Crying Wolf

By Alston B. Ramsay | Monday, November 17, 2003

The Review normally doesn't respond to the Dartmouth Free Press's articles, but, in their last installment, they published a narrative that has created a minor uproar on campus. For those who didn't see the issue, the lead article was an anonymous account by a female who claimed she was given a date-rape drug last spring at a fraternity party. Jane Doe '06 wrote that she narrowly escaped being raped only because her friend rescued her. Instead, she ended up in Dick's House, along with two other females from the same party. Ms. Doe "suspect[ed]"—through her self-admittedly hazy interactions with the police—that one of the other women had been raped and sent to Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. Further, she slammed Dartmouth's administration, the police, and Dick's House for a response variously described as a "nightmare," filled with "apathy," and "utterly out of touch with the reality of students' lives." An editor's note in medias res admitted that the dean involved—Gail Zimmerman—"denie[d]" the so-called facts and, especially, the nasty quotes attributed to her. Honestly, can anyone imagine a dean telling a student, and I quote, "because you were drinking, the fact that you were drugged was your fault"?

As someone familiar with the process of fact-checking, I found this quote outlandish, and I thought the editor's note was particularly bizarre—disturbing, even. So I gave Hanover Chief of Police Nick Giaccone a call to ask about the specifics of the story; it seemed appropriate, given that there were a number of conflicting elements, and there was an awful lot of what seemed to be exaggeration. For example: "Simply put, it would have been better for my friend to have left me at the frat than to have taken care of me that night." What message does that send? Well, sure enough, the police report, and a subsequent investigation by Miell Yi '02, who is entirely unaffiliated with the Review, revealed a different story, one that points to serious indiscretions by the Free Press (see page 8).

According to Chief Giaccone, toxicology reports showed no date-rape drugs, and the anti-depressant Ms. Doe admits she takes—Celexa—was described by a company representative as a "time-bomb" when used with alcohol. (Ms. Doe's BAC was tentatively measured as .03.) In other words, you could be fine ninety-nine times out of one hundred, but then, that one other time, something goes wrong, leading to symptoms nearly identical to those described in Ms. Doe's account. The other two females taken to Dick's House that night were driven there by, here's the kicker, a sober brother at the fraternity, in accordance with an internal alcohol policy designed to aid and protect intoxicated individuals. (One of these women, for example, had a BAC between .16 and .19, according to the police report.) By taking these two in, the brothers knew that they could potentially be charged with serving someone who was under-age, and, in fact, one brother was. It's strange that they would put themselves at risk to help these women, especially when they were, according to Ms. Doe, in the midst of a concerted effort to rape multiple women.

There is substantial—nay, overwhelming—evidence that the published story was factually inaccurate at best, and purposefully distorted at worst. The most aggravating part of this, however, is the ease with which the Free Press could have verified numerous aspects of Ms. Doe's tale. They either ignored contrary evidence, or simply didn't think to check; either way, it was irresponsible, and it was a gross violation of whatever journalistic integrity exists in that organization.

I'm told the Free Press is now trying to find other females who had similar experiences; this may actually shed light on an important campus issue, but, unfortunately, the damage has already been done. As Dean Zimmerman pointed out to Ms. Yi, females who have actually been assaulted may be less likely to approach Dick's House, the police, or the administration because of how Ms. Doe portrayed their respective responses. Ms. Yi explains that some on campus are satisfied that a "dialogue" has been started—the ends justify the means, regardless of the morality of the means—but they don't realize that it's creating a boomerang effect as well. Ms. Yi writes that the constant efforts to promote dialogue—often with pure-shock tactics—actually polarize an important issue, and dissuade the campus from engaging in honest discussions. For many, it seems, "wolf" has been cried yet again.

No doubt, the Review's usual critics will come out of the woodwork and lambast us for "blaming the victim." But, in this case, there almost certainly was not a victim, and therein lies the problem. Rape and date-rape are issues of the utmost gravity; they deserve to be treated with respect and sensitivity, not sensationalism. What the Free Press has done is a travesty: They tried to bring awareness to an issue, but, in their zealous quest, they didn't verify even the most basic assertions in the article. As a result, many students have been disenchanted and are now unwilling to address a very serious campus issue.

The Free Press, however, seems not to care. This incident shows that, taken to an extreme, they think it's perfectly valid to set aside basic background research if something "starts a dialogue." Other campus activists are eager, as usual, to jump on the bandwagon. They all forget one thing: Most of us here, and most people in the real world, have a low tolerance for blatant factual misrepresentations, period. When we see them, we tend to disregard the larger issues implicated—even if they're important ones—because the source is not trustworthy. In this case, the Free Press has done a huge disservice to its readers and, more importantly, to all women who have been sexually assaulted or who may be in the future.

Crying Wolf

Article Tools

Related Articles