Jamie Says · Opinion
I keep coming back to the women doing the work here.
A woman reports an alleged sexual assault. Then women at The Cornell Daily Sun have to keep pressing for answers about what happened after that report, right down to noticing when Cornell changes the wording on its website.
I’m glad they’re doing it. I’m angry that so much of it keeps landing on them.
These students have classes. They have their own lives. And here they are, pressing their own university for answers about how it handled a report of sexual violence.
We can call them brave. They are. But I want us to sit with the question that comes after that.
Why should they have to be brave just to stand up?
First, here’s what this case is about
A former Cornell student, identified publicly as Jane Doe, alleges in a civil complaint that seven men sexually assaulted her at the Chi Phi fraternity house during the night of October 19 into October 20, 2024. She is suing Cornell, fraternity and sorority organizations, the men and others over what she says happened and the failures she alleges allowed it.
The allegations are contested. The Sun’s September 18 report, by Cereese Qusba, includes an attorney’s denial on behalf of one defendant. A civil complaint lays out the plaintiff’s claims; it is not a court’s finding that those claims have been proved.
We can be precise about that and still ask hard questions about Cornell’s response. I intend to.
On September 21, The Sun’s editorial board published “Cornell Won’t, We Will.” The editors asked about the standards for lifting suspensions and whether the woman who reported the alleged assault had been told the outcome of her own investigation.
Sophia Dasser. Sophia Romanov Imber. Zara Cheek. Rayen Zhou. Those are the editors credited on that piece, and I want their names attached to the work.
Okay, where did the essay claim come from?
It came from the lawsuit.
Paragraph 181 of the complaint alleges that the students who received temporary suspensions “were afforded the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays to CORNELL.”
In plain English, the complaint alleges they were offered a chance to use essays to lessen the consequences of their conduct. That paragraph does not tell us who submitted an essay, what an essay said or whether it changed anyone’s punishment.
Cornell’s September 28 statement says its disciplinary process resulted in suspensions and expulsions. It also says writing an essay was not offered to anyone as the sole consequence.
So we cannot turn this into “all they had to do was write an essay.” The complaint’s claim and Cornell’s denial do not establish that.
But I still have a question. What role, if any, did essays play?
Saying an essay wasn’t the only consequence leaves that question open. If essays were offered as a way to reduce consequences, I want Cornell to explain how that was supposed to work. What would the student have to demonstrate? What would change? Who would decide?
I don’t think that is an unreasonable thing to ask about a process students are expected to trust.
Then the public explanation changed
On October 2, Sun reporters Varsha Bhargava and Kate Turk reported that Cornell had edited its FAQ about the case.
The original answer said campus police had shared “all investigatory information” with the district attorney’s office. The Sun documented that wording being removed, then replaced with a narrower statement identifying the woman’s sworn statement and a Snapchat screenshot as items that had been shared.
The reporters linked to archived versions. At publication, they said Cornell had not immediately answered their question about why the wording changed.
That change alone does not prove evidence was withheld. It does give Cornell something specific to explain.
Was the first answer inaccurate? Was it too broad? What should students understand from the revised answer?
Tell them. They shouldn’t need to compare archived webpages to figure out what their university is saying about a sexual assault investigation.
This is the part of journalism I want people to notice. The statement goes out, and these reporters don’t move on. They keep reading and ask why the answer changed.
And once again, women are doing that work.
There is now a special prosecutor
On October 1, Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that she had appointed New York Attorney General Letitia James as special prosecutor. James’ office will investigate and, if warranted, prosecute offenses arising from that investigation.
That is an investigation, not a verdict.
I want to know what it establishes. If it finds failures in how this case was handled, I want to know who is responsible and what changes. “We take this seriously” needs to lead somewhere people can actually see.
They deserve more than applause
I’m glad these women are persistent. I’m glad they’re willing to make people uncomfortable. Cornell can handle uncomfortable questions.
What I don’t want is for the rest of us to praise them and leave them holding the whole thing.
Read their reporting. Link to it. Keep their names on their work. Pay attention to the answer after the first answer.
And leave Jane Doe’s identity alone. Her private life is not the missing piece of this story.
She should not have to surrender more of it for the public to care about how her report was handled.
The women asking these questions have already done plenty. I want the people with the power to answer them to put in the work now.
