I don’t think the now-notorious UVa gang rape story, as told to Rolling Stone magazine, is a hoax.
But, as I commented to one of my readers who thinks it might be, this blog has covered false rape claims before, and if this turns out to be one, it will certainly do that again.
And of course this blog will cover emergent skeptical takes on the Rolling Stone account. Like this one.
December 3rd, 2014 at 9:32AM
The story, as related in Rolling Stone, simply does not make sense. Besides what I mentioned before, if the room was “pitch black,” how does she remember the frat boys “swigging beer”? How does she recognize the guy from her anthro discussion section? How can her date, “Drew” and the other guy possibly be giving “instruction and encouragement” (especially instruction) in a pitch black room? How do they even know that anthro discussion boy can’t get it up? Why do even drunken and stoned frat boys not bother to turn on the lights to clean up the broken glass so they won’t be cut themselves? Do frat boys in the Year of Our Lord 2012 really call themselves “Blanket” and “Armpit”? How difficult, by the way, would it have been for a reporter to track down “Drew” and presumably Mr. “Blanket” and Mr. “Armpit”?
“Jackie had taken three hours getting ready, straightening her long, dark, wavy hair. She’d congratulated herself on her choice of a tasteful red dress with a high neckline. Now, climbing the frat-house stairs with Drew, Jackie felt excited. Drew ushered Jackie into a bedroom, shutting the door behind them.”
OK, we have established with an almost painfully explicit description that “Jackie” is not one of those stereotypical, scantily-clad floozies. Her dress is “tasteful” and “high-necked”–she is the image of prim and proper. Yet, on entering the frat house she immediately heads upstairs with Drew to a bedroom. Make sense?
I don’t know whether the reported assault is a hoax or not, UD, but at this point, I am about 100% certain that it could not possibly have happened the way the story describes it. Moreover, short of “Drew,” “anthro discussion boy,” Mr. “Blanket,” or Mr. “Armpit” having an attack of conscience and confessing, there is really no way of being sure.
December 3rd, 2014 at 10:18AM
tp: As I understand it, most rape accounts are reasonably reliable. Jackie’s is probably reasonably reliable. As this story plays out, we will find out to what extent her account can be trusted.
December 3rd, 2014 at 12:05PM
The apologists for the “Dear Colleague” letter have repeatedly claimed that universities’ judicial proceedings are completely separate from those of the criminal courts and that the constitutional protections afforded to American citizens in the courts do not apply in university proceedings. OK. Let’s get serious, then. There must be many individuals still on campus who were at that party. The names of the house residents must clearly be known to the administration in any event. “Drew” should be easy to identify, along with “Blanket,” “Armpit,” anthro discussion boy, and the three friends that she called. Haul every one of them in front of a panel and ask them what they saw and heard that night. Make their continued enrollment conditional upon testifying. Surely someone at a party going full-blast at 3 AM noticed a distraught and bloody woman exiting the building. If their parents complain, refer them them to Erik Holder and Barack Obama, who will surely defend this procedure. If “Jackie’s” account is true, UVA knowingly allowed and may still be allowing seven near-psychopaths to run amok when they should be in prison doing hard time. You would think that a premier university with a woman as a president would take the strongest measures to protect the campus’ women. The limp response of the UVA administration and its point person, a female dean no less, suggests either that they themselves are totally unfit or that they had their own doubts.
I was also interested in whether these gang rapists had a noticeable impact on local crime, since given their behavior, “Jackie” would not have been their only victim. Between 2000 and 2012, Charlottesville authorities had between 17 to 35 rapes per year reported. For 2010-2012, the reported numbers were 29, 27, and 17, respectively. There are about 24,000 women living in Charlottesville, with about 8000 of them being UVA undergraduates. If every reported rape belonged to a UVA undergrad woman, that would mean that 0.2% of them reported a rape to police. If UVA is in fact the rape factory that is being alleged, it seems strange that this number is so low, even given victims’ unwillingness to bring charges. At Gilligan, entering freshmen are compelled to sit through numerous skits and sessions discussing rape, sexual harassment, and violence of all kinds, and with regard to rape, there is a strong message that victims need to bring charges and can expect support. I thought these were standard everywhere. They aren’t at UVA? If not, why not? If yes, they are obviously ineffective. Why aren’t people demanding the resignation of Pres. Sullivan and her rape-enabling administration?
December 5th, 2014 at 2:08PM
Rolling Stone retracts:
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/a-note-to-our-readers-20141205
December 5th, 2014 at 2:21PM
Thanks, Chris. I’ve added the Rolling Stone comment to my latest post.