When I first read the Rolling Stone article about rape at the University of Virginia, I was shocked and outraged, as most other readers were. Nearly unanimous national horror erupted at how UVA, which unfortunately is not unique in this matter, has handled sexual assault on campus. This outrage seemed to create enough pressure to finally spur significant changes. UVA temporarily closed fraternities as they pledged reform.
Analyzing all of this alone would be enough fodder for a column: why did it take a gang rape to prompt the impetus for change, what are the right changes to make in response —both on campus and in legal procedures, etc. But the issue of sexual assault on campuses was quickly derailed. It soon became known that there were inconsistencies in the rape case in the article; the Rolling Stone editors and writers failed to do their required due diligence as journalists and confirm their interviewee’s story. Once again, I was shocked and outraged —not at Jackie, the story’s subject, but at Rolling Stone.
Sexual assault is a major problem, especially on college campuses. Rolling Stone had the opportunity to draw attention to this and ignite some real change, but it squandered the chance. By not checking the accuracy of the story, Rolling Stone left the door wide-open for criticism, not just for itself but also for Jackie, all rape victims and all proponents for change.
Given that people already question sexual assault victims' reliability and the seriousness of their allegations, it should have been evident to Rolling Stone that it was imperative to get this story right. Otherwise, the consequences are just too devastating. Now, even if most of her story is accurate, sexual assault victims will be even more discouraged from coming forward and seeking justice. Even though the facts as they are now being presented appear to support that Jackie underwent some sort of sexual trauma, people will use the Rolling Stone article as fodder to discredit all sexual assault victims.
Furthermore, blaming Jackie is unjust for a variety of reasons. It is a journalist’s responsibility to check the facts— especially those of a traumatized college student. Rolling Stone failed Jackie and its readers by not doing so. The reporter, Erdely, should have been upfront and honest with Jackie from the outset about Erdely’s responsibility to be able to confirm the facts, and she should not have interviewed Jackie if Jackie didn’t agree. Protecting Jackie means Rolling Stone should have checked her story and if fallout happened, as it did, Rolling Stone would need to take responsibility. Though statements by editors show they accept responsibility, the original official apology statement unfortunately seems to blame Jackie for being unreliable. At least after receiving criticism, Rolling Stone has updated its apology statement to state explicitly, “These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie.”
As an advocate for sexual assault reform, I was devastated when I first read the Rolling Stone statement and all the news surrounding the inconsistencies. Based on what I’ve seen before, I figured this would most definitely set back the case for reform and return the discussion to victim-blaming. It’s been inspiring to see the overwhelming number of op-eds articulate why the blame falls on Rolling Stone and not on Jackie, arguing that we as a society should not let this unethical reporting stop the momentum for change. Even UVA has announced that despite the new revelations about the article, it will forge ahead with its planned reforms.
Hopefully, this attitude will prevail. Nevertheless, the entire debate over who deserves the blame reminds me of recent conversations I’ve had on so many different issues. In the face of critics, whose responsibility is it to make a compelling case for social justice? These same questions arise in discussing issues such as divestment from Israel, women’s rights or affirmative action: To be an effective activist, do you have the right to be angry if you are wronged, or do you, despite this, have the onus to react calmly because that is probably more effective in persuading your opponents? Where you place either the blame or the onus and responsibility for change often seems to be at the heart of where people differ. While this difference may appear like a small nuance, it has huge implications in how one approaches any reform.
Among the many instances where this matters was during the diversity panel last week. There were several problems with the argument presented by James Madison Program senior preceptor Russell Nieli GS ’79, including denying that racism still exists against all blacks, not just the poor. But one of the largest failings for me was his claim that because it’s possible that race-based affirmative action might lead to the affirmation of negative stereotypes, we shouldn’t practice it at all in admissions.
But the onus to prevent any possible affirmation of negative stereotypes, thereby creating a welcomed, supported and diverse student body, falls on the University here, not on those who are subjected to these stereotypes. The other three panelists somewhat acknowledged this, and the last questioner hit the nail on the head. The University must support all its students fully and help everyone acknowledge the privilege they have to attend Princeton, thereby preventing people from believing these gross stereotypes. Where you put the onus might seem like a small difference, but it is an issue of ethics that ultimately must determine what policy to pursue.
Be it affirmative action or sexual assault, I urge people to carefully consider who is to blame in all these various debates and what is the most effective strategy to achieve the ends you desire. This framing certainly does make a difference in where we go from here.
Marni Morse is a sophomore from Washington, D.C. She can be reached at mlmorse@princeton.edu.
Read More
An open letter to President Eisgruber and VP Calhoun concerning minoritized student safety
Patrick Jaojoco, Brandi Bushman, and Humza Gondal"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
On the occupation of Clio Hall and the treatment of Graduate School staff
Cole M. Crittenden“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
Regulations on ‘disruption’ restrict dialogue at Princeton. Let’s change the standard.
Rishi Khanna“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
