I was considering framing this as an either/or ethics quiz, with Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY) inviting Emma Sulkowicz, a Columbia student who continues to harass the student she accused of rape despite her allegations being judged, by the school and police, as unprovable to the State of the Union, being compared to Speaker John Boehner’s in-your-face invitation of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress about Iran. I don’t like either of the moves: both are unethical in different ways. I can at least devise an argument for Boehner, however. I don’t see how anyone can excuse Gillibrand, who is essentially accusing a young man of rape when she has no direct knowledge of what happened.
Columbia student Paul Nungesser was found “not responsible” for sexually assaulting Sulkowicz, Since that official determination, Sulkowicz has been carrying a mattress around the university as “an art project” to protest Nungesser’s success at defending himself. When he learned that the Senator had injected herself into the controversy, he told reporters,
“I am shocked to learn that Senator Gillibrand is actively supporting Ms. Sulkowicz’s defamation campaign against me by providing her with a public forum in which to broadcast her grave allegation. By doing so, Senator Gillibrand is participating in a harassment campaign against someone who, for good reason, has been found innocent by all investigating bodies.”
Yup, I’d say that’s a fair interpretation. He continued,
“Sulkowicz’s accusation is untrue and unfounded: I have never sexually assaulted anyone. This is why Columbia University after seven months of detailed investigation in November 2013 found me to be not responsible…I voluntarily let myself be interviewed by DA chief of Sex Crimes at SVU in New York City, in August 2014. Shortly after this interview, the DA’s office informed me that they decided not to pursue the case further.”
Sulkowicz decided not to pursue the criminal case any further. She just took the alternative action of setting out to hound, harass, accuse, stigmatize and embarrass Nungesser as “art.”
I have no idea whether Nungesser is innocent, and neither do you—and neither does Gillibrand. By honoring his accuser with a high profile invitation to a prestigious and nationally televised political event, however, she is implicitly taking Sulkowicz’s side and also implicitly calling Nungessor a liar and a rapist. Why? Because Sulkowicz is a woman, that’s why, so she must be telling the truth; Nungessor is a man, so he must be a rapist.
The Senator’s action is undebatably one that stinks of anti-male bigotry, pro-female bias, abuse of position and power—the case is absolutely none of Gillbrand’s business—and blazingly unfair. Gillibrand has no basis on which to endorse Sulkowicz’s campaign of vengeance.
Are there women, Democrats, feminists, or anti-campus sexual assault activists with the requisite fairness and integrity to recognize this and condemn Senator Gillibrand? I would be encouraged if we heard from them.
The least Gillibrand could have done was to require Sulkowicz, as a condition of her attendance, to bring her mattress along
Sources: Daily News, Investors Daily, New York
30 thoughts on “Sen. Gillibrand’s State of the Union Guest”
In cases like this, where a man has managed to successfully defends himself from the witch hunts, it’s usually a good move to keep your head low and stay quiet, at least until you’ve graduated. Generally, there isn’t much to be gained after you’ve been vindicated, and so much more to lose.
However, in this case, where the accuser keeps pushing like this, I wonder what the case law would be for defamation?
Why does she not just sue him?
Because she would lose and likely no attorney would take it.
By extremely sharp contrast, William Kennedy Smith was sued.
And he was acquitted once, and the police dropped charges the second time. I disagree with Steve here, I think that although her suit has a very unlikely chance of succeeding, there will always be lawyers willing to take up the torch for a damsel in distress. However, I also think that Emma isn’t an idiot. She knows how to get attention, a court case would be flashy but short term, and would probably net her nothing, crucifying herself on her mattress? That gets her invited to the SOTU.
Humble I find it unlikely as any suit would open her up to possible charges and liability.
A civil suit by her probably wouldn’t get too far since he was already exonerated criminally and administratively. He could try to file his own civil suit, but I think he’d have a better shot at proving harassment than defamation. He only wins for defamation if the former accuser is outright lying and he can prove it, BUT, if he can prove she is personally disrupting his life long after he told her to quit it, he has a good shot at proving the elements of harassment, assuming her attorney doesn’t push the idea that any women on the jury are betraying their gender if they find for him.
Shame on Gillibrand for using this cheap stunt to try to jump-start the moribund “war on women” in advance of 2016 in the hopes of laying a smoother road for Hilary. Sorry, but all the little old ladies won’t turn out for her like the blacks turned out for Obama.
Yeah, I saw problems with a defamation suit in advance… Proving damages, for instance, would be a high bar to vault. Thanks for the answer though. And as an aside, I think Elizabeth Warren would walk all over Hillary if she announced, although I don’t know if she’s going to.
She already said she isn’t running, and thank God for that, I think the woman would be a disaster as President.
There’s this coy attitude with nomination announcements, and it’s not unique to America. Our opposition leader in Canada said unequivocally, several times that he wouldn’t run. I don’t disagree that she would be bad, but I’ll believe she isn’t running after someone’s been nominated.
Hey, you might want to correct your spelling: His name is Nungesser, not Nungessor as you wrote a couple times. Great read otherwise! If they can do it to this guy they can do it to everybody.
Fixed it. People have some nerve having names that hard to spell. “Marshall” is a much more ethical name…
Not only is the Senator taking sides, but she is encouraging publicity seekers to make false allegations of rape. I am not suggesting that this particular person is making a false allegation (who knows?) but it appears like the only reason the Senator invited the accuser to the SOTU was the accusation itself, an accusation which had been rejected by the University.
There was a time when rape accusers were afraid to come forward for fear of being mistreated. There are still places like this, though I doubt Columbia University is one of them. Mistreating rape victims is terrible, but the opposite is equally dangerous. If accusers are automatically treated like saints and celebrities, we should not be surprised to find that some of them are not telling the truth.
On a seperate note this reminds me of the Michael Brown/Darren Wilson case in the sense that it was the exoneration that made the case politically attractive to Democrats. In either case, a guilty finding would have been disasterous for the accused but would have otherwise been a non-story politically. Both political parties would have said the process worked. In my opinion the accuser was only at the SOTU because Columbia rejected her accusation.
Careful… you might get the George Gill treatment for suggesting that the perks of victimhood will lead some people to falsely claim it…
Jack, in your post you spelled the accused male’s name THREE different ways. The one article I researched (not gonna search any more!) spelled his name N-u-n-g-e-s-s-e-r. Just sayin’: If you can spell Gillibrand and Sulkowicz…but for all I know, that (spelling multiple ways) might be an old lawyer’s trick of avoiding repercussions, like calling ISIS “ISIL,” or when referring to Moammar Muamar Qaddafi Khadhafi Kadaffy…
Sniping about spelling aside, this duo of feminazis, Church Ladies of castration-by-defamation, seem to be robbing something from an old Mafia saying (from the movie, “The Godfather”) – giving a whole new meaning to “going to the mattresses.” People should be more careful about what they rob from the Mafia. You never know. Nuenguessczer might be one of them.
Three? I only found two. Anyway, his name is officially Nungesser as far as I’m concerned. If he spells it another way, he can change it.
There’s a Nungresser in there, too – second paragraph. Freudian? Aggressor Nungresser?
Sir, could you repeat back your confirmation code?
Sure! P as in Paul, G as in Golf, A as in Apple, K as in Gaddafi, and Q as in….Gaddafi….
This really ins’t a surprise. Isn’t Gillibrand one of the main instigators of Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA).
Isn’t the purpose of the act to create an environment where men can more easily be falsely accused of rape and removed from school?
Yes, that’s how I would read it.
Dang, she didn’t bring the mattress?
No, she only carries the mattress on campus. I’m not sure why she chooses to carry it only on campus. The art project is her thesis and is called “Carry That Weight” and I’m guessing the mattress is supposed to represent the weight of emotions and other various issues she has been forced to carry due to the alleged rape and it’s aftermath. However, why carry the mattress only on campus? Doesn’t the weight of a sexual assault go everywhere with that person…even to places one would wish to escape that burden if only for a while such as being a guest to the state of Union address? Isn’t the point of her art thesis to show that this burden or weight is always there? If her art is supposed to show the weight of the trauma associated with sexual assault, then should the trauma be depicted as coming and going when it is convenient for her? Also, she has said that she will continue to carry this mattress until the man she has accused of this crime (although he has been exonerated) drops out, is expelled, or leaves the college in which they both attend. Does this mean that the weight she carries due to the alleged sexual assault will stop if this man leaves the college and therefore she can finally stop carrying her mattress around? Ive been fortunate enough never to be in this type of situation…alleged or otherwise but I would assume that an assualt of this manner can effect the rest of a woman’s life. She has given her side of the story and because she does not take that mattress with her everywhere she goes and because she has given the terms in which she will put the mattress down she should get an F for a disengenuous art project. She should call it what it is…Retaliation Art.
It’s only “Retaliation Art” if there’s an instance to retaliate from, otherwise it’s just an intricate and original way to falsely accuse someone.
Gillibrand = idiot. The analysis is spot on. But behind the scenes:
As long as Sulkowizc lugs the mattress around as a symbol and she isn’t telling everyone Nungesser raped her, he should just keep quiet about it and let her look the fool and avoid the Streisand affect.
But, at what point, if she does continue to tell everyone that Nungesser is a rapist, does he get to start claiming slander?
That was my question as well. And I think I talked myself into a no, with the help of Steve. How do you prove damages? I think he was right in attempting to sue for harassment.
Words without coffe make things seem no clear. Steve was right in suggesting a harassment suit, not that Nunchucks had sued.
“But, at what point, if she does continue to tell everyone that Nungesser is a rapist, does he get to start claiming slander?”
Hmmmm…is it slander or is it art?
If she isn’t specifically identifying HIM as the rapist she is making art out of, I can see that “it is just art” flying, and most people probably wouldn’t give a fig and would likely ignore the statement.
But I don’t see the “it’s just art” holding up ethically if on the other hand, every time she explains her “art” it is “this symbolizes the burden that the rapist Nungessor placed on me, and that burden won’t lift until that dastard is gone, if you are curious who the rapist is, I can identify him for you, but I’ve given you enough to go by for who that villainous fiend is.”
I continue to be grateful to good men like you who take the time to support men in this era of toxic feminist hysteria.
I have great compassion for Jean Paul and contempt for Emma.
I feel the tied is turning and men are waking up to the evils of toxic feminism.
Ironically, Emma’s selfishness, delusions, hysteria, anger, neurosis and arrogance are helping us turn the tide as the world sees how… well… fucked up she must have been to begin with.
All the best.