1. She probably described something to the police that doesn’t qualify as “rape”.

        1. “I told him i was curious about anal, but then he stuck a finger in my butt without asking first!… yes, officer we were already fucking… why are you laughing? ARRGGH PATRIARCHY!”

    3. Swiss has a response he really wants you to read. The first person to point it out, in fact.

    4. She’s got no money?

  19. wouldn’t it violate her free speech if the college told her they wouldn’t give her credit because of what specifically she was speaking about?

    Holy shit.
    That’s dumb, even for you.

    1. Oh, come on. At worst that’s middle of the road for Bo. And it’s not such a terrible question, really.

      I think they probably shouldn’t have given her credit for it because it is a shitty art project. And she should have been disciplined for violating the confidentiality agreement.

      It’s a private school, so probably not a first amendment issue. But I would criticize the school for rejecting her project proposal if the rejection were because of the specific content of the work and not because it was bad art.

      1. Hey Zeb
        I am trying set up a NH reasonoid meet up. I have hamilton and DEG’s email. I just need yours and HM’s.

        Can you send email me using the address in my handle?

      2. Yeah. If they told her she couldn’t do this particular art project, she would probably have had a discrimination case, and it would have been an even bigger uproar.
        What are you going to do, STOP RAPE VICTIMS FROM SPEAKING?
        They can’t really post-facto reject just this one art project, especially given that it’s about rape, and the campus feminists would freak the shit out if some girl wasn’t allowed to be her rape-centric project for class.

        1. I’m going to enroll in an art project and for my project I’ll carry around with me the mattress on which Jay Leno brutally raped me to the point of severe rectal bleeding (the mattress even still has the blood stains on it; looks kinda like a Pollock painting).

          Now, of course, I have no evidence nor a legal ruling indicating any validity to this claim, but I’m gonna do it anyway because rape rape rape!

          But seriously, I fucking hate Jay Leno.

    2. Meh, pretty par for the course.

  20. As I argued in the previous thread, Nungesser needs to sue HER, first, if he wants to go on to sue Columbia. He’s not going to win a lawsuit resting on the claim that Columbia allowed him to be defamed without first proving that Sulkowitz’s allegations are actually defamation. And the university panel doesn’t count as a legal judgement that her claims are false. Finding him not culpable is not equivalent to proving her a liar. Also, despite the confidentiality agreement, the university can’t really stop her from speaking to the media. it’s doubtful that if they tried that they would win a case if she sued on first amendment grounds. The confidentiality agreement was probably toothless from the start.

    Not saying that he shouldn’t get some sort of justice, but that if he wants it, he has to sue her directly, not the university. Maybe he can go after the university after.

    1. I’m no lawyer, but I think the violation of the confidentiality agreement made him a target and has ruined his job prospects, so that is the economic harm and he’s suing the school because of deep pockets, right?

  21. And it’s not such a terrible question, really.

    The insinuation that somehow “free speech” is only valid if accompanied by college credit seems egregiously fatuous.
    I suppose she could have tied a gag over her mouth, stripped naked but for a dog collar and leash and lashed herself to the door of the administration building as a symbol of the school’s suppression of her Truth, if the professor had shot down her “art” project.

    1. Or she could have sued for Title IX discrimination.

  22. I don’t know if this was discussed in the thread since I got here late, but does anybody know if she really has carried that matress much? Every picture I see she’s wearing the same thing, jean shorts and a light tank top.

    News reports make it sound like she carries it everywhere on campus, all the time. Part of the “narrative” I assume.

  23. If they told her she couldn’t do this particular art project, she would probably have had a discrimination case, and it would have been an even bigger uproar.

    I don’t buy it. If she had made a proposal which fell within the scope of the specific structure of the course for a project based on the generic phenomenon of “campus sexual assault” that would be one thing, but offering course credit for what amounts to a vindictive personal attack on another student? Bullshit.
    If she had proposed to spend a semester shaming a professor who gave her grade she didn’t like, for credit, I suspect her professor would have told her, quite rightly, to get her head out of her ass.

  24. If they told her she couldn’t do this particular art project, she would probably have had a discrimination case

    WTF? Signing a confidentiality agreement means you forego your right to free speech about the incident. At the very least the name of the person she accused should have been left out of the art project 100%.

    But that’s the stupidity of a 24/7 performance art project – you have a chance of fucking it up.

    Now I really do want to watch Art School Confidential again. Gotta enjoy a well-made movie where every character is loathsome, not unlike this case.

  25. But the cases I’ve looked at generally end up getting dismissed (including a recent one against Columbia), because even if all the facts were true as stated, they didn’t add up to proof that these men were treated differently specifically because of their gender.

    Two thoughts:

    (a) When a case is settled, it gets dismissed. I wouldn’t leap from “this case was dismissed” to “this case lost in court” without knowing why/how it was dismissed.

    (b) How very selective of her, it pass over without comment the many cases that have been settled. Not running down the listing of successful lawsuits, but I know its out there somewhere.

  26. The picture of Sulkowicz’s face is enraging; it “triggers” me to violence!

  27. Hope he wins and the judgment is 9 figures.

    That would send the proper message to all the universities who seem to think that Title IX is the “persecute males” part of the Federal Code.

  28. I would love to see him made a billionaire from this case. It would be the biggest case of butthurt from the media you’ve ever seen. Then he can endow the “The President of Columbia is a sick, and so is this specific professor” scholarship at Harvard.

  29. The Emma “The Mattress” Sulkowicz celebrity story may be the most outrageous false campus rape allegation of all time, even surpassing the Duke Lacrosse Team scandal and the Rolling Stone fiasco for the rape fable with the most traction. See A Model of Campus Gender-Based Harassment: The Columbia University “Mattress” Story (includes transcript of core of lawsuit document).

  30. I don’t know if this was mentioned yet, but the complaint included the fact that Nungesser was drunk at the time, and Sulkowicz used this in her story.

    But doesn’t that make HER the rapist? After all, one can’t consent if they’re intoxicated, so… Columbia, are we expelling Sulkowicz yet?

    1. You and i both wish that were how it goes
      but the fact is that in a situation where both the man and the woman are drunk and have sex, its almost always the man’s fault

      it’s happened time and time again and its sickening

    2. The only time the word “drunk” (or drinking or alcohol) was used in the lawsuit was in Emma’s confession to Paul:

      “i’ve officially had sex with all of John Doe’ best friends. . . – did lotsa drugs ? jk ? just got very drunk ? well anyways – now I have an std? i actually hate John Doe like if a girl is about to puke ? don’t put your unprotected dick into her. . . I realy don’t want to be known as the girl who contracted an std because she was drunk you know? it is more his fault for fucking me unconscious – i mean i was conscious but clearly not in my right mind. . . i was literally blackout. . . like I puked all over the place.”

  31. Megan McCardle’s comment : “I don’t find [the lawsuit’s] litany of complaints particularly compelling” is particularly inept. The complaints are quite compelling. I would be vary wary of accepting anything this author publishes without thinking it through carefully.

  32. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  33. “But the cases I’ve looked at generally end up getting dismissed”

    From 2006-2010, the United Educators cooperative insurance consortium reviewed 262 claims of student-perpetrated sexual assault, which generated more than $36 million in losses. Students accused of assault brought 54% of the claims and comprised 72% of the financial losses. In 92% of the claims with losses, the accuser was under the influence of alcohol, and more than 60% of accusers were so intoxicated that they had no clear memory of the assault. Prior to the assault, 33% of the accusers battled mental health issues such as eating disorders, personality disorders, suicide attempts, or trauma from a previous sexual assault.

  34. Two University insurance industry studies of campus sexual assault contradict the “rape culture” meme: Insurance Industry Revelations and Prescriptions about Campus Sexual Assault

  35. my best friend’s aunt makes $85 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her pay check was $18401 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    …… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  36. “Slut Shaming Art Project” idea- http://image.cdnllnwnl.xosnetw…..181900.jpg

    1. From BALL State

  37. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  38. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  39. I feel a reasonably deep heartfelt need to leave this post.

    For starters, I am the type of white liberal Reason probably loves to hate. And I actually agree with many of the tropes in this article. IE that women’s behavior post-assault is psychologically complex and cannot be easily be judged, etc.

    BUT

    On reading the messages between parties and seeing the lies of the “victim” and watching as she becomes little more than a lightning rod for pre-existing agendas, I feel the need to call bullshit.

    I think this poor dude has been railroaded three ways to Taipei. And it’s brutal. And it doubly pisses me off because it really is kind of critical that zombie pundits and taste makers come up to speed with sexual abuse – that they realize real victims may behave in counter-intuitive ways. But the glaring nonsense of this case only sets that cause back 100 years.

    I really hope Paul gets his name cleared. He honestly seems (granted, only by his texts etc) like a really nice guy.

    I hope I am not wrong.

  40. This really okay? That it is not fair at all.

  41. Dillon: Columbia’s treatment of Paul Nungesser shows everything that is wrong with the current system.
    visit http://legallibrarybooksresearch.law-arab.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.