<p>Moreover, Erdely was just passing along heresy, as in "I’ve heard of three different gang rapes at xxx’… (Note, no proof, just, I’ve heard…) And, we don’t even know the source of the three? Was it just one person telling Erdely, that “I heard…”</p>
<p>Care to comment, Ms. Prez? Since it is impossible to prove the negative…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since we just reacting/speculating, maybe the victims – if indeed the assaults even took place – specifically told the College (or were counseled?) to not to bring in the police because she/they did not want to press charges.</p>
<p>In any event, confidentiality laws kinda limit what a Prez can say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, but there are many posts on this thread (and DoE guidance?) that make it clear that it is up the victim on whether the police are brought it.</p>
<p>She gets paid alot of money not to be flustered and act shocked at anything. That’s her job. Remember also that if a woman does not want to elevate ANY accusation past the confidential support that supposedly Eramo provides it would not rise in the organization. Right now, until mandatory reporting which is NOT required of Eramo there is NO WAY the police or other administrators would necessarily know about any specifics. Once it gets to the a level where the woman (or man) says they want to proceed formally EVERYTHING again is supposedly confidential. I’m not sure why this is difficult to understand. The differences in all the numbers has to do with the various reporting requirements of the various organizations - there is no ONE report. There are the Clery statistics and the Title IX statistics and they are not the same in terms of the data collection and what incidents to report. The reporter seemed fixated on numbers but sometimes in listening it felt contextually the reporter still didn’t understand the basic differences in Clery statistics and Title IX statistics.</p>
<p>UVa clearly has many avenues that women (and men) can take if they feel they have been subjected to harassment or sexual assault. Each has it’s own path and each has it’s own process and potential outcome. Sullivan clearly states that if a person chooses to adjudicate within the college that the college will not violate due process. Even back in October when this interview was conducted it’s obvious colleges and universities are well aware of all the legal cases dealing with due process. Sullivan also says that they will accompany an accuser to the police to report anything that is criminal but that the accuser can “turn down” that request and choose not to go to the police who have investigative powers and subpena power that universities do not have. I thought that subpoena power was a very important point and I’m glad Sullivan was able to slide that one in. Sullivan also stresses again that it is up to the accuser to choose to have the college adjudicate (or not)… I’m guessing that UVa is probably not that much different than any college and probably would deep down prefer that accusers to avail themselves of the criminal justice system when making criminal accusations against another student. </p>
<p>The reporter also brought up things that were happening off campus and not under the university jurisdiction and I thought Sullivan did a good job of briefly illustrating some of the ways the university interacts with the city, county and local businesses. </p>
<p>That turns out not to be true. If a serious allegation is raised, UVa doesn’t have to keep it confidential. And in other cases, UVa did not keep accusations confidential: other people were notified.</p>
<p>After the article was published, Sullivan said the police are involved. </p>
<p>If we are concerned with how schools are handling the sexual assault issue, this is an example where it would be helpful to find out how UVA handled the gang rape accusations. </p>
<p>Yes. We don’t know when. I think it is important to know when. </p>
<p>The police are involved but I don’t know what people expect them to do if the accuser isn’t co-operating or accusing anyone specific. You cannot accuse a frat house that was pointed out a year later by a friend according to Jackie.</p>
<p>That’s assuming that “accusations” were officially made, and it is not just parking lot chatter among the students. </p>
<p>Just because the Prez admits to “investigating” a frat doesn’t mean that it is for a gang rape. I have no doubt that Frats are investigated all the time, for all kinds of reasons. Her response to Erdely coulda just been good spin. The author raises an issue about a Frat doing badly, and the Prez admits that a frat is being investigated. The author makes a connection, where they may not be.</p>
<p>I know the reporting of a rape is a complicated issue. I know too well that some victims do not want to go to the police. The victims don’t want to relive the assault. The victims are traumatized. I don’t know if the victims can ever really recover. I think the assault is always out there. </p>
<p>UVA said they are trying to balance what the victim wants and needs with what society needs. I understand this…</p>
<p>can’t have it both ways…sure a gang of anything is vile. But so is one-on-one rape. </p>
<p>Both are felonies.</p>
<p>But back to Sullivan…can’t chastise her for not bringing in the cops if we don’t even know that something happened, and if it happened, whether the victim(s) didn’t want cops. (None of which she can speak about due to privacy.)</p>
<p>The fact that UVA does not always allow for confidentiality relative public or some other documents, e.g., a police report, is completely different than an employee (President) being bound by confidentiality. </p>
<p>A company cannot be sued for errors in a public report (unless it provided them). However, it can be sued if a company officer repeats or confirms a public report, which turns out to be a false allegation, especially if the officer seems to be leaning towards believing the allegation without any corroborating evidence. </p>
<p>In addition, the expressing of shock by an accusation or allegation is equivalent to conveying you think someone is guilty to the camera or written press. Anyone can make an allegation against another, but visible shock by a company officer is reserved only when those allegations are borne out, not before. Pretty much, PR 101 in knowing how to avoid getting sued.</p>
<p>“It sounds as though her friends had their doubts and we have no clue about UVA.”</p>
<p>Her friends and suite mate have not expressed doubt that something traumatic happened that night. The friends have expressed that they heard a different set of particulars (forced oral vs penetration) and they (understandably) wanted to correct how they were portrayed in the article. That is a far cry from saying something was made up and never happened.</p>
<p>Sorry but a college cannot “go after” anyone if they don’t know who to go after and the powers to be in a college who CAN go after someone will not have the information if a student chooses not to pursue it. It’s a terrible place that colleges and universities have found themselves in. And if they do try to put the proverbial hammer down they get slapped with lawsuits because universities simply aren’t in the business of criminal prosecution. I’m sure they can "skirt’ the issue. For instance, Sullivan ‘says’ they have talked to the fraternities. My guess is if administrators have an inkling that some student was involved in sexual assault by a member of that fraternity, even if they don’t have the specifics, they can talk around the issue/investigate very, very carefully. If it’s not reported officially there is not a whole lot universities can do, but they need to get that message out to the accusers because it seems to me we have alot of complaining accusers out in the blogging world who have done nothing to assist the universities (or the police). That is NOT a “wow” story for advocate Erdley and she wanted some sort of wow story. No wonder she “omitted” so much about what UVa answered when she asked her (in my opinion weak) questions. She kept asking Sullivan and gang about the under-reporting and really she’s asking the wrong people, she should be asking the students she interviewed “why are you not fighting this, why are you not reporting this to the university or the the police or both.” Asking the university seems really naive if she was “investigating.” I think we all have a pretty good idea why students don’t report and I suspect it has alot to do withs scrutiny…accusers don’t feel their story will stand up to scrutiny. Thank you very much Jackie for contributing to THAT fact. </p>
<p>And dstark - we don’t know there was a “gang rape accusation” in the channels the universities has to investigate and adjudicate. We have only the word of a person who is refusing to pursue adjudication either by a university or by the police. It’s just an allegation until someone presses charges administratively or judicially. It sounds like the university is looking into at least one allegation against a particular fraternity and right now that’s the end of the story. The Jackie story is being investigated so eventually there will be a report or a release of information, but that day has not come yet. Same story or two different stories we don’t even know that. </p>
<p>I bet Dean Eramo is an innocent person who has been badly hurt by this. She is just the “enforcer” of a policy. It is a fine line between protecting accusers’ sensibilities and getting police involved. </p>
<p>@3372: So you don’t believe the accounts that Jackie’s friends don’t believe the person texting them was in fact Jackie’s date but was Jackie herself? If the date was made up, then it’s hard to find a scenario where the rape occurred.</p>
<p>PG, her friends were shown a photo of a HS classmate who hasn’t been in Charlottesville in 6 years and were communicating with this alleged fellow who was reportedly her date through an internet service email address that they now suspect was Jackie. And, she was upset. And, no-one knows what did or didn’t happen. And, they can’t.</p>
<p>“I thought that it was possible that on the 28th that Jackie had kind of downplayed what she was telling me, either as a personal rationalization technique, or just to kind of test the waters and see how I’d respond to her telling me about this,” he said. “So I believed the account in the article once I’d read it first, too. I didn’t realize that it was even that bad on the 28th.” In the intervening weeks, Ryan Duffin said he has grown more skeptical of Jackie’s account. The discrepancies he knows from his personal encounter with her, coupled with Rolling Stone’s retraction and Phi Psi’s statement finding key discrepancies through an internal investigation have cast a shadow of doubt across the entire narrative."</p>
<p>Doubt. I’m sticking with doubt. And, doubt is the only reasonable reaction unless you are firmly committed to not doubting for some reason, like Ms. Erdely in her failed bid for a Pulitzer Prize…</p>
<p>Yeah, if not for the weird catfishing details, it would be more appropriate to be noncommittal. But as it is, it would be remarkable if Jacke was truthful.</p>
<p>“n addition, the expressing of shock by an accusation or allegation is equivalent to conveying you think someone is guilty to the camera or written press. Anyone can make an allegation against another, but visible shock by a company officer is reserved only when those allegations are borne out, not before. Pretty much, PR 101.”</p>
<p>I agree with this. It doesn’t matter what Sullivan knew or believed or what an investigation had revealed to that point. . . She had to come across neutral and merely indicate investigations were underway. And what’s the point of having her say they were serious allegations? Of course. </p>
<p>Momofthreeboys , the victims who are not going to the police are supporting those victims who are going to the police. They are also supporting changes so there will be fewer sexual assaults. </p>
<p>The author, asked Sullivan about gang rapes. Sullivan answered this by saying there was an on going investigation. </p>
<p>Saying a fraternity is under investigation is an interesting spin to a question about gang rapes. </p>
<p>“Are you under investigation for rape?”</p>
<p>“I am under investigation” ( for peeing on somebody’s lawn). :)</p>
<p>To be fair, I am speculating. I just think society should know the procedures. </p>