Phi Kappa Psi at U of Virginia Voluntarily Suspends Activities

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm glad that they included the statement from NPC saying this wasn't a conference decision, but one agreed upon by individual chapters, since the university president apparently didn't understand that.

ETA: this isn't a "recruitment activity. " Recruitment is over. That statement was originally against women wearing letters, being rush hostesses, etc. Flipping the script isn't cool.

And if they want to flip it, they need to make a blanket statement/restriction across all campuses. Fraternities having bid night parties (and inviting women, sorority or otherwise) was the norm on my campus, and I'm sure it's the same elsewhere. Heck, I've been to ones where they even invited non-fraternity guys, and it was a low key, close friends only kind of thing. How can you restrict your sisters from hanging out with their friends?

And quite frankly, I think this is perpetuating the stereotype that Greek men are drunk rapists. If even the sorority women are banned from hanging out with fraternity men, why would people think they're anything except belligerent sex-crazed animals?

The school has made great strides to ensure that Greek social events are monitored and safe. Over the past couple months, each organization on campus has been cooperative, and they are very aware of the potential dangers in partying/drinking with no oversight. Our national organizations need to trust that they have learned something from all of this. No one is going to be 100% safe from a terrible incident, but if you can't show that you trust your members to use their own judgment and make their own decisions, then you're headed down a slippery slope.

And as far as I know, no other student organization on campus is doing this or has agreed to follow these same rules. So what happens when sisters are told that they can't hang out with the fraternities, but some of them go to a party with the basketball team and they're drugged, or raped, or any other unimaginable thing that could happen? Ironically, it's now probably safer for the sorority women to go to fraternity parties.

[1964Alum]

Originally Posted by AnchorAlum

I agree with those who find these developments disturbing. When do these young women come to the realization that they have to be responsible for control of their bodies and that no one else can take that from them if they remain somewhere this side of blind drunk? I too am one of the "ahem, older" baby boomer sorority members from a southern school where drinking was a routine event on weekends and fraternities could have alcohol in their houses, which at the time were located on the campus!

At the risk of sounding like the classic old fuddy-duddy, everyone in the house KNEW that if you drank to excess and were at a party, you put yourself at risk. There was no thought that you were being stigmatized or put in a position where you didn't have "authority". YOU were responsible for your own body - until you didn't want to be, if you know what I mean.

Men have not changed, will not change, and will always, always think with a part of their anatomy not associated with logic, respect, or restraint. Not a knock, guys; it is what it is. Seriously, who goes to college these days and has NOT been told that by their own Mother? You know, that voice of personal experience who back in the 60's or 70's in all likelihood found that out for herself? It has zero to do with gender equality. It's just bein' regular old homo sapiens, baby.
Rant over.

This "old fuddy duddy" agrees with you!

[thetalady]

I hope that Phi Psi at UVA and Phi Psi national goes forward with a lawsuit against Rolling Stone. Their reputation was so badly damaged by this irresponsible story. They could probably use a new house.

[honorgal]

President Sullivan deserves to lose her job over this fiasco and her role in magnifying the insanity. She did not act in the best interests of the University community and the totality of its student body.

[andthen]

Originally Posted by thetalady

I hope that Phi Psi at UVA and Phi Psi national goes forward with a lawsuit against Rolling Stone. Their reputation was so badly damaged by this irresponsible story. They could probably use a new house.

And here it is. I can't say I blame them either.

The University of Virginia fraternity chapter at the center of Rolling Stone magazine's retracted article "A Rape on Campus" said on Monday that it planned to sue the magazine for what it called "reckless" reporting that hurt its reputation.

http://news.yahoo.com/rolling-stone-...001216264.html

[AnchorAlum]

Fraternities can sue. Sororities can sue.
At the end of the day, the larger issue is, and should remain, the damage done to women who are truly victims of sexual assault, whose credibility has taken a hit.

We could also address the ever so constant chipping away of the criminality of sexual assault and the lasting damage it does to those who survive such a crime?

Oh, rape? I mean, gosh, how bad can it be if women can assert its occurrence after every drunken Friday or Saturday night "hookup" or poorly made decision? Or worse yet, when some truly unfortunate yet mentally unstable female determines that it would be such an easy way to get attention and become a victim?

This is what makes me truly angry.

[Nanners52674]

Originally Posted by AnchorAlum

Fraternities can sue. Sororities can sue.
At the end of the day, the larger issue is, and should remain, the damage done to women who are truly victims of sexual assault, whose credibility has taken a hit.

We could also address the ever so constant chipping away of the criminality of sexual assault and the lasting damage it does to those who survive such a crime?

Oh, rape? I mean, gosh, how bad can it be if women can assert its occurrence after every drunken Friday or Saturday night "hookup" or poorly made decision? Or worse yet, when some truly unfortunate yet mentally unstable female determines that it would be such an easy way to get attention and become a victim?

This is what makes me truly angry.

I couldn't agree more. I feel the easiest path to not only restore their reputation but more importantly to keep the focus on rape culture and survivors would be public apologies to the fraternity from RollingStone and a closed financial statement. That way the fallout is no longer the subject.

They could also fire the unethical screwups who let this happen.

[AZTheta]

Here is a link to the Columbia School of Journalist report. It is a lengthy report. Quote from same:

"Rolling Stone's repudiation of the main narrative in "A Rape on Campus" is a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable. The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking. The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine's editors to reconsider publishing Jackie's narrative so prominently, if at all. The published story glossed over the gaps in the magazine's reporting by using pseudonyms and by failing to state where important information had come from."

[33girl]

I just watched the SVU on this, and they nailed it.

[honorgal]

Interesting article in Esquire recently:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...-justice-case/

[PiKA2001]

I don't understand why everyone involved in creating this mess is still employed by RS. As if anything they produce from now on will be taken seriously. They should at least do the honorable thing and resign but given all the publicity it'll probably be next to impossible for them to get another job in the profession (maybe the onion or another fake news site).

[honorgal]

As usual, Megan McArdle at Bloomingberg doesn't pull any punches in disecting the Rolling Stone hoax.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...pologize-right

The most interesting point she makes is one that I haven't seen brought up much, but is self-evidently true, and goes a long way towards explaining how activists and the media and the Obama Administration have been able to manufacture the narrative that we have a rape "crisis" on our college campuses.

"3. Privacy laws and the norms of survivor support groups created the illusion of institutional verification. Erdely first heard the story from Emily Renda, a rape survivor and alumna who now works on the issue at UVA. Renda mentioned the alleged attack in congressional testimony. Erdely seems to have assumed in some way that this meant the university had confirmed the attack. This impression was heightened by various privacy laws, which make it virtually impossible for the university to discuss specific cases. Erdely was operating under the assumption that the university knew this had happened and was stonewalling. In fact, Renda had the same information Erdely did: the story she heard from Jackie. The university did not have enough information to take action, but it also could not discuss these details with Erdely. The lack of disconfirmation seems to have been taken as positive proof that it happened, rather than what it was: a legal prohibition on sharing information."

This is true of most of the mainstream reporting we have seen in the last few years on individual "rape" cases and all of the handwringing reporting about Title IX investigations. The schools CAN'T comment, which gives those creating the narrative carte blanche to say whatever they want and the narrative will very likely not be challenged, even when the "facts" being reported are completely false.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by honorgal

As usual, Megan McArdle at Bloomingberg doesn't pull any punches in disecting the Rolling Stone hoax.

Hoax? That's a loaded word. I haven't seen any evidence of a hoax, at least on RS's part. Fiasco, yes, but not hoax.

The most interesting point she makes is one that I haven't seen brought up much, but is self-evidently true, and goes a long way towards explaining how activists and the media and the Obama Administration have been able to manufacture the narrative that we have a rape "crisis" on our college campuses.

I don't think that's self-evident at all, unless it is also self-evident that no reporters will ever do enough homework to understand the basics of what they're reporting on.

Perhaps one day you'll let us know why you seem to have as much of an axe to grind on this issue as those you constantly accuse of manufacturing a rape crisis.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Hoax? That's a loaded word. I haven't seen any evidence of a hoax, at least on RS's part. Fiasco, yes, but not hoax.

I'd use Janet Cooke as the guide here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Cooke She knew Jimmy didn't exist.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Hoax? That's a loaded word. I haven't seen any evidence of a hoax, at least on RS's part. Fiasco, yes, but not hoax.

Point taken. I definitely didn't make my use of that word clear. It was a hoax on Jackie's part, a fiasco (of their own making) on RS's part.

I don't think that's self-evident at all, unless it is also self-evident that no reporters will ever do enough homework to understand the basics of what they're reporting on.

It has nothing to do with a reporter's homework or understanding the basics. The part that is self-evident is the extremely strict privacy laws that protect this particular subject matter (college sexual assault allegations) from being routinely fact-checked by journalists seeking the truth. The universities are routinely being accused of all manner of coverups, from indifference to gross negligence. A lot of people, given the comments on this thread, take this (and other myths, like the 1 in 4 statistic) as an established fact. Is it? Was UVA negligent in their handling of the Jackie hoax? They obviously have known much more of the facts from the beginning of the hoax and the fiasco. In other circumstances, they would have been able to speak out immediately upon publication of the RS article. They are not able to correct the journalistic record in sexual assault cases.

Perhaps one day you'll let us know why you seem to have as much of an axe to grind on this issue as those you constantly accuse of manufacturing a rape crisis.

Wanting the facts reported instead of agenda-driven journalism is axe-grinding?