A civil lawsuit filed by a former Cornell University student has renewed scrutiny of the complex and often disjointed systems students must navigate when reporting sexual assault on college campuses. The lawsuit alleges that the student was raped by multiple fraternity members in 2024 and that the university failed to adequately protect her or punish the accused. While Cornell officials state they followed Title IX procedures, resulting in the fraternity’s removal from campus and sanctions for involved students, prosecutors initially declined to bring criminal charges due to insufficient physical evidence. The case highlights the tension between institutional investigations and criminal justice standards, a dynamic that advocates argue creates significant barriers for survivors.
What the Right Is Saying
Defenders of the current Title IX framework and campus adjudication processes argue that these systems provide necessary protections and remedies that the criminal justice system cannot. Michael Diamondstein, a Pennsylvania attorney who has represented those accused of sexual misconduct, stated that the secrecy of campus hearings helps protect both the victim and the accused. "I think when you compare it to what they would face in a courtroom, it's much easier for students and much safer for students. Their name isn't put out there. The news media doesn't get them," Diamondstein said.
Cornell University, in a statement, defended its handling of the 2024 case, noting that it "conducted an extensive investigation and adjudication over several months and imposed different sanctions based on the findings and circumstances involving each student." The university also stated it created a new framework for addressing sexual assault on campus. Officials pointed out that federal privacy laws prohibit them from disclosing specific information regarding individual students, limiting their ability to make public statements on disciplinary responses.
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten also defended his office's initial decision not to pursue charges, citing a lack of physical evidence, though he has since re-opened the case. Proponents of the campus system argue that universities are required to offer solutions local law enforcement cannot, such as ensuring students are not in the same class as their alleged abuser during investigations and providing academic accommodations like homework extensions. Zoey Scheinblum-Brewer, a policy coordinator at the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), noted these benefits, stating that the two systems serve different purposes and operate under different rules.
What the Left Is Saying
Advocates for sexual assault survivors argue that the current system is designed to protect institutional reputations rather than ensure justice for victims. Nancy Chi Cantalupo, an associate professor of law at Wayne State University who has represented victims, stated that the processes are "hard to navigate if you aren't in trauma" and "virtually impossible to navigate" for those who are. She emphasized that the confusion stems from the parallel but distinct requirements of university tribunals and criminal courts.
Helene Weiss, a lawyer representing victims of campus sexual assault, noted that university investigations are conducted behind closed doors, which she believes serves to protect institutions' reputations. "The secrecy of the process... prevents other students from knowing about it. It prevents witnesses from coming forward," Weiss said. This perspective is echoed by students at Cornell, who criticized the university's lack of transparency. The student newspaper, The Cornell Daily Sun, published the names of the accused under the headline "Cornell won't, we will," reflecting frustration with the university's refusal to disclose individual disciplinary outcomes due to federal privacy laws.
Survivors like "Mary," a pseudonym for a student whose case is not connected to Cornell but illustrates the broader issue, described the experience as emotionally exhausting. Mary stated she felt she had to be her "own advocate" and found the process confusing and disappointing. "I was left with this taste that because they knew that the college was 'handling' my investigation, that they could wipe their hands clean of it," Mary said regarding her interaction with local police who declined to pursue charges.
What the Numbers Show
Research indicates that the complexity of these systems contributes to low reporting rates. According to advocates and data cited in the BBC report, the vast majority of sexual assaults on college campuses go unreported. A systematic review mentioned in the report found that less than 10% of sexual assault cases yield convictions in the criminal justice system. This low conviction rate is partly due to the higher burden of proof required in criminal trials, where prosecutors must prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt," compared to the lower standard often used in campus tribunals.
The Cornell case involves allegations of rape by several men in a fraternity house in 2024. Cornell's Title IX investigation resulted in the fraternity involved being barred from campus, while the specific students involved were suspended or expelled. However, the criminal case was initially declined by the district attorney due to a lack of physical evidence. Mary’s case, while separate, illustrates a similar pattern: police declined to bring charges despite surveillance footage showing her alleged rapist carrying her "slumped" over and photographic evidence of bruises and bite marks. In her case, the university expulsion was the only disciplinary action taken.
The Bottom Line
The Cornell lawsuit serves as a focal point for ongoing debates about the efficacy and fairness of dual-track reporting systems for campus sexual assault. While Title IX provides immediate academic and social protections for survivors, the lack of criminal accountability in many cases—often due to evidentiary standards—leaves many survivors feeling that justice was incomplete. The re-opening of the criminal case by the Tompkins County DA suggests that the boundaries between institutional and legal responsibilities remain contested. For now, the case underscores the need for clearer guidance for students navigating these parallel processes, which advocates argue remain too confusing and disparate to ensure consistent outcomes for all parties involved.