> Am I the only one who reads it this way, and thinks there still is a story even as the article was written? Well, if you read the full report that came out t

> Am I the only one who reads it this way, and thinks there still is a story even as the article was written? Well, if you read the full report that came out today, then it is clear that there was at least one other major problem in the story. It said that the university did a poor job of handling rape accusations, cared more about its reputation, and so forth. But that turned out to be wrong. Specifically, the report details how the university president and other officials were barred from discussing cases for legal reasons - confidentiality of students and various other federal statutes. What to the reporter seemed like a coverup or negligence, was in fact doing their proper diligence as per the law. Furthermore, the report mentions that several rape survivors they talked to (in the course of making the report) said that UVA had good policies in place for handling rape cases. They have good resources to give to survivors, and they do care about them. Somehow Rolling Stone missed those.