<p>The smear is that the frat was named in the article even though it might not even be involved at all. And it was never checked to see if it was ever involved. Even the house was not checked to see if it matches Jackie’s description. And even Jackie admits that someone pointed the house out to her, she did not identify it herself, even though the friend was never at the house at the alleged time. Therefore, Jackie never actually identified the house named in the article. </p>
<p>With all those loose ends, naming the frat is a smear and had an ulterior motive attached. That is wrong. Not to difficult to deduce that. </p>
<p>Awcntdb, you like to talk in absolute terms. All this… Every that.</p>
<p>If 92 percent of women are telling the truth and there are very few convictions or even punishments…we have a disconnect.</p>
<p>Many cases are very tough. We aren’t going to get 92 percent of the cases correct. </p>
<p>However, we can get more correct than we do now. </p>
<p>False accusations are bad. There are more rapists getting away with rape than there are false accusations.</p>
<p>The drinking scene should be looked at…
I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday. His son belongs to a frat. His son said some students drink so much they don’t know what they are doing. He sent his dad a video which I haven’t seen. I am sure most posters have seen the drunk scene. Maybe experienced it.</p>
<p>The students are out of it. They barely know what they are doing. And yes… Guys take advantage. </p>
<p>Changing the drinking scene is one way to cut the amount of rapes. This will not eliminate rapes. </p>
<p>The saying… Candy is Dandy but Liquor is Quicker has been around a long time.</p>
<p>Hanna, I’m sure you must know this-getting a top secret security clearance is grueling. My 24 year old has one and my older kid is going through the process now for his new job. They talk to anyone and everyone and do seem to care about what kind of people you associate with. And they do want to know about any and every thing remotely sketchy that you could have been associated with. Yes, chances are this will blow over for these guys but I’ll bet there is some anxiety about that for them and their families.You keep saying their names arent out there but rosters have been posted online,etc.</p>
<p>The one where I was told in post 1073 that I was doing a lot to help “smear” the Phi Psi members by saying that the old boys’ network is going to continue to work for them. And I stand by that point, which is not a smear.</p>
<p>Yes, sevmom, I’m sure they are experiencing anxiety about it, but I think they’re going to be OK.</p>
<p>“Even if the old boy network flourishes, it does not give people the right to just smear them.”</p>
<p>And I never said it was. We’re discussing what the future consequences of the scandal are likely to be for these young men. In the end, I don’t think it’s going to hold them back much, if at all.</p>
<p>Yep. I know all the names of every member in the years in question. What else you want to know about them? </p>
<p>Easier to avoid those years associated with that frat for now than deal with nonsense later. Who knows who Jackie or the reporter might name later just to give the story credibility, whether or not the names are legitimately involved. Do not need the hassle, just avoid them. </p>
<p>Ergo, damage done. Probably not lasting damage, but there is damage. </p>
<p>However, I agree with Hanna on one point, which is saving grace. I do hope that their frat brothers in corporate America back them up and hire them if they are innocent and were just smeared to advance a story. it is still wrong to smear them though.</p>
<p>The smear I was referring to was what the article did, but your statements leave the impression that you do not care that these boys have been falsely accused because they will be “fine” when rescued by their old boys network. It was a callous statement that reeked of the biases which had everyone rushing to judgement in this case to begin with.</p>
<p>awcntdb, That is the problem in a nutshell…</p>
<p>In family court, domestic violence claims are decided using the preponderance of evidence standard. This is basically having a judge ruling that they are 51% sure the accused is guilty of domestic violence. The punishment ends up as a result of that ruling with a restraining order. So consider what the harm is if the judge is wrong, it means the accused has to stay away from the accuser. If they were falsely accused why would they want to be anywhere near that person anyway. (I know that is an oversimplification but read on)</p>
<p>Universities have been tasked with the same edict for cases of sexual assault. The end result of a case which has 51% assumed guilt is a real life altering punishment, suspension from the University or expulsion. I think that makes it really difficult for the people forced to judge these cases, knowing the significance of their decision. Especially at places like UVA, where all of these students work so hard throughout their lives to get the grades, test scores and activities that will gain them acceptance. I definitely would not want to be in the judgement position with that standard of proof. </p>
<p>A woman has sex with a guy a couple of times…she sees the guy again and he forces her to have anal sex. She doesn 't report. Later she finds that another woman was groped and another woman was assaulted by the same guy…</p>
<p>What do you do? If the guy has assaulted three women, he is probably not going to stop at three, is he? Maybe there are more already. Many sexual assaults are not reported. </p>
<p>Then again… Where is the proof?</p>
<p>Where I used to live… There are cameras. Set up… Every car is identified as the car is driven into the community…</p>
<p>This was a very low crime area before the cameras were installed. Somebody was murdered (murders almost never happen in the town ) and the murderer was never caught. Or maybe, there never was a murder because nobody was caught. Maybe this old lady shot herself somehow from several feet away?</p>
<p>Should we have cameras at schools? Living areas? </p>
<p>Of course, if cameras are used, the pictures or videos should never be destroyed. </p>
<p>Mamalumper, I have been on retainer for the last year for a student who was expelled from his elite college after being found “responsible” for a sexual assault against his girlfriend. It’s a he-said-she-said, and he was not charged with anything in connection with the incident. He is attempting just to find a college that will allow him to resume his education. Even his in-state public universities are turning him away. This student is my second sexual assault expellee of 2014. I know about practical consequences following a sexual assault scandal and what they can look like. I don’t think this is the sort of pattern where the kids are going to need my help.</p>
<p>There’s nothing callous or biased about looking at a wound and saying all it needs is a band-aid. In my professional judgment, that’s the case here.</p>
<p>It is still possible that something happened to her-at that fraternity, another one, a dorm, on the street. Or nothing happened. But we just don’t know. And it was totally irresponsible for Rolling Stone to put out the name of their fraternity when no arrests had even been made.</p>
<p>The sad issue for these guys is that “Drew” does not exist and is a composite or made up name. What person does not get that now this means all guys in the frat during said time in question is suspected as being "Drew.’ Naming someone specifically is not necessary to make a whole lot of young men, who may have done zilch, be suspect in someone’s mind. The fact that there is no real Drew means anyone can be Drew. Smear away…</p>
<p>Bloomberg had a very balanced story on Friday. The closely paragraph aligns pretty much with my opinion. You can almost skip the first third as it’s been hashed over here but from the middle on is worth reading. </p>
<p>Lots of people don’t put their frat/sorority on job applications unless they had a position of responsibility or did a lot of community service through the frat. For jobs with high security clearance, everything about you will be scrutinized but not necessarily disqualify you if you answer questions satisfactorily. And there will always be someone reading a resume who has a bad reaction to some item (they don’t like your college, your a cappella group, ultimate frisbee, your age, race, sex, etc.). I don’t think any UVA Phi Psi member is going to be shunned by larger society merely because of their affiliation.</p>
<p>According to the girl with the mattress, Emma, two other women told her they had been raped by the same man and one of the two told her she had reported it to the administration. Neither reported it to the police.
According to Emma’s parents he was found “responsible” in that second case but it was later granted an appeal of the verdict. </p>
<p>As far as I know the other girls stories and the boys defense has not been published. </p>
<p>“Emma tried to explain that, after meeting two women who told her they too had been raped by Nungesser (only one of whom filed a complaint), she realized that she should overcome personal shame and report him to ensure the safety of others” </p>
<p>“The fact that Nungesser had previously been found “responsible” by a Columbia panel for following another Columbia student to her room, shoving his way in, forcefully pinning, and groping her was not allowed as evidence in Emma’s hearing. Just days before her hearing, Dean Valentini granted an appeal of this verdict, which re-opened the case and consequently disallowed it as evidence. This effectively hamstrung Emma’s case. (An aside: The final hearing for this other case was scheduled and held at a time the complainant had specified that she was not available to testify. Without her presence, the original panel’s “responsible” verdict was easily overturned.)”</p>
<p>If nobody associated with the frat during the time mentioned worked as a lifeguard, then nobody at the frat should be considered Drew. The members of the frat can’t be Drew by definition of who Drew is.</p>
<p>And the conversations quickly gets back to lying and how this affects some unnamed boys’ job chances.</p>
<p>“Is anyone denying [that rape happens?] After reading most of this thread I don’t see that anywhere yet it seems to be an issue.” What some are doing IS shifting the focus.</p>
<p>“There are other women mentioned in the RS story? Are they lying too?” …given Jackie, I am not dumb enough to stake my credibility on them either given the current story.</p>
<p>Doesn’t that sound dismissive? What a GD shame. RS F’ed up, so some will make sweeping assumptions most stories are laden with inaccuracies-?</p>
<p>If this thread were solely about media ethics, that’s one thing. But in a world that already disbelieves and looks for holes in a woman’s story (or plain old doesn’t want to think about it)…many here are focused on those holes, too. It stands out. So do the sidelines, whether someone carted a mattress or what’s involved in a security clearance. </p>
<p>Some of you know this isn’t the first thread on this topic. And there is often a turn to “oh, the boys, their futures…” </p>
<p>“I was reacting to the seeming lack of concern about the calculated smearing of this frat.” “The smear is that the frat was named in the article even though it might not even be involved at all.”</p>
<p>Or,“your statements leave the impression that you do not care that these boys have been falsely accused because they will be “fine” when rescued by their old boys network.”</p>
<p>One poster is particularly focused on lying. “…entire chorus denying the fact that females who seemingly lie or embellish about rape is not a problem and that we should sympathize with them because other rape happens.”</p>
<p>“If nobody associated with the frat during the time mentioned worked as a lifeguard”</p>
<p>Right. And the reason I believe the fraternity when it says it looked into it and found no PKP lifeguards is that that’s an objective, falsifiable statement. Their lawyers would never have let them make that kind of claim unless the written records put it beyond debate.</p>
<p>Talking about how damaging false rape accusations are for men is not changing the subject and is not just about affecting job chances. While rape is probably the most damaging thing that could ever happen to a woman’s life, being publicly falsely accused of being a rapist is probably the most damaging thing that could happen to a man’s life, precisely because rape is such a heinous, horrifying act. I feel like some of you don’t put those two things together. And this is why men are so defensive and fight so hard not to be called rapists. I’m a woman, and even I get it.</p>