The backstory is convoluted. What happened at Chi Phi Fraternity at Cornell University on the night of October 19, 2024 is unclear. It could have been a gang rape. It could have been a woman who voluntarily engaged in drug- and alcohol-fueled sexual conduct with multiple male students, who subsequently regretted her actions and either wants to get money out of Cornell or exact revenge on the men.

What is known is that the woman, proceeding pseudonymously, has sued Cornell under Title IX for failing to pursue her claims, which prompted the Tompkins County prosecutor to reopen a case that had been dropped at the time. The woman went to the Cornell Police Department to make a complaint. Her statement failed to allege that she was forced to ingest drugs or engage in nonconsensual sex. In other words, it didn’t allege anything criminal. When it was forwarded to the district attorney, there was no basis to proceed.

The woman’s attorney, Thomas Giuffra, complains that the district attorney should have investigated the complaint nonetheless, and that the statement from the Cornell police was inadequate as they were not specially trained to deal with sexual assault victims.

“It is challenging for me to understand how a thorough criminal investigation could have been conducted when she never spoke with anyone other than the officer who took her original complaint,” Giuffra told CNN in an earlier statement.

“Other than her initial contact with Cornell Police, she was not contacted by investigators from the Tompkins County District Attorney’s Office or any investigators trained in interviewing rape survivors,” Giuffra said.

A wrinkle arose from a fraternity member’s internal Snapchat, which was not initially provided the DA.

At roughly 1:42 a.m., one of the men allegedly sent a message to the fraternity’s Snapchat group chat – titled “Chi Phi Actives” – stating there was “free p*ssy” upstairs.

By doing this, the suit alleges one of the accused “encouraged other XI CHAPTER members to join in on the gang rape of plaintiff.”

While repugnant, this did not bear upon the issue of consent.

Subsequently, Cornell held Title IX hearings and meted out sanctions against some of the students. It also barred the fraternity from campus. Both of these suggest that the University concluded that both wrongdoing of some sort occurred and that some students were responsible for it.

When the Jane Doe complaint against Cornell went public, the district attorney reopened the case and said it will be presented to a grand jury. The Cornell Daily Sun, the student newspaper of the University, had other ideas.

Matthew Ingalls. Jonathan Newell. Winston Lee. Gillio Lopes. Diego Sarabia. Scott Norris. Scott Kretzschmar.

These are the names of the seven men named as defendants in a civil complaint filed on Sept. 14 alleging they drugged and gang raped a Cornell student, identified as Jane Doe, in the Chi Phi house in October 2024.

The editorial went on to castigate Cornell for its failure to protect Jane Doe, arguing that feeling safe is a precondition of getting an education.

This is not a dark chapter in Cornell’s history, it’s a morbid pattern, only rectified with thorough criminal investigations in the hands of parties independent of the University — the Ithaca Police Department and the Tompkins County district attorney. As for Cornell, administrators have allowed the idea that enough ambiguity, enough he-said-she-said, enough familial connections, enough money will allow you to get off scot-free. We call on Cornell to publish the standard by which a suspension in a sexual assault case is lifted. We call on them to state whether an allegation of sexual assault is eligible for emergency suspension at all under the revised Article VIII. Finally, we expect that the University shares with the complainant the outcome of her own investigation.

Did Cornell do anything wrong? That depends on whether one believes the woman, or to be more precise, believes the woman now or believed the woman then. Did Cornell go easy on rapists or did Cornell go hard on young men who engaged in consensual group sex? Just because it’s alleged in a complaint does not make it so, and does not make it not so. That’s why they build courtrooms.

It then concluded.

We refuse for this victim to be reduced to just another story. Cornell has failed to protect its students. Cornell has failed to address the growing issue of sexual assault on campus with its pathetic task force. Cornell has failed the student allegedly raped by those seven men at Chi Phi in October 2024. Cornell has failed her. Cornell has failed us.

To Matthew Ingalls, Jonathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar: We know who you are and we refuse to let you benefit from this University’s concealment. 

In the penultimate paragraph, the word “allegedly” appears. In the last graf, boldfaced in the original, the condemnation is clear. Already, one of the students named has been fired from his job at Wells Fargo bank. Name and shame is out for the others in full force, none of whom have been charged, no less convicted, of any criminal act.

Is it back? Should it be? Is this the next coming of the worst of #MeToo, Believe Women and the litany of campus rape hysteria?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.