Written by Bwog Staff
July 03, 20178:00 am 4 Comments
Editor’s Note: This article describes and discusses details of sexual assault. All documents provided are Public Domain and come from the docket of the Southern District Court of New York.
According to the docket of the Southern District Court of New York, Defendant Columbia University and Plaintiff Amelia Roskin-Frazee will voice their oral arguments on August 8th regarding Roskin-Frazee’s lawsuit against the school. Though scantily covered by Spec and the New York Daily News, both the physical documents of Columbia’s most recent Motion to Dismiss Roskin-Frazee’s suit as well as Roskin-Frazee’s counterarguments against Columbia’s Motion remain unprovided and underreported. In this article, we will cover the full background to this case, the recent developments, and provide copies of all documents related to the suit.
Roskin-Frazee’s Complaint Against Columbia
Roskin-Frazee first provides a background to Columbia’s history of sexual assault, wherein the plaintiff alleges that Columbia “has a history of violating Title IX when responding to reports of sexual misconduct,” pointing to the 23 students in April of 2014 “filing administrative complaints with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (‘OCR’), alleging that COLUMBIA violated Title IX”; as well as the general history of Emma Sulkowicz and her “Carry That Weight” project; No Red Tape; and the protests against Dean Cristen Kromm in March of 2016. She further establishes the policies regarding Title IX and the University’s Gender-Based Misconduct Policy and Procedures For Students, which Columbia is alleged to have violated. These include standards of reporting any suspected incidents to the Gender Based Misconduct Office, the Office’s requirement to investigate “regardless of whether a complainant wishes to report the incident or not,” and the various accommodations intended to provide support and relief. These accommodations, specifically, include the moving of a student’s residence, the changing of a student’s schedule, the allowing of a student to withdraw from or retake a class without penalty, and the providing of tutoring or other academic assistance.
The specific incidents Roskin-Frazee’s complaint alleges to have occurred begin with an October of 2015 sexual assault in her Hartley dorm room. At the time, the doors to at least some of Hartley Hall’s suites did not automatically lock, leading Roskin-Frazee’s suite to leave their suite door unlocked. As a result, the plaintiff reports that an unidentified man gained access to her specific room and committed sexual assault against her. Roskin-Frazee claims in her complaint that she attempted to schedule an appointment with the Women’s Health department of Columbia’s Medical Services, but could neither schedule an immediate appointment online, over the phone, nor as a walk-in patient. Exasperated, Roskin-Frazee scheduled an appointment for “flu-like” symptoms, where she then claimed to be “experiencing genital pain,” only to be told that she “shouldn’t have such rough sex again.” As a result of her lack of treatment, Roskin-Frazee contacted Columbia’s Sexual Violence Response Hotline (SVR), where she claimed that the SVR representative advised her to contact the police, and commented that “even though Plaintiff is lesbian, she should have been on birth control.” The SVR Staff Advocate she was later connected to “was unaware of Plaintiff’s rights and options under Title IX or any ability to receive academic or housing accommodations.” Despite this, the Staff Advocate set up a meeting with Roskin-Frazee the next day.
Click to continue reading the details of the lawsuit
Tags: Amelia Roskin-Frazee, gender-based misconduct, no red tape, Roskin-Frazee, seriously Spec is such fake news, sexual assault, Suzanne Goldberg, Title IX
Who has the better hair?
Go back in history.
© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.