....and Hanna Rosin at Slate is joining the piling-on party.
I've read this thing three times now and it's been bothering me since last night. This article was always presented as Jackie's story, because Jackie has steadfastly refused to name her attackers. Sabrina Erdely couldn't get the rote denial from the "accused" guys that Rosin and others want, because Jackie's participation was contingent on her not naming or attempting to contact the rapists. It was for this reason that Erdely chose to highlight the complicity of UVA and the entire culture of campus victim advocacy, neither of which necessarily advocate going to the police or even naming the attackers at all. This was the real story here.
I am also uncomfortable with Rosin's use of "accused," because Jackie hasn't actually accused anyone. Because she won't name them.
Worst of all? The fact that Hanna Rosin felt the need to check in with anti-feminist Caitlin Flanagan for good measure, who was happy to throw shade at Jackie's account because it "didn't sound" like other fraternity rape stories she's heard.
I mean, I would have loved to have seen Jackie name her attackers and for those attackers to be confronted, but Jackie is so steeped in a culture, even among victim advocates, that treats it as beside the point, that it's the campus culture itself that became the real subject of the article. I can't help but shake the notion that Rosin is being a bit of a disingenuous shit-stirrer here, which I frankly have suspected about her for some time. It's co-authored with Allison Benedikt, because they did a podcast together where they interviewed Erdely, but the tone of this has Rosin stamped all over it.
What do you guys think? Should Erdely have scrapped the article if Jackie didn't want to name her accusers to avoid being piled on? I really didn't appreciate the implication that the way it was written would set reform back — that strikes me as bullshit destined to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And no matter what Flanagan says, a lot of people at UVA had no problem believing that a violent gang rape went down. It's just that, to varying degrees, they were ok with no one paying the price for it. Isn't that they key thing, here?