The Cornell 7 case highlights the important influence of the media
Recently, there has been much discourse amongst college students, journalists, and commentators alike on the horrific events that seem to drain Cornell University’s reputation by the day.
On September 16, 2026, a former Cornell student, identified under the pseudonym of Jane Doe by US courts and media, filed a 101-page civil lawsuit to the New York State Supreme Court against both the university and a group of individuals and organizations. The complaint names seven members of the Xi chapter of the Chi Phi fraternity in Cornell, the national Chi Phi fraternity, the Tri Delta sorority, the Ithaca bar, and other defendants. The seven individuals have been accused of sexual assault and battery on the night of October 19, 2024, while Cornell and other parties are specifically accused of “negligent, wilful or intentional failure” to protect her from the assaults and breach of contract. This initial suit by Jane Doe does not seek the criminal prosecution of the seven listed individuals or the other defendants; rather, as a civil case, the complaint is requesting a jury trial to determine the damages inflicted on Jane Doe.
On September 18, 2026, after an article by The Cornell Daily Sun reported the suit, the case began to garner both national and international attention. Across social media, people rallied around slogans condemning the university for their inaction and the attorney’s office for their failure to charge the accused individuals. The extensive coverage prompted Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten to release a statement on September 28 announcing the reopening of the investigation two years after the alleged incident. On October 1, 2026, Governor Kathy Hochul appointed Attorney General Letitia James as a special prosecutor, citing her loss of faith in Van Houten’s ability to handle the case fairly.
To justify his previous decision to not pursue criminal charges, Van Houten said he had only received a shorter statement from the Cornell University Police, which left out key details and implied that Jane Doe had consented to all of the sexual activity. Jane Doe’s statement, found in the longer transcript, says “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.” Doe’s attorney, Thomas Giuffra, argues that Doe was incapable of consent due to both her intoxication upon arrival and the continued pressure by the fraternity members to take additional alcohol and ketamine, and he maintains that the DA failed to properly handle the case. Evidence acquired by /The New York Times/ also claims that the district attorney’s office declined to investigate additional evidence besides the original 2024 statement taken by the Cornell police. Currently, the lawyers of at least three accused deny the criminal wrongdoing.
Social media and student voices have the power to enact change. In the Cornell 7 case, this materialized into action, beginning with the initial article written by the student journalists at The Cornell Daily Sun. The explosive outrage sparked by the case’s social media popularity was also instrumental in the much-needed district attorney’s reinvestigation. However, it is crucial to stay informed on the most recent information available. Thus far, online discourse has already put Jane Doe’s safety at risk through misinformation on her identity, a variety of threats, and doxxing attempts since the filing of the complaint. In a similar vein, it is easy to get lost in exaggerated headlines from various sources. It was widely reported in the mainstream media and social media that two of the men had to write essays while another two were expelled, however, there were additional punishments.
Specifically, while two students were expelled, another two faced suspension and disciplinary probation across several semesters alongside disciplinary probation. Diego Sarabia was issued a “persona non grata” order, restricting him from the campus for three years, but by this time he had already graduated. The last two were required to write reflection papers, were not permitted to contact Jane Doe, and were required to study sexual harassment and social media use modules. Scott Kretzshmar was previously found not to be responsible by the university for sexual assault but rather for attempted sexual exploitation. These were a range of disciplinary actions, not just essays and expulsions, but the listed punishments still don’t seem appropriate. They are more like a slap on the wrist, given how Jane Doe’s life has been completely upended by the assault. She says she “carr[ies] the weight of its impact every day and night.”
Survivors like Jane Doe must be supported and believed. If you have been affected by sexual violence or sexual harassment, you can receive support from the Sexual Violence Prevention & Support Centre at the University of Toronto. They can be contacted at 416-978-2266, [email protected], or https://svpscentre.utoronto.ca/.