On November 19, 2014, the magazine, Rolling Stone, published an article with an alarming title: “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA.” The female victim in the story claimed to have been assaulted by seven men at a fraternity party, which, of course, would be outrageous and worthy of the severest punishment allowed under the law—if it were true. However, the details provided by the victim have not managed to check out. In fact, Rolling Stone, who published her story, had to admit that they had no reason to doubt the woman’s credibility when they published the story, but now they do. Now they say they are not sure what happened but will continue to investigate. In the meantime, they “apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.” One wonders if the University of Virginia feels better now.
If the story proves to be false, it will not be the first time false charges of this nature have been brought to bear. In November of 1987, Tawana Brawley accused three men—one of whom was a police officer—of the same crime. The only problem was that no indication of sexual assault was in evidence. The grand jury noticed discrepancies between the facts and details given by the alleged victim and after 6,000 pages of testimony, declined to indict anyone. According to Wikipedia, “the New York prosecutor whom Brawley had accused as one of her alleged assailants successfully sued Brawley and her three advisers for defamation.”
Then, on April 11, 2007, came the charges against certain members of the Duke Lacrosse team, who were accused and found guilty by the media before the facts were even known. Those charges proved to be bogus, also. Probably, no one knows why such serious charges are leveled against certain men when nothing has occurred, but it tends to undermine the credibility of real victims, which ought not to happen. Sexual assault is a serious crime that should result in a severe penalty.
These are some of the more high profile cases that have occurred over the past twenty years; less publicized cases have also taken place in which charges were invariably dropped, or the evidence was not compelling. And in some instances, people just do not know because the evidence is insufficient to determine which party is telling the truth—especially if some level of consensuality is admitted.
It ought to be remembered that the alleged victim’s story might yet be true; it is still under investigation. But what is disturbing is the reaction of some to Rolling Stone’s acknowledgement that they reported this story too hastily—that is, before sufficient evidence was established that would warrant the conclusion that this particular crime happened as reported.
On December 6, 2014, Julia Horowitz wrote an article titled, “Why We Believed Jackie’s Rape Story”; it was published in Politico. Julia is an assistant managing editor at The Cavalier Daily, the University of Virginia’s student newspaper. She wrote some disturbing things:
1. “Only eight to nine percent of sexual assault reports, at most, are later determined false.” Only? If this assessment is accurate, it is disastrous for both men and women: 1) that so many men would be falsely accused; and 2) that actual female victims of the crime may have their testimonies discounted.
2. Her main thesis was that Jackie’s story was believable because it squares with the facts that people on campus allegedly know.
3. “Ultimately, though, from where I sit in Charlottesville, to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.”
What? Don’t check the facts because the problem exists even if this instance is not true? Such an attitude is unacceptable. If, in fact, sexual assaults occur all the time on the University of Virginia or on any other campus, then why not present a real case with real evidence with a real trial and a real verdict that sends a real message that such behavior will not be tolerated?
This is not a female issue; men have wives and daughters they do not want attacked. They pay for their daughter’s educations on these campuses and would be the first to be outraged if such an event occurred. If such alleged occurrences are so commonplace, then put a stop to it, but don’t say that fact checking should not define the narrative; truth is what is desperately needed.
A male friend of “Jackie” made this comment: “But if anything, the takeaway from all this is that I still don’t really care if what’s presented in this article is true or not because I think it’s far more important that people focus on the issue of sexual assault as a whole.”
Uh, well, we focused on it with Tawana Brawley and with the Duke Lacrosse case—even though nothing was proven either time. We should focus on the offense whenever it legitimately occurs, but how can we say we don’t care if what is published is true or not?
Is this the attitude that people have with respect to Christianity? It seems obvious that many have given up fact-checking and caring whether something is true or not. Truth is critical, crucial, and essential. Without a love of the truth, no one can be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). First and foremost, people must seek the truth with respect to salvation, to worship, and to Christian doctrine. But it also should be prized in every aspect of life.