A sexual assault lawsuit involving seven former Cornell University students has brought renewed attention to an alleged 2024 assault, the university’s handling of the case and questions about why criminal charges were not initially filed.
The lawsuit was filed by Jane Doe, a former Cornell student who alleges that she was sexually assaulted for hours by several members of the Chi Phi fraternity while intoxicated by multiple substances, including ketamine and alcohol. The defendants named in the lawsuit include Mathew Ingalls, Jonathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar. Additional defendants include the local Chi Phi fraternity, the chapter president, the fraternity’s national organization, Doe’s own sorority, Tri Delta, Cornell University and Moonies Bar and Nightclub, a local establishment.
Doe reported the alleged assault three weeks after it occurred in 2024, and according to her lawsuit, she ultimately felt that Cornell University did not handle the case appropriately. The only investigation conducted was by Cornell University Police, which has raised speculation of doubt regarding the department’s extent of qualification to lead a proper investigation. Although, two of the alleged attackers were expelled the remaining five received lesser consequences and were required to write essays. The specificity of what the essay entailed in unclear.
No criminal charges were filed at the time. Now, the Tompkins County District Attorney, Matthew Van Houten, is reopening the criminal case.
Van Houten has said that Doe’s original statement does not match the allegations contained in the lawsuit. Her attorney, Thomas Giuffra, disputes that characterization, saying Doe was not interviewed by the district attorney’s office or by investigators specifically qualified to investigate sexual assault.
Giuffra has also described the impact the alleged assault had on Doe’s life. In an interview with CNN, he said, “Her life has been destroyed,” describing her as a young woman from a small town whose dream of attending Cornell was taken away from her.
According to Giuffra, Doe wanted to leave Cornell and transfer to another school following the alleged assault. She and her parents requested a refund of her tuition but were denied, leading to one of her only options being to complete the remainder of the semester while potentially encountering five of the men she accused on campus, which she did.
There is also public discussion surrounding potential digital evidence. An alleged Snapchat group chat has circulated online in which one of the alleged assaulters reportedly sent a message reading “Free p*ssy” alongside a disclosed location. Another alleged fraternity group chat reportedly contains the message, “Shop still open?” The meaning and context of those messages remain part of the broader discussion surrounding the case.
But beyond the allegations themselves, another controversy has emerged around the name being used to describe the defendants: the “Cornell 7.”
The moniker has drawn criticism because of its uncomfortable similarity to the “Central Park 5,” the name historically used for the five Black teenagers who were wrongfully convicted in connection with the 1989 assault of a woman, also in New York City. The teenagers, who were between 14 and 16 years old, were exonerated thirteen years later after spending years living with the consequences of convictions that were ultimately vacated.
The cases are fundamentally different. The Central Park Five involved minors, significant problems with the evidence and a prosecution later found to have been influenced by racial bias. The Cornell lawsuit involves adult men accused of sexual assault, with allegations that some of the defendants communicated through Snapchat and could potentially be connected to the location of the alleged crime.
That distinction raises a question worth examining: Why is the “Cornell 7” moniker being used at all, particularly when its similarity to a case involving five wrongfully convicted Black teenagers carries such different historical meaning?
As the criminal case is reopened and the civil lawsuit moves forward, the allegations will continue to be examined in court.