Rolling Stone now casting doubt on its explosive report about campus gang rape

Share

Two weeks ago, Rolling Stone magazine published a shocking story about a reported gang rape on the campus of the University of Virginia. Told in sharp detail and researched for months, the 9,000-word piece heightened anger about mishandled cases of sexual assault on campus, as well as the sense of urgency for how to better prevent them from happening. At UVA, fraternities were suspended, and an investigation commenced.

Now, this bombshell: Rolling Stone is stepping back from its story. Citing new evidence – but not explaining what that evidence is – managing editor Will Dana explained in a note to readers that "there now appear to be discrepancies in [alleged victim] Jackie's account and we have come to the conclusion that our trust is her was misplaced."

What discrepancies, the magazine doesn't say, although the fraternity named in the piece has come forward with the results of its own investigation, to refute some important facts – specifically the date of the alleged assault and the workplace where the victim claimed to have met one of the perpetrators. A Washington Post story has also poked holes in many of the details in the piece.

In a letter to readers – one that, frankly, levels too much blame at "Jackie" and too little at the magazine's own handling of her story – Rolling Stone claims that they had fact-checked her version of events over months of reporting. The diligence of that "fact-checking" is obviously in doubt. "Jackie's" account was supported by her friends, the letter says, and she had publicly discussed the assault in campus forums. But they also "honoured her request" not to contact the men she claimed participated in the assault "for fear of retaliation against her." This is a decision that the magazine regrets, Dana said in the letter. Meanwhile, in its statement, the Phi Kappa Psi chapter at UVA says it will continue "to assist investigators in whatever way we can."

And so now, a conversation that was moving toward solutions – one about values and responsibility, culture and consent – is about to take a turn. That conversation will be, and rightly so, about story-hungry journalists playing fast and loose with the facts. It will be about whether the University of Virginia – and by extension other universities and fraternities – even has a real problem with sexual assault. It will be about how easily we were duped, and whether and how often women lie about being assaulted.

Rolling Stone has much more explaining to do, for itself and for the alleged perpetrators in the story: What was the "new information?" What facts are wrong? Did an assault happen at all? How did they handle their responsibility to "Jackie" herself?

The University of Virginia, however, is not off the hook – even before the story was published, the UVA was part of a federal investigation for its handling of sexual-assault complaints.

But one consequence will be the possible effect this turn of events has on victims. For all efforts to reform the law, to prevent complainants from being unfairly judged for irrelevant facts – what they were wearing, how much they were drinking, did they say "no" with just the right amount of force – those question still creep into our discourse about sexual assault, our parsing out of which victims we choose to believe. This attitude already results in the under-reporting of assaults, and prevents complainants from coming forward to authorities, if not to press charges, to just get help.

Imagine how hard it just became for a victim of a sexual assault to come forward for that help on the University of Virginia campus, and possibly elsewhere. Our responsibility to them has not changed.