Rape, Sexual Assault, and Drug Use in Greek Life (the "Cornell 7" specifically, but also generally)

Parents Forum
723

One problem with current laws is that while they (usually) criminalize having sex with someone who is passed-out drunk, they don’t criminalize having sex with someone who is blacked-out drunk. Passed-out drunk is easy to recognize–the person is either out cold or half asleep like coming out of anesthesia. But with blacked-out drunk the person is still walking and talking, but they are intoxicated enough that they won’t remember the events of the previous night, except perhaps vague memories.

Predators exploit this loophole in the law. They know that the victim is very intoxicated, but they also know they won’t get into trouble, because the victim isn’t passed-out. They know that the victim is so intoxicated that the victim can be made to do things they wouldn’t do otherwise, but they know that the victim will have a hard time proving it because the victim is not passed out.

The “tell” in this case, in my view, is the text that went out to all the frat brothers advertising free p----. That shows that the text sender knew that the victim was in a blacked-out state, unable to protect herself and so intoxicated she could be made to do anything. If this were just a case of a mutually-consenting encounter with a guy who was inexperienced and didn’t realize how drunk his partner was, there wouldn’t have been a text like that.

4 Likes
724

does the average perpetrator know this nuance in the law? this is the first time I am hearing it. The only way some perpetrator knows this is if they give classes on this portion of the law at a frat

725

Why - no one else said they were the victim and it turns out, they weren’t?

I’ve said all along - if they did something criminally wrong, they should be punished to the full extent. But no one - not the President of the U, not anyone knows if they did.

Some were punished but that wasn’t based on crimes.

I’m not suggesting she’s lying. I’m saying - how would we know.

You and others are suggesting the boys are lying.

Thankfully for them, you are not in the jury pool.

Putting two messages in one due to the slow mode:

OK - well that goes both ways.

She voluntarily had sex with people that she knew were intoxicated and even had to wake one up - presumably to continue. So why wouldn’t you say - her parents should have told her?

All this is, best I can tell, is a gender bash - both ways.

But I’m not blaming the female. I’m simply saying all are innocent until proven guilty. Whereas those, I believe (but don’t know) to be female have already assessed guilt.

We already know all this - but with all these continued texts being released, I don’t see her getting justice.

Maybe I’m wrong.

1 Like
726

I related what my dad shared. My parents only had sons, but I’m sure they would have imparted similar wisdom if they had a daughter.

For the record, my dad also shared that nothing good happens from riding the train - advice that’s applicable to all participants in this instance.

2 Likes
727

It’s interesting to me that you, and others, keep coming back to the idea of being wronged as predominantly being about criminal laws. As if that’s the main point.

Do you agree that she was wronged by the abhorrent behavior illustrated in the frat chat? By the suggestions to brothers to come get some free p*ssy? By the offer others should come in and just whip it out? By talking about her in that way, without her knowledge?

If that alone doesn’t make her a victim, what word would you use to describe her status instead? I’m truly curious about this.

I don’t know whether criminal charges will be filed, if they are whether guilt would be assigned. But I absolutely know she was wronged and is a victim. And that has nothing to do with a court system.

10 Likes
728

And now an accusation of sexual assault at a U Chicago Frat (as noted upthread)

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/14/us/university-chicago-fraternity-sexual-assault.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

free link https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/14/us/university-chicago-fraternity-sexual-assault.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IlE.gUGR.z1sTyt0qbxha&smid=nytcore-ios-share

1 Like
729

I think they do. Some in an absolutely formal sense, others in an informal sense. The informal sense would go something along the lines of “Hey frat bros, let’s get some girls over here and get them so drunk they don’t know up from down. P-------!”

And yes, frats know about blacked-out drunk. This was a term I didn’t know the meaning of until medical school, but this is talked about in Greek organizations.

3 Likes
730

I believe she was wronged by the boys in the chat and that night. I believe she was wronged by the catty gossip and rumors from the other greek women. I believe those kids represent the absolute worst of the spoiled rotten IVY league. At the same time, I also believe that the Cornell punishment might have been entirely appropriate. I am not yet willing to say that more punishment needs to happen, laws need to change, Greek life needs to be abolished, damages need to be paid, heads need to roll. Willing to reserve judgment for now on that especially as more texts are released.

5 Likes
731

I’m not sure someone needs to know the law to be considered breaking the law. The law is that - so if you break it, why would knowledge matter ?

2 Likes
732

Sounds like more of the same.

She searched the house, eventually finding a small group of men cheering outside a locked bathroom door in the basement, she said.
“They were saying things like, ‘When’s it my turn?’ and, ‘I want to go in there,’” Ms. Lara said.

Unclear if the frat’s rules about invitees only and the member:guest ratio were upheld:

Mia Lara, a 21-year-old student at a nearby university, said she had seen the event advertised on the fraternity’s Instagram account. She and the woman who reported the attack, along with a third friend, decided to go.
It was the first time any of them had been to a fraternity party, Ms. Lara said. At the door, they were asked for identification, but not whether they attended the University of Chicago.

1 Like
733

@ububumble Thanks for your note.

I’ve tried to be honest here and have discussion. It seems like people get angry but I imagine if the case was ajudicated in the public, there would be different perspectives and not the one sidedness that’s prevalent here.

You are correct - I come back to the criminal, because if you are being charged with sexual assault, that is a criminal matter. Now, we know the officials decided not to press charges. While I’m not an attorney, I believe that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a sexual assault but rather they didn’t believe they could prove a sexual assault.

So she filed a civil suit, which I presume means asking for money although I’m not sure what the ask is. I’m not saying there’s a parallel but the one I think about because it was in the news was E Jean Carroll/Donald Trump.

So let me answer your questions, how I feel but I don’t think it deserves mocking. If one disagrees, that’s fine:

I think it depends. I don’t have all the facts but I think we all agree based on what’s published that she had consensual sex with two guys. I’m not sure of all the charges but I read that she didn’t have sex with others. If others did stuff to her, sex, touching or anything in a sexual realm that she was not open to, then yes she was wronged because she was assaulted.

If nothing happened from the billboard, while I think the boy or boys who wrote it are vile, immature pigs, I don’t necessarily think she was wronged. She didn’t even know about it until after. I think the boys look like jack a$$es and yes, she might have been ridiculed by others but it sounds like that was happening even prior to this encounter from today’s and other texts. But was she ridiculed from the message or past reputation - I don’t know. So yes the boys were wrong and yes, she’s a victim if non consensual things happened because of the billboard. But if they didn’t, and that’s for a judge or jury to decide, then I would say what happened (the white boards) sucks, was stupid - but the boys are the ones who look like asses and I’ not sure she was wronged. They weren’t talking to her. They were talking about her. It’s like when Trump said grab em by the you know - he was vile, immature, stupid, disgusting. But did he wrong someone? I’d say no other than himself for looking like a total sleeze.

Is it wrong that at a managers meeting at work when they discuss personnel, but those people don’t know what’s going on? Or that politicians talk about other politicians behind their back, etc. or all the other private conversations about others that happen in life?

So I do think there’s a distinction there - to answer you honestly. And know, I’m not equalizing those two examples but my point is, often times people are spoken about and are unaware. She wasn’t aware until days later - if I’m not mistaken.

I can appreciate you believe she was wronged. My guess is she was but I try to be fair to all who say - they’re innocent.

Before, I was told, you should tell your kid not to have sex with a drunk girl (and for good measure, and I’m not sure why, guy was thrown in). I haven’t told my son or daughter that. Why? I don’t believe I need to. One doesn’t drink, the other doesn’t drink to excess and I would hope, both were raised the common sense and decency to know - doing something to someone without their knowledge is flat out wrong. But thanks to those who mentioned it for the suggestion.

In this case, the opposite happened because whether she was drunk or not, she worked to awake a drunk person to continue their sexual encounter. The near one sidedness of this board seems to miss that important note.

There’s so much in play here that I don’t know about and I’m not sure any of us do.

Some boys were expelled or suspended. So that tells me Cornell found guilt. Then why didn’t the law find guilt? You’re either guilty or not. You don’t get suspended from school for being a dirtbag, which at a minimum, these boys are. If they truly did nothing and it was all consensual, then I would think the boys would have a case against the school. I don’t know if any have brought one.

I don’t think Cornell ending fraternity parties solves anything. People have houses or there are yards, etc You would hope, after what happened, men and women would become more aware but I suspect, a good party with lots of booze will trump over that. Or maybe, the rest of the students weren’t so stupid to begin with and this was just the result of students being unable to forget good decisions. Don’t know.

And i would say - I wish people on the board would lower the temperature from the attacks. Best I can tell, no one here is involved in this case and hopefully any sexual assaults. And therefore nobody needs to be demolished.

I answer the questions because I’m trying to have a discussion. Society would be better if we focused on that and understanding one another vs. throwing hay makers over and over.

The other thing that bothers me is - if these kids are so bad, how is this missed in admissions? I get it - kids are on paper and maybe there’s an interview. But my god, across the board, these kids are not good - snorting drugs, getting so inebriated they don’t even know what did or didn’t happen, etc.

But what I read from the texts that started with today’s chats was a lot of immaturity, stupidity and people so drunk that they have no idea what did or didn’t happen. That is unacceptable.

And that’s sad and reckless, and now here we are with many lives destroyed - which may be justified. But I’m not 100% certain that it is.

I hope that answers your question what I think from today’s release that someone posted earlier.

Thanks

1 Like
734

As if there are not enough ways to do sexual misconduct…

https://apnews.com/article/robot-germany-sexual-assault-cologne-bf171b1697bd9a7119424040a303af22

1 Like
735

I appreciate the long and thoughtful response. You won’t be surprised that I don’t agree. But I appreciate you took the time to write it out.

My sense, from it all, is that you’ve never been involved in anything even remotely close to this situation in any of it’s aspects. Nor has anyone you know ever told you they’ve been. How lucky you are. And I’m sure you appreciate that. My hope is that level of privilege continues for you. The world is much scarier once that privilege disappears.

7 Likes
736

Because NYS law has loopholes and the Cornell investigators either failed to give the full investigative report to police, or the police dropped the ball.

It is personal for way too many of us. Many women have shared their own stories right here in this thread. And we are tired of being disbelieved, having people in authority not doing their jobs, and having our experiences dismissed. And many of us have ties to the university, or have students there now, have friends and family there, etc…

I hope and pray that this is finally what it takes for Cornell to do something concrete and long lasting to protect its students, and that this helps change NY’s consent law as well as the other states that have similar loopholes.

11 Likes
737

“Loophole” implies that the law is somehow haphazard, ill conceived, or contains a drafting error. The law has been debated before. 18 other states have similar views on consent. Proving exact levels of impairment is incredibly difficult when a person consumes alcohol willingly. Lawmakers wanted to avoid a situation where a jury had to retroactively determine the exact “tipping point” at which a person chose to drink but supposedly lost the legal capacity to say yes or no. Also, there was a strong legislative hesitation to allow the state to police sexual encounters where both parties were willingly drinking. People worried that without a bright line (like total unconsciousness or forced drugging), the law would become too subjective and vulnerable to hindsight bias.The term is a political and rhetorical label, not a technical legal term. That doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t change but it isn’t a “loophole”.

5 Likes
738

Sometimes, loopholes were intended when the law was drafted, amended, or passed.

2 Likes
739

What’s more likely?

Lawmakers in states like NY, CT, PA, HI “intended” to include a “loophole”.

Or

Lawmakers thought they were passing reasonable policy.

If intentional, what was the intent?

740

Laws do evolve as attitudes change and people redefine what is acceptable. Slavery is an obvious example. More relevant to the topic at hand, the age of consent has been increased over time. Women used to have to prove they had fought back with their full physical power before it was considered rape. Laws were changed to be gender neutral (for a long time men could not be considered rape victims). Before the early 1990s, there were still states where marital rape was not considered rape. Etc. I’m sure all the original laws were also considered “reasonable policy” when they were passed.

4 Likes
741

Exactly. While I understand and appreciate the notion that it appears as though this is a “one-sided” discussion, it’s hard to underestimate that for many of us, this incident is representative of a lifetime of experience in being ignored, harassed, taken advantage of, etc.

So it can be very frustrating to sort through this case and the comments it generates.

8 Likes
742

Evolving attitudes is different from “intending loopholes”.

Here is a quote from a NY attorneys association: “Claims that a loophole exists are not supported by the law, and proposals based on that premise risk creating confusion while eroding fundamental due process protections and increasing the risk of wrongful convictions.”

I’m sure lawmakers in other states feel the same way.

To imply that this loophole was intentional and planned (as others have, not you) to harm women is specious.