http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/08/mattress-girls-mom-plugs-her-porno-performance-piece-on-facebook/

If you thought Emma Sulkowicz, aka “mattress girl,” releasing a pornographic video of her having sex in a “reenactment” of her alleged rape was weird, the story just got weirder.

When it was released, Emma’s mother, Sandra Leong, took to her personal Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/sandrasusanleong to promote the “performance piece.”

The website hosting the video of her daughter reenacting her alleged rape by having actual sex on camera with someone Emma described as an actor had problems, but is now working again. Upon hearing that, mother Sandra returned to Facebook to draw attention back to the sex tape.

Leong has taken to her Facebook page regularly to praise and draw attention to her daughter’s “performance piece.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2907470&forum_id=2#28110620)

http://www.health.ny.gov/professionals/doctors/conduct/file_a_complaint.htm

http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opsc2a?profcd=60&plicno=170276&namechk=LEO

Name : LEONG SANDRA SUSAN

Address : NEW YORK NY

Profession : MEDICINE

License No: 170276

Date of Licensure : 06/03/87

Additional Qualification :

Status : REGISTERED

Registered through last day of : 05/17

Medical School: BROWN UNIVERSITY Degree Date : 05/27/1985

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2907470&forum_id=2#28110867)

By Sandra Leong and Kerry J. Sulkowicz

October 2, 2014, 6:02am

On April 18, 2013, our daughter, Emma Sulkowicz, CC ’15, reported that she was raped by a fellow student to the Office of Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct.

What followed was a prolonged, degrading, and ultimately fruitless process. It was an injury to her humanity from what was once, for her, a trusted institution. The trauma of this process has contributed to the rerouting of her life, her identity, and the form of her self-expression as an artist.

Emma’s performance piece, “Carry That Weight,” has galvanized forces around the world for gender equality, sexual assault policy reform, and empowerment of the disenfranchised, and has received praise from the art world. Needless to say, we are proud.

However, as Emma’s parents, we do not want her recent celebrity to be a distraction from the fact that the University’s failure to place sanctions on the man she reported for rape, Jean-Paul Nungesser, CC ’15 (whose name has previously been published by Spectator), is a cause of her continued suffering. The investigation, hearing, and appeals process that followed her complaint to the University were painfully mishandled. We feel that they violated standards of impartiality, fairness, and serious attention to the facts of the case.

When we wrote to University President Lee Bollinger on Nov. 18, 2013, we assumed that alerting him to the facts of the case, the existence of procedural errors, and the failure to abide by University policy in the scheduling and administration of the hearing would engender his concern.

We also assumed that the violent and serial nature of the claims being adjudicated would make the case one that necessitated careful oversight.

We received no reply from President Bollinger, and our daughter’s request for an appeal was subsequently denied by Columbia College Dean James Valentini. We were left with the impression of a University intent on sweeping the issue of campus rape under the rug.

In retrospect, it’s hard to see the conduct of the investigation of our daughter’s complaint and the subsequent hearing as anything but a circus. Emma complied with the administrator’s recommendation that she not engage a lawyer for outside advice, and was advised solely by Rosalie Siler, then-assistant director of Student Services for Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct. But Ms. Siler did not effectively present our daughter’s case to the panel, and the deck was stacked against Emma. Here are some of the most telling instances during the process:

1) During the hearing, Nungesser, advised by his outside attorney, lied in order to cast doubt upon Emma’s character and present an alternative and perverse motivation for her complaint. Our daughter was instructed by Ms. Siler not to answer these allegations in any way, and not even to inform the panel that he was lying. He repeatedly stated that there was an online video that he was not allowed to show the panelists, but wished he could, because it “proved that she had an irrational fear of immobilization,” which would lead her to imagine or lie about being raped even if the experience was actually consensual. Emma begged Ms. Siler to allow her to expose the lie by explaining the video’s content to the panelists, but was refused. In the video, which was an interview posted as part of a women’s issues project, Emma, then 18 and a fencer on Columbia’s varsity team, talked only about a fencing injury and her drive to do extra strength training after her recovery because of her fear of being weak. The “immobilization” was a walking cast she’d had to wear on her foot. The online project is still readily viewable, and the boldness of the lie can be easily verified.

2) Emma was not allowed to explain, in her own words, the timing of her reporting. Emma tried to explain that, after meeting two women who told her they too had been raped by Nungesser (only one of whom filed a complaint), she realized that she should overcome personal shame and report him to ensure the safety of others. Ms. Siler told her to stop talking and pulled her from the room. To the panelists, the timing of Emma’s decision to report that she was raped—seven months after she said it had occurred—remained a mystery. The reason for her conflict with Ms. Siler could only be fodder for their speculation.

3) The fact that Nungesser had previously been found “responsible” by a Columbia panel for following another Columbia student to her room, shoving his way in, forcefully pinning, and groping her was not allowed as evidence in Emma’s hearing. Just days before her hearing, Dean Valentini granted an appeal of this verdict, which re-opened the case and consequently disallowed it as evidence. This effectively hamstrung Emma’s case. (An aside: The final hearing for this other case was scheduled and held at a time the complainant had specified that she was not available to testify. Without her presence, the original panel’s “responsible” verdict was easily overturned.)

4) Because of the accommodation of multiple postponement requests by Nungesser, Emma’s hearing did not take place for six and a half months. This included allowing him to be unavailable for an entire summer vacation. Not only were these delays cruel to our daughter and our family, they were contrary to the 60-day recommended timeframe imposed by Columbia’s (and federal) policy.

5) Dean Valentini responded to Emma’s request for an appeal by taking the unusual step of “re-convening” the same panel that had returned the “not responsible” decision, and discussing the case with them to inform his decision. This did not constitute a fair, independent, and unbiased look at the proceedings, and it is not the way an appeal should be either granted or denied.

6) Emma’s request that the investigative report presented to the panelists be cleared of errors and presented in clear narrative form was denied. Due to the carelessness of the investigator’s note-taking, the incoherent report—full of confusing errata and addenda—contained factual errors as well, such as the length of time that Emma said Nungesser lay next to her after the incident (seconds, not “minutes”). There is no doubt that the denial of this request actively hurt her case.

Columbia is now at the center of a national discussion on the performance of our society in preventing and adjudicating sexual assault, and protecting the rights of survivors.

Although Emma filed a criminal report with the NYPD against Nungesser, she has learned from the district attorney’s office that pursuit of criminal charges would result in another prolonged investigation and adjudication that would not be resolved during the remainder of her time at Columbia University. Thus, over two years after the incident, Emma remains dependent on the University to determine whether Nungesser remains on campus.

We feel that the board and the president have the opportunity to modify the course of events in keeping with what they deem best for the University and for our daughter given their right to exercise oversight over the administration of the University as a whole. As other avenues have failed, we wish that the president and the board would act as a higher court of appeals, and allow Emma a properly conducted retrial in which she has the right to an advocate, unfettered by conflict of interest, who will prosecute her case on her behalf; the right to present the best case possible; the right to present her motivations truthfully; the right to cross-examine; the right to answer unfounded allegations about her character; and the ability to demonstrate a pattern of behavior on the part of the accused party.

At the very least, we recommend that Nungesser be expelled for lying at his hearing. Truthfulness is an absolute requirement for any system of justice to operate. Allowing Nungesser to lie with impunity makes a mockery of all such proceedings, and violates the spirit of the University itself.

Meanwhile, Columbia’s policies remain problematic and affect other students.

[Related article: Columbia releases aggregate data on sexual assault adjudication]

The policy that disallowed the fact of multiple allegations against the accused as evidence in Emma’s hearing still remains. Columbia’s policy states that respondents must have been found responsible by a panel before an additional allegation of similar behavior can be used as evidence. This is a stricter filtering of evidence than even exists in many courts of law. Evidence for a pattern of behavior is crucial to the adjudication of some crimes—such as rape—and is recognized by most legal systems. If several victims’ voices together cannot be deemed stronger than a single victim’s voice, the system is deaf.

In this light, Columbia’s policies seem to be overly concerned with litigious reprisal by displeased respondents. This misguided policy supports unexamined prejudices and discrimination against women.

It also deprives those who are guilty the chance to learn and reform their behavior, and does them no good service. (We feel that expulsion for a crime at a young age is a much milder and potentially more instructive punishment than incarceration at a later age.)

We find it necessary to remind the University that rape is not merely an assault on the body, but an assault on the mind, and in particular, the will. Those who have withstood the violence of rape are often injured in their ability to assert themselves and to trust that they will be treated with humanity when they attempt to be heard. It is inhumane and unrealistic to expect that every survivor of sexual assault who can bear reliable witness will also have the strength, determination, and support that are currently required to lodge, and see to its conclusion, a formal complaint.

It is clear that Columbia’s misunderstanding of the psychology of sexual assault survivors has contributed to abysmal rates of reporting, with even lower rates of those who continue to an investigation.

[Related article: Columbia releases aggregate data on sexual assault adjudication]

If Columbia remains passive in the face of Emma’s suffering, and does not attempt to rectify the injustice done to her, survivors at Columbia will feel discouraged from entrusting themselves to the system that Columbia has recently worked so hard at putting into place.

In a few months, Emma and Paul will graduate. If Columbia does not act to expel him before then, their graduation will not relieve Columbia of the burden of this episode. Instead, in this important moment in the history of sexual assault on college campuses, Columbia will remain indelibly in the public mind as the university where good men and women did nothing.

The authors, Sandra Leong, M.D. and Kerry J. Sulkowicz, M.D., are the parents of Emma Sulkowicz, CC ’15.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2907470&forum_id=2#28110661)

Medical School: BROWN UNIVERSITY Degree Date : 05/27/1985

LJL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2907470&forum_id=2#28110957)

June 2 at 10:24am · New York, NY ·

Now that so many survivors are telling their stories publically, journalists are colluding with defense attorneys, rapists and their families, and political interests to plant victim-smearing articles in the media. Time for a user-friendly consumers’ guide to biased journalist smear tactics!

*Ten Ways to Recognize Biased Journalist Smear Tactics*

1) Presents the narratives rapists use to defend themselves, on the witness stand and in public, as exciting, previously suppressed, credible new evidence that is damning to the victim.

2) Treats statements made by the accused’s lawyer as exciting, previously suppressed, credible new evidence that is damning to the victim.

3) Presents affectionate assertions about the accused from family, girlfriend, friends, teachers, and coaches as evidence that the accused cannot be a rapist

4) Presents any kind of haziness or confusion or honest “I don’t know” on the part of the victim as exonerating evidence, rather than as evidence that the victim was traumatized.

5) Sees the crime in question as serious, but not so serious that everyone shouldn’t just have a good laugh together and move on.

6) Throws in details about drunkenness with the assumption that drunkenness is a form of consent rather than proof that consent could not have occurred.

7) Subscribes to notion that talking to the accused’s lawyer is in general a good way to fact check

8) Appears to believe that how attracted the victim was to the accused is important.

The implication being that being attracted while conscious constitutes consent while unconscious, or while saying no.

9) Throws in random juicy details about life as a modern young person just for color (and to prejudice the reader who has never of course ever been young or done anything wild or adventurous in their lives)

.

10) Touts anything (from immediate outcry to long-term denial) within the range of normal victim behavior as exonerating evidence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2907470&forum_id=2#28110990)

Why would someone who has suffered a horrible trauma want to march around with a sign that says “I suffered a horrible trauma”? We all know people who have had trauma in their lives. Many will discuss it when coaxed, but they rarely volunteer it. When you do finally get them to talk about it, they’re weird after. It ruins their day. Women who were anally raped don’t want to drag their mattress around for months and then make a porno reenacting the rape. They want to move on. We all hope they’ll have the courage to press charges first (with the police, not the school), but that’s up to them.

I spoke to Amier Carmel, a psychoanalyst here in New York who works with severe mental illness. “If someone walks into my office and immediately presents me with trauma,” he says, “it usually means there is some underlying toxic dynamic behind this trauma.” He describes the cry-bullies as people with “an intense need to control” and says that “the resentment associated with this need to correct is often an induced feeling used to fix another problem.” This makes perfect sense. Whenever I argue with liberals and they preach to me about immigration, education, or women’s rights, their lack of knowledge on the subject makes it clear they’ve never looked it up. “It’s never about what it’s about,” as Derb would say. Ask them how many illegals are in the country and they’ll rarely get within 10 million of the number. Ask them how much we spend per student per year and they’ll say, “Not enough.” Ask them how much young women without kids make compared with men and they’ll say, “Women need a choice.” They’re not in it for the truth. They’re in it for the platitudes of the crusade and the power it evokes. We all know that by know. The question is why.

Carmel has a fascinating answer. “The destruction of the family,” he opines, “is the single most destructive force in the past 40 years.” Amier then discusses the back-and-forth kids do, going from mom to dad every time they have a grievance. “This dance,” he says, “is how we attain justice. It’s how the parameters of our sense of internal integrity are defined.” Amier seems particularly concerned with the lack of fathers. “The father sets down the law. When he is not there, a sense of anxiety takes root and that leads to outwardly directed hostility. Soon you are looking to the outside world to show you what the limits are. You’re ‘acting out’ and hoping society will control you. The desire for paternal law becomes pathologized.” Amier calls PC violations “narcissistic injury” and adds that this fear-driven petulance becomes especially dangerous when the ideology becomes someone’s entire identity. “When that happens,” he says, “it’s as though rationality and socialized relationships dissolve. The ideologically identified person can often become wildly reckless because they seek the obscuring of accountability with increased pathos.”

http://takimag.com/article/diagnosed_with_liberalism_gavin_mcinnes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2907470&forum_id=2#28111101)

Clearly victims can't get a fair (show) trial in the Ivy League

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2907470&forum_id=2#28111267)

Love this! It just occurred to me that my grandchildren will (hopefully) be studying Emma's art in school. I can foresee that in the future there will be multiple artistic representations of Emma out there not unlike the ubiquitous images of Frida Kahlo. What an amazing young artist. Who has definitely already changed the world with her art.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2907470&forum_id=2#28111245)

Bitch looks fuckable, though....

https://www.facebook.com/mirandafriel42

Miranda Friel

Studies Theater/Performing Arts at Brown University

Started in 2014

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2907470&forum_id=2#28111294)

Sandra Leong

29 April · Edited ·

Cut off contextualizing top lines, take out time stamps so that rhythm and tone of the conversation is lost, release to journalists who don't fact check and don't care to understand what vulgar expressions teenagers use, and you have a headline worth picking up and going viral "Damning Facebook Message."

Sandra Leong Feel free to share.

29 April at 17:57

link to one of Emma's "fuck me in the butt" IMs

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200396746597269&set=a.1026274873155.3982.1713806120&type=1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2907470&forum_id=2#28111365)