Phi Kappa Psi at U of Virginia Voluntarily Suspends Activities

[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.

[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.

[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.

[robinseggblue]

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 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.

Women should not be victims
twice because of the sexual assaults and then again because of potential concerns with reporting.

I read this as more of a general statement than a specific response to the facts of Jackie's story being investigated further.

To me concerns with reporting immediately jumps to a meaning of safety concerns and the like. Jackie's name has supposedly been released to the public. Whether she is lying or is traumatized to remember specifics, it is not okay for her identity to be revealed in that way and I am concerned for her safety even though I don't know her.

I think NPC is completely right in this respect... this statement reaches further than Jackie. Once any type false allegation becomes public (even if it's just that some elements aren't true and I'm on the boat that is unsure about the truth in Jackie's case), it becomes much harder for anyone else to come forward in the future and this was what I read in the quote.

It is wrong to knowingly fake a report of a crime but the public outlash should not be such to make less and less individuals who are real (future or past) victims come forward. If Jackie knowingly made a false report and this may be proven, by all means go to a legal court. The court of public opinion only hurts real victims of this types of crime. Edit: I don't mean for this to make the impression that it does or doesn't include Jackie because I don't have all the evidence and can't know the truth.

I don't think that Rolling Stone can be called a victim in this case for the reasons 33girl mentioned.

If everything the fraternity has said is true (from what someone said on this thread, it's impossible to verify whether there was a party on that weekend or not), I do feel bad for them. I have sympathy for their reputation being tarnished and I don't think that's fair. I'm glad it didn't get too far with naming names and stuff if they're not involved and hope the community can welcome them back without bad feelings.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by robinseggblue

To me concerns with reporting immediately jumps to a meaning of safety concerns and the like. Jackie's name has supposedly been released to the public. Whether she is lying or is traumatized to remember specifics, it is not okay for her identity to be revealed in that way and I am concerned for her safety even though I don't know her.

If she is lying, it is absolutely okay to reveal her identity. She should have to live with the shame that she lied about being raped, even indicated who she thought did it, potentially ruining the life of the man she falsely accused. I can think of few things less contemptible than that.

If you read the WaPo article, either this journalist is just a total hack and moron, or at the very least, the details Jackie provided were false.

There won't be legal consequences for her, a lawsuit is highly problematic, and what lawyer is going to take a case where he sues a student who is probably already up to her eyeballs in student loan debt?

In my family law work, I see this sort of thing all of the time. Women in custody and divorce situations very often will manufacture claims of domestic violence, abuse or child molestation against the fathers and typically, the consequences are nil. There's almost no downside to it. Courts don't award custody of children punitively because one party was dishonest with the court.

I suspect some attorneys of counseling their clients to make these sorts of claims to gain a leg up in the litigation.

It is not a leap for me to think a woman with a past record of attention-seeking activism might make up a claim of sexual violence in order to get attention. It certainly seems possible.. even probable here.

One of the most interesting comments I've heard listening to the coverage on this was on NPR this morning about the difference as to how an activist journalist from a rag like the RS vs. how a prosecutor interview rape victims. RS journalists tend to be sympathetic, maybe even rewarding (possibly unconsciously) a victim for jazzing things up a little. Prosecutors on the other hand are aggressive, cold, at times even demeaning and very detail-oriented so that by the time the case is ready for trial, the victim's story is absolutely air-tight.

Since there will probably no consequences for anyone except maybe the Phi Kappa Psi house, I guess whichever truth you are inclined to believe is up to you and it's immaterial who is right vs. who is wrong.