On-campus rape, the Greek system, and more

[madviking]

Caution: this is a red diamond thread with mature content. Please read OP and the literature I've linked to form a base level understanding of the entire situation, even if it is similar to events at other universities. Please post accordingly.

---

About two weeks ago, writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely, writing for Rolling Stone magazine, posted a wholly alarming article about one girl's experience with gang rape at a fraternity house, Phi Psi. The girl, who was called "Jackie" for the purposes of the article, confided to Ms Rubin Erdely her experience one night:

"Shut up," [Jackie] heard a man's voice say as a body barreled into her, tripping her backward and sending them both crashing through a low glass table. There was a heavy person on top of her, spreading open her thighs, and another person kneeling on her hair, hands pinning down her arms, sharp shards digging into her back, and excited male voices rising all around her. When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face. The men surrounding her began to laugh. For a hopeful moment Jackie wondered if this wasn't some collegiate prank. Perhaps at any second someone would flick on the lights and they'd return to the party.

"Grab its motherfing leg," she heard a voice say. And that's when Jackie knew she was going to be raped.

She remembers every moment of the next three hours of agony, during which, she says, seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement. She remembers how the spectators swigged beers, and how they called each other nicknames like Armpit and Blanket. She remembers the men's heft and their sour reek of alcohol mixed with the pungency of marijuana. Most of all, Jackie remembers the pain and the pounding that went on and on.

The article spread around UVa faster than one can imagine. After seven hours, UVa president Teresa Sullivan emailed the entire student body about the content of the article:

I am writing in response to a Rolling Stone magazine article that negatively depicts the University of Virginia and its handling of sexual misconduct cases. Because of federal and state privacy laws, and out of respect for sexual assault survivors, we are very limited in what we can say about any of the cases mentioned in this article.

The article describes an alleged sexual assault of a female student at a fraternity house in September 2012, including many details that were previously not disclosed to University officials. I have asked the Charlottesville Police Department to formally investigate this incident, and the University will cooperate fully with the investigation.

The University takes seriously the issue of sexual misconduct, a significant problem that colleges and universities are grappling with across the nation. Our goal is to provide an environment that is as safe as possible for our students and the entire University community.

This struck UVa especially hard after the killing of student Hannah Graham only approximately a month earlier. The sequence of events have caused many questions to be raised about the policies of UVa, universities in general, and the student body.

Many people were upset about the lack of university involvement and caring about survivors of sexual violence and rape. The fraternity where the rape allegedly took place, Phi Psi, was vandalized, President Sullivan suspended all fraternity activities for the semester, and discussion of a longer term suspension of fraternity activities, with the entire system hanging in the balance. On the other hand, Title IX and other factors have essentially cornered the University into a tight position.

Today, Rolling Stone published a partial retraction of the original article, writing:

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

What I would like to ask is a series of related, open-ended questions:
- What do you make of the article and the retraction made by Rolling Stone?
- What do you make of the restrictions placed on universities to report and handle sexual violence?
- What do you make of the fraternity culture (especially underage drinking) at universities, such as UVa?
- What do you make of the university's response in light of the original article?
- How would you have handled the situation if you were the university president?

Feel free to contribute more questions.

 

[Farm Boy]

I dunno. I'm pissed at Rolling Stone. By skipping any sort of presumption of innocence or basic fact checking in such a grandiose fashion then being set back in place it harms the public credibility of people struggling to come forward with accusations of rape. This misplaced inquisition harms victims more than anyone else. That Rolling Stone screwed up is leading on CNN.com at the moment.

 

[bhsup]

Farm Boy nailed it with RS's coverage. I can't really speak to the fraternity environment as I have never experienced it.

What I have never understood is why universities have their own police forces. I don't know if this is the case at UVA or not, but it just seems to me that having one is begging for the university to cover up what it views as embarrassing incidents. These places still exist within cities and counties, so why don't they just have the local authorities be the police forces?

 

[Farm Boy]

These places still exist within cities and counties, so why don't they just have the local authorities be the police forces?

Because it better serves the long term health and economic productivity of the highly educated if they wind up with university judicial rebukes instead of permanent criminal records for drinking when they're 20 or possessing small quantities of pot or getting into a not super serious round of fisticuffs. University police protect the students from the city and county police as one of their primary functions. Sensible areas have started punting accusations of sexual assault straight past the university police departments as a matter of procedure straight to the cities and counties you mention.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's more a comment on the county police forces than anything else, though.

 

[madviking]

Farm Boy nailed it with RS's coverage. I can't really speak to the fraternity environment as I have never experienced it.

What I have never understood is why universities have their own police forces. I don't know if this is the case at UVA or not, but it just seems to me that having one is begging for the university to cover up what it views as embarrassing incidents. These places still exist within cities and counties, so why don't they just have the local authorities be the police forces?

This is a point that's been brought up. Judging based on UVa's response, it seems that they are more concerned with their reputation and continuing alumni donations rather than an actual concern for the human aspect. Since the UVa police is subject to the same rules as the whole University, they are pretty much powerless and in the same position as the UVa brass. I think this is a major reason a lot of people are really upset by the response by UVa.

 

[tetley]

Campus police have been around long before the police forces degenerated. Also it's not just the police--they have campus EMT's, staffed by work-study students. I think it has more to do with campus parking (which always sucks), liability, and a significant pre-med population. Also trespassing by non-students.

 

[Gucumatz]

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if the girl was drugged up and couldn't remember everything about the event/dates were changed by poor reporting etc. and political pressure from UVA donors did the rest in killing the story. So many frats have terrible reputations - makes you wonder if they have enough oversight and if police forces should be more strict in college towns, even if this frat was innocent of the alleged incident

 

[warpus]

What do you make of the article and the retraction made by Rolling Stone?

I think that they saw $$ in their eyes when they published that story and now it's biting them in the butt...

or not. Are people boycotting them yet?

 

[Farm Boy]

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if the girl was drugged up and couldn't remember everything about the event/dates were changed by poor reporting etc. and political pressure from UVA donors did the rest in killing the story. So many frats have terrible reputations - makes you wonder if they have enough oversight and if police forces should be more strict in college towns, even if this frat was innocent of the alleged incident

Which is a shame. Because if you eliminate some of the 'cover your butt' weaknesses like with the issue of rape accusations which are best handled through the justice system proper, campus police generally do a better job of policing some of the stupidest stuff we use the law for in ruining good people's lives. That exorbitant tuition will buy you better policing not available to the general public may indeed be deeply flawed but Flying Pig is right, that's a flaw with our system in general.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I think that they saw $$ in their eyes when they published that story and now it's biting them in the butt...

or not. Are people boycotting them yet?

No shot, the kind of people who read Rolling Stone for their political articles will defend it by saying that even if this particular case wasn't true, this kind of thing happens 5 billion times per second on campuses all over the world, so we need to draw attention to it no matter what.

Which is not entirely wrong, I agree that it's a major issue that needs a good hard looking at, but Rolling Stone themselves will certainly not suffer from this.

 

[Truthy]

What I would like to ask is a series of related, open-ended questions:
- What do you make of the article and the retraction made by Rolling Stone?

My initial reaction to the article was disenchantment, as well as some skepticism. The article contains a lot of obvious generalizations and it isn't written in an objective or journalistic manner, but I did believe that the majority of the article was factual. As for the retraction, I find it very hard to believe that the entire story was fabricated, which is the conclusion a lot of people on Yik Yak and r/UVA seem to have reached. I suspect she actually was raped and a large amount of the RS article is true, but Erdely embellished and altered Jackie's story for sensationalism and then blamed her for the discrepancies.

- What do you make of the restrictions placed on universities to report and handle sexual violence?

It seems like a pretty mixed bag. Victims aren't necessarily pressured to go to the police, which a lot of people regard as a good thing. For instance, the girl in this interview says she would not have reported her rape at all if UVA was obligated to report it to the police. It's common to hear people say that all rape cases should be exclusively handled by the police, but this deprives survivors of their control over the situation and the police probably wouldn't do a better job. Of course, it's problematic because it could cause others to fall victim to the same offender.

As for the Sexual Misconduct Board's handling of rape cases, it seems like a lot of people trust and like Eramo and Groves, but the system as a whole does not at all effectively adjudicate rape cases. Victims don't receive adequate information and resources, such as independent attorneys to represent them during the hearings, and are forced to repeat their stories numerous times in high pressure environments (the girl in the interview I linked to above said her hearing was more than 20 hours long and that she vomited repeatedly while being interrogated by her rapist's legal team). After the hearings have concluded, the alleged rapist is also permitted to harass his victim to some extent.

 

[caketastydelish]

My thoughts can be summarized with two concise points:

1) Rape, either on universitiy campuses or just in general is a legitimate issue that deserves attention.

2) It's a shame that RS magazine has to do such as (poopy) job of doing this. By not even making sure their facts were straight they made themselves and women that actually really were raped look less credible. They could have just made a *general* rape article and the problems with it, with statistics. Instead they had to make it about one very specific case, all before the facts were in. Now apparently some of it wasn't true, and they've got no one but themselves to blame for it. It's yellow journalism at best, flat out lying at worst. I won't renew my subscription. In other words there are so many documented rape stories where the facts are in and have already been in, why did they choose something like this that wasn't verified yet? Cheap.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's a common theme this issue shares with plenty of others.

Rolling Stone got themselves hooked here. A great number of readers also got hooked here. As it turns out the story was, at least in some measure, not supportable by sufficient facts.

But here's the thing that makes a resounding statement on our society. While the story turns out to not be true, it was in large part believable. The simple fact that it was not met by a universal that can't happen is a clear indication that we all are fully aware that yeah, it actually could.

It was initially brought to this forum by a female student at UVa, who certainly didn't seem to have any doubt at all that it could have happened. There are plenty of people from plenty of fraternities saying 'things never got that out of hand at my fraternity', but very few saying 'my fraternity never had parties where something like that could happen'.

Now society wants to focus on 'thank goodness this turns out not to have happened', rather than acknowledge that we do need to do something about the indisputable fact that we all know that it could happen tomorrow.

 

[Farm Boy]

You ready to turn loose the fun police in a wave of never ever again?

I think we're closer to that than you think, since we're visibly ready to start pitching rocks at a fraternity without evidence since it's likely enough they probably did it at some point. They fit the bill.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You ready to turn loose the fun police in a wave of never ever again?

I think we're closer to that than you think, since we're visibly ready to start pitching rocks at a fraternity without evidence since it's likely enough they probably did it at some point. They fit the bill.

I'm more into self policing than fun police.

Does an organization that is viewed, internally and externally, as 'wow incredibly heinous stuff there, yeah that could happen' need to examine their values? I'd say yes.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well yea. Do you think the standard law and order public 'smash em first think later' step is necessary or helpful at bringing this about? Do you think there's any risk of it? Or are frats too rich and connected?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well yea. Do you think the standard law and order public 'smash em first think later' step is necessary or helpful at bringing this about? Do you think there's any risk of it? Or are frats too rich and connected?

I don't see law and order getting into the act to any great extent. I would not be surprised if the relationship between universities and fraternities evolves a bit though. Dorms on campus are monitored because they are frankly full of people who can't really be considered responsible adults yet. Fraternity houses are not full of markedly different occupants, so the same level of monitoring by the university is probably called for.

 

[Farm Boy]

That I'd probably be cool with.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't see law and order getting into the act to any great extent. I would not be surprised if the relationship between universities and fraternities evolves a bit though. Dorms on campus are monitored because they are frankly full of people who can't really be considered responsible adults yet. Fraternity houses are not full of markedly different occupants, so the same level of monitoring by the university is probably called for.

I find this a bit of an interesting one. Yes, university students aren't mature adults yet, but then neither are their peers of the same age who are not at university. It seems odd that these students can rail against the inadequacy of things - whether monitoring in this sense, or, as seems to crop up constantly on Facebook, special health provisions - which most people their age don't get. Should the university keep its students on the straight and narrow any more than a company who employs apprentices should keep an eye on them?