Discussion: The Insidious New Lawsuit Targeting Columbia's Anti-Rape Activists

Discussion for article #235680

Exactly how does he claim that he was harassed by her when he and not she identified him as her assailant?


Yes. because there is nothing more insidious than using the court system to right a perceived wrong. What is the alternative? The “Anti-rape activists” are upset when Nungesser talked to Cathy Young, so we know they think that is insidious as well.

Also, I am not sure what Marcotte means by publicly identified, Nungesser’s name was appearing atop lists of unpunished rapists in bathroom’s around campus. So I guess if you are sneaky and wage a whispering campaign that is OK.


Ultimately, of course, only the parties involved know exactly what happened, but contrary to the author’s glossing-over, virtually all of the evidence in this case points to the accused’s innocence. I’m particularly confused and concerned by the author’s attempt, like the acuser in this case, to paint the accused as some sort of serial rapist on the flimsiest of accusation – no evidence, mind you, just bare accusations long after the fact, including citing one of the other two accusers who only accused him (like the third victim) many, many months after the fact, and only accused him of being “emotionally abusive.” To conflate that with accusations of rape reaks of a smear campaign. And, no, I’m sorry, but Cathy Young’s exhaustive piece on the accused’s likely innocence was not “debunked” by anyone, certainly least of all by the almost exclusively ad hominem attacks on Young included above. But ultimately, there’s no need, as the author does, to extrapoloate beyond the facts of THIS case. In THIS case, it’s clear that the alleged victim’s behavior does not comport with any idea of having been raped by the accused. I’m not sure why it is that “anti-rape activists,” as this author terms them (is anyone pro-rape?), simply cannot or will not accept that not every rape accusation is true or acknowledge that one acused person being innocent doesn’t mean rape isn’t a serious problem. Instead, the author desperately clings to her pre-conceived conclusion that the accused in THIS case is guilty, despite a complete lack of evidence of guilt and a whole lot of evidence of innocence. Does the author fear that if one alleged case of rape is undermined, that will somehow undermine the case against rape as a crime in general? Whatever the legitimacy of that fear, it is not worth sacrificing an innocent person for the cause. In THIS case, even against a stacked deck, even with the proceedings geared against him, the accused still was ultimately found not responsible by every authority and tribunal that has reviewed the matter. The harrassment, intimidation, and pure slander directed at the accused in this case, all under the weak guise of “art,” has been outrageous. Given the almost complete lack of evidence against the accused in this case, it’s frankly becoming outrageous and frankly almost libelous, under almost any reasonable concept of fairness and justice, to continue to accuse this guy of rape.


If there’s anything to get all hysterical about it should be the tuition at Columbia.

While I agree with much of the post above, I didn’t author it. I typed a completely different reply to this article, but when I tried to post it, my post disappeared and the one above – author unknown – appeared instead, and mine disappeared. WTF is going on?

The same thing has happened again – I posted a response noting that while I didn’t author the post above, although I posted similar thoughts (which disappeared), and now THAT post has disappeared, too, replaced by someone else’s post under my name. Something screwy is happening on the board.

The same thing is happening to my posts.

First mine disappeared, but then reappeared, now it is has reappeared in a slightly altered version. WTF is going on indeed.

Reggid, seems to be not all that uncommon on this board, believe it is the board monitors. Sometimes the changes they make to the original message become the opposite of that the author had stated. Personally I’m about ready to walk as I can no longer trust the comments that are posted. TMP must get their act together.

I think what the author is concerned about is the fact that stories about the alleged rapist being falsely accused seem to be more newsworthy than the more common issue of unaccountable rape, which, as she describes, creates this problem of perception that the former is more of a problem than the latter. So, yes, I do think that the author rightly fears that undermining ANY legitimate case of rape will undermine the case against rape as a crime in general.

I myself, by articulating this position, do not intend to make any judgment about the claims in THIS particular case, as the author does. But as a lawyer, I do find it interesting that Mr. Nungesser has chosen NOT to sue his alleged victim for what you describe as clearly libel, which is an intentional tort, so I doubt the University could be held liable under these circumstances. It can’t merely be a decision to go after a “deep pocket” here because there is no reason he couldn’t include both the student and the University in the case. I suspect it is a deliberate strategy to minimize the discovery in the case, but it could, of course, be something less sinister. Perhaps you know the answer.


So I had to go back and read previous media articles about this case to remind myself of the circumstances. A pattern emerges:

Accuser #1: was having ongoing consensual relations with Paul, but he would become abusive during the proceedings, details not noted.

Accuser #2: at a party, they went upstairs into the stairwell. There he became aggressive and groped her. She beat him off (she was an athlete) and departed a situation she felt was an attack vs amorous advances.

Accuser #3: during consensual sex with Paul he choked her, slapped her face, and sodomized her (new sexual territory) while she screamed “no.” She says he appeared to get off on her distress.

Now there is a new player, this time a gay man. He was sharing emotional confidences with Paul when Paul attacked and sodomized him. This was this school year and this incident may or may not be reported.

Considering that approx. 95% of campus rapes go unreported, having 4 people say the same person assaulted them is significant. If #4 doesn’t make a formal complaint I wouldn’t blame him a bit considering how the other 3 have fared. I’d bet there are more than these 4 just on the Columbia campus who’ve had non-consensual incidents involving this young man. I would bet that a look at this guy’s “relationships” back home in Germany would turn up a good few more similar incidents following the pattern of get close, have consensual relations (except for the guy), and then take it into rape/abuse territory under the guise of “consensual.” He may even tell himself that - they wanted it. Guess they didn’t, x4.

1 Like


Repigs expect us to believe that a bunch of armed yay-hoos who show up in a restaurant parking lot carrying assault rifles and banners when, in that restaurant, an anti-violence group is meeting is just a coincidence. While they expect us to think that this woman was directly harassing this a-hole.

Repiglilogic. The problem is that it works on about a third of the population.

“Also, I am not sure what Marcotte means by publicly identified, Nungesser’s name was appearing atop lists of unpunished rapists in bathroom’s around campus.”

i’ll spell it out for you: neither his accuser nor the school, nor any other official publicly identified him by name. absent proof they did, his suit will have about a 5 minute shelf-life, just long enough for the schools attorney to request it be dismissed, and the judge to dismiss it. in the unlikely event it isn’t dismissed, then mr. nungesser’s attorney has the unpleasant task of explaining just exactly why the school would be harassing him to begin with. this will force the rape allegations out in the open, possibly bringing up all the testimony that wasn’t brought up before.

this guy is a moron. if he had kept his mouth closed, this would have blown over, and his rapist ass would have been home free. now, he’s hoist on his very own petard. I assume his atty. got paid in advance.

1 Like

I was under the impression that Sulkowicz made Nungesser’s name public by filing a police report last May and, prior to that, his name did indeed appear on lists in bathrooms but nobody publicly published his name.

From the article linked to below (emphasis mine):

“People kept making comments like, ‘Girls are so dumb, they should just go to the police. Obviously the school isn’t going to deal with it.’ I wanted to see for myself if I should have gone to the police,” Sulkowicz said. “I figured maybe they have a point. Maybe his name should be in the public record,” Sulkowicz added, referring to her alleged attacker.



Without addressing the merits, I believe that one of Nungesser’s arguments is that the school failed to prevent gender-based harassment of him.

LJB: I appreciate the info, but this is way beyond mere edits – this was someone else’s lengthy post appearing under my name, and then my lengthy post disappearing and then reappearing entirely, and the other person’s posts (again, appearing under my name) doing the same thing. Some of those “replies” above still appearing under my name are not from me, and the other person’s original post – which was a long, thoughtful comment, by the way, has disappeared entirely. I emailed TPM about it, but haven’t heard anything back yet.

So, let me get this straight – your response to the issue of unfounded accusations . . . is to make MORE unfounded accusations, as if that somehow constitutes “proof”? Like I said, this is really starting to reak of a concerted smear campaign.

1 Like

Even if they did not specifically refer to him “by name” (and I don’t know if that claim is true), it does not follow that they did not “identify” him.

1 Like