Rolling Stone in Big Trouble for Past Article on UVA Gang Rape

By Victoria Robertson on October 25, 2016

Two years ago, Rolling Stone magazine published an article titled, “A Rape on Campus,” an article that has since been discredited. The story told of a brutal, gang rape that took place on campus at the University of Virginia.

At the time, this expose was seen as just that; now, it’s pending a defamation trial. (The trial is set to begin on Monday, Oct. 24).

The article came out in November of 2014 and University of Virginia administrator, Nicole Eramo, isn’t happy about the way in which she was depicted. She’s suing for $7.85 million in defamation damages, according to an article on Business Insider.

The article told the story of “Jackie” and how she was gang raped by a fraternity during initiation.

The rape involved seven men at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house back in 2012. Eramo, according to her attorneys, was depicted as indifferent and interested only in the university’s reputation.

Eramo received countless calls/emails/letters in which she was described as a “rape apologist,” though she didn’t lose her role. She still works for the university, just in a different role now.

Back in April, Jackie answered questions regarding the case, but Eramo and her attorneys plan to make her speak about the case again by calling her as a witness during this trial. However, it is possible the jury will watch a video deposition instead of an in-person testimony.

So what’s the big deal?

Well, an investigation into the rape was conducted and no evidence backed up Jackie’s claims and her narrative didn’t hold up in any publications. In fact, Rolling Stone retracted the article in April of 2015.

Since that April, three different lawsuits have been thrown at the magazine in response.

Three of the fraternity members filed a lawsuit that was thrown out by the judge, and then a $25 million lawsuit was filed by the fraternity itself which will go into trial next year.

The trial will focus largely on the writers and editors and whether or not they were intentionally writing about Eramo untruthfully, that is, with malice. And because Eramo is technically a public figure (as determined by a judge back in September), she has to prove this malice to win.

According to Virginia libel attorney Lee Berlik, “A lot of this case is already decided.”

“The big unknown really is how much damage did Ms. Eramo suffer to her reputation, what is that worth and I guess, most importantly, did Rolling Stone know what it was writing was untrue or should it have known,” Berlik said.

According to Eramo’s attorney, Libby Locke, “Ms. Eramo’s legal team is looking forward to presenting the overwhelming evidence showing that Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone knew that what they published about Ms. Eramo was false and defamatory.”

Of course, this is not all one-sided. That is, Rolling Stone has a defense. According to them, Erdely had no reasons that she shouldn’t trust Jackie. They claim that the reporting is “accurate and well sustained,” specifically citing the Department of Education’s investigation into the university.

According to Kathryn Brenner, Rolling Stone’s spokeswoman, “Dean Eramo’s lawyers are attempting to shift the focus of her lawsuit in the media to Rolling Stone’s reporting errors surrounding Jackie.”

“The depiction of Dean Eramo in the article was balanced and described the challenges of her role,” Brenner said. “We now look forward to the jury’s decision in this case.”

The jury will be faced with plenty of evidence including hundreds of pages of documents (reporting notes from Erdely, emails from her and her sources, audio recordings of the interviews she conducted with Jackie). The jury won’t see Erdely’s deposition because the video was leaked to ABC’s 20/20 which is against the court rules.

Judge Conrad, who allowed the case to proceed to trial last month, believes that the evidence presented could show that the magazine acted out of malice. Now, it’s up to the jury to decide.

According to the judge, there is evidence that brings into question Erdely’s work in that she had reasons to question the credibility of her source.

In her article, Erderly wrote, “I don’t know the stats on gang rape but I can’t imagine it’s all that common? So the idea that three women were gang raped at the same fraternity seems like too much of a coincidence.”

Jackie’s reply was that “It happens a lot more often than people might think.”

This story is big news for college campuses, especially as rape is a huge problem in terms of college culture, and there have been big movements as of late to change this, largely spearheaded from Vice President Joe Biden.

So to hear one of the biggest stories has been largely discredited will go to trial multiple times is a big deal for college campuses, and one that we should all be paying attention to.

Of course, the evidence is largely left up to interpretation, so perhaps we’ll only ever have the answer the court gives us, but this is going to be a high profile case that we’re all going to want to tune in to.

Follow Uloop

Apply to Write for Uloop News

Join the Uloop News Team

Discuss This Article

Get Top Stories Delivered Weekly

Back to Top

Log In

Contact Us

Upload An Image

Please select an image to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format
OR
Provide URL where image can be downloaded
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format

By clicking this button,
you agree to the terms of use

By clicking "Create Alert" I agree to the Uloop Terms of Use.

Image not available.

Add a Photo

Please select a photo to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format