Phi Kappa Psi at U of Virginia Voluntarily Suspends Activities

[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.

[robinseggblue]

Originally Posted by navane

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.

We are still not sure she lied.

Originally Posted by navane

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.

The guys who supposedly participated in this were not named so anything you say about naming perpetrators is out of place.

Yes the organization was named. But her organization was named too (UVa anti-rape org...whatever, forgot the name). If she was lying then that organization will be publicly smeared. That's Jackie's equivalent to a fraternity because it's her source of support in the community. And the community can blame it and protest for encouraging making up reports, whatever they feel.

But there's still a big difference in having a name released and having an organization's name released.

[PinkSkyAtNight]

There is no doubt that Rolling Stone and Sabrina Rubin-Ederly are going to face civil consequences for their lack of due dillingence, and possible willful intent to smear Phi Kappa Psi.

But proving that Jackie was maliciously trying to smear the fraternities and the greek community in general, will be very difficult to prove. Unless there is more evidence along the lines of an admission that she made up the whole thing, I find it doubtful that she will even face any kind of university hearing. Even if there is, we will probably never learn about it, because it will probably remain confidential.

If her friends have solid evidence of catfishing or the fact that she conspired to libel a fraternity or certain individuals all along, they really should come out and use their real names, it would seriously give them more credibility.

It was mentioned that the fraternity could have been shut down with no investigation or recourse.... but that didn't happen. Actually, the exact opposite happened. The national office and locals clearly did their own legwork, as did the Washington Post; and if the university had investigated, they could or perhaps did present these findings. If anything, they come out ahead for suspending themselves, remaining calm and non-retaliatory, all while people were spray-painting and vandalizing their house.

Everyone should sit back, let the dust settle, and let more facts come out. Because with each layer of the onion, the accuser looks worse, and if greeks can remain calm and not take a completely defensive position, in the long run we look better.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by PinkSkyAtNight

There is no doubt that Rolling Stone and Sabrina Rubin-Ederly are going to face civil consequences for their lack of due dillingence, and possible willful intent to smear Phi Kappa Psi.

But proving that Jackie was maliciously trying to smear the fraternities and the greek community in general, will be very difficult to prove. Unless there is more evidence along the lines of an admission that she made up the whole thing, I find it doubtful that she will even face any kind of university hearing. Even if there is, we will probably never learn about it, because it will probably remain confidential.

If her friends have solid evidence of catfishing or the fact that she conspired to libel a fraternity or certain individuals all along, they really should come out and use their real names, it would seriously give them more credibility.

It was mentioned that the fraternity could have been shut down with no investigation or recourse.... but that didn't happen. Actually, the exact opposite happened. The national office and locals clearly did their own legwork, as did the Washington Post; and if the university had investigated, they could or perhaps did present these findings. If anything, they come out ahead for suspending themselves, remaining calm and non-retaliatory, all while people were spray-painting and vandalizing their house.

Everyone should sit back, let the dust settle, and let more facts come out. Because with each layer of the onion, the accuser looks worse, and if greeks can remain calm and not take a completely defensive position, in the long run we look better.

If the catfishimg story is true, her motive looks more like trying to make Randall jealous and get his attention than any malicious ill will against against the fraternity or the greek system. They may have just been convenient targets.

[navane]

Originally Posted by robinseggblue

We are still not sure she lied.

Which is precisely why I used the word "IF" in capital letters and in italics.

The guys who supposedly participated in this were not named so anything you say about naming perpetrators is out of place.

That's not my understanding. My understanding is that Jackie has given names and descriptions for the accused though, for the media, she asked that a pseudonym ("Drew") be used. Some kind of name had to have been given as one of the men suspected was phoned and questioned by reporters.

From the Washington Post, December 5th: "For example, 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. Reached by phone, that man, a U-Va. graduate, said Friday that he worked at the Aquatic and Fitness Center and was familiar with Jackie’s name. But he added that he never met Jackie in person and never took her out on a date. He also said he was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi."

(Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...bdc_story.html)


Phi Kappa Psi does apparently have the name of the accused as I believe I recall they made a statement saying that no one by that name is in their fraternity.

Now we have another report that Jackie presented one young man's photo to her friends as "Drew".

From Washington Post December 10th: "Also, photographs that were texted to one of the friends showing her date that night were actually pictures depicting one of Jackie’s high school classmates in Northern Virginia. That man, now a junior at a university in another state, confirmed that the photographs were of him and said he barely knew Jackie and hasn’t been to Charlottesville for at least six years."

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

This guy's photograph was being passed around as "Drew"? If I was that guy, I'd be freaked out.

Yes the organization was named. But her organization was named too (UVa anti-rape org...whatever, forgot the name).

You forgot the name of her organization? Interesting. I bet you remember the name of the fraternity in question.

If she was lying then that organization will be publicly smeared. That's Jackie's equivalent to a fraternity because it's her source of support in the community. And the community can blame it and protest for encouraging making up reports, whatever they feel.

No. Why would they be publicly smeared? (Heck, even you can't remember the name of it). They were not accused of aiding in any crimes here. No one has suggested that her rape support group ever encouraged her to lie about her experiences. I doubt the community will vandalize the UVA anti-rape support group meeting room like they did the Phi Kappa Psi house.

[exlurker]

According to a report (see below), on January 9, 2015, the restrictions on UVA fraternities and sororities that were put in place after the Rolling Stone story first came out will be lifted. Reportedly, the Jan. 9 date for lifting the restrictions was part of UVA's initial plan:

http://gawker.com/frats-will-go-back...ary-1669283706

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...208-story.html

[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.

[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".

[honorgal]

Has anyone seen reporting on this story that has been able to confirm what percentage of sexual assault complaints originate from the fraternities at UVA? Seems like it would be a relevant piece of information.

[StealthMode]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Has anyone seen reporting on this story that has been able to confirm what percentage of sexual assault complaints originate from the fraternities at UVA? Seems like it would be a relevant piece of information.

How so (for this particular story)?

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

How so (for this particular story)?

Because we are now being admonished to pay no attention to the fact that the Phi Psi gang rape likely is a fabrication and instead focus on the fact that UVA has a rape problem, especially at their fraternities.

I'd like to have those allegations quantified, not just blindly accept them.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

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.

I never did deny there's a problem. This thread is not abiout rape culture or any of that. It's about the alleged rape at UVA, which doesn't look like it happened. I'm all for bystander training and rape prevention. There probably is a rape crisis not just on college campuses, but everywhere. It's a societal thing.

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's about the alleged rape at UVA, which doesn't look like it happened.

There is a HUGE difference between making errors on some of the details of a situation and the situation not having happened at all. This is the most basic of memory research, particularly in terms of memory for traumatic events.

When the primary "evidence" for suggesting it didn't happen is A) the fraternity SAYING they didn't have a party that night, and B) SAYING they didn't have a member with a role at the Aquatic center on campus, I think you're stretching pretty darn far to suggest it "doesn't look like it happened."

Why is what the fraternity is saying suddenly somehow more relevant or believable than what the woman is saying?