Sabrina Rubin Erdely Has Destroyed Rolling Stone’s Credibility

Rolling Stone recently published a shocking story titled “A Rape on Campus” written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely. The horrifying details of this narrative roused the nation. Feminists, social justice activists, and the mainstream media led a vicious and hysterical attack on the University of Virginia, fraternity men, and “rape culture.”

Recent reporting has cast the story in doubt. While reviewing the evidence below, please ask yourself the following question: “Can Rolling Stone’s malicious activism be tolerated?”

Rolling Stone Claim #1:

Sabrina Erdely begins by describing the meeting between the alleged victim and alleged rapist.

She and Drew had met while working lifeguard shifts together at the university pool, and Jackie had been floored by Drew’s invitation to dinner, followed by a “date function” at his fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi”

Fact:

A review of the employee roster for the “Aquatic Fitness Center” pool Jackie worked at in 2012 revealed that none of the pool employees were Phi Kappa Psi brothers (Washington Post).

Rolling Stone Claim #2:

The setting of the alleged incident was a “date function” party at Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house on September 28, 2012.

Rebuttal:

There was no party at Phi Kappa Psi fraternity that night according to a statement by the fraternity.

Note: Return of Kings has far more journalistic integrity than Rolling Stone, therefore we will call this a “rebuttal” instead of “fact.” 

Rolling Stone Claim #3:

A body barreled into her, tripping her backward and sending them both crashing through a low glass table. There was a heavy person on top of her, spreading open her thighs, and another person kneeling on her hair, hands pinning down her arms, sharp shards digging into her back, and excited male voices rising all around her. When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face.

Rebuttal:

The Washington Post reports that,

A student who came to Jackie’s aid the night of the alleged attack said in an interview late Friday night that she did not appear physically injured at the time.

Could it be possible that “Jackie” would not appear to be physically injured after the violent gang rape described by Rolling Stone? Thrown through a glass table? Punched in the face? Violently raped by seven men in a bed of glass for three hours? You decide.

Rolling Stone Claim #4:

Seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement…. As the last man sank onto her…. 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.

There are several incredibly serious accusations made by Rolling Stone here:

1. Phi Psi fraternity requires pledges to rape a woman as a pledge initiation procedure.

2. This plan was orchestrated by Jackie’s date “Drew” as a premeditated plan to fulfill the pledge initiation.

3. Nine men are directly implicated in this alleged violent crime.

Fact:

Fraternity rushing and pledging processes at the University of Virginia are in the spring semester, not the fall semester in which this alleged “rape” took place. In addition, the Washington Post reports that they have identified the alleged ringleader “Drew” as a fellow lifeguard who is completely unaffiliated with Phi Psi fraternity.

1. If Phi Psi has no rushing in the fall semester, then why would they hold a pledge initiation ritual in September 2012? First-year students would not be rushing until January 2013, and upper-class students would already have secured their brotherhood.

2. If “Drew” is not a brother of Phi Psi fraternity, then why would he orchestrate this “gang rape” to fulfill a pledge initiation?

3. If nine men were implicated in the attack, one of which was specifically identified through a small anthropology class and another as a lifeguard at the Aquatic Fitness Center pool, how did Rolling Stone fail to even privately identify a single one of these men in their investigation?

Rolling Stone Claim #5:

She emerged to discover the Phi Psi party still surreally under way, but if anyone noticed the barefoot, disheveled girl hurrying down a side staircase, face beaten, dress spattered with blood, they said nothing.

Counter-Claim:

There was no party that night according to the fraternity.

Fact:

There is not a “side staircase” at the fraternity house.

Rebuttal:

Sabrina Erdely is essentially claiming that college men are so evil that they don’t even care that a barefoot, beaten, bloodied, violently raped freshman woman is walking past them, they just callously go about their evening.

Women at this party and elsewhere at UVA are treated with just as much feminist contempt, portrayed as “lighthearted” social climbers that care more about being invited to the right parties than the alleged horrors endured by a friend.

Rolling Stone Claim #6:

Extensive dialogue is quoted as fact throughout the Rolling Stone story without any qualifiers such as “according to Jackie” or “allegedly.” This is gross negligence without any corroboration. One such dialogue example is an alleged rapist yelling “Grab its motherfucking leg.” Remind you of anything?

Rebuttal:

At this point in a story riddled with errors, inconsistencies, and blatant falsehoods, the sad truth is that the alleged victim is confusing fiction with reality. It is not uncommon for trauma victims to repress reality and create internal narratives, which is why it was incredibly inappropriate for Sabrina Rubin Erdely to publish as fact the extensive dialogue found in this story.

Rolling Stone Claim #7:

Jackie’s friends are evil.

For the first month of school, Jackie had latched onto a crew of lighthearted social strivers, and her pals were now impatient for Jackie to rejoin the merriment. “You’re still upset about that?” Andy asked one Friday night when Jackie was crying. Cindy, a self-declared hookup queen, said she didn’t see why Jackie was so bent out of shape. “Why didn’t you have fun with it?” Cindy asked. “A bunch of hot Phi Psi guys?” One of Jackie’s friends told her, unconcerned, “Andy said you had a bad experience at a frat, and you’ve been a baby ever since.

Rebuttal:

The crucial comment here is “Why didn’t you have fun with it?” asked by Cindy, one of the three friends who came to the assistance of “Jackie” the night of the attack. There are three possibilities here:

1. Jackie’s female friend Cindy, a self-described rape victim, acted in an incredibly dismissive and callous manner. Jackie was allegedly violently raped by seven men, and Cindy had the gall to ask why she didn’t have fun with it?  Cindy is a horrible human being.

2. Jackie admitted to Cindy that the encounter was consensual, leading Cindy to (understandably) later question why she didn’t enjoy it.

3. As the rest of the Rolling Stone story has been shown to be complete and utter rubbish, it’s also possible that Cindy is completely misquoted and slandered in this account.

Conclusion:

There are no winners here. This is bad for everybody. “Jackie” will likely be publicly exposed and humiliated, the University of Virginia has suffered a dramatic loss in reputation, fraternity men everywhere have been slandered as barbaric animals, the administration of the university has been under fire, and legitimate victims of rape will be undermined for years (perhaps decades).

The FBI reports that forcible rape incidents have declined by 24% from 1992 to 2011. The widely distributed feminist claim that “1 in 5 women are the victims of sexual assault” has been repeatedly debunked.

The wildly poetic moralizing by Sabrina Erdely is based on feminist fantasies about how “rape culture” permeates universities across the country, and has no basis in reality whatsoever.  The hysterical fight against this imaginary “rape culture” is a desperate attempt by a dying feminist movement to regain relevance in a world that hasn’t needed their activism in decades.

Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone are not just grossly negligent and wildly incorrect in their reporting, they must be pursued by relentless litigation for libel and defamation of character for the institutions and individuals involved in this story.

After reading the claims made by Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone, and reviewing the evidence, can their continued existence in a media capacity be tolerated?

Read More: Is Rolling Stone Sensationalizing The UVA Rape Story For Profit?