That's a picture of part of Ms. Erdely's filing to the court in support of Rolling Stone's motion for summary judgment.
It seems that Dean Eramo's and the University of Virginia's involvement with the article that Ms. Erdely was writing was substantial, even though Dean Eramo was not available to be interviewed by Ms. Erdely before the article's publication. It's one thing to refuse, or for your employer to refuse to allow you, to be interviewed for an article for which you fear that you'll be sued if you tell the truth and that you'll be betraying your ideals if you don't tell the truth. It's something else to then continue to be involved for months in the information that is given to the interviewer through other people, by telling people who are directly talking to the interviewer what they should and shouldn't say.
If Jackie got more difficult for Ms. Erdely to interview over time, it was probably because Jackie was being pressured by the University of Virginia's administration.
I'd like to believe that Dean Eramo had some concern for Jackie's privacy, which she probably did. However, I would not be surprised if Dean Eramo and/or other school administrators told Jackie a number of things about what to say and not to say to Ms. Erdely. I also believe that Jackie's descriptions of her conversations with Dean Eramo are truthful and accurate. I don't know how someone of Jackie's age could think of those conversations out of nowhere. There don't seem to be any accusations that she plagiarized those conversations, and I think that they would be impossible to plagiarize.
Did Dean Eramo, or another school administrator, tell Jackie not to tell anyone Drew's real name?
If that's what happened, then it explains Jackie's evasiveness, confusion and despair when Ms. Erdely demanded the information from her. From the beginning, the question of whom to trust has plagued this young woman, and her ordeal isn't over.
That's another picture of part of Ms. Erdely's statement to the court. There is no excuse at all for a school administration to make that request of a student.
It's not true that the Rolling Stone article portrays Dean Eramo as a villain and the person most responsible for Jackie's distress. The article portrays Dean Eramo as doing what she thought she could as part of a system that has almost always failed victims of rape. Dean Eramo is no proponent of rape, nor does the Rolling Stone article portray her as if she is.
I think that Dean Eramo's lawsuit should be dismissed. Whether or not it is dismissed, I would support Dean Eramo's need for privacy so that she is able to resume her life as a working mother who is trying to implement changes that prevent sexual assault at the University of Virginia.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, July 4, 2016 @ 8:10 p.m.
