| UVA Rape Story Collapses; Duke Lacrosse Redux | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 5 2014, 01:45 PM (60,493 Views) | |
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 02:48 PM Post #151 |
|
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rolling-stone-publishes-updated-apology-over-uva-rape-story/ Rolling Stone Publishes Updated Apology over UVA Rape Story by Evan McMurry | 11:15 am, December 7th, 2014 20 Last Friday Rolling Stone published a brief and, to many, unsatisfactory Readers Note retracting a large part of its story on a UVA gang rape, which was falling apart in the face of the Washington Post’s re-reporting. The note cited “discrepancies” in Jackie’s account and said the magazine and writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely had misplaced its trust in her. Many demanded further details on said discrepancies, and thought the editors had erred in blaming Jackie when verification of her story was the magazine’s responsibility. Managing editor Will Dana has since updated the note. The magazine listed much of the new information uncovered by the Post, and updated its last paragraph to claim responsibility for the shortfalls in reporting. ADVERTISEMENT Below is the original paragraph, followed by the revised one: ORIGINAL: In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story. REVISED: We published the article with the firm belief that it was accurate. Given all of these reports, however, we have come to the conclusion that we were mistaken in honoring Jackie’s request to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. In trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault, we made a judgment – the kind of judgment reporters and editors make every day. We should have not made this agreement with Jackie and we should have worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story. These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie. We apologize to anyone who was affected by the story and we will continue to investigate the events of that evening. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 02:49 PM Post #152 |
|
http://chronicle.com/article/Doubts-About-UVa-Rape-Account/150457/ December 3, 2014 Doubts About UVa Rape Account Leave Concerns About Consequences By Katherine Mangan Last month, when Rolling Stone published a sensational story of an alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house, the account emboldened rape victims nationwide to speak out—and seemed to put another nail in the coffin of fraternities accused of running amok. Now, though, the story appears to be unraveling. That has caused deep concern for many activists and administrators, who fear the magazine’s incendiary article and subsequent backpedaling will arrest the momentum of years of sweeping efforts to combat sexual violence on college campuses. Among the questions on their minds: Will the debacle keep future rape victims from speaking out? Let more fraternities off the hook? Cause university administrators—already under intense pressure to respond to sexual-assault accusations—to hold back, fearing a rush to judgment they might later regret? On Friday, Rolling Stone apologized to readers for not trying to talk to the men that Jackie, the alleged victim, said attacked her. "There now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account," wrote Will Dana, the magazine’s managing editor, "and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced." The magazine’s announcement sent shock waves across campuses nationwide. Some students and observers were quick to portray the apology as vindicating their belief that the prevalence of rape on college campuses is exaggerated. But many others, including advocates for sexual-assault victims, saw a troubling pattern: The victim was being blamed, they said, and that could have repercussions later. "If Rolling Stone feels like it should’ve conducted its research more fully, it should’ve done that," Dana Bolger, a founding co-director of Know Your IX, a victims’ rights group, wrote in an email to The Chronicle. "But throwing Jackie under the bus for its journalistic mistakes is not only unfair to her but to survivors everywhere. Victims were already met with skepticism when they spoke out. Who’s going to possibly want to speak up now?" Traumatized rape survivors often forget details of their experiences, she added. "Just because there are ‘discrepancies’ in Jackie’s story doesn’t mean she’s lying. It doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped." Many who had been following the case took to social media to make that point. Using the hashtag #IStandWithJackie, more than 1,000 Twitter users weighed in in the first four hours after the news broke to defend the accuser. One tweet read: "You know how many gross white boys at frats across the country are going to throw vindication parties at their frats now?" ‘Dueling Narratives’ In a statement released on Friday, UVa’s president, Teresa A. Sullivan, sought to reassure students that pressure to improve the campus climate won’t let up. "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," she wrote. The state’s attorney general, Mark R. Herring, said that sexual-assault victims "should never feel further victimized by a response that is inadequate, suspicious, or judgmental." The magazine’s backtracking "leaves us with serious questions," he said, but "we must not lose the sense of urgency that students, alumni, campus leaders, law enforcement, and many Virginians have brought to this conversation." The controversy illustrates the enormous pressure campus leaders face to act quickly and decisively on sexual-assault allegations even when the facts are still murky, said Peter F. Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University. "College presidents routinely face situations where they’re in the fog of war," said Mr. Lake, who serves as a legal consultant to colleges on sexual assault and other issues. At the same time, "any college president has to be sure they’re acting on information they can verify and not just acting on what they’re reading in the paper." No one wants a repeat of the Duke lacrosse scandal that tarnished the reputations not only of the falsely accused players, but also of the university. The "dueling narratives" playing out in Virginia, Mr. Lake said, are similar to those that Pennsylvania State University alumni had to wade through when that campus was rocked by reports of a high-level attempt to cover up a football coach’s sexual abuse of children. Many activists have also expressed concern that the questions swirling around the case will set back efforts to crack down on sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, and other misconduct by fraternities. On Friday, an association representing 74 fraternities across North America—including Phi Kappa Psi, whose UVa chapter is disputing the allegations lodged against it in Rolling Stone—asked Ms. Sullivan to reverse her decision to suspend Greek activities until after the winter break. There was no indication the university planned to do so. "As we’ve said all along, it is not right to punish an entire community of students based on allegations against a very small subset of those students—especially when those allegations have not been investigated or proven," Peter Smithhisler, president of the North-American Interfraternity Conference, said in an email to The Chronicle. Some students and outsiders who have accused universities of being too quick to believe stories of abuse, particularly when fraternity members are involved, reacted almost gleefully to the news on social media. Mr. Smithhisler, however, chose his words carefully. "While we are heartened to discover that the horrible story shared in the Rolling Stone article is untrue, that does not reduce the significance of the issue of sexual violence on college campuses nor the importance of encouraging timely reporting and thorough investigation of such incidents," he said, adding that fraternities "want to be part of the solution." Dangerous Skepticism Nevertheless, skepticism abounds after public backtracking like Rolling Stone’s. And doubts about Jackie’s story are bound to inhibit future victims, said Kathleen A. Bogle, an associate professor of sociology and criminal justice at La Salle University. "It is very sad that a sexual assault case that may be false was so widely reported and discussed," she said. Only between 2 and 8 percent of sexual assaults turn out to be false, she said, pointing to widely cited research. "However, any false report is going to fuel suspicion of victims when they come forward, which is terrible for the victims themselves and for anyone who cares about the sexual-assault problem on campus." As one student tweeted: "If you’re using the word ‘hoax’ to describe what’s going on you should be ashamed of yourself." Regardless of how much of Jackie’s story withstands closer scrutiny, the process of uncovering the truth when rape accusations are lodged can be brutal on the alleged victims. David S. Cohen, an associate professor of law at Drexel University, cringed when he saw the way Jackie’s story was dissected in The Washington Post article that broke the news that the fraternity was disputing key points in her story. "The article read like they were cross-examining a criminal defendant as opposed to listening to someone who clearly experienced a traumatic event in her life," he said in an interview on Friday. "I’m very concerned that women on college campuses are going to be afraid that if they come forward, they won’t be believed—and that they’ll be interrogated by college administrators, the police, and any news outlets that pick it up." Katherine Mangan writes about community colleges, college-completion efforts, and job training, as well as other topics in daily news. Follow her on Twitter @KatherineMangan, or email her at katherine.mangan@chronicle.com |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 02:51 PM Post #153 |
|
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/2014/12/campus-after-effects-of-the-rolling-stone-travesty/ Campus After-Effects of the Rolling Stone Travesty KC Johnson December 7, 2014 Leave a comment The collapse of Sabrina Rudin Erdley’s “don’t-tell-all” UVA gang rape story was quick. The Washington Post did what Erdely and Rolling Stone had refused to do—some actual reporting—and exposed massive holes in the accuser’s story. (Some examples: though the Rolling Stone article portrayed the alleged assault as some kind of fraternity initiation, no member of the fraternity fit Erdely’s description of the attack ringleader, Drew, a fellow lifeguard of Jackie. Indeed, there’s no evidence that a fraternity party even took place on the night of the alleged incident.) Both the accuser, “Jackie,” and Erdely herself have ceased doing interviews on the tale. Erdely easily could have discovered at least some of her source’s problems that the Post uncovered. For instance, nothing in Rolling Stone’s agreement with Jackie not to contact the only other people possibly with first-hand knowledge about the alleged rape precluded Erdely from contacting other people at the alleged party to determine if Drew attended, if he attended with Jackie, and if Jackie were seen after the alleged incident. If Erdely had done that basic reporting, Jackie’s story might never have seen the light of day. But Erdely was committed by her own admission to finding a story that would confirm her preconceptions about a campus violent crime wave against women. “We need to remember that the majority of survivors who come forward are telling the truth.” Whatever happened to Jackie that night—real or imagined—made VA fraternities victims of this story. According to the ground rules of the interview with Jackie, Erdely couldn’t contact the men Jackie named as rapists. But she was free to talk to others at the fraternity and anyone else on campus. (Leave aside the question of why Rolling Stone apparently wasn’t troubled by its sole source insisting that the reporter not speak to the only people who might be able to challenge her version of events.) That’s what The Post did when it contacted Phi Kappa Psi’s lawyer and learned that the fraternity never hosted a party on the night in question and that Drew, the alleged rapist, claims he never met Jackie let alone invited her out on a date. Backing the Wrong Horse The rise and fall of the Rolling Stone article should—but almost certainly will not—focus intense attention on UVA president Teresa Sullivan. Trusting no more than Erdely’s word, Sullivan made a significant policy decision: she suspended not merely the fraternity in question, but all fraternities at UVA. She also expressed support for allowing campus police to enter fraternities (and, it seems, only fraternities) without probable cause. Sullivan’s actions came not from well-reasoned consideration, but from a rushed acceptance of a flawed story. If Rolling Stone’s target had been a group on the other side of the campus race/class/gender divide, would Sullivan have acted as she did, accompanied by a ringing proclamation to drive out the “evil” that lurks on campus? The Post article also buried an item of extraordinary significance on the university front. It turns out that Erdely discovered Jackie and her story not from an “activist” group or from the reporter’s own research—but from a University of Virginia employee. “Even if the men win, their names likely will come up in such a story, and some people will believe the allegations more than the vindication.” Earlier this year, UVA hired Emily Renda as a “sexual violence awareness specialist.” Renda told the Post that she introduced Erdely to Jackie in July. She didn’t reveal how she herself had come into contact with Erdely, and Erdely thus far has not commented on the connection. It’s unclear if Renda will face any consequences for peddling an inaccurate, unverified story—but one that badly damaged her employer’s reputation—to a national magazine. J’accuse! The story’s aftermath also has exposed the Orwellian language too often used to discuss sexual assault issues on campus. Here’s a comment from Alex Pinkleton, who The Post describes as one of Jackie’s friends and someone “who survived a rape and an attempted rape during her first two years on campus.” There was no trial, much less a conviction in the Pinkleton case, yet neither The Post nor Pinkleton use the standard qualifying “allegedly”— as someone who “survived an allegedly attempted murder” — if no evidence existed of any crime beyond the interviewee’s word. In the event, here’s Pinkleton: “One of my biggest fears with these inconsistencies emerging is that people will be unwilling to believe survivors in the future. However, we need to remember that the majority of survivors who come forward are telling the truth.” Pinkleton’s belief that only “the majority of survivors who come forward are telling the truth” means that even this extremist victims’ rights activist concedes that some unspecified minority of “survivors” are not telling the truth. But if someone is not telling the truth about being raped, in what way can she be a “survivor” of sexual assault? The “survivor,” in such an instance, would be the student falsely accused. What’s at stake, of course, is that this kind of finger-pointing justice undercuts the real victims of rape. In college, an accusation is as good as a conviction – no trial, no DNA, no defense necessary. The more these charges are disproved as men fight back, the worse it is for the real victims. Finally, Eugene Volokh, at The Post has a long, interesting analysis on possibilities of a libel suit against Rolling Stone for the students targeted by Erdely and Jackie. Though the grounds are plausible, he expresses doubts that such a suit will ever be filed. If the students sue, Volokh astutely observed, “even if they win, their names likely will come up in such a story, and some people will believe the allegations more than the vindication (or will just remember the allegations more than the vindication).” This principle applies not merely to a libel suit in this instance but more broadly to due process suits for students branded a rapist as a result of rigged campus disciplinary procedures. More than a dozen universities nonetheless are currently facing such lawsuits. How many—including, perhaps, based on what we’ve seen over the past few weeks, the University of Virginia—fail to provide even basic due process to students accused of sexual assault? Hanna Rosin, an analyst at Slate, summed it up this way: What this Rolling Stone story shows is that maybe we’ve reached a point where we hold stories about rape to a lower standard. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 03:00 PM Post #154 |
|
http://gotnews.com/breaking-gotnews-com-found-name-rape-uvahoax-jackie/ BREAKING: GotNews.com Found Name of Rape #UVAHoax “Jackie” December 7, 2014 by Charles C. Johnson 86 Comments UVA Jackie Coakley Multiple sources are confirming to GotNews.com that Jackie Coakley is the girl who was the Rolling Stone reporter’s source. “Jackie” asked not to be included in Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s story but Rubin included her anyways. From Rolling Stone story. Jackie had a strained relationship with her father (lol), in whose eyes she’d never felt good enough, and always responded by exceeding expectations – honor roll, swim team, first-chair violin – becoming the role model for her two younger brothers. Jaqueline Coakley of Stafford VA appears to have two brothers, John and Matthew. GotNews has reached out to the family. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 03:05 PM Post #155 |
|
Van Jones Asks Rich Lowry: 'Can I Kiss You Here Against Your Will?' By Jeffrey Meyer | December 7, 2014 | 1:54 PM EST On Sunday morning, ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos discussed Rolling Stone's retracted article surrounding an alleged sexual assault and gang rape at the University of Virginia. While the panelists all agreed that Rolling Stone should take a hit for publishing a false story, the discussion got heated over statistics regarding sexual assaults on college campuses. The segment began with Rich Lowry of National Review accusing Rolling Stone of having “an agenda to portray UVA as this bastion of white male privilege where basically rapists rule the social life. And the damage will never be undone. And I think if there’s any justice in the world, Rolling Stone would have to give up covering music and become the alumni magazine of the University of Virginia.” Following Lowry’s condemnation of the magazine, CNN’s Van Jones argued that "regardless of this one story, George, the statistics are there and they're shocking. It's literally one out of five.” The liberal CNN contributor’s comments that “one out of five” women are victims of sexual assault set off a firestorm among the panelists: LOWRY: No it’s not. That's a bogus statistic. That’s completely bogus. JONES: Let me finish. First of all, it's not bogus. LOWRY: It is bogus. JONES: And one of the things I think is really unfortunate is that when you do have young women who are courageous enough to step forward, and they then point to other young women you get this sort of attack. And I think this mistake on the part of Rolling Stone actually emboldens people who want to attack young women’s credibility when they come forward. LOWRY: That statistic is based on a survey that includes attempted forced kissing as sexual assault. That is not a real number. The segment concluded with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) joining the debate to further attack Lowry for daring to challenge Van Jones' argument about sexual assaults: LORETTA SANCHEZ: That is a sexual assault. LOWRY: It’s an advocacy number. JONES: Can I kiss you? Can I kiss you here against your will? LOWRY: Let’s talk about this later Van. That’s not a crime that the police are going to be involved in and prosecute. JONES: That's an assault. That is an assault. SANCHEZ: That is a sexual assault. If I go like this at you that's a sexual assault. If you put your lips on me that’s a sexual assault. LOWRY: Van wants to kiss me. She wants to hit me. See relevant transcript below. ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos December 7, 2014 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, we’ve only got a couple minutes left. I want to move on to one other subject. It’s king of remarkable. We saw Rolling Stone’s big expose, they said, explosive story about sexual assault, gang rape at the University of Virginia. That was the original story right there. This weekend, the story appeared to collapse. Rolling Stone apologizing, their editor tweeting out, “the fact that there is a story that appears in Rolling Stone in which I don't have complete confidence is deeply unsettling to me. We made the judgment-the kind of judgment reporters and editors make every day. And this case our judgment was wrong.” Rich Lowry, based on a woman who said she was assaulted at UVA. The story did not appear to add up. Washington Post did a lengthy expose. And you were one of the first reporters to call out Rolling Stone on this. RICH LOWRY: Well, when something is so explosive, you have to be certain it's right. And Rolling Stone didn't do basic fact-checking here. I believe because they had an agenda to portray UVA as this bastion of white male privilege where basically rapists rule the social life. And the damage will never be undone. And I think if there’s any justice in the world, Rolling Stone would have to give up covering music and become the alumni magazine of the University of Virginia. MATTHEW DOWD: George, my biggest fear out of this is, the biggest damage to me that's has been done in this, is that women who finally have the courage to stand up and say this happened to me. And no woman, if you think about the history, no woman has ever gained fame or fortune by falsely accusing a man of rape or sexual assault. No woman has ever gained from it. It takes courage. And my fear is people are going to now doubt what everybody says. I believe there was still sexual assault, whether it followed the facts of the case. But that's my bigger fear. LORETTA SANCHEZ: For me, the bigger issue, and the issue that sort of gets buried in this is should a university be handling the investigation of the sexual assault? LOWRY: Absolutely right. SANCHEZ: I mean, if it was a murder, would the university handle it? It's like we're saying that sexual assault is not a crime. I mean, this is the biggest issue that we’ve have in the military where we have hammered home that sexual assault is a crime and so— VAN JONES: And regardless of this one story, George, the statistics are there and they're shocking. It's literally one out of five. LOWRY: No it’s not. That's a bogus statistic. That’s completely bogus. JONES: Let me finish. First of all, it's not bogus. LOWRY: It is bogus. JONES: And frankly one of the things I think is really unfortunate is that when you do have young women who are courageous enough to step forward, and they then point to other young women you get this sort of attack. And I think this mistake on the part of Rolling Stone actually emboldens people who want to attack young women’s credibility when they come forward. LOWRY: That statistic is based on a survey that includes attempted forced kissing as sexual assault. That is not a real number. SANCHEZ: That is a sexual assault. LOWRY: It’s an advocacy number. JONES: Can I kiss you? Can I kiss you here against your will? LOWRY: Let’s talk about this later Van. That’s not a crime that the police are going to be involved in and prosecute. JONES: That's an assault. That is an assault. SANCHEZ: That is a sexual assault. If I go like this at you that's a sexual assault. If you put your lips on me that’s a sexual assault. LOWRY: Van wants to kiss me. She wants to hit me. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to have to stop it right there. That is going to have to be the last word. You guys take this outside. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/12/07/fight-ensues-abcs-week-over-rolling-stone-rape-article#sthash.ezu9ucvf.dpuf |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 03:08 PM Post #156 |
|
Huge comment file. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/why-we-believed-jackies-story-113365.html#.VISzV8kQPc8 |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 03:11 PM Post #157 |
|
Rolling Stone quietly changes apology on rape story to fully take the blame as more students come forward to argue that the story rings true Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2864491/Rolling-Stone-quietly-changes-apology-rape-story-fully-blame-students-come-forward-argue-story-rings-true.html#ixzz3LFEpBCqd Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook |
![]() |
|
| jewelcove | Dec 7 2014, 03:42 PM Post #158 |
|
abb, I appreciate all the work you are doing to bring all of these articles to us. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 03:43 PM Post #159 |
|
http://twitchy.com/2014/12/05/hoo-boy-these-tweets-are-coming-back-to-haunt-disgraced-rolling-stone-journo/ ‘Hoo boy': These tweets are coming back to haunt disgraced Rolling Stone journo |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Dec 7 2014, 07:06 PM Post #160 |
|
I sure hope GotNews named the right person. With just a few clicks on Google, I located her university and home addresses, and phone number from the University of Virginia - Student Listings. A few more clicks returned pictures of the young lady, her mother, and other family members. We won't even go into the Facebook pages. When you try to hide information in the internet age, you only invite people to look deeper. If the Blog got it wrong, I shudder to think of the harm it could cause an innocent person. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 07:13 PM Post #161 |
|
Indeed. It might even get to the point that folks might think twice before making specious claims of 'rape.' One Crystal Mangum comes to mind. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 07:49 PM Post #162 |
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/07/no-uva-has-no-libel-claim-against-rolling-stone/ No, UVA has no libel claim against Rolling Stone By Eugene Volokh December 7 at 6:10 PM Some readers of the Libel law and the Rolling Stone / UVA alleged gang rape story post asked: If the story was indeed false, could the University of Virginia sue for the damage to its own reputation (quite apart from the possibility that fraternity members, the fraternity, or the officials named in the story could sue)? The answer is clear, and it’s no. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) famously held that government officials can prevail in defamation lawsuits only if they can show that the defendant knew the statement was false, or was reckless about the possibility of falsehood — but it also, less famously, held that government entities can’t sue for defamation, period, regardless of the defendant’s mental state: For good reason, “no court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place in the American system of jurisprudence. “[P]rosecutions for libel on government,” the Court repeated in Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) — in a context that covered lawsuits and not just criminal prosecutions — are something that “the Constitution does not tolerate in any form.” And the Virginia Supreme Court echoed this in Dean v. Dearing (Va. 2002). So even if someone deliberately lies about the University of Virginia, and this lie damages the university’s reputation, the university can’t win a libel lawsuit against the person. Now if someone says about a private university that it doesn’t adequately protect its students (because it doesn’t adequately investigate alleged rapes and thus doesn’t do enough to prevent future rapes), that might be a libel of the university. Compare Mzamane v. Winfrey (E.D. Pa. 2010) (that’s the Winfrey), which holds that an allegation that a junior high school principal doesn’t do enough to investigate alleged abuse of students could be defamatory; I think a similar allegation about a university official could be defamatory of that official, and of the university more broadly, in the right circumstances. Likewise, even apart from a claim of culpable lack of investigation, if someone says there was a serious crime against a patron of a particular establishment — whether a bar, a hotel or a university — and the speaker knows the statement is false or recklessly disregards the risk of falsehood, that might be the tort of “injurious falsehood.” (This could also be labeled a form of the “trade libel” tort, but as to quality of services and not quality of goods.) The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 623A provides that, One who publishes a false statement harmful to the interests of another is subject to liability for pecuniary loss resulting to the other if (a) he intends for publication of the statement to result in harm to interests of the other having a pecuniary value, or either recognizes or should recognize that it is likely to do so, and (b) he knows that the statement is false or acts in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Under the right circumstances, reporting that there was a particular rape at or near a private university, knowing the statement was false or reckless about the possibility of falsehood, might thus be actionable on this theory as well. But none of this matters here, because the University of Virginia is a public university, and like other public entities — police departments, government-run ski resorts, cities, counties, states or the federal government itself — it cannot take advantage of the libel claims that are available to nongovernmental organizations. For more on the possibility of lawsuits by the fraternity members or the fraternity, and for a bit more on the possibility of lawsuits by university officials, see this post. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 07:51 PM Post #163 |
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fraternity-advocates-urge-end-to-university-of-virginia-suspension/2014/12/07/ca2c598a-7e52-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html Fraternity advocates urge end to U-Va.’s suspension of Greek organizations On Friday, Rolling Stone magazine issued an apology for discrepencies that were published in an article alleging that a student was gang-raped by members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. (Jay Paul/Getty Images) By Nick Anderson December 7 at 6:37 PM Groups representing fraternities and sororities urged the University of Virginia on Sunday to end the suspension of Greek organizations it imposed last month after a magazine story about an alleged gang rape at a campus fraternity house. Rolling Stone last week backed away from the story it had published Nov. 19 and issued a more thorough explanation of concerns about the article over the weekend after published reports questioned key details of the allegations in it. The magazine’s managing editor apologized for “discrepancies” that he said had emerged in the horrific account of a woman who said she was raped in 2012 at the Phi Kappa Psi house in Charlottesville. That account was at the core of an article that sent shock waves through the university community and drew national attention. On Nov. 22, U-Va. President Teresa A. Sullivan announced a suspension of all fraternities, sororities and other Greek organizations until Jan. 9. The suspension, Sullivan said at the time, was meant to give the university time to “assemble groups of students, faculty, alumni, and other concerned parties to discuss our next steps in preventing sexual assault and sexual violence” on the campus. Fraternity and sorority advocates say the unraveling of the Rolling Stone account means there is no reason to continue the suspension. In a statement Sunday, the Fraternity and Sorority Political Action Committee, the National Panhellenic Conference, and the North American Interfraternity Conference said the “decision to suspend hurt the reputation of thousands of outstanding student leaders in our organizations who had nothing to do with the alleged events described in the article.” The groups called on the university “to immediately reinstate operations for all fraternity and sorority organizations on campus, to issue an apology for its actions of the last two weeks, to publicly explain and release all records for the basis of its decision to suspend our organizations, and outline what steps it will take to restore the reputation of our groups and students at UVA.” The statement was e-mailed to The Washington Post by Kevin O’Neill, a veteran lobbyist for fraternities and sororities who is executive director of the political action committee. A U-Va. spokesman, McGregor McCance, declined Saturday to answer whether Sullivan plans to rescind the suspension. The president of the Inter-Fraternity Council at U-Va., Tommy Reid, told The Post that the suspension of Greek activities was not a concern for him and that he hoped the focus of the discussion would remain on preventing sexual assault on campus. “Practical implications of the ban are negligible,” he said. “We are heading into exams and will not return to school until after Jan. 9. The suspension itself is not something the IFC is particularly focused on.” A former Post education editor, Nick writes about college from the perspective of a father of three who will soon be buried in tuition bills. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 07:53 PM Post #164 |
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394148/another-college-campus-more-pitchfork-justice-john-fund December 7, 2014 6:30 PM Another College Campus, More Pitchfork Justice A university president loses his job for giving young women advice on how to avoid sexual assault. By John Fund In the wake of the collapse of the Rolling Stone “gang rape” story last week, it’s time to consider what happened last month to Robert Jennings, the outgoing president of suburban Philadelphia’s Lincoln University, the nation’s first degree-granting historically black university. I note that Jennings is “outgoing” because he was just fired by his board over a four-minute YouTube excerpt of a 26-minute speech he gave to his school’s All Women’s Convocation in September. While his attempt at fatherly advice on sex may have been inartful, it hardly justified his critics’ charge that he was blaming women for sexual assault. Nonetheless he has seen his career ruined, thanks to the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the issue of sexual assault. Even Vice President Joe Biden cites inflated statistics that one out of five campus women has been sexually assaulted. The pitchforks that come out in such an atmosphere can chill free speech, obscure relevant aspects of the specific cases and the larger issues, and lead to politically correct reporting disasters such as those on the Duke lacrosse and Tawana Brawley cases, and now the Rolling Stone debacle on the alleged gang rape at UVA. Jennings, who to no avail apologized for his comments before his firing, still insists that his critics are taking the YouTube video out of context. But even the truncated version casts doubt on why he has been ridden out of town on a rail. The video excerpt begins with Jennings saying he’s going to let the women in on “a little secret”: “Men treat you, treat women the way women allow us to treat them. . . . We will use you up, if you allow us to use you up,” he said. “Well, guess what? When it comes time for us to make that final decision, we’re going to go down the hall and marry that girl with the long dress on. That’s one we’re going to take home to Mama. There is something about the way you carry yourself and respect yourself that commands and demands respect from us.” At this point, the video shows the female crowd clapping in agreement. “You know I’m right about it,” he said and then discussed what can happen with some sexual-assault accusations: We had, on this campus last semester, three cases of young women who after having done whatever they did with the young men, and then it didn’t turn out the way they wanted it to turn out — guess what they did? They went to [the university’s Department of] Public Safety and said, “He raped me.” So then we have to do an investigation. We have to start pulling back the layers and asking all kinds of questions, and when we start trying to collect the data and ask the questions — and why do we do that? Because we know that possibly somebody’s life is getting ready to change for the rest of their life. At this point Jennings noted that new federal guidelines can lead to jail time for any student even accused of sexual assault; the person is likely to be expelled, with the charge appearing on his transcript, which often means that other schools won’t accept him. Then came the statement that clearly sank Jennings’s presidency (he may still have tenure as a professor): “I’m saying this because, first and foremost, don’t put yourself in a situation that would cause you to be trying to explain something that really needs no explanation, had you not put yourself in that situation.” When the speech excerpt appeared on YouTube, it created an uproar. Marybeth Gasman, a University of Pennsylvania education professor, said it showed that “the president blames young women for being raped by saying that when they have sex with someone and regret the act, they then create a story [of rape] to explain it.” Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC demanded that Jennings “be held accountable for encouraging survivors to be silent, for telling them they would not be believed, that they would be subjected to your scrutiny and disrespect.” Jennings responded with a letter to all Lincoln students in which he apologized “for my choice of words” and said he “intended to emphasize personal responsibility and mutual respect.” He told Philly.com in an interview that his message to both male and female students is the same: “I emphasize to them how serious that allegation is and that the university takes it very seriously and so does the federal government and so does the court.” He noted that he had told the male convocation of students that “no means no#….#and even if it is consensual, one should [refrain] from engaging in something that could alter their future.” At first, the university defended Jennings, agreeing with him that three women at Lincoln had recently lied about rape, although he had gotten the time period slightly wrong. Jennings characterized the cases as women falsely reporting rape as revenge against men who had been unfaithful. But faculty members and some alumni, already upset at Jennings for what they called his autocratic style and his elimination of college programs, demanded his head. It was promptly delivered to them. Jennings did have some defenders on the left. Boyce Watkins, a liberal African-American scholar at Syracuse University who has often clashed with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, said what Jennings told his students was an attempt to “empower women by educating them to the ways of men, and also warning them on how to protect themselves from sexual assault.” He called for “conversations where the other side of the dialogue isn’t automatically squashed into oblivion.” If we are to have an honest discussion, we have to start with the facts that are in play. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute and other scholars have called into question the claim that one in five female students has been the victim of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault while at college: Such bogus statistics have been the mainstay of campus-rape-epidemic propaganda for years. They are generated by a variety of clever techniques, but the most important is this: The survey-taker, rather than the female respondent, decides whether the latter has been raped or not. When you ask the girls directly whether they view themselves as victims of rape, the answer overwhelmingly comes in: No. Let’s stipulate that sexual assault on campus is a serious issue. That’s why it deserves serious treatment and debate. The last thing we need are articles like the one in Rolling Stone that can be used to minimize or cast doubt on the experiences of genuine victims. And we also shouldn’t fall prey to mob mentalities like the one that cost Robert Jennings his job simply for making sincere attempts to discuss legitimate, complex issues on college campuses. — John Fund is national-affairs correspondent for NRO. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 7 2014, 08:30 PM Post #165 |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/07/justice/uva-rape-article/ Rolling Stone magazine revises apology on UVA rape story By Ralph Ellis and Sara Ganim, CNN updated 8:01 PM EST, Sun December 7, 2014 STORY HIGHLIGHTS NEW: Rolling Stone revises apology after complaints of victim blaming "These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie," the apology says The magazine says it should have contacted the men the woman says raped her (CNN) -- Rolling Stone magazine has revised its apology to readers about an article on an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia. The apology was originally posted Friday on the magazine website and said of Jackie, the woman who described the alleged rape, "Our trust in her was misplaced." In the updated apology, those words have been removed. The magazine said of its reporting errors, "These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie." The apology was changed Saturday without any explanation by the magazine. Rolling Stone was criticized by some people for "victim-blaming" in the first version of the apology. Hanna Rosin, a writer for Slate.com, said on Brian Stelter's "Reliable Sources" show on CNN: "It essentially said this is Jackie's fault but, you know, Jackie is not a journalist. She doesn't know the rules of journalism. She's just telling her own story. It's on us to know that you have to trust but verify. You have to check the sources. You have to figure out with the story is true because if not you end up in a mess like the one we're in now." Magazine managing editor Will Dana sent out a tweet Friday afternoon that reflected that sentiment, saying "That failure is on us -- not on her." But those thoughts were not put into the apology until Saturday. The November 19 article, titled "A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Search for Justice at UVA," chronicled the school's failure to respond to that alleged assault in a fraternity house. One of the major criticisms of Rolling Stone is that the reporter did not seek comment from the men Jackie says raped her. The updated apology says Rolling Stone honored a request from Jackie, a pseudonym, not to interview the men because she feared retaliation. "We should have not made this agreement with Jackie, and we should have worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story," said the updated apology written by Dana. "These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie." The updated apology mentions discrepancies in Jackie's account that have already been reported by The Washington Post and other news outlets. For instance, Phi Kappa Psi did not have a party the night in September 2012 Jackie said the rape occurred and the man she identified as her date that night was not a member of that fraternity, the apology says. The apology says, "A friend of Jackie's (who we were told would not speak to Rolling Stone) told the Washington Post that he found Jackie that night a mile from the school's fraternities. She did not appear to be 'physically injured at the time' but was shaken. "She told him that that she had been forced to have oral sex with a group of men at a fraternity party, but he does not remember her identifying a specific house. Other friends of Jackie's told the Washington Post that they now have doubts about her narrative, but Jackie told the Washington Post that she firmly stands by the account she gave to [reporter Sabrina Rubin] Erdely." After the article ran in November, It prompted an emergency meeting by the school's governing board and the announcement of a zero-tolerance approach toward sexual assault cases. The school suspended fraternity social events until the spring semester. According to the magazine, Jackie, who at the time had just started her freshman year at the Charlottesville school, claimed she was raped by seven men at Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, while two more gave encouragement, during a party. However, the University of Virginia's Phi Kappa Psi chapter did not have a party the night of September 28, 2012, the date when the alleged attack occurred, or at all that weekend, the chapter said in a statement Friday. The chapter's lawyer, Ben Warthen, told CNN email and fraternity records are proof. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:16 AM Jul 11