Too many of my female friends have been on the receiving end of nonconsensual sexual behavior before they ever set foot on a college campus. The case against the “Cornell Seven” brings the reality of sexual assault to the forefront of our conversations and forces us to face this dangerous pattern.
“Under New York law, being too drunk or high to consent to sex isn’t necessarily enough to support a rape charge. The law distinguishes that from being physically helpless or incapacitated by drugs administered without consent,” according to AP News.
But let’s be perfectly clear: Coercion is not consent, and neither is being incapacitated.
The alleged gang rape occurred in October 2024 at Cornell University at the Chi Phi fraternity house, and the complainant, known anonymously as Jane Doe, was under the influence of alcohol and ketamine. Doe told campus police officers that the abuse lasted several hours.
Many have criticized how Cornell and the Tompkins County district attorney, Matthew Van Houten, have responded to the case. So why is this case gaining attention now, two years after the incident?
Because of a lawsuit filed last month, which led Van Houten to reopen the criminal investigation into the event.
“He initially had declined to prosecute, saying he had no evidence that the woman was raped or drugged against her will,” according to AP News.
AP News also verified that he closed the case without ever speaking to Doe or reading her police interview transcript.
“[His] decision to not prosecute the case was based on the statement prepared by campus police and signed by the woman. The statement was a summary of the two days of interviews with her,” and he did not receive a transcript of them, according to AP News. Van Houten said that the statements he received did not contain allegations of drugged coercion or forced sex acts.
Van Houten was willing to close the case based on a summary of interviews. That decision highlights institutional barriers in holding abusers accountable and the hoops survivors jump through to have their voices heard.
As for Cornell, online discourse claims that the young men accused of rape were only made to write essays or take classes as punishment. However, AP News reports the university “says it expelled some of the students, but hasn’t said how many,” and that some who were accused “but not found responsible of that allegation by the university, were ordered by the school” to write essays and take classes.
While Cornell has withheld details of expulsions and suspensions under federal privacy laws, many question whether those accused of such a serious crime deserve identity protection. And what about bystanders—what responsibility do they carry?
These are not merely questions with legal weight, but moral implications, too.
Catholic Social Teaching calls on us to be upstanding citizens, giving us a set of moral principles for how to operate in the world—specifically stewardship and solidarity.
In the revised edition of “Catholic Ethics in Today’s World,” authors Jozef D. Zalot and Benedict Guevin tell us that “[i]f a situation arises where an important decision has to be made, the steward has full responsibility to act and, in turn, will be held accountable for the decision that he or she makes,” in reference to Catholic Social Teaching’s seventh principle: stewardship.
Solidarity is equally relevant to bystanders.
“The crucial point to keep in mind is that solidarity means being in relationship with others,” Zalot and Guevin remind us. “It does not mean feeling sorry for the other,” but rather “that we are responsible for the well-being of others and we cannot turn our backs on one another or become isolationists.”
Being a steward for the common good, for the women in our lives who have experienced sexual assault, means we move beyond sympathy and toward speaking up. Being an upstander can be as simple as active listening or intervening when something feels off.
So I ask you: At our Catholic university, how will you answer the call to speak up for the vulnerable?
