'Jackie' faces deposition: Where campus rape exposé went wrong

The University of Virginia student, whose story of a campus assault was the focus of a now-discredited Rolling Stone article, will be questioned in a defamation case.

|
AP/ Steve Helber/ File
The Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Va., shown in this November 2014 file photo, was the scene of an alleged rape in a Rolling Stone story which was later discredited by its editors.

"Jackie," the University of Virginia student whose story of campus rape sparked outrage when it ran in Rolling Stone but then failed to check out, now faces questioning in a defamation case.

Scathing criticism of Rolling Stone's journalistic practices and the current defamation case highlight how journalists should, and should not, report on sensitive topics such as sexual assault.

Heavy criticism of the Rolling Stone article, which ran in 2014, focused on how the publication had possibly undermined discussion about campus rape because it relied on a single source — identified only as "Jackie" — whose account the lawsuit alleges is both false and defamatory.

Associate Dean Nicole Eramo, who alleges that the story portrayed her as "chief villain" who did not take Jackie's claims seriously, has filed a $7.5 million defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of "A Rape On Campus," which set off outrage, then skepticism, for its depiction of campus culture, administrators, and the fraternity where the attack allegedly took place. The magazine has since apologized for the article, and police have cleared Phi Kappa Psi of wrongdoing

"We want [journalists] to see that despite the complexities and difficulties [in reporting about sexual assault, it] can be done well, can be done accurately, and can have widespread positive impacts," Tracy Cox, communications director for the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), told The Christian Science Monitor's Amanda Paulson last year. "Through their reporting, they're telling victims' stories. They can help to contribute to widespread societal change."

"I think the worst-case scenario would be that journalists don’t want to cover this topic," Ms. Cox told the Monitor. 

After local police and the implicated fraternity found no corroborating evidence for the story, Rolling Stone asked the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism for an independent review. The review condemned the story as one of "journalistic failure that was avoidable," where Rolling Stone had erred at every stage of the reporting and editing process.

"The problem of confirmation bias — the tendency of people to be trapped by preexisting assumptions and to select facts that support their own views while overlooking contradictory ones — is a well-established finding of social science," investigators wrote in the report. "It seems to have been a factor here."

Lawyers for Ms. Eramo have demanded Jackie's testimony, despite Jackie's lawyers' claims that a deposition would be re-traumatizing. On Tuesday, a Virginia judge ruled that Jackie would have to be available for up to five hours of confidential questioning. 

Phi Kappa Psi has also filed a $25 million lawsuit against Rolling Stone. 

This report contains material from the Associated Press and Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'Jackie' faces deposition: Where campus rape exposé went wrong
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2016/0406/Jackie-faces-deposition-Where-campus-rape-expose-went-wrong
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe