<p>It is amazing that the full text of the article is still posted on the RS website, even though RS admitted that the sole source for the main parts of the article lied to them. That strikes me as opening themselves up to additional liability.</p>
<p>“Jackie” is the target of very personal attacks on the web today against her. It is really really dark. Apparently, Rolling Stone revealed so much real info about her in the article that it was easy for some bloggers to publicly identify her and then search for dirt.</p>
<p>Finally read in WaPo about the obvious damage the writer must have intended to inflict on all students at UVa, by creating the caricatures of Jackie’s three friends and building her fiction of an elitist, selfish, social climbing culture. In addition to “Andy’s” statement refuting the writer’s characterization, “Cindy” has now said the article was “entirely false.” Both confirm that the RS writer never contacted them.</p>
<p>“Cindy” told The Post that “there was never any discussion among Jackie and the group involving how their reputations or social status might be affected by seeking help.” </p>
<p>From media writer Eric Wemple: “Thus far, assessments of the damage done by Erdely’s piece have focused on how it distracts from the cause of stomping out sexual assault at the University of Virginia and on other campuses. And indeed it does. But this widely distributed magazine also managed to slander an entire group of people via its depiction of “Cindy,” “Andy” and “Randall.” The way Erdely tells it, the trio arrives to assist Jackie within minutes of her calling in the wee hours of the morning, yet once they get there, they’re somehow consumed with superficialities.”</p>
<p>Mom2: One writer said the article’s dialogue between Jackie and her friends sounded like a trite script from an After School Special of how to not treat your friends. Of course, a couple of those friends have come forward. One says the story she told him that night was very different from the one in the RS article, and she did not appear to have obvious physical injuries (vs. being pushed down onto broken glass for 3 hours). He insists he tried to get her to go to the hospital, as any friend would. </p>
<p>I am really worried about Jackie. There is certainly a lot of investigating that needs to take place, but she’s really been used by that writer. I hope she’s getting support from somewhere. </p>
<p>I am aware, Charliesch, see post 332.</p>
<p>sabaray, I totally agree. Already on antidepressants, this YOUNG woman is being vilified so harshly when we have so few facts. I read a quote from an interview Erdely gave before this all blew up where she says Jackie urged her to not reveal the name of the fraternity. Of course the writer followed her own agenda and printed it anyway. </p>
<p>The following story (actually Foubert’s quotes) are pretty close to my feelings.</p>
<p>"John Foubert, a professor of higher education and student affairs at Oklahoma State University who has written seven books on prevention of rape on college campuses, said the developments do little to dispel the story’s clear impression that U.Va. could have done more at the time of the alleged attack. </p>
<p>“It wasn’t just about one incident,” he said. “It was about a culture. Nothing about that culture is any different” after the retraction. He said it won’t take the heat off Sullivan or the university. “U.Va. is still on a hotly burning seat at the moment, and that’s where they should be,” he said.</p>
<p>Foubert, who worked at U.Va. from 1998 to 2002, said the Rolling Stone piece accurately described the university’s culture and administrators’ attitudes about sexual assault. “When I read it, I thought it was a graphically written piece that was compelling, but not a bit of it surprised me,” he said.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cavalierdaily.com/m/blog/on-sexual-assault-letters-from-the-community/2014/12/a-letter-from-a-friend-jackies-story-is-not-a-hoax”>http://www.cavalierdaily.com/m/blog/on-sexual-assault-letters-from-the-community/2014/12/a-letter-from-a-friend-jackies-story-is-not-a-hoax</a></p>
<p>A very important new essay by a friend of Jackie’s.</p>
<p>
Not to sound cynical (although I will a bit), while Foubert is certainly respected in his field, I hardly think his personal opinion should be taken as the final authority on the current “culture” and administration at a university from which he has been removed by 12 years (12 graduating classes and an administration change later). </p>
<p>As Eric Wemple said in WaPo, this is less than a semester away from being studied in journalism classes. Phi Psi, at a minimum, has a serious libel lawsuit they are almost forced to bring against RS; UVA might abstain or might join. RS has no real defense, they absolutely abandoned any semblance of investigation, fact-checking, journalistic integrity, or publishing responsibility.</p>
<p>Erdely now admits considering various colleges to set her opening narrative before selecting UVA, then looking for a story there that fit her piece. I guess if you know what you want to find, you will find it, regardless of whether it was actually there or not. This is WAY too similar to the Duke Lacrosse team fiasco, where Of Course everyone believed at first that it must be true, because you KNOW what kind of arrogant, privileged, elitist, misogynistic trust fund monsters they are there! Who needs facts when you’ve got a great story?</p>
<p>After the initial shock wore off, there were a lot of things fishy about Jackie’s story. Seven men conspiring to inflict a violent gang rape? In a fraternity house? With a party going on and the house full at the time? And leaving their victim to walk out through the party with lots of visible injuries?</p>
<p>Emily Yoffe wrote about the general subject in Slate today. Apparently, despite the common belief, college-age women are markedly <em>less</em> likely to be raped or assaulted on college campuses than women the same age not in college. Good article, recommend reading it. <a href=“College rape: Campus sexual assault is a serious problem. But the efforts to protect women are infringing on the civil rights of men.”>http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html</a></p>
<p>“Sexual Assault” has also been so broadly defined now as to be almost meaningless, including unwanted kissing, groping, and rubbing bodies together (even fully clothed). I’m sorry, but I don’t think a room packed full of young adults, many drunk, rubbing against each other, means there is a rape epidemic or even a room full of criminals. </p>
<p>Agree with the poster who noted that anyone actually convicted of rape probably doesn’t need to be expelled because they would already be removed from the University to serve a prison sentence.</p>
<p>I know my daughter would be safer on campus than off, at almost any college. I now believe she would be safer at UVA than at most other colleges, too.</p>
<p>I don’t get some of these comments. I did not report being physically abused when I was a teen. At the time, I thought it was normal to be beaten up daily, even to the point of broken bones and concussions. I also did not think that he would hurt anyone else because proximity was a major cause. I also was a child at the time.</p>
<p>If a victim decides that the trauma of reporting a rape, or any other traumatic event, is worse than the rape itself, or the responsibility for future victims, then I think we have the same exact problem with the victim’s parents as we do with the parents of the perps. Not teaching empathy. The person in the mirror is the only one who matters. I could NOT heal if I found out my abuser had hurt someone else, and again, I was a child at the time so I do give myself a pass on that basis somewhat.</p>
<p>(my parents did NOT believe I was being beaten, and forced me to lie about injuries to a doctor; so much for parents)</p>
<p>No one has a right right to force a victim to report a crime. But we have a right to be appalled that assaults keep happening because in some cases victims fail to do the right thing in a timely manner. My young relative went to the ER and had a rape kit done, within a few hours. That was the right thing to do, and the perp is in jail for seven years. It is abundantly clear to me that if she would have waited, he would NOT have done jail time and others would have been in danger.</p>
<p>So we just get “what are you going to do…” about a gang rape at a fraternity, reported months after it occurs. Instead of a rape kit and DNA testing to get the perps in jail. Do all rape kits result in arrests and convictions? No. But no rape kit means the chances decrease tremendously. Was the case really involving oral contact not intercourse? Certainly that would lead to the question - what does someone in that situation do? How do we get over the shame factor and put the blame on the perps not the victim?</p>
<p>We can enable a girl to get an abortion if she is raped, but we can’t educate her to report the rape immediately to increase the chances of the perp going to jail. Cry “blame the victim” but something has to break the cycle. Ban drinking, and laud victims for doing the right thing and telling the truth as soon as possible.</p>
<p>But I know in my case, I do not know who I could have told the truth to. In my case, I finally beat my attacker back, not permanently harming him but stopping the daily beatings. That was enough for me. Would it be enough for some if a bad situation is stopped, but no one is arrested or convicted? It was enough for me. And I get to see my brother at family gatherings, and deal with him taking care of my dad. </p>
<p>Anyway - RS will be subject to a lawsuit. Any news organization that insists on putting real names of real organizations into their work had better be prepared for lawsuits. Would </p>
<p>Inside Higher Ed piece on this: <a href=“Campus advocates on sexual assault issues fear impact of 'Rolling Stone' article that boosted their cause”>https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/12/08/campus-advocates-sexual-assault-issues-fear-impact-rolling-stone-article-boosted</a></p>
<p>And Salon: <a href=“http://www.salon.com/2014/12/08/everything_rolling_stone_did_wrong_how_it_should_have_protected_jackie_from_getting_torn_apart_by_■■■■■■/”>http://www.salon.com/2014/12/08/everything_rolling_stone_did_wrong_how_it_should_have_protected_jackie_from_getting_torn_apart_by_■■■■■■/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that’s good.</p>
<p>it’s important to say what you mean and mean what you say.</p>
<p>that helps eliminate confusion.</p>
<p>applicable lesson to be learned considering the topic of this thread.</p>
<p>cheers.</p>
<p>It looks like Jackie’s story is a huge hoax. I applaud UVa for looking at the bigger issue beyond this one fraudulent story.
As part of this I hope that the administration sees the fraternities as more than one dimensional. Our fairly shy son has benefited greatly from his membership in a fraternity. His house is group of smart, nice kids. From what we can see, their male and female relationships seem to be healthy and respectful.
With something like 31 fraternities at UVa, I would urge the administration to show great restraint when considering new restrictions for frats. I for one would rather know that a large portion of students are attending parties at one of these houses rather than at 1 of hundreds of completely unregulated off-grounds parties. Assaults happen where there are young women, alcohol and a young male perpetrator (generally speaking). If they happen at fraternities more than other places today, it’s because it is where these elements most often converge. If there were no frats, they would converge elsewhere and those situations would be completely beyond the control of the university.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874267/Friends-try-correct-record-UVa-rape-story.html”>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874267/Friends-try-correct-record-UVa-rape-story.html</a></p>
<p>A few more details in this article about screw-ups in the RS article. One of the friends who she called that night said he had his phone out and was about to dial 911 when Jackie stopped him. He also said that Jackie had called one female and 2 male friends that night. However, she would only talk to the 2 male friends, and made the female friend walk a distance away. That is the exact opposite reaction that most 18 year women would have in that situation. That is why Police try to have a female officer respond to calls about a rape. </p>
<p>One of the friends also said he talked to his RA about the incident. He said he didn’t provide a name to the RA, because the RA would have been obligated to call police, which Jackie had definitely not wanted. The RA said he should do everything he could to convince her to call police. </p>
<p><a href=“Rolling Stone's UVA rape story: Here's what we know so far - CSMonitor.com”>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2014/1215/Rolling-Stone-s-UVA-rape-story-Here-s-what-we-know-so-far-video</a></p>
<p>A new compilation article.</p>
<p>More evidence Jackie was using deceit BEFORE the night of the alleged incident. This is a long article that is continued on 3 webpages. Jackie gave her friends 3 cell numbers for her imaginary boyfriend, which all trace back to a service that allows texting without a real cell phone. When the friends texted the imaginary boyfriend, the conversation with the boyfriend kept being shifted back to the guy friend that she liked. The imaginary boyfriend then texted a photo of a himself, who was actually a person who had nothing to do with UVa. This is the boyfriend who allegedly was the ringleader of the gang rape, which happened supposedly right after he took her to the most expensive restaurant in the area. </p>
<p><a href=“U.Va. rape accuser's friends begin to doubt story - Washington Times”>U.Va. rape accuser's friends begin to doubt story - Washington Times;
<p>It’s sad. </p>
<p>The story was supposed to be about the culture and climate that may lead to or respond inappropriately to rape (and other sexual assaults) on campus.</p>
<p>The story as printed was about a brutal gang-rape at UVA.</p>
<p>The story is now about the story. People aren’t (mostly) addressing or discussing the issues of culture and climate and rape and sexual assault on campus, instead, they are addressing whether the Rolling Stone article was fact-checked, and whether Jackie is lying or delusional, and what her friends say really happened, and who was libeled. We’re not talking about the subjects the article was originally supposed to cover; we’re talking about the article itself.</p>
<p>Actually, everyone <em>is</em> talking about the issues of climate and culture - but are talking about them in the right way now, and from the right perspective. </p>
<p>The article claimed there is a “culture of rape” at UVa - and that the university’s handling of an obvious and horrifically brutal gang rape was evidence of both this culture among students and the extreme callousness and negligence of the school’s administration.</p>
<p>Finding that the story is fabricated allows the discussion to be turned now to the real issues of appropriately addressing sexual assault when it has in fact happened. These issues are now more at the forefront, and the university is taking first steps towards more transparency and positive progress - obviously with much more to do. But these are the right conversations and are most certainly being talked about.</p>
<p>But the damage done by the story, and additional revelation of the truths behind it, are also important when trying to understand the negative effects that false accusations can have on everyone - from real victims to innocent bystanders. </p>