While true that the majority do not sue, I am a lawyer and have familiarity with this area, and any lawyer in this situation that would not be preparing for when they do sue (which just like this case blows up when it happens - think Stanford swimmer case of a decade ago, is marginally competent. It only takes one of these cases to cost millions of dollars and lots of bad PR. So the fact that most do not sue should not be a key question for most campus counsel.
1 Like
Certainly seeing that happen in real time.
1 Like
Not a lawyer like Ecca but I wonder, did she claim she was raped on this day? If so, then why was that not shared?
Again, it’s presumed here and in society it seems that the boys are guilty. But do we know that? That’s why any rush to judgement, like the Duke lacrosse case, are dangerous.
It seems like an investigation happened. If it wasn’t a proper one, I hope they are legally able to do another. I know the have Letitia James, but I wonder if she might come to the same conclusions. We will find out.
Are you saying - Cornell could have or perhaps considered paying Jane Doe off off to make this go away?
That it’s a strategy others have used (and thus we wouldn’t be aware of)?
Just ensuring I understand your comment.
Thanks
Yes she did, and that is one of the key questions. NYT article about this is linked somewhere above.
ok - yeah, I originally saw the “consent” and jumped on that - and then we found out later that she claimed rape that day.
That obviously changes things.
Given the DA said they weren’t aware - either there was a communication breakdown or someone is lying.
I guess the investigation will suss all this out.
What a nightmare - for the alleged victim, for any school administration, and obviously for any victims if false accused.
That is not what I am saying at all! I am saying I am not buying the third party professor/lawyer statements that the University decided to hide some facts so they would not have to “report” there was a outside prosecution for a gang rape. Weighing that against all that it is reported was done and disclosed, that makes zero sense to me. There was enough smoke in what reported and done, that the prudent course to protect the University certainly would not have been that.
Paying her off to go away is not an option under Title IX they had to do a full internal investigation at a minimum once they knew. And I would not advocate that as the best course either. Paying her off to go away, runs many a risk as well beyond my personal opinion that it is an unethical practice in this circumstance.
Gotcha, so you are saying the university was forthright. Of course, there was still something lost in translation but perhaps no negligence from the university.
I think I have it right now.
And to be clear, I am not suggesting that Cornell did nothing wrong or that they didn’t make mistakes or there aren’t issues they should potentially be held accountable for. I don’t know or have the information to make that assessment one way or another. I was merely responding to speculation by a so called expert (who to be fair could have been misquoted or misunderstood by the reporter) on the motives of the University that don’t track the known facts to me.
1 Like
Not even saying they were forthright. I don’t know. I’m saying the rationale the expert is claiming for them not being forthright (if they were not) seems implausible to me.
2 Likes
The DA’s statement says he was focusing on the NYS legal definition of “consent” and whether a criminal case could be successfully prosecuted as such. According to the DA, the legal definition emphasizes whether the victim was physically forced, whether the victim was unconscious, whether the victim was incapacitated from drugs taken involuntarily, and whether the victim expressed to accused that he/she did not consent to the acts. According to the DA, none of this criteria was met in the victim statement he received. This victim statement was linked earlier in the thread.
The DA says he did not receive the comment from the post-event interview in which the victim used wording explicitly saying she was raped. However, this does not necessarily change whether the case can be successfully prosecuted on the legal definition of “consent” stated above. What does change whether the legal definition has been met is the wording used in the recent lawsuit. For example, the recent lawsuit says Newell “commanded” Doe to take drugs – not voluntary; while the DA statement instead says Newell “implied” Doe should take the drugs and victim thought "she had already done Ketamine once so why not do it a second time” – less clear if voluntary.
2 Likes
Jane Doe left Cornell permanently shortly after the incident. Per reports, her family asked for a refund of that semester’s tuition and their request was denied. I’m guessing this was in accordance with their published tuition refund policy and also because it could have been construed as a “pay off”, which wouldn’t been favorable for Cornell.
I support alumni and other donors choosing to withhold funds pending the results of an investigation into whether Cornell did indeed follow proper protocol. I have several alumni friends who chose to withhold donations during the encampments and anti-Israel unrest. Even if it doesn’t affect a multi-billion-dollar endowment, if enough donors are vocal about it, it feeds into an already fragile public image, which is equally harmful to the university (as we are seeing in this case).
It’s still baffling to me that Cornell didn’t immediately divorce itself from this fraternity after the incident, in an attempt to save some kind of integrity and shift the blame over to the fraternity and its national organization.
3 Likes
I thought they did. Wasn’t the chapter shut down after the incident?
Cornell barred the local chapter of Chi Phi from the school after the alleged incident.
From a recent Chi Phi statement:
Our records confirm that just three days after ‘Jane Doe’ filed a police report, the Xi chapter voted unanimously to remove the accused members from its rolls. The chapter also recommended that our national fraternity permanently expel them, and our Grand Council did so at a subsequent meeting.
Can people in this thread please refrain from using the extremely offensive language “claimed rape”? If you aren’t sure why it is offensive, look it up.
I am really finding some of the posts in this thread extremely tone deaf, dismissive, and harmful. At this moment in time, maybe men’s “are we sure she was really a victim, and if so, how much of this was her fault?” discussion can take a rest.
3 Likes
I’m inclined to agree here—and that goes for both sides. If you catch yourself going in circles, step away from the conversation. To be clear, this is a requirement, not a suggestion.
1 Like
Because the media must use that term until a guilty verdict is reached. Even if 1-7 of them are charged and go to trial, their actions are alleged. The victim can state it any way she wants, but media must use the correct terms and many of the comments here are from media sources.
5 Likes
When it comes to violence against female college students on campus, I’m more and more convinced that Title IX doesn’t actually protect college women very much at all.
3 Likes