Posted on 04/24/2015 8:22:15 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda
Accused of Rape, a Student Sues Columbia Over Bias
By BENJAMIN WEISER
A Columbia University student who was accused of rape by a fellow student, who then targeted him in a very public campus action, filed a federal discrimination lawsuit on Thursday against the school; its president, Lee C. Bollinger; and one of its professors.
The plaintiff, Paul Nungesser, who was cleared of responsibility in the rape claim by the university, alleges in the lawsuit that he had been the victim of a harassment campaign by the other student, Emma Sulkowicz.
“By refusing to protect Paul Nungesser,” the lawsuit says, “Columbia University first became a silent bystander and then turned into an active supporter of a fellow student’s harassment campaign by institutionalizing it and heralding it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
ANd why isn’t she in PRISON??
If the university has any sense, it will join her as a party defendant. The plaintiff’s attorneys may know that and want the moving party to be the university. I don’t do third party practice so could be totally wrong on this but might be true.
Last January Kirsten Gillibrand brought her to the State of the Union speech....
Apparently Paul Nungesser nor members of FR understand the present threshold for allowing a charge of rape to be made. If you are a man and you have ever considered having sex with a woman then you are a rapist plain and simple.
The guy is always going to be on the losing side without overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Ms. SULKowicz is well named.
Yep! Did you read that one thread someone posted last year of the fem-nazi blog declaring that all man - female sex is rape? These people are completely out of their minds.
Oh wow I found it!
https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
I assume by “PIV” they mean penis in vagina sex. What’s amazing are the reader comments on the bottom where they AGREE with this insanity!
Then this is a grand opportunity for the university.
They can bring that policy and the way it is enforced to light in this trial.
I’m not sure about bias, but I’m pretty sure he has a solid case for slander. Her very public accusation has most demonstrably damaged his standing among his peers and in his community. That constitutes an actionable injury.
The mattress carrying around thing leads me to believe she’s an attention seeker. Victim status is always a good way to gain attention at a lib university. To her, carrying a mattress around campus may just be a great way to meet people.
I’ve said it before - With politics as their goal and hype as their weapon, the Left are oddly re-creating a 21st century Puritan sexual standard, albeit without any context to its natural home in Christian morality.
For the ultimate in anti-male rhetoric, may I recommend the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Males) Manifesto?
http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm
Written in 1967, BTW, so these aren’t exactly new ideas.
Maybe he’s going for the big pockets first and saving a suit for her next.
Excellent. People are finally starting to bite the dogs.
Ah yes, "It's not the facts of the case, it's the seriousness of the charge..."
After all SHE wouldn't LIE, would she?
Believe it or not, she’s carrying the mattress around as her senior thesis. It’s “performance art.”
Not all that familiar with this case, but what this often means is not a ruling by the university that he didn't do it, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with further action.
IOW, it's left forever in the limbo-land of he-said/she-said rather than being conclusively proven either way.
As opposed to cases, for example, where the accused was in Peru at the time, where innocence is conclusively proven.
What very few seem willing to address is the simple fact that in those common cases where both parties agree sexual activity took place, and the only issue is whether it was consensual, there is quite simply no way to prove guilt (or innocence) beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this unfortunate situation, the legal system has cheated, and people are convicted or acquitted based essentially on which person was more convincing on the stand. IOW, who told the better story.
The problem with this, of course, is that some people are excellent liars and others are unable to tell the truth convincingly when under extreme stress.
If we actually followed our own principles of justice, it would be essentially impossible to get a conviction in a date-rape case. AFAIK, in no other type of case are convictions routinely handed down based solely on the testimony of one interested party that is directly contradicted by another interested party.
Which really ought to give males, in or out of college, good reason to reconsider the wisdom of picking up random females in bars and taking them home. But it won't.
This is why colleges and universities should not have their own courts and police.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.