UVa rape and the media [Trigger Warning]

[Red Commissar]

A month ago Rolling Stone magazine published a piece (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119) concerning a rape that occurred in the University of Virginia. The story was meant to fit into the larger story of the problem of the sexual assault problems in American Universities that has not been addressed either by the government or the university administrations.

In the past year we've seen movements on campuses across the United States fighting back against sexual harassment, assault, and rape that have occurred on campuses. Some studies have estimated that up to a quarter of female students in universities nowadays have been sexually victimized, including rape.

Much like the broader problem of rape in society, many times these are not reported. This is typically due to fear from the victim that they will be shunned or shamed by the university and locals, or from the university and authorities themselves not taking the case seriously.

The Rolling Stone piece carried the story of a University of Virginia student, who they refer to as Jackie, where she related an event from her Freshmen year where she was drugged and raped by seven men at a party hosted by a fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi. She was invited to the event by a boyfriend, referred to as Drew, who also participated in the rape.

The piece made waves and the university administration was moved to say that they would commit to overhauling their policies on campus and encouraging victims to come forward after rape.

A few weeks after the piece was published, the Washington Post published a series of articles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html) questioning the veracity of the account given in the Rolling Stone piece. Among other things they said that the Rolling Stone journalist(s) had not conducted their investigation ethically by not getting other accounts to corroborate Jackie's account or contacting those she had accused. The WaPo carried statements from the fraternity members at the center of the case who gave statements against Jackie as well as their own look into the account as carried by the Rolling Stone which they said had many inconsistencies.

The Rolling Stone later published a brief statement (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html), distancing themselves from the article and effectively retracting it. Initially, the article was worded such that they blamed Jackie for misleading them ("We have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced"), but they later updated it again after journalists said that the fault laid with Rolling Stone for the way they had conducted the story. The Washington Post, despite its grandstanding on this issue, did their own stealth edit (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4HSO-hIcAE6SPZ.jpg) after apparently falsely alleging that Jackie had never met the people she accused.

Some had pointed out that Jackie had only reluctantly spoke to the journalist and had asked to be removed later on, while some of those near Jackie said that they think something still did happen. The Greek fraternity and sorority system at UVa demanded that the administration lift the suspension that was placed on them and issue an apology to them.

Regardless of what's happened in this story, a bad side effect of this is that predictably MRAs and others of their ilk are using this to claim that false rape accusations in the vein of the Duke Lacrosse team eight years ago. Hypocritically, while blasting Rolling Stone magazine for ethics, the Washington Post seems to have unleashed a nasty, reactionary attack. Despite a quick attempt to save face by another WaPo contributor stressing that rape accusations should still be taken seriously (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/no-matter-what-jackie-said-we-should-automatically-believe-rape-claims/), it didn't stop the narrative pushed by some that rape accusations are false.

This built up to a conservative shitwad "journalist" doxxing Jackie (http://jezebel.com/vile-journo-releases-unconfirmed-name-of-uva-victim-j-1667943035)'s true identity (or at least who he thinks she is), following through with a threat to do so after he threatened her to tell the "truth". This has become a big mess as misogynists and their ilk to push back against attempts to improve protection and prosecution of rape, sexual harassment, etc.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? For me it's really infuriating how this has turned into a way for people to claim that either rapes are not really happening on university campuses or the old, tried deal of false rape accusations being widespread.

[synthesis]

People have probably read this article already, but I figured I'd add it here anyways.


For the sake of Rolling Stone’s reputation, wrote Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/12/02/rolling-stone-whiffs-in-reporting-on-alleged-rape/) media critic Erik Wemple (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/12/02/rolling-stone-whiffs-in-reporting-on-alleged-rape/) in a recent column, reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of an explosive piece (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119) about a rape that allegedly took place at the University of Virginia in 2012, had better be the “country’s greatest judge of character.”

It turns out, she was not. After Rolling Stone published the piece in late November, the Internet at first wolfed it down as a masterfully written outrage-read, and then later meticulously picked apart its reporting (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/sabrina_rubin_erdely_uva_why_didn_t_a_rolling_ston e_writer_talk_to_the_alleged.html). On Friday, Rolling Stone managing editor Will Dana appended an editor’s note at the top of the story admitting that there are problems with the narrative the main character, a woman named Jackie, recounted to Erdely.


“There now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account,” Dana wrote, “and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced.”


The problem seems to stem from the fact that Erdely, honoring a promise to Jackie, did not attempt to contact (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/sabrina_rubin_erdely_uva_why_didn_t_a_rolling_ston e_writer_talk_to_the_alleged.html) the fraternity brothers whom Jackie accused of gang-raping her during her freshman year. Now, several of Jackie’s close friends and rape-prevention advocates at UVA are doubting her story, and a lawyer for Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity implicated in the rape, has released a statement (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/statement-u-va-fraternity-responds-to-rape-allegations/2014/12/05/e810832a-7cb0-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html) rebutting her claims.


Most, if not all, of Erdely's story might still hold up. But even if the story turns out to be 98 percent right, this whole episode is terrible news for survivors of rape on college campuses and elsewhere.
Let's be clear about one thing. Fraudulent accusations of rape are extraordinarily rare. This graph proves it. pic.twitter.com/mX7xPHvMkZ (http://t.co/mX7xPHvMkZ)
— Terrence McCoy (@terrence_mccoy) December 5, 2014 (https://twitter.com/terrence_mccoy/status/540946570288840704)Several major magazines have published “campus rape” stories in recent months, but Erdely’s was by far the most high-profile. It was posted on my Facebook feed repeatedly, all by different friends. It launched countless Internet “takes.” Most importantly, it (http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-uva-suspends-fraternities-rape-allegations-20141122-story.html) prompted a major investigation at UVA and led to the suspending of all of the school’s fraternities. In terms of impact factor, this is a journalist’s—and a sexual-assault-prevention advocate’s—fantasy scenario.


Phi Kappa Psi now says that it does not have a member by the description Jackie provided in the magazine, and that the group did not host a party on the night she claimed the incident took place. Even some of Jackie’s former supporters told the Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html) they “feel misled (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html).” After she told a group of friends the attacker's name this week, the Washington Post determined (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html) that a man by that name is not a member of Phi Kappa Psi.


Some of Erdely’s critics say she should have made a greater effort to interview the accused men. I agree, but I can also understand Erdely’s dilemma. As someone who frequently covers sexual health, I know how hard it can be to entice sources to talk on the record about their personal lives, especially when what supposedly occurred was a monstrous crime. Thus the fake names and absence of the “declined to comment” disclaimer in the Rolling Stone piece.


Erdely bartered the chance to seek out the alleged rapists in exchange for a truly earth-shaking and, she hoped, honest account from a survivor. Let’s say Jackie is telling the truth. The alternative to this story was not “this exact story, but with a comment from the alleged rapist.” The alternative might have been no story at all. The reason we so rarely hear about the full extent of the campus-rape problem is that the crime is so secretive, stigmatized, and difficult to verify. That’s particularly true in cases like this one, where there’s no campus or police paper-trail backing anything up.


Rape stories, meanwhile, are a genre that’s uniquely unforgiving of inaccuracies.


Universities and fraternities could use an inconsistent story as an excuse to move on to other issues and to downplay their assault problems. Anti-feminists brandish (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html) wrongful accusations in order to claim that “most” rape victims are liars. Victims, meanwhile, become even more skittish, understandably wishing to spare themselves the same scrutiny and persecution. The overwhelming majority of rapes (http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/advice/a3653/why-most-victims-dont-report-rape/) are never reported, in part because many victims fear they won’t be believed.


As the chart above, from The Enliven Project (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheenlivenproject.com%2F&ei=NRyCVOSgKIGdyATV9YCgDg&usg=AFQjCNH0IvhvSmqR51dOxcefFilmqBgwxw&bvm=bv.80642063,d.aWw), shows, only about 2 to 8 percent of rape claims turn out to be fabricated, but those that are echo in the media and in public discourse for seemingly much longer than the true ones do.


Reporters are already often reluctant to take on stories investigating the allegations of sources whose claims can't be verified. This story might have an ever greater chilling effect. The next time another Jackie comes forward—even if she is completely honest and has no preconditions—there might not be another national magazine reporter willing to listen. And if there is, the victim will have to steel herself for a fact-checking process that’s far more invasive than Rolling Stone’s apparently was, and for an Internet spotlight that burns twice as hot.Regardless of anything else, I think it was super shitty of Rolling Stone to try to pin it all on Jackie at first, and then finally admit culpability without apologizing for it.