Background
In September, a former Cornell student filed a 101-page civil complaint. It names more than a dozen defendants, including seven fraternity members from 2024, Cornell University, and the Chi Phi fraternity. She alleges she was sexually assaulted at the Chi Phi house after being pressured to snort ketamine, smoke marijuana and drink alcohol. The suit says the accused were “afforded the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays.” This allegation drew significant public backlash.
Cornell’s Title IX Review
According to the complaint, Cornell began its Title IX investigation on January 14, 2025. Cornell says a panel of trained faculty and staff heard evidence over multiple days, during which both the complainant and respondents could testify and present evidence. The university says the panel issued sanctions that included expulsions and suspensions. A university official also denied that essay-writing was the sole consequence offered to any defendant.
Whether Cornell satisfied its Title IX obligations remains unanswerable on the public record. Cornell declines to disclose individual sanctions, citing federal privacy laws, and the supportive measures it gave the complainant remain unknown. Press accounts report that most of the seven accused students kept studying at Cornell after the investigation.
The District Attorney’s Role
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten reopened the case on September 28 and plans to present it to a grand jury. He justified the decision not to prosecute the Cornell students in 2024 in two ways. First, he says the complainant did not allege a gang rape or drugging in her initial sworn statement. Second, he says his team did not initially see the text-message evidence. The complainant’s attorney disputes this account and says the information went to Cornell authorities promptly and does not differ materially from the current complaint.
Van Houten also cited a legal obstacle– under the penal law, voluntary intoxication that impairs judgment does not establish inability to consent. He says his office never had access to Cornell’s Title IX records and now requests them through the complainant’s attorney. He assigned the case to a senior prosecutor with sex-crimes experience and hopes to reach a grand jury within 45 days.
Current Status of New York’s Outside Review
On September 29, Governor Hochul called for outside counsel to conduct an independent review of Cornell’s response. The next day she announced that Cornell had agreed. The publicly available details are currently scarce. Hochul did not disclose who will serve as outside counsel or when Cornell will announce the review, and her office said Cornell’s Board of Trustees would likely decide the matter. Importantly, the review only examines the adequacy of the university’s response and does not decide whether a crime occurred.
Further, Attorney General Letita James’s office confirmed it is reviewing Cornell’s response, though it is unclear whether that review is separate from the investigation Hochul announced. Hochul also directed her office to find ways to strengthen campus-protection laws in the next legislative session.
Sources:
Varsha Bhargava, Gov. Kathy Hochul Requests ‘Independent Review’ of Cornell’s Response to Alleged Chi Phi Gang Rape, Cornell Daily Sun (Sept. 29, 2026).
Varsha Bhargava, et al, Cornell Agrees to Independent Review of Its Response to Alleged Chi Phi Gang Rape, Gov. Hochul Says, Cornell Daily Sun (Sept. 30, 2026).
Rebecca Schneid, et al, Cornell Sex Assault Case Raises Questions About Title IX Accountability and New York’s Intoxicated Consent Law, TIME (Sept. 30, 2026).
Aaron Katersky, et al, DA Defends Decision Not to Prosecute Alleged Cornell ‘Gang Rape’ Case in 2024, ABC News (Sept. 30, 2026).
Lucia I Suarez Sang, et al, Details emerge in case of former Cornell student alleging gang rape by fraternity members, CBS News (Oct. 2, 2026).