Man sues Columbia University over "Carry That Weight"

[Kheldarson]

Summary: Student Paul Nungesser is suing Columbia University for allowing fellow student Emily SulKowicz to receive course credit for her art project, "Carry That Weight". The project was, for those who don't know, of her carrying her dorm room mattress with her wherever she goes as protest for how Columbia University handled her rape allegations against Nungesser.

Nungesser is suing the school for failing to protect him from a "harassment campaign".


A bit more information on the performance piece/protest/victim: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/ar...l-protest.html


On the one hand, he was more or less cleared of the charges by the school, and Sulkowicz didn't formally declare charges. However, Columbia has a history of ignoring sexual assault claims, and Sulkowicz says the police visit was upsetting. So it makes sense that she would want to do a piece about the issue. Same time, since no charges have ever been leveled and he's presumably innocent, Nungesser shouldn't have to feel unsafe at the campus either.


Not sure how this should play out, really. Feels like the school was caught in a hard place: protect the male student and be called out for supporting rape culture, or support the female student and be accused of bullying.

[s_stabeler]

I'd actually say the guy has a case for harassment. Why? because it ISN'T a protest agianst how rape cases are invesigated. Emily SulKowicz has said she will continue until Nungesser is either expelled, or graduates. Also, I would expect somewhat more details than "the police visit was upsetting"- considering the campus decided there was no rape, I'd be inclined to think the police told her that there was simply not enough evidence of rape to do anything - which would indeed be upsetting, but no reason to launch protests.

Not to mention, I agree she shouldn't receive course credit. It's got nothing to do with if Nungesser raped her or not, incidentally- I both don't see the artistic merit in it, as well as not really being comfortable with someone receiving course credit for what is essentially an attack on a fellow student.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I'm sorry, but if one was raped, and then told "Sorry, not enough evidence" that is far more than just "upsetting". That is a very weak word to describe how someone could react, and be very justified in doing so.

Especially considering the history, how do we know that there actually wasn't enough evidence? If told "Sorry, not enough evidence to do anything" - that could've just been a silence tactic that unfortunately worked. It could also be that the police visit was "upsetting" because of how they approached it in the first place. We have a lot of examples of when someone says they were raped, the initial reaction is "Well, what were you doing? Wearing? What did you say/do?" as opposed to asking "What happened?"

As someone who actually went to, and graduated from, an art school - I do see the merit in it for receiving course credit. (Assuming that she was raped.) That is a stand in for the mattress is was raped on (since she realized that she could get in trouble with the school if she took the dorm mattress out of the dorm). It symbolizes the burden she now has to carry that can only be relieved by people who are willing to stand up and help. Many rape victims (especially if they've been silenced or ignored) don't have the strength or confidence to reach out for help, scared they will be knocked down, ridiculed, or shamed - hence the rule that the only way she can get help to carry the mattress is if people come to her and offer. She cannot ask.

It's a visual (and for people who are helping) physical representation of what victims now shoulder.

Art is more than just a painting, or a sculpture.

If there was no rape, then Columbia dug their down damn hole as to why this is such a mess in the first place and bares as much blame for it. With their track record, there is no way to take their stance of "There was no rape" at face value and just drop the entire thing on Sulkowicz' shoulders. Basically, for me, the fact they say it never happened means jack shit, because - GUESS WHAT - they've been burying and ignoring claims of rape before! Who's to say they aren't just doing the same damn thing?

[s_stabeler]

Except that again, the aim of the protest is to get Nungesser expelled. In other words, the aim is not to overturn what are apparently unfair procedures, but to overturn the decision reached. ( she has outright said that she will carry the mattress around until Nungesser either graduates, or is expelled. In toher words, if Columbia got it's shit together and treated rape cases properly, she would STILL protest. hence why I call it an attack on Nungesser)

Which also explains my issues with her receiving course credit- if it actualyl was a protest targeted at reforming the system- in other words, if Columbia made refors of the system for investigating rapes, she'd stop the protest- I agree she should get course credit. Otherwise? I put this in the same category of someone doing an essay on why a particular classmate sucks and should be expelled.

[Rageaholic]

If he's being harassed and the school isn't doing anything about it, he has the right to sue.

But that's all I can say on this issue. Not because it's controversial, but because there's so much grey area that's hard to make a judgment without knowing the full story.

[Gravekeeper]

I'd actually say the guy has a case for harassment. Why? because it ISN'T a protest agianst how rape cases are invesigated. Emily SulKowicz has said she will continue until Nungesser is either expelled, or graduates.

It is a protest against how cases are investigated. Because SulKowicz did not name her attacker as part of the project. It was actually the student newspaper that outed him. I'm not 100% sure how he expects to pin the court of public opinion on the school though. Unless he has actual names/dates of incidents of harassment that he reported to campus authorities and that they failed to address. Just being surrounded by people that think you're a terrible asshole doesn't constitute harassment.

The university is under not one but two federal investigations for its handling of sexual assault complaints on campus. He might regret the bucket of worms he's opening up.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

If people think he's an asshole because he is one to them, that's great.

Where he's going to make a case (if he actually does) that he was harassed is if that opinion was formed by the handling of this case. Harassment is something you do to a person. It's not what you think of them. If he could prove to a jury that Columbia allowed a group of students to foster an antagonistic learning environment without acting AND there is no reason that was legally proven that that should happen, that's where the case is going to be.

I have no dog in the race. I'll let the internet have all the answers.

[s_stabeler]

It is a protest against how cases are investigated. Because SulKowicz did not name her attacker as part of the project. It was actually the student newspaper that outed him. I'm not 100% sure how he expects to pin the court of public opinion on the school though. Unless he has actual names/dates of incidents of harassment that he reported to campus authorities and that they failed to address. Just being surrounded by people that think you're a terrible asshole doesn't constitute harassment.

The university is under not one but two federal investigations for its handling of sexual assault complaints on campus. He might regret the bucket of worms he's opening up.

except the article in the OP says outright that she won't stop the protest until Nungesser is no longer a student at the university, either expelled, or graduated. THAT is what makes me wonder if it is actually about how cases are handled.

How he'll pin it on the school is that someone is organizing a hate campaign against him, and that the school is actively encouraging it- thus aiding and abetting the hate campaign- by giving her course credit. The issue is that she received a reward ( course credit) from the school for her protest, when said protest, by the very statements of the person organizing it, is motivated at getting him thrown out.

edit- oh, and it's actually irrelevant how the university has investigated rape cases in the past- the issue si that the university, through granting course credit for the protest, has implicitly endorsed the protest. It's another reason why it's irrelevant if he did the rape or not: if he did it, he should be expelled. He should NOT be surrounded by people making a massive deal about the allegations- without, incidentally, proving the allegations aren't baseless- until he is forced out. it IS harassment.

Again, I have no problem with the protest itself- however, i DO have a problem with thye fact she has said she will continue until the guy is expelled or graduates. Had she said she would continue until the system was reformed, I wouldn't care.

[Gravekeeper]

except the article in the OP says outright that she won't stop the protest until Nungesser is no longer a student at the university, either expelled, or graduated. THAT is what makes me wonder if it is actually about how cases are handled.

Yes, but it also says what she's protesting and that she did not name her attacker. -.-

except the article in the OP says outright that she How he'll pin it on the school is that someone is organizing a hate campaign against him, and that the school is actively encouraging it- thus aiding and abetting the hate campaign- by giving her course credit. The issue is that she received a reward ( course credit) from the school for her protest, when said protest, by the very statements of the person organizing it, is motivated at getting him thrown out.

But neither she nor her instructor organized a hate campaign against him nor identified him.

oh, and it's actually irrelevant how the university has investigated rape cases in the past- the issue si that the university, through granting course credit for the protest, has implicitly endorsed the protest.

and the protest is about how the university handles sexual assault issues. Her campaign has become a sort of national movement and it is not focused on bullying one dude on one campus. Given that whether or not she was raped was decided by a panel of university employees ( and she was not allowed to appeal, whereas he was and got one of the decisions against him overturned as the accuser had graduated by the time it came up for appeal ) she has a pretty valid reason to be protesting how the university handles cases.

It was also him that choose to engage her publically as well. So he's going to needs more than "my fellow students think I'm an asshole and that makes me sad" to prove harassment.

His lawsuit has things like:

President Bollinger thus displayed a contemptible moral cowardice in bowing down to the witch hunt against an innocent student instead of standing up for the truth and taking appropriate steps to protect Paul from gender based harassment

Based on:

Columbia, the lawsuit says, essentially sponsored this event by failing to charge the groups for the full cost of clean-up after their event.

So Bollinger displayed moral cowardice by bowing to a witch hunt because....he didn't charge the full cost of event clean up.

The whole lawsuit reads like a wishful screenplay for a made for tv movie. The first 20 pages or so are basically "She couldn't have been raped because she didn't act like she was raped". It then alleges that this is all a complex scheme to brand him a rapist and that literally everything Emma has done has been all about him. He also accuses the university of gender biased against men and claims he was only targeted because he was male. At no point does he ever offer any reason for why someone would go on a years long campaign of carrying 50lbs around campus every day just to make him feel bad.

He never mentions the other people that accused him. Its all Emma's complex evil scheme.

The one valid complaint he may have is the website. But that seems to just be stupidity on the university's part, not coordinated malice resulting from moral cowardice in the face of a witch hunt. -.-

[Canarr]

and the protest is about how the university handles sexual assault issues. Her campaign has become a sort of national movement and it is not focused on bullying one dude on one campus. Given that whether or not she was raped was decided by a panel of university employees ( and she was not allowed to appeal, whereas he was and got one of the decisions against him overturned as the accuser had graduated by the time it came up for appeal ) she has a pretty valid reason to be protesting how the university handles cases.

While I've heard this before, I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of a panel of University employees making decisions on the merit of criminal charges. Why, exactly, is this not done by the police? Or the district attorney? Anyone actually *qualified* to examine the circumstances around a criminal charge?

Seriously; this makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Greenday]

While I've heard this before, I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of a panel of University employees making decisions on the merit of criminal charges. Why, exactly, is this not done by the police? Or the district attorney? Anyone actually *qualified* to examine the circumstances around a criminal charge?

Seriously; this makes absolutely no sense to me.

Because the school has to make a decision on whether to suspend or expel students regardless of criminal court. A criminal court cannot expel him from the school.

Maybe if he didn't want the reputation, he shouldn't have put himself in the position to have such a reputation.

[s_stabeler]

OK, with that further information, you're probably right.

and Canarr, the university is judging if the alleged rapist broke the school policy against rape. Thye aren't judging criminal liability. ( it's similar to how someone can be found liable for compensation for wrongful death, but guilty of murder. (especially since the criteria for wrongful death is somewhat wider- wrongful death includes negiligence, while murder doesn't)

[Andara Bledin]

OK, with that further information, you're probably right.

and Canarr, the university is judging if the alleged rapist broke the school policy against rape. Thye aren't judging criminal liability. ( it's similar to how someone can be found liable for compensation for wrongful death, but guilty of murder. (especially since the criteria for wrongful death is somewhat wider- wrongful death includes negiligence, while murder doesn't)

The problem is that too many police departments will punt to the school and too few schools will bother forwarding charges to the police, too often because it will tarnish their reputations. >_<

A lot of colleges have problems with dealing with rape allegations. Most of them fail the alleged victims entirely, while others fail both sides.

[s_stabeler]

true- although to answer another of Gravekeeper's points, why should she be able to appeal someone being found innocent? it's a well-founded principle in law than an innocent verdict ends the matter ( which is why I thought it rather unfair when Amanda Knox's not guilty verdict was overturned on appeal- she had been found not guilty at trial, and it seemed like they were arguing the facts of the case again.)

[Andara Bledin]

There is no rule of law when there is nobody involved in the legal system involved.

It's an academic panel deciding if the school's rules were violated.

As for Knox, she was never acquitted or found not guilty, though both her and Sollecito's appeals resulted in the convictions being provisionally overturned (I'm not sure how that even works), the guilty verdict was later upheld pending a new appeal at which point the convictions were overturned entirely.