UVA grads suing Rolling Stone say they suffered 'vicious, hurtful attacks'

The three men sued the magazine for defamation and negligent infliction of emotional distress. They said they were interrogated, humiliated, and scolded by family friends, acquaintances, and co-workers.

Steve Helber/AP/File
The Phi Kappa Psi house at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Va., Nov. 24, 2014. Three University of Virginia graduates and members of the fraternity profiled in a debunked account of a gang rape in a retracted Rolling Stone magazine story filed a lawsuit against the publication and the article's author Wednesday, court records show.

The retracted Rolling Stone story, which included a now-debunked account of a gang rape, heightened scrutiny of campus sexual assaults, but it also damaged the reputations of three University of Virginia graduates who were members of the fraternity included in the story, according to a lawsuit against the magazine.

A lawyer for the men said they suffered "vicious and hurtful attacks" because of inaccuracies in the November 2014 article, which was written by journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and described a gang-rape that allegedly took place at a fraternity party. The account has since been discredited. 

The three men, George Elias IV, Stephen Hadford, and Ross Fowler, filed a lawsuit against the publication and the article's author Wednesday in US District Court in New York, court records show. They sued on three counts, including defamation and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The suit requests restitution of at least $75,000 for each count.

In the lawsuit, the three 2013 graduates said the article "created a simple and direct way to match the alleged attackers" from the alleged gang rape to them based on details provided in the story.

For example, Mr. Elias’s room at the fraternity house was "the mostly likely scene of the alleged crime" based on the details in the Rolling Stone article.

"Upon release of the article, family friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and reporters easily matched [Elias] as one of the alleged attackers and, among other things, interrogated him, humiliated him, and scolded him," the lawsuit said, according to the Associated Press. It also said that Hadford and Fowler "suffered similar attacks."

In the lawsuit, their lawyer said each of their identities was listed online by anonymous users when the article first came out and each of their "names will forever be associated with the alleged gang rape."

The Christian Science Monitor's Patrik Jonsson noted in May that the fraternity's decision to sue may come with repercussions - although it is unclear if they still apply in this case as the three students have filed suit separate from their fraternity.

At a time when growing numbers of fraternities find themselves banned from campuses after revelations of racist or sexist behavior, a libel trial could potentially reveal unflattering details about the fraternity’s history and culture.

Suing Rolling Stone “could backfire on you,” Rodney Smolla, a University of Georgia law professor, told the National Law Journal. “If you’ve got things you’re not proud of that are there, then do not bring the case because all of that will come out and it will cause you more damage than good.”

Acknowledgement by police that they have no evidence to prove that Jackie’s story is true certainly adds strength to any libel claim the fraternity may make against Rolling Stone.

Kathryn Brenner, a spokeswoman for Wenner Media, Rolling Stone’s publisher, said the magazine declined to comment on the lawsuit.

A damning report published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism earlier this year said Rolling Stone failed at the reporting and editing process. Despite this, no one at Rolling Stone was fired.

However, on Wednesday, The New York Times reported that Will Dana, Rolling Stone's managing editor will leave the magazine next month after 19 years at the company.

When the Associated Press asked whether Mr. Dana's departure was linked to the retracted story, a spokeswoman for the magazine's publisher, Jann Wenner, said that "many factors go into a decision like this.”

Although the article created controversy, its original premise created awareness about a systemic problem: one in five women in college are sexually assaulted.

It also motivated university President Teresa Sullivan to temporarily suspend Greek social events. Fraternities later agreed to ban kegs, hire security workers, and keep at least three fraternity members sober at each event.

However, as the Monitor's Mr. Jonsson points out, "the subsequent debunking of Jackie's claims may have equally significant impacts, critics say, by potentially undermining the credence of rape victims more broadly."

This report includes material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.