In November 2014, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a writer for Rolling Stone, published an article called “A Rape on Campus.” The shocking article told the story of a University of Virginia student known only by a first name, “Jackie,” and detailed the horrifying account of the night Jackie was allegedly gang raped by a group of rushing fraternity brothers at a Greek social event.

Shortly after the story’s publication, it was criticized and attacked for its failure to properly attribute the origins of quotations, its failure to contact sources and, in general, its failure to fact-check. Given Erdely’s past success in covering difficult and controversial topics, it seems bizarre and out of place that this story could turn out so badly.

In my opinion, Erdely’s failure to comply by standard journalistic procedures in lieu of “accommodating” Jackie serves as the key culprit in the story’s failure. For example, Erdely didn’t push Jackie when she appeared to not know the surname of the student who allegedly organized her assault. Furthermore, she accepted “quotes” from friends of Jackie’s concerning her assault that were taken not directly from those friends, but from Jackie’s point of view.

Neither the unknown identity of the primary assaulter, nor the indirect nature of the quotes were made clear in the final story.

I believe that sexual assault, like any traumatic event, ought to be discussed with the utmost sensitivity and caution. I can understand Erdely’s hesitation to make Jackie recall a name that made nightmares resurface.

But when we are dealing with a public discourse — one that seeks to validate the gravity and prevalence of sexual assaults on campus — compromising checkable facts for accommodation doesn’t cut it.

The omitted facts and missing quote origins didn’t cut it for readers of Rolling Stone, either, and shortly after the article’s publication, its credibility underwent serious scrutiny by many, most notably through a response article published by the Washington Post.

Furthermore, on Sunday, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism published a report, described as “a piece of journalism … about a failure of journalism.” The report explains with great detail the numerous ways in which the reporting, editing and fact-checking surrounding Erdely’s story was flawed.

A lot of these mistakes revolved around Erdely’s insistence that she correspond with Jackie in a way that respected the sensitivity surrounding her alleged assault and allowed Jackie to withhold any names or details that triggered an emotional response.

Beyond (perhaps, wrongly) smearing the image and reputation of Jackie, the fraternity in question and the administration of the University of Virginia, Erdely’s story brings to light a fundamental problem surrounding the way we talk about sexual assault: that we don’t.

Until we are given more opportunities to speak openly on the subject of campus sexual assaults, the need to compromise journalistic integrity in order to accommodate victims of sexual assault will continue. No real conclusions will be reached, and no progress will be made.

“A Rape on Campus” and its content are difficult subjects to talk about if one is not acquainted with the cold hard facts firsthand. So I won’t make matters worse by theorizing as to what might have happened, and how, and why.

What I can say with some level of assurance is this: Either a student named Jackie was brutally sexually assaulted at a campus party, or that the same student named Jackie brutally made up and fed a disillusioned journalist the story of a campus sexual assault.

However disgusting and unpleasant as either scenario may be, nobody can know for sure what happened — or didn’t happen — on the night of September 28, 2012.

There are facts we can be sure of, though, and the fact that Erdely and her editors failed immensely to comply by standard journalistic procedures is one of them. Furthermore, the illegitimacy that may become attached to claims of campus sexual assaults as a result of the inconsistencies in this story was completely preventable.

Erdely’s attempt to protect Jackie has ultimately harmed her.

If Jackie didn’t want to be scrutinized and questioned, she shouldn’t have agreed to correspond with a journalist and make her story public. And if Sabrina Erdely felt that Jackie was an unreliable source, she should have found a new focus for her story.

Although I do wish that we will one day be able to speak openly about sexual assault — or better yet, that sexual assaults don’t occur to begin with — the fact of the matter is this: Compromising fact-fueled research and proper journalistic ethics for the sake of “accommodation” and “sensitivity” will get us nowhere.

Carly is a junior in FAA.

[email protected]