Well, it looks like the Cornell frat bros who allegedly gang raped a young woman in 2024 may end up getting a little more punishment than writing some heartfelt essays after all. The Tompkins County district attorney’s office announced this weekend that it will be reopening the case and considering even bringing charges against the little darlings.
If you are thinking “Why was it closed in the first place?” it is because they appear to have been unclear on the fact that the victim in the case was reporting a crime at all.
According to District Attorney Matthew Van Houten, the allegations made in the civil complaint are “dramatically different” from what the victim said two years ago.
“It's our intention to present the case to the Tompkins County grand jury with Jane Doe's cooperation,” Van Houten said, according to ABC News. “We want to reexamine whether there's additional evidence that we were not aware of in November of 2024, that exists now that would change our assessment of the case and would result in the grand jury finding that there was criminal conduct.”
Oh, you mean like the essays they wrote about it? Because I’m gonna guess that no one did a rape kit.
The victim, referred to as Jane Doe, had initially made her statement to the Cornell University Police Department, which, according to its website, “perform[s] the same basic activities as any municipal police department in addition to the activities peculiar to the academic institution.” But apparently, those activities do not involve dealing with what is probably the most common actual crime on any college campus.
“In my experience, speaking with an abuse survivor requires delicacy, understanding and specialized training,” said Thomas P. Giuffra, attorney for Jane Doe. “An average University Police officer would not have these skills. It would be the role of a specially trained detective or district attorney. However, Ms. Doe was never contacted by anybody with those skills.”
Shouldn’t they have at least some training in this area? Like, yes, they should have brought in a detective (maybe not a DA, since this one seems a bit daft), but also a police force that mainly deals with crimes that occur on a college campus should probably be taught how to talk to rape victims. Perhaps just a seminar here and there. Maybe just let them stay home for a day and marathon some post-Stabler SVU?
Van Houten said his office did not bring charges in 2024 because the woman’s statement to authorities did not allege she was drugged or that she did not consent to engage in sexual activities.
“She never says that she was drugged without her knowledge. She admits to taking drugs and alcohol voluntarily and with knowledge. She does not allege that she was forced to engage in any acts. She does not say that she was physically helpless or unconscious or incapacitated at any point during the time at the fraternity house,” Van Houten said.
Then what on earth is it that he imagined she was reporting? I mean, I get that they got the information from the University cops and not directly from the victim, but like … he is aware he’s a district attorney, right? Do people normally, in his experience, report their drug-taking and consensual sex habits to him? Or to the school?
Did he imagine she was complaining that none of them sent her flowers the next day Did the school not tell him she was reporting a rape? Could he not have inferred that on his own, given the fact that it was reported at all?
I have a lot of questions. Because it sure seems like the kind of thing you might want to follow up on, even if you for some reason thought that the girl was just casually sharing details of a consensual night of debauchery with the University police like they were drinking cosmos at brunch on an episode of Sex and the City.
Also, I have never taken ketamine, but I have seen a horse. If ketamine is used to tranquilize horses, how would it not incapacitate a 20-year-old girl who just had ten drinks in a few hours? And, again, why would she be reporting this to the school if it was all consensual?
Van Houten also said that his office never saw the Snapchat screenshot of the boys offering “free pussy” to their fraternity brothers, which does seem like it would have been an important thing for the University cops to mention.
Want to send us money in an entirely different way? Click here or join our Patreon!
The school issued a rather snide statement on Monday about the DA’s decision to reopen the case:
Cornell University supports the decision of the Tompkins County District Attorney (DA) to provide an opportunity for the victim’s story in the 2024 Chi Phi fraternity sexual assault case to be heard by a criminal grand jury.
Cornell also conducted a thorough Title IX investigation, which is separate from a criminal proceeding, over the course of several months. During that investigation, temporary suspensions and other restrictive measures were used. After investigation, and pursuant to federal law, the matter was sent to a hearing where a panel of trained faculty and staff heard evidence over multiple days. The complainant and respondents had the opportunity to testify and present evidence. At its conclusion, the hearing panel issued a range of sanctions, which included expulsions and suspensions from Cornell. None of the individuals charged were offered the opportunity to write essays as a sole consequence of their involvement.
All reports were pretty clear that they were told that they could write essays as a way to “mitigate” their conduct, which is also bad. Although I guess they can now be used as evidence against them, so there’s that.
In addition, the involved fraternity chapter was closed in 2024 and remains barred from campus.
Any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false. A continuation of the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this case is irresponsible, will make survivors feel less safe and supported, and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault.
I don’t know, I’d say it’s pretty damned clear that “the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved.” The most severe punishment was that two of them got kicked out of Cornell, which would leave them free to potentially assault women on another campus somewhere. The thing that would “make survivors feel less safe and supported” would be the University’s apparent lack of support for Jane Doe. The thing that would “perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault” is Cornell failing to do the bare minimum when dealing with a serious crime.
Rape is a crime. It is not remotely in the same category as plagiarism or cheating on a test, and handling it in the same way those infractions would be handled is plainly ridiculous. But that is what it appears Cornell did. If one of those boys were to have murdered someone, would they have asked them to write an essay to “mitigate their conduct?” I’m gonna guess no. I’m gonna guess that detectives even might have been brought in to investigate something like that. I’m gonna guess they’d treat it like an actual crime (although, to be fair, it doesn’t sound like the university was too helpful in the hazing-related death of student Antonio Tsialas, either).
They did not treat this like a crime. That was the problem. Hopefully now it will be. In the meantime, if Cornell would like to make survivors feel safe and supported or to encourage them to report, they could perhaps start by admitting that they failed here and explaining what they plan to do differently the next time. Because, unfortunately, there will be a next time.
PREVIOUSLY ON WONKETTE!
The first thing campus police are taught is to never, ever bring in the municipal police. It might look bad to the donors.
>>“She never says that she was drugged without her knowledge. She admits to taking drugs and alcohol voluntarily and with knowledge. She does not allege that she was forced to engage in any acts. She does not say that she was physically helpless or unconscious or incapacitated at any point during the time at the fraternity house,” Van Houten said.<<
I'll take "Egregious Examples of Victim Blaming" for $1,000, Alex.