Late last year, Rolling Stone magazine published a story written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, titled “A Rape On Campus,” that described how a woman, identified as “Jackie,” was raped by several members of a fraternity at the University of Virginia (UVA) as part of an initiation. The story created an widespread reaction, with the university suspending all fraternity activities, the press shredding the very concept of fraternities, numerous death threats against members of the fraternity, and several instances of vandalism and violence. Pundits held it up as a clear demonstration of the purportedly pervasive rape culture that has befouled tertiary education and as a demonstration that gender relations remain very far from good and safe.
Subsequent investigations led to the quick unraveling of the story, however, and after some initial resistance and righteous indignation, Rolling Stone retracted the story. Normally, one would expect heads to roll after a blunder and embarrassment of this magnitude, but Rolling Stone’s publisher and top editors not only refused to fire those associated with the story, they indicated that there wouldn’t even be changes to their process or policies.
The fallout has been substantial, with declarations that journalism itself took a big credibility hit and that the incident dealt an enormous setback to rape victims, yet there have been no individual consequences of note, other than perhaps the tarnishing of the reputation of the article’s author (and even that, given enough time and given readers/publishers sympathetic to her point of view, will probably fade). Until now. UVA is suing Rolling Stone for $7.5 million. This first and hopefully far-from-last lawsuit is both necessary and beneficial – necessary in that there must be accountability for the enormous harm done by the article and beneficial as a message to the press that it’s NOT OK to publish false stories, even if they advance what some consider a good cause, an important message or a desired end.
What’s unusual about this particular incident is that there is an effort to hold bad actors accountable for their bad acts. There are far too many bad acts in modern society that go unpunished because they fit or advance certain agendas. Women who falsely allege rape are just one category. Politicians lie, cheat and steal, but if they’re wearing the correct party label, many will give them a free pass. Bureaucrats will misuse their power to advance agendas, but as long as those agendas are of the correct flavor, many will, again, give them a free pass. The IRS targeted conservative political groups prior to the 2012 presidential election, a shocking abuse of power, yet other than some half-hearted admissions of bad judgment, there’s been no accountability and only a couple token heads have rolled. Politicians like Charlie Rangel break the rules, get caught, stand defiant, get slaps on the wrist, and have their defiance vindicated when voters decide that their corruption is acceptable, simply because they’re on the correct side of certain things. Activists tell lies and commit criminal acts, knowing that those are very likely to be excused by the people who support their goals.
Excusing bad acts because there’s a greater good and a bigger picture may oftentimes seem the right thing to do. Sometimes, it may even be the right thing to do. No one is perfect, and people make mistakes. But, when this sort of thing becomes institutionalized, when it becomes expected, common rather than a rare exception, when actors know they stand a good chance of getting away with malfeasance because there are enough others with common goals, then corruption and lawlessness take root. The nation’s system of laws, its principles of liberty and limited government, and the premise that we can live our lives relatively fearlessly, all that starts to break down. We stop trusting that the system will treat us fairly, we stop believing that we’re protected from injustices, and we start to withdraw from living open and interactive lives. Defensiveness, suspiciousness and unease become part of our daily lives and outlook.
Acts of civil disobedience have for decades been a powerful means for creating awareness and prompting societal change. In the past, those who broke unjust laws expected and welcomed being arrested, because those arrests themselves were part of the unmasking of injustice. Today, though, those who engage in civil disobedience decry and bemoan the arrest aspect. They want to break the law to make their point, but don’t want to accept that breaking the law comes with consequences. Rather than demonstrating that the law should be changed, they promote lawlessness itself, and in doing so undermine the roots of the system they want corrected. The free passes they seek end up harming the causes they look to advance.
A good bit of blame for all this is the rise of tribalism, the increasing polarization and faction-forming that’s happening in today’s society. Identity politics has supplanted differences of opinion and world view. I am a Republican or I am a Democrat or I am an environmentalist or I am black or I am a woman is how many people view the world and their place in it. When you identify with a tribe, you may be more likely to excuse others in your tribe or to excuse bad behaviors that benefit your tribe.
There is enormous peril in the free pass. As it happens more often, even those disinclined to give them out will consider it for their own, and rationalize it as restoring balance to an unbalanced situation. They did it, so we need to. Once that attitude has been embraced, lawlessness can only escalate. The core premise of this nation and society – checks and balances, limited government, protection of the minority and the individual against the excesses and predations of the majority – will erode. It will be replaced by a combination of unchecked authoritarianism, mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. The only counter to it is sticking to principles, even if that creates a transient or apparent disadvantage for one’s side and one’s beliefs. If one of your own does wrong, you must insist that he face consequences. Standing for principle is the only path back to restoring principles and to getting back to a point where we can live our lives in peace and without fear.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters