(PCM) Rolling Stone magazine recently ran a controversial story in regards to the alleged gang rape that took place at the University of Virginia. In the story which was published on November 19th “Jackie” and unidentified UVA student claimed that she was gang raped at a party held by the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house on campus back in 2012.
In the story, “Jackie” shared gruesome and shocking details about the attack and claims that attacks such as hers often go unreported at UVA. The piece was incredibly embarrassing to the University and an investigation was launched by school officials and the local police. All Greek life activities were suspended after the story was published as well.
It now seems that there have been several discrepancies found within “Jackie’s” story and critics began to seriously questions Rolling Stone journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s research and reporting methods.
Erdely spent several months speaking with “Jackie”, her friends and university officials, but never once questioned the man accused of rape “Drew” or any other men at the fraternity house.
In the story “Jackie” said that “Drew” worked as a lifeguard during the time of the attack back in 2012. However, research by the fraternity shows that at no time did any member of their fraternity work at the aquatic center in 2012. “Jackie” also said that the attack occurred at a party that was held four weeks into the school year, however the fraternity house also counters back that they did not have a social event or date function anywhere near that weekend in question.
They also go on to claim that their pledging and initiation process occurs during the spring rather than the fall semester and say “Moreover, no ritualized sexual assault is part of our pledging or initiation process. This notion is vile, and we vehemently refute this claim.”
Rolling Stone magazine had the following apology posted on the website in regards to the story and anyone it may have affected saying “In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.”