UVA Updates: 2 Frats Refuse Sex and Alcohol Demands, Phi Psi Speaks Out, Rolling Stone Still in Denial

It remains to be seen whether UVA will tolerate this defiance.


Wikimedia Commons

There have been a few recent developments in the UVA situation. First, members of the University of Virginia's Phi Kappa Psi chapter went on the record to discuss how their fraternity was affected by the false accusations levelled against it in Sabrina Rubin Erdely's Rolling Stone story.

Current and former Phi Psi brothers told The Washington Post that they were initially horrified to read Jackie's account as reported by Erdely. But after the story's publication, they quickly realized that the given date of the attack—September 28th, 2012—could not have been accurate. Rather than denounce the story publicly, they largely waited for the police to acquit them. Earlier this week, the authorities confirmed that Phi Psi was off the hook.

Still, it's been a difficult couple of weeks for the brothers of Phi Psi. Other students threw bricks through their windows and spray-painted 'RAPISTS' on their front lawn. They even moved into hotel rooms to duck protesters. The brothers told The Post that no one should consider them the victims, however:

[Phi Psi Brothers] Scipione and Fontenot said that the Phi Psi brothers experienced a difficult fall semester but said no one should consider the fraternity members as "victims."

"We don't want to take away from the real victims, which are the victims of sexual assault," Fontenot said. "We think it is incredibly unfair that the Rolling Stone article could in any way take away their credibility and the support they need."

UVA has revoked Phi Psi's suspension and invited all Greek organizations to resume campus activities—as long as they sign a new pact with the administration. This agreement obligates frats to only serve certain kinds of alcohol at parties and guard the stairs leading to the house bedrooms. Phi Psi readily agreed to the terms, but two other frats—Alpha Tau Omega and Kappa Alpha Order—have refused. Representatives for these groups say their own internal party rules are better than UVA's new dictates, and that it's wrong for the university to make demands that stem from a debunked allegation. According to the frats' identical statements:

The University violated the previous [Fraternal Organization Agreement] as well as student individual and organizational rights. The system-wide suspension, which was initiated for reasons that were found to be untrue, unfairly punished all members of fraternities and sororities.

It was maintained and used as leverage to require the changes to the FOA. Because we do not accept the validity of a suspension imposed in contravention of the existing FOA, university policy, Virginia law and the constitutional rights of our members, we are not compelled to sign a revised FOA to continue operations on campus.

It remains to be seen whether UVA will tolerate this defiance. I remain skeptical that the administration's new requirements would improve safety at frat parties, and am troubled that the university believes it should, in effect, police students' sex lives by obligating frats to guard the bedrooms.

Finally, Rolling Stone is still in denial about its role in creating this mess for UVA Greek life. Journalist Richard Bradley—who was the source in my initial report questioning Jackie's story—reports that Rolling Stone's latest issue contains a note from the publisher addressing "A Rape on Campus." Unfortunately, the note fails to admit what everyone already knows to be true—that the story is false and the product of an incomprehensible journalistic failure. Here's the note, according to Bradley:

A Note to Our Readers
In RS 1223, Sabrina Rubin Erdeley wrote about a brutal gang rape of a young woman named Jackie at a party in a University of Virginia frat house ["A Rape on Campus"]. Upon its publication, the article generated worldwide attention and praise for shining a light on the way the University of Virginia and many other colleges and universities across the nation have tried to sweep the issue of sexual assault on campus under the rug. Then, two weeks later, The Washington Post and other news outlets began to question Jackie's account of the evening and the accuracy of Erdely's reporting. Immediately, we posted a note on our website, disclosing the concerns. We have asked the Columbia Journalism School to conduct an independent review—headed by Dean Steve Coll and Dean of Academic Affairs Sheila Coronel—of the editorial process that led to the publication of this story. As soon as they are finished, we will publish their report.

Jann S. Wenner
Editor and Publisher

That's just not nearly good enough. This note acts as if the verdict is still pending merely because Columbia hasn't finished its review yet. But The Post has done much more than "question" Jackie's account; the newspaper has definitively disproved the version of the account printed in Rolling Stone. The note also asserts that Rolling Stone disclosed its concerns "immediately" after skepticism surfaced in other news outlets. That's not exactly true. Bradley raised questions in a post on his blog on November 24th. I first reported some concerns (Bradley's among them) on December 1st. Rolling Stone's people kept defending the story up until December 5th.

Bradley accuses Wenner of dishonesty in his note to readers:

All of this matters, I think, because it helps get to the bottom of how this mess happened in the first place. As Michael Dukakis famously once said, "The fish rots from the head down." If Jann Wenner can't be honest about what happened even now, what does that suggest about the editorial culture he fosters at Rolling Stone? He's the founder, the editor, the publisher. Ultimately, it's on him.

Indeed. More on the UVA debacle here.

NEXT: Lifting the Cuban Embargo: Feds Announce Laxer Rules for Travel, Trade with Cuba

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I guess it is too much to ask that Rolling Stone feel in any way bad about the harm they caused to innocent people at UVA. No, they are just going to stall and wait until public attention moves onto something else. Covering their own sorry asses is as always the most important thing. As for the harm they caused at UVA, well I am sure those evil white, frat boys were guilty of something.

    1. In their minds, they got the right people for the wrong crime. Even if they didn't rape this girl, there's surely some other crimes going on. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

      1. Where there's fog there's smoke.

        1. where there's frats there's heterosexual men.

          where there's heterosexual men, there's hetersexual sex.

          all heterosexual sex by men is rape.


      2. They got the wrong people for the right crime. There's a war on women out there, somewhere, and perhaps the men of Phi Psi weren't footsoldiers of patriarchy but others are. It's only a matter of ferreting out the actual rapists.

        1. The only "gender war" out there is against men, who people like you believe are all potential rapists and "footsoldier of patriarchy".

      3. Where there's smoke, there's fire, even when there's no smoke!

      4. it's rape all the way down - 24/7

        well at least in Warty's dungeon.

      5. Sometimes where there's smoke there's a smoke-making maching.

    2. they are just going to stall and wait until public attention moves onto something else.

      You want cynical? I bet they're waiting for actual events to catch up to their lies. They're hoping some hideous rape actually occurs somewhere so they can proclaim vindication.

      1. god that's sick, but probably eerily accurate

      2. Hey, why do you think feminists seek to actively subsidize single mother households, imprison fathers who can't pay child support, and invent legal defenses to help women get away with child abuse? Because by creating the circumstances conducive to the upbringing of rapists, they guarantee a never ending supply of them, meaning feminism never loses its raison d'etre.

  2. This agreement obligates frats to only serve certain kinds of alcohol at parties and guard the stairs leading to the house bedrooms.

    You need affirmative ascent to go upstairs.

    1. Those poor little white women need protection. At this point why don't we just require all women attending college to be accompanied by a male family member whenever they are in public? That would ensure that nothing ever happened to them. If a woman wants to go to college, she needs have her father or an adult brother there to protect her.

      1. I think all white college women should be issued a Bersa Thunder .380 upon matriculation.

        1. But guns are evil Restoras. Didn't you know that? Why would you want to soil their chastity with a gun?

          1. Why would you want to soil their chastity with a gun?

            Now that's a silly question.

        2. No. College is just too dangerous for the little wymyns. The girls will just have to use online colleges.
          and make us some goddamn sandwiches!

        3. Why not just stick them in chastity belts? Boom, problem solved.

          Thank me later, feminists.

          1. I think hijabs are in order, as well. If it weren't for women's exposed skin and face driving men mad, none of this would occur.

          2. Actually, the most sure way to eliminate rape is just to require all women to consent to any and all sexual activity. It's the only way to make yourself truly rape-proof.

            1. I've always said rape is a big problem... Women really need to consent more.

        4. Instead they should arm themselves with a can of beans.

      2. Lol, women are probably ten times as likely to be raped by a male family member than a stranger.

        1. A non biological male family member, yes. The best way to keep your kids from being molested is to stay married to their other biological parent.

          1. Indeed. Single mothers are the most disproportionately likely to abuse, and single fathers the least likely.

        2. Though they are probably also more likely to be protected by a brother or father than some frat dude who drew the short straw and has to guard the stairs.

      3. Perhaps we should also require women to wear some sort of shapeless full-body covering when she goes out, with only her eyes visible to see. Not to oppress women, of course, but to protect them from all the rapists out there.

      4. This is what happens when you educate women.

      5. And require that they wear burkas so as not to inadvertently arouse normal male passions, and increase penalties for sexual assault to beheading of the male sex organ.

    2. WYDTISI

    3. You need affirmative ascent to go upstairs.

      I laughed at this, but I didn't want to.

      1. Usually the metaphor is "downstairs"

        1. Affirmative Descent, on the highway to hell

      2. Same here. Don't feel bad.

  3. "We don't want to take away from the real victims, which are the victims of sexual assault," Fontenot said.

    Classy. And brilliant since this will enrage the Jezebel crowd, hopefully to the point of making more unfounded statements.

    1. It was a very good move on their part, unlike what the UVA administration decided to do regarding frat house parties. I applaud the two frats that are standing up to the UVA administration but I fear they have a long battle ahead of themselves.

      1. Actually, I would bet they win this easily. UVA is in no position to fuck with them in this case, and would most likely 1) lose, 2) make themselves look stupid in the process, and 3) it would be a chance to hammer again and again that UVA made these rules based on a fucking lie.

        1. I bet they win as well. UVA just wants this thing to go away. If they stand up and make a stand, UVA will back down.

        2. You know the university will double down. They've accepted their role as honoring the spirit of the allegations and propagating the sexual assault epidemic myth.

          1. No, they have too much to lose.

            Also, to many old school alums are disgusted at the PC turn the university has taken and will support the frats. UVA alums are not known for being poor and powerless.

            1. Aren't they going to have the federal government and the Dept. of Education on their side?

              1. Only if the frat names those agencies as parties in a suit. If I were them I wouldn't do that for obvious reasons.

            2. It is possible that the UVA administration may be so delusional and stupid that they actually will double down, despite the fact that it would be counter to their own interests. I think they're so far removed from reality, they honestly don't know how unpopular they are now.

              Also, the federal government probably would intervene to save the day. Remember, these fascist policies they're pushing were all but demanded and implicitly guaranteed by the federal government.

          2. UVA will fight the case to ensure the support of campus radicals, but eventually they'll lose the court case. What happens to ATO and KA in the meantime? I suspect they effectively become an unrecognized fraternity.

            Are current brothers willing to forego on-campus activities for the remainder of their college careers? This case could easily take that long to resolve if UVA refuses to budge. In exchange the new rules have very little impact on the system. Are the brothers willing to take that pain for so little gain?

            1. "so little gain"?

              Are you kidding? Their off-charter parties will be vastly superior than the pinch-lipped prude parties all the other frats will be throwing.

              Worst case scenario: their social events are the "it" events of school year.

              1. I think you're right about this. They're now the "bad boys" of the fraternity scene. And the the University will have virtually virtually no leverage in dealing with them.

                1. Yep. Anything that smacks of retaliation won't go over well.

                  1. The university can still sanction them. Hell, they could expel them if they wanted, the university gets to play by its own rules (and make them up as it goes along).

                    I get the impression the UVA president and a lot of her colleagues (including many leading faculty of course) are bona fide foaming at the mouth feminists. They seem genuinely oblivious to the consequences, and may well take this course anyway. A proverbial Custer's charge.

              2. If that were generally how fraternities members felt they would all organize off campus and forego university recognition. Obviously they're getting something they value.

            2. "I love And respect my ATO brothers"

      2. I agree with Epi. I suspect they will back down on this. Between the frat boys' families, the national frat organizations and various well-wishers they are going to have deep pockets to litigate. Also, many UVA ex-frat guys are now white shoe lawyers.

        1. Also, many UVA ex-frat guys are now white shoe lawyers.

          And also Wall Streeters in all sorts of capacities and thus in a position to throw their donations in other directions.

        2. The frats that are holding out should agree to the new restrictions on condition that UVA sign an admission of complete wrongdoing, including in their move to punish the frats for UVA's own risibility. Lard it up with a preamble about how UVA's signing such an agreement will reduce rape, female victimhood, violent assaults of all types, etc, while not signing it will prevent the frats from moving forward on such crucial female-helping, rape-reducing measures. Smack it into UVA's court. Sign the confession or cause women to be raped.

        3. Paul Tudor Jones, U.Va fraternity guy. Pockets don't get much deeper.

        4. For that matter, I would bet a quarter of the frat members are pre-law or law school. That's mostly what UVA produces. I bet they and their professors (if not afraid) would love to have a real life classroom court experience.

        5. I'd like to believe you're right. But the federal government (remember we still have Obama for a couple more years) may not just sit and watch its 'war on women' campus agenda take a slap on the face. If they let that happen, universities might actually be afraid to violate the rights of male students, and the administration can't have that.

    2. I don't like it.

      They are victims. Recognizing this does not detract from the victimhood of rape victims.

      Waving it off like this just ratifies what was done to them, wrongly and with malice, but administration and the hateful harpies of movement feminism.

      It buys into the very narrative that caused them harm. Its like he has Stockholm Syndrome.

      1. Yes, they are victims. But they are also rejecting the victimhood narrative which the Jezebel crowd pushes, in effect saying that they are better than that and that victimhood is only for the weak.

        Also, you know the stink the Jezzies would have kicked up had they dared to use one of their worship-words.

        Again, totally brilliant.

        1. I agree, T-dog. It's a deliberate "fuck you" to the rape obsessives and their victim narrative. And it was done perfectly.

        2. If they'd joined Kappa Alpha and Alpha Tau Omega in telling Sullivan and the college administration to stuff their revised FOA up their asses, I'd agree with you. But, the deference to the victimhood narrative combined with their rolling over leaves them looking like a bunch of cowed dogs.

          1. I seriously cannot understand how you are getting deference (?!?) to the victimhood narrative out of this. It's explicitly rejecting it, at least for them. How can you not see that?

            1. They're rejecting it for themselves. But, leaving the victimhood narrative on which they were attacked unquestioned.

              1. I don't think that's what they did. Saying sexual assault victims are victims is not buying into a victimhood narrative. They did not say "women are victims" as RC Dean seems to think.

                1. Except lets consider the facts in play here. Making this about "the poor raped girls" doesn't make any sense otherwise, because, in this case, there are no raped girls. They're saying the victimization of a non-existent person is what should be the topic of discussion. In effect, they're accepting the narrative that the wrong against them is less than the wrong against Jackie (if we're going to go with the ordeal of a non-existent rape victim, we might as well go with the one already in the wings). Isn't that the SJW narrative in a nutshell?

                  1. I'm 99% sure that's not what they meant and that they aren't talking about Jackie. I'm fairly certain what they mean is that false accusations hurt sexual assault victims by reducing their credibility in the eyes of the public. Which is true. I don't think they needed to come out and say they're not victims. I think they are in this case. But it's not some egregious offense, nor is that statement buying into "SJW victimhood narrative"

            2. It's explicitly rejecting it, at least for them.

              That is half of the hateful harpy victimhood narrative right there: white men can't be victims.

              So, after affirming half the narrative, they then buy into the other half: women are victims.

      2. But they are also rejecting the victimhood narrative which the Jezebel crowd pushes,

        No, they aren't. They go right ahead and reinforce the victimhood narrative being pushed by Jezebel (they refer to women being the "real victims" in that very same sentence).

        Aside from that, though, by saying they aren't victims, they are saying that the administration and the hateful harpies really haven't done anything wrong.

        They are buying into and reinforcing the justifications of the people who are attacking them.

        Stockholm Syndrome.

        1. They said sexual assault victims, not "women" were the real victims. That's definitely not the same thing. I think they're just trying to take the high road. Not sure what their end game is with regards to anything legal.

        2. They didn't say women, broadly, are the real victims. They said (in tactful terms) that when decadent feminism allows or even encourages deranged narcissists to make themselves the center of attention and sympathy by lying about rape, that comes at the expense of the credibility of and attention given to women who actually do get raped.

          But then, progressivism basically is the product of technologically enabled narcissists, so it can't so much be reformed as contained until eventually it withers away from gazing at its own reflection.

          1. They didn't say women, broadly, are the real victims.

            True enough, depending on how broadly you read "rape victims". People inside the hateful harpy narrative are likely to read it pretty broadly.

            They said (in tactful terms) that when decadent feminism allows, etc.

            I dunno. I don't think the reference to Rolling Stone is going to be read that way. They never make the slightest reference to the wrongdoing at and by UVA. Its all Rolling Stone's fault. Pfeh.

          2. They didn't say women, broadly, are the real victims.

            What you did there, I saw it.

      3. I agree. I think Tonio is just too optimistic. I don't think this is a fuck you at all. I think these kids are genuinely indoctrinated, and sincerely believe that if any shit gets shoveled in their face, they'd better just eat it. And if they deep down believe otherwise, they know damned well to shut up about it, which is most important.

        As for the jezzies, some I'm sure will applaud this reaffirmation of their belief that men don't have the right to be indignant about being falsely accused; to them, these boys are just showing the feminists that they're "good ni**ers."

    3. To me, it sounds spineless. "Yeah, we might have had our property defaced by a reckless, infantile mob of SJW's, but we totally understand why and we're okay with it. Viva La Revolucion, comrades!"

      1. Going after the individual vandals would be practically difficult and petty. Rolling Stone, Erdely, and other high-level actors will get the treatment.

        I suspect that the frats have already had some high level crisis management advice, they are doing everything by the book.

        1. If I'm planning a lawsuit against anybody, the last thing I want on public record is me saying "I'm not a victim."

          So, either Psi Phi is going to just lay down and do nothing (my bet, at this point), or they are getting really bad legal advice.

          1. They are not playing for a lawsuit, but a settlement IMO.

            1. And if you're not ready for a lawsuit, don't expect a settlement.

            2. The size of your settlement is directly related to the strength of your lawsuit.

              My quibbling over the frat guys statement is just that, though. Its a shame that it is so limp, and I think he just damaged their prospects for a good lawsuit.

              1. It is the University who fears the lawsuit. They want this to go away, without more mud on their hands. The frat threw them a bit of a bone, which may make the lawsuit happen, quietly and smoothly. All this proggies care about is their reps, not the money stupid kids pay to attend their overpriced shit hole.

                Just my opinion, but I think these kids just want their payday, not fight the system as I would want to do.

              2. But because you don't consider yourself a victim does not negate the fact that damages have been incurred for which redress can be pursued in court. But IANAL and I think, RC, that you are so a do respect what you are saying.

                I think that saying that the frat saying 'we are not victims' is throwing in the face of Rolling Stone and UVA that they are further victimizing the true victims of rape, a point that has be expressed here often.

                1. Forgive the opening 'But'

              3. The frat guys may actually have too much integrity to sue. That's often the case unfortunately.

                Keep in mind, the next time any woman goes to one of their parties, then has sex three days later or gets called a skank at the party and files a sexual assault/harassment claim that can somehow be used to incriminate the frat continue the punishment. The university owns them and the feminist lynch mob is always on call. They may just want to purchase enough good will from the administration to get them to leave them alone.

  4. Finally, Rolling Stone is still in denial about its role in creating this mess for UVA Greek life.

    Intellectual integrity? What the hell is that? Never heard of it. Has this blown over yet so that we can go back to printing completely false stories?

    1. The narrative was right, they just got the facts wrong. Just because this particular rape may not have happened, doesn't mean the larger narrative of campus rape isn't true and doesn't mean that Rolling Stone was right in publishing this story. The value of bringing attention and action about the larger issue is much greater than any concerns people may have about the factual minutia of this particular case. The case was always just a symbol of the larger and more important problem.

      I think that about covers the rationalizations that are going on at Rolling Stone and a lot of other places about this story.

      1. John,

        I was worried about you until I got to the end.

        "Factual minutia" - 2014 phrase of the year.

        1. I forgot the "e" on the end of "minutiae". But a lot of people would have made that mistake.

          1. Well sure but most especially you...

            1. If you are going to pick nits, "most especially" is a redundancy.

              1. Touche...

                1. 'Touch?', actually.

          2. Only if it's plural, John. But in this case it is, so "-ae" would be correct.

      2. There is no larger problem. Rape on college campus is just as low as the rest of the country. Been falling for years as with all violent crime. It's so dumb that every thinks that there is an epidemic of rape going on. Any crime for that matter.

        1. Of course there isn't. I was being sarcastic. Understand, the facts won't get in the way of these people believing what they want to believe.

        2. NSmallz13, the progressive feminists NEED it to be a problem if they are going to destroy rule of law. Jackson and Sharpton NEED racism to be a problem. The environmentalists NEED global warming.

          People who divide communities in order to destroy the system need issues to divide with. If rape and racism are not a problem, they will make them a problem.

      3. "The case was always just a symbol of the larger and more important problem."

        Oh, I couldn't agree more.

        1. the larger and more important problem

          Why is Rolling Stone still being published?

    2. Didn't Rolling Stone used to put out "Best Party School" lists before they became PC dinosaurs?

      1. In the 80's, it was Playboy that put out that list.

        1. Ah. Had them both filed under "magazines that used to be fun to read".

  5. Columbia J-school is on the case? Good, because no one from there would just uncritically accept this kind of story.

    1. In fairness, the Columbia Journalism Review has done a good job of debunking b.s. liberal stories in the past. They went after the hoax study about McDonalds and the minimum wage pretty aggressively...taking the side of McDonalds.

      1. Also in fairness, I know very little about the Columbia Journalism Review itself. I am mostly just piling on a certain Jezebel writer who jumped all over Robby, called him an idiot, and then played the "I DRIVE A DODGE STRATUS" card after he commented on the article, noting that she went to Columbia Journalism school for 10 months, dammit! Then she was again a total a-hole on twitter to Robby after this was all revealed to be a hoax.

        Hopefully the Journalism Review is objective, no matter how it comes out, but we will see.

        1. Understandable. She merits the scorn.

        2. Ann Merlan was the particular shithead to whom you refer. I concur, I worry about the Columbia Journalism School.

  6. If neither the university nor the fraternities are going to sue for libel, I can't see how shaming Rolling Stone is going to help. There is exactly one way to force Rolling Stone to admit wrongdoing and change their behavior...hit them in their wallet. Since UVA and the fraternities have apparently removed that option from the table, there is no incentive at all for Rolling Stone to change. They clearly don't care that they lied...they'll care less if there are no real world repercussions.

    It's like Jesse Ventura realized when Chris Kyle lied about punching him out...if you don't sue over the lie, then the public record will be that the story is true.

    1. We don't know who is going to file suit, yet. This should provide many months of entertainment.

      My guess is that the University won't be filing suits, but will be defending against them.

      1. Both the fraternity and the university indicated that lawsuits aren't being considered.

    2. hit them in their wallet

      Which might be much better accomplished by shaming them relentlessly in public, driving down their readership and their advertisement revenue, whereas a libel suit probably just gives them something to rally around.

      1. I don't know, my think is, anyone who still reads the Rolling Stone is probably so deluded even this won't deter them; in fact they'll probably view it as a badge of honor. To people like them, a journalist whose story is proven to be a lie isn't shameful; rather, they're like a war hero who put up a good fight but fell in action against the horrible capitalist patriarchal truth.

  7. Excellent work, Mr. Soave. If more journalists had the balls to do what you did and take the heat for it, I believe the world would be a better place. Well done, sir!

    1. Seconded.

  8. the way the University of Virginia and many other colleges and universities across the nation have tried to sweep the issue of sexual assault on campus under the rug.

    It turns out that in this case, what they were sweeping under the rug was a false accusation by a disturbed and/or lying woman. And now, things have turned 180 degrees: that's what Rolling Stone and Erdely and all the feminists are now sweeping under the rug.

    So, where are the in-depth investigations of Erdely's earlier rape stories? The priest-rape and military-rape stories have already been at least partly debunked online, but it's time for the major media to step up.

  9. OT:

    NYC jails hired guards despite arrests, gang ties.

    I'm not sure which is better: The part in the headline, or this part of the article:

    Investigators deemed application investigators undertrained and found they failed to make meaningful background checks or run credit reports. They were also reliant on an applicant evaluation scale of 1 to 5 despite no clear understanding of whether a '1' or a '5' was the best score. Thus, the report found, 90 percent of applicants received a meaningless '3' on the scale.

    1. And aren't they now putting female guards in male prisons? Brilliant.

      1. Worse, they have female guards in male juvenile facilities. And they are very often the worst sorts of sexual predators. But since women can't really be rapists and raping and abusing males, even children is always funny, no one ever worries about it.

        1. And when they get knocked up by their rape victims, the boys get to pay child support once they turn 18. Rape culture indeed.

  10. Whatever happened to going to college to learn?

    1. That went away in 90s with the advent of Grievance Studies.

    2. Oh, I would say this has been a hell of a learning opportunity.

      Not sure exactly what lessons are being taken, and by who, but there's lots to be learned from this.

    3. "What are you? A college boy or something?"

  11. Personally, I would love to see a settlement where Erdely has to personally clean the frat houses and do the lads' laundry.

    1. She becomes their butler?

      1. Bang maid.

        1. You know what happens next?
          "She vacuums the carpet?"

          1. Don't be facetious Brett.

            1. The quote was "fatuous", not "facetious."

          2. +1 The Dude.

      2. Not butler, cleaning lady and laundress. A much lower grade of servant. No, basically she'd come in after the big parties to clean up the puke, etc.

        And have to get up close and personal with the lads' smelly underwear, both exciting and repulsing her...damn, didn't mean to go all SugarFree on you all.

  12. UVA has revoked Phi Psi's suspension and invited all Greek organizations to resume campus activities ? as long as they sign a new pact with the administration.

    "Good news, everyone! Nothing bad happened but in the spirit of avoiding anything bad that could happen, please sign this agreement guaranteeing that nothing bad will ever happen."

    1. Reminds me of when the bank wanted to sign up for their $200/month fraud protection program when they had been liable for my checks being stolen and washed from their branch.

    2. Nothing bad happened but in the spirit of avoiding anything bad that could happen, please sign this agreement which is based on the assumption that something bad happened."

  13. I'm impressed by how smoothly Soave has handled those vicious attacks from various feminists he had to endure for the grand sin of doing his job.

    If it were me, I would have stuck my dick so far up Jezebel's ass that when I pulled out the tip would've smelled like cats and desperation.

    I applaud Robby Soave for being infinitely more mature than I am.

    1. Robby really should move in for the kill. It's perfectly mature to finish someone off once they're down. Just do it quickly.

    2. That's why we're down here in the commentariat and he's up there on the masthead.

    3. If it were me, I would have stuck my dick so far up Jezebel's ass that when I pulled out the tip would've smelled like cats and desperation.

      The goggles! They do nothing!

    4. I know you're a libertarian and all, but bestiality is still a crime, so keep your dick away from the Jezzies.

  14. f Jann Wenner can't be honest about what happened even now, what does that suggest about the editorial culture he fosters at Rolling Stone? He's the founder, the editor, the publisher. Ultimately, it's on him.

    He's a witch!

    1. He's the founder, the editor, the publisher. Ultimately, it's on him.

      There's where you're wrong, Bradley! I have it on good authority that It's On Us.

      1. If the idiot Rolling Stone article is on Wenner, then the idiot Ron Paul Institute article is on Ron, no?

  15. I have to admit I think the Phi Kappa Psi brothers handled themselves well in all of this. Not the rape, of course. They shouldn't have done that part, but everything that came after they met with class.

    1. Yeah, everybody knows you remove all the breakable furniture before you start.

    2. I made same point below

      I suspect they have good counsel.

    3. True, the rape could have been carried out much more elegantly. See this is why boys need rape education, so they do it right!

  16. my classmate's aunt makes $66 /hr on the internet . She has been without a job for seven months but last month her payment was $18218 just working on the internet for a few hours. check it out.....
    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  17. The fraternities are apparently smarter than I expected

    They know that playing victim will win them no points, so they use the 'won't someone think of all the Real Rapes?'-weapon right back at the admin and rolling stone.

    Also - resisting the 'collective punishment' is also smart = these new rules as likely just so much pretext to setting up a few fraternities for enhanced scrutiny on inevitable violations, and eventual purges.

    By resisting and forcing the admin to double down, they're not making themselves out to be victims *yet*, but put the admin in the position of having to beat on them harder when they have no actual leg to stand on.

    1. It appears Ace of Spades has expressed this as hilariously as anyone's going to.


      1. I'm afraid Ace did some serious underestimating. The real damages come at lost earning potential. Any of these young men not get their dream job? Well, we all know why THAT happened. No, I'm afraid the plaintiff will suffer an average annual lifetime loss of earnings of at least $35,000. Over 40 years.

    2. Also - resisting the 'collective punishment' is also smart

      Most of them are signing up, including Phi Psi, not resisting.

      1. "Most of them are signing up"

        All that is noted in the piece is that phi psi acceded; and that 2 others have so far openly refused.

        do you have any source that clarifies how 'most' are in agreement?

      2. I don't. Somewhere, I got the idea that most had rolled over, but I'm not sure where.

        1. The deadline is tomorrow, though. So we'll know soon enough.

  18. "We don't want to take away from the real victims, WHICH are the victims of sexual assault"

    Altert Jezebel - frat guys are objectifying sexual assault victims!

  19. my classmate's aunt makes $66 /hr on the internet . She has been without a job for seven months but last month her payment was $18218 just working on the internet for a few hours. check it out.....
    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  20. Not one reference to Double Secret Probation? Fucking shit. This is the perfect scenario for Animal House quotes.

    1. Go back to the 80s.

  21. I definitely see the "we're not victims" caveat as politically astute, but I hope they will seek redress for the very real harm they have received.

    Free tuition for every member of Phi Psi, for a start.

    1. Because I just can't quit:

      I think the smart thing for them to do would be to never utter the "victim" word. Period. There's no upside for them in doing so.

      If you're agreeing with new UVA requirements, and they are, then the only statement I would make would be something like:

      "We are reluctantly agreeing to these new requirements, even though they were based on allegations that have turned out to be false. We hope that UVA will eventually come to agree that organizations that have done nothing wrong should not be punished in this fashion."

  22. Robby really should move in for the kill.

    As W C Fields said, "Never hit a man when he's down. Kick him."

  23. I remain skeptical that the administration's new requirements would improve safety at frat parties

    Gee, ya think?

    You know what might improve safety at frat parties? For college girls to stop being stupid cunts who drink themselves to the point where they aren't even aware of where they are, and can't control or protect their own bodies.

    1. I remain skeptical that the administration's new requirements would improve safety at frat parties

      Especially since we have no reason to believe they were unsafe to start with.

    2. Is there even any evidence that happened?

  24. my co-worker's mom makes $75 every hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for ten months but last month her paycheck was $13904 just working on the laptop for a few hours. use this link...........
    ????? http://www.netcash50.com

  25. For the complete story of the now infamous Rolling Stone article on the alleged U-VA gang rape, its fallout, the media firestorm of criticism, the apology, and the demagoguery of those radical feminists who refuse to apologize for propagating the myth of "rape culture" and the meme of "victim culture", see: Yellow Journalism and the Meme of "Rape Culture" - Rolling Stone and U-VA Gang Rape

    For the backstory on Sabrina Rubin Erdely's entire journalism career built on fictions and half-truths, see: Journalistic Fabulism and Ideological Agendas ? the Sabrina Rubin Erdely Story

  26. For an in-depth expose of the evolution of universities from institutions of higher learning into witch-hunt tribunals for the "rape culture" advocates, see: New Puritanism ? New Paternalism: The "Rape Culture" Narrative Demeans Women, Demonizes Men, and Turns Universities into Witch Hunt Tribunals

    The deprivation of basic constitutional rights for men and their attempts to fight back are addressed in: The Pendulum Reverses ? Again: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's Campuses & Men Strike Back against Title IX Tribunals

  27. And, for the history of the shift of the Women's Rights Movement from an egalitarian to a totalitarian one, see: When Progressive Social Change Becomes Regressive Ideology: From Women's Liberation to Cultural Misandry

  28. Glad to see these two frats sticking it to the woman.

    Considering that the only documented real violence and mental aguish related to this story was suffered by a frat house and its members, it seems like any new agreement between frats and the university should address how the school will protect their safety and punish their assailants and wrongful accusers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.