| UVA Rape Story Collapses; Duke Lacrosse Redux | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 5 2014, 01:45 PM (60,432 Views) | |
| MikeZPU | Apr 9 2015, 07:33 PM Post #1066 |
|
cks: "Feminist sharia law" Good one! |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 10 2015, 07:54 AM Post #1067 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 10 2015, 11:38 AM Post #1068 |
|
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/opinion/editorials/article_eaec4bc8-de3b-11e4-b593-7b278b3005da.html U.Va. fraternity lawsuit is harmful April 9, 2015 Editorial Posted: Thursday, April 9, 2015 3:00 am The Daily Collegian’s editorial opinion is determined by its Board of Opinion, which is made up of members of its Board of Editors, and written by its opinions editor, with the editor in chief holding final responsibility for content. The story surrounding the now-retracted Rolling Stone story about a fraternity gang rape and culture of sexual assault at the University of Virginia continues to unfold. The fraternity named in the story, Phi Kappa Psi, is now taking legal action against Rolling Stone. “After 130 days of living under a cloud of suspicion as a result of reckless reporting by Rolling Stone magazine, today the Virginia Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi announced plans to pursue all available legal action against the magazine,” the fraternity said in a statement released Monday, USA Today reported. This comes after Charlottesville police, while unable to prove the assault didn’t happen, didn’t find anything in their investigation to corroborate what was reported in the Rolling Stone magazine story. While we understand the fraternity may have a right to legal action, we don’t support its decision to pursue a case. What would legal action give the organization that they don’t already have? With all of the media covering of this case, it has become general knowledge the fraternity’s name has been cleared and the article has been retracted. Legal action to clear Phi Kappa Psi’s name is unnecessary. The question must be asked: if the name has been cleared, what is it that the organization wants? “Clearly our fraternity and its members have been defamed, but more importantly we fear this entire episode may prompt some victims to remain in the shadows, fearful to confront their attackers,” the Virginia Phi Kappa Psi chapter’s president, Stephen Scipione, said in the statement. “If Rolling Stone wants to play a real role in addressing this problem, it’s time to get serious.” But this statement is contradictory. If the fraternity is truly concerned about those who have been sexually assaulted remaining in the shadows, afraid to come forward, it wouldn’t continue to drag out this process. The most important thing to come out of this failed journalism is the concept that sexual assault is a huge problem on college campuses, and false accusations are extremely unlikely. We cannot let this situation hurt and set back sexual assault reporting and investigating. But this lawsuit will do that. It will show anyone who may have something to say against a fraternity that they have the power, they can sue and they will essentially always win. We can’t let this mindset that greek life is above all others continue. If Phi Kappa Psi really is concerned about sexual assault and helping those who have been affected, there are numerous ways to get involved. This lawsuit is unnecessary and will do far more harm than good. Opinions Editor Emily Chappell can be reached at esc5113@psu.edu or (814) 865-1828. Follow her on Twitter at @EmilyChappell13. |
![]() |
|
| Bill Anderson | Apr 10 2015, 12:09 PM Post #1069 |
|
Please tell me that this is a joke. The most important thing to come out of this affair is that people on campus apparently will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous.
|
![]() |
|
| cks | Apr 10 2015, 12:58 PM Post #1070 |
|
Yes, Dr. Anderson - you are correct. But, I would not say that this is restricted to college campuses - it is unfortunately prevalent in all areas including both the White House and the Congress. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Apr 10 2015, 02:10 PM Post #1071 |
|
What is Emily Chappell afraid of? Why does she give a hoot whether or not Phi Kappa Psi fraternity files a defamation suit against Rolling Stone? Why did she feel so compelled to write an op-ed piece trying to convince the fraternity not to proceed with a lawsuit against RS? What is she afraid of? What is she worried about? And it's not just her ... |
![]() |
|
| comelately | Apr 10 2015, 02:50 PM Post #1072 |
|
It is critical to the current totalitarian offensive against the free society that FALSE ACCUSERS AND THEIR ENABLERS ARE NEVER PUNISHED. False accusations are one of principal tools of intimidation used by the Left. It almost can be said that it is the Left's sharpest weapon. So a threat to one false accuser is a threat to them all. I only wish decent people felt the same way about their own kind! |
![]() |
|
| cks | Apr 10 2015, 03:13 PM Post #1073 |
|
Absolutely. |
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Apr 10 2015, 03:14 PM Post #1074 |
|
I posted the following reply to The Daily Collegian in response to their editorial: You ask: "What would legal action give the organization that they don’t already have?" Simply, recompense for the damages sustained to the fraternity. As a non-profit corporation, that is all Phi Kappa Psi can recover. Rolling Stone should immediately offer to pay them. But, the fraternity was damaged. Their property was vandalized, their business was disrupted. The Daily Collegian seems to suffer from a malady I see all too often among college students, an inability to think clearly. They claim to be harmed by "microaggressions" which in the real world are inconsequential, even unnoticed. At the same time, they seem to forgive illegal and even immoral behavior when it suits their purpose. I sincerely hope that this is confined to something less than a majority of our young people. But, I wonder? Walt-in-Durham |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Apr 10 2015, 03:38 PM Post #1075 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
As long as it lines up nicely with what they already believe... |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Apr 10 2015, 04:06 PM Post #1076 |
|
I think I know what they are afraid of. This Rape Crisis consists of a one flawed study...a lot of slogans, buzzwords, and an overbroad defintion of "sexual assault." The words "rape" and "sexual assault" carry a connotation with the general public that some degree of violence is attached. Ederly's Hoax required she find the most violent example possible...to define this "epidemic." She did the same thing with the Catholic priest story. It couldn't be just priests inappropriately touching...that wasn't bad enough, shocking enough...it had to be Gang rape, hours long, blah, blah. Why? Because this is a movement trying to steamroll opposition, gain power, impose new onerous rules. The "sexual assault" epidemic can't be two drunks having sex...or saying yes to two, but no to the third act...or regrets coming months or a year later. The Movement does not want required police reports because the majority of these incidents won't meet a standard for prosecution. But it's not only the police that will not be interested. I think they fear, that the more the actual stories get out....very few of the GENERAL public would be interested or sympathetic. They are trying to imbed a horrific Gang rape as their signature example. That is bogus....that is not the commonplace, archetypical example of their "epidemic." Yes, there are genuine, disturbing stories but I am beginning to believe that those are the Minority. The majority of their examples involve alcohol abuse by both parties....but that would not empower , advance or enrich gender studies programs or power. The best pushback is as much in depth information on the specifics of these "assaults." That's what they fear....specifics. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Apr 10 2015, 05:51 PM Post #1077 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. SAY WHAT? http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/10/college-newspaper-false-rape-accusation-shows-false-accusations-are-extremely-unlikely/ . |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 10 2015, 06:19 PM Post #1078 |
|
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/04/10/the_medias_believe_the_survivor_syndrome_126217.html The Media's Believe-the-Survivor Syndrome By Cathy Young - April 10, 2015 The inglorious saga of Rolling Stone’s article on “rape culture” at the University of Virginia, “A Rape on Campus,” published to great acclaim last November and mostly debunked less than three weeks later, has seen its (hopefully) final chapter: the Columbia Journalism Review postmortem dissecting the story and its origins. The report documents egregious failings by journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely and multiple editors, including perfunctory fact-checking and reliance on a single source—the alleged victim, Jackie—for the central narrative of a brutal fraternity gang rape. Rolling Stone, which commissioned and published the report, has come under fire for treating the fiasco as an isolated error rather than an institutional problem in need of a fix. The magazine’s leadership has also been lambasted for not only shifting much of the blame to Jackie herself, but blaming the editorial decision to skip basic fact-checking on excessive deference to a young woman believed to be the victim of a horrific assault. It is quite true that the explanation smacks of a self-serving excuse and that the shoddy journalism in the UVA rape story was part of a larger problem. But this problem is not confined to Rolling Stone. It is pervasive in media coverage of campus rape—and is very much connected to the belief, held by many anti-rape activists, that personal accounts of (alleged) sexual violence should be treated as sacrosanct. Before the Rolling Stone story imploded but when Erdely was already being criticized for failing to seek comment from the alleged rapists, the left-of-center media monitoring site Media Matters pointed to several articles on campus rape in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Slate which also failed to meet that standard. But this is less a defense of Erdely—whose reporting, we now know, was indefensible—than an indictment of her colleagues. Take the coverage of Columbia University student Emma Sulkowicz, the internationally famous activist who carries her mattress on campus to protest the school’s failure to expel the man she accuses of rape. When Sulkowicz was featured in a New York Times cover story last May, with a troubling story of a violent attack by a fellow student and a botched university investigation that ended with a ruling in the man’s favor—despite two other accusations of sexual assault against him—her alleged assailant remained a nameless, faceless shadow menace. (One of the story’s authors, Richard Pérez-Peña, later said he did not know the man’s identity at the time.) It was more than seven months later, in December—perhaps not coincidentally, after the collapse of the Rolling Stone story—that the Times gave Paul Nungesser, who had been identified by The Columbia Spectator several months earlier, a chance to tell his side. That was also the first time the paper disclosed that the multiple charges against him may not have been independently made: Sulkowicz and the other two women had been in contact and had talked to each other about their history with Nungesser prior to filing charges. In February, a story I reported for The Daily Beast raised further questions, revealing that Sulkowicz had remained in close and friendly contact with Nungesser for three months after the alleged rape (as confirmed by Facebook messages). Advocates have countered that victims of sexual trauma may act in ways that seem irrational. Sulkowicz’s messages don’t necessarily exonerate Nungesser; but the new details certainly paint a far more complex picture than the early coverage suggested. The willingness to treat uncorroborated narratives of victimization as fact may be partly due to sensationalism. But it also reflects a climate in which any suggestion that a woman who says she was raped may be lying is often treated as “victim-blaming” or “rape apology.” Let’s not forget that skeptics who questioned the Rolling Stone story before its unraveling were widely and viciously attacked as prejudiced against rape victims. Today, the feminist party line is that Rolling Stone let down sexual assault victims by not fact-checking Jackie’s account; but back in December, it was that insisting on more scrutiny and corroboration of accounts of sexual assault would silence victims’ voices. Given the very real history of widespread ugly biases against women who reported sexual violence, the reluctance to accuse women of “crying rape” is understandable. But the assumption that “women don’t lie” leads to an equally ugly bias. Yet the CJR report itself downplays the problem of false allegations, making the familiar claim that only 2 to 8 percent of rape reports are false. Using the same statistics, New York University professor Clay Shirky writes in The New Republic that Jackie is a rare aberration: “If someone says she was raped, she is almost certainly telling the truth.” In fact, this estimate is based on studies in which some eight percent of rape reports are proven to be groundless or fabricated—but the majority remain unresolved. If every sexual assault complaint that that can be neither substantiated nor disproved is treated as presumptively true, that is a textbook case of “presumed guilty” (at least when specific defendants are involved). Despite its efforts to preserve the “rape culture” narrative, the CJR report is a valuable reminder of the dangers of allowing this narrative to shape reporting and override skepticism. So far, at least, the media have yet to learn these lessons from the Rolling Stone debacle. Just a few weeks ago, The Hunting Ground, a documentary on campus rape co-produced by CNN, was hailed as a “must-watch work of cine-activism,” as “diligently researched,” and (in Rolling Stone) “an energizing call to action.” Yet, as Emily Yoffe persuasively argues in Slate, the film relies not only on debatable statistics but on moving personal testimonies with no hint of fact-checking. Its treatment of the charges against former Florida State quarterback Jamies Winston has been devastatingly critiqued by legal journalist Stuart Taylor Jr. In a Monday press conference, Columbia Graduate School of Journalism dean Steve Coll urged the media to “have a conversation” on better reporting on sexual violence—while dean of academic affairs Sheila Coronel called the Rolling Stone story a “useful case on how to report, with sensitivity, about victims of sexual assault while also verifying and corroborating the information they provide.” This is sound advice. But the conversation must start with the uncomfortable fact that, as this story illustrates, those who tell such stories are not always victims. Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics and is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine. She blogs at http://cathyyoung.wordpress.com/ and you can follow her on Twitter at @CathyYoung63. She can be reached by email at CathyYoung63@gmail.com. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Apr 10 2015, 06:22 PM Post #1079 |
|
I am going to write an email to Emily Chappell. It will read something like this: You could have used your Op-Ed piece to demand that Rolling Stone apologize directly to the members of Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity. You could have used your Op-Ed piece to demand that Rolling Stone pay for the vandalism that was done to the Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity House, as a result of their reckless reporting of a provably false allegation of gang-rape at their fraternity. You could have recommended to Rolling Stone that they endow an annual scholarship to a member of the Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, as a gesture of good will given the vilification and defamation that they suffered as a result of their reckless article. But, instead, you want the false gang-rape allegation swept under the rug. How dare you diminish what the fraternity members went through when the university did not do a thing to deter the vandalism, and also did not even attempt to discipline those who perpetrated the vandalism, not to mention that harassment. Jackie was not charged for her willful and malicious false story of gang-rape. you should have been happy with that but, no, you just want to sweep her big lie under the rug. Your motives are transparent. Edited by MikeZPU, Apr 10 2015, 06:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| cks | Apr 10 2015, 06:38 PM Post #1080 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:15 AM Jul 11