"In last month’s deep and damning Rolling Stone report about sexual assault at the University of Virginia, a reporter told the story of “Jackie,” who said she was gang raped at a fraternity party and then essentially ignored by the administration.
Now the narrative appears to be falling apart:
Her rapist wasn’t in the frat that she says he was a member of; the house held no party on the night of the assault; and other details are wobbly.
Many people (not least U-Va. administrators) will be tempted to see this as a reminder that officials, reporters and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases.
This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.”
After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players.
In important ways, this is wrong.
We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says.
Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.
Even if Jackie fabricated her account, U-Va. should have taken her word for it during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation.
This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system."
No comments:
Post a Comment