Phi Kappa Psi at U of Virginia Voluntarily Suspends Activities

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by pinksequins

We don't know that it is all false, just that there were sufficient substantive inaccuracies to cause even valid elements to be called into question.

This. I guess I'm not understanding why everyone is now assuming that the entire story is false..?

Originally Posted by SOM

Sabrina Rubin Erdely, woman behind Rolling Stone’s explosive U-Va. alleged rape story http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...984_story.html

I think this is the real issue here, regardless of whether or not Jackie's story is true:

The story does take one journalistic shortcut. The alleged assault, described in graphic detail, is presented largely without traditional qualifiers, such as “according to Jackie” or “allegedly.” The absence of such attribution or qualification leaves the impression that the events in question are undisputed facts, rather than accusations. Erdely said, however, that her writing style makes it clear that the events are being told from Jackie’s point of view.

ETA:

#IStandWithJackie: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ent/?tid+sm_fb

Some of the Twitter posts in the link are exactly what I was thinking. What makes everyone automatically think that the fraternity isn't lying? Rape is traumatic; Jackie even said she couldn't see clearly in the room. Perhaps she couldn't remember the exact number of people who were there?

The fact that Rolling Stone completely backed away from the story is awful. They should have at least explained what had been called into question, instead of implying that Jackie was lying about the whole thing.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

This. I guess I'm not understanding why everyone is now assuming that the entire story is false..?




I think this is the real issue here, regardless of whether or not Jackie's story is true:




ETA:

#IStandWithJackie: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ent/?tid+sm_fb

Some of the Twitter posts in the link are exactly what I was thinking. What makes everyone automatically think that the fraternity isn't lying? Rape is traumatic; Jackie even said she couldn't see clearly in the room. Perhaps she couldn't remember the exact number of people who were there?

The fact that Rolling Stone completely backed away from the story is awful. They should have at least explained what had been called into question, instead of implying that Jackie was lying about the whole thing.

Read the Washington Post article. I think someone else linked to it already. They've re-reported the story, sent reporters and fact-checkers to Charlottesville over the last week or so, and did the job that Rolling Stone utterly failed to do. They reported that even Jackie's advocate friends no longer believe her account.

What part of the story do you still think is true?

[honorgal]

Here it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...bdc_story.html

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Read the Washington Post article. I think someone else linked to it already. They've re-reported the story, sent reporters and fact-checkers to Charlottesville over the last week or so, and did the job that Rolling Stone utterly failed to do. They reported that even Jackie's advocate friends no longer believe her account.

What part of the story do you still think is true?

Originally Posted by honorgal

Here it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...bdc_story.html

Yes, I read it.

the fraternity said there was no event at the house the night the attack was alleged to have happened.

Oh, well if the fraternity says that then it must be true...

A student who came to Jackie’s aid the night of the alleged attack said in an interview late Friday night that she did not appear physically injured at the time but was visibly shaken and told him and two other friends that she had been at a fraternity party and had been forced to have oral sex with a group of men. They offered to get her help and she said she just wanted to return to her dorm, said the student, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

And they couldn't just be covering their butts to not sound like callous a-holes?

an alleged attacker that Jackie identified to them for the first time this week — a junior in 2012 who worked with her as a university lifeguard — was actually the name of a student who belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi.

Maybe Jackie thought he was a member of Phi Kappa Psi, but in reality he wasn't?

The prominent fraternity… said in its statement Friday that its “initial doubts as to the accuracy of the article have only been strengthened as alumni and undergraduate members have delved deeper.”

This doesn't tell us much.

The fraternity also said… that the house does not have pledges during the fall semester.

I know chapters that have taken "underground pledges" when those pledges couldn't actually participate because of grades, first-semester freshman status, etc.


All I'm saying is that it's fascinating to me how everyone was so quick to say how awful this fraternity chapter is, and now in a matter of hours and a few news stories later, they're saying how the chapter is completely innocent and Jackie is a liar.

And wasn't there another alleged victim who came forward this week about being raped at the same fraternity house decades ago?

ETA: Question… did Phi Kappa Psi make a public statement prior to Rolling Stone retracting their statements/article?

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Yes, I read it.



Oh, well if the fraternity says that then it must be true...



And they couldn't just be covering their butts to not sound like callous a-holes?



Maybe Jackie thought he was a member of Phi Kappa Psi, but in reality he wasn't?



This doesn't tell us much.



I know chapters that have taken "underground pledges" when those pledges couldn't actually participate because of grades, first-semester freshman status, etc.


All I'm saying is that it's fascinating to me how everyone was so quick to say how awful this fraternity chapter is, and now in a matter of hours and a few news stories later, they're saying how the chapter is completely innocent and Jackie is a liar.

And wasn't there another alleged victim who came forward this week about being raped at the same fraternity house decades ago?

ETA: Question… did Phi Kappa Psi make a public statement prior to Rolling Stone retracting their statements/article?

Yes, there is another victim from UVA and she has spoken out. She's not alleged, she's a victim, her rapist was eventually caught and confessed. But yes, it was decades ago, so not seeing how that is relevant as evidence that Jackie's allegation must be true.

I think Phi Psi made some kind of statement but it wasn't much, why?

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Yes, there is another victim from UVA and she has spoken out. She's not alleged, she's a victim, her rapist was eventually caught and confessed. But yes, it was decades ago, so not seeing how that is relevant as evidence that Jackie's allegation must be true.

I think Phi Psi made some kind of statement but it wasn't much, why?

I'm simply pointing out that there's a chance this chapter isn't completely innocent.

Again...

All I'm saying is that it's fascinating to me how everyone was so quick to say how awful this fraternity chapter is, and now in a matter of hours and a few news stories later, they're saying how the chapter is completely innocent and Jackie is a liar.

I tend not to believe much on the internet anymore. People comment and speak in such absolutes and are so sure of themselves without all the facts. And that doesn't just apply to this story.

I'll wait to hear more before jumping to conclusions one way or the other.