Rolling Stone in retrospect:
What went wrong
What Went Wrong

Rolling Stone's Nov. 19 article titled "A Rape on Campus" — now retracted — depicted a violent sexual assault which allegedly took place at the University chapter of Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. Six months after author Sabrina Erdely's now-infamous piece was published, student leaders and some of her sources reflect with The Cavalier Daily on the implications of the article, and how they, and the University, were represented — or often, misrepresented.

The article describes how a University student, referred to as "Jackie," was assaulted and the University administration's subsequent response upon hearing Jackie's report. Following the publication of the article, University students demonstrated myriad responses — among them protests against Phi Kappa Psi, the University's Greek community as a whole and the University administration.

On Nov. 20 — the day following the article's release — anonymous students vandalized the Phi Kappa Psi house, breaking windows and spray painting the words "SUSPEND US" and "UVA Center for Rape Studies." The vandals also issued a letter criticizing the community's inaction toward sexual assault and demanding certain reforms.

"We applaud the bravery of those who have shared their stories, and we promise that their bravery will not be in vain," the letter read. "This situation is just beginning. We will escalate and we will provoke until justice is achieved for the countless victims of rampant sexual violence at this University and around the nation."

Community members also reacted to the article by holding a rally against sexual assault in the Amphitheatre Nov. 20. Students hosted a "Slutwalk" rally Nov. 21 to protest rape culture and the notion that rape can be avoided if women refrain from dressing provocatively.

Another rally outside the Phi Kappa Psi house Nov. 22 ended in the arrests of four protesters who refused police requests to leave the stairs leading up to the house. University faculty held a "Take Back the Party: End Rape Now!" rally during the evening of Nov. 22, calling for the reform of sexual assault culture at the University and its relevant adjudication policies.

Student Council President Abraham Axler, a second-year College student, said the initial reactions to the article were due to the community's heightened emotions.

"I think that the sensational elements of the article raised everybody's level of emotion," Axler said. "I think that it is harder to think cogently and to think sustainably when emotions are very, very high."

Axler also said due to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the University administration was unable to provide the answers the community demanded.

"I think that dissonance between what students knew and what administrators knew because of federal law made things more challenging and, I think, raised the level of emotion," Axler said.

Regarding the vandalism of the Phi Kappa Psi house and the subsequent letter of demands, Axler said he believes the act was one of punishment and not an attempt to resolve the issues brought forth in the article.

"That kind of collective, ad hoc kind of community punishment was not particularly productive," Axler said. "It really would have been much better if we could find that strength and confidence, sort of, in our justice system — that it was going to eventually resolve — in ourselves. And that is very, very hard to do, and I think that why that was so hard to do was because of how sensational the article was."

"I think that what [Reid] was really able to do for us was let us realize the significance of this, but then also frame it not just as 'It's this one story that we need to focus on,'" Thum said. "He encouraged us to, more, look at this story in the Rolling Stone as emblematic of bigger issues that a lot of us know exist at this school."

The University's chapter of Phi Kappa Psi released a statement Nov. 20 stating it was voluntarily suspending its Fraternal Organization Agreement with the University and expressed its compliance with the forthcoming investigation. The chapter also voiced its disgust at the article's allegations.

University President Teresa Sullivan announced in an email to the University community Nov. 22 that all fraternity organizations, and their social activities, would be suspended until Jan. 9, 2015.

Sullivan said in the email that the suspension would allow the administration to "assemble groups of students, faculty, alumni and other concerned parties to discuss our next steps in preventing sexual assault and sexual violence on Grounds."

Third-year Commerce student Cameron Thum — the Inter-Fraternity Council community service chair at the time of the Rolling Stone article's release — said reactions to the suspension varied across the Greek community, but many felt that Sullivan's decision was overly reactionary.

"At that time it was really complicated," Thum said. "I can't imagine how difficult of a policy decision that must have been for President Sullivan. I think that general [feeling] that students in Greek life felt was likely, 'This doesn't really make sense, this doesn't create a long-term solution and this is just sort of accusing — it's putting blame on the easiest party to blame.'"

Thum said that upon reflection, members of the Greek community probably understood Sullivan's predicament at the time and realized the suspension was made with the University community's best interest in mind.

"I think it was really necessary for students at U.Va. and individuals in Greek life to have that opportunity to step back and sort of reflect upon what we want this system to be known for and how we want this system to be governed — so that our social functions are safe for all guests, that individuals don't feel threatened or out of place when they're there but that rather they feel that it's just as safe as anywhere on Grounds," Thum said. "It's kind of dual-edged in that regard."

Axler said he did not have an issue with Sullivan's decision to suspend Greek life, but was not in support of the speed at which she came to the decision.

"What I think that I — and a lot of other students — criticized her for was that she did not, I think, adequately meet with Greek students leaders before making that decision," Axler said. "It was her decision to make, but I would have liked to see her consult with the relevant students before making that decision."

Thum said the IFC had heard rumors about the release of the article but knew nothing about the gruesome details of the alleged assault.

"We knew that it was likely going to portray the fraternity in a bad light, but, like, really that was sort of the cap of our knowledge," Thum said. "So when the article came out, we shared the same sentiments [as] all of the student body, all of the alumni, all of the administration — we were just sort of shocked by this, and terrified that this could happen, not only at our University but within this system that we care about."

Thum said fourth-year College student Tommy Reid — IFC president at the time of the article's release — remained level-headed during the events after the article, and approached the situation with an understanding of its significance and severity.

"I think that what [Reid] was really able to do for us was let us realize the significance of this, but then also frame it not just as 'It's this one story that we need to focus on,'" Thum said. "He encouraged us to, more, look at this story in the Rolling Stone as emblematic of bigger issues that a lot of us know exist at this school."

Many members of the IFC governing board at the time of the article's release were also members of the all-male sexual assault prevention group One in Four. Thum said that in part because of this, the group had a level of preexisting awareness about issues of sexual assault. Even prior to the article, the IFC had begun to consider measures it could take to prevent sexual assault within and perpetrated by members of the Greek community.

"What Tommy did and what we tried to do as a governing board was to frame the story as issue-based as opposed to events-based, so that the policies which we tried to put in place, which we already had been considering prior to the article, were not seen as reactionary," Thum said. "We wanted to work on our governing abilities through the IFC to address these issues already, but once this article came out it just sort of bumped that up."

The University administration also implemented new sexual assault prevention and awareness programs following the article's publication. University alumna Emily Renda, project coordinator in the Office of the Vice President of Student Affairs, said the administration's quick implementation of sexual assault prevention programs appeared reactionary, but that, in reality, many of the programs were being considered long before Rolling Stone.

"From my perspective as a staff member, there were things that we had been working on for months and even years that now were bound to appear as reactionary and responsive, and the urgency with which they were hustled out to show that we were responding made them look even more so, which was frustrating," Renda said.

Renda referenced Green Dot as an example of a program which may have appeared to be a direct reaction to Rolling Stone, but was in fact planned for release long before the events of November unfolded. Green Dot is a program emphasizing bystander intervention as a means of preventing sexual assault, and Renda said it is "one of the very few research-based, evidence-based prevention programs that exist." She said the administration — particularly Associate Dean of Students Nicole Eramo — worked with Dorothy Edwards, head of Green Dot, for several years to implement the program at the University before its rollout this March.

"We've been trying to bring them in slowly," Renda said. "We hadn't negotiated a contract because initially Green Dot operated under a model in which there were no student peer educators involved — it was all faculty and staff. And at U.Va. we know that we like to maintain a certain level of student involvement and student self-governance in the things that we do and implement, and things don't go over well here if they have a top-down feel to them. I think we can all kind of resonate with that."

Renda said the administration resolved to implement the program following the release of its adjusted version — "2.0" — which includes student peer educators in the planning and execution of student education about bystander intervention and sexual assault prevention.

"We've been planning that January initial training, that had about 150 faculty, staff and students, since July or August, and it's hard because of its proximity to the article," Renda said. "It looks like all of a sudden we just called in Green Dot, but it had been negotiated over a longer period of time. We also didn't necessarily have the evidence to back up the program — that was only sent out for peer review recently — so I think that's the prime example of people kind of felt like it was a direct response when in reality it's something that took a lot more logistical operation and setup."

"Placing so much of the weight of the story on a single source, I wouldn't think of it as a matter of ethics as a matter of practice," Coll said. "It's just bad practice."

The University also released an interim sexual assault policy Mar. 30 after an open feedback period from the University community. Renda said the administration received hundreds of comments from students, alumni and community members, all of which were read by teams of eight staff members.

"It was very funny in a very sad way, reading some comments, and you get to the end and they say, 'I doubt anyone is even reading this,' and I'm sitting there at 11 o'clock at night with a cup of coffee in my bed like, 'Yep, that's me. I am reading it,'" Renda said. "I can promise you they were read and catalogued, thematically coded and all sorts of things."

Following Rolling Stone's publication and subsequent apology for the article, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism conducted a review of the article itself and the surrounding reporting practices, the findings of which were published Apr. 5. With the release of this report, Rolling Stone fully retracted "A Rape on Campus."

Two of the Columbia Journalism report's authors — Steve Coll, dean of the School of Journalism at Columbia University, and Sheila Coronel, dean of academic affairs at the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University — led a press conference on Apr. 6 to discuss the findings of the investigation.

Coll and Coronel said the report was not intended to blame Jackie, but rather lay fault with Erdely and shoddy journalistic practices by Rolling Stone.

"What Sabrina Erdely told us about that was she believed the fraternity had already been informed about the details she had possessed by the University of Virginia," Coll said. "Now, that turned out to be a misunderstanding, and it's not a reason not to provide the full load of details at that moment."

Coll also said covering rape cases journalistically is difficult, as journalists have no authority to adjudicate blame on the behalf of an institution.

"Usually you're not in a position to, as a journalist in an unadjudicated case, make some definite finding about guilt or innocence in a sexual assault matter," Coll said. "But what you can report on [is] institutional response, and that's a place to bring people into the public square."

The authors of the report also reprimanded Rolling Stone's apology letter, which essentially placed the blame of the article on Jackie, saying the magazine's trust in her had been "misplaced."

"Placing so much of the weight of the story on a single source, I wouldn't think of it as a matter of ethics as a matter of practice," Coll said. "It's just bad practice."

Since the publication of the article, several of Erdely's sources have said they felt the article did not accurately represent what was said in interviews. Renda said she was contacted by Erdely in reference to Jackie's account, and Renda said she was under the impression Erdely had contacted other universities as well.

"It was my understanding that she was reaching out to a large number of people at a bunch of different universities." Renda said. "She found my contact information through a Washington Post article that I had written in April. So she was kind of putting out feelers in a bunch of different directions trying to get ahold of people."

Renda also expressed discomfort with Erdely's reporting tactics, though she said they did not speak at length. She said she had concerns about the manner with which Erdely was interacting with Jackie. These concerns were reiterated by third-year College student Sara Surface, external chair of the Sexual Violence Prevention Coalition, and third-year College student Alex Pinkleton, incoming president of One Less.

"We did not speak very much, and I remember feeling very frustrated about the way it seemed like [Jackie] was being pushed and pulled about her participation and where she was wavering about her own well being in participating, but Sabrina appeared — at least from that kind of secondhand experience of mine — a little coercive," Renda said.

However, Renda said that her view of Erdely's practices are influenced by her own biases as an advocate and survivor.

"I'm sure a certain degree of persistence and pestering is normal and expected and probably a part of good journalism, but to me it smelled coercive and badgering because of the work that I do and the attention to coercion that I pay in most relational respects, especially when someone involved is going to be more sensitive to it because of the former sexual assault," she said. "That's from my bias, but I'm sure someone knows more about the journalistic practices and would be able to say more."

Pinkleton — also a survivor and an advocate — said she was interviewed at length by Erdely for the article, but felt misrepresented by the resulting article.

"She expressed her approval at the hard [advocacy] work we have been doing here and then wrote an article without including the titles of any of the advocates and instead portrayed us as random students making comments about culture on Grounds," Pinkleton said in an email. "In other words, she was determined to write a slanted story regardless of who she interviewed or what we said."

Renda also said she felt her comments to Erdely were taken out of context in the article and didn't accurately reflect her actions following her sexual assault.

"From my perspective, what I was trying to communicate about my openness and about struggles with substance abuse were then turned into somehow that I was opting to drink intentionally to try to partake in U.Va. culture, and then trying to turn my back on what had happened, which I felt was a completely inaccurate presentation of me and what I do," Renda said. "It made it sound like I don't share my story because I'm ashamed, which anyone who knows me would say, 'That's ridiculous.'"

"
These steps are not good enough. The University of Virginia — and those of us who work for the University supporting victims of sexual assault — deserve better.
"
-Dean Nicole Eramo

Renda said the language of the article stood out to her and contributed to the article's faults, particularly in reference to quotes from Pinkleton, Surface and fourth-year Commerce student Brian Head, former president of One in Four.

"Especially in their advocacy context, they were taken to look as though they were just individual students who had no kind of active role in prevention or active role in changing response, and opinions and things attributed to them were taken out of their theoretical and thoughtful context that I know that those young women and men would have put them in and did put them in," Renda said.

She said the omission of titles relating to sexual assault response and prevention in the article portrayed comments — particularly one made by Head — as personal opinions rather than observations about the University's culture. In Erdely's article, Head is quoted as saying, "The most impressive person at U.Va. is the person who gets straight A's and goes to all the parties," and is referenced only as a fourth-year student.

"I can absolutely imagine him saying that in a context in which he's trying to explain an overall cultural heuristic, not his own personal perception, but it was communicated in the article as his own personal perception," Renda said. "He's not referenced as president of One in Four, [which] made it seem more like he was speaking about his ideas and how he feels rather than his insights on a larger framework."

Pinkleton said Erdely not only misrepresented the personal sentiments of individuals she spoke to, but also failed to accurately portray sexual assault as it typically occurs.

"The Rolling Stone article was one author's attempt at writing a sensational story that would also be representative of sexual assaults on Grounds," Pinkleton said. "Not only is this virtually impossible, but she completely mischaracterized how the majority of assaults occur. She painted a picture of campus assaults as brutal, ritualistic acts done by demonic perpetrators against sober, violently beaten and pinned down victims, and that is almost never the case."

Eramo released an open letter addressed to Rolling Stone CEO Jenn Wanner, dated Apr. 22, in which she listed her particular grievances with the article, Erdely's journalistic practices and the subsequent retraction. Eramo said her name — as well as a Photoshopped picture of her sitting across from a sexual assault victim giving up thumbs up while anti-sexual assault protesters hold signs outside — will always be connected to the article. Eramo said the damage done by the descriptions and images included in the article cannot be undone, and the steps Rolling Stone has already taken to rectify the damage are not enough.

"Although the magazine has finally removed the original article from Rolling Stone's website (something we asked for months ago), my name — and the photo-shopped picture of me — remain forever linked to an article that has damaged my reputation and falsely portrayed the work to which I have dedicated my life," Eramo said. "These steps are not good enough. The University of Virginia — and those of us who work for the University supporting victims of sexual assault — deserve better."

Eramo also said when she confronted Rolling Stone's attorneys regarding their inaccurate portrayal of her interactions with Jackie, they justified their actions.

"Adding insult to injury, your attorneys said that the article's portrayal of me — which cast me as an unsympathetic and manipulative false friend to sexual assault victims who is more interested in keeping assault statistics down than providing meaningful guidance to victims or holding perpetrators of sexual assault accountable — was 'fair,'" Eramo said.

While she discussed the way the article portrayed her own work, Eramo said she was worried about the way the University and its sexual assault advocates were depicted in the article as well. Eramo said she feels the primary reactions to the article have focused on Erdely's journalistic practices regarding Jackie's story, while little had been said about her portrayal of the University.

"Understandably, much of the public's attention has been focused on the inaccuracy of the article's account of a sexual assault involving Jackie and the flawed journalistic process processes at Rolling Stone that lead to the publication of the article," she said. "Much less has been said, however, about the article's false account of the University's attitude regarding sexual assault and, in particular, the article's false and grossly misleading portrayal of the counseling and support that I have provided to Jackie, including encouraging her to report."

Pinkleton said Erdely told her she "regrets some of her decisions" made when writing her article.

"I am still waiting for an apology," Pinkleton said.

By Katherine Wilkin and Katie Grimesey. Owen Robinson contributed to reporting.

return to main site