Since last fall, the issue of sexual assault on college campuses has been discussed throughout the country.
You may recall that there was an explosive article in Rolling Stone magazine in November in which a woman alleged that she was gang raped by members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia. However, two weeks later, the magazine responded to information that suggested that the woman's story was not truthful and not complete.
And, two weeks ago, police announced that after investigating the matter, they found no evidence to support the woman's allegations.
First, let me express that I believe that sexual assaults at college campuses are a serious issue that deserve serious discussion. The initial story brought lots of attention to this matter, resulting in greater scrutiny in these types of incidents and on the procedures and processes, legal and otherwise, to handle these types of assaults. Those conversations, I think, are important and necessary.
However, the way this story has developed has shifted the focus from the very serious problem of sexual assaults in our society to victim shaming. Placing the blame on the alleged victim is a common tactic of some to discredit the victim and to diminish or discredit the serious problem of sexual assaults. Indeed, society's reaction and judgment of sexual assault victims in general, experts note, contributes to why many victims don't step forward and notify police.
At any rate, please read this article by the Washington Post, which summarizes this situation and discusses the potential legal recourse that Phi Kappa Psi may have. It's a good real-world example involving many of the issues of libel that we've discussed in class.
Here's the link to the Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/24/why-some-think-it-would-be-a-colossal-mistake-for-the-uva-frat-to-sue-rolling-stone/
Also, here's the link to the statement by Rolling Stone magazine: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/a-note-to-our-readers-20141205
After you take a look at these two articles, return here and post your reaction in the comments. Before you comment, please be mindful of the sensitivity of this topic.
Remember, also, to include your first name, last name initial, and your class (TTh, Honors or Online).
148 comments:
I'll never completely understand why Jackie would go to such great lengths as to say she was gang raped by Phi Kappa Psi. My GUESS is she had sex with one or two of the members, became upset (for whatever reason) and then made the false claim. I'm pretty sure she didn't wake up one morning and decide to accuse the fraternity of the unthinkable, so SOMETHING happened, we're just not sure what exactly.
Suing the Rolling Stones for publishing the article and taking the matter to court is a bit risky. A libel lawsuit, indeed, could be accompanied by a lengthy granular discovery and deposition process. I agree with Rodney Smolla. All it will do is bring out "skeletons in the closet" which we all know the fraternity more than likely has. It could end up doing them more harm than good.
I understand the defamatory article has caused the men of the fraternity a lot of pain, stares, opportunities, or whatever the case may be. However, proceeding with the lawsuit will do more harm than good in the long run.
Christi J TTH
I know that situations like this bring attention to a good cause, like creating awareness around campuses about rape, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. The way the article reads, it seems like Jackie was upset or "shaken" that night, but that doesn't give her the right to make accusations about anyone.
Although the articles claim that it is not worth suing over, something needs to be done to stop people from claiming rape. It happens in professional sports too often. Some girl is trying to get attention or money and claims she was raped by an athlete. It becomes a he-said-she-said situation and the athlete is never looked at the same, regardless of the verdict.
Rolling Stone should have definitely done better research before publishing the story. They only had one side of the story and that seems a little irresponsible for a professional journalist to publish.
Nathan S. TTH
I agree with the Washington Post article in how if the fraternity decides to sue it opens the doors for tons of other issues they could be exposed too.
With sexual assault being a huge issue on college campuses it would be in the best interest if the fraternity left things like they are because you don't want anything else to linger.
As far as the student, their should be some type of consequences. Covering up a story like this is big. It affects everyone around her like the media, fraternity and the university. It was wrong and unjust.
Lorenzo ALmanza TTH
I know this may seem odd to compare a real story to a fictional one, but I saw almost this EXACT case in a Law and Order SVU episode. In the SVU episode fraternity members gang-raped a girl who didn't want to come forward and take back what she said so the brothers got away with it.
In this story I do believe that "Jackie" might have gotten cold feet, she was probably humiliated and embarrassed. It probably started with her wanting to say yes then saying no and being scared of being a "tease" not all women are strong and confident in their decisions.
I agree however with the Washington Post, if those boys open up a suit against The Rolling Stones, one of the most popular, wealthy and powerful magazines in the world, they are going to be in for a world of hurt. The Rolling Stones will do everything they can to expose every ounce of bad press they can dig up about those boys, and I am sure its going to be a lot.
The whole situation is unfortunate and I hope if "Jackie" truly was sexually harmed she gets the help and healing she deserves.
Tammy G. TTr
My first reaction after reading the Washington Post's article was "Did Rolling Stone know they published inaccurate facts" and "were specific people mentioned". I couldn't help but parallel this particular case to NY Times V. Sullivan. The Washington Post article reads, "The Rolling Stone Article doesn't specifically name any student beyond pseudonyms and descriptions that aren't matched by any member of the frat house." From that statement I knew that charges of libel would be very tricky to pursue. The second link to the Rolling Stone article answered the question to my first reaction as it says, "We published the article with the firm belief that it was accurate." I don't believe that the Rolling Stone should be charged under libel, and that because they published the sensitive article without knowing it contained factual inaccuracies they cannot be held accountable for defaming students within such a large group.
Alicia D. -Honors
To start out, I think it was wrong of the Rolling Stones magazine to throw out all these accusations about the fraternity without any actual proof. I also do not understand why "Jackie" clammed up and was never heard from again. That right there should tell you something. I feel as if "Jackie" was probably put down by one of the members of the fraternity and wanted to get even, but got scared when thins started to get serious. I also agree that they should not proceed with the lawsuit because it will absolutely draw unwanted attention to them and it could possibly bring up something bad. I feel this will blow over eventually, so the fraternity will be out of the spot light. Also, if "Jackie" really was raped that is a serious matter and hopefully she will seek out guidance and one day be a spokes person about it.
Kelsey C. TTH
I think rape is a terrible reality, but to "cry wolf" or in this case, "rape", just because you might not like someone is just as bad. Every woman deserves to make it home at night.
As the group Justice Forever would say: When the cops can no longer protect or serve, be warned mugger, heads up perv, we got the strength, we got the nerve, to give those in need, WHAT THEY DESERVE!! JUSTICE FOR-EVER!!!!!!!!"
Matthew T. Tue/Th
It was hard to read about Jackie’s story. Sexual assault is such a heinous and serious crime that unfortunately isn’t always prosecuted to the fullest extent. Oftentimes, the victims of sexual assault aren’t given the justice they deserve. In other situations they are harassed and put to shame by the media or people around them.
With that being said, I think the Rolling Stone magazine should have made wiser judgment when deciding whether or not to cover a topic that didn’t have all of its facts. I understand that they wanted to bring awareness to a devastating issue, but their lack of judgment only brought upon a ‘he said, she said’ battle.
The Washington Post further emphasized the Rolling Stone’s misstep in publishing Jackie’s story. Their article featured many details that reminded me of our readings and class discussions on libel.
Sarah Stephens, T/TH 12:30-1:50
The article was clearly biased and lacked both sides of the story. Although Rolling Stone has issued multiple apologies to all parties affected by the article, Erdeley has yet to do the same and stands by the validity of her article. The question that comes into play is, who is to blame? Is it the magazine? Is it the author? Or is it both? The SPJ Code of Ethics has four principles that people in the media should practice: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. Erdeley is guilty of not acting upon these principles. And in some ways, so is Rolling Stone magazine.
Both, Erdeley and Rolling Stone, did not verify the information before publishing the article. Erdeley failed to interview the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity brothers, as well as the three friends that supposedly helped "Jackie" on the night of her rape. I don't think Erdeley deliberately distorted facts or the context of the story she was told, but I do believe her inability to gather facts from all parties she mentioned in the article is why there is so much controversy.
The publication of the article did not minimize harm. The University of Virginia suspended fraternities campus-wide and harmed the reputation of all fraternity members. There was vandalism at the fraternity house in question, as well as death threats made against Phi Kappa Psi members. The veracity of the story not only made the University and fraternities look bad, but made "Jackie" out to be a liar. Or like you said, victim shaming.
After Rolling Stone's apologies and investigation into the story, they upheld the ethics principle to be accountable and transparent. Erdeley still stands by the veracity of her story and believes she did everything she could to gather all the facts, but that is not the case. Her mistakes and biased article discredits and sets back what rape activists have been helping women do; to come forward and fight back against their rapists.
Congratulations to Erdeley for winning 2014's Media-Fail Sweepstakes from the Columbia Journalism Review. Another congratulations for winning The Poynter Institute's Error of the Year award:
"It should go down as one of the most cautionary tales of confirmation bias in journalism. It’s also an example of how to not to behave when your organization publishes a disastrous piece of reporting."
Sorry it's long, but this whole issue is insane and is upsetting.
Cases like this are tricky. One one hand I can see someone actually being raped by a group of guys... And then recanting on their story out of fear, social isolation or intimidation. Then I can see her sleeping with more than one guy in the group and they told everyone about her and she was slut shamed. A lot of rape victims recant on their stories. But this makes me feel like maybe she wasn't honest. There was definitely some drinking going on and some wrong decisions made. If I was in the frat I wouldn't go forward with a law suit. I agree with the lawyer, no telling what secrets and scandal will come out the wood works. And everyone in the frat is drinking and having parties with underage drinkers. That alone will get them in some sort of trouble. At least having their chapter suspended on that campus and possibly the students suspended. If she doesn't come back out speaking on it I would leave it alone. If there is some truth to her story and other people know. A guilty mind will come forward sooner or later, they always do. It is hard to sleep when you feel guilty and their mind won't let them rest.
TErrha F (online)
I believe that Rolling Stone should have checked for actual proof before making false accusations. The fact that Jackie "clammed up," should have been a red flag. It is kind of a lose-lose situation for the frat. If they try and sue, it will probably bring a lot of unwanted attention; but at the same time the frat shown in a very negative light. In a few months the whole situation will probably blow over.
Kendall K. TTH
Stories like these really upset me. Sexual assault is a very big deal but it doesn't seem to me that the media in America always treats it as such. An accusation of sexual assault can not only affect the victim's life, but the accused as well. In this particular story, it's crazy to think that Rolling Stone would publish such a defamatory story so quick. I think journalist have a responsibility to not only their publication, but the readers as well. When publishing stories like this, it's hard to come back from. Essentially, the original story gains much more exposure than the retraction. I'm not a fan of frats in the first place, but it still does not excuse Rolling Stone for such irresponsible reporting. I agree with the Washington Post article in regards to the frat not taking legal action. I think at this point, there best bet would be to engage in the community and embrace a culture where women can feel safe and comfortable. At this point, the article has been released and has done its damage. While they cannot change the past, the best thing both parties can do is move on and learn from this situation.
I really detest situations such as this one. With every story like this, where a large case is levied against a big institution such as the fraternity, there is usually a small grain of truth. Perhaps the young woman accusing them of rape actually had a bad encounter at the frat house, or had another reason to want to defame the organization. No matter what though, she has no right at all to create and proliferate lies of this magnitude, especially in such a highly charged issue such as gang rape on college campus.
The libel issue, like discussed in the article, will be very hard to prove, and could possibly backfire and lead to the discovery of other "skeletons on the closet" after the lengthy court process. This in my opinion is reminiscent of the Bill Cosby case that is still circulating around the media, and seems to be adding new victims daily. While I have not extensively looked at the evidence in the case, the lack of actual evidence I have seen so far is appaling, and the way the women are now basically going on the talk show circut is just wild. If there is a real, legitimate case of drugging and rape, in these MULTIPLE accounts, then the issue needs to be taken up legally. In my opinion, these woman should not be allowed to parade around on national TV, telling explicit tales of Mr. Cosby and accusing him of these acts without due process or any evidence. If in the end they cannot provide sufficient evidence that Mr. Cosby is guilty, or find evidence to back up this woman's accusations of rape, by the frat, these women should be held to the full penalty of the Law when it comes to a libel or defamation case.
Mike L, Online
The two stories from the Washington Post and Rolling Stone magazine were both very compelling. I think the Rolling Stone magazine should have done their homework before publishing something that would discredit a fraternity in that manner. In their apology statement they stated the woman did'nt do anything to make them beleive she was lying, but I feel like the magazine should have done some investigationg of their own before publishing an article of that nature.
However, in the Washington Post story the police officer who was speaking about the case clearly stated that even though the woman's story didn't add up, something did happen to her on that night. I don't condone rape or any sexual assault for that matter, but I think the fraternity has every right to go after Rolling Stone with a lawsuit because the article published does defame their name in a sense.
Greg M. T/TH
I don't think that Rolling Stone would successfully be charged for libel because they only concretely identified the fraternity itself, none of the individual members. It's interesting to me that it becomes difficult to prove libel when it's regarding a large group of people. I also thought it was interesting that the professors the Post consulted would advise the fraternity against suing the Rolling Stone because it might expose "skeletons in the closet." Those skeletons should be exposed. What if they're covering up an incident like this that happened years ago? It doesn't help anyone to sweep things like that under the rug.
I think Rolling Stone would have been better off had they gotten both sides of the story, but I understand why they didn't. Sexual assault on campus is prolific and it's very likely that the incident Jackie described did occur, even if she didn't experience it herself. Maybe it was her friend who was assaulted and couldn't come forward, so Jackie decided to be the face of the issue to help her friend. I guess the fact remains that we still don't know a lot about this incident. However, I do know that sexual assault and rape is something that doesn't get the attention it needs. The education system doesn't teach about consent. Women are taught to not get raped (victim shaming/blaming), when we should be teaching men not to rape. It's my belief that most rapists don't know they're rapists. You're taught that an attacker is some stranger hiding in the bushes, when in reality most survivors of rape know their attacker. I feel like my comment is all over the place - there are so many things that need to be addressed and I don't feel able to cover them all. I know it's not okay for someone to knowingly lie and implicate an entire group of people in such a heinous crime, but I'm inclined to believe someone like Jackie because I know the story she talked about is someone's truth.
- Holly D. Honors
This article is is one of thousands that leave the question of who's to blame in sexual assault cases among college campuses. Often times, student's who are found responsible for sexual assault face little or no punishment, while their victims (in this case, Jackie) have their lives turned upside down. Investigators are still trying to uncover more facts involving this particular case, but who knows if and when anything gets resolved.
The Rolling Stones as well as Washington Post did not have sufficient evidence before publishing their articles. In my opinion, Rolling Stones should not have agreed to Jackie's request of not contacting the alleged victim. If they would have done this from the start, maybe they could have avoided reaching out to 3rd parties such as the leaders of Phi Psi chapter.
After hearing of the discrepancies in Jackie's story, I think Rolling Stones was right in apologizing for honoring her request, as well as making a judgement out of empathy and privacy for Jackie.
There are millions of stories like Jackies, some which may never be resolved. As we've learned in class, the majority of libel suits are not always black and white. This example is just one of many.
Morgan Fangman
T/TH 12:30
I think sexual assault is a big issue at all college campuses now days. I just think this story takes away from how serious this issue is. Since Jackie's story doesn't add up it makes it seem like she made the whole thing up and is now the girl that cried wolf.
I feel bad for the fraternity because they are in a tough spot. They got so much negativity from this, I mean look at the pictures of people protesting in front of there house. As much as I would like to see them sue to see what happens next I think they should just keep on the down low and let this blow over.
Kelsey Fisher T/TH 12:30
In scrolling down to make my comment, I saw someone mention an episode of Law & Order and I had thought the same thing reading through those articles! It is a TV show, which means that a lot of it exaggerated. However, in our culture today, it would not surprise me if Jackie was telling the truth. Since there’s not a lot of evidence to support her story, why wouldn’t the school stand behind its fraternity? Especially when this type of situation would leave a HUGE stain on the frat and the school’s reputation.
It is also possible that this actually happened, but she did lie about who it was. It’s possible she did that to protect herself (not only by lying to the media but lying to her friends too.) Being a victim of sexual assault is a heavy burden, one that even the victim takes the blame for a very long time, even if they aren’t specifically blamed by anybody else. “I should’ve done this different. I could’ve done that different. I should’ve been smarter. I should’ve known better.” Just because you get the courage to tell your story doesn’t mean you’re brave enough to face the trauma it could potentially bring with it.
And of course, she could’ve lied about everything. Who knows. This is such a touchy subject and situation, it’s hard to really clearly define someone as wrong and someone as right. I think Rolling Stone should definitely have gotten the other side of the story before publication, but I can understand that they were trying to handle the situation in an ethical manner; to keep the girl safe. But any good journalist knows that there are two sides to every story. The Post makes a VERY good point in advising the school to just let this die because I’m sure there are skeletons they don’t want out.
Brandi C.
(Online)
I think that the Rolling Stone author had the right intention of exposing a frat for bad behavior or doing something illegal, but I think we forget to think about the victim. It angers me to think society would be a part of victim shaming. We are not conscious of what these women are dealing with psychologically. An author can write an article or a police officer can seek to expose the wrong-doing of this frat, but the victim is left with the aftermath of all this exposure. It is a fact that women have a hard time leaving an abusive relationship, but rape goes a degree deeper. I don't blame the girl for not coming forward and speaking with police. We are not fully aware of the scarring of a terrible crime like rape can have on someone. I also agree that the frat shouldn't attempt to sue for libel/defamation. They are bound to get in trouble for more than Jackie's case.
Nicole L. (Online)
I am not sure why Jackie would go so far and accuse someone(s) of sexual assault. Perhaps it was just to get back at them for another mishap that had occurred but nevertheless, she should not have cried wolf. Sexual Assault is not a joking matter and she should have known that once the issue was published police were going to get involved.
I dont agree with the frat wanting to sue. Like stated, no one was named or anything to cause defamation. They need to understand that in a world full of publications things like this will happen. The Rolling Stone did not publish this article to intentionally shame the frat but to shine light on the issue. I don't think Rolling Stone should be punished for doing what they thought was right.
Kristina Enriquez (Online)
I'm disappointed in that the allegations were false, because the story did bring to light the severity of rape on campuses, and what the retraction of the story cause and it not being true, means that people who have been raped/gang raped will not be taken seriously. Now rape victims will be treated with suspicion and scrutiny.
There are a lot of cases involving rape and fraternities, most schools don't have punishments set out for them--or people who are not even in fraternities, football players for example. Some schools will go through lengths to not commit people, since they're important to the school.
I just hope actual rape victims get the attention and justice they deserve.
Pamela C
TTH 12:30
The fact that Rolling Stones published the article assuming the facts were true sets New York Times v Sullivan as the main precedent for this situation. New York Times v Sullivan confirms that Rolling Stones cannot be sued for libel because they were not aware of the falsity of the statements. This article also cannot be categorized as actual malice, which also safeguards Rolling Stone from a libel suit. For these reasons I believe that the fraternity should not attempt to sue Rolling Stones under libel regardless of any harm the article caused. The First Amendment leaves room for false statements to keep the spirit of open debate alive, and to challenge and further confirm the truth. Charles Tobin is right when he says it would be a colossal mistake for the fraternity to sue for libel.
Carla Lozano - Honors
It's rather sad that the Fraternity is in the situation that it is in. Though they don't seem particularly innocent as a whole per se, at least in this case they were faced with a large amount of unwarranted negativity from a completely erroneous claim. Jackie had no right to falsely claim those allegations and should be punished for doing so. Certainly more precautions can be taken in order to somehow make sure that situations like these can be avoided in the future, but as it stands the Fraternity was proven innocent of the heinous crime they were charged with. Unfortunately due to the nature of Fraternities they will probably be forced to be quiet and hope that this situation never happens again.
I read the Rolling Stone article first. As I was reading it, the first thing that struck me as important was the fact that Phi Psi released a statement saying there was "no date function or formal event" on the night in question. The second thing Phi Psi said that was important to me was that Jackie claimed that she ran into the Phi Psi that allegedly raped that she worked with at a UVA pool. First thing, if the fraternity said they didn't have a date party or formal that night, they probably mean it. That stuff can easily be looked into and proved wrong, so they could have easily gotten caught lying. Same goes for the last two things. If you claim to have seen someone working at a pool, you can check employment records and see that that person never worked there. Then she goes on to say that she wasn't even sure "Drew" was a Phi Psi. I feel like she fabricated a lot of the things she said. Not to diminish the prevalence of sexual violence or assault by any means, I just don't think her story is totally factual. I don't think Phi Psi will have any legal recourse, just because Jackie seems to be making a lot of her stories up out of thin air, and all the things she claimed about her alleged attackers can be proved incorrect with a simple phone call.
Mae G. TTh
I found these articles to be very interesting. I am aware that sexual assault is a huge issue on campuses all around. I personally have a few friends who have been sexually assaulted on their campuses and are still dealing with how to come to terms with what happened to them. Texas State has sent out three emails within the past week about a man "fondling" himself on campus as he watches girls. These are the types of situations that lead to sexual assault and it is something that is hard to prevent.
I thought it was really awesome that Rolling Stone magazine took the blame for Jackie's incident and made such a statement.
It today's society, it is hard to know whether girls are lying to gain publicity and attention or are actually being truthful. I believe Jackie could have hooked up with one of the members of Phi Kappa Psi and got lots of negative remarks for it and turned the situation around to make it look like sexual assault. If Jackie really was sexually assaulted, my heart goes out to her. We live in a cruel world and I hope that sexual assault can be more regulated someday.
Taylor Kaufman - MC4301 Online
Reading stories like these make me angry for the way society operates. While it must have been very hard for Jackie to come out in the first place and retell her story it should be even harder to give up on investigating this attack. Its topics like these that seem to be downplayed and its unfair. I do agree though that
Rolling Stone should have taken advanced measures looking into what actually happened because by not addressing the matter they're giving off the impression that it's ok and will most likely
happen again. It's sad that the whole university has to be exposed to this type of publicity but its definitely something all women should be aware of and should do something to combat it.
This is a very touchy subject because it really is one persons word against the other. However, I do feel that someone can't just come up with fake accusations out of no where, there is some truth in every lie.
Nonetheless, I think Rolling Stone magazine did a great job handling the situation. They apologized and took the blame while still respecting Jackie even if she did lie to them.
If anything good came out of this case is that it brought more awareness about campus rape.
Pamela Patino, Online class
Sexual assaults and rape are cases that many women are afraid to report. The "slut-shaming" of sex crime victims is a huge deterrent for many for filing a report. I applaud Jackie for her strength to come forward with her incident. Unfortunately, just as there are many women who don't report these crimes, there are just as many who file false reports. These types of false claims are what lower the credibility for women who actually find themselves in these compromised positions. I believe that the Rolling Stone acted appropriately by respecting Jackie's demands. They also did a good thing by issuing the statement apologizing for their story. There is a lot that gets covered under the rug when it comes to sex crimes and universities -- especially if they involve a prominent member or members of the university. This is displayed in media and in news every year, and unfortunately a lot of us are molded by these views. I am not surprised that the fraternity is seeking legal action against the Rolling Stone, because a story of such magnitude can ruin an organization's reputation. At the same time, I feel as if law enforcement and universities sometimes do not do their full duty in investigating these issues and a lot of these claims are ignored (unless they receive a lot of attention). From personal experience, I can see why Jackie's story may have changed because she felt scared or stupid, or was trying to protect someone or something else. I can only hope that more women find the strength to report on such issues and that each case is handled with the proper respect and dignity of all involved.
I find the issue of "skeletons in the closet" very interesting. I have no affiliation with Greek life in any way, but I can imagine there are plenty of skeletons - whether the rape claim is legitimate or not. That being said, this quote upsets me:
“It just seems like there’s a whole host of issues that could be there, and it would be unfair and unwise to subject these young men to that.”
Why would it be unfair for these young men to be subjected to the consequences of their actions?
I say sue the Rolling Stone for libel - I kind of want to see what happens...
- Angela R. Online
I can understand Rolling Stone's hesitation about contacting the person se accused, but there so many other ways to divulge the truth. In the face of sensitive subjects, its best to look at how others handled it successfully and contact experts/authorities on the issue. Maybe they know of a way to investigate without making matters worse.
I think the fraternity will have a lot of issues with suing Rolling Stones. According to The Washing Post article, there's no clear way to see that the group fits the small size to justify a libel case. Also, I'm sure a lot will come to light when they're investigated. It may be a bad thing for them, but if there are "skeletons in the closet" that are currently impacting the community, they need to be answered for. So while it may not be best for the group, I say let them try and see what kid of reforms we can get out of this.
Paige L TTH
I think Jackie's story perfectly highlights the stigma of rape victims. There is most likely some truth behind the story, but it leaves the question is she being too dramatic? Did she have sex with one of the boys and change her mind?
The boys shouldn't sue because just like most fraternity's coming to light these days there are probably some skeletons in their closet. The stories going viral are enough to clear their bad name. If they open the floor, worse things have the potential to be revealed and back lash on them.
I feel for Jackie and hope that in any case she is okay and looks at this as a learning experience. I would hope that her story having some false elements according to investigation does not stop women from speaking up and sharing their stories to stop the abuse.
I agree with Tobin and Smolla, if a lawsuit were to be sought it may bring out unwanted attention to the fraternity and the University of Virginia. A deep and thorough investigation would be held upon all members of the frat, which may reveal any “skeletons in the closet” it may have. If anything were to be found, news outlets could potentially use the information and publish it, exposing and further damaging the fraternity.
Does newsworthiness or giving media breathing space apply to this situation? It was wrong for Rolling Stone to publish the article without gathering more information and the stories of the other parties. If a lawsuit were to come about and Rolling Stone were to lose, this would have a large effect on other media outlets and their coverages of stories. The “chilling effect” under Sullivan would discourage media coverage of controversial topics and somewhat silence the harsh realities of such topics.
Now I don’t want to take sides or judge if Jackie’s story was untrue or not. I was not there and I do not know what happened. Many things could have happened that night. Her incident could have happened but with different students who were not of Phi Kappa Psi, she could have agreed to sexual activities but then did not want to participate any longer and was forced to, or maybe she was humiliated during the actions.
Whatever the truth is, this should be a learning lesson for all. Do not always believe everything you read or hear, if you are a news outlet make sure you thoroughly investigate multiple sides of a story, sexual assault cases should be handled in the manner it deserves (it is not a light subject) and for any large organization, do not put yourself in situations in which things like this may occur against you.
Regina, P. TTH 12:30
I believe that sexual assault cases on campuses are dramatically under reported because of our culture today where victim blaming is prevalent. If more victims came forward when the assault happened, they would be able to show that yes, this is a problem and it needs to be taken in a serious matter, no matter if the university experiences "shame." What's shameful is the university or organization NOT taking any action or not taking the claim seriously.
In response to the articles about Jackie and her story being shown that it may be false, according to evidence, I feel is a blow to society trying to overcome the hurdles we have with coming forth with sexual assault cases. When people do come forth, they are met with a disbelieving attitude and people who do "cry wolf" not only injure the people they are claiming attacked them, but themselves and other victims as well since if it were to actually happen, they will be met with the same disbelief.
A number of other students comments posted that they believe Jackie slept with a few members, and then got upset and cried rape, or some variation of that. The fact that a majority of students jump to this conclusion is an example of how prevalent rape culture is in our society. There are a number of reasons her story may not have added up, for example the fraternity could lie. Just because it was a frat sponsored event doesn't mean she didn't go out with a group of the guys to a house party that may have seemed like a frat sponsored event. (We've all been to one of those). But, to quickly write it off as "oh she's just a slut," is something that our society does and doesn't realize how demeaning it is.
I do think that if the Rolling Stone wanted to look into the story further without contacting the frat members like she requested they should've asked her to provide police reports or campus reports to prove that she had already reported this and the university did not respond. Without providing this, then there isn't proof that she ever reported this issue, and then the story of universities failing to respond to sexual assault isn't valid because they can't respond if it's not properly reported.
I do not think the frat should sue, although they may be upset. The fact that we all agree that it's because of "skeletons in the closet," is not the best representation of frat culture. Fraternities have become a place that we are all aware drugs, underage drinking, and questionable sexual behavior is conducted, and I'm not saying that every frat does this just like I'm not saying that there has never been an instance of a woman lying about rape, but Frats never seem to be the victims in society, yet we are all aware of the questionable moral decisions that go on behind closed doors. The power is in their hands, and that's why we shouldn't victim shame, but there needs to be serious investigation so members aren't wrongly punished as well.
Alexandria R. T-TH 11am
Allegations of rape has become a serious concern with fraternities nationwide. I find myself asking why this women would make up something as controversial as rape. Is she looking for attention? Is she trying to get payback on someone for something they may have done to her in the past? Or is she just physiologically disturbed? I believe that the Rolling Stone magazine jumped the gun on this one. A reporter looking for sensationalism, maybe. In this instance, I do not believe that responsible journalism was practiced and the Rolling Stone magazine paid for it in the end. This story reminds me of the recent allegations against TV actor Bill Cosby. No evidence to back up the women’s stories. I have always wondered when technology would reach the point of being able to tell when someone is lying. Yes, lie detectors have worked in the past but they are not 100 percent accurate. It’s a shame that those involved in Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia had to go through all of the stress and judgement over one women’s story that was proved to be untrue.
Sarah, A.
Online
Casey S, T/Th 12:30 p.m- 1:50pm.
Sexual assaults on college campus's are a huge issue now days, many go unreported and the victims are left traumatized and never fully recover. However regarding the case about Jackie she should of never cried wolf about being raped that's just wrong. Whether she was raped or not raped no one will ever truly know what happened, however in my opinion it sounds like to me that maybe that Jackie had a fling or one night stand with a few brothers and in response to feeling guilty maybe Jackie just decieded to accuse them of rape. I don't know really all I know is that the evidence doesn't seem to add up like she should. I do think rolling stone should of gone into the story more and did more research before posting the article a lot of this could of been avoided if they just did better investigated reporting. I don't think the frat should sue though like the article said if they do they will just put themselves on center stage and some skeletons could come out of the closet.
I usually identify as one of the "alternative types" so I generally have a strong disdain for greek life in general. However, in this case the police haven't really found any evidence that a sexual assault took place. Not to mention Rolling Stone breaking the news without properly checking their sources. These men and their organization are probably facing really improper criticisms because the facts just don't seem to add up. I definitely think that they could have a pretty good lawsuit come from this incident. At the same time I don't want their fraternity's specific case to draw attention away from the rampant issue of sexual assault on and near college campuses. Then again by filing suit against the university these guys are opening themselves up for even more attention and criticism, something they probably don't want.
Charles D. TTh
As a woman these sort of stories make me angry and conflicted. Sexual assault is a serious matter especially on college campuses where young people are living in close quarters and drinking is involved. I think Rolling Stones should have done a better job investigating this story knowing that these types of allegations would place a university and an entire group in negative national spotlight. I believe the university and the fraternity should be outraged not at the young lady, but at the negligence of Rolling Stone magazine despite the retraction of the story. Also, the fraternity and the university in my opinion have grounds to file a libel claim against the magazine. However, as stated in the article, it can be a risky, and the fraternity already won back the sentiment of the public.
I believe that Rolling Stone should not have published the article in the first place unless there was 100% certainty that the accusations indeed did happen. As our professor stated, I believe sexual assaults should be taken very seriously and handled immediately, but I don't believe the media should really have anything to do with it. At least until it's for sure that something happened and they're reporting it.
What a coincidence! A few days ago, I just watched an episode of Law & Order: SVU which was sort of similar to the case. The rape survivor was influenced by her professors and ended up not telling the truth about what happened to her on that night. NYPD and the media outlets believed what she said before getting more investigations. Her professors persuaded her to exaggerate her experience in order to get more attention from the society and hope to end this campus rape once and for all. However, this exaggeration did not help to end this situation but dragged it backward.
It is never easy to deal with these cases to all outlets. However, to the news media, the one that public has faith on, do require more carefulness and responsibility.
I think that the Rolling Stone should not have published the article with out getting all of the fact down or even getting more sources. Especially with out Jackie agreeing to talk more than the initial report. I don't think that the fraternity could sue and win though, because they are a large group and it is so difficult for a large group to win a libel case. Along with the fact that the story has newsworthy components that would be a strong case for the Rolling Stone.
Rachel W
T/Th
Rolling Stone should have been way more prepared and knowledgable about the issue before even attempting to write about the subject. As with any issue, It is a positive to bring attention to campus related sexual assaults because it is very important. Though this brings up the important issue, If she the sexual assault issue is not valid then it paints the fraternity in a negative light regardless, and everything after that is fuel to the fire.
The argument of the fraternity suing Rolling Stones is very interesting. The two issue that stick out to me the most is the fact that people say the fraternity should not pursue the lawsuit. Skeletons will come out and for a prolonged amount of time just as any case, which I definitely agree with. Also the fact that Rolling Stone took a more general approach to their accusations than a direct approach accusing the fraternity and not a singe group or person does make it more difficult.
Im not too good with the law thing but this is just my opinion from what i read.
Devin Tyler, TTH, 12:30
I'd like to start off by agreeing with that you said, "sexual assaults at college campuses are a serious issue that deserves serious discussion."
This being true, in my opinion, the worst possible way to discuss this topic is by failed journalism.
The way I see it, Rolling Stone had a hot subject, easy to release and catch fire in the media. They capitalized on the popularity of the topic, without first getting the facts and without consideration of the damages that Phi Psi would and did face.
It's a shame that the fraternity was best off not suing Rolling stone. However, as Charles Tobin mentioned in the Washington Post article, I agree suing would be a "colossal mistake."
I myself have a roommate, and many friends in fraternities. College is a time full of drinking, bad habits, mistakes and fuck ups(sorry, truth). With the possibilities of Rolling Stone's defense, picking apart the lives of many young men, it was better off simply taking the apology and picking up the pieces.
Jairus Popp
T/TH 12:30
I believe that under the precedent of New York Times v. Sullivan that the fraternity would lose a libel case against the Rolling Stone. In light of our discussion in class on Thursday, I know how important it is to leave room for false statements. Even though Jakie's statements might have been false, the article in the Rolling Stone does not specifically name anyone, therefore I do not think they could make a real claim that their reputations were damaged. I understand that it is bad to make accusations like this falsely, but suing the magazine is taking it too far. They published the article without knowledge of it being false, and without "actual malice." If this libel case does get taken to court and the fraternity happens to win, I think It will be a big step backwards in terms of free speech rights, and will only work to perpetuate things like victim shaming and rape culture.
Delaney T. (Honors)
I think that the topic of sexual assault is something that shouldn't be used as a joke. I feel like before the Rolling Stone released an article about the event, they should have gotten all of their facts straight with Jackie, the fraternity and even the police department. They decided not to interview "Drew" because of Jackie's request but I feel like in a story like this, since he is the main suspect, he should have been interviewed so it was not a one-sided story.
I believe Rolling Stone did the right thing by releasing a public apology, but I feel like they should have known better than to release an article without getting all the information possible.
Anne S. TTh
Currently, fraternities seem to be having a hard time keeping a clean slate from excessive hazing, sexual lawsuits, racism claims. I'm sure there are probably many cases where fraternity members go overboard with hazing and their treatment of women because of the alcohol consumption that goes on at their parties. I'm also sure many cases go unreported that probably should be reported, but in this particular case I believe the fraternity has a pretty good case in their favor and depending on their reputation could actually be the "hero" per se for many fraternities getting bad media attention. They could defiantly prove no fault to them in this case I believe, but they must make sure they have pretty clean backgrounds and good reputation before they press any charges.
Sean S. TTH
I believe that sexual assault is a problem that is not talked about enough. I don't understand why Jackie decided to make up this type of story. Either she was upset with some of the guys at this frat or just wanted some attention. With Jackie making up this lie and putting it out in the media, it makes it harder for people that are sexually assaulted to say something to someone because they might think they are lying. The Washington Post made me change my mind on the matter if the Frat should sue Rolling Stone. Washington Post quoted people on saying that if the frat sues they are only asking for people to dig deeper into what else the frat does. I am glad that Rolling Stones made a comment back to the public on the issue of them writing this article.
Brooke L. T/Th
What bothers me in the Rolling Stone article is that the Managing Editor states that the boy may have been from another fraternity and that he doesn't recognize Jackie. These things do not have to do with whether the allegations are true. As far as her getting cold feet, this is a completely understandable reaction. Being in the public eye and facing defamation herself, I would not want to further comment either. As to why she reported this to a public magazine is something that I won't understand (maybe she wanted justice, and a chance to be heard but when it got too public she just wanted to stay out of it) Yes, she was probably drunk so the facts may be a little skewed but I don't think a girl would go to such lengths as to report to a very public and known magazine that she was gang-raped if she didn't believe this had happened to her. Society's use of victim-blaming has made sure that anyone who shows weakness for a second will be completely humiliated and blamed. The police even say that the case is still open, and they do not confirm nor deny whether this is true or not. Given fraternities extensive history of sexual assault I do not think that she is "exaggerating" or crying wolf, these things happen all the time whether we would like to think so or not.
As far as Phi Kappa Psi's options, I would think it would be in their best interest to let this die down and not attract more negative and unwanted attention towards them. Whether the allegations are true or not, Jackie is facing embarrassment in the public eye as well, so if it is "revenge" that the frat wants, they have gotten it. As far as the Rolling Stones Magazine is concerned this reminds me of NYTimes v. Sullivan where the magazine believed that what they were publishing was true thus there is no case against them.
It is unfortunate the things that occur when you get a big group of guys and alcohol together (especially when those guys are very privileged), and it is even more unfortunate when they get away with very inappropriate things. If what Jackie said is true then I am glad that Phi Psi is getting bad publicity.
Reading through the comments above I agree with most of my fellow classmates. I do think it is a good idea that the fraternity didn't pursue a lawsuit against rolling stone or Jackie.
I think a lot of what the lawyers were saying in the Washington post article made sense about the group not being able to sue because they were a large group. I also didn't think it was a good idea because a lot of the negative press has seemed to shift over from the fraternity to the Rolling Stone and Jackie, I think they are taking most of the scrutiny now. This did make me curious about how large groups are protected, if they are at all, because had Jackie's accusations been true then negative connotation would have gone along with any member who admitted they were even just a member of that fraternity..
On a side note it lows my mind a little bit that this girl, Jackie would even make up something like this. That she would fabricate a story of this consequence and not think of the repercussions that would come from it.
Adrienne D. T,TH-12:30
This story has me feeling very conflicted.
On the one hand, sexual assault is a huge problem on college campuses across the nation. Many people like Jackie have spoken out against their attackers without receiving any sort of justice.
On the other hand, Rolling Stone should have done a much better job vetting this article, and the author should have done a better job investigating and verifying sources.
I don't expect the fraternity to win their lawsuit, as it's going to be really hard for them to prove actual malice. Hopefully this incident will lead to some good, by preventing future assaults and arresting attackers, and forcing Rolling Stone to improve its reporting.
James C.
Tuesday/Thursday
This just came at a bad time because people are just getting off the SAE anger bus only to see this. At first, I thought "Great, even more frat problems" but then the next article saying there was no proof to Jackie's claim created a back and forth situation for me. Could she have been raped? Possibly. Could she be making up the story because she didn't like something that happened between her and one of the frat guys there? Also possible. I agree that Phi Psi shouldn't pursue it any further because there's a pretty good chance that they have "skeletons in the closet" just like the article said. If they are innocent though, it sucks that they'll probably be put next to SAE even if some of the members are actually good people.
Marcos E., Online
I personally think that it wouldn't be bright of the fraternity to sue. I do think action needs to be taken in some direction because the details of this story are horrific, however I think starting a lawsuit would only exacerbate the issue beyond the complications it already is causing for the fraternity, its members nationwide, and the university.
Meredith B. TTh
Situations like these never leave anyone unscathed. The discrepancies in Jackie's story could add to the "Girl who cried wolf" mentality that often overshadows the physical and emotional damage of sexual assault. Her story has been discredited, and it may cause for other claims of sexual assault to be discredited as well (which is a shame because sexual assault is a very serious issue). On the other hand, Phi Psi suing for harm to the chapter and their reputation does not seem wise on their part. I've heard Martinez say at least 20 times, "Don't go to court with dirty hands." Phi Psi putting the spotlight on themselves may uncover more atrocities that have been swept under the rug. In my opinion, if Phi Psi sues, it will backfire.
Matt Shoewalter, TTh 12:30
I do think it was wrong for Rolling Stone magazine to write an article about an alleged gang rape by fraternity brothers without knowing actual full proof of what happened. Even though several other articles have been published stating the Rolling Stone made a mistake and was sorry for the false accusations, this is a serious situation and mistakes like this can't be made. The subject matter of rape on campuses is a big deal and the Rolling Stone felt they could produce an article that would catch the attention of many people. Once again, the problem with this is author didn't get correct facts nor was thinking about the damages the fraternity could take from impact of the article. On the other hand, if Jackie was a victim of rape, I hope she gets the help and justice she deserves.
I also believe the fraternity shouldn't file a lawsuit against Rolling Stone, because it's going to be hard to prove actual malice. Being one of the biggest popular culture magazines in the world, Rolling Stone will do everything in their power to dig up bad press about the fraternity and its brothers.
Cody Z. TTh 12:30
Rolling Stone magazine and libel
My first thought was to question why “Jackie” stopped communicating with the police and leaving them to conduct an investigation the hard way through tracking phone records and bank accounts. This makes it a bit suspicious as to why she is no longer defending her original stance which is a serious matter.
I do not think that Rolling Stone magazine was in pursuit to put out anything defamatory towards the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, rather than elaborating on Jackie’s allegations.
However, I believe that sexual assault on university campuses is a serious matter and that this article has helped bring attention to the issue in that there is a need for universities to take serious precautions to decrease the threat of sexual assault.
Because there is yet to be a conclusion to the story as the police say, it is hard to say who is in the wrong, the fraternity, or a woman who is possibly making up a rape story for attention. Although, I could never understand why anyone would make up such a story on such serious matters.
Rolling Stone magazine did right by Jackie to not release any names or information because of the possible danger it may cause Jackie in the event that her allegations are false.
Marco L T/TH
When reading these articles and the background for Jackie's claims, I do not think it would be wise for the fraternity to attempt to sue the Rolling Stone. As they said, they published with the idea that the content was factual, and have since apologized for their mistake. As the first article explained, it would not be wise for the fraternity to sue because of all of the possible "skeletons" that could be uncovered. While those shouldn't be a factor in influencing the rape case, if those skeletons are dug up, it is possible they could be shut down as a whole instead of trying to just recoup from the allegations.
I am interested to see what happened in actuality - though Jackie has stuck to her first claim despite the discrepancies in her facts.
I would hope that if her claims are true, which seem to be less and less of a possibility, that the university would take proper action.
Katie Coleman - Honors
After reading both the articles I would have to agree with the Washington Post. A lot of national greek organizations are widely known for different things. If this fraternity would decide to take it to court there is always going to be additional research within that organization and secrets will for sure be released whether they like it or not. In a way they may feel they should seek justice, but they must keep in mind that if there's something they don't want additional outsiders to find out, they should expect for further investigation from officials, etc. I feel this case is very severe, and considering the fact rolling stone is a well known magazine along with the fraternity, it's hard to determine who would even win this case because a private figure has a higher advantage of winning than a public figure.
Chelsea Cua
Online
I do not think that it would be wise for the frat to sue the Rolling Stones.
Jackie needs to be careful about the claims she is making. Hopefully she is in the right but she seems to be very upset and shaken about things.
I think that rape should always be taken very seriously and i do not think that the rolling Stones were in the wrong, they were only publishing what Jackie has already stated. I feel that the frat would lose this case.
Morgan D, TTH
This is beyond a journalist getting facts wrong, omitting facts, not following up on obvious red flags, etc. The Rolling Stone editors failed to do basic fact-checking, basic verification. A few simply telephone calls to learn that there was no party at the fraternity on the night Jackie claimed she was raped would have put the brakes on the story. A couple of other phone calls could have blown it up thoroughly.
The problem is Rolling Stone wanted this story to be true, and pushed it forward. That's not journalism. True journalism is digging for the truth, and then questioning and verifying the information you receive. None of that happened here.
-Jaquavion C. TTH
I agree that sexual assault and rape are very serious matters. I think the frat could potential win this case. Rolling Stone should have waited to report this story in order to get the truth.
- Shane Scholwinski TTH
After reading this, I found it to be a little sad that nothing was really resolved. It sounded like something really did happen to Jackie, but she might have made a mistake with the facts. I'm sure even if Rolling Stones Magazine would have tried to get the other side of the story, they wouldn't have been very successful.
If they would have tried to sue, like the article said, nothing good would have come out of it. I'm sure they would have found other things wrong with the fraternity and the whole point would have been looked over.
Analicia D TTH
I agree on the thought that a lawsuit against Rolling Stone would be a risky move on part of the fraternity, it definitely would only bring out skeletons. I feel like for someone to come forward with a story like this, something must have happened, but the allegations against the fraternity were severe enough that it was too reckless on the report's part to not get the other side of the story. I don't know if what Jackie claimed is completely true or not, but I do know that a reporter has a duty to report the story fairly when it contains accusations as detrimental as rape to someone's reputation.
Blair B. TTh
It seems that Rolling Stone magazine got caught in a peculiar situation, what they essentially got in trouble for was respecting the wishes of the victim. But at the same time such a high profile magazine should know better than to publish a story without reaching out to all stakeholders. Serious allegation require serious proof.
I can understand how it would be smart for the fraternity to not get too high and mighty about the situation and start suing Rolling Stone. While the issue of rape allegations can not be proven there is a lot of things fraternities like to keep under-wraps, which would most definitely be brought to light if they chose to step foot into a court room.
Evelyn B. TTH
I find it pretty fascinating how incredibly complicated an allegation can be. I Can't imagine having to consider all of the potential consequences as a result of pursing a lawsuit or even just responding to a claim. It seems that there is a large difference between the theory of obtaining justice and how the actual legal system works.
Josue P. Honors
Duboulet, K.; Online class:
I agree that suing Rolling Stone would be a mistake. The size of the group is too large, especially considering “Jackie” only spoke of nine members; members that fit no discernible description of any know frat members. Rolling Stone also issued a statement clarifying the issue & taking full responsibility.
On closer scrutiny, it would seem that there is something amiss with “Jackie’s” story. I find that annoying. I don’t believe accusations such as those should ever be made unless there is 100% veracity. I believe that to do otherwise is an extreme disservice to any woman who has ever endured such a crime.
What I find interesting is the fact that what should have been first addressed as criminal activity, was revealed through a national magazine. While I understand sexual assault is a traumatic experience in which one may have trouble going to authorities, she was obviously comfortable enough to share her story with the country. If she had first gone to the police, and addressed the situation, it would not have turned into a very public media scandal in which her sincerity was in question. In my opinion, the fact that she shared the story so openly with the magazine does bring her validity into question.
That being said, the Rolling Stone should have also considered the repercussions of publishing the article. The school could have remained anonymous, so they should have further investigated the allegations before publishing potential libel.
Cara F.
Honors
Sexual assaults are a serious issue and I feel like Jackie's story and this issue with Rollingstone only makes things worse. Women are hardly believed when they manage to build the courage to speak up for themselves and because Jackie's story is discredited, I think it will only make people more incredulous about other women and their allegations.
I understand Rollingstone was trying to be sensitive to Jackie's situation but Jackie made serious allegations and I think they should have been investigated further just as in any other case. I realize that Rollingstone may have wanted to shine light on an issue that is of high-importance today but a one-sided story is not fair. It's not true journalism.
On another note, I do not think the fraternity should seek to sue. I don't believe they will be successful because of the groups size and because "Drew" was never identified as a brother. They should really thnk about what this investigation would do to their personal lives and the kinds of things that could be exposed because of it.
Dalia M. TTH
Many college campuses are all dealing with serious issues, such as rape, and other sexual assaults on a daily basis it seems. The situations that occur create more awareness to everyone in the area and let people know just how serious the matter can be.
In the articles, it does seem like Jackie’s situation become a he-said-she-said format. She claimed one thing and the fraternity claims another. How do you know who is or is not lying for “fluffing” their story? On the other hand, both articles were missing both sides of the story. Even with being said, both articles stated that the situation was not worth suing anyone over. There was no hard evidence for Jackie to hold on to and The Rolling Stones magazine should have been smarter with their judgment call about publishing a topic that they did not have all the facts for.
The situation is upsetting and unpleasant on any level and most likely will never be resolved. When talking about libel and how libel suits are never just black and white, reminds us all that sexual assaults happen and we either let it ruin you or you move on and learn from it and let it make your stronger.
-Alisen Barton T/TH
I agree with a lot of comments other students have stated above. Overall, it is highly important as a journalist to dig deep in investigating the story, fact checking and making sure you have as much information as you can on the case before even thinking about publishing it. I think that Rolling Stones magazine needed to make sure all of their information was correct and that they had as many details as possible before publishing a story about this matter. Sexual assault is a very serious problem that needs to be completely investigated on the facts of the situation before just publishing something that has so many details and making sure to investigate all sides to the story. As for Jackie and other people making claims like this, it is so important to tell the truth. This is a serious issue and involves a number of people and the truth must be told.
Kayla Frazier T/TH
It would be a mistake for Phi Kappa Psi to sue. It’s an open case with a vague description of the accused, and the potential for more harmful publicity. Modern fraternities generally carry an infamous connotation. The recent University of Oklahoma incident has done nothing but reinforce this. I believe suing Rolling Stone would draw more light to fraternity offenses and encourage more news and campus media to speak up about fraternity misconduct at various universities. If fraternities want to change their publicity, they should by example, not by suing. On a separate note, when women falsely accuse of sexual assault they do a disservice to other women. They cause real victims of sexual assault to question whether their claim will be taken seriously.
Erin Hampe T/Th
I believe the article all over look was not bad, because again it is creating awareness to the horrible situation of sexual assault and rape. These situations need more attention especially on college campuses.
First, with the article about Jackie, I do believe she should have thought before she spoke up. It seemed like her story was true and believable and then she started changing her facts and mind. That is where she went wrong, you need to be completely truthful in order to have an law in a situation like this. She could end up hurting a group of men and then they might end up not having anything to do with it.
On behave of the rolling stone I do not think they were wrong in publishing the article again, because it brings awareness to the situation and makes it seem real. Now I do not believe the fraternity should sue, because yes I beileve all secrets will come out with the case. I think Jackie needs to be truthful about the situation and if her facts end up lining up then the university should punish the fraternity.
Shelby C, TTh
I understand why the Rolling Stone chose not contact the assaulters in order to honor Jackie and be sensitive to her shame and emotional instability, but this decision really ended up biting them in the butt.
This could have been a great opportunity to expose and spark conversation about an important issue on college campuses, but since the article made so many accusations without sufficient evidence, the buzz became focused on the fraternities reputation rather than the real issue at hand.
Lucky for the Rolling Stone the fraternity will not likely sue, because of the other doors that may open and because it will not likely be a successful case since they are a large group.
Kelsey H, TTH
Even though Jackie's story seems to be shaky and untruthful in parts of her story. Reporting a rape in the first place is a big deal and a lot to take when you're the victim. I do think, she needed to be truthful in what she said and not make things up because that can harm someone's else reputation. I do believe that that night, Jackie went through something, it might not have been a gang rape but it seems to me she did get assaulted. And there needs to be a further investigation for her, instead of focusing that it wasn't a Phi Kappa Psi guys. Sexual assault is a big problem today in many campuses. Some schools push these accusations aside without even any punishment or anything. It blows that Jackie didn't tell the truth and now, it'll be harder for girls or guys to report but there's a bigger picture to all of this. But, the reality is something did happen to Jackie.
The fact that the Rolling Stone knows that it was there fault by only hearing one side of the story and saying to not blame Jackie is respectable and I agree. Rolling Stone should have contacted the alleged assaulters even if Jackie didn't want them to. It's there job to get the full story and not part of it because then that is how you get yourself in a sticky situation. You need to make sure facts are all there and everyone that say were there are accounted for before going public. For suing, the Rolling Stones didn't say any names and only called out the Phi Kappa Psi house so I don't think there's much of a libel case. They could find another way to sue with a different defense.
Roslyn B. TTH
Though there is no way for me to tell for certain, it seems like Jackie fabricated certain elements of her story. I would bet that there was some kind of sexual interaction between her and one of the members at some point in time that caused conflict between them, resulting in her becoming emotional enough to lie (again, just my guess based on the information I have read).
If Jackie was lying about her statement, that puts a whole different spin on who the true victim(s) are. In this story, it seems like the fraternity is the victim, not Jackie. I would like to believe that all women are brave enough to tell the truth, especially when it's such a devastating topic, but in this particular incident I believe Jackie was being reckless. She (if she did lie) should have had more consideration for the fraternity's reputation as a whole.
After reading more about this story, I learned that the fraternity lost pledges, money and their good reputation following the incident. Apparently, people graffiti-ed their house as well. So, while Jackie was the initial "victim", I believe the fraternity as a whole became the true victim in the end, and the Rolling Stone's disregard for the whole truth didn't help.
- Kimberly S. TTh
I do not understand why Rolling Stone would not at least attempt to contact those accused by the victim. I believe that alone proves sloppy journalism. I do however understand the sensitivity of the situation and that those at Rolling Stone were not aware that this story would end up being false. BUT there is also something to be said about the way the magazine went about their investigation. I think this also proves sloppy journalism with the article clearly taking the side of Jackie. Although you may sympathize with the victim, as a reporter you are taught not to be biased and to get every angle of the story. That automatic bias toward believing everything Jackie was saying just shows this article was written by someone with lack of respect for true journalism. Rolling Stone failed to do so, and it turn, a well-known magazine ended up making a fool of themselves.
This article being published in such a popular magazine would've really shed some light on sexual assault on college campuses. However, the focus landed on the lack of professionalism, rather than the content that was intended. Also, no one got fired over this. That blows my mind. Libel, defamation, and everything we've learned so far is involved with this case, yet no one is being punished for it. As a journalist, this makes me sick.
I don't think the fraternity is looking to sue the magazine, even though I think the group would have a shot at winning. Yes, it's a big group, but I believe it is small enough to have a legit case. Besides, Rolling Stone kind of shot their credibility and reputation in the foot.
Kirsten Sledge 12:30 TTH
I think the thing that is most upsetting about this situation is the fact that it will make it harder for women to come forward when they have been raped. There is already enough stigma and victim blaming attached to rape, and situations like these add fuel to the potential for people to question the validity of other rape claims. I understand why the fraternity may want to take legal action, but I think it is unwise. For one, the claim has already been publicly announced as being false or not factual. Second, the libel case would be a long, drawn out case that may put more unwanted attention on the frat, while continuing the cycle of victim blaming, and putting unfair scrutiny on other allegations of rape. This could have been avoided had the reporter lived up to journalistic responsibility, and had the editors of Rolling Stone ensured the claims were factual. This whole situation does draw attention to the issue of rape on campus, but not in a good way... it ultimately hurts women.
Natalie J- T/TH HON
I believe that Rolling Stone and the writer should have taken the time to do some more fact checking and looked into both sides of the story. When "Jackie" produced this incredible story, but said no, no , no you can't talk to the people I'm accusing, that should have been a major red flag. As far as the fraternity suing, it is a shame that it is assumed they have skeletons in the closet and should just give up a lawsuit. If it is the case that the fraternity is trying to keep other past transgressions hidden, then maybe they should just be content with the retraction and apologies. Although universities will most likely be under more scrutiny to properly investigate these claims, the way Rolling Stone went about bringing this issue to light is less than ethical.
Alexander H. TTH
It's unfortunate that sexual assault only gets this much attention when it is in regards to an incident like this rather than the fact that sexual assault actually needs to be addressed. The news of it all causes people to be desensitized to sexual assault cases because the news is only covering scandals not the incident in itself.
Rolling Stone should have put in more of an effort to check the facts of the story. If I worked there, I would find a creative way to do an article or report in support of a campaign for sexual assault victims. That way, the matter is directly addressed rather than only reported on for news purposes.
-Jessica Weiss T/TH
This whole situation just seems like a mess. Just like many others have commented on here, I agree that Rolling Stones should have done more investigating and asking questions before publishing an article like that. That being said, if the fraternity or individual members of the fraternity attempted to sue Rolling Stones I do not think they would win. We have discussed in class how it is difficult for large groups to sue for libel. Also, I think if they try to sue it will reveal some “skeletons in the closet,” as the article says. The Rolling Stones and other organizations should take this as a learning experience.
Now, I do not have the best opinion of fraternities so I can’t help but question them. Did the fraternity really gang rape Jackie, and maybe intimidate her later to keep quiet after the issue started coming to light? If they didn’t gang rape her, did they do something to her? If Jackie was not gang raped then shame on her. She should not be throwing around accusations like that, especially because of how sensitive these topics are for many people. Adding on to my last statement, a woman (or man) who IS gang raped in the future might be afraid to speak up because of how this incident played out, and that would be an unfortunate situation.
-Valerie Villarreal T/TH
Being a PR major, as many of us are, I want to address the action Rolling Stone made after the article was written. Good on them for admitting they should have looked further into the story and interviewed other people. They handled the mistake correctly and took responsibility, as well as stating that the fault was not on Jackie. It is unfortunate that the article with seemingly false allegations was published in the first place, but they did what they could to apologize and take credit for their less-than-stellar reporting.
The issue at hand here is a sensitive topic, no matter which side you're seeing it from. The evidence suggests that the statements Jackie made were defamatory, but I agree with the Washington Post article. The fraternity should not try and sue Rolling Stone. It would cause more of a mess than it already has. Rolling Stone has admitted they were wrong, and it would be hard for the fraternity as a whole to sue, as was said in the Washington Post article. Everything as it stands now is calm enough to where all parties involved should move on from it.
Jamie Hooker TTh
Campus rape and all rape in general is inhumane. Unfortunately in this case, the rape victim, Jackie, was timid and reluctant to give any specific names and other details out to the media. Since she did not disclose important details to public officers and other investigators, not much evidence could be found and therefore this case remains suspended until further evidence is presented. I think that even though there is not sufficient evidence in this case to arrest members in the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity in Virginia, it still should be looked at it in the bigger scope of things. Many women are fearful of stepping forward, even in today’s society. The last thing we should do is make them feel more afraid by putting the blame on them. However, there is also no evidence that she was being truthful. In this regard, I think the Rolling Stone, the Washington Post and the police officer, who spoke on this topic, were very reasonable and took a responsible approach in handling this situation.
Rodney Smolla and Charles Tobin both said, in the Washington Post article, the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity could inadvertently expose the “rats in the closet” if they tried to sue for libel and defamation against the Rolling Stone. Similarly, I believe that the Rolling Stone’s speech is protected under the first Amendment and if the fraternity brought the Rolling Stone to court, the ruling would most likely be in favor of the magazine, especially looking at the precedent cases involving libel in recent circumstances.
I think this whole situation is indicative of a larger problem that's been going on for decades, I suppose, maybe even centuries. Newspapers feel entitled to act like a case is already decided, when there's been basically no evidence presented. I guess they pick whichever side can be played for the most emotional drama, and go all in on that side.
This situation seems to me to have worked itself out. A libel lawsuit surely won't happen; that'd be pretty stupid, by all accounts. I don't think the frat has that much more of a bad rap now than it did before; the Rolling Stone article has been pretty much universally condemned as irresponsible journalism.
The thing is, that doesn't mean this kind of thing never has adverse consequences. It reminds me of the Trayvon Martin case. The national media whipped everyone into such a frenzy that the governor of Florida (I believe it was him; it was someone with that kind of power) revived the case as a second-degree murder case to gain political points, when it was virtually impossible to prove second-degree murder. Something like manslaughter would have been a lot more realistic, but because of the way the media treated it, George Zimmerman was prosecuted for second-degree murder and ended up going free.
I used to be a journalism major, and I was taught to get both sides of a story, at least nominally. Seeing stuff like this where the media tries to turn themselves into vigilante justice frustrates me.
- Jackson Hvizdos, Honors
The Rolling Stone case is one that tears me into two. On one side, the journalist inside of me wants punish the magazine for the mishandling of such an important issue that is now being turned into a different issue. Here we are forced to sympathize with these men and shame the person who lied. In a society where we are so quick to place labels on people, I fear that one might want to negate the rape culture by saying “these girls just want attention” or “I bet she’s mad at one of them.” It is unfortunate that the execution of the article was a failure in which an entire school organization was accused without any evidence.
On the other hand, as someone who has a personal experience with this subject matter I understand how difficult it is for someone to come forward with rape allegations. I think it is very important to not judge sexual assault victims, for it only intimidates others from coming forward with similar situations. The issue comes down a lot to legality. The lack of proof. The lack of cooperation from the victim. And ultimately did Rolling Stone have the place to write this article? I commend Rolling Stone in their attempt to tackle this issue.
Yes, rape is an important issue and we need to remember that women and men are raped. Would the story be handled differently if that was the case? From personal stories I’ve heard and the issue of assault and abuse in schools, such as Bell v. Itawamba County School Board that failed to be addressed properly, I do agree that the press has the ultimate right to report on it if a change is not being made. I cannot see the case of defamation having much standing in the courts when we’ve seen in cases like New York Times v Sullivan that libel is a hard case to prove. Ultimately Rolling Stone won’t have much to worry legally, I don’t think, but credibility of Rolling Stone is in question. Ultimately, I am happy that this issue is addressed.
Ricardo Vargas-Honors
Ryan M TTh
I think that it was bad journalistic practice by Rolling Stone not to get multiple sources. By not doing so this caused an uproar at the University of Virginia, and a negative image of the university and Phi Kappa Psi. During the time before it was revealed that there was no evidence supporting the gang rape the fraternity and it's members were most likely treated as criminals, and I'd assume either after it was revealed too. Unfortunately I don't think they can claim libel because of the size of the group, but a tarnished reputation is tough to recover from. Overall I think its a shame that the girl would lie about the incident in the first place, but it comes down to the journalist to know the whole story before publishing. That being said, Rolling Stone isn't regarded as the source of journalistic excellence.
It's hard to trust news outlets sometimes because they are constantly looking for the "big story." That can affect the way an article is written and the truth might be stretched to make the story more "newsworthy." No matter what your opinion is about rape on campus and this situation in particular, it's important to keep in mind that you cannot always trust what you read. News is NOT one sided and it's crucial to get as many angles of a story as possible before jumping to conclusions. If the Rolling Stone author who wrote the story would've kept this in mind maybe the story would be different and so would people's reaction to it.
- Erin P (T TH)
The way that Rolling Stone made a gigantic mistake in publishing this article. Not only did they only use one source making it a one-sided story, they basically put a giant target on the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. Despite this, I think pursuing a lawsuit would be a huge mistake by the fraternity. Not only would it open up the fraternity to the uncovering of "skeletons in the closet" like the article states, but it would also be very unlikely that they would win. The Phi Kappa Psi fraternity is a very large organization. This makes it much harder to win any kind of defamatory lawsuit.
-Brent Johnson T/Th 12:30
Sierra K
Honors
First, I would like to say that any woman that has been sexually assaulted should not be victim-shamed and should absolutely come forward with what happened to her but also be 100% truthful about it. If this unfortunate occurrence happened to an innocent woman, it should not be taken lightly or brushed off. In this instance, Rolling Stone took this story and published it to bring awareness to the issue and I applaud that. Sadly, society usually sweeps sensitive issues like this under the rug, rather than bringing them to light.
Because Rolling Stone published the story without any of the information being knowingly false, I don’t think that the fraternity has much of a case for a libel suit against Rolling Stone. Many experts on the issue commented in the Washington Post article that a libel suit will cause more harm than good for the fraternity, and I have to agree.
Considering the circumstances here, I think that Rolling Stone made an honest mistake by not getting both sides of the story and investigating further and they did admit that in their statement. They listened to and believed a woman’s tragic story and did something proactive about it. Although the allegations may have been false, the fraternity is under major unwanted public scrutiny, and bringing it to court will allow for even more of that.
I think that Phi Kappa Psi should publicly accept Rolling Stone’s apology and the truth will be known to everyone that the issue is pertinent to.
I think it's so sad that Rolling Stone put out the article. It's becoming a lot more common that news outlets are putting out stories just to clicks and shares on social media sites. It's becoming a lot more common for news sites to have non-truthful stories. I think it's so sad that the girl lied about the incident but rolling stone should have interviewed for more sources. If the fraternity decides to sue they should be very aware to the fact that this case might open a can of worms. My advice would be to just let it be.
Kendra B (TTH)
Whether Jackie's story is true or not, sexual assault should not happen at all in any instance. There's one question that I have, if Jackie was sexually assaulted why didn't she go to the police instead of the Rolling Stones? What was so special about the Rolling Stone that made her want to finally tell what happened? The magazine can't bring justice to her situation or punish those who harmed her. With no evidence to prove Jackie's story to be true makes it seem like she was only seeking attention. Sexual assault is not right in any way, but neither is lying about it.
Diamond C. TTH 12:30
Let me first off say that any sexual assault no matter the location or age is despicable by anyone. And us as a society need to put a stop to this.From what I read in the Washington Post article the police had not yet come to a decision if a crime was committed or not to the victim, due to lack of evidence and discrepancies from the victims and other peoples recall of the night of the alleged sexual assault. If it turned out that the victim fabricated the story it is a true hit to her credibility, Rolling Stones judgement of posting the story without all the facts and the reputation of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. Even after Rolling Stones retracted the story it has still left and aftermath after. Journalists of all genres should be upset with Rolling Stone for not obtaining all the facts before publishing such a powerful article that affected so many people. Journalists reputations already get enough bad rep for only caring about getting the scope ahead of everyone else. Stuff like this cannot happen. Another issue that is upsetting is the fact Phi Kappa Psi has everyone telling them they should not look to sue and be compensated for the defamatory story Rolling Stones published, for the reason of "skeletons in their closet" may be brought up in the legal battle. Which is wrongful considering the issue is not their credibility, but the issue of being the victim of a premature writer publishing a story to a national platform and extremely hurting the perception and reputation of the fraternity. No matter what the outcome may come out to be the entire process of this situation has been shit from the beginning and does not look to get any better any time soon.
Saul G.
TTH 12:30-1:50
This issue is very sensitive. You can go to the extreme and just say she made it all up, if there is no evidence. But you have to put yourself in her shoes. Why would someone just totally make up something so horrible. I think its either one of two reasons. Either she is just being a malicious girl and trying to get back at them, or something really did happen. Maybe the incident wasn't as extreme as she described it, but something could have go on. There is a very fine line in college rape situations. There is usually drugs/alcohol involved and so it's hard to say what was too far the next morning. If the person doesn't remember exactly what they did or said to keep it from happening then it's hard to say if it was forced or just wasn't known. This is a horrible thing that happens all around the world. Life isn't far, but like my mom said "Don't put yourself in those types of situations."
Ashley Motherwell
Why someone would accuse anyone of committing something that is so serious and terrifying in our world today is beyond me. Sexual assault is nothing to joke around about and whether she made this up or truly was confused on who did it, she went with the story and was not honest in the first place. As if it isn't already hard enough for one to come forward about being a victim of sexual assault, she made it even harder on her self by not being one hundred percent honest.
Yes, this group may be too large to say that any of the individuals reputations were harmed but their fraternity as a whole will definitely have a negative reputation from now on even though the alleged victim is now saying it might not have been that exact fraternity.
Morgan Schultz, TTh
I agree that sexual assault is nothing to wrongfully accuse anyone of, but it was never proven that she wrongfully accused them, it was only said that there wasn't sufficient evidence if I'm not mistaken. Also if I'm thinking of the correct case, the accuser was an exotic dancer hired as the entertainment and they allegedly assaulted her. I remember thinking to myself when she came forward that she was probably going to get quite a bit of backlash because of her profession and maybe that is why she backed away from publicly speaking about the incident. And I can also see the Fraternity's side, if they we indeed wrongfully accused then that could affect the organization as a whole, I'm sure the article had a negative effect in their pledges that semester which would decrease the amount of money the fraternity was able to bring in from pledges and philanthropy.
I wonder if the article published by Rolling Stone said that the members "allegedly raped" the accuser or if the article read that they "did rape" the victim. In my eyes if they said it allegedly happened then they were just reporting something that was news worthy and the public had a right to know. That's my two cents.
Tues/Thursday
12:30-1:50
I believe that we live in a time where people are constantly trying to put out the most hard-hitting stories/tweets/posts in the quickest amount of time, and that can often lead to stories not being well-developed and, in Rolling Stones' case, inaccurate. This super fast-paced news/social media reporting can spread a lot of misinformation in a very short time, which puts many people in hot water. Everyone (media students, reporters, consumers of media, etc.) should try to take our time, make sure to fact-check, and be more responsible in general with what we put into the universe and "cloud" in order to minimize the spread of misinformation and situations like Rolling Stone/UVa. Everyone's in a rush these days; taking time is nearly a lost art form.
In my opinion, Rolling Stone made a poor judgment in their reporting, and they probably should've talked to a few more sources before deciding whether or not to publish the rape story. This just further complicates and clutters up an already touchy subject of sexual assault and harassment. Sadly, the original issue at hand doesn't even seem to be the focus anymore.
Taryn P.
TTh
Sexual assaults are serious and horrible, bottom line. But so is wrongfully accusing someone of an act like that. The publication of the article by Rolling Stone was wrong when they didn't fully investigate the story. No matter the situation, you gotta do your due diligence. Suing the magazine, at fist, seems like a good idea, but as already mentioned, would probably cause more harm than good to the frat. People already know some things on the surface about frats, having a full blown national investigation shouldn't be the next step.
Bo B. TTh
After reading the article from The Washington Post and the statement from Rolling Stones, it's hard to not be upset with Rolling Stones.
First off, it is completely unprofessional to not do a complete fact-check of the story you are writing especially when it's a story such as this one. Secondly, the fact that some of the things said in the article were fabricated is so unethical. Reporters are supposed to report fact, not assumption. It's sad because rape is such a difficult conversation right now and doing anything that stands in the way of solving the problem is not helpful.
I also agree that the fraternity at University of Virginia should not file a lawsuit because it would just end up hurting them worse and they probably wouldn't even win. The community is punishing Rolling Stones now.
Harrison H. T Th
So many thoughts come to my mind after reading these articles. As a former student of a university that emphasizes the importance of greek life, as UVA does, my first exposure to fraternities was not a positive experience. Hell, my group of friends and I all went to a frat party our freshmen year during bid week and ended up blacking out, not remembering what exactly happened that night. Turns out, the fraternity but barbiturates in the punch they were distributing to the girls. Now, I'm not saying that this girl shouldn't be scrutinized if her story was, in fact, false, but I personally believe there MUST be more to it than what we've been told. After all, none of these "credible" media outlets considered double-checking her statements, which is a critical function in journalism. Everyone involved, the young woman, the fraternity, and Rolling Stone, all could've done their part to better the situation. As for the libel case I agree with Rodney Smolla and Charles Tobin, two attorneys that commented on the Washington Post article. If the fraternity moves forward with the defamation/libel case, it's going to expose all of their transgressions whether they pertain to the case or not. Also, if it turns out that the young man who allegedly orchestrated the rape isn't even associated with the fraternity then how is an ENTIRE fraternity going to sue ? Are the alums of the fraternity going to sue as well?
Sydney Johnson
T/Th Honors
Rape on college campuses is an important topic that needs to be discussed. Rolling Stone took this story and made a mockery of it. The editors and the journalist should be fired. These actions are reprehensible, and now victims are going to come across as liars. It is a shame that this journalist didn't use good judgement and do simple fact checking. Now this topic has left people with a sour taste in their mouth. I don't think the fraternity should sue Rolling Stone because you can't hide all the skeletons. Something is going to come out, and it is not going to be pretty.
Adrianna Garcia T/Th 12:30
It sounds to me like Jackie wasn't too sure herself what really happened and because of this, that facts about what really happened that night were not reported to the Rolling Stone Magazine accurately. The magazine didn't take the time to find out all the facts prior to publishing the story and then had to publish a sort of an apology for publishing the story with false facts.
It must have been really hard and difficult for Phi Kappa Psi members to recover from this kind of bad publicity. I'm not saying they are completely innocent but for the entire chapter group to be defamed must have been hard on its members who are just trying to do good by their chapter.
Rolling Stone really shouldn't have published that article without confirming what they were told. Pretty much the first thing we are taught, preparing for the field of media, is that we must have multiple sources for our stories. There is no excuse for this. Reporting a story like this, unconfirmed and now very contested, only perpetuates victim-shaming. Jackie, it seems, lied about the incident and now other girls, who really may be telling the truth, could possibly be scared to tell their story for fear of ridicule. When media outlets don't report the truth, the public is left skeptical which is what could very possibly happen in the future when they report on stories of sexual assault that are actually true.
I agree with pretty much everyone else that the fraternity shouldn't sue. With all that's going on with fraternities recently, they're not in a good position to win.
Karen Munoz T/TH 12:30
I think it's sad that the Rolling Stone only got one side of the story. The girl probably had an issue with a few of the guys in the fraternity and wanted revenge. It was very unprofessional of the Rolling Stone to publish a story this serious without at least hearing what Phi Kappa Psi had to say aboout it. However, it may cause the fraternity more harm if they do go through with the lawsuit because other secrets may be revealed.
Kellie Stritz T/Th
After reading the articles, it seems like a complicated situation that definitely needs to be further investigated.
Some of my first reactions when reading though, is why would she choose to come public about it but not be able to correctly identify the right guys or even fraternity the gang rape involved? This does, perhaps make her an unreliable source. Also the fact that other claims she made didn't add up.
I think that rape and sexual violence on campus is a serious issue though and I think that there should be more of an emphasis at schools to preventing this behavior and helping victims.
As for the victim shaming, I think that it is also a complicated issue...on one side I do believe that girls should be responsible in their actions and can do things to help prevent directly putting themselves in a situation where sexual assault would occur. But on the other hand it does not in any way undermine the actions of the assaulter, who is to blame foremost. I do not think that victim shaming should diminish the serious issue of sexual assaults.
Natalie R. T/Th 1230
I think it was highly irresponsible for Rolling Stone, a well respected magazine, to publish these accusations without any factual sources. The story was heart breaking. I remember reading it for the first time and feeling sick to my stomach. It was a shock factor. But, it is now being shot down as a scam, and it is hard to see how that was able to happen.
This subject is a double edged sword. I am all about women and men speaking out against their predators and abusers. I think there are way too many cases where the abused gets shut down and then you see stories like this where someone is speaking out, finally, and it turns out to be false. That brings all the efforts we've made a step backward.
At the same time, we have to look out for the people that are being wrongfully accused. Sometimes calling rape gets people out of trouble, or can even be used as a method of revenge.
This entire situation is so sad. Rolling Stone should have gotten both sides of the story and it will be up to the fraternity whether they want to open this can of worms.
Karleigh Skiles Online
Jackie clearly wanted to get back at the members of that fraternity for something, or she would not have singled it out.
The journalist who wrote that piece should have done better research and verified that the people were at least real before running that story, but considering how graphic she got, it probably felt too "juicy" to pass up on. The correct ethical decision would have been to just pass on the story if there was no way to verify the people were real while still calling out a specific frat.
Kirsten P. Online
I think it is horrible that Jackie made up an incident for possible revenge, when the topic she chose is so sensitive. Although this didn't happen to her, gang rape is a real thing that men and women have encountered. It is extremely disrespectful of to almost create a mockery of it, and devalue the situation.
For Rolling Stones, it is extremely poor journalism. I understand wanting to respect the alleged victim, but they could have looked into any reports of the incident. Due to the lack of resources and facts this article shouldn't have been published.
I think it makes since for the frat to want to sue, but I don't think it would work out. As the article states it is a large group, and an individual would have to step forward. Since the guys she identified were not in the frat I don't think it would work well in their favor.
Kaylee S. T/TH
I don't understand or know why Jackie would go to such an extreme as to say that she had been gang raped by the fraternity Phi Kappa Psi, and only she will ever really know the answer to that. I would assume that she had sex with one or two of the members and for some reason or another became upset or embarrassed in her actions, then made the false claim.
I don't think that she randomly started her day with the decision to accuse the fraternity of such a thing. Something had to have happened to trigger this in her, but like I said, only she will ever know the truth behind that.
As far as suing Rolling Stones Magazine for publishing the article, the risk behind that had to have been evident. Rodney Smolla was right when he said that all it would do is bring out "skeletons in the closet," as would any case of this nature.
The defamatory article has clearly caused the men of Phi Kappa Psi a lot of harm, however continuing with the lawsuit may cause even more.
Yvonne Humphries TTH 12:30
When I first read the story, I was appalled that people didn't take "Jackie" seriously. She was talking about assault, an allegation that should be treated with the utmost respect and desecration. I understand that in the overall story, the reporter didn't prove to do her due diligence in getting every side of the story and maybe not all the facts from that night.
I feel that in cases of sexual assault and rape, there should be better protection on both sides from the media. A victim should never have to step into the limelight and scrutiny of the media while dealing with the process of healing after an attack.
However the events following the original story reminded about NY Times v. Sullivan. Even though the particular students implicated in the sexual assault were not named, it brought defamatory statements against the whole fraternity of Phi Kappa Psi at UVA. I am not sure if that is enough to sue the Rolling Stone of libel since the frat will have to prove malicious intent to the frat in publishing "Jackie's" story.
Jacqui Parchois Honors
I have a hard time really evaluating this issue because there are so many different views one could take on it.
On one hand, maybe Jackie really was raped and then got scared and went silent and became uncooperative with the authorities. Maybe she feared the backlash from the investigation. Maybe she feared that the investigation would reveal skeletons in her own closet.
Or Jackie wasn't raped and made this up to get back at some guy in Phi Kappa Psi, or many. The problem is that the public will never know the real truth.
I agree with the Washington Post, it's risky for the fraternity to sue because the group is so large and it could open an even bigger can of worms. I feel the poor investigative journalism by Rolling Stone ruined any chance Jackie, the authorities, the school or the fraternity, had at finding the real truth as to what actually happened.
Chelsea P. T/Th
Although I feel that Rolling Stone should have researched the story further, the awareness of rape on college campuses needs to be made more aware to the general public through magazines with a high-reader rate.
It's awful that she decided to lie about the incident because there are many women who are in fact raped that get accused of lying who actually are telling the truth.
This story is one that many people can see differently. In my opinion, had I heard one story over the other, I would more than likely choose a side agree with.
I do not think Rolling Stone nor the article's author should be sued for writing it. In their defense, they had a "reliable" source and story. I agree with the Washington Post on how if matters did go to court that the fraternity would have some other things that probably in their best interest should be left alone.
I feel like the girl, Jackie, should be put to blame for this. given that she claimed the things to be untrue, she is now the main fault and root to the issue. No college should have to go through the craziness of the media, and the center of this attention for something that apparently never happened.
Dillon Anders, TTh
My first reaction to the Washington Post article was shock that "Jackie" would have fabricated such a serious issue. The issue of rapes on college campuses have become more and more of a serious issue, and for her to get an innocent fraternity severely scrutinized is horrifying.
In the Rolling Stone article, they should have fact checked with both sides to have a more clear version of the story. By honoring "Jackie"'s original wish they ended up in hot water with Phi Psi and UVA. At the end of the day, Rolling Stone should have kept with the golden rule of journalism, which is to always fact check before you publish.
Morgan M, TTH 12:30
Situations like this make me frustrated because this issue has become a he said, she said thing. No one really knows what happened that night because there is really no substantial information to show for it. The only people who really know what happened are the fraternity and Jackie. I do know that situations like this are the prime example of why victims of sexual assault are afraid to come forward. The more people that cry wolf, the less people there are who admit to something real for fear of no one believing them. Therefore, Jackie is insulting others who have gone through a traumatic experience by creating this false sexual assault story. As far as Rolling Stone magazine goes, they should feel scared of their credibility and popularity plummeting because I imagine it will. It is common sense in the journalism field to completely investigate every avenue possible before publishing anything, so all of the people that were involved with this story really dropped the ball. Their lack of using any substantial sources also made me question their credibility.
Kelsey D. TTH
After reading the two articles the question of truth arises. One being with whether jackie lied about being raped by the frat and the fact that the media defender, rolling stone, published the article with out all the facts. First of all I think rape is a very touchy subject. Women are traumatized from these types of events and go through a lot after it, that being emotional harm that follows it. I understand why women try and sue the men who do that to them. But if she did it out of spite because she was broken up with or ashamed. But personally, I think she was afraid from all the attention the media was giving her and backed down. Now on the fact whether Rolling Stone publishing a story this serious with out Phi Kappa Psi point of view, was just poor journalism. They wanted to comment on the issue but did it all wrong causing them to lose credibility. However, i think if the fraternity sues it might cause more harm then good. I personally would tell them not too.
Nugent M.W 1230-150
I believe the Rolling Stone piece was incredibly irresponsible. I think rape, sexual assault and sexual misconduct are more prevalent across college campuses than people want to admit. This Rolling Stone piece is a profound disservice to rape victims and potential rape victims; a lot of people are already inclined to victim-blame, this shoddy journalism will only confirm their bias and provide fodder for future victim-blaming. There are enough actual sexual assaults to write about--no need to concoct any. I think sexual assault awareness needs to be on top of the agenda. I believe universities should stop being reactive and start being proactive--no more sweeping sexual assault under the rug to protect the university's reputation.
Sam Fletcher TTh 12:30
I can see why Rolling Stone took this approach to writing the article without getting Phi Kappa Psi's alleged member's side of the story. Sexual assault is a very serious subject, and we don't question the victim's story because you wouldn't think that a person would make something up so horrifying. I believe everyone involved in the Rolling Stone article, "Jackie," Rolling Stone and Phi Kappa Psi are losers. No one wins in this situation. For real victims of sexual assault this is disheartening because most cases of sexual assault go unreported because they're afraid of what it's going to lead to. It may just happen that more people tend to disbelieve victims of sexual assault, and more cases of sexual assault go unreported because of the magnitude of this article. The only good I can see coming out of this is the scrutiny that new media outlets will put there reporters through when they don't get both sides of the facts.
Efrain Aveja
T/TH 12:30
I've followed this story ever since I saw it on the news. It's a hard situation to navigate without stepping on some toes. The author of the Rolling Stones article was irresponsible with the case and accusations made. It's become a he said she said case and its hard to tell who was telling the truth. But regardless it damaged the integrity of the magazine and the author of the article.
It's just sad because its already hard enough for rape victims to come forward and since this was so public and wasn't the first time a rape victim(even though she may have cried wolf) was ostrasized for speaking out against accusers. This whole thing makes me mad, it makes real victims look bad and that;s the last thing anyone who is a victim of sexual assault needs.
Nora Maaz
t/th 12:30
Rolling Stone magazine should have done a better job by checking ALL of their sources. Especially when Rolling Stone is usually considered a reliable magazine. I agree with the Washington Post article that if Phi Kappa Psi brings a lawsuit they will open up every young man in the fraternity to scrutiny. I'm interested to see where this situation goes and plan to follow the story more.
Kelby Keeling TTH 12:30
I will never understand why a female would lie about being raped or sexually assaulted. Because of people who lie about it, more women are doubted when they do come forward, which makes some who were actually assaulted not want to come forward because they think people won’t believe them. I am not saying nothing happened to “Jackie,” it has not been proven yet.
I do not think the chapter should sue Rolling Stone magazine, though they claim the article written about the incident was defamatory. I agree with the University of Georgia law professor who advised they do not sue because it could do more harm than good and reveal possible skeletons in their closet. Like the court said in the Food Lion v. ABC case, “don’t go to court with dirty hands.”
Kristina C
TTH 12:30
Rape is obviously a very serious and delicate matter. Nobody will argue that. It is good to see steps being taken by a university to investigate these types of matters, which is a very real problem. I don't want to doubt the victim, but she has to understand that every single fact needs to be told with such a serious accusation. Although she may be scared to talk, the only way justice can be served is to hear everything.
Rolling Stone definitely should have made a better effort to ensure that their article was correct. I did think that their retraction statement was acceptable and sounded very honest, but the damage to the fraternity cannot be retracted.
It is incredibly frustrating to read yet another case of someone lying about something so serious. Of course, it's equally frustrating to know rape is still a common occurrence – no matter the sex of the victim. It was irresponsible on both sides to present and publish this story – if it is in fact false. I don't think suing Rolling Stone would solve anything. The story would not have been published if there wasn't a person there to tell it. Maybe I'm blaming Jackie, shaming even, but not in the way that real victims may be been shamed by peers. If it happened, it is not her fault. But if it didn't, then someone needs to be punished, and I don't think it should be the messenger.
Angelica M.
TTH 12:30
My heart is heavy for "Jackie". However, after reading more into it, I can't decide who to point the blame finger towards. The fraternity for committing the crime, The Rolling Stone for posting an article about it without true facts, or "Jackie" for ignoring the police and not providing substantial evidence.
Like my classmates said, I definitely do not think it's wise of Phi Kappa Psi to continue filing suit. In my opinion, it's money being thrown away by both parties. I think this can be related to the Food Lion case in some way, where yes, Rolling Stone will probably win, but BOTH reputations will be damaged.
I can see this case being in a newer edition of our textbook when it resolves.
Veronica M
1230 TTH
Rape on college campuses is something that happens too frequently, and it's time for something to be done about it. I've been following this story since the first initial Rolling Stone article, and my heart initially went to Jackie. I thought it was very brave of her to speak out against the fraternity for what I believed they had done. After reading these 2 articles, it made it clear what the story really was.
This is something that you should not lie about, and I don't exactly know why someone would choose to do so. My sympathy goes out to the fraternity that got falsely accused of this. I can't imagine how much hatred they received on campus, as well as everywhere else in the country, for something they didn't commit. Rolling Stone should have been more consistent on the facts before they decided to release this in November.
Austin Y.
12:30 TTH
I feel like the case with "Jackie" was very complicated and made me have different views, because it is hard for me to blame one person.
Initially I was on Jackie's side to receive justice from the fraternity. I was not entirely sure why Jackie would lie being raped. Rape is a very important matter, and must be handled in a proper way. As a woman, I do not see why a woman would put herself out in public as a "rape victim" if it was not true.
However, with more time into investigation the claims were considered untrue. Now I am on the side of the men who were accused of such a terrible action. If I was a male in that fraternity I would be doing everything I could to sue Jackie and her doings. I do not believe the group is "too large" to take her to civil court. These men's reputation was ruined for their names being used in the wrong. Not only were these individuals reputations ruined, but the fraternity across the country.
As far as the Rolling Stone case, I believe the article was incorrect in being published with false information. However, Rolling Stone handled the situation very professional as any company should following a incident. I think what happened was because Rolling Stone is a very popular magazine they feel the need for high newsworthiness and quickest source to hear the news. Without proper research, and probably released too quickly, Rolling Stone is seeing major problems but I do not think they should be sued for publishing the information. I do not see intent in Rolling Stone to ruin someone's reputation.
All in all, I believe Jackie should be taking responsibility in all aspects because it was her who put everyone in the position they are in due to lying about a serious matter.
It will be fun to see how this all concludes.
Brittney G
12:30 TTh
I believe that its already hard to handle sexual assaults on collage campuses. Most of the time, either people don't want to talk or it's hard to police gather the evidence from minor or college kids because of what could happen to their reputation or their affiliations.
I do feel bad for Jackie because something might have happened to her and there is currently nothing one can do. She did have some sort of responsibility because she decided to go to the Phi Kappa Psi house in the first place. But whatever happen might have been out of her control. She is a girl and sometimes girls are more vulnerable than guys.
However, theres plenty of people that don't say the truth completely and thats where mistakes happen in criminal investigations.
In the other hand, reading the Rolling stones note to the reader, I can see that she "requested not to contact the man who she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men who she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her."With this said I also think its because she would look extremely bad in her university for bringing a big fraternity down.
Either way, this case is hard to figure out because there is so much evidence that its needed that is probably not even there or no one will talk. Especially in a fraternity where the bonds of brotherhood have trust within.
I do hope Jackie doesn't have emotional distress or is traumatized.
Jennifer Martinez T
12:30 TTH
This is the most controversial topic in my opinion. Rape is such a traumatic and embarrassing event and I imagine does some horrific things to your self esteem and state of mind. I can not make an opinion whether or not Jackie is telling the truth because who knows honestly. She obviously has her facts messed up though. Either way, there is a psychological reason behind what she is doing.
This case reminded me somewhat of the Sipple case because, I think it brought up a topic bigger than that one instance. Women have been objectified on campus for a long time and men (not just fraternity members) have countlessly gotten girls drunk and taken advantage which I consider to be rape. I agree with the Washington Post that if Phi Psi were to sue, people would find out way more about negative things that they have done but Rolling Stone should learn from this mistake and not be so one-sided from now on.
Caroline R.
MC4301 -T/TH 12:30 P.M.
While false accusations of rape and sexual assault are a problem, real rape and sexual assault are problems too.
Personal story (not exactly on topic, but relates):
When I was in 4th grade, I lived in Germany and went to school on a military base. One day, we had a school assembly and were told that 6th grader had been picked up off the street while she was walking home, taken into a forested area, and sexually assaulted. She had told the police and the story was published in the base paper. The assembly stressed being vigilant and to not talk to strangers. Very much like this alleged rape story, this incident started a conversation about safety on base and sexual assault. A couple months down the line, somehow it came out that the girl had lied about the entire incident. She confessed that she had just said those things to get attention. Suddenly, the conversation shifted away from safety and sexual assault, to this lying 6th grade girl. Future accusations and investigations were treated, at first, as though the accuser was lying.
The same thing is happening now. Because a girl lied about rape, and it got national attention, people now treat most rape accusations as if the accuser is lying.
Of course lying about sexual assault happens, and it shouldn't be accepted. But we shouldn't assume that all accusations are false until proven true. Of course, I'm not saying the opposite should be true. I don't think that all accusations should be considered true until proven otherwise.
In conclusion I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to say except that there's a problem and it needs to be fixed.
Jennifer M.
Honors
I question why Rolling Stone went ahead with the story if "Jackie" had not even been in touch with the police. Was it because she said she would not be taken seriously? Was she afraid? Who knows, but that would have made me pause. Without a police investigation, where did RS get their evidence and build their case? Seems like questionable journalism to me.
Amy P., Honors
Sexual assault is an extremely serious matter, especially on college campuses. Although, this specific incident may or may not be true it did do something rather important; it allowed the issue to have a place in national discussion. Women who have experienced sexual assault deserve justice and a chance to be heard. Possibly this situation rather than making a victim feel condemned, will instead help victims feel support in the society. Maybe this story, whether or not it is all true, will encourage young women to take a stand against sexual assault.
Sydni Emery
Honors
This incident was supposed to bring a good cause to light, but instead did more harm than good. When reading the article you can clearly see that it is 100% Jackie’s story. Her details, her accusations and her point of view.
To say it is not worth suing over, in my opinion, is total an utter bullshit. To cry rape and to completely fabricate such a horrible lie should have some consequence. Especially since women who are true victims of rape, feel even more shame about telling their story.
Not all fault falls on Jackie. Rolling Stone employees did not do their job to the best of their abilities. Many journalistic rules were not followed in the creation of this article. If they would have properly done their jobs, the story would have never been published.
This incident was supposed to bring a good cause to light, but instead did more harm than good. When reading the article you can clearly see that it is 100% Jackie’s story. Her details, her accusations and her point of view.
To say it is not worth suing over, in my opinion, is total an utter bullshit. To cry rape and to completely fabricate such a horrible lie should have some consequence. Especially since women who are true victims of rape, feel even more shame about telling their story.
Not all fault falls on Jackie. Rolling Stone employees did not do their job to the best of their abilities. Many journalistic rules were not followed in the creation of this article. If they would have properly done their jobs, the story would have never been published.
Sorry I published as anonymous first.
Allison G
T/TH
To start. Rape is a very serious issue and should not be lied about. In today's culture now people are always blaming the female for reasons why she got rapped. Now what the fraternity did to handle the situation is ridiculous and Rolling Stones should have done their job the right way before publishing that article. Overall rape should NEVER be taken lightly.
Stephanie Lara
T/TH
Indeed, this is a touchy subject to cover. I must say, reading through some of these comments, I have to agree. Not saying the fraternity wasn't in the wrong, but, with all the truthful rape accusations from women, there seems to be just as many false accusations as well.
This is a very important subject, and due to the unfortunate event that a rape accusation was proven to be a lie, some might take rape accusations as serious these days. Women are often quiet about accusations as the seriousness of rape can often distort the mental stability of one to the point where it can often be swept under the rug, but that doesn't mean when an accusation pops up(False or real) anyone should overlook it. Rape is a very disgusting, and serious offense and shouldn't be a issue that is tread lightly upon.
Jade Lewis
Online
My immediate reaction is that the fraternity did something. Where there's smoke there is some fire.
However, the discrepancies in "Jackie's" account seriously hurt her case. It's obvious something happened, but unfortunately, the manner in which this event has been handled has left room for too many questions. I don't completely trust either sides story because both sides are looking out for their interests.
I do believe she should have come forward with every fact possible. I also understand how emotionally and psychologically painful it could have been for her.
I don't believe the fraternity will sue. As many of the correspondents mentioned in the Washington Post article there are many factors that play against them.
I believe the most significant is that pursuing their lawsuit would open up all the skeletons in their fraternity's, chapter's, and member's closets. Undoubtedly there is a lot they would like the world to not know. Plus their mommy's and daddy's don't want the world to know what their little boys are doing if it could bring shame to their name. As the Washington Post commentators mentioned this may very well include underage drinking, sexual habits, and other dirty secrets.
The second big obstacle is that the fraternity faces trouble with a lawsuit if there are too many people. Someone would have to step up and bare the cross and stigma of being the person associated with the rape case. No one will want to be the face representing the boys because there's a lot that could go wrong for them. A narrower group allows for more probing into the lives of these guys and they won't want that.
I hope that somehow the truth does come out so that the guilty parties are held accountable, whichever side that may be. Poor decisions were had by all parties, but at least now there is more discussion regarding this topic, and it's promoting better dialogue and caution by girls and guys.
Jonathan - TTH
The Rolling Stone sure botched this one didn't they? In a nutshell, if I were the fraternity I would definitely sue the magazine for defamation and libel-even if I didn't have much of a case. Now I'm writing this after the report released by the School of Journalism at Columbia that found failure at every level in the journalism process. This report would no doubt be quite helpful in the litigation process. In my opinion in this particular scenario, the Rolling Stone should be held accountable in some way in a legal context for this failure, but that's easier said than done. The individuals names were changed which makes it difficult or impossible to identify someone specifically. If the court found out that the nicknames used in the article were real nicknames, then they might have some legal ground. The fraternity could possibly sue as a whole but still face problems. This whole thing sort of reminds me of NYT v. Sullivan in a way. I think I would have to know more about the specifics of the case to really understand it better. Rape allegation are serious in every context and should not be taken lightly. No doubt that damage has been done to the fraternity and the university. It's concerning that a magazine like the Rolling Stone that has such high standards in its journalism, let this kind of thing slip through the cracks.
Brian Woods
Hon T/Th
This is a touchy subject through and through, and as you discussed in your blog, there needs to be higher levels of interest and investigation in rape allegations. I know it's difficult emotionally for a victim to come forward and pursue charges and possible identification of themselves, but this anonymous victim word of mouth stuff has to stop. It takes away from the seriousness of the crime, and gets innocent people sent to jail, and opens up a whole new level of doubt and victim shaming when we occur instances like this one.
I think the fraternity is faced with a hard decision, and the skeletons in the closet idea is very relevant. But we should not allow the unsurfacing of unrelated events dictate the course of libel law. This individual caused real damages to both the school and the fraternity. A fraternity figure head has to come forth and sue RS for damages. They are essentially a private figure, and Rolling Stone was at fault here. Don't let the cycle continue.
Sam Kendrick TTH 12:30-1:50
I think that sexual assault on college campuses is a serious issue that is not always handled with the victims best interest in mind. Most of the time victims do not come forward is because the shame and acquisitions that are thrown their way.
Jackie's story may have been true, somewhat false or completely made up. Regardless the focus should be on the issue of sexual assault. It is not the victim that should be shamed and held responsible all parties involved should be held accountable. Further investigations should be made on all accounts even Rolling Stones when it comes to publishing controversial stories such as this. Overall I feel that everyone involved did not handle this situation with responsibility. A situation that could have brought positive insight into sexual assault instead turned into nothing more than a legal issue.
Allyson McCracken TTH 12:30
This case to me could be summed up in one word: tragic. I do believe something happened to Jackie that night, but I don't know if it was exactly what she said. I've read some comments that have suggested that she may have spoken for a friend, or possibly had something "less severe" happen to her. We don't know the truth, and until the truth comes out I believe that this victim shaming that she is receiving in the media is terrible. Mistakes were made by Rolling Stone, but I think when we live in a culture that doesn't openly discuss the behavior of its' young men, especially when it comes to their treatment of women mistakes will be made and will continue to be made.
Sexual assault on campus needs to be talked about, and I fear with Jackie's case (and its treatment) that it has set us back as a society.
Brittany Baig Honors
From what I've read, it seems this person may have had some kind of issue with Phi Kappa Psi. Her initial (false) claims then happened to snowball out of control once Erdely got involved. That involvement, sadly, was not very well researched, and having only a single source for a major story is simply unacceptable.
I wonder what Jacky's issue with Phi Kappa Psi was? If she was actually assaulted, and chose to extend that real happening with false information, then surely she could have admitted to being dishonest and still brought attention to what actually happened to her. Her silence since the reveal that the story was fabricated suggests that she was never assaulted in any way, although this is simply conjecture and I may well be completely off-base here. It's certainly a very strange situation.
The real fault, of course, lies with Sabrina Erdely. Her reporting was lackluster at best, and it seemed she tried numerous times to make the story stick despite constant red flags that something was amiss (such as Jacky's inexplicable loss of memory regarding any of her supposed attackers' identities).
All in all, this is extremely bad journalism that serves to make it that much harder for actual victims of assault to be taken seriously. It's an absolute tragedy in that respect.
-Ross G, Online
My initial reaction after reading the Rolling Stone apology was "This was plain poor journalism". If anything I feel this event might cause victims, who are already afraid to speak up, to never do so. The fact that RS didn't do the correct fact checking and following up caused a lot of damage to the university's name, to the fraternity and its members. Jackie's false accusations may potentially harm future justice for actual campus rape victims at UVA and other campuses. I'm interested to know what's the real story behind her going through all of this? I do hope they get to the bottom of it...
I agree that bringing a case for libel will bring out more skeletons in the fraternity, but that shouldn't be a reason not go forth with it. (I can only imagine what cases would be brought to light) After the lack of evidence found and knowing what I know now, it seems that Rolling Stone should be held accountable.
This is a case of irresponsible reporting on the part of Rolling Stone that has distracted people from the real underlying issue at hand, reporting and coping with sexual assault. The stereotype of fraternities being associated with sexual assaults unfortunately exists, and Rolling Stone magazine wanted to hop on this story that they knew would make for a highly-read and talked about article. This stereotype exists for a reason, and it's not to say there haven't been other fraternity rapes at the University of Virginia or other schools that haven't gone reported or dealt with properly. In this case however, due to the lack of evidence that has ever been able to be uncovered by police or other sources, it was unfair of rolling stone to so quickly publish an article that attacked this specific fraternity.
Even though there have been protests at the fraternity house along with graffiti and other damage, it would still probably be difficult for the fraternity to have a clear and precise libel case due to the large number of members involved. That, combined with the legal resources available to Rolling Stone, would make for a messy court case that neither party would probably want to deal with. I don't think it would be completely impossible for the fraternity to win a libel lawsuit, but it would be very difficult and may bring even more unwanted, negative attention to the fraternity.
although I agree that sexual assault on college campuses is a very important issue in our society, I believe that the Rolling Stone should have been more patient with the story. They should have waited to ensure the information that they were publishing was true, rather than immediately jumping onto one side of the issue. and I think that this could cause some controversy when it comes to reporting these kinds of stories. Jackie's false allegations could make other people who are true victims, be afraid of sharing their story because of victim shaming. With sensitive topics like this one, it is important for the media to be as unbiased, and careful as possible. These allegations can cause severe damage to the fraternity and members reputations since it wasn't true.
Alyssa Phillips
Tuesday/Thursday 12:30
Post a Comment