Cornell Case Is a Moral Failure

If you have been following the news from Cornell University, you'll know that a former student -- identified only as "Jane Doe" -- is claiming that she was gang-raped at a Chi Phi fraternity party in 2024 and that seven men were involved. As horrific as that accusation is, the story gets even more twisted as more facts come to light.

Space doesn't permit a complete description of all the alleged conduct (you can easily find great detail online should you choose to), but suffice it to say that it involved a great deal of alcohol, people snorting ketamine off each other's bodies, agreeing to a threesome (and perhaps -- but not definitely -- more), and men who were with "Jane Doe" sending vulgar texts to fraternity brothers inviting them into the room for "free (sex)."

Just for starters.

"Jane Doe" eventually went to campus authorities, and disciplinary actions were taken against the young men after a lengthy set of hearings. She also reported the events of the evening to the police, but in her statement, she said that she engaged in the conduct willingly. That statement convinced the district attorney not to prosecute. Doe has since reconsidered the events that transpired that night -- and provided more detail to law enforcement. She now claims that she was too intoxicated to have consented, and she is suing Cornell University, two bars where she was served alcohol the night of the Chi Phi party, the fraternity and the seven men she accuses of sexually assaulting her, under theories of negligence, breach of contract, sexual assault and battery and violations of New York's Human Rights Law. No criminal charges have yet been filed against any of the men she accuses of sexual assault, but New York governor has appointed the state's Attorney General Letitia James as a special prosecutor to investigate.

And so, the legal machinations begin.

One of the Chi Phi men she has accused claims that he was unconscious and that Jane Doe took advantage of him, so he's also a victim of sexual assault. The fraternity is defending itself by characterizing the evening as a "consensual orgy." Cornell's students are holding sit-ins to protest "rape culture" on campus and calling for the resignation of the university's president.

In the absence of all the evidence, I'm going to refrain from offering an opinion as to the legal liability of the parties. But I am wondering: While everyone is now scrambling to establish (or escape) legal liability, where is the much overdue national discussion about moral accountability?

How are we instructing young people to form their personal behavior?

We could start with binge drinking. Why do both young men and young women at colleges and universities think that entertainment at college means getting blotto, regardless of the risks it poses?

It's not just sexual assault. According to statistics kept by the U.S. government, more than 1,500 college students are killed annually by alcohol-related accidents. In fact, accidental injuries are the leading cause of death for 18- to 24-year-olds, and many of these deaths involve drunk driving, but other causes are alcohol poisoning (the leading cause of death in fraternity and sorority hazing cases), drowning and fatal falls. The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Disease further reports that 95% of violent crime on campuses involves alcohol use by the perpetrator, the victim or both.

Why does a young woman on a college campus think it's the right thing to go to a fraternity and have a threesome? To let strangers snort drugs off her body? To snort drugs off someone else's body? Why do these young men think that inviting a girl you barely know -- or don't know at all -- to have an orgy is a perfectly fine thing to do? Why do they think it's suitable behavior to send out an email or text to their fraternity brothers, encouraging them to join in? Why doesn't anyone step in to stop this?

We should be asking important questions like these. But we aren't. Because unlike questions about legal liability, we won't get to point the finger at someone else, and we won't like the answer.

The answer is that young Americans indulge in behaviors like these that damage themselves and others because that's what's been promoted to them since they were old enough to look at a screen. Hollywood, the music industry, the media -- even some academic theorists -- routinely promote promiscuous, experimental and irresponsible sexuality as the pinnacle of freedom. Some popular musicians are notorious sex offenders (though few are prosecuted for it). The hottest shows feature episode after episode of indiscriminate hookups -- often fueled by alcohol and drugs. The writers and actors win awards. They appear on magazine covers. They grow incredibly wealthy.

Don't tell me we're not glamorizing this behavior; we are.

We can't allow the culture to promote sex as nothing more than drunken recreation, a source of personal gratification or a spectator sport, and then pretend to be shocked when the young audience gets the message.

Nor can we pretend that situations like the Cornell case are purely matters of law and legal issues. That rationalization lets us continue our comfortable hypocrisy and ignore the roles we have played in letting things get as bad as they are.

The good news is that things could change quickly if students simply decided that they wanted more. As I wrote in a column 11 years ago:

"Men: What if you saw yourselves as gentlemen -- men of honor, whose social responsibility it was to protect the women you are with (for an evening or longer)? What if you saw your genetic material as something to be preserved for the creation of the children you deliberately decide to bring into the world with a woman of your choice, instead of accidents to be aborted out of inconvenience?

"Women: What if you refused to settle for a drunken hookup in a dorm room with an equally inebriated stranger? What if you decided that your sexual activities would be more rewarding if your inhibitions were removed not by alcohol or drugs, but by the security of a stable relationship?

"This wouldn't require new laws, more regulations, heightened social stigma or 'shaming.' This is about the possibilities of radically altering the cultural landscape through the power of personal choice. In a culture like ours that worships 'choice,' why shouldn't we acknowledge that there are better choices?"

True then, true now. Students have far more control over the culture of college campuses than they realize. They just need to exercise it. That said, the older generations could make their lives much easier if we had the courage to admit that yes, sexual behavior has moral -- not just legal -- implications.

========

To find out more about Laura Hollis and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

----