It’s time for journalists to stop putting the cart before the horse. There has been a disturbing trend in the media of creating a narrative, a conclusion, and proselytizing content consumers, far before the facts come out. This rush to judgment may get eyeballs on stories, but it is a reckless and unethical practice that can have far reaching and incredibly damaging implications for those involved.

Okay, now that I have your attention, perhaps we can take an open-minded look at the actual facts of the recent incident at Columbia University. You remember what open-minded is, right? It’s when we objectively analyze the facts as opposed to creating a storyline beforehand and sticking to it regardless of what the evidence shows actually happened.

We can’t possibly put ourselves inside the heads of Emma Sulkowicz or Paul Nungesser, so instead of speculating as to their motivations, let’s just look at the unbiased, facts of the case.

Paul and Emma had a pre-existing and ongoing sexual relationship.

While Emma claims that she was raped, she did not get a rape kit after the incident. She did not report the incident until several months later, and there is no physical evidence to corroborate her claims. She alleges that Nungesser hit her, choked her and pinned her down during the rape. Such an assault would be likely to leave bruises and marks on the victim, yet there are no photos showing such injuries.

For months after the alleged rape, Paul and Emma remained in close contact. Emma saw Paul socially, made plans to see him, and on a number of occasions, told him via Facebook Messenger, that she loved him.

Sulkowicz’s rape claim came before a panel at Columbia University. At this hearing, the standard of guilt was merely preponderance of the evidence. That is to say, the panel would only have to find it more likely than not that the assault occurred in order to find Paul guilty. This is a much lower bar than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that would be in effect in a criminal trial. Despite this low threshold, and the fact that Paul was not allowed to introduce the Facebook messages or any outside evidence in his defense, the panel still found him “not responsible,” for a sexual assault. Sulkowicz challenged the panel’s finding on appeal, but the ruling was upheld. Unhappy with the panel’s findings, Sulkowicz subsequently joined a group of Columbia and Barnard students in filing a Federal Title IX complaint against the University claiming it mishandled sexual assault complaints.

Sulkowicz has not brought a civil suit against Nungesser. It is impossible to say why exactly she has not proceeded with such a case. It’s possible she doesn’t want the attention, although that seems unlikely considering she lugs a 50 pound mattress around Columbia’s campus everyday. It’s possible it would be too painful for her to address the incident in court, and it’s possible that her lawyers have advised her that she’s unlikely to win such a case, again, at the lower preponderance of the evidence standard. We can’t know for sure, the only fact is that no such case has been commenced.

There is no criminal case pending against Mr. Nungesser. Ms. Sulkowicz filed a police report, and Mr. Nungesser was brought in to the D.A.’s office for questioning, but he was released and no charges were filed. The D.A. files charges when they believe they have a case that they can win. The D.A.’s office is not in the business of letting criminals roam the streets freely, Mr. Nungesser has not been charged and there is not a criminal case against him pending.

While Mr. Nungesser has been exonerated by Columbia, and has not been charged with a crime, the university has allowed Ms. Sulkowicz to carry around a 50 pound mattress each day to protest Nungesser’s presence at Columbia under the guise of “performance art.” If we are to treat her performance art as “speech” then she is in effect slandering Nungesser openly and continually on a daily basis.

There have been three separate claims of sexual misconduct brought against Nungesser. These were not three rape allegations. Nungesser was acquitted by a Columbia panel in all three matters; while on i’s face, three allegations might ring warning bells, a society built on law and order has to respect the ruling of it’s judicial bodies. Innocent until proven guilty, and innocent when found innocent.

Merely pointing out the facts noted above is likely to provoke a wave of outrage. More than anything, this is a disturbing commentary on the state of affairs in America. It has become taboo to even have a discussion about certain issues, perhaps chief amongst them rape.

Failure to blindly believe all allegations is likely to get a person labeled a misogynist or worse. In the case at issue here, we have someone who has been cleared of any wrongdoing by every authority that has closely examined the incident. There is no evidence, save for the word of his accuser to indicate that he in fact committed a crime, and there is substantial circumstantial evidence that can be construed as exonerating him. Yet a large segment of society sees no issue with Nungesser being publicly labeled a serial rapist, his accuser slandering him openly on a daily basis and for his life to be torn apart. The rights of the victim in a rape case are well established and in place for good reason, however, there should be some consideration for the rights of the accused. We come back again to that troublesome phrase “innocent until proven guilty.”

While Nungesser has been acquitted by the Columbia tribunal, and hasn’t been charged with a crime, he has been charged, tried and convicted in the media. Much of the vitriol filled near-propaganda that has been produced on this subject is primarily fueled by feelings and not facts. This is a dangerous practice. Leaning heavily on emotion and going light on facts when dealing with rape cases, and any other serious accusations, while blindly taking any claim as gospel leads to lots of collateral damage. It’s bordering on a heretical statement to suggest that some rape allegations are made up, but while this isn’t a popular sentiment, it’s the truth. Let us not forget the UVA Jackie fiasco, the Duke Lacrosse rape farce, or Lena Dunham’s recent rape defamation fantasy in her book. Everyone loves clickbait, but journalists have or at least should have standards and integrity. The media should not be so quick to tear these possibly innocent lives asunder and establish and indoctrinate the masses with their narrative before they examine the facts and get a clear picture of what actually happened just to get page views.

This leads back to the fundamental problem. Why is it now wrong to question? At the Columbia hearing, Sulkowicz seemed agitated to the point of contempt that the board of inquiry wanted clarification and wouldn’t accept her version of events as unquestionably true, saying the panel displayed “disturbing ignorance.” While of course there is a tendency to become emotional about such a fiery issue, this is when it is most necessary to remain logical and strenuously question and evaluate any allegation. People’s lives are at stake when such vile charges are levied, and to ask people to believe all allegations on faith without examining every possibility is simply madness.

Isn’t it possible, extrapolating from the Facebook conversations between Paul and Emma, that they had a casual sexual relationship, Emma became emotionally invested, Paul did not reciprocate these feelings and as a result Emma felt scorned and angry. Perhaps as the reality of the relationship, or lack thereof became apparent to Emma over the course of several months, she, fueled by this anger, brought the rape charges. Even suggesting this will no doubt inspire anger, but why are we now taught that it is wrong to question what we’re told and to examine any and all possibilities?

Considering the hypothetic scenario above isn’t “victim shaming,” it’s a thorough examination in search of the truth. This should be the real goal of all rape inquiries, not selling papers or inspiring a media circus.

Jared S. Baumeister is a Columbia educated journalist