For anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock the last few weeks, news of the Cornell 7 case has permeated American news and social media. In September, a former student at Cornell University filed a lawsuit against the university and the Chi Phi fraternity on campus following what she alleges was a failure by the university to address her report that she was gang raped by seven members of the fraternity at a party in October of 2024. None of the seven men were charged criminally, two were expelled, two were suspended, and two were required to complete reflective essays. Since the lawsuit was filed, intense scrutiny of Jane Doe—as the woman is referred to in legal filings—and the handling of her case has ensued. It’s almost impossible to go online and miss the constant news coverage and resulting media backlash—both in support of Jane Doe and against her. Exactly 20 years after the start of the #MeToo movement, this case has sparked a new wave of outrage and protests—especially on campuses of higher education institutions across the country.
The phrase “MeToo” was first coined in 2006 by women’s activist Tarana Burke and gained popularity following the publication of numerous allegations of rape and sexual assault against Harvey Weinstein in 2017. What followed was a windstorm of support from women across the country. The movement, which saw 201 men removed from their positions due to sexual abuse allegations, prompted backlash in industries from Hollywood to Capitol Hill and served as a catalyst for reforms and a beacon of hope for women and survivors across the world.
Unlike other social justice movements at the time, #MeToo might not have had any unified goals that it looked to achieve, but the general movement was sparked by a need for solidarity among survivors and awareness of just how widespread the epidemic of workplace sexual harassment was. The Cornell 7 case is offering a new referendum on sexual violence and the inadequate infrastructure we have to address it—especially on college campuses.
College campuses across the nation have seen protests and calls for change by student activists and faculty in the wake of the Cornell 7 case, and for good reason. Sexual violence against women disproportionately affects college students, with college-age students accounting for about one in three rapes reported to law enforcement. Title IX, the federal law banning sex-based discrimination in education, requires any educational institution receiving federal funding to have a Title IX coordinator to oversee enforcement on campus.
However, many victims are left behind by Title IX policies that are either too general and vague to properly define what qualifies as sexual harassment or are too specific and exclude certain types of harassment—like digital harassment or stalking—from their policies. The criticism that Title IX offices at institutions of higher learning are only meant to protect the schools from litigation and public perception rather than to address issues and help students may ring true for many college students. Some argue that universities are motivated to discourage student reporting on campus in order to maintain the safety record of the school and boost enrollment, which often negates their ability to actually protect students who have come forward with their stories of sexual abuse. When institutions of higher learning don’t have the necessary infrastructure to address cases like Jane Doe’s, these cases will continue to happen.
The sheer number of women who stepped forward to share their stories during #MeToo and the fury behind it is not dissimilar to the reaction we are seeing today in the wake of the Cornell 7 case. #WeAreAllJaneDoe, the viral tag in support of the victim in the Cornell 7 case, would not be unfamiliar to anyone who witnessed #MeToo. But why is it still necessary? The anger that has resulted from this case is reminiscent of that following the case against Harvey Weinstein, and women in America are tired of having to share their stories of assault—both horrific and mundane—en masse in order to effect change.
NYU hasn’t been immune to calls for action. At the start of this semester, at a University Senate meeting, members of the NYU administration highlighted access to sexual safety resources including prevention programs and training but failed to address concerns surrounding the Cornell case. Despite calls from students to respond to the Cornell 7 case specifically, NYU has remained silent. This is failing of our school to recognize that the fear and anger inspired by this case are particularly prevalent on campuses of higher education.
Just last semester, NYU’s chapter of Zeta Beta Tau fraternity was suspended after allegations of sexual harassment and hazing. The accuser came forward with screenshots of a group text that allegedly documented hazing, sexual harassment, and antisemitism within the fraternity. This episode rings eerily similar to Cornell’s failing to address the complicity of an entire fraternity in the Cornell 7 case. While the leaked ZBT group chat didn’t advertise the alleged rape of another student on campus, the fact that NYU remains silent on this case does not instill confidence in the student body in how our university would respond to Jane Doe if she had matriculated here.
The failure of higher education institutions to properly address safety concerns following the Cornell 7 case and the structural failing of Title IX leave a lot to be desired in the way of progress and protection for women on campuses across the country. Twenty years after the #MeToo movement began to bring survivors together in solidarity, the Cornell 7 case has highlighted the lack of institutional change in the subsequent years. The failure to address the concerns of #MeToo has naturally led to the anger and frustration behind #WeAreAllJaneDoe, and without an institutional-level response to this case, we will continue to fail the survivors of sexual abuse on college campuses across the country.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
