Obama appointee dismisses "Mattress Girl" lawsuit against Columbia

[Derec]

Columbia absolutely did wrong by giving Mattress Girl class credit to defame her victim and by allowing her, contrary to rules, to drag that mattress to the graduation ceremony. It is very difficult in our legal climate for victims of false rape allegations to get any semblance of justice.
Emma Sulkowicz’s Accused Rapist Had His Lawsuit Against Columbia Dismissed
So according to this judge, Title IX only protects women alleging rape but not men falsely accused of rape. That sexist bullshit, but par for the course in our deeply messed up society.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So glad you are on this case.

 

[laughing dog]

I agree with the judge that your conclusion that "Title IX only protects women alleging rape but not men falsely accused of rape" is sexist bullshit. As the Judge in your link says

“Nungesser's argument rests on a logical fallacy. He assumes that because the allegations against him concerned a sexual act that everything that follows from it is ‘sex-based’ within the meaning of Title IX. He is wrong,” wrote Woods. “Taken to its logical extreme, Nungesser’s position would lead to the conclusion that those who commit, or are accused of committing, sexual assault are a protected class under Title IX.”

BTW, how come Judge Woods' shoe size was not included in the OP title?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I agree with the judge that your conclusion that "Title IX only protects women alleging rape but not men falsely accused of rape" is sexist bullshit. As the Judge in your link says

“Nungesser's argument rests on a logical fallacy. He assumes that because the allegations against him concerned a sexual act that everything that follows from it is ‘sex-based’ within the meaning of Title IX. He is wrong,” wrote Woods. “Taken to its logical extreme, Nungesser’s position would lead to the conclusion that those who commit, or are accused of committing, sexual assault are a protected class under Title IX.”

Right. If Title IX doesn't provide a remedy for false allegations, then the falsely accused would have to find it elsewhere.

 

[Derec]

I agree with the judge that your conclusion that "Title IX only protects women alleging rape but not men falsely accused of rape" is sexist bullshit. As the Judge in your link says

“Nungesser's argument rests on a logical fallacy. He assumes that because the allegations against him concerned a sexual act that everything that follows from it is ‘sex-based’ within the meaning of Title IX. He is wrong,” wrote Woods. “Taken to its logical extreme, Nungesser’s position would lead to the conclusion that those who commit, or are accused of committing, sexual assault are a protected class under Title IX.”

How is what this judge wrote not him saying that victims of false rape accusations should not be protected by Title IX?

BTW, how come Judge Woods' shoe size was not included in the OP title?

Huh?

 

[laughing dog]

I agree with the judge that your conclusion that "Title IX only protects women alleging rape but not men falsely accused of rape" is sexist bullshit. As the Judge in your link says

How is what this judge wrote not him saying that victims of false rape accusations should not be protected by Title IX?

You are shifting the goal posts. Your wrote "Title IX only protects women alleging rape but not men falsely accused of rape" which is sexist bullshit because Title IX has nothing to do with rape accusations (false or true) by a particular gender or remedies for false accusations (by either gender).

BTW, how come Judge Woods' shoe size was not included in the OP title?

Huh?

Every word but "included" was one syllable. Which words did you not understand?

 

[SimpleDon]

Columbia absolutely did wrong by giving Mattress Girl class credit to defame her victim and by allowing her, contrary to rules, to drag that mattress to the graduation ceremony. It is very difficult in our legal climate for victims of false rape allegations to get any semblance of justice.
Emma Sulkowicz’s Accused Rapist Had His Lawsuit Against Columbia Dismissed
So according to this judge, Title IX only protects women alleging rape but not men falsely accused of rape. That sexist bullshit, but par for the course in our deeply messed up society.

Your constant vigilance to the plight of the oppressed white male in our modern society is an inspiration to us all.

I too tire of the extremes of victimhood of some of the people in our society, women and racial minorities. But I temper it with the knowledge that they truly were victims of oppression, unlike your white males.

Oh, there isn't a war against Christianity or Christmas either.

 

[JonA]

The behavior of many in this thread is just more evidence that the political Left places no value whatsoever on individual freedoms, liberties, and justice - the bedrock of enlightenment thinking and true liberalism.

Is it any wonder why Dawkins calls them 'pathetic'? Or Nawaz 'regressive'?

Shameful. Just shameful.

 

[laughing dog]

The behavior of many in this thread is just more evidence that the political Left places no value whatsoever on individual freedoms, liberties, and justice - the bedrock of enlightenment thinking and true liberalism.

Is it any wonder why Dawkins calls them 'pathetic'? Or Nawaz 'regressive'?

Shameful. Just shameful.

What are you babbling about now?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The behavior of many in this thread is just more evidence that the political Left places no value whatsoever on individual freedoms, liberties, and justice - the bedrock of enlightenment thinking and true liberalism.

Is it any wonder why Dawkins calls them 'pathetic'? Or Nawaz 'regressive'?

Shameful. Just shameful.

Yes, please explain in more depth. Maybe give an example.

 

[laughing dog]

For those who may be more interested, this report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-nungesser-lawsuit-dismissed_us_56e43ae7e4b0b25c91822496) gives more detail. For example,

The court rejected that Nungesser had his rights violated under the gender equity law, in part because it rejected that calling someone a “rapist, falsely or not,” is a gendered term.

- which is semantically and logically true.

In addition

The court also rejected Nungesser’s complaint that Columbia failed to enforce confidentiality rules because there was no evidence that the university disclosed information about his case. Several other claims by Nungesser were also dismissed.

Woods said Nungesser can file a second amended complaint with respect to certain claims, including that Columbia was guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress and failing to uphold its policy against retaliation. He can also replead his Title IX claims — in other words, the court told him to essentially try again if he’d like.

This link had the entire decision - http://www.scribd.com/doc/304082791/Nungesser-v-Columbia-Memorandum-Opinion-and-Order

 

[prideandfall]

for the sake of clarity this is basically what title IX says:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

the whole concept of trying to apply title IX to sex related complaints is a fairly new one, not really having any significant traction or presence until the last 5 or 6 years, and the argument goes that widespread systemic sexual violence on college campuses are effectively infringing on women (both individually, if the victim of an assault, and collectively due to fear of an assault) being able to have equal access to an education as men.
this may be a nebulous claim and you can debate the moral and logistical applicability of this thinking, but that's the general notion that has been argued with regards to title IX applying to sexual assault.

this guy was trying to say that the fallout of his being accused of rape was gender based discrimination, which in the case of this specific lawsuit is pretty clearly ridiculous.
so while it may not necessarily encompass the right moral or ethical conclusions one could hope for, the decision is well within the actual written meaning of the law... which as we all know from a plethora of other threads around here, nothing gets Derec harder than strict adherence to the specific wording of a federal law.

so c'mon Derec, what gives? you should be salivating over this ruling... it's almost like you're selectively cherry picking when to get a boner over strict legislative interpretation when it suits you in order to slag blacks or poor people, but are fine with railing against it when it doesn't immediately force the law to capitulate to an affluent white male.
but that... that can't possibly be right, can it?

 

[Derec]

this guy was trying to say that the fallout of his being accused of rape was gender based discrimination, which in the case of this specific lawsuit is pretty clearly ridiculous.

Why the fuck is it ridiculous? If Title IX can be used for sexual assault claims, why can't it be used by victims of bogus sexual assault claims.

so while it may not necessarily encompass the right moral or ethical conclusions one could hope for, the decision is well within the actual written meaning of the law... which as we all know from a plethora of other threads around here, nothing gets Derec harder than strict adherence to the specific wording of a federal law.

It's about consistency. The law is being interpreted one way to suit female accusers, and then a different way to slam the door in the face of the wrongfully accused.

so c'mon Derec, what gives? you should be salivating over this ruling... it's almost like you're selectively cherry picking when to get a boner over strict legislative interpretation when it suits you in order to slag blacks or poor people, but are fine with railing against it when it doesn't immediately force the law to capitulate to an affluent white male.
but that... that can't possibly be right, can it?

It would be ok if the judge said Title IX has no application on sexual assault at all. But he agreed with using it for sexual assaults, just not to fight bogus claims thereof. That selective, and ideologically (i.e. feminism) driven application is what the problem is here.
Yet you can't see that it is the judge, not I, who is cherry-picking because of your own ideological blinders.

And yet again, a victim of false rape allegations is left without a legal recourse. How can anyone be fine with that?

 

[Nexus]

Your constant vigilance to the plight of the oppressed white male in our modern society is an inspiration to us all.

I too tire of the extremes of victimhood of some of the people in our society, women and racial minorities. But I temper it with the knowledge that they truly were victims of oppression, unlike your white males.

This guy was harassed and a victim of the university supporting that harassment. The fact you dismiss it outright shows you truly don't value justice. Here's a clue for you, it doesn't matter if every other white male in the history of civilization wasn't oppressed this man was and deserves justice.

 

[prideandfall]

Why the fuck is it ridiculous? If Title IX can be used for sexual assault claims, why can't it be used by victims of bogus sexual assault claims.

well, to start with, because only a paranoid lunatic could even try and make the argument that detrimental effects from a false rape accusation happen often enough to men on college campuses that it constitutes a threat to a man's ability to attain equal access to education as women.

It's about consistency. The law is being interpreted one way to suit female accusers, and then a different way to slam the door in the face of the wrongfully accused.

consistency - 1 in 5 or something women get raped or sexually assaulted on college campuses.
when the numbers reflect that 1 in 5 men are falsely accused of raped and have a hard time of things because of it, then there will be consistency.

It would be ok if the judge said Title IX has no application on sexual assault at all. But he agreed with using it for sexual assaults, just not to fight bogus claims thereof. That selective, and ideologically (i.e. feminism) driven application is what the problem is here.

the issue is one of scope, not of being selective.

Yet you can't see it because of your own ideological blinders.

... there is not enough coffee in all the world for the spit takes needed to see THAT statement coming from YOU.

And yet again, a victim of false rape allegations is left without a legal recourse. How can anyone be fine with that?

how is "your claim using title IX is declined" someone being denied of legal recourse?

- - - Updated - - -

This guy was harassed and a victim of the university supporting that harassment. The fact you dismiss it outright shows you truly don't value justice. Here's a clue for you, it doesn't matter if every other white male in the history of civilization wasn't oppressed this man was and deserves justice.

and the justice he deserves doesn't fall under title IX, so the slavish circle-jerking you right wing knobs do over strict adherence to the exact letter of federal law is applicable here.
that you're all in such a huff over this ruling just shows how hypocritical you are.

 

[laughing dog]

And yet again, a victim of false rape allegations is left without a legal recourse.

That is untrue. The ruling did not say the victim was left without legal recourse. The ruling actually said he could sue for damages under a different theory and law, and that he could refile under Title IX (either with a different argument or with some actual relevant facts).

 

[Trausti]

Well, the Opinion explains that under Title IX he cannot employ a theory of disparate impact. He needs to show intentional discrimination because of his gender. There is an underlying procedural question which some may be missing in understanding the opinion. Half a decade ago the Supreme Court heightened the pleading standard for actions initiated in federal court. Instead of pleading enough facts to show a possible right to relief, now the plaintiff's Complaint must plead facts sufficient to show that the claim for relief is plausible. Factual statements are no longer taken as true if they are simply conclusory. Note that this case is still at the beginning, and the Opinion was only concerned with what was written in the Complaint. As other have pointed out, he is permitted to re-plead his Complaint. It is up to his attorneys to follow the map the Judge gave them (though I think they're appealing).

 

[fromderinside]

It would be ok if the judge said Title IX has no application on sexual assault at all. But he agreed with using it for sexual assaults, just not to fight bogus claims thereof. That selective, and ideologically (i.e. feminism) driven application is what the problem is here.
Yet you can't see that it is the judge, not I, who is cherry-picking because of your own ideological blinders.

And yet again, a victim of false rape allegations is left without a legal recourse. How can anyone be fine with that?

bolded words are different things. Judge concluded rape was gender specific so male has no standing under Title IX concerning rape. Different interpretations applies to your use of words for you convenience rather than to the law.

He scores!

 

[Derec]

male has no standing under Title IX concerning rape.

And you agree with that blatantly sexist view?

 

[fromderinside]

male has no standing under Title IX concerning rape.

And you agree with that blatantly sexist view?

When you show me a pregnant man as the result of rape I'll reexamine my view.