Yes, yes, I know she never pursued her police complaint and so has not formally testified under oath. I am speaking of a larger issue.

If academic kangaroo courts are to adjudicate felonies, then why should false "testimony" to such kangaroo courts not be treated as a form of perjury?

Bearing false witness has been anathema to society for thousands of years; one need not have religious belief to note the Ten Commandments include it with murder, theft, etc.

So, if academia is to have parallel courts trying felonies, why should those courts not also be required to put participants under oath, try perjury, etc?

In my opinion, why are we not making more imaginative and aggressive arguments, or at least inverting SJW techniques?

For example, Sulkowicz has certainly retaliated against Nungesser for his rejecting a continuing relationship with her. That is clear sexual harassment. But one could argue it even rises to a criminal level of harassment and defamation, or even a form of stalking, in which Sulkowicz had the collusion of her faculty advisor, the President of Columbia, three other false accusers, and Gillibrand. Should we not demand all of these be prosecuted for colluding in a criminal level of harassment or stalking or defamation? Did they not all suborn Sulkowicz' parallel-court "perjury"?

That is, if academic courts and the media are to be the venue for trying cases, then why not consider the above mob to have committed the ethical equivalent of suborning perjury?

Have not the above mob, as well as R.Ali and the Dept of Ed, violated Nungesser's human rights? If monies received by private institutions are sufficient pretext to force these institutions to conduct kangaroo trials, then why are those monies not sufficient pretext for considering those institutions to have violated male students' civil rights?

Why, in nearly five years, has there not yet been a class action suit on behalf of male students against the Dept of Ed on the grounds of massive violation of civil and Constitutional rights?

I do not claim the above suggestions satisfy every requirement for legal argument - but they do carry weight of moral argument. If feminists can twist the law, then why cannot we at least push the envelope in the opposite direction?