lacigreen:

Hey babelies.  I wanna talk about this UVA/Rolling Stone mess for a second.  To recap, from what I understand, Rolling Stone reported Jackie’s story about her rape in November.  The story went viral.  Then, Rolling Stone received a statement from the frat challenging details of the account.  After this, RS issued an apology saying they’re sorry and that Jackie cant be trusted.  It’s a truly bizarre chain of events, especially for such a high profile magazine.  A few preliminary thoughts:

1. Many verbal accounts of trauma have inconsistencies, it’s a well documented neuropsychological phenomenon.  That there are details being disputed doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped.  This is why 3rd party details can and should be corroborated in a sensitive manner.  Objective evidence is notoriously hard/nearly impossible to come by in rape cases, but it doesn’t mean all we have is someone’s word against another’s.  Corroboration of details is usually the job of the sexual assault advocate helping the victim, the police, or in this case - the journalist.  In light of this mess, it’s important not to dismiss Jackie’s story outright, especially since the facts in question —the exact date and the day job of one of the accused—doesn’t actually have much to do with the crime itself.  (Although the media is for some reason acting like it does).  
2. False rape allegations do happen, though they are quite rare.  Hundreds of studies with a sound experimental design have been done on this topic, and the number consistently hovers around 3%.  Into the “false allegation” category falls people who were drugged and raped but incorrectly identified the perpetrator as well as people that the police just didn’t believe.  Logically speaking, we are far more likely to be wrong by assuming the victim is lying than by assuming they’re telling the truth.  This is not to minimize false allegations - they are serious and can ruin lives - but to urge a careful and data-based approach to widespread false rape paranoia.  Often, this paranoia is used to dismiss real crimes and the voices of people coming forward about their experiences.  This is a harmful way to think about and contextualize false rape allegations.
3. UVA was already under federal investigation for failure to handle sexual violence on campus before any of this happened.  This story should not be used as a distraction from what’s going on — campus sexual assault is still a problem, at UVA and at a lot of schools.  It’s not the massive conspiracy of student lies that Rush Limbaugh and his cronies would like us to believe.  Roughly 20% of undergrad women and 4% of undergrad men experience sexual assault in college.
4. If there’s one thing for sure, it’s that nobody wins from this situation.  Rolling Stone has tarnished their reputation and effectively blamed Jackie for their irresponsible reporting.  Those in denial of rape culture will construct this story to fit their paranoia and continue to dismiss sexual assault on campus.  Many of the public voices dismissing the story had done so before the conflicting stories.  Still, I’d call this a setback in the fight to encourage people to listen and trust survivor’s stories.  Ultimately, it is survivors that will pay the price for this as I’m certain it will make it harder for some to come forward and be believed.
5. I also read (but cannot confirm) that the Rolling Stone article was released without Jackie’s consent, which, if it’s true, adds another layer of shittiness on Rolling Stone’s behalf.
6. Let’s not forget Jackie’s voice in the chaos.  The devil has enough advocates.  She said in an interview: “I never asked for this…What bothers me is that so many people act like it didn’t happen. It’s my life. I have had to live with the fact that it happened every day for the last two years.”

Ok I wrote this in a rush cuz I’m late for an appointment, but a lot of y’all were messaging me about this.  It’s important to talk about.  I’ll probably update this with more thoughts when I get time!

xx

laci