Phi Kappa Psi at U of Virginia Voluntarily Suspends Activities

[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.

[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 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 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.

[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.

[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/

[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.

[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

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.

My prediction? Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Jackie will become cause celebs for the college rape crisis industry and radical feminists. They will be feted with speaking engagements and "bravery" awards.

We have a not-insignificant number of folks in this country for whom there is no such thing as truth and falsehood, and objective facts are meaningless. Unfortunately, many of them have gone into journalism. The end always justifies the mean.

[pinksequins]

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

[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