After the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organized a rally over the weekend to protest the removal of a confederate monument in Charlottesville, Virginia, thousands of counter protesters gathered to voice their disgust.

The Charlottesville City Council recently voted to remove a monument of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, but the KKK claims it is part of a sweeping effort to erase white history. The protest was held a block away from Emancipation Park, formerly Lee Park, which was recently renamed. But the statue of Lee riding a horse has yet to be removed.

LIVE from #CharlottesvilleKKK rally—#KKK still protesting. HUNDREDS of Counter protestors –very loud @ACLU #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/QuShCGeehW

— Bo Erickson (@BoKnowsNews) July 8, 2017

City Councilwoman Kristin Szakos wrote in an editorial that the council’s decision was made to join a “growing group of cities around the nation that have decided that they no longer want to give pride of place to tributes to the Confederate Lost Cause erected in the early part of the 20th century.”

A court order has delayed the removal of the statue until a hearing next month that may just be a precursor to an elongated legal battle, according to NPR.

Not only is the town home to the University of Virginia, but it was also the home of American founding father Thomas Jefferson, and is near his Monticello estate.

Sunday’s protests featured about 30 Klansmen, many of whom arrived armed with handguns, and approximately 1,000 counter protesters, according to the Washington Post. The KKK was escorted by police clad in riot gear as they entered and exited.

The fact that the police force, comprised of local, county, state, and university police, protected the Klansmen, left a bad taste in plenty of people’s mouths after seeing police disproportionately use violence to subdue African-American protests.

The KKK is a hate group. Police are keeping them safe. When Black folks protest for our right to life, police harass and harm us. https://t.co/eVv9Vf4e7m

— Negrita (@HustleAndFro_) July 8, 2017

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer previously urged the town’s residents not to “take the bait — to deny the KKK the confrontation and celebrity they desire,” but thousands still felt compelled to voice their disgust with the group’s resurgence.

While the Klansmen attempted to speak publicly to the crowd at multiple points, they were inaudible and drowned out by the noise made by the counter-protesters. Jalane Schmidt, a professor at the university and a vocal supporter of the removal for Lee’s statue, was among the group gathered at the park. She told the Washington Post:

It is important for me to be here because the Klan was ignored in the 1920s, and they metastasized. They need to know that their ideology is not acceptable…I teach about slavery and African American history, and it’s important to face the Klan and to face the demons of our collective history and our original sin of slavery. We do it on behalf of our ancestors who were terrorized by them.

By the end of the day 22 people had been arrested while three others were hospitalized. Two of the medical issues were due to the heat while the other was alcohol-related, according to the Washington Post.

The Klansmen were members of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, based in Pelham, North Carolina, about 140 miles across the Virginia border. The group was compelled to fight, in their view, the eradication of white history. While most protesting the statue’s removal were part of the KKK, others, like Brandi Fisher, drove hours from neighboring states to join and voice their concerns.

“I don’t agree with everything the Klan believes, but I do believe our history should not be taken away,” said the West Virginia native. “Are we going to remove the Washington and Jefferson memorials because they were slave owners?”

The KKK also staged a protest last month alongside white nationalist leader Richard Spencer in which the group ominously marched with torches to protest the council’s decision. That earlier protest also drew condemnation from citizens and even Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello.

Get your white supremacist hate out of my hometown. https://t.co/KfkxHImvze

— Tom Perriello (@tomperriello) May 13, 2017

Once the protests ended on Sunday afternoon, police escorted the Klansmen out and asked the counter protesters to disperse. After the police decided the remaining crowd was “an unlawful assembly,” the police force donned masks and released gas canisters to disperse the crowd, according to the Washington Post.

Last month the Anti-Defamation League released a comprehensive report on the current presence of the KKK in the United States. According to the research, there are about 3,000 people who strongly identify with Klan ideology and there are 42 active groups across 33 states. The report also states that many of the chapters have joined forces with each other or with neo-Nazi groups in order to show strength and unity. As a result, groups have beliefs ranging from “traditional” white supremacist beliefs to Christian Identity, “a longstanding racist and anti-Semitic religious sect,” according to the ADL Report.

Several white nationalist groups have obtained permits for yet another rally on August 12, so there will likely be more conflicts like these in the future. With racial tensions heightened since the 2016 election, these feuds over confederate monuments are just one example of the conflicts that continue to arise between white nationalists and more progressive communities.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Clash with KKK in Charlottesville Over Robert E. Lee Monument appeared first on Law Street.

In November 2014, an article was published by Rolling Stone, titled “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA.” The author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, reported about a supposed gang-rape that happened to a girl named “Jackie” at an on-campus fraternity at the University of Virginia.

The article quickly drew national attention and outcry, not only to the fraternity, but also to UVA, because of a named official who reportedly shunned “Jackie” from reporting the sexual assault.

Students protested, demonstrated, and some even vandalized the fraternity house. The Inter-Fraternity Council and the university’s president suspended fraternal activities until January 2015.

The first issue with the story that did not resonate well with readers was the lack of additional sources. The story was written from one point of view, which for the purpose of fairness and accuracy is not how a journalist should go about writing an article. In addition, a simple verification of facts would’ve lead to either more concrete evidence or a lack there of (which was later found to be the case).

The Washington Post published a piece detailing the discrepancies and doubts that they had found with the story, after doing small verifications. Police also conducted a thorough investigation and were unable to find evidence to support what “Jackie” said had happened.

There was no party that night. There was no boy named “Drew” who was a fellow lifeguard and Phi Kappa Psi fraternity member. None of it was true. So why would she lie?

Associate Dean Nicole P. Eramo is seeking roughly $8 million worth in damages in the case against Rolling Stone, its parent company, and Erdely. She argues that she was pegged as the villain and that she was targeted by not only Jackie, but by Rolling Stone as well.

On April 7, Jackie testified under oath, after being ordered by a judge to do so. Although, what she said is confidential and was sealed immediately.

What we do know from this case was that it was a grave disservice to not only the university and the fraternity, but also to the one in five women who will be sexually assaulted during their time in college. This article perpetuated the myth that many of those who report sexual assaults are just lying about what happened to them.

Every day on campuses around the country women and men are sexually assaulted, and many are choosing or are advised not to report their incidents. It is unfortunate that this story, of all of the stories about campus sexual assault to be published, was fabricated.

This also brought up the ethical dilemmas of adhering to a source’s desire to remain confidential and/or requests that other sources not be contacted regarding the incident. Jackie argued that she feared retaliation from her assailants if they were contacted, and Erdely agreed to keep them out of the discussion. However, as the Columbia Journalism Review found in a comprehensive investigation on the magazine, these errors could have been easily caught through simple verification without giving the details of the story away to another source.

Jackie’s lawyers had argued that her testifying would cause her to have to relive the pain and be re-victimized by the process. However, the judge denied the motion and ruled that she had to testify, hopefully to shed some light and understanding on what went wrong in late 2014.

Throughout this entire process many people have tried to figure out who “Jackie” really is. She is the main character in the story, and the person who created the haunting details that were later proved false…so shouldn’t her name be out there too? Some think yes and some think no. Somehow, she has been able to keep her anonymity, unlike the high profile names and organizations that were made public in the article.

The dean of the Columbia Journalism School, Steve Coll, told The Washington Post,

It’s an unusual situation, and I understand the argument on the other side, but I would not name her … She never solicited Rolling Stone to be written about. She’s not responsible for the journalism mistakes. To name her now just feels gratuitous, lacking sufficient public purpose. That could change depending on how the legal cases unfold, but that’s my sense now.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘A Rape on Campus’ Back in the Spotlight appeared first on Law Street.

University of Virginia student Martese Johnson filed a $3 million civil rights lawsuit against Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverages Control agents on Tuesday, alleging that they used excessive force during his bloody arrest in March.

Johnson is suing the VA ABC and three agents–Jared Miller, Thomas Custer, John Cielakie, and Shawn P. Walker–arguing that they used excessive force when he was arrested, and that he was unlawfully detained.

The junior honor student was arrested on March 18 after catching the attention of liquor agents after being denied entry by a bouncer outside of an Irish pub in Charlottesville. The agents asked to see Johnson’s “fake ID” and then wrestled him to the ground, causing several facial wounds to bleed profusely when his head struck the pavement.

Johnson was later charged with resisting arrest, obstructing justice without threats of force, and profane swearing or intoxication in public. The charges were eventually dropped, and Johnson maintains that he was not intoxicated, acting belligerently, nor using a fake ID.

Videos and photos of Johnson, who is African-American, with blood streaming down his face calling the officers “racist” were widely distributed on social media sites, inciting outrage in his community and the rest of the country.

UVa’s Martese Johnson files $3 million suit against @VirginiaABC after bloody arrest https://t.co/k7PPFsqklC pic.twitter.com/tjV65t6L7k

— The Roanoke Times (@roanoketimes) October 20, 2015

In an emotional essay for Vanity Fair, Johnson recalled the night of his arrest writing,

When I was picked up and dragged away by these officers, glimpses of my ancestors’ history flashed before my eyes. Although it could never compare to a life of slavery, for those hours, I had no freedom, no autonomy, and no say in what was happening to me. I cried for a long time that night—not because of my physical wounds (though there were many) or possible jail time (I was charged with two misdemeanors that were eventually dropped), but because my lifelong vision of sanctuary in success was destroyed in seconds.

He later added,

The officers’ actions may not have been premeditated that night, but I do believe they were calculated.

[…]

Why would I be subjected to such violence when so many other students in similar circumstances—so many other students that same night—were left alone?

Now he’s making sure to fight back against the people who humiliated, scared, and hurt him, including the institution that trained them. He explains his reasoning for going after not just the ABC as a whole but also the investigators themselves writing,

ABC agents have a history of aggressive, excessive, and unjustified behavior in effectuating their duties. This history stems from and is caused by a systemic failure to train and supervise agents by Defendants ABC and Director Walker.

It’s clear that public support falls in favor of Johnson, but it will be up to a court to decide whether or not these agents and the ABC broke the law.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UVA Student Martese Johnson Sues for $3 Million After Bloody Arrest appeared first on Law Street.

It was clear when the Charlottesville police department announced that it had found “no substantive proof” to support the UVA gang rape detailed in Rolling Stone’s “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA,” that the magazine had made some serious mistakes in its reporting. As a result, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism was tasked with investigating the magazine’s story in order to figure out just where Rolling Stone went wrong. The report, which is being called “a piece of journalism about a failure of journalism,” outlines a list of fundamental journalistic failures on individual, procedural, and institutional levels. The controversy has forced Rolling Stone to issue a formal retraction.

Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely began her article intending to showcase the pervasiveness of rape culture on college campuses using the story of an alleged gang rape survivor known as Jackie. Jackie’s horrific story of sexual assault and her campus administration’s lack of action resonated with readers and launched a national dialogue about rape. But just a few weeks after the story was published, details from Jackie’s story were called into question, leading to a formal police investigation into the alleged rape. While police found that they could not authenticate Jackie’s claims detailed in the article, they did not refute that something had potentially happened to her.

Columbia University followed suit with its own investigation in order to uncover what faulty journalistic practices led to such a scandal. The group summarized their findings writing:

Rolling Stone‘s repudiation of the main narrative in ‘A Rape on Campus’ is a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable. The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking. The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine’s editors to reconsider publishing Jackie’s narrative so prominently, if at all. The published story glossed over the gaps in the magazine’s reporting by using pseudonyms and by failing to state where important information had come from.

While a combination of failures including fact checking and corroboration attributed to the article’s inauthenticity, the takeaway is that Rolling Stone’s fundamental mistake was that they trusted Jackie way too much. The article’s editor Sean Woods claimed they were “too deferential” to their rape victim stating:

We honored too many of her requests in our reporting. We should have been much tougher, and in not doing that, we maybe did her a disservice.

Working with rape victims can be understandably challenging, especially when there’s the potential to re-traumatize them by having them retell specific events. Despite this, there still needs to be a way to hold sources accountable while preserving journalistic integrity. Rolling Stone failed to provide a balanced account of the events by only featuring the victim’s side of the story. This misstep now opens the door for other articles’ authenticities to be questioned, especially those written by Erdely, or others involving anecdotal evidence.

Surprisingly Erdely and her editors will not lose their jobs even in light of the report’s findings–apparently Rolling Stone views the report’s public embarrassment as punishment enough. However, that decision may not stand with an impending lawsuit against the publication on behalf of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity in the works. Publicly Rolling Stone needs to prove that its credibility remains after this massive disservice to journalistic integrity.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone Retracts Story About Alleged UVA Rape appeared first on Law Street.

Last November, Rolling Stone shocked the nation with its 9,000-word article entitled “A Rape on Campus.” The piece told the horrific story of a University of Virginia freshman known only as “Jackie.” She claimed to have been gang raped by seven Phi Kappa Psi frat members during a frat date party. The article accused UVA of a “cycle of sexual violence” and “institutional indifference” that preferred to silence girls like Jackie who reported rape instead of helping them. The piece started an impressive national dialogue about rape culture, particularly rape culture on college campuses. Now after four months of investigating and roughly 70 interviews, police have concluded that the gang rape that reignited a movement most likely never even happened.

Charlottesville police announced Monday that they have found “no substantive basis” to support the gang rape detailed in Rolling Stone’s article. Investigators also found “no evidence” that a Phi Kappa Psi frat party even took place on the night of Sept. 28, 2012, which was when the rape was reported to have occurred.

In the above video Chief Longo says,

We’re not able to conclude to any substantive degree that an incident occurred at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house, or any other fraternity house, for that matter. That doesn’t mean something terrible didn’t happen to Jackie on the evening of Sept. 28, 2012. We’re just not able to gather sufficient facts to determine what that is.

There were a number of unsubstantiated claims made by Jackie in the Rolling Stone article that investigators detailed debunking. For starters, police found no proof that a party even occurred at the frat house the night of the alleged rape, but instead proved the Phi Kappa Psi brothers were attending a formal at their sister sorority, Delta Gamma, that evening. Jackie also claimed to have been hit over the head with a glass bottle during the rape, and that her roommate at the time, a nursing student, later removed glass shards from her face. But when police interviewed the roommate, she denied removing any such glass and claimed the wound was more consistent with an abrasion from having fallen. The list of inconsistencies didn’t stop there. For the full text from the Charlottesville police statement detailing their findings in the UVA rape case click here.

According to Chief Longo, the case is not closed but rather suspended until police are able to gather more information or someone comes forward providing more information.

So, what does this mean for Rolling Stone and its journalistic integrity? The magazine, which operated under the assumption that everything Jackie told it was true, already released a statement taking responsibility for its mistakes in handling the article. It admitted to its failure to contact the accused in the story, known as “Drew,” and get his side of the story. Now it’s opening itself up for further review by allowing the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism to complete its own investigation into the magazine’s reporting, which will later be published in Rolling Stone in early April.

As for Phi Kappa Psi, the accused fraternity might be seeking legal action against Rolling Stone for “defamation”. UVA’s Phi Psi chapter said in a statement provided to Business Insider:

Phi Kappa Psi is now exploring its legal options to address the extensive damage caused by Rolling Stone — damage both to the chapter and its members and to the very cause upon which the magazine was focused.

From a legal perspective the frat has a pretty good case, due to the magazine’s gross lack of fact checking and failure to even contact the frat for its side of the story. However if the fraternity members plan to follow through with a suit, they must be willing to expose themselves yet again to scrutiny that could result in even more unwanted publicity.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Find No Evidence to Support UVA Gang Rape Story appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday night, 20-year-old University of Virginia student Martese Johnson was brutally arrested. His treatment has sparked outrage around the country, and has led to protests at the university. Moreover, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has called for an investigation into the police officers’ use of force.

Read More: Militarization: Arming the Police Against Against American Citizens

Like many Americans, students at the University of Virginia went out to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day Tuesday night. Martese Johnson, a junior double majoring in Media Studies and Italian, was one of them. Johnson was with friends trying to get into the Trinity Irish Pub, when he was stopped by a bouncer guarding the door. At this point, an agent from the Virginia Department of Adult Beverage Control, or ABC, grabbed Johnson and brought him over to a group of other ABC agents. According to eyewitness Bryan Beaubrun, when Johnson asked the agent to let go and backed away, he was grabbed from behind and then wrestled to the ground by multiple agents. In the process, he hit his head on the ground, and sustained injuries that required ten stitches.

I stand with Martese Johnson. There is no excuse for this. @VirginiaABC you should be ashamed. pic.twitter.com/4j3bnfDlBI

— UVAProblems (@UVAProbs) March 18, 2015

After being arrested, Johnson was charged with resisting arrest, obstructing justice without threats of force, and profane swearing or intoxication in public. He was released on bail later the next morning.

After the release of pictures and footage of the aftermath of Johnson’s arrest, many have been protesting the way in which he was treated. McAuliffe has authorized an investigation into the circumstances, and UVA president Teresa Sullivan has put out a statement detailing her concerns. In an email sent to the student body, she stated:

Today, as U.Va. students, faculty, and staff who share a set of deeply held values, we stand unified in our commitment to seeking the truth about this incident. And we stand united in our belief that equal treatment and equal justice are among our fundamental rights under the law.

She also stressed, however, that details aren’t yet clear at this time, and encouraged anyone with any information about the arrest to come forward and provide eyewitness testimony.

Last night, hundreds of UVA students, as well as faculty and other members of the community, rallied in support of Johnson, who also attended the march. His face clearly still showed signs of his injury from the night before.

Photos from protest at #UVa in response to #MarteseJohnson‘s injuries from ABC arrest http://t.co/i6XFYmlsz0pic.twitter.com/rXCJX33Et1

— Amy Friedenberger (@AJFriedenberger) March 19, 2015

Johnson thanked the community for coming out to support him, saying:

This University opened me up. You being here is the reason why I still believe in the community of trust even with a busted head standing here on this stage.

The gathering featured other students speaking about their personal experiences, expressing dismay about how Johnson was treated, and talk about how to move forward. It’s certainly moving to see the university community standing together to protest the inhumane treatment of one of its own, but the fact that such inhumane treatment happened in the first place remains troubling. It’s yet another example in national conversation about race and discrimination that seems to get more complicated and upsetting every day.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UVA Community Gathers in Support of Martese Johnson appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 disappearance and murder of second-year University of Virginia student, Hannah Graham, shocked the residents in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The 18-year-old went missing on September 13, 2014, after moving between parties alone and texting a friend saying she was lost. Police tracked some of Hannah’s movements using surveillance footage and found a tape where she was seen walking with a man, later identified as Jesse Matthew Jr, a hospital worker, who was then arrested on suspicion of kidnapping Graham. Police launched an aggressive manhunt searching for the teen; after five weeks Graham’s remains were unearthed in a rural area just 12 miles from UVA’s campus.

COMING UP: Update on slain UVA student Hannah Graham. Watch live here: pic.twitter.com/3EoYZ3aA6s

— NBC News (@NBCNews) February 10, 2015

Matthew, 33, who has been held by police since September 2014 in connection with Graham’s disappearance, has now been charged with first-degree murder and abduction with the intent to defile. Albemarle County Police Chief Steve Sellers announced at a press conference Tuesday that Matthew was served four indictments Monday afternoon. Besides the murder and abduction charge, Matthew was also indicted on reckless driving counts.

He is scheduled to make his first appearance in Albemarle Circuit Court for the abduction and murder charges on February 18 by video from Fairfax. Matthew is currently jailed there in connection with a 2005 rape and attempted murder he’s been charged with. He will remain behind bars in Fairfax until his trial in March.

Jesse Matthew charged with murder in Hannah Graham case; won’t face death penalty http://t.co/gyCXUSRRbCpic.twitter.com/6Jg4mC5YEV

— The Virginian-Pilot (@PilotNews) February 10, 2015

In addition, he has also been forensically linked to the death of Virginia Tech University student Morgan Harrington, who disappeared after leaving a Charlottesville concert in October 2009. Harrington’s body was discovered in 2010.

Matthew faces a possibility of five life sentences if convicted in both Fairfax and Albemarle counties, but surprisingly, not the death penalty. Had Matthew been indicted on a capital murder charge that wouldn’t have been the case.

Why did prosecutors choose not to file any capital murder charges? Albemarle County Commonwealth’s Attorney Denise Lunsford told CBS reporters:

The decision on how to charge in a specific case is very difficult and often times there are many considerations that going in to charging decisions. I’m not going to discuss the specific facts and circumstances that led to this consideration for ethical reasons, however understand that a great deal of serious thought went into this determination, including the impact on the community, the Grahams and the need to provide Mr. Matthew with a fair trial.

Matthew exhibited a pattern of hurting college-aged girls. In 2002 he was the main suspect in a campus rape investigation while attending Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, but no charges were filed.

It didn’t stop there, because in 2003, Matthew was forced to leave the Christopher Newport University football team he played on shortly after a report of an on-campus sexual assault.

That makes a grand total of five cases where Matthew has been accused of sexual assault. Even scarier, there could be more victims. As someone working in the healthcare field–he worked in a hospital–Matthew could have had the opportunity to victimize countless others that he “cared” for. This man’s horrific crime spree has shone a light on the importance of reporting campus sexual assaults. Had these universities taken the previous accusations against him more seriously, Graham and Harrington may have still been alive.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State Charges Jesse Matthew for Hannah Graham’s Murder appeared first on Law Street.

Just a few short months ago there were some very serious rape allegations being thrown around based on a Rolling Stone article about a student at the University of Virginia. It was a very traumatic account of a young woman being raped by several young men at a frat party, and that she didn’t report it until telling the story to a Rolling Stone writer several years later. When the administrators at UVA found out about these allegations they shut down the greek community and launched a full investigation only to discover that the story was falsified. Aside from the false accusation, UVA’s response seemed to be a little too late–only after this story got massive amounts of media attention did the school attempt to do anything.

That is not the case in regard to a student at Stanford University. Every news report I have seen calls this accused rapist a “former student,” but that status came about after the school found out about what he had done. Brock Allen Turner was charged with five felony counts of suspicion of attempted rape and penetration with a foreign object.

According to prosecutors, the attack occurred on January 18 when two young men riding their bikes on campus came across the scene of the crime. Turner was seen on top of an unconscious young woman; when confronted by the bikers he tried to run away, but luckily these guys were able to catch him and hold him until the police arrived.

A spokeswoman for Stanford University, Lisa Lapin, stated that Turner voluntarily withdrew from the university and is never allowed to re-enroll. I have a feeling that the school gave him an option and he took it, maybe to save face especially since he pleaded not guilty to the charges just yesterday morning.

Stanford did the right thing by shutting down what could have been a massively negative mark against the school. The best part in my opinion? The school had a resolution before the news even broke and was able to release a statement to news outlets immediately, letting people know that it knew what was going on and already had a resolution from an academic standpoint. Universities everywhere, take note!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stanford Sets the Standard for How Colleges Should Handle Campus Rape appeared first on Law Street.

Sexual assault on college campuses has been one of the hottest topics for a couple years now. Many universities are being investigated by the Department of Education for Title IX violations. The recent Rolling Stone article about rape on the campus of the University of Virginia that was partially retracted and has landed the publication in hot water over concerns about its journalistic ethics has seriously reignited the discussion. There are a lot of moving parts to the debate about sexual assault on college campuses, and I think that one of the many, many reasons that the conversation gets so easily muddied is that we don’t all agree on definitions, or statistics.

While this is obviously an extreme example, watch this video of “Princeton Mom” Susan Patton who I’m still a little bit sure must be running the world’s longest satirical performance. She begins the video by talking about how rape is no longer just defined as a woman being held at gunpoint and assaulted, and then spends the next ten minutes pretty much going on about what a shame that is. She also thinks that rape is often women falsely accusing men after “regrettable sex.” Then she talks about how it’s women’s responsibility to protect themselves from rape by not drinking, making good decisions, and choosing better friends. It’s a charming exercise in a game I like to subject myself to called “Holy Shit, People Actually Think This Way.”

Now the Department of Justice (DOJ) has weighed in with statistics from a study it conducted, and it’s probably going to all get even more confusing.

The new DOJ report dealt with not just college students, but college-aged females more generally. The DOJ report included the statistic that six of every 1,000 college females are sexually assaulted, and now everyone who thinks like Patton is using it to prove that sexual assault on college campuses isn’t a thing we should be worried about, and that this talk of “rape-culture” is overblown.

First, what we need to do is remember that anytime this sort of study is undertaken–one that relies on people’s word, memories, and stories, rather than say, hard facts in a laboratory–is that it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

There have been other studies that indicate that the rate of college sexual assault is much higher than what the DOJ reports. A survey at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that 17 percent of female students and 5 percent of young men were sexually assaulted as students. Then there’s the Campus Sexual Assault Study from 2007 that gave us the now-infamous and oft-cited “one in five” statistic.

There are a few reasons why two studies can have such radically different numbers, and they’re excellently detailed here, by the Marshall Project. The main takeaway is this though: neither is necessarily right and neither is necessarily wrong. They asked different questions, they talked to different people, and at the end of the day, it’s really very much an inexact science. We’re not sure how many students are sexually assaulted; more studies to come might help us pinpoint that number, but probably not.

But we do know that at least some are. Furthermore, the same DOJ report stated that eighty percent of students sexually assaulted don’t report it. And 80 percent were assaulted by someone they know. Both of those statistics are deeply troubling.

No matter how many people are being assaulted on our college campuses–whether it’s one percent, twenty percent, or somewhere in between–it’s too many.

But that “less than one” percent is probably going to get thrown around for a while. Because, unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who, for whatever reason, don’t want to see change. They just got some ammunition, for now.

That’s why we need to keep having conversations about rape culture. Why we need to keep educating our young people, and for that matter, all our people, on consent. Why we need to stand up for rape victims when they’re accused of making up their stories. It doesn’t matter how many–any at all are too damn many.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Stats Show College Sexual Assault Remains Too Prevalent appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

A couple of weeks I wrote about Rolling Stone’s report of a young woman being brutally raped on the University of Virginia campus. Last week Rolling Stone retracted the story, even apologizing to its readers. After the original report hit the news cycle people hung on to every word–even the administrators at UVA took action by banning all fraternities–but now it seems that the story may not have been true.

In my first article I was conflicted about the story of Jackie–the victim–and wondered why she would value her reputation at the school by keeping quiet for so long over her own well-being and justice. I get that being raped by five to seven guys is a traumatic event, one that no one would ever want to relive, but why would you allow your “friends” to talk you into keeping something like that quiet, as the report indicated? Why allow seven rapists to troll the campus for another possible victim?

I believe in the theory that there are three sides to every story, and in this case those sides belong to the victim, the unnamed rapists, and the truth somewhere between the two. One person’s perspective on an event can be totally different from someone else’s, so combining both stories usually brings out a more accurate truth, in my opinion. What Rolling Stone  did was allow Jackie to tell her side of a story without sufficient due diligence on the part of the publication by contacting the men she accused and fact checking the story. Granted, I don’t know how much fact checking you can do when a young woman states she was raped two years ago. Yes, you can check to see if such a party took place at the frat house, but there isn’t much more access someone can get without starting to raise flags. Rolling Stone‘s journalism in this case was abysmal.

My biggest question is would UVA administrators have taken the time to do a thorough investigation if this were privately handled? I would like to think so, but the cynic in me knows that sometimes administrators put the reputation of a school above the well-being of its students.

I’m ashamed of Rolling Stone, not just because of this article but because of several missteps over the last couple of years. The cover where it got the facts wrong on who signed the Constitution–a staple of being an American. The RIDICULOUS decision to put a terrorist on the cover of its magazine where he looked more like a rockstar than an enemy of the state! Fact checking and respecting Americans is clearly not on the agenda over at Rolling Stone. Maybe you guys should stick with what you know–entertainment. But really, you shouldn’t even do that because those reviews are usually wrong, too.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote about how Rolling Stone’s retraction affects rape victims in America. I agree with her, the original Rolling Stone article and later retraction are going to make real victims of rape shy away even more from reporting their experiences. UVA administrators and investigators disproved certain facts that Jackie reported to Rolling Stone. Why couldn’t this publication have taken a little more time and done the right thing? Why did it not take a step back and try to get a full story? Look at the big picture? Yes, it was probably trying to do a good thing in telling this story. So many women feel like they were not alone and were encouraged to tell their story because somehow Jackie found the strength to do it. But now that “strength and courage” have been squashed by reality.

It’s Go Ask Alice all over again. The diary of a young girl that was in fact fictional but presented as truth. There is a certain level of betrayal from the publishers of Go Ask Alice and the people over at Rolling Stone. You want to help rape victims? Try doing your job and not ruining what victims have worked so hard for. That 5.9 percent of false accusations that Anneliese mentions are the ones that are heard the loudest and hung on to the longest. Those who cry wolf are the ones doing the most damage to real victims and Rolling Stone may have just let someone cry wolf on the main stage with a loud speaker.

I’ve shamed Rolling Stone. I’ve shamed UVA. I’ve even shamed Jackie. But now it’s time to reiterate that even though her story as published in Rolling Stone may not be true, anyone who is a victim of rape–or any crime–should find the strength in themselves to speak up. Be what Jackie was supposed to be–a role model who is taking charge of what happened to her and standing up for herself and victims alike.

Don’t let Rolling Stone take away your power.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone, Bad Journalism, and the Future of Rape Victims appeared first on Law Street.

Early this afternoon, Rolling Stone released a post entitled “A Note to Our Readers.” It was a follow-up to a story published last month that took an extensive look at rape culture on the campus of the University of Virginia. Although the story was far-reaching, it focused particularly on a young woman named Jackie who allegedly was gang-raped at a fraternity party. I use the word allegedly because even though I believed Jackie’s story wholeheartedly, Rolling Stone has now retracted the article.

“A Note to Our Readers” was spectacularly vague, and in my opinion, put more blame on Jackie than a nationally known and respected news publication, but that’s almost beside the point. You can read the full retraction here, but here’s the part that stuck out to me. For context, it’s important to understand that Rolling Stone never interviewed or spoke with the men Jackie accused, out of an attempt to respect the fact that she was fearful of them. This is the what Rolling Stone included in its note today:

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

There were discrepancies to Jackie’s account–for example, the fact that she may have gotten the date of the party wrong, and so on. I don’t have the information that Rolling Stone does, and they were clearly being purposefully vague–but “discrepancies” does not render the entire story null and void.

Discrepancies are part of reporting, part of crime, and part of life. Jackie was telling this story after the fact and was relaying a traumatized experience. If she didn’t have discrepancies, I’d be more surprised.

And what people want is tidy little narratives from victims. They want perfect and total recall from shocking situations.

— roxane gay (@rgay) December 5, 2014

Our legal system doesn’t demand that every little question be answered and correct–I’m going to make an entirely unfair comparison here, but a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri proved just a few weeks ago that discrepancies in stories apparently mean jack squat. So why would the existence of discrepancies make Rolling Stone pull their story?

There are a couple of explanations. One is that they’re protecting their asses. They don’t want to get sued. They are businesspeople and they are choosing to protect their business, regardless if it means invalidating a quite possibly real and shocking story.

Another explanation is that Jackie lied, and Rolling Stone didn’t catch it. I don’t want to believe this is true. False accusations are rare–exceedingly rare–but they do exist. A study out of Northeastern University estimates them at about 5.9 percent. That’s of course only out of rapes that are reported–there are far more that aren’t, which means that the people who report false rape vs. people who are actually sexually assaulted are really rare. I highly doubt that this was fabricated, but it’s not impossible. There could be half truths too–Jackie could be telling someone else’s story who was too afraid to come out with it. Either way, I can’t say with certainty but I don’t think this was a lie. And honestly if it was, that’s on Rolling Stone too for screwing up their fact checking.

Because at the end of the day, it should be Rolling Stone we’re mad at. This whole thing is going to encourage rape victims to hide, not come forward and tell their story, unless they can remember every damn detail and prove it. It’s going to shift the conversation from the legitimate problem we have with sexual assault in this country to conversations about journalism. This incident is going to be cited by rape apologists and those who claim false rape accusations until those idiots are blue in the face. It’s going to set us back, there’s no way it’s not going to.

Rolling Stone: you didn’t do your job, and now rape victims are going to pay the price.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone Just Set Back Rape Victims’ Progress in America appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

You might have missed it with all the huge news events within the last week, but there was a Rolling Stone article published last week about a young woman who was the victim of a heinous crime. Seven (yes, SEVEN) young men at a fraternity party raped the woman over a three-hour period. The rape took place two years ago, but now that the story is out UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan has decided to shut down all fraternities until at least January 9, 2015. There will be an investigation conducted during the suspension.

I read the Rolling Stone article and the details are mind boggling. Not just of the before and after but of the rape itself. It was horrifying. After the victim, Jackie, was raped she was able to locate her “closest” friends and tell them about the incident, which resulted in a decision I do not understand. One friend wanted to take her to the hospital immediately while the other two were more concerned about her reputation at the school. I’m sorry but those two kids were NOT your friend, Jackie. When your friends are more concerned about your reputation than your wellbeing, you need to take a good hard look at those relationship. I realize Jackie was in a horrible state but the friend who said she needed to go to the hospital should have put her foot down and taken her. According to the report her dress was drenched in blood and she needed to see a doctor.

I understand that life on a college campus can sometimes be difficult but what is more difficult–having people talk about you for a few weeks because you were raped and reported it or walking around on campus knowing that at some point you will run into your rapists, knowing what they did to you and that they are just living their lives like nothing happened?

I respect the school’s decision to shut down the fraternities and investigate but all of the evidence that was needed to prosecute these scumbags is gone. All that is left is eye witness accounts that aren’t really that reliable, especially after so much time has gone by. I worry about students on any college campus who are more focused on their reputations than justice when a crime is committed.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Virginia Suspends All Fraternities After Rape Allegations appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Charles Paradis via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Schools for Healthcare Law: #10 University of Virginia School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

All it takes is one click to create a disaster. That is exactly what happened when Ruth Payne, the University of Virginia School of Law’s Director of Judicial Clerkships, sent out an email attachment last Wednesday containing the personal information of 155 law school students to the school’s clerkship listserv. Payne originally intended to send an email with an attachment of clerkship listings in Maryland. However, after forgetting to attach the clerkship listings in the original email, she hastily sent a followup. Unfortunately for her and the 155 students, she sent the wrong file–instead of sending the clerkship listing, she accidentally sent out a file called the “2015 Applicants Workbook.” It was a spreadsheet containing the students’ GPA’s, class ranks, and other biographical information. Six minutes later, Payne frantically sent a third email ordering the students to delete the previous email and the attached file.

However, the damage had already been done. The entire email listserv now had access to confidential information about themselves and their classmates. While the spreadsheet did not contain any students’ social security numbers or financial information, this incident caused alarm among UVA students–both those affected and those not–that their personal information could so easily be released. According to UVA Law’s Spokeswoman Mary Wood, affected students have been individually contacted and apologized to by the dean and other law school officials. She said, “We are deeply distressed that this mistake occurred, and we are in the process of reviewing our data management procedures to build in more safeguards against unintentional disclosures.” The UVA Law Vice Dean George Geis followed up and sent out another apology email to the affected students. He wrote, “Ruth and I both deeply regret this situation and apologize to all of you, we take the safeguarding of your personal information very seriously and will conduct a full review of our communication practices and our management of confidential student information.”

But how many second chances do they get? This is not the first time that UVA has accidentally released confidential student information to the public. Just last summer, the social security numbers of about 18,700 UVA students were mistakenly included in health insurance brochures that were mailed out nationwide. In December 2012, a handheld device disappeared from UVA’s medical center. It likely contained patients’ personal information and social security numbers. Later that year, about 350 grade transcripts were publicly posted to a UVA website. In 2007, the university discovered that confidential records of about 5,700 current and former faculty members had been hacked. Before that, in 2006, a spreadsheet containing the social security numbers of 632 students was erroneously sent out. While it would be easy to place blame for these security issues on one individual, it is clear that this is a systemic issue that is affecting each of the individual schools at UVA. This seems to be a constant problem for the top university, and it’s clear that major changes need to be made to their security procedures. It’s one thing to say that they’re working on creating safeguards, but it’s another to actually implement them.

In fairness, UVA is not the only school that has had issues like this. In April of 2012, Baylor Law School accidentally sent out admissions information, including names, grades, and LSAT scores, to every single student admitted to the class of 2015. Loyola Law School in Los Angeles sent out an email containing the financial information, including social security numbers and loan amounts, for the entire graduating class in March of 2014.

While there is no guarantee that any real measures will be taken to prevent this type of incident from happening again, hopefully the personnel at UVA will at the very least be a bit more careful when dealing with confidential information.  In his email, George Geis said, “Ruth or I are available if you have any questions or concerns.” I can guarantee you one thing UVA, there will be at least 155 students taking you up on that offer.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Bob Mical via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UVA Law Leaks Confidential Student Information…Again appeared first on Law Street.