Phi Kappa Psi at U of Virginia Voluntarily Suspends Activities

[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.

[SOM]

UVa won't reinstate fraternity activities http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BBgv9jX

[1964Alum]

I think they will reinstate them but at a later date. Investigations are still ongoing as well as the development of more effective policies and procedures by administrators, faculty, and students to address this complex of problems of long-standing on that campus.

I DO hope that representatives from the national councils of fraternities and sororities will have a seat at the table in addition to those Greeks at UVA who are already on the board.

[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.

[Low D Flat]

If she is lying, it is absolutely okay to reveal her identity.

But the reveal already happened, and we're a long way from knowing that she lied about being raped.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

But the reveal already happened, and we're a long way from knowing that she lied about being raped.

I'm aware that many of them experience memory problems, and that is where the activists have pivoted to at this point... of course until now, her memory of her attackers was perfect and how dare we question it. Now she's simply confused. Let's rejigger the narrative until we can make her a victim again and not a liar.

I think this guy had it right before almost anyone:

http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsi...ne-story-true/

And Wapo gets it right too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...al-media-bias/

Yeah, I guess we'll never know for sure whether she's a liar, but to me, that's how she looks.

[SOM]

Former Suitemate Of Alleged University of Virginia Gang-Rape Victim: ‘This Is Not a Hoax’
http://www.liberalamerica.org/2014/1...is-not-a-hoax/

[Kevin]

So she appeared to be depressed, ergo she must have been gang raped at the Phi Kapp house. That is the only possible explanation.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So she appeared to be depressed, ergo she must have been gang raped at the Phi Kapp house. That is the only possible explanation.

The College Rape Crisis can explain anything.

[1964Alum]

Sorry, but both of you are out of step with the North-American Interfraternity Conference. I just hear an interview with Pete Smithhiser, the President and CEO of said conference on NPR. When posed with the question of whether this rape crisis on college campuses was manufactured or real, he acknowledged that it was real. And further that the conference wished to work in collaboration with administrations in developing effective strategies in dealing with this very real and serious problem. He specifically mentioned vigorous bystander training and participation on the part of its member fraternities. He also expressed the desire to have a seat at the table when developing these protocols.

Denying that there is a problem will only give a black eye to the Greek system, which is already on the ropes at this time. I am all about making it stronger and a positive experience. The failure to constructively address this most serious problem will only weaken it.

[navane]

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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 she is found to have lied, then I will struggle to understand why she deserves to receive protection for her identity. The only reason I'm reading here so far is that real rape victims may not want to report their cases due to fear of being outed. Ok, I get that.

Here's the thing - I'm going to look at it from the man's perspective. Is it fair for a woman to falsely accuse a man of rape only to have his name and organization publicly smeared and have people conduct protests against him? Then, when his accuser is found to be a liar, be told, "Oh well, sorry. We're not going to release the name of the person who ruined your reputation and life to protect the unnamed, hypothetical, future rape victims that may or may not be telling the truth as well". That would be BS.

[honorgal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...y.html?hpid=z1

The latest from the Washington Post investigation of the Jackie/RS debacle. All three of the friends from the night in question have been located and interviewed.

If I'm understanding the chronology correctly, it appears she really did make the whole thing up.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

Sorry, but both of you are out of step with the North-American Interfraternity Conference. I just hear an interview with Pete Smithhiser, the President and CEO of said conference on NPR. When posed with the question of whether this rape crisis on college campuses was manufactured or real, he acknowledged that it was real.

LMAO. Because no one has ever said anything in an interview (on NPR!!) that isn't completely true just to save their asses.

The one in five or one in four (depending which garbage truck your stats fell off of) rates are HIGHLY questionable.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

“The main message we want to come out of all this is that sexual assault is a problem nationwide that we need to act in preventing. It has never been about one story. This is about the thousands of women and men who have been victims of sexual assault and have felt silenced not only by their perpetrators, but by society’s misunderstanding and stigmatization of rape.”

No, the "main message" is that accusing someone of a crime they didn't commit and/or not confirming someone's story before dispersing it demands punishment.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by 33girl

LMAO. Because no one has ever said anything in an interview (on NPR!!) that isn't completely true just to save their asses.

The one in five or one in four (depending which garbage truck your stats fell off of) rates are HIGHLY questionable.

Very smart move by Mr. Smithiser, if he wants IFC to "have a seat at the table".