Rape

What Have We Learned from the UVA Rape Story? Bad Campus Policies Are Here to Stay

We will get fooled again.

|

UVA
Public Domain

Media Matters ran an interesting piece that asked the editors at elite journalism outlets whether they changed any of their procedures in the wake of Rolling Stone's disastrous University of Virginia rape story. The answer, for the most part, is no.

Here were a few representative responses:

"I don't think that story holds any larger lessons about rape coverage, or whether one should believe alleged assault victims," New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet told Media Matters via email. "It was a poorly-done story … It doesn't make me any more or less likely to believe a source. We always verify, get the other side, and report the heck out of a story, no matter the subject."

For Martin Baron, editor of The Washington Post, the same is true: "Nothing has changed in our coverage. We always try to be both sensitive and careful, and to report such stories thoroughly."

Robert Rosenthal, executive director of the Center for Investigative Reporting, said via email, "This is very sensitive and difficult reporting and the Rolling Stone incident did not teach us anything except to rely on the standards and practices CIR has maintained for 37 years when it comes to verification for all of our work. And to do everything we can to make sure we are fair in our conclusions and that they are based on facts and sources who are named, not anonymous."

There is nothing particularly wrong with these answers. Newspapers and magazines already claim to vigorously edit and fact-check their stories. Rolling Stone compromised its procedures, but that doesn't mean the procedures themselves are inadequate. (It does mean that Rolling Stone engaged in unfathomable levels of recklessness for which the chief perpetrators have scarcely even apologized—let alone been disciplined—but that's another matter).

And yet I fully expect reporters and media commenters to fall for another Jackie. Indeed, they already have.

The Hunting Ground—a documentary about the campus rape crisis that was produced by activists, but initially drew favorable press from mainstream-ish outlets like The Huffington Post—came out after Jackie's lies were fully exposed. The film highlights several alleged assaults on campuses and was hailed as an expose of sorts, reinforcing the notion that colleges are brimming with abusive sociopaths.

Weeks after The Hunting Ground's debut, Slate's Emily Yoffe exposed one of its central stories—the alleged rape of Kamilah Willingham—as false. The long version is here. The short version is this: Nothing remotely criminal happened to Willingham. The victim was the male student she accused, whose entire life was put on hold because of her claims.

This cycle—outrageous rape story, heaps of praise and righteous indignation, thorough debunking—has continued in the wake of UVA, and existed long before it (remember Duke lacrosse?). Getting duped by fabulists is a recurring motif of the campus violence beat.

But why is that the case? Toward the end of the Media Matters article, National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill provides an answer, of sorts:

"To me, the worst aspect of the Rolling Stone article was the fact that the magazine and the author insisted on telling the most salacious story they could find, the most outrageous, the most sensationalistic story of rape they could find," said Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. "They worked directly with the head of the student group that advocates around sexual assaults, but they didn't [use many of those stories] and my understanding is that the less sensationalist stories were abundant. I think that right there tells you what's wrong with coverage of sexual assault in the United States today."

A media racing to break the most incredible, gut-wrenching, salt-the-earth story is a media that's going to fall for a Jackie every single time—particularly when so many people are predisposed to think that horrific, ritualistic campus violence is widespread (1 in 5! 1 in 5!).

The truth is harder to reduce into a shocking headline and simple theme. When today's teenagers arrive at college, they are liberated from increasingly overbearing parental authority for perhaps the first time in their lives. The evidence suggests that they are drinking more recklessly than they were before the imposition of the federal drinking age in 1985, chugging more alcohol in shorter periods of times and in sketchier environments. And then they are having sex.

Regrettable things can happen to teenagers under these conditions. They will consent to things they otherwise wouldn't. They will do things they don't remember later. They will misinterpret each other's social cues. Their feelings about their decisions will change as their heads clear.

This is not to say that all instances of campus sexual assault are actually just alcohol-induced confusion, but rather, that genuine confusion is often going to be a significant component of these disputes. This gives the media the difficult task of remaining objective and working extra hard to fairly investigate both sides. It's not an easy job, and it cuts against the desire to publish incendiary stories.

Think of the Emma Sulkowicz story. The most unbiased, objective analysis of the Sulkowicz-Nungesser dispute is that it's impossible to say for sure who's lying—though we should give weight to the fact that Nungesser was cleared, presented circumstantial evidence in his favor, and appears to be the target of a small social conspiracy. But nobody wants a complicated campus rape story with unclear answers. Indeed, I've been criticized by both pro-Sulkowicz and pro-Nungesser camps for failing to deliver a scathing condemnation of one or the other.

The media's penchant for campus sex drama—and eschewing of complicated narratives—has been eagerly embraced by policymakers who prefer simple, do-something solutions: it gives them an excuse to interfere. That's why legislatures are trying to redefine consent to make rape more prevalent—if you don't have explicit permission, at each step down the road toward copulation, it's rape—while vigorously policing sexual harassment on an ever-broadening, subjective basis.

The Title IX inquisition, and the neo-Victorian push to make most campus sexual activity borderline illegal, are partly the result of the media's shock-and-awe storytelling when it comes to campus rape. And for the meantime, we will be stuck with these policies, no matter how many times the Jackies of the world are debunked.

Read my initial report on the UVA rape story—which recently won a Southern California Journalism Award—here.`

Advertisement

NEXT: A.M. Links: South Carolina Votes to Remove Confederate Flag from State Capitol, Baltimore Mayor Fires Police Commissioner, Greece Seeks Last-Ditch Bailout

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. We need more ignorant conservative students to sue on “liberal” grounds 🙂

  2. Balance is the problem here. Sympathy abounds for the girl with a story of assault but the boy tells of being victimized by false accusations and a system stacked against him doesn’t seem to garner the same journalistic interest. At best your going to get the first type of story on page one and the latter as a follow-up to that one page eight.

    1. False. Either you take all rape accusations 100% at face value or you are a RAPEDENIER!

      1. Atticus Finch was a RAPE DENIER!!11!!!

        1. But a surprisingly good shot.

  3. Townies are better option?

  4. The most unbiased, objective analysis of the Sulkowicz-Nungesser dispute is that it’s impossible to say for sure whose lying

    This is how you don’t get into Columbia.

    1. You have an unjustifiably high opinion of Columbia.

    2. Actually, I’m pretty sure being unwilling or unable to draw perfectly obvious, if politically incorrect, conclusions from the evidence in front of you is a prerequisite for getting into Columbia.

    3. it’s impossible to say for sure who’s lying

      Congratulations on earning your “satisfactory” in remedial English.

  5. Womewn lie.men fry,Reminds me of the day care scandel In the 1990’s..In those cases the children were coached to lie.

    1. McMartin Trial. There’s a great made for HBO movie staring James Woods about that travesty.

      1. One of the McMartin kids is a regular poster here. Yeah, that movie was quite good.

  6. Something something we live in an empire of lies…

  7. i thought liberals wanted politicians out of their bedrooms.

    But now they’re begging to let them in.

  8. I would have expected this to be more of a feeding frenzy by now. Are we all frenzied out?

    Here is a Cannibal Corpse song.

  9. which recently won a Southern California Journalism Award

    Robby has finally worked through the guilt and confusion that, this time, everyone else didn’t get one too.

    1. To think that one could rise above the poor education he received from some not-Columbia School of Journalism excuse of a learning institution and receive such an award.

  10. This is a bit off topic but I think goes to the root of this kind of nonsense. This is a Yale professor named David Gelernter talking about his students, at Yale mind you.

    … and anyway how did we get to this point today when my students know nothing?

    They know nothing about art. They know nothing about history. They know nothing about philosophy. And because they have been raised as not even atheists, they don’t rise to the level of atheists, insofar as they’ve never thought about the existence or nonexistence of God. It has never occurred to them. They know nothing about the Bible. They’ve never opened it. They’ve been taught it’s some sort of weird toxic thing, especially the Hebrew Bible, full of all sorts of terrible, murderous, prejudiced, bigoted. They’ve never read it. They have no concept.

    The left basically murdered knowledge and reason in this country. They didn’t just stop teaching these subject. That would have been much better since people could always learn on their own. They murdered them by making them boring and tiresome.

    1. The left are totalitarians so for them everything must be seen through the eyes of the state and politics. And there is nothing more boring and tiresome than politics. If you don’t teach students Hamlet or who Winston Churchill was, they might go and find out on their own. If you teach Hamlet as an insight into the patriarchal oppression of women rather than a psychological thriller about moral dilemmas and Churchill as an evil white male who oppressed brown people rather than a really fascinating complex person failed as spectacularly as he succeeded, you have done worse than not taught them, you have made them boring and ensured no one but the most dedicated fanatic will care about or want to know about the subject. And if you don’t know anything but politics, you can’t think or reason in any sort of deep way. And if you can’t think or reason, you end up thinking shit like this is a good idea.

    2. And because they have been raised as not even atheists, they don’t rise to the level of atheists, insofar as they’ve never thought about the existence or nonexistence of God.

      I’m with him that ignorance is terrible and that kids should read the Bible and think about these things even if they don’t believe them. But someone who’s never thought about God kind of automatically doesn’t believe in God, right? Which would make them atheists.

      1. I am constantly amazed at what shallow thinkers people are of every persuasion. I meet committed atheists who honestly think that every theist is like Sheldon Cooper’s mother on Big Bang Theory and believes that God is like Santa Claus. When I confront them with what I consider basic questions about existence, epistemology and metaphysics they look at me like I am speaking Greek. Not only have they never thought about these questions, they seem not to really understand them. And these are not questions that require you to be Thomas Aquinas or Kant to consider. They are questions I thought everyone had at some point in their lives. I can’t see how anyone who has read any philosophy could not look at someone like Richard Dawkins and just laugh at what a sorry excuse for a thinker he is.

        The only thing I will give the right over the left is that the Right, while often just as shallow as the Left, their thinking is usually is rooted in common sense and the real world. The Left in contrast seems to live in a universe of words and cleverness with them and has no conception of how they relate to or effect the real world.

        1. John, I think you almost get at the problem even more than the ignorance Gelernter talks about. Not only are they ignorant, they don’t even know how to think (and note here, I don’t mean what to think). A friend of mine, an educated guy, was attending grad school at Columbia with a lot of young people (he’s in his early 40s). He was talking favorably about their attitudes and I pointed out a stunningly obvious contradiction. He took a moment to realize the point I’d made. But, at least I got it. Pointing out the obvious contradiction to his friends in a similar discussion, all I got was the blank stare and a “well that’s just your opinion”. I tried to explain that a contradiction isn’t a matter of opinion. It was like the Star Trek episode where Kirk blows up the computer by telling it “I am lying”.

          1. Gah…”but at least he got it…”

          2. Here is a great example of what you are talking about.

            http://www.hughhewitt.com/buzz…..-opinions/

            Hugh Hewitt interviews Ben Smith from Buzzfeed. Smith claims there is only one side to the gay marriage issue. Yet, Smith refuses to say that Sharia Law, which proscribes the death penalty for homosexuals, is evil. Smith is completely dumbfounded when Hewett points out the contradiction. Smith seems unable to comprehend why the two positions might be at odds much less try and reconcile them.

        2. ^^THIS It is like Dawkins and his ilk have literally never heard of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Maimonides, St. Augustine, and Immanuel Kant et al. It is almost like philosophy began with Nietzche or Heidigger and Christian theology begins and ends with Pat Robertson. (Except of course, the “good” Christians and Jews like Pope Francis and Reform Jewish rabbis but then they aren’t engaged in actual theology anyway). Note that I don’t agree with most of the conclusions that these men have made. But their thoughts are worthy of discussion.

          No they would rather just pick out the kindergarten version of a few difficult passages and hit people over the head. Because no Christian or Jew has ever struggled with how literally to take Noah, or the binding of Isaac (who??), or what does it mean that Jacob “wrestled with an angel of God”?

          1. One of my favorite writers is Julian the Apostate. He was the last Pagan Emperor of Rome. His criticisms of Christianity are incredibly sharp and entertaining. You don’t have to agree with him to appreciate what a smart thinker he was or how strong some of his criticisms were. He puts someone like Dawkins or Hitchens to shame. There might be a good career to be had writing atheist polemics by just cribbing Christian critics of the past. Either you would be hailed as the super genius of the age or you would go nowhere because people were too stupid to understand your writing.

          2. ” It is like Dawkins and his ilk have literally never heard of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Maimonides, St. Augustine, and Immanuel Kant et al.”

            Hardly surprising considering that Dawkins is a biologist rather than a theologian or philosopher.

          3. “It is like Dawkins and his ilk have literally never heard of Thomas Aquinas”

            To be fair, Dawkins does address each one of Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Proofs” in his book “The God Delusion”. I can’t say for sure whether or not he’s heard of the rest of those guys.

        3. I meet committed atheists who honestly think that every theist is like Sheldon Cooper’s mother on Big Bang Theory

          What’s funny is that Sheldon Cooper’s mother is the sweetest, most supportive and unpretentious character on the show, while Leonard’s mom, while extremely intelligent, is a cold bitch that massively screwed up Leonard’s self-worth as a child and continues exploiting it for commercial gain.

          Considering that Chuck Lorre’s mother characters on his shows are typically self-centered, narcissistic harpies, the portrayal of Sheldon’s mother is a telling one because personality-wise she’s completely unlike Lorre’s go-to mother archetype.

          1. That is very true. You would never want Leonard’s mother or family. And Sheldon’s mother is the only one on the entire show who has any common sense or emotional intelligence.

        4. epistemology and metaphysics

          I’m pretty sure that IS Greek :o)

    3. This is a very important point. I worked for 14 years at a major metro daily newspaper in the heyday of print — before the internet had cannibalized readership. Reporters are, by and large, know-nothings. Journalism as a degree is just a level above “studies” degrees. It takes little intellectual rigor. It requires very little actual knowledge of real things.

      Once, I pointed out an error to our science reporter. In an article he’d said that the electron was the heaviest particle in an atom. I assumed it was just a “slip” up, it was such an obvious mistake. He didn’t understand.I explained to him that, no, electrons are lighter than protons and neutrons by many orders of magnitude. He just looked at me blankly and said something to the effect of “Well, that’s what the source told me.” I was dumbfounded. He was the science writer! He didn’t even know enough to know what he didn’t know.

      How could he — or anyone on the copy desk — possibly fact-check a science article when they lacked basic high school science knowledge?

      The pattern repeated over and over in every area. Reporters doing stories on economics, politics, law, education, public policy, technology — take your pick — simply weren’t educated enough on the subjects to know when they were being snowed, or were simply hearing things wrong, and didn’t even know the right questions to ask to get at the truth had they wanted to. They were led around by the nose by their sources.

      1. What amazes me about journalists is how the seem to lack intellectual curiosity. I don’t blame a reporter for not knowing anything about science. You would think, however, if science became their beat, they would learn about the subject over time, out of boredom or osmosis if nothing else. Yet, they seem to never learn anything. Reporters who work the legal beat for years know nothing about the law, ones who cover the military know nothing about military history or how it functions, your science reporter doesn’t know what an electron is and so forth.

        1. Thomas Wolfe’s Peter Fallow character from Bonfire is the caricature of journalists I have in mind when thinking about major publications. A sleazy high-functioning alcoholic who stumbles into a big story and reports verbatim the stories fed him by grievance-peddlers in the community, and he’s hugely successful capitalizing on one-sided propaganda. He’s Erdley-ish long before there was and Erdley, if Erdley had taken a little more care.

          1. The novel North Dallas Forty has a similar character. The beat writer for the fictitious NFL team is a drunk who spends the entire game drinking and schmoozing paying no attention to the game and then stumbles to the locker room to get a few quotes from players and the coaches for his story. He knows nothing about football and can’t even be bothered to watch the game he writes about.

            1. That sounds like me as a spectator. Football is an excuse to imbibe and be ignored by my girlfriend, which suits me too.

              Maybe I should parlay my unique experience into a journalism career…

              1. As long as you mouth the right leftwing talking points, you will do great. ESPN will make you a senior writer.

        2. You would think, however, if science became their beat, they would learn about the subject over time, out of boredom or osmosis if nothing else.

          Why would they? It’s much easier to write about scientists’ choices of shirts.

        3. What amazes me about journalists is how the seem to lack intellectual curiosity.

          That’s entirely dependent upon the subject. Journalists are interested in political and social activism, so they’re very curious about that. When journalists take over the science beat their interest is in how their social and political beliefs are represented in science. So we have no reporting on electrons, but a Nobel prize winner making a joke or a rocket scientist giving a press conference with a girly shirt on makes worldwide news.

          1. They are totalitarians who see the entire world as politics. What a horrible dreary way to live.

          2. so… kinda like everyone else?

        4. It’s not just journalism. I work in a technical field and both the lack of curiosity and any intrinsic interest in the work is rampant. To me, it’s like working on an assembly line and having no interest in the cars being built to the point of not knowing the difference between models or even bother to drive one.

      2. I worked for 14 years at a major metro daily newspaper

        Let me guess: you were mild-mannered.

      3. “They were led around by the nose by their sources.”

        During your 14 years at the paper, you ever wonder why they employed editors? Now you know.

        1. Do you mean to imply that you think the editors were an effective bulwark against that? Hate to disappoint you….

          1. “Do you mean to imply that you think the editors were an effective bulwark against that?”

            Yes, if the editor is doing his job.

    4. Gelernter is an interesting guy in his own right. He was a standard academic (I read some of his computer science work as a graduate student) until he was targeted by one of the Unabomber’s bombs. He recovered (although losing use of his right hand and eye), and has since gone on to become a fairly passionate conservative and critic of modern universities. He’s worth reading, although a little too ‘conservative’ for my taste.

      1. Well, if there is one place where we need people who are a bit too conservative, it is academia.

    5. “The left basically murdered knowledge and reason in this country. ”

      What the hell are you on about? David Gelernter wasn’t attacked by the left, he was attacked by Ted Kaczynski, who was every bit as against the left as anyone posting here. A charmed life you must lead, John, if the left’s basic murder of knowledge and reason places so highly on your list of concerns. Right up there with your bizarre fear of the gay agenda’s plans for our nation’s public toilets.

      1. I don’t know what to say to this other than you are apparently illiterate and incapable of understanding text. I used Gelernter’s observation of the ignorance of his students to illustrate my broader point. I explained his observation. What I said had nothing to do with the unibomber or Gelernter’s relationship to the left.

        And Kaczinski was most certainly a leftist in his political philosophy. But that is neither here nor there. You completely miss my point and are apparently an idiot.

        1. “I used Gelernter’s observation of the ignorance of his students to illustrate my broader point.”

          Except that Gelernter doesn’t say a thing about how the left is murdering knowledge and reason in this country or anywhere else.

          “And Kaczinski was most certainly a leftist in his political philosophy.”

          Why don’t you read the Unabomber Manifesto. You really owe that to yourself if you are going to lecture us about Kaczinski’s politics. He sets out his views in the Manifesto and it won’t take too much reading to find out how scathing he is in his attacks on the left, and his rejection of all it stands for. As for leftists murdering knowledge and reason in this country, it is sheer nonsense. A look at just a few of the greatest contributions to arts and science will show that leftists are well represented.

          “You completely miss my point and are apparently an idiot.”

          This is just a guess, but you never considered the possibility that it’s you who missed my point, did you?

          1. Except that Gelernter doesn’t say a thing about how the left is murdering knowledge and reason in this country or anywhere else.

            Yes, that was my point not his. It is called thinking and making an original point instead of just repeating talking points. I took his point and built my own larger point on it.

            This is just a guess, but you never considered the possibility that it’s you who missed my point, did you?

            Since you had no relevant point, that isn’t a possibility.

            1. “Yes, that was my point not his.”

              So, why bring Gelernter up? You think your argument needs the intellectual heft that only a Yale academic can provide? I agree with you. It needs all the help it can get. Trouble is, Gelernter is not helping you here.

        2. And Kaczinski was most certainly a leftist in his political philosophy.

          That’s hilarious considering one of the big parts of Industrial Society and Its Future is all about how leftists have deep rooted psychological issues that doom their ideology and that neo-luddite anarchists (like Kaczinski) should never ally with them.

  11. Bad Campus Policies are Here to Stay

    They don’t have to be. These policies began with the Dept of Education, which ridiculously interpreted Title IX (which only restricts federal funds from Universities which discriminate based on sex) as requiring (among other things) sexual assault adjudication to use the preponderance of the evidence standard. Anything that started with an interpretation can be reversed with a reinterpretation.

    Such a bad faith interpretation should be highly publicized and result in the termination of any government employee involved at the policy level, along with restricting federal funds from any institution which hires such persons. Title IX should be amended to ensure such ridiculous “interpretations” cannot be made again. Make it a political issue.

    1. HUD and the Department of Education need to go. They’re of no value to anyone other than Marxists, they’re the enemy, so eliminate them entirely. Labor would probably be a bridge too far politically, unfortunately.

      1. While true when advocating an actual response I try to take real world limitations into account. No one is getting elected by promising to get rid of HUD and the D of E.

        1. I don’t know. The marxists are starting to show their true colors openly enough that you can see it without having to dig. If it isn’t a winner now, it will be soon.

  12. New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet told Media Matters via email. “It was a poorly-done story … It doesn’t make me any more or less likely to believe a source. We always verify, get the other side, and report the heck out of a story, no matter the subject.

    New York Times … always verify … bwahahahahahahahaha!

  13. The most unbiased, objective analysis of the Sulkowicz-Nungesser dispute is that it’s impossible to say for sure whose lying?though we should give weight to the fact that Nungesser was cleared, presented circumstantial evidence in his favor, and appears to be the target of a small social conspiracy

    We should ‘give weight’? to the fact that Nungesser was cleared–by the inquisition that masquerades as a source of justice at Columbia? If there was the slightest indication that Nungesser had done anything she claims he did we’d be having a very different conversation about this–the one that comes further on, about the innocent guys destroyed life.

    So, the most unbiased, objective analysis of the Sulkowicz-Nungesser dispute is that HE WAS CLEARED.

    Please stop vacillitating. These people don’t have a valid side. They’re proven liars acting on proven lies expecting us to just accept those lies–all your vacillitating does is facillitate this.

    1. Sulkowicz deserves scathing condemnation for the lies she has been caught it.

      And weighting the evidence of her post-“rape” behavior, I think if I were on a jury trying her for filing a false police report, I’d convict.

      1. “Sulkowicz deserves scathing condemnation for the lies she has been caught it.”

        I think her skills as a superb publicist and media provocateur deserve recognition. The outrage expressed here against her again and again and again is testament to the power of her message, and how threatening it is. Her lies are not going to handicap a career in publicity. They are money in the bank.

    2. Good catch. Robby on the Dreyfus Affair,

      The most unbiased, objective analysis of the Dreyfus dispute is that its impossible to say for sure who was lying – though we should give weight to the fact that Dreyfus was later cleared and freed from prison with his rank restored and presented circumstantial evidence in his favor and appears to be the target of a small conspiracy in the French Army.

      That is really an appalling piece of writing you quote. The guy is innocent by any objective or reasonable standard of proof. Robby should not be afraid to unequivocally say so.

      1. ^^^^^ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Actually there is more evidence against Dreyfuss than there is against Nunguesser!

        In the Dreyfuss affair, classified French plans did end up in German hands. So there was a spy operating in the French army’s general staff! And it’s pretty clear that whoever that actual spy who existed was, his last name wasn’t Dreyfuss.

        In the case of the Nunguesser affair, there is no evidence whatsoever of a crime (Sulkowicz, being a proven liar, is not a credible source of evidence any more than Giorgio Tsoukalos’ testimony is credible evidence of an alien visiting the Earth).

    3. it’s impossible to say for sure whose lying

      Well, yeah. 100% certainty is not available to us humans, after all.

      I could equally well say it is impossible to say for sure that Hillary is lying about her emails.

      Sulkowicz lied. We have more than enough information to say this with sufficient certainty. There is no reason to believe her, no corroborating evidence whatsoever for her story, and plenty of evidence, including her own statements, that she lied. Stop covering for her, already.

      1. Robby, please note the unanimity with which lawyers, who often deal with liars making false allegations, are reacting to your prevarifications.

        1. “prevarifications”

          Prevaricate, meet Verify.

          “Equivocating about whether or not you’ve confirmed your existing facts in advance”

      2. I get the feeling there’s a story involved in Mr. Soave’s refusal to call a quacking waddling creature a duck. Maybe we’ll hear it some day.

  14. “To me, the worst aspect of the Rolling Stone article was the fact that the magazine and the author insisted on telling the most salacious story they could find, the most outrageous, the most sensationalistic story of rape they could find,” said Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women.”

    This doesn’t even really get to the heart of the matter. There have been “sensationalistic” rape cases involving college students reported recently, cases that were real assaults. Both at Vanderbilt and during spring break in Florida, there were assaults captured on camera, involving drunk or drugged women being violated by multiple men. Horrible stuff, in other words. And definitely real.

    But I rarely, if ever, hear the campus rape crusaders mention those cases. They certainly don’t fixate on them like they did with UVA, “mattress girl,” etc. Wonder why that is…?

    1. Well, a large number of the cases you mention involve white women being violated by black football players. This doesn’t fit the narrative, so we don’t talk about them.

      1. This isn’t the prime reason. The purpose of the stories is to drive change. Those stories were handled by existing law and therefore do not support change. It’s not enough for a horrible rape to exist, the narrative includes that authorities must fail to punish it.

        1. Exactly. If the system is seen to be working, it’s harder to justify new laws that do away with due process and other tenets of our criminal justice system. It is horribly cynical, considering these are the people who claim to care so much about the victims. Only certain victims serve their purposes.

    2. The idea is not to report sensational rape stories. The point is to move the needle about what is rape and about how many men are guilty of it. The stories you mention, while salacious, are the actions of a few criminals and are clearly rape by any reasonable standard. Reporting on them doesn’t advance the narrative. The UVA case, in that it showed an entire Fraternity to be guilty rather than just one or two criminals, did advance the narrative.

  15. I think we need to start asking these rape hysteria Feministas “If young women are so mentally vulnerable, so subject to influence by ‘The Patriarchy’, that they cannot be trusted to make decisions about who to mate with, why do we allow them to vote?”

    Either these females are adult members of society who can live with the consequences of mistaken decisions just like the manes do, or they are delicate flowers that must be protected from the stresses and strains of Adult interaction, and should be under the protection of a man at all times.

    Which will it be, ladies?

    1. Which will it be, ladies?

      Which ever one happens to serve the feminist agenda in any particular circumstance, of course.

    2. You’re very insensitive. These women are clearly suffering, and we should all band together to end women’s suffrage!

      1. *snort*

        Y’know, Soda through the nose, STINGS. Pretty good distance, though.

    3. Now, now, everyone knows that logic and consistency are a tool of the patriarchy!

    4. “they are delicate flowers that must be protected from the stresses and strains of Adult interaction, and should be under the protection of a man the government at all times.”

      Fix’d

  16. Radical feminists have and continue to say that “rape or fear of rape is the weapon of the patriarchy.” If this is their sincere belief then it is reasonable to assume that they will use the accusation of rape as a counter-weapon. This is why we need to remain vigilant for the cause of due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Nobody wants to defend a rapist, but we do want to defend justice. Radical feminists seem to have it out for due process, calling it an institution that “oppresses women” because alleged rape survivors aren’t being taken at face value. Anything that creates for administrative courts or hearings is bad for a true inquiry into criminal acts. We all need to do better about refocusing the conversation on the institutions of common law and the presumption of innocence and stay away from victim blaming/bashing. Make it less about these individuals and more about the framework of law. Don’t let them (radfems) define the terms of the conversation.

    1. blah, blah, blah! RAPE DENIER!

  17. ” the notion that colleges are brimming with abusive sociopaths.”

    I believe this has been thoroughly documented beyond any doubt.

    But enough about Title IX compliance officers….

    1. ….and various ‘studies’ academicians.

  18. The other victims of the radical feminists, in addition to the innocent men, are the woman they convince are victims. My sister in law was hit by a car and very seriously injured when she was 15. While in the hospital, a doctor she hadn’t seen before came in and in the name of examining her looked under her gown and saw her naked. He never touched her or assaulted her just looked. It turned out that the “doctor” was some pervert who dressed as a doctor and sneaked into the hospital to see women naked. This was the 70s so the reaction from the hospital was “sorry”. She laughs about the incident today.

    Had this happened to her today, the hospital would immediately have sent in a team of specialist to help her deal with her “trauma” and basically convinced her that she was the victim of a crime that would affect her the rest of her life. And likely her being 15 and all, she would have believed them and what is now a strange incident she laughs about as an adult would be a life changing trauma.

    On college campuses feminists are ensuring that women who in the past would have seen a sexual experience as a regrettable encounter and a lesson for the future and convincing them they are victims of one of the most horrific crimes there is. And this is for their benefit?

    1. Any pix?

        1. Damn your eyes.

    2. I suspect you are right, John.

      We have whole cadres of people now whose livelihood depends on making sure people are traumatized and never get over it. The swarms of “counselors” who descend on every tragedy like buzzards create self-fulfilling prophecies that people were horribly traumatized by it.

      Back in the day, one of my friends was killed in a traffic accident. We went to his funeral. End of story. Now, though, we would probably have to meet with counselors, who would make damn sure we knew that we had been horribly traumatized and that it would take years to get over it, if we ever did.

      1. You see this with veterans. People came home from wars in the past and just didn’t talk about it. And in my opinion at least they were better off. Now they come home and are told they are victims and must dwell on every bad thing that happened and let it determine who they are. That is not doing them any favors.

  19. No new fake rapes? Too bad Bobby, still it’s important to remind us yet again of fake rapes in the not too distant past. A fake rape, even an old one, is infinitely more newsworthy than a real one.

    1. Yes. Women lying and trying to send innocent people to jail is a really big deal. You just are not real big on thinking are you?

      1. A lying unraped woman is more newsworthy than a truthful raped woman. Believe me, I get it.

  20. Read the unbiased truth: The complete Emma Sulkowicz timeline: http://newslines.org/emma-sulkowicz/?order=ASC?

    1. Anyone who has to claim to represent the “unbiased truth” is invariably in denial of their bias.

      Newslines is a network marketing website designed to generate revenue for “sparkzilla”.

  21. 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, the final police investigation report, 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

  22. While Soave is quite correct in shining a light on media complicity in, and culpability for, the widespread public misinformation on the alleged “rape crisis” or “rape epidemic” on America’s campuses, he fails to mention that the source of the mythology is the increasingly strident and politically powerful radical feminist movement, which has built an entire edifice of propaganda on disinformation, distortion and false indictments of American culture.

    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

    For the backstory on the way the meme of “rape culture” was created by feminist ideologues and eventually insinuated into almost every facet of US society, including nearly every media story on the “epidemic” of campus sexual assault, see: All Sex is Rape ? All Men are Rapists: Patriarchy = Rape Culture

  23. 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

  24. The Emma “The Mattress” Sulkowicz celebrity story may be the most salacious false campus rape allegation of all time, even surpassing the Duke Lacrosse Team scandal and the Rolling Stone fiasco for the rape fable with the most traction. See A Model of Campus Gender-Based Harassment: The Columbia University “Mattress” Story.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.