Today in Is The WORST: Stop Reading Cathy Young

13 thoughts on Today in Is The WORST: Stop Reading Cathy Young

1. Note to new would-be commentors: read the Comments Policy before commenting, and expect a moderation queue delay. Substantive dissent will eventually be published, rage-frothing will probably not unless you’re an especially mock-worthy exemplar.

2. I’ll leave commenting on the specifics of Young’s awfulness to people who have been following this story longer, but one broad point jumps out to me.

   The idea that colleges and universities are the appropriate adjudicators of guilt in criminal matters is fucking stupid. They have neither the resources nor the culture required to adapt rules intended to prosecute plagiarism or cheating, to rape and sexual assault.

   Rather, they respond out of pure risk-adversity. In some cases, that might mean covering up crimes to preserve an institutional reputation or an athletic program. In others, it might mean stripping even the most basic due process from those accused of criminal acts, creating Kafka-esque inquisitions that exist for the sole purpose of, again, minimizing civil liability. It’s not a good solution for survivors, it’s not a good solution for the accused, it’s not a good solution for anyone. It means that rapists stay on campus, and it means that the people who are kicked off are done so under such mind-bogglingly Star-Chamber-esque circumstances that nobody can really be sure if justice has been served or not (which only helps the rapists who *are* expelled).

   God knows the criminal justice system isn’t great at handling rape, but it makes colleges look worse than the NFL. Ideally, schools would provide resources to victims, including counseling, changing dorm or class assignments, and information on how to file a police report and support while doing so (critically, only if the survivor wants to). What they should not be doing is carrying out their own quasi-judicial systems, complete with incompetent investigators and nauseating conflicts of interest.

   1. @ludlaw22

      I’m no lawyer , but your point regarding college administrators handling what should be handled by our justice system is in my opinion spot on.

3. I think one reason that many people prefer to the criminal justice system to the college trial system is that everyone knows the rules and roles of the various players in the game. In the criminal system, there are advocates (prosecution and defense), investigators (police), and impartial decision makers (judges and juries). Everyone knows the rules of the game. The prosecution has the burden of proof. The defense gets the challenge the prosecution’s evidence, confront witnesses, and supply their own evidence. At the end, an impartial decision maker makes the call. And in reporting on the criminal justice system, journalists are supposed to be impartial observers who report all the facts from both sides. And frankly, the best result (and sadly underreported) in this area has been the conviction

   In the college system, the roles are no longer clear. Journalists have become advocates for alleged victims, with disasterous consequences (Rolling Stone and even the Columbia Spectator have acknowledged their errors, to say nothing of the NYT during Duke lacrosse). No one seems to think college adminstrators and investigators are impartial. Victims advocates think they are trying to suppress allegations for PR. Defense advocates think (and are backing this up with lawsuits) they are running kangaroo courts to show they are tough on sexual assault. College adminstrators need to (1) be supporters of victims and get them they support they need and (2) be impartial fact finders to find out what happened. Those are mutually exclusive goals and an inherent conflict of interest.

   The rules are equally unclear. Can a suspect coss-examine his accusers/witnesses? Can a suspect call his own witnesses? Is a suepct entitled to present his own evidence? How can a suspect compel attendance of witnesses if those witnesses are not students? Who bears the burden of proof if we reflexively believe alleged victims?

   In this article, at least Cathy Young did what Sabrina Erdely did not. The most basic fact checking.

   1. I think that’s an excellent point re: confused roles. There was a great public letter from the faculty of Harvard Law School on the issue, and they described the issue as such:

      The lodging of the functions of investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review in one office, and the fact that that office is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial.

4. :: Comment content in breach of the Comments Policy deleted by moderator ::

   [Moderator Note: You obviously have not read our commenting policy or you would not have posted a wall-of-text comment that goes into close details of the alleged assault without a Content Note that allows others the choice of whether to read such details, nor would you have posted your prolonged rape-apologia speculation about how her actions just don't seem credible (to you) without showing that you've actually read some of the plentiful research about how real people who aren't living in fictional entertainments commonly react to sexual assault (because they have seen how other real people commonly react to hearing accusations of sexual assault, and it's generally with victim-blaming rather than support, and it's the accusers rather than accuseds whose lives are more frequently disrupted and derailed). If you want to engage substantively in discussions here, you need to lurk moar and do some deeper reading from some of the many more academic sources about rape culture.]

5. FYI, on 2/10/15, Cathy Young posted her latest response in this conversation:

   http://www.mindingthecampus.com/2015/02/the-mattress-story-under-more-fire/

   I can’t really agree with Cathy Young’s conclusions about who was or was not lying. It’s hard to disagree, though, with the general “WTF?” feeling that there was a lot of potentially-relevant evidence which never was considered. How on earth can we expect people to be acquitted, or convicted, when the tribunal doesn’t have all of the relevant evidence?

   I don’t see how anyone can argue with a straight face that Columbia should have convicted him, now that we know the limits of their understanding. I don’t see how anyone who supports these things would want ANYONE convicted with such a ridiculous lack of process and evidence.

   And to the degree that people are arguing that he is clearly innocent (as opposed to “not guilty”) I don’t see how anyone can do that with a straight face, either, for the same reason. We don’t know.

   And with respect to the ongoing media debates, it’s also hard to ignore the fact that nobody involved is testifying under oath. Much less under oath and subject to cross-examination, which is largely a way that we know is very likely to lead to accurate facts.

   This lack doesn’t mean that people are lying–but it does suggest that we don’t know how accurate they really are. So we should perhaps assume that we don’t know what the real truth is, rather than picking a side and assuming the other side is wrong, lying, biased, or what have you.

   And for what it’s worth: Every state has a civil claim for rape. The cases are judged on the preponderance “more likely than not” standard, which is the same as “51% guilty.” As such they are MUCH easier to win than a criminal claim. They provide money damages and also public vindication.

   Sulkowicz could certainly bring a civil claim if she wants. She hasn’t.
   When a tribunal exists which has a preponderance standard and subpoena powers, there seems to be even less excuse for relying on a bunch of college administrator hacks to screw things up for everyone.

   1. Okay True.

   2. re Sulkowicz bringing a civil claim – I can see a few potential logistical complications for her with regards to bringing such a claim forward right now (assuming that she is even aware that she has the option – how common is this knowledge?).
      (i) she is still studying at Columbia, and may want to finish her studies without having to take time out from her course to appear in court;
      (ii) bringing a civil suit against a fellow student following a college tribunal ruling in his favour may possibly itself be a violation of their honour code, which would not at all surprise me given how these honour codes seem to operate, again making it more sensible to delay civil proceedings until she graduates;
      (iii) she’s very aware that Nunsegger can sod off back home to Germany at any time with ease – who gets saddled with court costs then?

      Is there a deadline for filing that would make it impossible for her to pursue a civil claim after she graduates rather than now?

      1. I don’t know how long ago this happened, but in New York State the statute of limitations for civil claims for intentional torts (assault, battery, etc.) is only one year. Which means that for all I know it’s already expired.

      2. e Sulkowicz bringing a civil claim – I can see a few potential logistical complications for her with regards to bringing such a claim forward right now (assuming that she is even aware that she has the option – how common is this knowledge?).

         I would say it is very common, and given her apparent sophistication and that of her parents and the likelihood that someone, somewhere, has spoke to a lawyer at least once, I venture to say the probability of “she doesn’t know and didn’t know” is very small.

         (i) she is still studying at Columbia, and may want to finish her studies without having to take time out from her course to appear in court;

         This is unlikely to be the real issue, though it may be an excuse. A trial might take a few days. It probably won’t take weeks. It doesn’t prevent a suit. It may even be able to be schedule in the summer.

         (ii) bringing a civil suit against a fellow student following a college tribunal ruling in his favour may possibly itself be a violation of their honour code, which would not at all surprise me given how these honour codes seem to operate,

         I have a hard time imagining an honor code which would preclude seeking redress in the court system. I venture to say such a code would, itself, be illegal. I may be wrong but I doubt this is the case.

         (iii) she’s very aware that Nunsegger can sod off back home to Germany at any time with ease – who gets saddled with court costs then?

         If you sue someone and serve them personally–which was certainly an option when he was in the US–you can generally obtain jurisdiction and can obtain a default judgment against them.

         Is there a deadline for filing that would make it impossible for her to pursue a civil claim after she graduates rather than now?

         Yes. Assault and battery is 1 year.

         Just to clarify, I should note that usually people don’t do it because of publicity, lack of interest in conflict, etc. Given Sulkowicz’ behavior and apparent interest in publicity I am making a different stance here but there are plenty of reasons that most victims might not sue.

         1. I have a hard time imagining an honor code which would preclude seeking redress in the court system. I venture to say such a code would, itself, be illegal. I may be wrong but I doubt this is the case.

            Correct.

         2. Just an update: the alleged assault date was August 2012. Sulkowicz didn’t report to the college until April 2013 following conversations with a former girlfriend of Nunsegger’s (who also filed a complaint against him), and the university hearing of Sulkowicz’ complaint at which Nunsegger was found “not responsible” didn’t happen until October 2013 (because UVA Columbia allowed him month after month of postponements), by which point the deadline for filing a civil suit was long gone. So by the point at which Sulkowicz realised she needed to pursue different avenues for justice, the civil suit avenue was already closed to her.

            Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_%28Carry_That_Weight%29

Comments are currently closed.