The Question Nobody Wants To Ask About The Cornell Seven

Every couple of years, a rape case stirs debate in incredibly polarizing ways. To say these cases are treated by the commentariat as black and white is understating the extent to which everyone is placed on a side: either “we believe women” or “women are liars who play victim to victimize men.” To question what is technically legal vs. what is technically criminal is treated as an affront by feminists who believe the justice system never does justice for victims of sexual assault, and those who can see harm and reprehensible behavior enacted by the men accused, without necessarily casting them as rapists, are treated with vicious mockery by those in the “feminism went too far and it’s time for your comeuppance” faction.  

The hyperbole surrounding these media firestorms has not helped the discourse.

This year’s controversy surrounds the “Cornell Seven.” Based on the information available to us currently, a 20-year-old woman (“Jane Doe”) went to the fraternity house of a man she was interested in, Matthew Ingalls, at around 11 p.m. on October 19, 2024. She described her level of drunkenness as being a “five out of ten” at that point. She and Ingalls danced flirtatiously; he suggested a “threesome” with another fraternity member (Johnathan Newell), and she agreed because she liked Ingalls. The three of them had sex until it became clear the two men were too intoxicated to continue. A third man came to the room; there was more sex, then four more men entered the room. Newell had reportedly posted a message to a group chat, inviting other fraternity members to join in, offering “free p*ssy.” At one point in the chat, one frat member asked, “Shop still open?”

When the larger group of men entered the room, Doe says she hid under the covers while some of the men tried to engage her sexually. There was more drinking, more drug use, and more threesomes. Things became fuzzy. 

Texts between Doe and Newell two days after the alleged incident show him apologizing for “how things went down,” saying he and Ingalls felt bad they didn’t “shut it down and kick people out before things got way out of hand.” She responded, saying, “non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,” and that she’d like to see him again, “but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine.” 

Apparently, after processing the incident, she changed her view. Doe filed a report with the university’s police department three weeks after the alleged rapes. Cornell expelled two of the men and suspended two others. A hearing panel found two not responsible, and one graduated before the university could impose sanctions. No one was charged with rape. The fraternity chapter was barred from campus.

In a press release, Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten explained that he did not pursue charges against the men at the time because “Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.” Rather, her statement “described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual.”

Now, Doe is claiming she told school investigators clearly that she was raped. A transcript from her interview with campus police in November 2024 shows her saying she was “ok” with the initial sexual activity, but describing what happened later as sexual assault. She says she was “completely and totally incapacitated,” adding, “It was coercion, yes.” She also says she was “being hit” and that she didn’t remember the end of the night “where I was raped,” nor did she know how many men had sex with her. The transcript reads, “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.”

The district attorney says he never saw or heard such a statement, adding, “If that kind of thing was omitted from a statement, if it is true, it needs to be fully investigated by someone outside of Cornell.”  

Cornell University maintains that its police department turned over the findings of its investigation to the district attorney’s office. 

Doe is now bringing a lawsuit against the seven men involved, the Chi Phi fraternity, Cornell University, and Moonies Bar & Nightclub. A criminal inquiry into the alleged rape has been reopened.

Cue the polarized commentary. 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said, in response to the case, “The culture of rape, sexual assault and pedophilia is protected in elite institutions across the United States, including Cornell University … it has got to stop.”

On the other “side,” many are saying, essentially, “too bad.” Doe participated in all of this; she can’t now turn around and cry “rape!” 

When does the nuanced conversation begin? The one about vile behavior, irresponsible decisions, and why “shame” and “judgment” are actually very useful tools for keeping immoral actions in check?

The mere fact that such a situation seemed normal to any of those involved is grotesque and very much due to the porn-saturated world the younger generations are now growing up in. To suggest a “threesome” so casually to a female friend, never mind a “gang-bang,” suggests that what is considered a casual sexual encounter has devolved exponentially. Agreeing to a “threesome” at 11 p.m. on a Saturday night, while visiting a “friend,” is wild to me. And not in a good way.

What happened that night in 2024 isn’t about “institutions.” It’s about what passes for normal and acceptable sexual behavior.

But liberals can’t go there. 

I have yet to hear any enraged progressives mention pornography, and the fact that it is ever more vulgar, graphic, and ubiquitous — consistent in the lives of young people whether they want it or not. I have yet to hear any of them suggest that masculinity should require protection, not exploitation, of the vulnerable, as Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro did on his podcast, saying of the seven men accused, “These men should not have asked for or participated in this consensual sexual encounter because they are violating something basic about manhood — the protection and defense of women.”

I do hear men online insisting that we are all “equal” now, which means, apparently, it’s a free-for-all, and no one is accountable for anything that happens, ever.

A major reason we can’t move forward in this debate, though, is that liberals have limited the conversation around sexual ethics to one of “consent.” To speak of “dignity,” for example, would require a condemnation of pornography — an industry that depicts rape, assault, pedophilia, and the most vile misogyny imaginable, 24/7, to billions of men around the world. So we must only speak of “consent.” As such, sexual abuse becomes “sex work” — nothing more than another day at the office, being penetrated in every orifice by numerous men, while being called the most degrading names imaginable. No different from serving a coffee or cleaning the bathroom.

Liberals cannot allow that “shame” and “judgment” are actually worthwhile practices that keep dangerous, harmful behavior at bay. We now live in a culture wherein fetishes are advertised with pride, in public. “Kinks” should be accepted and explored, not judged. Going to the strip club is a fun night out; watching pornography is just a sexual release that harms no one. Everything is fine. Except, of course, it isn’t. Because groups of young men are lining up to do lines of ketamine off a lone girl’s body, simply because she didn’t say “no.”

Meanwhile, young women are offered no parameters for expectations in love and dating, and the idea that one can disconnect from one’s feelings in order to have supposedly “empowering” casual sex is encouraged. The idea that sleeping with strange men might be a dangerous practice, emotionally and physically — because unfortunately when a man doesn’t know you, he tends not to feel any obligation towards you — isn’t part of the sex ed curriculum. 

Instead, the conclusion is that “we need ‘consent education,’” as though men are genuinely confused about whether or not a drunk woman, high on ketamine, hiding under the covers, actually wants to have sex with seven strange men. As though getting a “sure” is the qualifying response ushering a young man forward toward a 100% harmless and ethical night of gang-banging.

The outcome of the case will be determined in the courts, but these scenarios will continue so long as we lie to young men and women about the realities of sex and human nature. 

***

Meghan Murphy is a writer and podcaster living in Mexico. Find more of her work at www.meghanmurphy.ca.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.