The simple explanation is that catering to this woman's obvious mental illness, trumped any man's constitutional rights.

This is a dangerous trend for civilization.

Isab, her father is a prominent psychiatrist. How can you conclude she exhibits signs of a condition described in DSM-V?

@ Wfjag

I'm just a simple person so please explain how dragging a mattress around protesting a "rape" that you enjoyed enough to ask for a repeat is NOT a sign of mental illness.

Also, how is her father's training involved since she is an adult and ignore good advice if it was given by him or anyone else.

I believe the point is that no one should be dragged through the mud (see, simple analogy) for a "crime" they have been found innocent of, and that the university has an obligation to both parties (and evidently failed them both).

Isab, her father is a prominent psychiatrist. How can you conclude she exhibits signs of a condition described in DSM-V?
Posted by: Wfjag at April 26, 2015 6:38 AM

If you have to go to the DSM-V to recognize this behavior as seriously mentally disturbed, you need to get out on the street more.

Having a Psychiatrist for a dad doesn't make you less prone to mental illness, anymore than having a father who is an oncologist makes you less likely to contract cancer.

I know a few psychiatrists, and they are as flaky on average as the general public, maybe more so.

In the current political environment, when the ship of truth crashes against the rocks of THE NARRATIVE, the narrative wins.

And, someday, we are all going to pay for that.

@Isab:
My late father, a psychiatrist, followed a treatment strategy:
"When the rewards for being well exceed the rewards for being sick, most people will get well."
Ms. Sulkowicz is being heavily rewarded. To me, see exhibits learned behavior, and not any mental illness.

@Isab:
My late father, a psychiatrist, followed a treatment strategy:
"When the rewards for being well exceed the rewards for being sick, most people will get well."
Ms. Sulkowicz is being heavily rewarded. To me, see exhibits learned behavior, and not any mental illness.

Posted by: Wfjag at April 26, 2015 11:19 AM

The exact diagnosis of this woman's problems are not the issue here,

Yes, she was heavily rewarded for her attention seeking behavior, but that is really beside the point.

The man she accused of rape, is not suing her, because he believes her to be mentally ill.

Mental illness, can be like a mild cold, or it can be life threatening.

There is a fine and very blurry line between mental illness, and personality disorders, and modern psychiatry doesn't have a handle on most of it.
The point is, Coumbia should not be in the business of aiding and abetting it. Whatever the root cause for her bizarre behavior.

Psychiatrists are REALLY fucked in the head. The higher you go up in the mental health practitioners the higher the degree of their fucked up headness.

They're completely socially stunted and don't tend to listen to what you say as a patient. Not all but most. And the way they treat their kids sheesh.

@Isab:
He isn't suing her because with a load of student loans from Columbia (which are not dischargable in bankruptcy), she is judgment proof. Better not to have her before the court so the other defendants argue that most of the fault (and liability) should be alloted to her.
And, better to present her as a sane, although young and naive, pawn of Columbia faculty who have a malicious agenda. That establishes a prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That gets the case past a summary judgment motion. Columbia won't risk a salacious trial which drags tenured faculty through the mud and damages the University's reputation. It will pay a premium settlement, with a non-disclosure clause, to avoid that, and plaintiff takes his money and goes back to Germany.

Another reason not to sue her is doing so he would look like an attacker to any jury or media.

@wfjag

You can often get to someone's assets through their insurance policy or their parents insurance policy. (Or even columbia's insurance policy).

Being judgement proof is all about collecting the judgment, not about who you sue.

Joe j is much closer to right.

"The man she accused of rape, is not suing her, because he believes her to be mentally ill. "

Yeah, I think personality-disordered is a lot closer to the truth. Think about it: Her "art project" is pretty much in the dictionary next to the word "histrionic".

And: It was a truism when I was in school that most of the psychology majors were in it because they were looking for some way to fix themselves. I remember a psych professor bemoaning how the dropout rate for the psych program was so much higher than most of the programs at the school. He sais that there were too many students coming into the program looking for easy answers.