Rolling Stone Article - Sexual Assault at UVA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting the jezebel article.

Jezebel article was just disgusting all around. Disgusting women, disgusting men. Seriously, people like that deserve each other and the total mess they make of their own and each other's lives.

I thought the women in the Jezebel article came off very well, actually. Particularly in comparison to the victim's friends in the Rolling Stone article, who doubted her and made her doubt herself. Can you please explain what behavior by any of the women in the Jezebel article you found disgusting?

Excessive drinking, lying, cursing, and suggesting sexual assault subject to a civil liability standard of proof can properly be labeled "rape."

The UVA men portrayed in the article were even worse: smug, spoiled sexual predators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Excessive drinking, lying, cursing, and suggesting sexual assault subject to a civil liability standard of proof can properly be labeled "rape."

The UVA men portrayed in the article were even worse: smug, spoiled sexual predators.

No, while we may disapprove of excessive drinking, lying and cursing, these are very different from rape. One important difference is the ability of a bystander to walk away.

[Anonymous]

You do wonder how much has to happen to change the culture at UVA. Regardless of what's ultimately determined with respect to the veracity of the details of the RS account, it seems as if UVA venerates Greek life, heavy drinking, and a culture of "hooking up" and taking advantage of younger women. Why should students think that's an acceptable norm? If UVA clamped down and made the school a less "fun" place for spoiled fraternity brothers, wouldn't it become a safer place for women and a more attractive place for other students?

I spent time on UVA as a high-school student and student at another university, and it seemed like the party scene there was over-the-top. Some of my friends went to W&M rather than UVA because they weren't comfortable with the atmosphere and didn't think they would be safe there. This was decades ago. If anything, it seems to have gotten worse, perhaps because so many male students arrive on campus having already overdosed on stupid web sites like "Total Frat Move" that stress the importance of knowing "chill-to-pull" ratio and the like.

Sorry, just venting, but definitely feeling like blind reliance on "tradition" to overlook what's actually become worse behavior over time is no way to run the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do wonder how much has to happen to change the culture at UVA. Regardless of what's ultimately determined with respect to the veracity of the details of the RS account, it seems as if UVA venerates Greek life, heavy drinking, and a culture of "hooking up" and taking advantage of younger women. Why should students think that's an acceptable norm? If UVA clamped down and made the school a less "fun" place for spoiled fraternity brothers, wouldn't it become a safer place for women and a more attractive place for other students?

I spent time on UVA as a high-school student and student at another university, and it seemed like the party scene there was over-the-top. Some of my friends went to W&M rather than UVA because they weren't comfortable with the atmosphere and didn't think they would be safe there. This was decades ago. If anything, it seems to have gotten worse, perhaps because so many male students arrive on campus having already overdosed on stupid web sites like "Total Frat Move" that stress the importance of knowing "chill-to-pull" ratio and the like.

Sorry, just venting, but definitely feeling like blind reliance on "tradition" to overlook what's actually become worse behavior over time is no way to run the place.

Totally agree. Regardless of the Rolling Stone story, UVA is not a place I'd want to send my child right now.

[Anonymous]

Whoops, Rolling Stone just basically retracted the story. In doing so, they blamed the accuser instead of their own complete journalistic malpractice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do wonder how much has to happen to change the culture at UVA. Regardless of what's ultimately determined with respect to the veracity of the details of the RS account, it seems as if UVA venerates Greek life, heavy drinking, and a culture of "hooking up" and taking advantage of younger women. Why should students think that's an acceptable norm? If UVA clamped down and made the school a less "fun" place for spoiled fraternity brothers, wouldn't it become a safer place for women and a more attractive place for other students?

I spent time on UVA as a high-school student and student at another university, and it seemed like the party scene there was over-the-top. Some of my friends went to W&M rather than UVA because they weren't comfortable with the atmosphere and didn't think they would be safe there. This was decades ago. If anything, it seems to have gotten worse, perhaps because so many male students arrive on campus having already overdosed on stupid web sites like "Total Frat Move" that stress the importance of knowing "chill-to-pull" ratio and the like.

Sorry, just venting, but definitely feeling like blind reliance on "tradition" to overlook what's actually become worse behavior over time is no way to run the place.

Totally agree. Regardless of the Rolling Stone story, UVA is not a place I'd want to send my child right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whoops, Rolling Stone just basically retracted the story. In doing so, they blamed the accuser instead of their own complete journalistic malpractice

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/12/05/rolling-stone-retracts-uva-story/19954293/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this to be a thoughtful and credible discussion about several issues:

http://jezebel.com/law-and-justice-arent-the-same-interview-with-a-uva-ra-1662629605

Great article. This part sticks out:
"Right. Like to have sex with someone that has never expressed any sexual interest in you and that you personally got so drunk as to require medical attention—like that's just part of college.

Yeah. He genuinely believed that, and so did all of those guys. He was honestly an average dude. Bro McBroster. They all thought it was okay. And as much as I love UVA, that's really part of the foundational culture—the capacity to sustain a deep lie. The whole school venerates Thomas Jefferson, the man who said all men are created equal but also owned slaves.

I understand the capacity of people to lie to themselves. I've done it. I denied what happened to me in high school for years. And everyone at UVA is smart. They are smart kids, smart people. They entered a good university with a frat culture where you're told, "You get girls drunk and then you can fuck them and that's what we all do.""

There's also the part about things like this being a problem with college culture across the board, not just at UVA.

After reading that article, "Jackie" was correct not to try to press charges. She would have had 5 men telling her she said YES!!

[Anonymous]

Really, really appalling that Rolling Stone published this article without fact checking. These lies are so destructive to college women, especially because I know, as I've written in this thread, that at least one of the other reported rapes did happen. Thanks Rolling Stone for setting the clock back.

[Anonymous]

I don't really understand the retraction. So, they now say the story wasn't true because the fraternity says it isn't? What did they think the fraternity was going to say? "Oh, yeah, we rape girls all the time." And the frat says they don't have parties in the Fall, according to the rules for all frats at UVA? So there are no frat parties in Fall at UVA? Hmm, that's clearly untrue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whoops, Rolling Stone just basically retracted the story. In doing so, they blamed the accuser instead of their own complete journalistic malpractice

This. +10000
The reporter talked to dozens of women on campus that said they had been raped. This could have been a strong, powerful expose about the culture of acceptance and indifference towards rape at UVA. Basic journalistic follow-up could have given sufficient confirmation. If Jackie wasn't willing to supply enough detail for the corroboration, reporter could have moved on to any one of the other she interviewed.
Reporter got excited when she heard the most "dramatic" story, and decided to make that the focal point of the piece. Now the whole thing is shot down. It's clear that woman were already incredibly reluctant to report rape at UVA, now due to the incredibly irresponsible way Rolling Stone handled this information, they will be even less likely do so.
I'm so, so angry right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand the retraction. So, they now say the story wasn't true because the fraternity says it isn't? What did they think the fraternity was going to say? "Oh, yeah, we rape girls all the time." And the frat says they don't have parties in the Fall, according to the rules for all frats at UVA? So there are no frat parties in Fall at UVA? Hmm, that's clearly untrue.

Jackie apparently gave the name of the accused orchestrator for the first time and he was not a member of the frat and when they spoke to him, he said he had never met her in person. She said he was a member and that the rape was an initiation for pledges -- the frat was stating that it does not initiate pledges in the fall. Jackie later said that she knew what house the frat was only because her friend told her much later, oh that is the house where we picked you up. At one point she said 5 guys and later 7.

It is all weird. I am guessing something happened but maybe not what was reported. It is absolutely the reporter's fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand the retraction. So, they now say the story wasn't true because the fraternity says it isn't? What did they think the fraternity was going to say? "Oh, yeah, we rape girls all the time." And the frat says they don't have parties in the Fall, according to the rules for all frats at UVA? So there are no frat parties in Fall at UVA? Hmm, that's clearly untrue.

No, the story is untrue because they've gone back to Jackie to ask for the corroborating evidence they should have sought in the first place and she's completely unable to provide any of it. Any facts they can check, don't match her story at all. But they can't exactly say that, because it would make it painfully obvious just how slipshod and incomplete their reporting was in the first place. And so they keep it vague and blame Jackie for everything in their statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoops, Rolling Stone just basically retracted the story. In doing so, they blamed the accuser instead of their own complete journalistic malpractice

This. +10000
The reporter talked to dozens of women on campus that said they had been raped. This could have been a strong, powerful expose about the culture of acceptance and indifference towards rape at UVA. Basic journalistic follow-up could have given sufficient confirmation. If Jackie wasn't willing to supply enough detail for the corroboration, reporter could have moved on to any one of the other she interviewed.
Reporter got excited when she heard the most "dramatic" story, and decided to make that the focal point of the piece. Now the whole thing is shot down. It's clear that woman were already incredibly reluctant to report rape at UVA, now due to the incredibly irresponsible way Rolling Stone handled this information, they will be even less likely do so.
I'm so, so angry right now.

Totally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand the retraction. So, they now say the story wasn't true because the fraternity says it isn't? What did they think the fraternity was going to say? "Oh, yeah, we rape girls all the time." And the frat says they don't have parties in the Fall, according to the rules for all frats at UVA? So there are no frat parties in Fall at UVA? Hmm, that's clearly untrue.

No, the story is untrue because they've gone back to Jackie to ask for the corroborating evidence they should have sought in the first place and she's completely unable to provide any of it. Any facts they can check, don't match her story at all. But they can't exactly say that, because it would make it painfully obvious just how slipshod and incomplete their reporting was in the first place. And so they keep it vague and blame Jackie for everything in their statement.

Is that your interpretation, or something you read? (I don't mean that in a critical way, I'm just wondering if there's more info out there than what I've seen.)