Kinja reply list

Discussion

Read More
septembergrrlAnna Merlan
12/08/14 11:26am
My opinion is that something horrible happened to Jackie. I don't know if it was a three-hour gang rape by seven guys, as she told RS, or being forced into oral sex by a smaller number, as she originally told her friends. But she's consistently said she was raped by multiple people, she was clearly traumatized, and the university did fuck-all about it. That should be the scandal, not whether it was this fraternity or that day or whatever minutia we're getting bogged down in.

Also, I don't understand Rolling Stone's decision to run the story without asking Jackie's friends about why they told her not to report the rape, or without even asking the fraternity to confirm who-what-when-where stuff like whether there was a party on that date or whether they had a member who fit the description of Jackie's primary rapist. I understand she was a fragile source, but when you're talking about something as explosive as rape you don't want the story to look like one giant lie because you didn't feel like making that one last phone call to fact-check. If nothing else, they should have made it more clear that the anecdote was based on Jackie's recollection only. I understand she didn't want them to talk to her alleged rapists and they bent over backwards to comply: Her overall reluctance might have been a sign to walk away and find a different lead anecdote. It's not like there's a shortage of horrible rape stories.

Or, in short: Wow. Yes. Much shitstorm.
Reply
- Read More
  Negathleseptembergrrl
  12/08/14 11:37am
  You have perfectly summarized my feelings on the matter.
  Reply
- Read More
  muffin_cupcakeseptembergrrl
  12/08/14 11:40am
  I agree — I believe she was sexually assaulted and traumatized, but like many people with PTSD, she was wrong about the details. Rolling Stone failed her by publishing those specific details without confirming them, and now we have a "hoax!!" shitstorm.
  
  But I do think the details matter in the sense that Jackie/RS accused a specific fraternity (identified in the article) and a specific person (described in the article, known to many). If she got the frat wrong, publishing that accusation is pretty bad. It's not as bad as identifying the wrong person, but it's still a big deal to accuse Phi Kappa Psi of a gang rape initiation if they actually weren't involved. So as much as I agree that the larger problem is rape at U.Va., I think these details do matter.
  
  However, this is still 100% the fault of Rolling Stone, not Jackie. They shouldn't have named the frat if they couldn't confirm basic details (sounds like they didn't even try).
  Reply
Read More
ad infinitumAnna Merlan
12/08/14 11:27am
There's so much horrible shit here I'm not even sure where to begin, but for now I'll just say, color me incredibly unsurprised that the Greek system thinks it's the REAL victimized party because activities were "suspended" during a period when school was not in session. Who gives a shit about the systematic way rape cases are ignored and rape victims are retraumatized by the very system that's supposed to protect them when fraternities were temporarily forbidden from having parties when no students were on campus? The HORROR!
Reply
- Read More
  CaptOtterad infinitum
  12/08/14 11:37am
  
  color me incredibly unsurprised that the Greek system thinks it's the REAL victimized party
  
  Seems a little unfair—the Greeks (for whom I have no real love/hate one way or the other) obviously have a great deal at stake here, and are going to zealously protect their interests. They're not saying this woman isn't a victim—just that they've been defamed and potentially penalized unjustly. Are they supposed to not avail themselves of the fact that there are (apparently) glaring inconsistencies in the victim's story? Just like everyone else, they're a self-interested party, and this is the only real play they have if they want to maintain the Greek system.
  Reply
- Read More
  ad infinitumCaptOtter
  12/08/14 11:41am
  When the only penalty they ever faced, even before RS issued its statement, was being forbidden to throw parties for a very short period when school was not in session, I think saying they have a "great deal at stake" is ridiculous.
  Reply
Read More
averyroseAnna Merlan
12/08/14 11:31am
I keep wondering if its possible that Jackie simply mistook the name of another fraternity. When you that age, Greek names make no sense. You might as well say I Eta Pie or Chugga Kegga Day. A starting point would be to see if the lifeguard she mentions was in a fraternity, see if they had a date party the night in question, and if Jackie attended. Next, get real investigators to look into this. The amateur way colleges are investigating rape is really what needs to change - they are in complete violation of everything our justice system aspires to be. Perhaps they should start a show, Law and Order Special Campus Unit:

"In the criminal justice system, sexually-based offenses are considered especially heinous. At College Campuses, the highly leveraged, untrained college administrators who work from 9 to 3 PM who investigate these vicious felonies are members of a small group of bureaucrats who are mostly concerned about keeping things quiet, not pissing off alumni, and not making being perceived as un-PC. This elite squad is called the Special Campus Unit. These are their stories." Dung-dung!
Reply
- Read More
  obeyyourscarletthirstaveryrose
  12/08/14 11:47am
  "I keep wondering if its possible that Jackie simply mistook the name of another fraternity"
  
  This was my thought as well. Her being unable to remember that detail seems a little too "AHA" from the peanut gallery to me. Clearly, when you're getting gang-raped, you should have the presence of mind to take down the social organizations your attackers are a part of. Chicks, amirite?
  
  Was Jackie a sorority girl? If not, it's entirely believable to me she had no idea which was which. Greek people are too dim to realize that the only people who really care about the distinctions are Greek people. The rest of the campus really doesn't give two fucks about them.
  
  I have a good friend who is in a sorority and when she starts the catty comments about other sororities or frats, I have to stop her and ask her which one is which. She usually names it, tells me where their house is, and what they're known for (the fat ones, the dumb ones, the slutty ones—her words, not mine.)
  Reply
- Read More
  toscatiosobeyyourscarletthirst
  12/08/14 12:03pm
  Re: your last paragraph: yeah, they're basically an extension of high school cliques.
  Reply
Read More
Global BeetAnna Merlan
12/08/14 11:22am
Best not to forget campus rape is still a major issue despite the Rolling Stone's biblical fuck up. Also, I'm not sure if they've done so yet but I hope Rolling Stone doesn't apologize to any fraternity including the one mentioned in the original article. Fuck them.
Reply
- Read More
  AventuraGlobal Beet
  12/08/14 11:28am
  The article was accusing that entire fraternity of planning gang rape every year as part of their initiation. You don't think they're owed an apology?
  Reply
- Read More
  Global BeetAventura
  12/08/14 11:31am
  
  GIF
  
  My heart bleeds for them
  Reply
Read More
SugarHilAnna Merlan
12/08/14 11:39am
The more information that comes out on this, the more obvious it is that Rolling Stone should just replace their retraction with a gigantic "we failed on pretty much every level imaginable beyond writing a compelling piece." I understand that they're scrambling, but put the damage control on hold for a minute and take responsibility for everyone affected here (yes, including the frat boys).

As someone who was initially furious at Jackie when RS retracted the story, I can't believe how quickly and convincingly they threw her under the bus. And then not noting their correction to their post? They left a young woman already struggling with trauma to bear the weight of a furious internet completely on her own. Shitstorm barely even covers it.

I do hope her roommate got permission from Jackie to write that piece as that certainly made her immediately identifiable to anyone who knew them first year.
Reply
- Read More
  lucy pevensieSugarHil
  12/08/14 11:50am
  The original Rolling Stone article included a quote from a different suitemate quoted by her full name, so she was already immediately identifiable to anyone who knew them first year.
  Reply
- Read More
  SugarHillucy pevensie
  12/08/14 11:53am
  Oh I didn't realize it was the real name in the article. Well, add that to the pile of Rolling Stone fuck ups.
  
  I wonder if there is some kind of standard where you withhold certain information about places/people to maintain anonymity of sexual assault survivors. If you can quote people who easily connect to them by their real full names you're basically just doing lip service to protecting their identity.
  Reply
Read More
AnnieW50Anna Merlan
12/08/14 11:17am
Unreal and so poorly handled. Interesting that the guy (anon) who was accused might be lying himself. Could never have seen that coming...
Reply
- Read More
  VodkaRocks&aPieceofToastAnnieW50
  12/08/14 11:26am
  Yea really. THIS JUST IN "Guy Accused of Rape Claims Not to Know Victim" news at fucking 11.
  
  Like really did everyone just assume the guy was going to be like "Oh yea that was me, I totally did that". Come on!
  Reply
- Read More
  Jennifer EDMONDSONVodkaRocks&aPieceofToast
  12/08/14 11:37am
  whoaaaa easy there. You are making way too much sense. Going to have to ask you to sit down and stop speaking so logically.
  Reply
Read More
AnnieW50Anna Merlan
12/08/14 11:23am
One more thing, how come the WP can change their narrative after the fact. All of a sudden the accused did know Jackie? Huh. A slip like this by the victim makes her completely unbelievable to many, a slip like this by the accused is just ignored.
Reply
- Read More
  ad infinitumAnnieW50
  12/08/14 11:37am
  Isn't it interesting how the changes that paint Jackie are an opportunistic liar are announced from the rooftops, but when changes go in the opposite direction, they're quietly made without anyone admitting to doing so, much less explaining why? It's almost like these "unbiased" reporters have a vested interest in smearing the victim and insisting the Greek system is so perfect and holy it's unfathomable and evil to suggest that any woman who claims she was raped in a frat house is anything but a dirty, lying slut!
  Reply
- Read More
  LikeHumanssDooAnnieW50
  12/08/14 11:46am
  Yeah, WaPo has done a lot of the work that RS should've done during the writing/fact checking process, but I think they overreached in saying that they "determined" she'd never met the accused in person. I'm beyond outraged at the shoddiness of the RS's reporting, but saying that you've "determined" that they've never met based on a phone conversation with the guy is just as sloppy.
  Reply
Read More
Delphic1Anna Merlan
12/08/14 1:52pm
Please note that the so-called retraction is false. Here is the Wapo statement, which is still on the WaPo site:

One of the attackers identified by Jackie to friends "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." That man told The Post 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."
Reply
- Read More
  Anna MerlanDelphic1
  12/08/14 2:00pm
  They completely re-worded that statement (again, without noting that they'd done so). "The man told the Post" is very different than "The Post determined... that they'd never met." Do you see? It's attributed to someone instead of floating in the air as an omniscient fact.
  Reply
- Read More
  Delphic1Anna Merlan
  12/08/14 3:04pm
  Yes. thanks for pointing that out.
  Reply
Read More
Dan SeitzAnna Merlan
12/08/14 11:39am
Well, at least the UVA administration's indifference to sexual assault and dedication to deflecting blame remains unwavering.
Reply
- Read More
  SugarHilDan Seitz
  12/08/14 12:00pm
  That's not fair to say, actually. They had an excellent response to the retraction, posted below. Their response here is the first thing the school has done right since the story broke. Time will tell whether it means something, but at least for now they are taking responsibility for their atrocious policies rather than expressing vindication with Rolling Stone's massive fuck up.
  
  To the University community:
  I'm sure many of you are aware by now of today's reports from the Washington Post and the statement from Rolling Stone magazine. While all of us who care about the University of Virginia are upset by the Rolling Stone story, I write now with a different message. Over the past two weeks, our community has been more focused than ever on one of the most difficult and critical issues facing higher education today: sexual violence on college campuses. Today's news must not alter this focus. Here at U.Va., the safety of our students must continue to be our top priority, for all students, and especially for survivors of sexual assault.
  
  We will continue to take a hard look at our practices, policies, and procedures, and continue to dedicate ourselves to becoming a model institution in our educational programming, in the character of our student culture, and in our care for those who are victims.
  Now is the time for us to come together as a community to lead the way on this critical issue.
  Very truly yours,
  Teresa A. Sullivan
  President
  
  Reply
- Read More
  Dan SeitzSugarHil
  12/08/14 12:36pm
  Their first reaction to the piece was to temporarily ban all fraternities. When an organization's first move is a blatant PR grab/blame deflection, I feel safe in saying they couldn't care less about their students.
  
  I will agree that UVA can't be expected to solve a larger institutional problem at colleges, which is the belief by administrators that a college is a closed system that can dispense justice. But from the start, it's pretty clear their focus has been on damage control, not solving the problem.
  Reply
Read More
emfish55Anna Merlan
12/08/14 11:56am
it might have made most reporters wonder whether she was the best person to hang the story around.

This is the part that makes RS look the worst to me. Erdely did a lot of important, valid reporting. The crux of her story was clearly (1) the occurrence of rape in frat culture at UVA, and (2) the response, or non-response, of the university to the situation. Yet the story winds up focusing on the part of Erdely's reporting that is both hardest to verify and the furthest from these primary aims — the explicit details of Jackie's rape. Does it actually matter how graphically awful the rape was? Do the explicit details of the rape even matter? Not to me. RS and Erdely went for sensationalism over substance, knowing that the vast majority of readers would focus mostly on the rape account and take in the more important aspects of the story only peripherally.

If Erdely and RS (and we have no way of knowing who made the editorial decision, whether it was initiated by Erdely and irresponsibly accepted by RS or whether RS pushed a more sensational angle on Erdely as the story took shape) had placed Jackie's account within proper context and fleshed out the reporting on what are actually the reasons behind the article, maybe we'd all be talking about that Rolling Stone exposé on the prevalence of rape in Greek culture and the mishandling of rape cases by UVA (which are both still real things, by the way, that no one is talking about now), instead of picking apart the details of an unverified account by a traumatized rape survivor interviewed years after her assault.
Reply
- Read More
  AnnieW50emfish55
  12/08/14 12:10pm
  This is so true and what's so infuriating. Without Jackie's story the article was on point and hard hitting. Now because some lurid details in one account may not be true, the rest is ignored.
  Reply