The Relative Unimportance of Being Earnest

Last month, Rolling Stone published a piece of investigative journalism written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely that explored rape culture at the University of Virginia. The article was particularly noted for its description of the brutal gang rape of “Jackie” by a group of fraternity brothers, and the subsequent appalling dearth of assistance that she received both from her friends and from university administration when she attempted to report the assault. The story garnered widespread attention from major media outlets and other universities. On Friday, however, Rolling Stone issued a statement acknowledging that Jackie’s story has been called into question due to various details uncovered by The Washington Post and other outlets, details that directly contradict her account.

A brief litany of the information that Rolling Stone missed, as outlined by the Post: There was no date function at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity on the weekend in question; the man Jackie claims took her as a date to the event was never a member, nor did any member work with her at the campus pool in the fall of 2012; although her account portrays the rape as an initiation ritual for new members, UVA fraternities only conduct pledging during the spring semester; and even Jackie’s friends who encountered her that night, and who maintain that some form of sexual assault almost definitely took place, say that she was visibly shaken but uninjured and that details of her story have changed in the intervening years.

With all of this information available and easily verifiable, why did this story go to print? The answer is simple: Erdely, the author of the piece, likely earnestly believed that she had uncovered a horrific case of unpunished sexual assault. She found Jackie “credible,” and relied exclusively on her account and those sympathetic to it without any attempt to verify details with the alleged attackers. Zerlina Maxwell, advocate for sexual assault victims, explains in a piece in the Post that this is appropriate because we should automatically believe the stories of victims who come forward. After all, FBI statistics show that only two to eight percent of rape reports turn out to be false, so it seems that we would be on the safe side if we line up behind the victim.

I do not dispute Maxwell’s suggestion that all reports of sexual assault should be treated by university administration as if they were accurate. After all, justice can never be served if a proper and thorough investigation is never conducted. I do not fault Jackie for the inconsistencies in her story either, because it is well-documented by groups such as the American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress that many survivors of sexual assault suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, which can muddle memories of the trauma in question. Like Jackie’s friends, I do not believe that she would have risked putting herself in the national spotlight if something truly awful had not happened to her during her freshman fall. But the attitude that I do find troubling is the one captured perfectly by UVA student Julia Horowitz in an otherwise thoughtful piece for Politico: “Ultimately ... to let fact-checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.”

Why is it so horrible to want to ascertain the facts of the situation? Is that not the rational first step when investigating any crime? It certainly should have been the first step for Erdely. I understand that it must be infuriating to finally muster the courage to come forward with a tale of sexual assault only to be told that, “We’ll have to verify this.” But it is difficult for me to envision another way to properly adjudicate a case. It is possible to believe a victim’s story and earnestly want to help them secure proper punishment for their aggressors while still ensuring that the story is accurate. Erdely even does this elsewhere in her piece, with the story of another student’s assault that actually made it to a formal hearing. The egregiously light punishment leveled on a student found to have assaulted three women? A one year suspension. UVA clearly has real issues in their conduct of sexual assault proceedings, as they are one of 86 universities currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education for possible violations of federal civil rights law (Harvard is another). After all, as Horowitz points out in Politico, why did everyone so easily believe such a horrific story if there were not some basis of truth to it?

That is what makes it all the more unfortunate that Erdely went forward with a factually-flawed account as the centerpiece of her story. Campus rape is a reality. The media frenzy that will accompany Rolling Stone’s apology will only serve to drive survivors of sexual assault deeper into the shadows. An earnest desire to help victims is commendable, but insufficient for effecting change without a solid foundation of fact.

Andrew B. Pardue ’16 is a government concentrator in Mather House.