Reporter casts doubt on Columbia student's rape allegations
Cathy Young, the author of the Daily Beast article telling the story of the alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz's from Paul Nungesser's — the alleged rapist — point of view, is finding inconsistencies in Sulkowicz's story that she believes are "an invitation for people to suspend healthy skepticism" when it comes to charges of sexual assault. Following the piece on Jezebel.com "How to Make an Accused Rapist Look Good," written in an effort to challenge Young's story, Young became more doubtful of some of Sulkowicz's claims. In one instance, Sulkowicz had told Young that during a visit to the Office of Gender-Based Misconduct, staff had asked her if she had tried to talk about the issue with Nungesser and that taking this to be a suggestion,she "sent him a text message saying she wanted to meet, but then back down realizing she was unable to face him." However, Sulkowicz changed her claim in the Jezebel article, now saying that she had texted him to talk, but "realize[d] that this is a silly thing to do" and did not go through with the meeting. Young explains that though traumatic events may alter recollections of events, "when someone's story keeps changing in fairly significant ways, it's a potential red flag, and dismissing all such inconsistencies with the stock 'this is typical of rape survivors'" can lead people to not be as skeptical of evidence and claims as they should be. "The reaction to my Daily Beast story," says Young, "shows just how fanatical and irrational the 'Believe the survivor' mindset of the campus crusade against rape has become." Read Young's full argument at Minding the Campus.
