<p>I have skimmed the last several pages because of time constraints but I have to say that surprisingly I agree with @Marie1234 characterizing UVA as having called the story in RS a lie. The Rector (Chairman of the Board of Visitors) was all over the news yesterday calling the article all sorts of names. </p>
<p>However, did anyone see Sullivan’s quote in the ABC story that was linked? She goes way beyond 1 in 5 and quotes a figure of 1 out of 2!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder if that’s just either a misquote or a misstatement. Probably about 50% of entering freshmen/transfers are already drinking regularly, and some smaller percentage of entering students have experienced a form of sexual trauma. It would be easy for Sullivan to misspeak.</p>
<p>Well anyway, here is the jezebel link which should include the PDFs. While UVA may have stonewalled RS, Erdely’s tone is just awful when she writes to the other “survivor” and asks for her photo. It’s as if she is saying, “sorry your tragedy isn’t awful enough, smile for the camera”. </p>
<p><a href=“Emails: How UVA Stonewalled Rolling Stone On Rape Story”>http://jezebel.com/emails-how-uva-stonewalled-rolling-stone-on-rape-story-1673274277</a></p>
<p>I couldn’t copy and paste the quote but here it is
</p>
<p>Horrible. I hope she said no!</p>
<p>No. Renda’s photo is in the article which is still up despite all the inaccuracies.</p>
<p>Ok Marie. I find it odd to mention the emails and a big lie in the same sentence. </p>
<p>I read the emails. </p>
<p>CF, yeah the 50 percent number stood out for me too. As did the mention that a fraternity was under investigation. Also interesting was UVA shooting down the 2014 rape.</p>
<p>Wow, agree , what nitpicking. Maybe marie was referring to both the emails and the rector’ s statement. Who knows but I don’t see how it is adding anything to the discussion to keep harping on it.</p>
<p>Ok Dstark, those were the two new developments of the day. That’s all. What the emails show me is the writer was doing a fill-in-the-blanks piece that she had already written prior to interviewing anyone. But, we already know that, too.</p>
<p>“As for the presence of other people during the interview: If that’s the only way I’ll be allowed to talk to President Sullivan, then so be it,” Erdely wrote. “But I imagine a university president is fully capable of getting through a phone conversation on her own, without help.”</p>
<p>And, she’s snarky.</p>
<p>Marie ok. Sorry that I misinterpreted what you wrote. </p>
<p>I have to go soon. Has anybody read the email where the author mentions gang rapes and the response is a frat is under investigation? </p>
<p>If somebody stumbles on this email, would you please tell me what page that is? </p>
<p>I don’t want to read the emails again. :)</p>
<p>I approve of Sullivan’s use of the word sexual trauma. I think that is an excellence way to characterize everything that is happening on college campuses. Perhaps that is why she’s the “President.” </p>
<p>Technically, a ream is 500 pages. lol. And UVa isn’t in the NE. </p>
<p>And, folks, mini was certain the sexual abuse problem was far greater than stats showed. </p>
<p>Ok…this was from the Washington Post…it wasn’t from an email. Marie posted the link. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/rolling-stone-never-asked-u-va-about-gang-rape-allegations-according-to-newly-released-e-mail-exchanges/2014/12/19/1b9cc248-87cf-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/rolling-stone-never-asked-u-va-about-gang-rape-allegations-according-to-newly-released-e-mail-exchanges/2014/12/19/1b9cc248-87cf-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html</a></p>
<p>This was also mentioned in a previous article.</p>
<p>There is an audio…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>deleted -
I am going to do my best NOT to wade back in here :)</p>
<p>Dstark: you don’t need my help. Thank you. You are really great. Thank you again.</p>
<p>“You’re right, Bay and blue bayou. I wrongly thought that the Rector was a religious position. I’ll agree that the Rector speaks for the University and his calling the article a malicious falsehood counts as the University saying it’s a big lie.”</p>
<p>Agree. Thank you for fact checking the rector position. I was on my phone so difficult to do. </p>
<p>LF - Ream definition: large quantity of written matter. Technically emails are digital.</p>
<p>You are kidding, right? Oh my. So much confusion over a simple two-part sentence. Wow. And, I wondered why people couldn’t quite grasp the distinctions between fact and fiction in the article. It’s becoming clear, now. Thanks.</p>
<p>Note that UVA calling the article false does not mean that they are saying she wasn’t assaulted that night. It could be “the particulars of the assault are different from what we believe to be true.” Or “the steps that happened after we were notified are different from what was portrayed.” I sense that some of you think that UVA calling the article a lie = Jackie was bored that night and wanted to make up a story. </p>
<p>"As for the presence of other people during the interview: If that’s the only way I’ll be allowed to talk to President Sullivan, then so be it,” Erdely wrote. “But I imagine a university president is fully capable of getting through a phone conversation on her own, without help.”</p>
<p>And, she’s snarky."</p>
<p>I’d say the same thing if I were trying to get to the president without PR spin. This is not a condemnation of her. There may be plenty of things to condemn this writer on, but picking on this is just silly. </p>
<p>^i disagree, PG, and would go further and say that comment was rude. Erdely was requesting an interview that Sullivan was under no obligation to give but did consent to. A simple “thank you” would have been appropriate. What amounted to a criticism and insult was not. </p>
<p>The audio interview is very interesting. The President acknowledged that UVa was not exempt from the issue of sexual assault on campus.She pointed out a lot of positives the university was working on , as had the advocates who were interviewed by Erdeley. (including a national conference they hosted about sexual violence on campuses earlier in the year, fraternity initiatives about bystander awareness, etc.). But little or none of anything positive seems to have made it into the article. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two can play that game: I would’ve imagined that a Penn grad (aka Erdley) “is fully capable of getting through” (aka, writing) an article using real facts "on her own, “without help”</p>
<p>But then I’d be wrong, since the RS editors aren’t even educated enough to pull that off. 
</p>
<p>Nothing much from the interview made it into the article at all. And, she didn’t really ask much of anything substantial, either. Also, the one case she did ask about which wasn’t Jackie’s was the one where UVA told the fact-checker the printed version was “objectively false”. Also, if you want someone to open up to you and answer questions honestly insulting them first is probably not the best way to establish trust. But, she didn’t want that at all because the story was the story before she got there and she has already admitted that and shopped around for the most dramatic victim story true or false. There’s nothing to defend here.</p>