Why UVA Gang Rape is Becoming Duke Lacrosse Part Two

WHY UVA GANG RAPE IS ANOTHER DUKE LACROSSE CASE

Except this time around, there are no facts anywhere to be found

For the sake of length, I won't even go into all the ways that the 2006 Duke Lacrosse rape scandal was a colossal fuck up; William D. Cohan wrote a 600+ page book on the subject, brilliantly reviewed and summarized here by Laura Miller in a piece for Salon. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, go read about it. Go read about it anyway just to refresh your memory. If you're more into skimming Wikipedia, that page is found here.

...So now that we're all on the same page here, let's get started. Crystal Mangum's accusations ended up being false. The three men she identified were chosen at random from a suspect lineup pool composed ENTIRELY of members of the Duke Lacrosse team (everybody wins!) as District Attorney Mike Nifong and the Durham Police Department had apparently never watched an episode of Law & Order: SVU. But despite the dubious credibility of the accuser (who is now in prison for murder), the shady tactics of law enforcement and Nifong (who has since been disbarred), and the knee-jerk reaction of Duke University and Duke faculty, certain facts about the case remain:

1. On March 13, 2006, two strippers were hired to perform at the off-campus residence of members of the Duke Lacrosse team.

2. The players, who had requested white strippers, were not pleased when two non-white strippers arrived at the party (one of whom was accuser Crystal Mangum).

3. A vulgar exchange of words took place between the strippers and their audience; this abruptly stopped the performance, and the two strippers left.

4. The exchange of words reached a pinnacle as the women drove away.

Somehow, some way, this culminated in Mangum reporting to authorities that she had been gang raped by three of the men present.

*cue firestorm*

The main difference here is that it was (rightfully, although ineptly) investigated by police, not the university (more on that later). But here's the thing; facts are present in this incident. As unsavory as they may be, we have a pretty clear picture of what happened. Are the Duke lacrosse players guilty of being huge douchebags? Absolutely; I think anyone who has ever met a Duke lacrosse player could attest to that (joking... kindof).

If you look at it from an unbiased perspective, it becomes increasingly more ridiculous to suggest that entitled young white men who have had their futures already handed to them would be willing to risk any of that by raping a mentally unstable black stripper. Especially in Durham, NC. Being a consummate example of douchebaggery does not make you a rapist.

The story of the UVA gang rape as reported in Rolling Stone is similar for many reasons. Firstly, it provides a narrative that panders to the readers assumptions about college, fraternities, and the behavior of the men who join these groups; they are over-privileged white kids who feel entitled to whatever they want... especially innocent, working-class freshman women. Richard Bradley, who as editor of George was duped by Stephen Glass, said it much better than I can:

"Stephen wrote what he knew I was inclined to believe. And because I was inclined to believe it, I abandoned my critical judgment. I lowered my guard.The lesson I learned: One must be most critical, in the best sense of that word, about what one is already inclined to believe. So when, say, the Duke lacrosse scandal erupted, I applied that lesson. The story was so sensational! Believing it required indulging one’s biases: A southern school…rich white preppy boys…a privileged sports team…lower class African-American women…rape. It read like a Tom Wolfe novel.
And of course it never happened."

When I first read Sabrina Rubin Erdley's piece, I felt extremely uncomfortable. Not because of the subject matter, but it was a strange feeling I couldn't place. Part deja vu, part feeling like I was being fed a story that just seemed "too good to be true". Again, in Richard Bradley's words:

"Let me be very clear: I don’t doubt that it’s possible that this happened. People can do terrible things, things that one doesn’t want to believe happen. And I certainly don’t want to think that this could have happened. 

But more than that: I don’t believe that it happened—certainly not in the way that it is recounted. 

Remember: One must be most critical about stories that play into existing biases. And this story nourishes a lot of them: biases against fraternities, against men, against the South; biases about the naïveté of young women, especially Southern women; pre-existing beliefs about the prevalence—indeed, the existence—of rape culture; extant suspicions about the hostility of university bureaucracies to sexual assault complaints that can produce unflattering publicity."

To roughly paraphrase a buddy of mine during a recent conversation we had on this topic, he put into words what I could not articulate; he noted that in trying to present a perfect story that hits all the right nerves to serve as the backdrop for some very real and very disturbing actions by UVA's administration in handling sexual assaults, the end product was a narrative that is "100% outside the realm of possibility". In my own words, my first reaction was "that doesn't fucking happen".

Before I move on to this next part, I do want to put out this disclaimer: Rubin Erdley's reporting on UVA's handling of sexual assaults was excellent. I have no doubt that universities do a shitty job of handling sexual assault. I have no doubt that administrators would much rather silence survivors by investigating reported assaults internally rather than through the proper channels of the criminal justice system.

But the account of gang rape is 95% complete and utter bullshit, at least from the perspective from which it was presented.

After this next clarification, I will tell you why (and rather than read this part, a lot of you will just put a "rape apologist/misogynist" stamp on this and move on).

Firstly, although I did not go to UVA, I was in a fraternity at UNC. If you had to pick any college that is most similar to the campus culture and Greek system at UVA, it would be UNC. For the most part, I would say that the general public's conception of the "frat boy" stereotype is mostly accurate for fraternities and their members at most colleges and universities in the south (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, other SEC schools). UNC and UVA are extremely different, however. It's probably the result of a combination of different factors, including but not limited to:

• Virginia and North Carolina didn't get completely fucked by Reconstruction. Generations of well-off Southerners in these two states remained well-off and could afford to send their kids to college. They are two of the more socially progressive states (relatively speaking) south of the Mason-Dixon Line. In fact, I would say most "Southerners" don't even consider Virginia to be a part of the South.
• Selectivity; UNC and UVA are widely considered "public Ivies" for both the quality of the education, the acceptance rate for applicants, the subjective "prestige" of the institution itself, and a very wealthy alumni base. As noted in the RS piece, the "study hard, play hard" mentality is central. UVA and UNC are party schools that are actually schools.
• Greek organizations at UNC and UVA exercise a disproportionate degree of influence on student life considering their numbers only amount to somewhere between 15-20% of the student population at both institutions. This leads to a certain degree of distrust and animosity between fraternities and non-affiliated students.
• Both institutions have long-standing "honor codes" as a central standard of student conduct; violations of the honor code are heard by a student-run forum/committee/whatever at both institutions. This is a central problem to the way in which both UNC and UVA handle sexual assaults.

You could say I am very familiar with what goes on at UNC because I was there for six years. I should also note that the last four years I was there, I was sober, and was still an active member of the fraternity I pledged in fall 2008. So it would be entirely accurate to say that I've "seen a lot of shit". And this is why the RS story bothered me; it was portraying an image of fraternities that would seem incredibly accurate to anyone who hasn't been in a fraternity at either of these institutions.

AND HERE IS WHY NONE OF IT HAPPENED (at least in the way it was told)...

1. First-year students can only (officially) rush/pledge in the spring semester (via IFC 2012-2013 manual). Fall rush/pledging is only available for transfers/second-year students. Fraternities put much more focus on recruiting freshmen as opposed to upperclassmen simply because they will be around (and paying dues) for an additional year. Looking at the schedule, it can be easily seen that fall rush is a formality, and the focus is on spring. It was the other way around at UNC- everyone did fall rush, but spring rush was entirely optional until a few years ago. I imagine it's similar at UVA (other way around of course).
This puts a lot of doubt on the assertion that the gang rape was some sort of pledge initiation ritual, suggested as such in this paragraph of the RS piece:

"As the last man sank onto her, Jackie was startled to recognize him: He attended her tiny anthropology discussion group. He looked like he was going to cry or puke as he told the crowd he couldn't get it up. "Pussy!" the other men jeered. "What, she's not hot enough for you?" Then they egged him on: "Don't you want to be a brother?" "We all had to do it, so you do, too."

"
Bid day in 2012 was on September 22, the attack occurred September 28. For a minute, let's assume that Phi Kappa Psi does require their pledges to take part in a gang rape in order to be initiated. Why the fuck are they doing it in the FIRST WEEK of pledging; furthermore, the first week of pledging for SOPHOMORES? That isn't how this works. All I will say about my own experience with the pledging process is that it is the best time of my life that I never want to have again. The entire purpose of pledging (whether or not hazing is present) is to take your pledge class of X number individuals and turn it into a single unit. The first week of pledging isn't when you decide to arbitrarily inflict the most deranged, fucked up hazing ritual of your brotherhood onto some unsuspecting kids that still have the leftover idea from rush that you're their best friend. You know what would happen? They would fucking quit. I think anyone in their right mind would quit faced with that incredibly fucked up scenario. Additionally, it being an initiation ritual and all, means every active brother in Phi Kappa Psi has taken part. Do you even realize how fucking retarded that suggestion is? In the age of Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, YikYak, etc, PEOPLE FIND OUT ABOUT SHIT (KD blumpkin girl- need I say more?). This would have come to light A LOT sooner. Phi Kappa Psi would not have their "upper tier" reputation (which according to a friend who went to UVA, saying PKP is "upper tier" is like calling Applebee's "gourmet New American-fusion cuisine"), and soon enough that reputation would lead to them not having any kids wanting to pledge there at all. Furthermore, any sort of activity for pledges that takes place isn't for the purpose of uniting them with older brothers, it's for uniting them amongst themselves. The pledge class wasn't only those 6 dudes. An "upper tier" fraternity is looking at at least 25 kids. So do they take shifts or what? That would defeat the fucking purpose, a purpose which has already been thrown out the window due to the fact that FUCKING RAPE is the activity. So this already is flimsy because it is strongly suggested that the individual in one of Jackie's classes was also a first-year. I'm not dumb, and I know PKP is most likely rushing freshmen before "formal recruitment". But having pledges off the books? It's stupid and there is no reason to do it. The risk greatly outweighs the potential benefit of having a few individuals pay dues for an extra semester.
2. Other inconsistencies-
The article says the event where the rape took place was a "date function". What the fuck is a date function? To my knowledge, there are really two kinds of events; a cocktail, which is brothers and their respective dates, and a party, which is brothers and whoever the fuck else decides to show up. So Jackie was Drew's date, but where were the other guys' dates for the multiple hours they were raping Jackie? The ultimate lame thing to do is to not get a date to a cocktail. If we are still going to assume these guys were pledges, they would have had dates. If we are going to keep assuming PKP are all serial rapists, an upperclassmen brother would not be sacrificing HIS date to get raped by pledges, it would be a pledge's date, because that's just how pledging works. I HOPE YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS GETTING MORE ABSURD THE FURTHER IT GOES. Additionally, in what world is gang raping a girl "cool" or "manly"? Furthermore, how is watching your buddy commit rape a bond building activity? Do fraternities tend to objectify women? On the whole, absolutely. Are pledges who have sex with lots of attractive women going to gain more respect from brothers? Unfortunately, yeah, probably. But no one is ever going to think rape is cool except 12 year old Portuguese kids on Xbox Live that beat my ass at FIFA.
I won't even go into asking how Jackie managed to identify everyone in the room despite it being pitch black. Or how she got tackled and went through a plate glass table and didn't have serious lacerations needing stitches.

Furthermore, the whole "gang rape at a fraternity" is an urban myth in the vein of pledges fucking goats during hell week. There is always a rumor that fraternities spike their punch with drugs. That type of shit doesn't happen at UNC or UVA in the 21st century for a number of reasons. First off, if you are the type of person who thinks rape is cool and uses drugs to incapacitate your victims, go kill yourself. Since you won't listen to me there, maybe you'll listen when I will tell you how you're fucking up by using a chainsaw to trim the flowers. Alcohol is plenty sufficient to incapacitate any 100-pound 18 year old girl whose life you feel like ruining. People don't understand that alcohol is a central nervous system depressant. Women metabolize alcohol faster than men, and many times the effects are more profound. If you're drugging a girl, you're more likely to end up adding "defiling a corpse" to your list of charges (which include rape and murder) instead of just hoping they won't remember. In combination with the fact that college is where kids start drinking so they have no tolerance, drugs aren't necessary. Secondly, WHY THE FUCK WOULD I WASTE MY DRUGS ON YOU? Do you have any idea how many Xanax bars would be required in a 50-gallon trash can full of punch to have any sort of effect? You'd have to rob a fucking pharmacy. And if you did rob a pharmacy, why the fuck are you spiking punch? Just take that shit and wake up in 2016 with no idea how you got there.

One time my sophomore year, we had this crazy party for which I made the punch. A bunch of people got stupidly, dangerously drunk. Therefore the punch must have been drugged. I have a confession: the punch was drugged. In the words of the preamble of Narcotics Anonymous, "alcohol is a drug". The punch was only drugged in the sense that I put SIX FUCKING HANDLES OF EVERCLEAR in it, and only God knows how many other handles of Aristocrat vodka as filler. I have to admit it was really fucking stupid. But I was only thinking of myself, because like the good alcoholic that I am, I was aiming to black out after like 3 cups... with little regard to the welfare of everyone else. Pretty sure I achieved that goal.

So yes, dumb shit occurs. But nothing like a lot of people suggest. I would like to say that yes, there are places where fraternities will spike their punch. That is the main difference between Greek systems there and at UVA and UNC. Maybe its some sort of notion of being a "Southern gentleman", or maybe we just aren't creeps.

3. The other characters are less believable than actors in a car insurance commercial
Two of the rapists had nicknames of "Blanket" and "Armpit". Nicknames like that exist solely in the realm of straight-to-DVD American Pie spin-offs, not reality. Fraternity nicknames are (at least 95% of the time) some bastardization of the person's actual name, preferably a bastardization that makes sense for the person. My nickname was Xanax Bar/Xanzibar/Xanny Bar/Zombie Xan. Why? Because my name is Xan and my modus operandi was blacking out on Xanax and smoking cocaine freebase in my cubby while watching The OC for days at a time. Find me a name that is similar to Armpit or Blanket and also supposedly describes kids that would get bids to an "upper tier" fraternity and I will suspend my disbelief. Also, WHAT HUMAN IN AMERICA IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY WOULD SUGGEST NOT REPORTING A RAPE BECAUSE IT MIGHT HURT THEIR SOCIAL STANDING??? Furthermore, WHAT HUMAN IN ANY CENTURY EVER WOULD SUGGEST THAT JACKIE SHOULD'VE "HAD FUN WITH IT"????? Or that her rapist would say something like "I had fun the other night" when he sees her. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? THIS IS MORE RIDICULOUS THAN ANY EPISODE OF SVU IN THE PAST 5 YEARS. I studied sociopathy/antisocial personality disorder in school. I can tell you that Patrick Bateman is 100% fiction. Violent sociopaths (the type that would orchestrate a gang rape and then feel no empathy for the victim after the fact) are almost never high functioning individuals. They have no social skills, no care for their physical appearance, usually have extensive criminal records spanning back to childhood, and most likely never finished high school. They are the type of people whom you meet in passing and they make the hairs on your neck stand up; humans are extremely well adapted to unconsciously recognizing subtle cues such as an emotionless stare or flat affect as a potential threat, which triggers a physiological response. Even the sort of sociopaths that become materially successful in their careers are easily recognized as being rather inauthentic in conversation, though usually the feeling is something along the lines of "something just seemed off". All of that is to say that a violent sociopath is extremely unlikely to attend UVA and receive a bid from an "upper tier" fraternity. A real-life example of a violent sociopath is UVA student Hannah Graham's accused killer Jesse L. Matthew Jr. He wasn't a UVA student. But he was a serial offender, possibly even having killed before. But he's a big black guy, wasn't a student/fraternity member, and doesn't exactly fit the "perfect" narrative. Granted, his abduction/alleged murder of Graham is not typical of most campus assaults. But he is an individual capable of orchestrating a gang rape and being able to sleep at night. It takes a certain kind of monster to be able to hurt others without at least feeling a little pain yourself.

I stand behind the statement in bold above.



So this has been long and rambling, and I might update it later, but this has been bothering me. Do I think Jackie is lying? Not exactly, because I don't really think "Jackie" exists. At best, she is a composite character. At worst, a complete fabrication to put a "name" to what accounts to an urban myth. I intend to criticize both the writer and the editors at Rolling Stone for not adhering to journalistic standards, but producing a piece that while it may be factual, is easily discredited as sensationalist for a variety of reasons. The part of the piece on UVA's "response" (or lack-thereof) to the rape is excellent because it is fact checked, corroborated, and backed up by research. Everything else? Not so much. The author chose an incident which was incredibly compelling but embarrassingly unverifiable. I'm sure there were plenty other survivors who could have shared their stories, but their stories were probably deemed "too boring". No survivor's story is ever "boring", and it should never be considered as an expository narrative towards an investigative piece in order to sell issues or "go viral". I think this is a fucking insult to all survivors of sexual violence that Rolling Stone published this story.


****k bring the hate****