Campus Sexual Assault Tag

The drama swirling around Rolling Stone, staff writer Sabrina Erdely, and the University of Virginia continued today when Phi Kappa Psi's UVA chapter filed a $25 million dollar lawsuit against the magazine over a (now-retracted) story claiming that a freshman girl was gang raped during a house party. Erdely's "A Rape on Campus" story published in November of last year, and immediately ignited a firestorm of debate over campus "rape culture." The fraternity's image was trashed, their house vandalized, and both the university and fraternity national chapter suffered a major hit to their reputations. By December, however, Erdely's account of the attack on "Jackie" began to unravel. Following investigations by law enforcement, the university, and an increasingly skeptical media, Rolling Stone published a frantic retraction---and then the lawsuits started. More via Reuters:

For years, we have heard that that 1-in-4 or 1-in-5 college women are victims of rape or sexual assault. The studies behind the statistic tended to be agenda-driven and unscientific, but now according to hundreds of news stories, there’s a new, more comprehensive survey that confirms epidemic levels of sexual predation on campus. Could these researchers be right?

Here at Legal Insurrection, we devoted a lot of (virtual) ink to the Rolling Stone campus rape story debacle. Sabrina Erdely's now-retracted article on "Jackie's" traumatic gang rape---and its relation to the campus sexual assault problem Erdely so desperately wanted to prove exists---serves as a textbook example of how not to conduct an investigation, and may end up costing Rolling Stone more than its reputation (or at least, whatever is left of it.) Back in May, University of Virginia associate dean of students Nicole Eramo filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Rolling Stone, its parent company Wenner Media, and journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely for their portrayal of Eramo in Erdely's story. Eramo argues that Erdely and Rolling Stone knew Jackie was unreliable, had serious doubts about the story, and yet ran with it anyway because they were desperate to fulfill their own narrative and sell magazines. As I said in May, the benefits of attempting to salvage Eramo's reputation via the courts must outweigh the risk that opposing counsel and the MSM could find something that causes further damage; her attorneys likely would not have filed the suit had they not performed that analysis. Still, Rolling Stone has decided to answer the complaint by claiming that UVA actually contributed to the faulty report. Via WaPo:

We've discussed extensively the problems and scandals surrounding the campus sexual assault investigation process. Procedures that favor the accuser, and offer no protection to the accused, have led to lost academic careers, ruined reputations, and high-profile lawsuits brought by the accused against the institutions that allegedly threw them under the bus. One such lawsuit has risen out of sexual assault allegations brought against "John Doe" by another female student at Amherst College. John Doe was expelled after Amherst's kangaroo court decided with 50.01% certainty that he may have raped "AS." After the expulsion, John Doe's attorney dug deeper into the case, and discovered a series of text messages that eviscerated AS's testimony:

In fact, as Doe’s attorneys later would discover, AS had texted two people after the hookup—a friend, and a possible paramour. Even before hooking up with Doe, AS had texted the other male student, telling him, “I mean I happen to have my room to myself this weekend, if you wanted to come over and entertain me.” After she finished with Doe, AS resumed flirtatious texting with the male student, who came to her room and spent the night with her. He found her “friendly, flirtatious, and spirited,” and not “anxious, stressed, depressed, or otherwise in distress.”...

I and my wife are happily married, and neither of us is abusive, much less criminal. But under the University of Virginia's broad new "sexual assault" policy, my wife could be deemed guilty of "sexual assault" when she hugs me without advance permission. So, apparently, would any couple in America that engages in making out, without lots of explicit discussion in advance -- that is, pretty much every person in America who is married or in a committed relationship.  U. Va.'s policy bans a wide array of conduct that is perfectly legal under Virginia state law, and that neither involves sexual intercourse, nor occurs against anyone's wishes. This is an outrageous invasion of students' privacy, and an insult to U.Va. alumni and state taxpayers (like me). U.Va. adopted its new "Interim Policy on Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment" to appease the Office for Civil Rights, where I used to work. Under its policy, if you hug your boyfriend, and as an inevitable result your "clothed" "body parts" (such as "breasts") touch him, you could be accused of “sexual assault” that "consists of" "sexual contact.” That's because U.Va. now defines such touching, “however slight,” as sexual assault, lumping together both touching and intercourse as "sexual assault" when they are deemed "sexual" and occur without "affirmative consent."

The Rolling Stone rape story debacle keeps getting worse. We now have a ton of information about how Sabrina Erdely and her team lashed together their potentially libelous tome about a victim named Jackie, and those who sought to silence her. We know that Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity targeted by the story, is exploring its legal options, and we know that nobody involved on Rolling Stone's end is going to suffer any real consequences. What we've been missing---at least until now---are faces for the names of those who have been harmed by Rolling Stone's negligent reporting. Ryan Duffin, identified as "Randall" in the article, and Alex Stock, identified as "Andrew," both played significant roles in the story Jackie spun for Erdely and that Erdely in turn published. In her statements to Erdely, Jackie said that she made contact with three friends the night of the alleged rape. Jackie called Ryan late that night, and when he met up with her he says that he saw no physical evidence on Jackie's person to suggest that she had been attacked. Jackie told Erdely a completely different story, and said that Ryan had indicated that he wouldn't speak to Rolling Stone about what happened because he "didn't want to be part of [Jackie's] shitshow."

When Rolling Stone inflicted its UVA "gang rape" fantasy on the American people, it didn't just damage its own reputation; it took down members of the targeted fraternity and university communities down with it. As I reported on yesterday, there will be no consequences for the RS staff members who contributed to the now-redacted article. No one has resigned in disgrace, or been given 15 minutes to clear out their office. It's business as usual at Rolling Stone---at least for now. Spokesmen representing Phi Kappa Psi fraternity have made a statement indicating that the organization will "pursue all available legal action" against Rolling Stone. From CNN Money:

"After 130 days of living under a cloud of suspicion as a result of reckless reporting by Rolling Stone magazine, today the Virginia Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi announced plans to pursue all available legal action against the magazine," the fraternity said in a statement.

Last July, Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Erdely went looking for a hot take on campus sexual assault. She reached out to a staff member at the University of Virginia for help, and after a series of conversations, found "Jackie." At first blush, "Jackie's" sexual assault story was horrifying on every level, from the setting at a well-respected fraternity to the alleged do-nothing attitude of university officials. She had details, a vivid memory, and friends to back up her account. Take level: scorching. Interviews were conducted. A story was written---but not long after publication, outlets like Slate and the Washington Post crashed the party with doubt, publishing stories highlighting inconsistencies in Jackie's story. They questioned Erdely's diligence in chasing down her leads, and things began to unravel.

A story of rape is a story of power, degradation, and disrespect. It's the kind of story that makes you want---no, need---to shower with a lye bar and Brillo pad after you've heard it. A story that ends with, "and it was pretty much rape" has the same effect on me, but for a completely different reason. We have another he-said-she-said nightmare hitting the news out of Virginia. A John Doe and former Washington & Lee student has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the university expelled and discriminated against him in order to avoid negative attention, and that W&L Title IX officer Lauren Kozak routinely counsels female students that “regret equals rape.” Here we go again. Same song, different verse:

John Doe claims that twice, he had consensual sex with a student identified in the lawsuit as Jane Doe. The first encounter occurred in his room at the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity house where they went after an off-campus party on Feb. 8. Both had been drinking, he said. He claims they sat on chairs in his room and talked for about an hour. He said Jane Doe then said that while she doesn’t usually have sex with a man when she first meets him, she found him very interesting. He said she moved toward him, initiated kissing, took off her clothes except for her underwear and got into bed with him. He said at no point did she say she did not want to have sex. He claims she spent the night, that he contacted her later through Facebook and that they had sex again in early March. He said she told her friends she had a good time. But at a Pi Kappa Phi St. Patrick’s Day party a few weeks later, Jane Doe left when she saw him kissing another woman, who is now his girlfriend.

Well, haven't we all been there.