Phi Kappa Psi at U of Virginia Voluntarily Suspends Activities

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by SOM

Trolls are outing Jackie. That's Rolling Stone's fault too. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...all_tab_tw_top via @doublexmag

I admittedly only skimmed Hanna Rosin's piece (who, btw, has done a commendable job on her reporting so far). But I recall multiple instances where it is claimed that Jackie has told some version of her story at a "Take Back THe Night" event. Seems like that would end her anonymity, at least among part of her college campus? Or maybe I'm missing something?

[1964Alum]

Here it the NPC's separate press release on the matter:

https://www.npcwomen.org/resources/a...%20%285%29.pdf

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

Here it the NPC's separate press release on the matter:

https://www.npcwomen.org/resources/a...%20%285%29.pdf

I wish they hadn't put in the bit about her being "victimized twice." What we know is that the facts she gave Rolling Stone are untrue. The only real victims in this case are the men of Phi Kappa Psi who had to endure months of being punished for something they didn't do... and to some extent Rolling Stone and the reporter who have both lost a lot of credibility.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I wish they hadn't put in the bit about her being "victimized twice." What we know is that the facts she gave the reporter are untrue. The only real victims in this case are the men of Phi Kappa Psi who had to endure months of being punished for something they didn't do... and to some extent Rolling Stone and the reporter who have both lost a lot of credibility.

FYP slightly. (Since it's not like she talked to multiple people employed by RS)

And there's no way Rolling Stone can be called a "victim" in this. If she would have claimed she was raped by a member of Students For a Greener UVA, RS would have double, triple and quadruple checked and done their due diligence and the story would have never seen print. They absolutely did this to themselves.

Plus this reporter sounds like she watches Law and Order more than I do and fanfics most of it.

[pinksequins]

Again, we are not in possession of all of the facts. Some of the elements of the story are not correct -- whether by reason of Jackie's statements or the reporter's fabrications or both -- and they have compromised any elements that are legitimate. We do not know at this time whether the entire story was fabricated. Those facts will be determined as investigations progress. Clearly, RS did not meet the standards for responsible, professional journalism. We also do not know how "Jackie" was interviewed and to what degree the reporter manipulated questions to obtain desired responses.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 33girl

And there's no way Rolling Stone can be called a "victim" in this. If she would have claimed she was raped by a member of Students For a Greener UVA, RS would have double, triple and quadruple checked and done their due diligence and the story would have never seen print.

Let's be fair. Even if they had the video of that hypothetical act, they wouldn't give it any attention whatsoever.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by pinksequins

Again, we are not in possession of all of the facts. Some of the elements of the story are not correct -- whether by reason of Jackie's statements or the reporter's fabrications or both -- and they have compromised any elements that are legitimate.

Have you read the WaPo article? I can't imagine they haven't tried to locate and get the "victim's" story.

We do not know at this time whether the entire story was fabricated. Those facts will be determined as investigations progress. Clearly, RS did not meet the standards for responsible, professional journalism.

Clearly not. But really, these were important (false) facts which could ONLY have come from the victim. She's either stupid or a liar... and well... UVA doesn't take folks with subpar SATs.

We also do not know how "Jackie" was interviewed and to what degree the reporter manipulated questions to obtain desired responses.

Since the "victim" has appeared in public as an activist, we can assume she read the article. If she didn't have any major corrections, we can safely conclude she was at least complicit in the falsehood if not directly responsible (which is more likely).

This lady was apparently willing to shut down an entire fraternity chapter and possibly, if some innocent guy had been a lifeguard at some point, ended up sending an innocent man to prison and having him spend his life labeled a sex offender.

[honorgal]

More from Slate. Very long article but even-handed and for those who are mostly familiar with the big picture look only from sound bites or as a result of the RS article, it's well worth the time.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double...e_efforts.html

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Let's be fair. Even if they had the video of that hypothetical act, they wouldn't give it any attention whatsoever.

True story. I was just trying to think of something with sufficient liberal "cred" as opposed to a fraternity.

[pinksequins]

I most certainly have been following The Washington Post. Kevin, put on your legal hat. I think you might be a bit more circumspect. There is a very distinct possibility that some of these misstatements were generated by the reporter rather than Jackie or that Jackie could have been encouraged to embellish her story. I would not be surprised to learn that there were misleading statements from both, but the investigations (media and external counsel) haven't yet gotten there. Therefore, other than RS gross mismanagement of its publication of the story, I am not ready to jump to conclusions about the story.

[pinksequins]

I think Slate has been pretty spot-on so far with its articles.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by honorgal

More from Slate. Very long article but even-handed and for those who are mostly familiar with the big picture look only from sound bites or as a result of the RS article, it's well worth the time.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double...e_efforts.html

from the story:


She says she is troubled by the blurring of distinctions between rape (notably by predatory males), unwanted sex (where one party agrees to sex not out of desire but to please or placate the partner), and the kind of consensual sex where both parties are so drunk they can barely remember what happened—and one of them later regrets it. She says, “Calling all of these kinds of sexual encounters ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’ doesn’t teach young women how to learn what they want sexually, let alone how to communicate what they want, or don’t want. It doesn’t teach them to take responsibility for their decisions, for their reluctance to speak up. Sexual communication is really hard—you don’t learn how to do it in a few weekends.”


Tavris also believes holding only men responsible for their sexual behavior has pernicious effects on women because it supports a victim identity that is already too prevalent in our society. “It’s so much easier to be a victim than to admit culpability, admit your own involvement, admit that you made a mistake,” she says. “It’s much easier to say it’s all his fault. Look, sometimes it is all his fault. That’s called rape. But ambiguities and unexpected decisions are part of many encounters, especially sexual ones.”


This. This. This. This. THIS.

[1964Alum]

Originally Posted by pinksequins

I most certainly have been following The Washington Post. Kevin, put on your legal hat. I think you might be a bit more circumspect. There is a very distinct possibility that some of these misstatements were generated by the reporter rather than Jackie or that Jackie could have been encouraged to embellish her story. I would not be surprised to learn that there were misleading statements from both, but the investigations (media and external counsel) haven't yet gotten there. Therefore, other than RS gross mismanagement of its publication of the story, I am not ready to jump to conclusions about the story.

Nor am I. CNN's Jake Tapper did a segment on this today at 4PM. The first half is accessable on a video. Unfortunately, the second part is not. The second half was an interview of the President of the Student Council, himself a fraternity man. He essentially said that neither the student body at UVA nor the fraternity men are minimizing Jackie's story, despite the descrepancies. They acknowledge that this is and has been a very serious problem on campus, which is well-known to students. Also that several fraternities there are developing protocols to make sure that their houses are the safest places on campus. Perhaps the second part of the interview will show on on The Cavalier Daily's web site.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12...s-overwhelmed/

[SOM]

Twitter Under Fire As Users Spread Information About Alleged Rape Victim http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...13&ir=Politics


Right Wing Smear Merchant Chuck C. Johnson Posts Alleged Rape Victim’s Name on Twitter http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...ame_on_Twitter

Chuck C. Johnson: Journalist (In Three Images) http://mrdestructo.tumblr.com/post/1...n-three-images

Right-Wing Douchebag Outs Alleged Rape Victim From ‘Rolling Stone’ Story http://po.st/Zbe2Ya via @po_st

[33girl]

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

The second half was an interview of the President of the Student Council, himself a fraternity man. He essentially said that neither the student body at UVA nor the fraternity men are minimizing Jackie's story, despite the descrepancies. They acknowledge that this is and has been a very serious problem on campus, which is well-known to students. Also that several fraternities there are developing protocols to make sure that their houses are the safest places on campus.

Such a double edged sword. While it's great and necessary that they are doing this, the anti-fraternity contingent will say that the ends (whether from the accuser, the "journalist" or RS) justified the means. The same thing happened with the Vs.