The Firestorm Over a Rape Allegation at Cornell

Rachel Abrams (0:01)

From The New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams, and this is The Daily.

An alleged sexual assault at Cornell has gripped the country and ignited a national debate over consent and how universities respond to allegations of rape. And now, documents reviewed by The New York Times help to explain what happened at the university and why the district attorney initially decided not to pursue any charges against the men at the center of the allegations. And so today, Debra Kamin explains what we know about what happened at Cornell and whether the systems in place are equipped to handle these sorts of complicated cases. It's Friday, October 2nd. Debra Kamin, welcome to The Daily.

Debra Kamin (0:57)

Thank you for having me.

Rachel Abrams (0:58)

So Debra, all week there's been this news building and building about a case out of Cornell. A woman has alleged that multiple men raped her at a frat party. And I just want to tell listeners that this conversation is going to get graphic. It could be upsetting to some people. So just to start, walk us through what happened to cause what has become this huge national story.

Debra Kamin (1:19)

You know, Rachel, I've been covering sexual assault and sexual harassment for many years. And I can't recall a story that has really gripped the national conversation like this one. Before Wednesday, what we knew about this story was pretty bare bones. We knew that there was a woman, she's just going by Jane Doe. And she says in October 2024, she was raped at a frat house by several men.

She filed a complaint with the school and campus police and the DA declined to prosecute. The school did decide to expel a few of the men, some had to write essays, but the case really fell out of view. There was no criminal case.

And then in September, Jane Doe filed a civil lawsuit against seven men as well as a number of additional defendants. Those are the fraternity, the sorority, and even the bar that gave her alcohol that night. Some of the men have denied the charges, but others haven't said anything in public yet.

And then all of a sudden the Cornell Sun, which is the paper at her school, made this controversial decision. They published the names of the seven men on their front page. And remember, these guys have not been charged with a crime yet. And shortly after they published those names, there was a massive uproar. And the DA on Monday, in the wake of all of this, decided to reopen the criminal case. So immediately, there were so many questions about what happened here. Did Cornell fail somewhere? And most importantly, was there a crime?

Rachel Abrams (2:50)

What exactly compelled the DA to reopen the case, if we know? Like, was there new information presented that maybe he didn't have two years ago?

Debra Kamin (2:58)

The DA was under a lot of pressure because the lawsuit has a lot of inflammatory allegations. There's a Snapchat thread in the lawsuit, and some of the men involved in the incident announced to the chat, and they're using really crude language. I'm not going to repeat it here, but essentially they're saying, there's a woman upstairs and it's inviting them up to join, kind of like they're saying, the shop is open.

The lawsuit alleges things like she was pressured to take drugs and alcohol, and a lot of things that they just really raise questions as to whether or not she was raped. Taken on its face, the allegations, at the very least, they beg the question, was this properly investigated and was something missed?

Rachel Abrams (3:37)

By reopening this case, is the DA effectively saying, these details are all new to me? What did he actually say about that decision?

Debra Kamin (3:44)

The DA has said two things that are very interesting. The first is that he has noted that there are key pieces of evidence that were initially provided by Jane Doe in her interviews with Cornell after the alleged rape that he was not provided. That may potentially change the story of what happened here. He has also conceded that her sworn statement in 2024, it is different than what she's saying in the lawsuit, which was filed in 2026

He's signaling that that doesn't mean that her story has changed. It means that a victim's understanding of something as traumatic as a sexual assault can change over time, and that this may merit a second look at this point.

Rachel Abrams (4:21)

He's basically acknowledging that this woman's perception of the events in question could be enough justification for them to re-examine things.