A federal court in New York dismissed a Columbia student's lawsuit against the university alleging that its inadequate response to sexual misconduct in general, and to her own rape in particular, violated Title IX. Specifically, the student alleged that she was raped twice in her dorm room. She claimed that Columbia's liability for the first rape stemmed from its indifference to the problem of sexual assault on campus. This allegation involved too-general a threat, however, to impose some specific obligation on Columbia. Institutions are only liable for pre-assault conduct if they failed to respond to a more specific threat, such as notice that the plaintiff herself was under a heightened risk of assault, or notice involving the particular context or manner in which the plaintiff was assaulted. Absent such allegations, the court dismissed this aspect of her Title IX claim.
The plaintiff also alleged that Columbia was liable for the second rape because it did not adequately respond after she reported her first rape. The court's conclusion that this claim was also insufficient stemmed in part from the lack of notice that the university received. For one thing, she did not report the first rape to her professor, she only alluded to rape in vague enough ways that did not trigger the professor's responsibility to report to the university's Title IX office. For another, though she later reported the rape at an advocacy group meeting, Columbia policy specifically exempts rapes disclosed "at public
awareness events, such as protests, “survivor speak outs,” and other
student advocacy forums" from triggering an investigation. The fact that Columbia officials did reach out to her following the disclosure, and that they respected her wishes not to pursue an investigation, precluded the court from characterizing Columbia's response as clearly unreasonable, as required to impose liability under the deliberate indifference standard.
This case made me think about the ongoing debate about mandatory reporting policies. I'm noticing increasing research and advocacy against the mandatory reporting policies, such as this new paper in American Psychologist, which concludes that evidence does support the belief that mandatory reporting policies are helpful to survivors, and that they may in fact harm survivors by limiting their autonomy. The paper proposed several alternatives that the authors believe are more survivor-focused, such as allowing university personnel who receive a student's report of sexual assault to
respect the victim's choice on disclosure, and to whom an incident may
be reported, and allowing victims to chose whether their report gets investigated.
But what are we supposed to make of those findings and recommendations in light of stories like the plaintiff's here? Her autonomy was preserved -- by a mandatory reporting policy that let her say just enough to her professor without triggering the professor's obligation to report, and that exempt disclosures made at public awareness events. It further preserved her autonomy by allowing her to determine whether her first rape got investigated. Her autonomy was preserved, but was her safety? She was raped again. And I think it's telling that in retrospect she argues that the university should have done more to protect her safety, and that she faults the university for the very things that the university did to preserve her autonomy.
I don't purport to know the right balance between safety and autonomy here, but I am concerned that we are not talking enough about the risks, not only to victims and survivors, but to the campus community as well, stemming from a university's well-meaning choice to do nothing rather than respond. I appreciate research like the paper I noted above, but I hope there are equal efforts to document the harm that results from policies like the one those authors propose.
The decision described in this post is: Roskin-Frazee v. Columbia Univ., 2018 WL 1166634 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2018).
Showing posts with label Columbia University. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Columbia University. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 07, 2018
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
On suspending seasons
Yesterday, Amherst College suspended all team activities for the men's cross country team after a student publication revealed social media messages and emails to incoming team members that included racist. misogynist, and homophobic comments.
Last month, Harvard suspended the men's soccer season in the wake of revelations that the team has continued its practice of ranking first-year members of the Harvard women's soccer team in sexually explicit ways.
In a few weeks, the Baylor football team will play in the Motel 6 Cactus Bowl against Boise State despite accusations of sexual assault by 17 women against current and former football players and a clear evidence of cover-ups.
One of these things is not like the others.
Things have been brewing, arguably boiling over, at Baylor for some time, which is why Paul Finebaum, ESPN commentator, expressed outrage last month that the team had not been suspended. Finebaum said on-air that Baylor's football season should have been suspended in light of its many misdeeds (chronicled here--and everywhere). Finebaum was calling for the Big 12 to issue the suspension because neither the NCAA nor the university itself will do so. The NCAA is not planning anything in response to the cover-up of the sexual assaults and to an institution that does not have control over its athletics program. Baylor hired a law firm to do an external investigation and then failed to make changes and refuses to acknowledge a culture of sexual hostility and athlete privilege.
The two events at Amherst and Harvard have commonalities: introduction of the first-year class into team culture using offensive discourse; elite, private schools; men's "minor sports"; both schools will conduct investigations into the matters.
At Harvard the offense was directed at the women's soccer team; a betrayal of what many of the women felt was a familial (non-sexual) relationship. Since the soccer scandal was revealed, it has come out that similar practices have occurred within the men's cross country team. The initial response was meh. The athletic director said Harvard would handle it internally and by trying to make it less of a media thing--he made it more of a media thing. The additional findings that 1) players were not being "forthcoming" about what was happening and 2) it was still happening forced the AD as well as the university president to make stronger public statements and ultimately cancel the season. Investigations are ongoing.
At Amherst, it does not appear--at the moment--that the commentary was directed at a female team. A June 2015 list of female students has surfaced that includes pictures and comments about their sexual pasts, including guesses about STD infections. The incidents in question are from 2013-15. Of course, as we saw at Harvard, these things often do not just disappear on their own, even when there is new leadership--as there was at Harvard when they hired a new soccer coach a few years ago.
Also, the cross country season is over. "Team activities" would likely include team banquets or coach-led practices, but it's finals week at Amherst, and I assume there is not much on the docket for the team. So now Amherst must decide how to proceed. Will athletes involved be individually punished? Will the be prevented from running next season? Many cross country runners will also run indoor and outdoor track. Will team members be allowed to compete for their other teams? To its credit, Amherst, under its (not so new anymore) president, has taken issues of sexual assault and harassment more seriously than in the past. The school's response was immediate and the AD and president are seemingly on the same page. I hope this one does just fade away. Investigations are ongoing.
What have we learned? Well male privilege and sexual misconduct are not just the province of football players. This is obvious when taking a broad look at the cases of harassment and assault involving athletes. Baylor gets the most attention because it is a big-time football program. (There is also the issue of adherence to "Christian values" that are the alleged bedrock of the institutional mission; this has received less attention.) So what it looks like is that there is more at stake at Baylor--for the athletes, for the coaches, for the school. I do not agree with this view because what I know for sure is that the stakes are the same for the women who are the victims of these athletes and for potential victims. They are on campuses where sexual violence is a known reality (as it is on most campuses). The crimes and misdemeanors may be different and, at the individual level, the effects on victims may be different (in part because of school response). But all these schools have a climate of sexual hostility and it is manifesting in their athletic departments, among their male-student athletes (and probably at higher levels as well). And this means that students do not feel safe at their schools.
PS. More on Baylor:
The university received word this week from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, an accrediting body, that it would be monitoring Baylor's ability to 1) maintain institutional control over intercollegiate athletics, 2) create a safe and healthy environment for students, and 3) provide adequate student support services.
In other words, while there are a lot of external pressures on Baylor, it continues to do very little. Baylor fans might say that ditching Art Briles was enough. Finebaum, and many others, do not think so. Firing Briles (who is suing the school for libel) was cleaning house. It is was not shoring up the structure of the house. In fact (to continue to metaphor) Baylor brought in a temporary coach, Jim Grobe, who seemed to be predisposed to making things dirty again and further weakening the structure. (Based on comments during his early press conferences and interviews.) The new coaching staff has been named. We shall see what those press conferences bring.
Investigations are over.
PPS. Columbia wrestling
I knew I forgot something! Columbia University (also elite, private) suspended its men's wrestling team ("minor sport") after some members' racist and misogynist texts were discovered. Columbia completed its investigation last month. While the investigation was pending, members were not allowed to compete. The team was still practicing.
The messages were sent in a group message format. Those not participating in the group message were allowed to resume competition. Some members were suspended for the rest of the season. Others were suspended until the start of spring semester.
Notable in this case: former assistant coach Hudson Taylor who founded Athlete Ally, a group that supports LGBT athletes, took some responsibility for the culture that engendered these messages:
"[The actions] are a reflection of our culture and my coaching. I apologize to the Columbia campus, to the alumni, and to my former wrestlers for not doing more to develop them into young men of better character.”
Last month, Harvard suspended the men's soccer season in the wake of revelations that the team has continued its practice of ranking first-year members of the Harvard women's soccer team in sexually explicit ways.
In a few weeks, the Baylor football team will play in the Motel 6 Cactus Bowl against Boise State despite accusations of sexual assault by 17 women against current and former football players and a clear evidence of cover-ups.
One of these things is not like the others.
Things have been brewing, arguably boiling over, at Baylor for some time, which is why Paul Finebaum, ESPN commentator, expressed outrage last month that the team had not been suspended. Finebaum said on-air that Baylor's football season should have been suspended in light of its many misdeeds (chronicled here--and everywhere). Finebaum was calling for the Big 12 to issue the suspension because neither the NCAA nor the university itself will do so. The NCAA is not planning anything in response to the cover-up of the sexual assaults and to an institution that does not have control over its athletics program. Baylor hired a law firm to do an external investigation and then failed to make changes and refuses to acknowledge a culture of sexual hostility and athlete privilege.
The two events at Amherst and Harvard have commonalities: introduction of the first-year class into team culture using offensive discourse; elite, private schools; men's "minor sports"; both schools will conduct investigations into the matters.
At Harvard the offense was directed at the women's soccer team; a betrayal of what many of the women felt was a familial (non-sexual) relationship. Since the soccer scandal was revealed, it has come out that similar practices have occurred within the men's cross country team. The initial response was meh. The athletic director said Harvard would handle it internally and by trying to make it less of a media thing--he made it more of a media thing. The additional findings that 1) players were not being "forthcoming" about what was happening and 2) it was still happening forced the AD as well as the university president to make stronger public statements and ultimately cancel the season. Investigations are ongoing.
At Amherst, it does not appear--at the moment--that the commentary was directed at a female team. A June 2015 list of female students has surfaced that includes pictures and comments about their sexual pasts, including guesses about STD infections. The incidents in question are from 2013-15. Of course, as we saw at Harvard, these things often do not just disappear on their own, even when there is new leadership--as there was at Harvard when they hired a new soccer coach a few years ago.
Also, the cross country season is over. "Team activities" would likely include team banquets or coach-led practices, but it's finals week at Amherst, and I assume there is not much on the docket for the team. So now Amherst must decide how to proceed. Will athletes involved be individually punished? Will the be prevented from running next season? Many cross country runners will also run indoor and outdoor track. Will team members be allowed to compete for their other teams? To its credit, Amherst, under its (not so new anymore) president, has taken issues of sexual assault and harassment more seriously than in the past. The school's response was immediate and the AD and president are seemingly on the same page. I hope this one does just fade away. Investigations are ongoing.
What have we learned? Well male privilege and sexual misconduct are not just the province of football players. This is obvious when taking a broad look at the cases of harassment and assault involving athletes. Baylor gets the most attention because it is a big-time football program. (There is also the issue of adherence to "Christian values" that are the alleged bedrock of the institutional mission; this has received less attention.) So what it looks like is that there is more at stake at Baylor--for the athletes, for the coaches, for the school. I do not agree with this view because what I know for sure is that the stakes are the same for the women who are the victims of these athletes and for potential victims. They are on campuses where sexual violence is a known reality (as it is on most campuses). The crimes and misdemeanors may be different and, at the individual level, the effects on victims may be different (in part because of school response). But all these schools have a climate of sexual hostility and it is manifesting in their athletic departments, among their male-student athletes (and probably at higher levels as well). And this means that students do not feel safe at their schools.
PS. More on Baylor:
The university received word this week from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, an accrediting body, that it would be monitoring Baylor's ability to 1) maintain institutional control over intercollegiate athletics, 2) create a safe and healthy environment for students, and 3) provide adequate student support services.
In other words, while there are a lot of external pressures on Baylor, it continues to do very little. Baylor fans might say that ditching Art Briles was enough. Finebaum, and many others, do not think so. Firing Briles (who is suing the school for libel) was cleaning house. It is was not shoring up the structure of the house. In fact (to continue to metaphor) Baylor brought in a temporary coach, Jim Grobe, who seemed to be predisposed to making things dirty again and further weakening the structure. (Based on comments during his early press conferences and interviews.) The new coaching staff has been named. We shall see what those press conferences bring.
Investigations are over.
PPS. Columbia wrestling
I knew I forgot something! Columbia University (also elite, private) suspended its men's wrestling team ("minor sport") after some members' racist and misogynist texts were discovered. Columbia completed its investigation last month. While the investigation was pending, members were not allowed to compete. The team was still practicing.
The messages were sent in a group message format. Those not participating in the group message were allowed to resume competition. Some members were suspended for the rest of the season. Others were suspended until the start of spring semester.
Notable in this case: former assistant coach Hudson Taylor who founded Athlete Ally, a group that supports LGBT athletes, took some responsibility for the culture that engendered these messages:
"[The actions] are a reflection of our culture and my coaching. I apologize to the Columbia campus, to the alumni, and to my former wrestlers for not doing more to develop them into young men of better character.”
Monday, August 01, 2016
Second Circuit Reinstated Disciplined Student's Title IX Claim Against Columbia
A student who was disciplined for sexual assault may continue to litigate his claim that Columbia University discriminated against him on the basis of sex, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday. The appellate court overturned a lower court decision that had granted Columbia's motion to dismiss the Title IX claim on the grounds that it failed to sufficiently allege that sex discrimination motivated the alleged procedural and substantive errors that lead to his suspension.
The appellate court, however, determined that the plaintiff's complaint met the legal standard for alleging a violation of Title IX and should not have been dismissed so early in the litigation. The ruling reinstates the plaintiff's case and allows it to proceed to the discovery stage, during which both sides will acquire evidence that they intend to use at trial. At the end of discovery, Columbia may again try to get the case dismissed in advance of trial (summary judgment). Then the questions will turn to the sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence, but here, early in the litigation timeline, the only thing in question is the sufficiency of the allegations in his complaint.
The Second Circuit was influenced in its decision by the 1973 Supreme Court decision McDonnell Douglas v. Green, which allows discrimination plaintiffs with minimal, circumstantial evidence to benefit from a temporary presumption of the defendant's discriminatory motive. Additionally, the court referenced the Court's more recent, 2009 decision, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which held that a complaint must plead specific facts sufficient to support a plausible inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Read together, according to the Second Circuit, the two cases permit a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss where the complaint specifically alleged facts that support a "minimal plausible inference" of discriminatory intent. Here, the court determined, the plaintiff's complaint met that burden. Even if it is not probable, it is plausible to infer, as plaintiff alleged, that Columbia was biased against men in the wake of negative publicity over its mishandling of female student's earlier complaints of sexual assault. Moreover, the complaint's allegations of procedural errors that occurred during the disciplinary process and the absence of evidence to support the finding against are allegations of the type of minimal, circumstantial evidence that plaintiffs should benefit from under McDonnell Douglas.
This pro-plaintiff decision is binding in the Second Circuit, which includes New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. In these states, it's likely to interrupt the trend in favor of universities' winning their motions to dismiss, as disciplined students should now have an easier time advancing to the discovery phase of litigation. Though such victories are only preliminary in nature (since the university can again to dismiss the case after discovery, and still could win at trial), they may affect universities' incentives to settle rather than go through the cost and hassle of continued litigation. Outside the Second Circuit, the trend in favor of universities winning motions to dismiss may continue unaffected, as courts there court continue to take a stricter view of Iqbal. However, it is also possible that other courts will find the Second Circuit's reasoning persuasive and adopt it as their own. After all, that is what happened with Yusuf v. Vassar -- the 1994 Second Circuit decision that laid out the framework for "erroneous outcome" and "selective enforcement" disciplined student cases, and which has been cited in every Title IX disciplined student case of late.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Accused Student's Case Against Columbia Dismissed
Last April we blogged about the lawsuit filed by Columbia student Paul Nungesser, who was accused of sexual assault by a fellow student, Emma Sulkowicz. After a university hearing failed to find Nungesser responsible, Sulkowicz protested by carrying her mattress in public. Nungesser sued the university for damages to his reputation arising from Sulkowicz's protest. He argued that the university was deliberately indifferent to Sulkewicz's harassment of him, and thus liable under Title IX.
As I predicted, the suit against the university was readily dismissed. In a decision released last week, a federal court judge in New York reasoned that Nungesser could not establish the central requirement for a Title IX claim: discrimination based on sex. As the court characterized Nungesser's argument, he experienced sex-based harassment because the allegations against him were based on sexual misconduct. The court called this a "logical fallacy" that, taken to its logical end, would lead to the conclusion that those who commit or are accused of committing sexual assault is a protected class under Title IX. It is clear that when Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex, it means based on the plaintiff's sex, not based on the act of sex. And it is clear even from Nungesser's own pleadings that Sulkewicz's conduct was motivated not by Nungesser's status as male, but by his conduct towards her -- in her account, that he raped her, in his account, that he rejected her, but either way, both agree that it is conduct and not status that motivated her actions.
Moreover, Nungesser failed to allege any harassing conduct by Sulkewicz or anyone else. He does not claim that Sulkewicz had any contact with him after the hearing, or directed comments towards him, or even used his name in her protest. And even if she had called Nungesser a rapist, it would have been an accusation particular to Nungesser, not a gender-based slur. The court noted that a person who is falsely accused in public has a remedy in tort law. However, Nungesser's claim is a Title IX claim against the university, not a slander claim against Sulkewicz.
The court also found that Nungesser's allegations did not establish that he had been deprived of educational opportunities, another requirement for Title IX liability to attach.
The court granted leave to Nungesser to file an amended complaint to correct the numerous deficiencies, noting that it is typical for courts to grant such permission. I don't think (and I don't think the court thinks) that the result would be much different for Nungesser the second time around; if he had better facts to include in his complaint he probably would have used them the first time.
As I predicted, the suit against the university was readily dismissed. In a decision released last week, a federal court judge in New York reasoned that Nungesser could not establish the central requirement for a Title IX claim: discrimination based on sex. As the court characterized Nungesser's argument, he experienced sex-based harassment because the allegations against him were based on sexual misconduct. The court called this a "logical fallacy" that, taken to its logical end, would lead to the conclusion that those who commit or are accused of committing sexual assault is a protected class under Title IX. It is clear that when Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex, it means based on the plaintiff's sex, not based on the act of sex. And it is clear even from Nungesser's own pleadings that Sulkewicz's conduct was motivated not by Nungesser's status as male, but by his conduct towards her -- in her account, that he raped her, in his account, that he rejected her, but either way, both agree that it is conduct and not status that motivated her actions.
Moreover, Nungesser failed to allege any harassing conduct by Sulkewicz or anyone else. He does not claim that Sulkewicz had any contact with him after the hearing, or directed comments towards him, or even used his name in her protest. And even if she had called Nungesser a rapist, it would have been an accusation particular to Nungesser, not a gender-based slur. The court noted that a person who is falsely accused in public has a remedy in tort law. However, Nungesser's claim is a Title IX claim against the university, not a slander claim against Sulkewicz.
The court also found that Nungesser's allegations did not establish that he had been deprived of educational opportunities, another requirement for Title IX liability to attach.
The court granted leave to Nungesser to file an amended complaint to correct the numerous deficiencies, noting that it is typical for courts to grant such permission. I don't think (and I don't think the court thinks) that the result would be much different for Nungesser the second time around; if he had better facts to include in his complaint he probably would have used them the first time.
Friday, May 22, 2015
"It's safer to be quiet": Cultures of retaliation~Cultures of sexual violence
So many voices have created the current level of visibility and activism around campus sexual assault. This week we are hearing them speak about retaliation in light of recent events that reveal the connection between cultures of sexual violence and cultures of retaliation against victims and allies who speak out.
Arguably the most visible story this week is out of New York. Columbia University graduation was this past week and Emma Sulkowicz was among the class of 2015. Sulkowicz has been carrying a mattress around campus this past year as part of a performance art piece. She vowed to keep carrying the mattress until Columbia kicked her rapist off campus. They didn't. There is an extensive back story to Sulkowicz's experience which is marked by administrative ineptitude that has never been explained or accounted for. Columbia should be apologizing to Sulkowicz but instead the university president refused to shake her hand* at last Tuesday's Senior Day ceremonies where Sulkowicz, with the help of friends, carried the mattress across stage; the last time she would carry it.
Her assailant, Paul Nungesser, also graduated this week. He was on stage a few minutes prior to Sulkowicz. He has filed a lawsuit against the school in relation to Sulkowicz's project/protest.
There has been great support for Sulkowicz, and the mattress project has inspired other activists across the country to take up the mattress as a symbol. But there has also been significant retaliation. The university contends that President Bollinger did not slight Sulkowicz--who made a concerted effort to make eye contact and shake his hand--but rather that the mattress was in the way. Given that various administrators worked very hard to keep Sulkowicz from carrying the mattress on stage, I find it hard to believe that the lack of a handshake was really due to the fact that the mattress was blocking such a gesture. Only symbolically!
Sulkowicz said she would not participate in the ceremony if she was not allowed to carry the mattress. Because of the attention to her case, this would have been even worse PR for Columbia. Though the recent posters calling Sulkowicz a "Pretty Little Liar" have not been great either.
These posters, found around campus, are part of a larger effort to silence and discredit Sulkowicz and all those who would think about reporting their assaults, those who support victims, and even those who participate in investigations (which I will discuss in a moment).
This anonymous piece in Jezebel speaks to the culture of retaliation at Columbia. Written by the woman who reported that Nungesser sexually assaulted her--a year before what he has called consensual sex with Sulkowicz, the author details her experiences and why she remains anonymous. She is one of 4 people who report being sexually assaulted by Nungesser. The very visible and violent backlash against Sulkowicz had a silencing effect on this woman--who has only ever commented anonymously about her case--her and most likely other victims. There are so many pieces of this editorial I would like to quote (I recommend reading it all) but the most chilling phrase comes towards the end: "it's safer to be quiet."
That is certainly what a Stanford undergraduate learned this past semester. (Not a great week for Stanford.) This student is being held responsible--by the masses--for getting the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity kicked off campus. She never reported the behavior she saw on pledge night; behavior that she found offensive and so left after 30 minutes. But she was asked to give a statement as a witness. She was not assaulted and never claimed to be. Somehow fraternity members found out her name and began harassing her. So despite the other factors that contributed to SAE's expulsion, this undergrad is being blamed. And when the harassment started against her specifically, this triggered an additional investigation into the fraternity. It was going to happen with or without her participation and after much thought (given her that her initial participation had gone so badly) she did decide to participate.
Her editorial is also startling and speaks to the climate of retaliation on college campuses that is barely (if at all?) being addressed as part of these larger issues. She writes:
"My only chance to protect myself was to participate in the same Title IX process that had made me a target in the first place. I knew that any decision I made would affect not just me, but the culture surrounding reporting on campus. I am a victim of harassment and retaliation, and this experience has been among the hardest I have ever had to deal with. I cannot imagine what it must be like for victims of violence and assault. Given the retaliation I faced for merely being thought to have reported harassment, I don’t know if I could face actually reporting a case of assault. And I am not willing to become a cautionary tale, an example of the reasons why people shouldn’t report."
These stories, in addition to the ones presented in The Hunting Ground, of women who spoke out all include anecdotes about other victims who come to them for advice because they are too afraid to report. Too afraid of the treatment they will receive by administrators, by law enforcement, and from their peers. This is an integral part of how rape culture is perpetuated and more needs to be done specifically addressing this component.
Arguably the most visible story this week is out of New York. Columbia University graduation was this past week and Emma Sulkowicz was among the class of 2015. Sulkowicz has been carrying a mattress around campus this past year as part of a performance art piece. She vowed to keep carrying the mattress until Columbia kicked her rapist off campus. They didn't. There is an extensive back story to Sulkowicz's experience which is marked by administrative ineptitude that has never been explained or accounted for. Columbia should be apologizing to Sulkowicz but instead the university president refused to shake her hand* at last Tuesday's Senior Day ceremonies where Sulkowicz, with the help of friends, carried the mattress across stage; the last time she would carry it.
Her assailant, Paul Nungesser, also graduated this week. He was on stage a few minutes prior to Sulkowicz. He has filed a lawsuit against the school in relation to Sulkowicz's project/protest.
There has been great support for Sulkowicz, and the mattress project has inspired other activists across the country to take up the mattress as a symbol. But there has also been significant retaliation. The university contends that President Bollinger did not slight Sulkowicz--who made a concerted effort to make eye contact and shake his hand--but rather that the mattress was in the way. Given that various administrators worked very hard to keep Sulkowicz from carrying the mattress on stage, I find it hard to believe that the lack of a handshake was really due to the fact that the mattress was blocking such a gesture. Only symbolically!
Sulkowicz said she would not participate in the ceremony if she was not allowed to carry the mattress. Because of the attention to her case, this would have been even worse PR for Columbia. Though the recent posters calling Sulkowicz a "Pretty Little Liar" have not been great either.
These posters, found around campus, are part of a larger effort to silence and discredit Sulkowicz and all those who would think about reporting their assaults, those who support victims, and even those who participate in investigations (which I will discuss in a moment).
This anonymous piece in Jezebel speaks to the culture of retaliation at Columbia. Written by the woman who reported that Nungesser sexually assaulted her--a year before what he has called consensual sex with Sulkowicz, the author details her experiences and why she remains anonymous. She is one of 4 people who report being sexually assaulted by Nungesser. The very visible and violent backlash against Sulkowicz had a silencing effect on this woman--who has only ever commented anonymously about her case--her and most likely other victims. There are so many pieces of this editorial I would like to quote (I recommend reading it all) but the most chilling phrase comes towards the end: "it's safer to be quiet."
That is certainly what a Stanford undergraduate learned this past semester. (Not a great week for Stanford.) This student is being held responsible--by the masses--for getting the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity kicked off campus. She never reported the behavior she saw on pledge night; behavior that she found offensive and so left after 30 minutes. But she was asked to give a statement as a witness. She was not assaulted and never claimed to be. Somehow fraternity members found out her name and began harassing her. So despite the other factors that contributed to SAE's expulsion, this undergrad is being blamed. And when the harassment started against her specifically, this triggered an additional investigation into the fraternity. It was going to happen with or without her participation and after much thought (given her that her initial participation had gone so badly) she did decide to participate.
Her editorial is also startling and speaks to the climate of retaliation on college campuses that is barely (if at all?) being addressed as part of these larger issues. She writes:
"My only chance to protect myself was to participate in the same Title IX process that had made me a target in the first place. I knew that any decision I made would affect not just me, but the culture surrounding reporting on campus. I am a victim of harassment and retaliation, and this experience has been among the hardest I have ever had to deal with. I cannot imagine what it must be like for victims of violence and assault. Given the retaliation I faced for merely being thought to have reported harassment, I don’t know if I could face actually reporting a case of assault. And I am not willing to become a cautionary tale, an example of the reasons why people shouldn’t report."
These stories, in addition to the ones presented in The Hunting Ground, of women who spoke out all include anecdotes about other victims who come to them for advice because they are too afraid to report. Too afraid of the treatment they will receive by administrators, by law enforcement, and from their peers. This is an integral part of how rape culture is perpetuated and more needs to be done specifically addressing this component.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Court Dismisses Title IX Case of Student Suspended For Sexual Assault
Last Friday I blogged about a Title IX case filed against Columbia University by a student who prevailed in a disciplinary hearing for sexual assault but was subsequently and allegedly harassed as a result of his accuser's public protest. But Columbia University was also in the news last week because a federal court recently dismissed a case that had been filed by a student alleging that the university's disciplinary process under which he was suspended for sexual assault was biased against him in violation of Title IX.
Like other similar plaintiffs, the "John Doe" plaintiff in this case attempted to raise both of the arguments courts have recognized as plausible applications of Title IX to disciplinary outcomes: arguments of erroneous outcome and selective enforcement. To be successful, both arguments must be accompanied by allegations that could support a conclusion that the university intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of sex.
In support of his erroneous outcome claim, Doe alleged that university officials committed errors during the investigation and hearing process that prevented him from demonstrating his innocence to the hearing panel that found him responsible for assault. Specifically, Doe focused on the actions of Title IX Investigator, whom Doe claimed did not adequately investigate the details of the night the sexual encounter occurred, and who presented a report that left out his version of the story. The court was, at the outset, skeptical that the procedural deficiencies Doe alleged prevented him from demonstrating his innocence, noting that the hearing board found that Doe had exerted "unreasonable pressure for sexual activity...over a period of weeks" that rendered ineffective any consent that the victim could have provided on the night in question. As a result, the court concluded, even if the investigator had been deficient in her investigation or presentation of the facts about that night, they would not have made a difference to the outcome. More importantly, the court found lacking any specific allegation in support of Doe's theory that the investigator was motivated by gender bias, claiming only that she had "worked for a women's resource center in the past," a flimsy basis for inferring bias. Nor could the court give credence to any of the other of Doe's conclusory declarations of bias, because they were not supported by any allegations of fact.
The court also rejected Doe's selective enforcement claim, i.e., that aside from the matter of his alleged innocence, Columbia punished Doe more severely because of his sex. Yet in this case, Doe did not allege that Columbia intentionally punished men more severely, or failed to adequately examine their innocence, because they are men. At most, the court reasoned, Doe alleged that Columbia's disciplinary process is unfair to those accused of sexual assault, but since this category could include men or women, it does not support the conclusion that Columbia intentionally discriminates against men on the basis of sex. And while Doe may argue that men are more likely than women to be accused of sexual assault, and thus more likely to be burdened by the alleged deficiencies in Columbia's process, this theory is not actionable under Title IX, according to the court, because of a 2001 Supreme Court decision foreclosing disparate impact lawsuits under Title VI -- the race discrimination statute on which Title IX was modeled. As a result, it is not enough for plaintiffs to claim that a university's sex-neutral policies or practice impacts one sex more than the other.
As demonstrated by this and other similar decisions cited by the court here, colleges and universities do not necessarily commit sex discrimination just because they discipline male students for sexual assault. In contrast, however, when colleges and universities discipline students in actual violation of their own procedures, those cases can be successfully litigated without the lens of sex discrimination under breach of contract and negligence theories, see, for example, this case. Yet, breach of contract and negligence claims don't support the "reverse discrimination" narrative that some may wish to advance by using Title IX to challenge what Title IX has wrought. It may be that plaintiffs continue to advance the Title IX theory because if they could establish that universities are routinely* liable under Title IX for disciplining students for sexual assault, it would create the impression that Title IX is inherently contradictory, unworkable, and its application to sexual assault should be repealed. If that is the strategy, however, it does not seem to be working so far.
* I say routinely to account for the unusual case (e.g., this case, and possibly this case) where the plaintiff has a factual basis for alleging that the university used him as a "scapegoat" in a misguided effort to demonstrate compliance with an OCR resolution agreement. When that is the situation, Title IX should provide a remedy. However, when a university gets in trouble for going beyond what Title IX requires, it reflects negatively on the university not on Title IX.
Doe v. Columbia University, 2015 WL 1840402 (Apr. 21, 2015).
Like other similar plaintiffs, the "John Doe" plaintiff in this case attempted to raise both of the arguments courts have recognized as plausible applications of Title IX to disciplinary outcomes: arguments of erroneous outcome and selective enforcement. To be successful, both arguments must be accompanied by allegations that could support a conclusion that the university intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of sex.
In support of his erroneous outcome claim, Doe alleged that university officials committed errors during the investigation and hearing process that prevented him from demonstrating his innocence to the hearing panel that found him responsible for assault. Specifically, Doe focused on the actions of Title IX Investigator, whom Doe claimed did not adequately investigate the details of the night the sexual encounter occurred, and who presented a report that left out his version of the story. The court was, at the outset, skeptical that the procedural deficiencies Doe alleged prevented him from demonstrating his innocence, noting that the hearing board found that Doe had exerted "unreasonable pressure for sexual activity...over a period of weeks" that rendered ineffective any consent that the victim could have provided on the night in question. As a result, the court concluded, even if the investigator had been deficient in her investigation or presentation of the facts about that night, they would not have made a difference to the outcome. More importantly, the court found lacking any specific allegation in support of Doe's theory that the investigator was motivated by gender bias, claiming only that she had "worked for a women's resource center in the past," a flimsy basis for inferring bias. Nor could the court give credence to any of the other of Doe's conclusory declarations of bias, because they were not supported by any allegations of fact.
The court also rejected Doe's selective enforcement claim, i.e., that aside from the matter of his alleged innocence, Columbia punished Doe more severely because of his sex. Yet in this case, Doe did not allege that Columbia intentionally punished men more severely, or failed to adequately examine their innocence, because they are men. At most, the court reasoned, Doe alleged that Columbia's disciplinary process is unfair to those accused of sexual assault, but since this category could include men or women, it does not support the conclusion that Columbia intentionally discriminates against men on the basis of sex. And while Doe may argue that men are more likely than women to be accused of sexual assault, and thus more likely to be burdened by the alleged deficiencies in Columbia's process, this theory is not actionable under Title IX, according to the court, because of a 2001 Supreme Court decision foreclosing disparate impact lawsuits under Title VI -- the race discrimination statute on which Title IX was modeled. As a result, it is not enough for plaintiffs to claim that a university's sex-neutral policies or practice impacts one sex more than the other.
As demonstrated by this and other similar decisions cited by the court here, colleges and universities do not necessarily commit sex discrimination just because they discipline male students for sexual assault. In contrast, however, when colleges and universities discipline students in actual violation of their own procedures, those cases can be successfully litigated without the lens of sex discrimination under breach of contract and negligence theories, see, for example, this case. Yet, breach of contract and negligence claims don't support the "reverse discrimination" narrative that some may wish to advance by using Title IX to challenge what Title IX has wrought. It may be that plaintiffs continue to advance the Title IX theory because if they could establish that universities are routinely* liable under Title IX for disciplining students for sexual assault, it would create the impression that Title IX is inherently contradictory, unworkable, and its application to sexual assault should be repealed. If that is the strategy, however, it does not seem to be working so far.
* I say routinely to account for the unusual case (e.g., this case, and possibly this case) where the plaintiff has a factual basis for alleging that the university used him as a "scapegoat" in a misguided effort to demonstrate compliance with an OCR resolution agreement. When that is the situation, Title IX should provide a remedy. However, when a university gets in trouble for going beyond what Title IX requires, it reflects negatively on the university not on Title IX.
Doe v. Columbia University, 2015 WL 1840402 (Apr. 21, 2015).
Friday, April 24, 2015
Student Accused of Sexual Assault Sues Columbia
Yesterday, Columbia University student Paul Nungesser sued the institution, alleging that it is liable for harassment that he experienced in the wake of a fellow student's accusations that he sexually assaulted her. The university did not find Nungesser responsible for any assault, and his accuser, Emma Sulkowicz, has been protesting this outcome by carrying a mattress with her around campus, a protest that is doubling as performance art project for credit in her art class.
The protest has apparently made Nungesser's life difficult. He alleges that it has caused him to experience "verbal aggression, intimidation, and hostility" for which he seeks to hold Columbia liable for unspecified money damages. His primary claim is under Title IX, which means that his case will have to satisfy the following elements required for institutional liability for harassment: (1) that the harassment is severe or pervasive; (2) that the harassment is because of sex; that Columbia officials had notice of the harassment; and (4) that they responded with deliberate indifference. I think all four of these elements will be challenging for him to satisfy, based on the allegations in the complaint. First, though he describes the harassment as "severe" and "pervasive," he does not give very many specific examples beyond a couple of Facebook comments posted by friends of Sulkowicz who are not alleged to be students at Columbia. Verbal harassment must be really pervasive to be actionable, and the court is going to require that he show examples to satisfy this requirement.
Second, there is no allegation that he reported this harassment to Columbia University officials, nor that they responded with deliberative indifference. Finally, he does not explain in the complaint why the harassment targets him because of his male sex, as opposed to because people apparently believed he had gotten away with committing sexual assault. It is possible that harassers would have assaulted a female they perceived to have gotten away with sexual assault or other comparable violence in a similar way.
Suprisingly, he does not include a defamation claim against Columbia or Sulkowicz, even though what seems to be at the crux of Nungesser's lawsuit is the fact that Sulkowicz's protest is making people believe he committed sexual assault. Why doesn't he sue her for defamation, and try to get an injunction against the protest? After all, she would have no special defense arising from the artistic nature of her protest. If he indeed states falsely that he assaulted her and his reputation is damaged as a result, he should be able to prevail as long as he can prove that her claim is false. Interestingly, the litigation strategy he has chosen avoids having to do just that.
The protest has apparently made Nungesser's life difficult. He alleges that it has caused him to experience "verbal aggression, intimidation, and hostility" for which he seeks to hold Columbia liable for unspecified money damages. His primary claim is under Title IX, which means that his case will have to satisfy the following elements required for institutional liability for harassment: (1) that the harassment is severe or pervasive; (2) that the harassment is because of sex; that Columbia officials had notice of the harassment; and (4) that they responded with deliberate indifference. I think all four of these elements will be challenging for him to satisfy, based on the allegations in the complaint. First, though he describes the harassment as "severe" and "pervasive," he does not give very many specific examples beyond a couple of Facebook comments posted by friends of Sulkowicz who are not alleged to be students at Columbia. Verbal harassment must be really pervasive to be actionable, and the court is going to require that he show examples to satisfy this requirement.
Second, there is no allegation that he reported this harassment to Columbia University officials, nor that they responded with deliberative indifference. Finally, he does not explain in the complaint why the harassment targets him because of his male sex, as opposed to because people apparently believed he had gotten away with committing sexual assault. It is possible that harassers would have assaulted a female they perceived to have gotten away with sexual assault or other comparable violence in a similar way.
Suprisingly, he does not include a defamation claim against Columbia or Sulkowicz, even though what seems to be at the crux of Nungesser's lawsuit is the fact that Sulkowicz's protest is making people believe he committed sexual assault. Why doesn't he sue her for defamation, and try to get an injunction against the protest? After all, she would have no special defense arising from the artistic nature of her protest. If he indeed states falsely that he assaulted her and his reputation is damaged as a result, he should be able to prevail as long as he can prove that her claim is false. Interestingly, the litigation strategy he has chosen avoids having to do just that.
Thursday, September 04, 2014
Light punishments, heavy mattresses, and lawsuits: Campus sexual assault round-up
There have been a few stories over the past week or so about campus sexual assault that deserve a mention.
One that has been making the rounds in the press and on social media is the story of a Columbia University student who is protesting the fact that her assailant is still on campus by carrying around a mattress wherever she goes. This story has been picked up by multiple outlets and is about a student who has been part of Columbia's very vocal group of activists who have protested the way the university has handled reports of sexual assault. Emma Sulkowicz is the mattress-carrier. It is protest but it is also art. She is calling it Mattress Performance or Carry that Weight and it is her senior thesis. Read the piece on HuffPo for a description of the project and its meanings. We have seen some creative means of protest during this national movement, examples of students taking control when they feel their schools have failed them and making sure the issues remain in the public and community eye. Sulkowicz is also the student who, even though her rape occurred several years ago now, went to the police to file charges at the end of last semester feeling that she had to do something when the university did not. She will carry the mattress around, she said, until he leaves campus--either of his own accord or because of university action.
University of North Carolina is facing lawsuits from victims of sexual assault. In one, a student is claiming the university mishandled her complaint. from the facts provided, it seems they didn't handle it all with the complaint being lost in one administrator's inbox for weeks before he told the victim he was passing it on to another administrator who met with the victim and then passed it on to someone else who never got in touch with her. There was failure to follow through with the victim who was told things were a little confusing because the university was in the process of revising its policies. She left the school, but pursued the case and UNC eventually began an investigation which took far too long and was plagued by other issues.
The reasons behind OCR's investigation of University of Kansas which was announced in the middle of the summer have been revealed. A student who was raped by someone who admitted not stopping sexual activity when the woman asked for him to do so filed a complaint about the university's handling of her case. The woman, who went to a party with her assailant and who walked her home because she was intoxicated, actually went to the police first who spoke to the assailant who admitted his actions. Local officials have refused to pursue a criminal case despite the confession and have threatened the victim with charges of underage drinking if she pursued the case. She then went to university officials who did investigate the case but found not rape but "nonconsenual sex" had occurred. (This post on Feministing takes to task this and other euphemisms for rape.)
The university banned the assailant from campus housing, had him write a reflective essay, and required he go to counseling. They considered required community service but felt it would be too much punishment. They told the student, who appealed the light punishment, that his sanctions were in accordance with university policy. Could be true, but that doesn't mean the policy--for which university administrators are responsible--is a good one. That is what OCR will assess.
Light punishments are also at the center of two other complaints. A graduate of UC Santa Barbara filed a complaint in response to her rape. The university basically offered a pleas deal to her male assailant saying that he could agree to a two-term suspension or go through an investigation which could result in his expulsion. He chose the suspension, but was allowed to complete the term and his finals. And because the victim was graduating, he was actually allowed back to campus after only three months.
A University of Toledo graduate filed a complaint after her assailant who admitted that he heard her say she didn't want to have sex received probation, a $25 fine, and mandatory sexual assault education totaling ten hours.
One that has been making the rounds in the press and on social media is the story of a Columbia University student who is protesting the fact that her assailant is still on campus by carrying around a mattress wherever she goes. This story has been picked up by multiple outlets and is about a student who has been part of Columbia's very vocal group of activists who have protested the way the university has handled reports of sexual assault. Emma Sulkowicz is the mattress-carrier. It is protest but it is also art. She is calling it Mattress Performance or Carry that Weight and it is her senior thesis. Read the piece on HuffPo for a description of the project and its meanings. We have seen some creative means of protest during this national movement, examples of students taking control when they feel their schools have failed them and making sure the issues remain in the public and community eye. Sulkowicz is also the student who, even though her rape occurred several years ago now, went to the police to file charges at the end of last semester feeling that she had to do something when the university did not. She will carry the mattress around, she said, until he leaves campus--either of his own accord or because of university action.
University of North Carolina is facing lawsuits from victims of sexual assault. In one, a student is claiming the university mishandled her complaint. from the facts provided, it seems they didn't handle it all with the complaint being lost in one administrator's inbox for weeks before he told the victim he was passing it on to another administrator who met with the victim and then passed it on to someone else who never got in touch with her. There was failure to follow through with the victim who was told things were a little confusing because the university was in the process of revising its policies. She left the school, but pursued the case and UNC eventually began an investigation which took far too long and was plagued by other issues.
The reasons behind OCR's investigation of University of Kansas which was announced in the middle of the summer have been revealed. A student who was raped by someone who admitted not stopping sexual activity when the woman asked for him to do so filed a complaint about the university's handling of her case. The woman, who went to a party with her assailant and who walked her home because she was intoxicated, actually went to the police first who spoke to the assailant who admitted his actions. Local officials have refused to pursue a criminal case despite the confession and have threatened the victim with charges of underage drinking if she pursued the case. She then went to university officials who did investigate the case but found not rape but "nonconsenual sex" had occurred. (This post on Feministing takes to task this and other euphemisms for rape.)
The university banned the assailant from campus housing, had him write a reflective essay, and required he go to counseling. They considered required community service but felt it would be too much punishment. They told the student, who appealed the light punishment, that his sanctions were in accordance with university policy. Could be true, but that doesn't mean the policy--for which university administrators are responsible--is a good one. That is what OCR will assess.
Light punishments are also at the center of two other complaints. A graduate of UC Santa Barbara filed a complaint in response to her rape. The university basically offered a pleas deal to her male assailant saying that he could agree to a two-term suspension or go through an investigation which could result in his expulsion. He chose the suspension, but was allowed to complete the term and his finals. And because the victim was graduating, he was actually allowed back to campus after only three months.
A University of Toledo graduate filed a complaint after her assailant who admitted that he heard her say she didn't want to have sex received probation, a $25 fine, and mandatory sexual assault education totaling ten hours.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Naming names: Transparency and safety on campus
As I wrote yesterday, some people have begun campaigns to bring to light campus sexual assaults. The transparency at the government level with the publishing of the list of schools currently under investigation has been only part of public revelations. The campaign by Ultra Violet is one such effort. Even more grassroots are the publishing of names of rapists on their respective campuses. At Columbia, the names of alleged rapists have been written in bathroom stalls and left on fliers in the stalls.
[The trustee at Occidental who wanted names would have been quite pleased with the disclosure.]
The victims and their allies at Columbia have been quite vocal in their displeasure with the administration's handling of sexual assault cases.
But they are not the first to publicly reveal the names of assailants.
At both Brown and William and Mary, individual women who were sexually assaulted publicized the names of their attackers when their respective universities found them guilty but let them re-enroll.
And students at schools including Portland State and American University are using social media to name names.
Obviously there is a danger of false accusations and witch hunts. But I argue that these efforts are a result of the continued secrecy of many schools. Perhaps as schools do better investigating cases and appropriately punishing perpetrators, there won't be a need for the publishing names in order to protect others.
[The trustee at Occidental who wanted names would have been quite pleased with the disclosure.]
The victims and their allies at Columbia have been quite vocal in their displeasure with the administration's handling of sexual assault cases.
But they are not the first to publicly reveal the names of assailants.
At both Brown and William and Mary, individual women who were sexually assaulted publicized the names of their attackers when their respective universities found them guilty but let them re-enroll.
And students at schools including Portland State and American University are using social media to name names.
Obviously there is a danger of false accusations and witch hunts. But I argue that these efforts are a result of the continued secrecy of many schools. Perhaps as schools do better investigating cases and appropriately punishing perpetrators, there won't be a need for the publishing names in order to protect others.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Columbia University Named in Complaint
Twenty-three students at Columbia University have joined together to file a 100+ page complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, alleging numerous violations by the University of the Title IX, the Clery Act, and parts of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Borrowing from bullet-point summary posted here, the individual stories contained in the complaint amount to allegations along the following lines:
These types of allegations are similar to other complaints filed against numerous other colleges and universities in the past year.
Borrowing from bullet-point summary posted here, the individual stories contained in the complaint amount to allegations along the following lines:
For its part, Columbia has not responded to the specifics of the complaint (which it has not yet seen) but avers that it has "been working with students, faculty and staff to make that emphatically clear on our campus and have already taken the first of a series of significant new measures dedicated to preventing such sexual misconduct, supporting survivors, and improving adjudication of these painful cases."
- Survivors and alleged perpetrators are consistently treated unequally;
- Survivors are often discouraged from formally reporting;
- Perpetrators, who are often serial offenders, are consistently allowed to remain on campus.
- Inadequate disciplinary sanctions for perpetrators are commonplace, if they are disciplined at all;
- Survivors, student activists and journalists are retaliated against for speaking out about Columbia’s mishandling of sexual violence;
- Survivors and other students are discriminated against and denied accommodations based on mental health disability, including PTSD and depression;
- LGBTQ students face discrimination in counseling, advising, adjudication, & Greek life;
- Students are not notified of crimes which present a threat to campus as they should be under the Clery Act.
These types of allegations are similar to other complaints filed against numerous other colleges and universities in the past year.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Add Columbia to the list...
...of schools where students are speaking up about their experiences when reporting incidents of sexual assault and bringing light to inadequate and illegal systems of reporting at their institutions.
At the end of last year, several women came forward to say that they all had been assaulted by a Columbia University athlete, but that the university had not adequately investigated their respective complaints and that the student was still on campus having faced minimal disciplinary actions (for groping, a verdict that came down after the accuser graduated).
It does not appear that the university is in violation of the Clery Act. But simply reporting incidents does not feel like enough to many Columbia students who have called for greater accountability and transparency. A group calling themselves the Title IX Team are asking for the release of additional information such as the nature of complaints, how they are resolved, and what kind of punishments are given to alleged perpetrators.
Last week, the school newspaper released the first article in a two-part series about the experiences of some students who have tried to use the university's disciplinary system to address sexual assault. It has already garnered some internet attention and I predict that the details of individuals' assaults and experiences will strengthen students' claims against the university and compel a response.The students want one. There have been at least two open letters to the university president asking for him to address their concerns. The latest, from members of the Title IX Team, can be found here.
At the end of last year, several women came forward to say that they all had been assaulted by a Columbia University athlete, but that the university had not adequately investigated their respective complaints and that the student was still on campus having faced minimal disciplinary actions (for groping, a verdict that came down after the accuser graduated).
It does not appear that the university is in violation of the Clery Act. But simply reporting incidents does not feel like enough to many Columbia students who have called for greater accountability and transparency. A group calling themselves the Title IX Team are asking for the release of additional information such as the nature of complaints, how they are resolved, and what kind of punishments are given to alleged perpetrators.
Last week, the school newspaper released the first article in a two-part series about the experiences of some students who have tried to use the university's disciplinary system to address sexual assault. It has already garnered some internet attention and I predict that the details of individuals' assaults and experiences will strengthen students' claims against the university and compel a response.The students want one. There have been at least two open letters to the university president asking for him to address their concerns. The latest, from members of the Title IX Team, can be found here.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Lawsuit against Columbia dismissed
Citing violations of Title IX and the First Amendment, lawyer Roy Den Hollander sued Columbia University for offering a women's studies program, but not a men's studies program. But his lawsuit was dismissed earlier this week.
I am not the legal expert among us here, but I am in women's studies so this case interested me.
The claims were dismissed because of lack of standing (Hollander never actually took or tried to take a women's studies course at Columbia--he was just suing on behalf of damaged men everywhere) and because the judge found that the First Amendment claims were bogus. Hollander's approach was to argue that feminism is akin to religion, hence the discrimination. Feminism was being foisted on students.
The Title IX claim was that courses were being offered about one gender but not the other. It's not courses about--it's access to said courses or any other activity sponsored by an educational institution. Besides, I have never heard of, witnessed, or participated in a women's studies course that only talked about women. It's pretty much impossible to do.
Hollander will likely continue on his mission to bring justice for men to all areas of society, including the justice system itself which he believes kowtows to "the feminists."
I am just glad I never had him in one of my classes!
I am not the legal expert among us here, but I am in women's studies so this case interested me.
The claims were dismissed because of lack of standing (Hollander never actually took or tried to take a women's studies course at Columbia--he was just suing on behalf of damaged men everywhere) and because the judge found that the First Amendment claims were bogus. Hollander's approach was to argue that feminism is akin to religion, hence the discrimination. Feminism was being foisted on students.
The Title IX claim was that courses were being offered about one gender but not the other. It's not courses about--it's access to said courses or any other activity sponsored by an educational institution. Besides, I have never heard of, witnessed, or participated in a women's studies course that only talked about women. It's pretty much impossible to do.
Hollander will likely continue on his mission to bring justice for men to all areas of society, including the justice system itself which he believes kowtows to "the feminists."
I am just glad I never had him in one of my classes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
