You might have heard about this story, the one where the woman is dragging a mattress around campus until the bloke leaves campus. As part of her thesis, naturellement.
Here’s the gobsmacking thing about it:
If three separate complaints against the same man could not persuade the hearing panels, how could anyone believe that justice was served?
That there’s three complaints does not make any of them actually true. And the female students do actually agree that they only spoke up when they checked stories with each other.
Sexual assault cases can sometimes come down to a matter of perspective, but Mr. Nungesser’s accusers say there can be no ambiguity about what he did. “It’s not safe for him to be on this campus,” Ms. Sulkowicz said this month. The women he assaulted “are forever emotionally scarred and fragile because of what he’s done to them. And me.”
Mr. Nungesser is similarly absolute. “People were like, maybe this is a misunderstanding,” he said of Ms. Sulkowicz’s charges. “But the matter of the fact is it’s not a misunderstanding.” He insists they had completely consensual sex. “What was alleged was the most violent rape, and that did not happen.”
As for groping, he says he attended the party but never went upstairs. And intimate partner violence? “Outside of a forced marriage or kidnapping, it just seems very hard to believe that a person would over and over again put themselves in a situation where they could expect this kind of behavior to occur.”
False reports of rape are rare, many experts say, and the federal Education Department is investigating scores of colleges for possibly violating federal rules in handling the complaints that are filed.
Mr. Nungesser said the charges against him, all filed within days of one another, were the result of collusion. The three women said in interviews with The New York Times that they decided to take action when they heard about one another’s experiences.
The groping case was initially decided against him, with a largely symbolic punishment of “disciplinary probation,” but he appealed. By the time the case was heard again his accuser had graduated and was unable, she said, to participate in the process. The decision was overturned. The university dropped the intimate partner violence charge after that accuser, saying she was exhausted by the barrage of questions, stopped answering emails over summer vacation. And in Ms. Sulkowicz’s case, the hearing panel found that there was not enough evidence. Her request for an appeal was denied.
To Mr. Nungesser’s accusers, the refusal to punish him in any way — as well as the myriad procedural errors, delays, contradictions and humiliations, both small and large, to which the women said they were subjected — is proof that the system was biased against them. If three separate complaints against the same man could not persuade the hearing panels, how could anyone believe that justice was served?
“To me he seems like a predator who attacks women, who does not ask for consent and does not know the line,” said the student who accused Mr. Nungesser of groping her, and who asked not to be publicly identified, as did the third accuser.
Continue reading the main story
To Mr. Nungesser, the facts that campus hearings have a lower burden of proof than criminal trials and that he was not allowed to bring up communications between himself and Ms. Sulkowicz after the night in question were proof that the process was biased against him. If despite those odds, the hearings were resolved in his favor, how could anyone doubt that justice was served?
The campus system operates on the balance of evidence, as the feminists desire. Not all reasonable doubt, as the criminal law requires. And all three cases were found, at the very least, not proven on the basis of that balance of evidence.
It’s hard to see that the bloke should be punished for something that the system quite clearly doesn’t think he did, given the process and the evidence.