On that UVA frat rape story

I’ve not really believed it since it first went up at Rolling Stone. Just didn’t sound right. Others now seem to be thinking that way too.

 

But here’s the thing. It should actually be pretty easy to investigate: if you’ve the power to question witnesses of course.

The claim is that 7 frat pledges gang raped a girl. an appalling crime if it happened.

A frat pledge is someone in the process of joining a fraternity on a US college campus. We know which fraternity this is all alleged about.

Phi Kappa Psi (Phi Psi) – Virginia Alpha Chapter

  • Date founded at University of Virginia: February 19, 1853
  • Current Chapter Size: 82
  • Philanthropy: APHield Day

 

Do you get my point yet?

If there’s 80 members then that’s roughly 20 each year. The allegation is that near half of one years’ entrants took part in a gang rape. Know which year and you’ll be looking for 7 in a group of 20 odd.

Any even half way competent cop would be able to, if the event had occurred, get the truth with those sorts of numbers. That Prisoners’ Dilemma thing really does work.

Sorry, I really just don’t believe the story. If it’s true then yes, many should be serving very long jail sentences. But there’s a lot resting on that “if”.

58 thoughts on “On that UVA frat rape story”

  1. There is a backstory but it would require more typing than I am up for at the moment.

    Try this link—http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/26/is-challenging-rape-culture-claims-an-id/

  2. It is profoundly troubling that, in the USA apparently, non-judicial bodies are now becoming judicial. It is not a job of a school to decide whether a rape has occurred. If there is a complaint of rape, it is a matter for the courts. The school, or other institution, has nothing to do with it. The idea that they do is bizarre.

    In a general sense, one interesting thing is that if people believe in a conspiracy theory, they will invent stories consistent with it. As an extreme example; if somebody believes that the Jews are really alien lizards in disguise, they will report seeing Jews reveal themselves as lizards. Thus, if the conspiracy theory is false (not all conspiracy theories are; the CIA really did consider knocking out Castro with an explosive cigar) then non-believers can spot which stories are invented by conspiracists. It is thus notable how inventors of hoax hate crimes tell stories consistent with their beliefs about the world. If you believe in “rape culture” you will tell tales about being a victim of it.

    The big problem with the rape culture narrative is its assumption that men, as a class, are rape conspirators. Unfortunately the opposite is true; men despise other men who rape. We may well attack them or even kill them. A rapise becomes, in general, persona non grata among men as well as women. This is why a false accusation is so ruinous.

    The central argument I have been trying to show for a long while now is that (2nd Wave) Feminism is a “class conspiracy theory” which attributes severe negative behaviours of a conspiratorial manner to a particular demographic. It is of the same nature as “the Jews”, except it is “the Men”. It is certainly true that some Jews (as with all peoples) are swindlers. The class conspiracy theory comes in when you claim that the Jews, as a class, are a swindling conspiracy against gentiles. The inevitable logical conclusion of such a CCT is that you have to take ever more stringent actions against Jews (in that case) or Men (under Feminism) to oppose the imagined conspiracy. We know where that ended up in the 1940s.

  3. One notable thing about feminists (particularly) and Proggies generally is the rejection of Enlightenment epistemologies in favour of pre- or non-enlightenment ones; particularly the testimonial style of old-timey religion. Testify, sister! All summed up, as so much of this bullshit is, by the legal doyenne Madame Mackinnon, who neatly explains that (legal, in her sphere) objectivity and objectivist epistemologies are “male” whereas subjectivism- expressed by her as consciousness-raising- is “female”.

    The Western legal approach of seeking the most objective evidence possible is all a part of the patriarchal conspiracy, you see. A rape is real if a woman testifies to it, and the scepticism of an objectivist legal system is just a male strategy for denying her reality. Which is why rape law has gone and is continuing to further go in the direction it is; the ultimate logical conclusion being that all rape claims should be treated as true, and the abandonment of any trial entirely. It is entirely conceivable that we will reach that endpoint within a few years.

  4. The story also seems to have this magic table smashing like a movie sugar glass window (lots of small relatively harmless bits) rather than like reality (big, dangerous artery lacerating shards). Which is why they don’t use real glass in movie stunts.

  5. Thanks for the link, Ecky. And, Ian B, what you say is true, I’m afraid. Thank you for articulating my thoughts.

    Once, I believed that phasing out public funding for universities + tuition fees would eliminate PC tyranny in the UK. Yet, in the US, PC tyranny seems to thrive in universities. Why?? I simply don’t understand…Can anyone enlighten me?

  6. We are already moving towards the ‘accusation is proof’ mentality.

    “Not enough rapists are being convicted” runs the story, suggesting that anyone not convicted after being accused must have ‘got away with it’ rather than that they were innocent.

    On Radio 5 not that long ago (the day Ched Evans was released from prison) there was an interview “with someone who had been raped” (the interviewer’s words). A harrowing story unfolded of a woman who had got drunk and ended up back at a bloke’s place and “been raped”. Oh but the woman didn’t actually report it to the police. Never mind, in the absence of an investigation and trial, the BBC had reached its verdict. The woman wasn’t alledging a rape, she had been raped. Amazed the BBC didn’t hire an execution squad to carry out summary justice.

  7. Theophratus-

    Once, I believed that phasing out public funding for universities + tuition fees would eliminate PC tyranny in the UK. Yet, in the US, PC tyranny seems to thrive in universities. Why?? I simply don’t understand…Can anyone enlighten me?

    I don’t know whether or not you consider yourself on the libertarian side of things, but my own perception is that libertarians often have a flawed model of society in which they see the State as a motivating force; thus, taking the State out of things will fix them. My own view is that more often than not- particularly in our Proggie system- the State is the tool of civil society forces, rather than its master. Something about tails and dogs would be appropriate here, I think.

    The State doesn’t impose PC (or other ideologies) on things. PC forces in civil society use the State to achieve their goals, but can do fine without it where they have civil hegemony. Hence, PC- basically an invention of academics in the USA- thrives where they have civil society hegemony, in Universities and other institutions. They use the State, where they can, to spread it beyond those boundaries onto areas of society where they don’t have a natural hegemony.

    I think too many libertarians blindly go on about “the State” without recognising the more complex dynamics within society. That’s my take, anyway.

  8. > Once, I believed that phasing out public funding for universities + tuition fees would eliminate PC tyranny in the UK. Yet, in the US, PC tyranny seems to thrive in universities. Why??

    US edumakation is a massive government encouraged credit bubble. Sound familiar?

  9. My family is Anglo-American; my children and grandchildren have profitably attended Universities in the UK, USA (UVA, Brown, Bryn Mawr), Czech Republic, Hong Kong, etc.
    After reading these reports and comments, I am very despondent that by reason of residence, others of my grandchildren may no choice but to attend USA Universities. I shall do all I can to persuade them to look elsewhere and as best I can, to help financially.
    It seems that the “culture” (buzz word) of freedom which has blessed the USA is crumbling.

  10. Ian B:

    What you say above is very interesting. Thank you. Not sure I’d endorse what you say, but I will ponder it..

    I am not a libertarian in the sense that ‘freedom’ should trump all values, always and ever – or make all values ‘possible’, in some metaphysical sense. Rather, I hold that freedom/liberty should always have top priority in the hierarchy of values, but that it can be qualified or even superseded by other values — such as security, stability, etc.

  11. alan scott:
    Your comment is largely gibberish. I can’t understand what you are trying to say. If your children have a similar command of English, perhaps university is not for them.

  12. @Ian B

    ‘Which is why rape law has gone and is continuing to further go in the direction it is; the ultimate logical conclusion being that all rape claims should be treated as true, and the abandonment of any trial entirely. It is entirely conceivable that we will reach that endpoint within a few years.’

    No, it won’t. However, what we will have is trials heard by judges, or some sort of professional panel.

    The trouble is, from the progressive PVO, that juries keep pushing back against everything.

    eg You can no longer cross examine defendants in some sex cases (in the sense of saying, baldly, ‘You are lying, aren’t you?’).

    The (strange) thinking behind this was that it wasn’t fair to vulnerable complainants eg children.

    But the fact is this took away one of the great weapons in the prosecution arsenal – the look of horrified mystification on the face of a genuine* victim when s/he was accused of lying.

    Many an actual* rapist has been banged up at least partly on this kind of reaction.

    But they took that away, and now juries can’t gauge stuff.

    So next they’ll have to take away juries.

    Scary.

    *As far as we can ever know.

  13. Yup, this whole thing doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s a bit like the Jimmy Saville circus, which would have had him doing nothing else but kiddie-fiddling 24/7 from Land’s End to John O’ Groats if even 10% of the allegations were true. As in this case, there are important details missing – who exactly? when exactly? what happened then? – which genuine stories resulting in firm convictions tend not to leave out.

  14. Interessted-

    No, it won’t. However, what we will have is trials heard by judges, or some sort of professional panel.

    That will be the same in effect, since the panels will be immediately colonised by feminists who presume guilt anyway. As free process as the trials in the 1930s USSR.

    The (strange) thinking behind this was that it wasn’t fair to vulnerable complainants eg children.

    That wasn’t the thinking behind it. That was the justification proffered to everyone else. The thinking behind it was Mackinnon’s (she did not necessarily invent the ideas, but was the one who trasnformed them into the legal doctrine which has been and is being implemented).

  15. Ian:

    The government is the reason why we have these non-judicial bodies punishing alleged sexual assaulters. The Department of Education has basically been instructing any university that takes federally-subsidized student loans (almost all of them) not that they don’t have to follow due process in sexual assault cases, but that they must not do so under the guise of the sexual non-discrimination laws (Title IX specifically).

    Using the argument that otherwise private universities take federally-subsidized student loans should mean thay have to be absolutists on 1st Amendment rights — or even more so suggesting they’d have to recognize the 2d Amendment right to keep and bear arms, however? Suggest that and people will look at you as though you’re some sort of freak.

  16. The moral of the story:

    When one in three (or four, or one, whatever) girls is raped at college / university…

    The any sensible parent would deny his daughter a good education.

    Result! A victory for the patriarchy!

    Actually, coyoteblog nailed this months ago. After all the furore about college rapes, NO parents at the induction lectures asked about safety on campus.

  17. Ted, these ideas did not arise within the government. They arose among American academics. As I said, in many cases the State is simply a tool used by civil society formations (e.g. organised feminism) to extend their reach.

  18. “Innocent until proven white” would seem to be the politically-correct rule here, just as many feminazis consider burkhas to be “liberating” (I kid you not).

  19. >The story also seems to have this magic table smashing like a movie sugar glass window (lots of small relatively harmless bits) rather than like reality (big, dangerous artery lacerating shards).

    Some people have noted, correctly, that glass tables are mostly made of tempered glass, which doesn’t break into shards, but into little bits. This is true, but then the sort of tempered glass that tables are made out of is very strong. I once accidentally dropped a huge TV onto my glass coffee table, and it didn’t break.

    Even if the table did break into only little pieces, they would still cause damage in such a scenario. And the idea that no-one would turn the lights on after hearing all the glass breaking is unbelievable.

  20. Fair do’s. Nonetheless, the story makes little sense. It’s the kind of story somebody might imagine though. One thing that did cross my mind- and yes, I am being very speculative here- is that people inventing stories often introduce real experiences to bring a sense of verisimilitude. It may well be that our heroine really has broken a glass table once, perhaps falling on it drunkenly, and wove that into the story.

  21. Philip Scott Thomas

    +1 to what Ian B has said, apart from this:

    Hence, PC – basically an invention of academics in the USA – thrives where they have civil society hegemony, in Universities and other institutions.

    No, that’s the Frankfort School. But otherwise spot on.

  22. Bloke in Costa Rica

    The ‘campus rape epidemic’ has all the hallmarks of other hysterical mass delusions, like the ‘satanic abuse’ catastrophe – notably the implausibility (and luridness) of a lot of the specific claims being made, and the imputation that to insist on normal standards of juridical integrity is to ‘blame the victim’. And per Ian B’s identification of it with conspiracy theories, it shares with them the bulwark against falsification that absence of evidence for the conspiracy is simply a result of how effectively the conspirators conceal it.

  23. bloke (not) in spain

    Ian
    “these ideas did not arise within the government. They arose among American academics.”

    Which leads us back to:
    “Theophratus-

    Once, I believed that phasing out public funding for universities + tuition fees would eliminate PC tyranny in the UK. Yet, in the US, PC tyranny seems to thrive in universities. Why?? I simply don’t understand…Can anyone enlighten me?”

    The mistake is thinking universities are in the business of providing, or indeed selling learning & knowledge. They aren’t & haven’t been since the middle ages.
    They are castles erected across the roads to knowledge. And the roads that lead to the use of that knowledge in the wider world. Because only with the universities’ validation is the acquirer of the knowledge recognised as knowledgeable.
    They’re cartels & have been since their inception.
    All those who pass through the doors of the castles are in thrall to the powers that control the castles. Which can just as easily be the established students as the disseminators of knowledge. For they are Byzantine courts of plots & conspiracies having a culture with little relationship to the world outside. And little changed in centuries. It’s celebrated as tradition

  24. No, that’s the Frankfort School. But otherwise spot on.

    Well, the Frankenfurters got their toehold at Columbia University. I think I said in another thread here; one can reasonably identify the epicentre of PC in New York in the postwar period.

  25. I wonder if “Jackie” has read “the woods” , a 2007 novel by Harlan Coben? Because the sub plot is an almost exact replica of the story in Rolling Stone. Very curious.

  26. @ b(n)is
    Your knowledge of universities and of recognition is somewhat limited.
    There are some universities that my wife describes as seeking “bums on seats” (twenty-odd years after graduating from the second-best university in England she was required by her employer to attend one while still working three days a week at her day job and got a first while competing with so-called full-time students) and some that do try to educate students. She was sent there because she was *already* recognised as knowledgeable.
    After I left home I was encouraged to think I was quite bright until I was 25 when I got transferred to a department where several Cambridge graduates who were also Actuaries mentioned a former colleague who was so much better than I and had passed all the examinations to qualify as an Actuary before he was 21, so had to wait until his birthday to be admitted as a Fellow, implying that his skills were superior to theirs, not just mine.
    My school encouraged boys who were good at Maths but not bright enough (in my day) to go to university to become accountants.
    I could go on ad nauseam.

  27. Meanwhile, over here a women’s ‘charity’ is lobbying Parliament to get better treatment of women who cry rape falsely.

    That ‘better treatment’ they want? No prosecution, or if you do prosecute, no prison time.

  28. Oh dear, Tim, you’ve really let yourself down here. Can I suggest a retraction and apology might be appropriate?

    “Any even half way competent cop would be able to, if the event had occurred, get the truth with those sorts of numbers. ”

    The whole damned point of the story in question is that the police were not halfway competent, or even close. They are alleged to have refused to investigate the rape claims.

    Whether that’s true or not is one thing, but you certainly can’t refute the entire story by relying on the police being semi-competent.

    At heart, it’s really not an implausible story: the US does seem to have a sizable minority of over-privileged young men who have simply not learnt the basics of male-female interaction, like that no means no.

  29. the US does seem to have a sizable minority of over-privileged young men who have simply not learnt the basics of male-female interaction, like that no means no.

    Based on what? Criminal convictions or stories in the media?

    They are alleged to have refused to investigate the rape claims.

    Hard to see why this is still an allegation. If a complaint was made, a complaint would have been recorded. This would be easy enough for a competent journalist to check.

  30. TN>

    Criminal convictions. There have been way too many. Of course it’s also been overblown in the media by the usual suspects, but I’ve had online conversations with some of these people, and they definitely exist.

    “If a complaint was made, a complaint would have been recorded.”

    Well, if you start from a point where you assume the police are behaving properly, you’re not going to find any misconduct, are you? If (hypothetically) a complaint is made, and the police tell the complainer ‘go home, little girl, before we arrest you for wasting police time’, do you think the police record it? They probably manage to persuade themselves they’re doing the complainer a favour by not recording it.

  31. >They are alleged to have refused to investigate the rape claims.

    Because they didn’t believe them? Everybody involved in this story seems not to believe this woman’s claims.

  32. Cal>

    Quite possibly, yes, that’s why they didn’t investigate. But it’s not their job to decide that without investigation, is it?

    Now do you see the problem?

  33. @Dave

    Actually, sometimes it is their job to decide without investigation, or much in the way of an investigation.

    Unless you are seriously suggesting that every time a woman walks into a police station she gets (in the UK, not sure about the US) the full rape suite examination, with doctors, forensics, long interviews etc, and the alleged rapists get hauled in for the same?

    Because if you are suggesting that, we’re going to need bigger police stations, more rape suites and cells, more forensic scientists and a lot more coppers, and we’d better set aside quite a fund for wrongful arrest compo, too.

    To be fair, we’d also have to have other crime treated in a similar way, so let’s make those cop shops really big, and empoloy another 200,000 officers?

    Here in the real world, the police have to weed things out at an early stage.

    Being human, sometimes they get that wrong.

  34. @Dave

    ‘Well, if you start from a point where you assume the police are behaving properly, you’re not going to find any misconduct, are you? If (hypothetically) a complaint is made, and the police tell the complainer ‘go home, little girl, before we arrest you for wasting police time’, do you think the police record it? They probably manage to persuade themselves they’re doing the complainer a favour by not recording it.’

    You’re an idiot.

  35. >But it’s not their job to decide that without investigation, is it?

    It is if the story is not credible.

    I can’t see anywhere in the article where it says ‘Jackie’ went to the police. Where does that information come from?

  36. Criminal convictions. There have been way too many. Of course it’s also been overblown in the media by the usual suspects, but I’ve had online conversations with some of these people, and they definitely exist.

    So no links to actual cases or proper statistics of frat boy rape incidence. Just online conversations.

    I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m convinced!

  37. Inty>

    What a stupid false dichotomy. There’s a lot in between full-on, all-the-bells-and-whistles investigation and complete dismissal without consideration.

    Cal>

    Without at least preliminary investigation, they’re not able to decide that. Attitudes like yours are part of the problem.

  38. @Dave

    ‘What a stupid false dichotomy. There’s a lot in between full-on, all-the-bells-and-whistles investigation and complete dismissal without consideration.’

    Yes, there is – but it was you who had the police “telling the complainer ‘go home, little girl, before we arrest you for wasting police time’”

    Talk about stupid.

  39. It is hard to believe that a woman with visible injuries and covered in her assailants’ DNA samples would have been simply dismissed. This is the imaginary world of the feminists in which nobody cares about rape.

  40. Bloke in Costa Rica

    That’s really the point, isn’t it, Ian? A drunken fumble at a frat party and feelings of regret later are one thing, and of course the police must absolutely hate those sorts of “he said, she said” cases. But what this woman is now alleging is full-blown I Spit on Your Grave-type kidnapping and sexual torture. Given the current anti-sex Gleichschaltung on and around US university campuses, this fails the laugh test. I don’t believe the police were sufficiently chastened by the Duke lacrosse fiasco to summarily dismiss allegations of this nature.

  41. A young woman who trusts you comes to you, tells you she’s been sexually assaulted by a fellow student at university, and asks you what she should do. You believe her. Medical care aside, do you advise her to (a) go to the police, prepared to participate in a long and unpleasant judicial process, (b) go to the university authorities, so that they can take steps to protect her and others from further assaults (c) do nothing?

  42. Dave, I repeat my quesion: where in the article does it say she went to the police? The arrticle seems to be clearly saying that didn’t go to the police, and still hasn’t. So what is the basis for all your declarations about this being a case of police misconduct?

  43. Come on Paul, it’s (a). Please stop this nonsense about rape being some special crime that nobody reports. Sometimes people are reluctant to go through the process of prosecuting a crime but you are just buying this whole Rape Culture nonsense.

    There are few crimes that would be more clear cut and easily prosecutable than this. Not only the physical injuries, the inevitable DNA, but there’s also a carpet full of little glass fragments, blood and fluids that forensics would be all over like flies on poop.

    This crime is pure (a). The narrative around it is pure conspiracy theory.

  44. This crime, maybe. But I get the impression that most of the commentators here are the sort of people rape victims wouldn’t confide in.

  45. But I get the impression that most of the commentators here are the sort of people rape victims wouldn’t confide in.

    I don’t know about the others, but you can count me out of that group: a girl I am friends with confided in me that she’d been raped twice (different events), albeit several years in the past. I have generally found that straightforward honesty and plain speaking is more attractive to somebody looking to unload a burden than pretending to care and wrapping everything in a cloak of juvenile politics.

  46. Lots of supposed rape victims who are leary of the police don’t appear to have any problem with their ordeals being noised everywhere by feminist hate squads though. Or investigated by leftist run universities.

    Tim Newman ” I have generally found that straightforward honesty and plain speaking is more attractive to somebody looking to unload a burden than pretending to care and wrapping everything in a cloak of juvenile politics.”

    That is true Tim. But the politics aren’t juvenile: they are evil.
    As long ago as the 50/early 60s Ayn Rand pointed out that the femmi division of the “New Left” as they were then known existed for the purpose of undermining (already and always fraught) relationships between men and women. Obviously–like socialism itself–they will lose in the end. But they are ruining a lot of lives in the process.

  47. >But I get the impression that most of the commentators here are the sort of people rape victims wouldn’t confide in.

    And you don’t seem like you’d make a very good investigator.

  48. >But I get the impression that most of the commentators here are the sort of people rape victims wouldn’t confide in.

    This is such an idiotic thing to say. The issue isn’t what we would do when faced with a girl who is a terrible state, bleeding everywhere, who says she’s been raped. Of course you take her to the doctor and call the police. I can’t see anyone here who isn’t taking rape seriously.

    But the actual issue is whether any such event really occurred. Is this story, as told by Rolling Stone, believable? Or, if some event like it did happen,what were the exact details? And what really happened?

    On the JustOneminute blog I found this, which apparently was posted to a NY Times comment board recently:

    ——————
    Barbara Nordin Charlottesville, VA 8 days ago

    This is what Claire Kaplin [Kaplan – TM], a faculty member at the Women’s Center whose title is Program Director of Gender Violence and Social Change, had to say on a Facebook thread:

    I’ve learned from some of the students involved or interviewed that the reporter actually made some of that up. The scene about whether or not to go to the hospital never happened, and that when they wanted to take her to the police, she didn’t want to go. That jibes with what I heard from administrators.

    Then, in a second post, responding to another person in thread, she wrote:

    what I understand is that she [Jackie, the alleged victim] had much more support than the reporter stated. That some of the comments by friends were not said at all (the whole conversation telling her not to report). Both survivors were devastated when she called them to clear quotes. They learned that their “off the record” comments were not off the record.

  49. The whole thing sounds to me like yet another case of a mentally unstable young woman who regretted having consensual sex (possibly group sex), and who gradually exaggerated her story over time because it got her attention and approval.

    Her unwillingness even now to go to the police doesn’t seem to be because she fears the people involved, as she claims as it the case. Even in the story these people don’t come across as fearful. There’s no hissed threats about ‘Keeping your mouth shut’, or anything like that. ‘Drew’ is said to have causally thanked her for the other night — that sounds more like someone who had consensual sex with her than a rapist.

    Her supposed fear of these people seems more likely to do with the fact that as soon as she does her whole story will unravel and she will be publicly exposed as a liar and fantasist.

    If a rape was involved then those who did it should go to jail. But declaring that she was raped on the basis of the fantastic story she tells is just dumb.

  50. I have to agree with Cal above. Unless the woman making the allegations is a grade A loon, and the entire thing is made up, I’d say there was a kernel of truth in it somewhere, most likely involving a drunken date rape, or a case of next day regrets at what she had done the night before, and the initial claim of rape/sexual assault spiraled into a Hollywood film scenario. Which then couldn’t be retracted for fear of being labelled a fantasist and losing all the ‘cred’ she had gained as a feminist icon on campus.

  51. The Washington Examiner says this:

    “Erdely herself has said she left out the names of the accused because of an agreement with Jackie. The New York Times, who spoke with people “familiar with the reporting process” who didn’t wish to be named, confirmed this, saying Jackie asked for her alleged rapists to not be contacted.”

    So ‘Jackie’ herself is protecting the supposed rapists. Why? Because she is afraid of them? But she’s given no reason why she should be afraid of them. She doesn’t say they’ve threatened her, or anything like that. And she’s telling the world about what they did anyway, and if you’re doing that why not say who the perpetrators were?

    The alternative explanation is that she is keeping their identities hidden because she doesn’t want a competing account out there that might undermine the story that has made her into a martyr and Very Important Person.

    The second explanation seems more likely to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *