Cornell 7: a society that still doesn’t get consent

Posted on October 7, 2026 by J Gothuey 13 minutes read

As the New York justice system reopens the ‘Cornell 7’ case, it exposes a persistent structural problem in our societies: the failure of many men to grasp what consent actually means.

The facts

A Cornell University student (referred to as Jane Doe in official documents) alleges that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity during a party at the fraternity house in October 2024. She reported the events to campus police on 8 November 2024, then provided a written statement on 15 November. The case was dropped by the prosecutor in charge, who judged that the facts did not constitute an offence. For its part, Cornell University imposed sanctions on only four of the accused, ranging from expulsion (2) to temporary suspension (2). It also closed down the local Chi Phi chapter. On 16 September 2026, the victim filed a civil lawsuit against the alleged perpetrators and against Cornell University itself. The case was officially reopened on 28 September and is currently under review.

Nothing lasts forever

Even though not all the evidence in the case is publicly available, what is currently known is enough to answer a simple question: did the complainant consent to each of the acts that night? Her statement of 14 November 2024 leaves no doubt on this point: ‘I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.’

One of the fundamental conditions for consent to exist is that it can be withdrawn at any time, and must therefore, by extension, be renewed. In other words, a ‘yes’ given to a partner at the start of the evening does not hold for the rest of the night, and can never be transferred to other partners. This may seem obvious, but it is far less so in practice. How many men chatting up a young woman at a party keep pushing when she changes her mind, on the grounds that she initially showed interest? The scene may seem trivial, but would it actually not make more sense for him to stop, thank her, gather his things and leave without further ado?

The messages exchanged that night in the fraternity’s ‘Chi Phi Actives’ Snapchat group show just how alien the idea of continually renewed consent is to its members. ‘Free pussy’ upstairs, announces one of them. Another replies: ‘Shop still open?’ The answer: ‘Yea’. The young woman’s ability to refuse sex is no longer even part of the equation; she has been reduced to a commodity to be used at will.

A drunken yes is a no

Another fundamental component of consent is the person’s capacity to give it freely and in an informed manner. By this logic, a person heavily intoxicated by excessive alcohol and/or drugs is in effect incapable of giving their agreement, and any sexual act that takes place may be considered rape. In the Cornell case, the victim said she had been drinking and then took ketamine (a drug with a strong anaesthetic effect) and cannabis, leaving her unable to give informed consent.

This scenario – one or more men encouraging a woman to take alcohol or drugs to get what they want – is terrifyingly commonplace, and it is precisely this banality that makes it all the more shocking. Parents, children or single adults, we are all familiar with this possibility. It is a conversation every parent will have at least once with their daughter, and one I have had with mine. Yet, strangely, the subject is rarely raised with our sons, as if they somehow knew instinctively how to tell the acceptable from the intolerable.

There is no real nuance to be added here. Having sex with someone too intoxicated to express their will is rape, whether or not the incapacitating substances were taken voluntarily.

This is one of the many flaws in the American legal system that the Cornell case has brought to light. New York law only recognises incapacity (and therefore rape) if the substance was administered without the victim’s knowledge. Since the complainant said she had drunk alcohol voluntarily at the start of the evening, the prosecutor was legally able to drop the case. A real godsend for sexual predators, who can hide behind this clause as long as they take care to target a victim who started drinking of her own accord.

Checking for consent: a passion killer?

For these reasons, some men find the contemporary definition of consent too restrictive. Its precision makes them anxious and feeds a fear of being accused of assault when they believed they had taken part in consensual sex. It bothers them because it requires them to pay attention to the other person, but also because it means she can change her mind at any moment, including just before the much-coveted act.

To this, I would simply reply that making sure a partner genuinely wants to be intimate seems so obvious that it is surprising we even need to raise the subject. As for the mental effort involved in checking that consent is still there, it is a very modest price that we should be delighted to pay if it makes everyone safer. It is worth noting that this famous effort remains entirely reasonable, especially compared with the protective strategies women put in place (watching their drink, staying in a group, sharing their location in real time…).

A horrifying illustration of Lisak & Miller’s 2002 study

The alleged facts shed new light on a study published in 2002 by psychology professor David Lisak and clinical psychologist Paul Miller. The two researchers surveyed 1,882 students at a Boston university. Under cover of a survey about childhood and adult life (with no mention whatsoever of rape or assault), their aim was to measure the proportion of undetected sexual offenders and to describe their behaviour.

The results are damning: 6.4% of respondents – 120 men – admitted to acts that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. Almost two thirds (63%) had committed these assaults repeatedly, mostly using alcohol or drugs. In total, these 120 men admitted to an astonishing 1,225 acts of violence, including 483 rapes or attempted rapes.

The similarities between the behaviour observed by Lisak and Miller and the facts reported by the alleged victim in the Cornell case are disturbing: the use of alcohol and drugs as incapacitating agents, the perpetrators’ perception of their actions as ‘normal’, and consequently an absence of guilt and a sense of impunity. For them, having sex with a drunk or drugged woman is not assault – it is just another night out.

‘Isolate, inebriate, intimidate, repeat’

Twenty-four years later, another study, carried out by Lucia O’Sullivan and Scott Ronis in 2026, confirmed that the idea of ‘optional’ female consent remains widespread among men. It is seen as merely an obstacle to get around, for which one simply has to find the ‘right’ strategy.

O’Sullivan and Ronis anonymously surveyed 2,689 American and Canadian men aged 18 to 34 online. The survey focused on the strategies used to obtain sex from a woman they had just met. Here again, the results are staggering and chilling: almost all the men surveyed (95.1%) admitted to having used at least one of the strategies listed. These strategies vary greatly in severity (from the mildest, such as telling her what she wants to hear, to the most serious), but they all share one thing: an attempt to get around the potential reluctance of the victim. Coercive techniques (force, threats) are particularly prevalent, with more than a third of respondents admitting to having used them. One in five used alcohol or drugs to get what he wanted – just like the events described in the Cornell case.

Sceptics will be quick to point out the study’s limitations (unverifiable self-reports, a sample lacking diversity, a broad definition). But the normalisation of these techniques, including coercive ones, and the complete absence of guilt speak for themselves.

Patriarchal roots that are still very much alive

How can such acts still happen, almost ten years after the explosion of #MeToo?

It is hard not to see in them the foundations of a patriarchal culture that is still very much alive, in which women’s consent, especially in private, remains secondary. It is worth remembering that marital rape has only been recognised in most Western countries since the 1990s: 1990 in France, 1991 in the United Kingdom, 1993 across all US states, 1997 in Germany… Until then, the ‘I do’ of marriage amounted to permanent and unconditional consent.

It is also hard not to draw a parallel with other cases in which the perpetrator knew his victim and rendered her unconscious with substances. In France, the Gisèle Pelicot case shook public opinion by revealing the unthinkable: that rape is part of our society even in its most atrocious forms, and that it is not only committed by a stranger in a dark alley (which is in fact statistically rare). The Pelicot and Cornell cases are far from isolated. In England, a Manchester man pleaded guilty on 14 September 2026 to drugging and raping his wife for more than twenty years. He had also invited twelve men to take part in these assaults.

A telling case of permissive institutions

Cornell University’s attitude in this case is worrying and has sparked outrage, notably because of the leniency of the sanctions imposed, in a situation where the public might have expected the swift and permanent expulsion of all the accused. Yet one does not have to look far to realise that this is a practice that has been institutionalised at the university for many years. An analysis by USA Today, based on official figures reported by Cornell to New York State, shows that more than 1,200 cases were reported to its Title IX office between 2018 and 2024 – more than 170 cases a year. These cases include sexual assault, domestic violence and stalking. The incompatibility of such acts with a university’s mission – to offer its students a space for progress, personal development and intellectual fulfilment – should have called for a firm stance from the authorities, but nothing of the sort happened; quite the opposite.

Suspensions and expulsions across the board would have seemed the logical way to send a clear message to perpetrators. Yet the outcome of these reports mirrored the Cornell 7 case, bordering on an insult to the victims: 13% (162 cases) led to disciplinary proceedings, of which 51 resulted in a finding of responsibility, ultimately leading to just 14 suspensions and 7 permanent expulsions – in seven years. Most of those found responsible were put on probation or sent on training courses while remaining on campus. A slap in the face for the victims, and at most a gentle slap on the wrist for the perpetrators, along the lines of ‘Don’t let me catch you doing that again – or at least be more discreet next time.’

Let’s bury ‘Not all men’ and focus on the (re)education of our boys

Faced with the atrocity and frequency of assaults such as the Cornell 7 case, hiding behind the shield of ‘Not all men’ is absurd to the point of ridicule. The collective behaviour of the seven accused, the lack of reaction from the fifty members of the Snapchat group, the paltry measures taken by the university and the speed with which the justice system closed the case speak for themselves. The existence of similar gang-rape cases in other countries, brought to light by the courage of victims facing a system determined to silence them, makes the reality impossible to ignore. Yes, we live in a society where rape and sexual assault are normalised in our behaviour, in the privacy of a family home as much as in a university residence. As for us, the men who do not commit these assaults, we are conditioned to ignore the signs and, if we do see them, to look away on the pretext that ‘it’s none of our business’. This is precisely what some call rape culture: it does not mean that we are all sexual predators, but that our failure to react, and to take active steps to stamp it out, allows perpetrators to feel safe.

Contrary to what we have been led to believe, we are less powerless in the face of these acts than it might seem, and profound changes need to be made at both individual and collective level. More than ever, the foundation of this change is the education of our boys, by multiplying the points of contact throughout their socialisation.

The family, first of all, through the parents – and therefore the father – lays the foundation for a proper understanding of what consent is: passing on, from childhood, notions such as respecting a ‘no’ and respecting other people’s bodies. Talking to our daughters about caution is not enough; talking to our sons about consent can give them a psychological grounding that prevents toxic behaviour later on.

School, next, has already started to move in this direction and must step up the development of consent-related programmes. In the face of rising masculinism, France has included it since late 2025 and the United Kingdom since late 2026, but some countries, such as the United States, are lagging behind. Schools must explicitly teach the principles of consent: free, informed, specific and revocable at any time.

University, finally. Even before genuinely punishing perpetrators, preventive measures could help reduce the problem. Some training programmes have already proven their effectiveness, such as the Green Dot programme, which showed a 17% reduction in unwanted sexual activity experienced by incapacitated women. Real sanctions (such as automatic expulsion in cases of assault) could also help deter the recalcitrant, for whom moral arguments are not enough.