What the Cornell allegations reveal about consent, victim-blaming, and New York’s intoxication law loophole.
Content note: This article discusses allegations of sexual assault, intoxication, victim-blaming, and institutional responses to sexual violence. Please decide whether this is something you have the capacity to read today.
As you are probably already aware, a former Cornell University student, identified in court documents as Jane Doe, has filed a civil lawsuit alleging that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity in October 2024. The allegations are now the subject of renewed public attention and a new criminal investigation. The accused are entitled to due process, and the legal process is ongoing.
But due process does not require us to suspend every moral judgment about consent, vulnerability, or the way survivors are treated when they come forward. Nor does it prevent us from examining the systems that were supposed to respond.
As a psychotherapist, as a woman, and as a survivor of sexual violence, I believe we need to talk about what this case is exposing.
She did not “wait two years”
One of the narratives beginning to form around Jane Doe is that she waited almost two years before making an accusation through a civil lawsuit.
That is not what the documented timeline shows.
The alleged assault occurred on October 19, 2024. Two days later, she sought medical care. On November 3, she confronted one of the men she says assaulted her through text messages. On November 8 – less than three weeks after the alleged assault – she reported it to Cornell University Police.
She subsequently participated in extensive interviews. According to a transcript described in recent reporting, she told campus police she could say “with 100% confidence” that she had been raped. Cornell conducted an internal investigation, and campus police conducted a criminal investigation. Cornell has said its process resulted in suspensions, expulsions, or other sanctions, although federal privacy law limits what the university has disclosed publicly.
The civil lawsuit came nearly two years later.
Her effort to seek help did not.
The intervening time was occupied by medical care, disclosures, interviews, investigations, institutional processes, and waiting for the systems responsible for responding to decide what they would – or would not – do.
The suggestion that a survivor’s account becomes less credible because she did not move immediately, neatly, and publicly from assault to accusation reflects a poor understanding of trauma. Survivors may initially have fragmented memories. They may minimize what happened, remain in contact with an alleged perpetrator, try to understand the event gradually, or use language that evolves as they process it. None of those responses proves that an assault occurred. But neither do they prove that it did not.
Trauma does not organize itself for the convenience of investigators, institutions, journalists, or the public.
The legal loophole
The former Tompkins County district attorney cited New York’s definition of mental incapacitation when explaining the original decision not to prosecute. Under that definition, incapacitation caused by an intoxicating substance is treated differently when the substance was consumed voluntarily rather than administered without the person’s consent.
Put plainly: if someone secretly drugs a person and that person becomes unable to appraise or control their conduct, the law may recognize mental incapacitation. But if a person drinks alcohol or takes a drug voluntarily – or after pressure or coercion – and becomes equally incapable of consenting, that same condition may not satisfy the statute’s narrow definition. That is an indefensible distinction.
New York lawmakers themselves have acknowledged this egregious gap. Pending legislation would allow sex-crime charges when a person voluntarily consumed an intoxicating substance but became unable to consent, and the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, of that incapacity. The bill’s justification explicitly states that the current definition limits prosecutors when an individual voluntarily consumed the substance.
In other words, this is not merely an emotional objection from people who do not understand the law. It is a recognized defect that lawmakers have come to understand they need to correct.
The law does not literally declare a voluntarily intoxicated person “fair game.” But when it refuses to recognize the person’s incapacity because of how that incapacity occurred, we have to ask: what meaningful protection is left?
Incapacitated means deprived of normal functioning or the ability to make decisions. You are either capable of consenting in that moment, or you are not.
How you became incapacitated does not magically restore your capacity.
Consent to alcohol is not consent to sex.
Consent to ketamine is not consent to sex.
Consent to one sexual act is not consent to every sexual act that follows.
Consent to one person, or even two, is not consent to every person who enters the room.
Intoxication can create vulnerability. It cannot create consent.
Do not misunderstand me: I am not condoning alcohol or drug use among young people.
Alcohol and drugs impair judgment. They can place someone in dangerous situations, and they can damage a still-developing young brain. Those are real concerns, and parents, clinicians, and educators should talk honestly about them.
But none of those risks includes forfeiting the right to bodily autonomy.
Some consequences follow a natural progression from the risk a person takes. If someone knowingly eats a food to which they are severely allergic, an allergic reaction is reasonably foreseeable. If an intoxicated person gets behind the wheel, a ticket or collision is reasonably foreseeable because alcohol directly impairs the abilities required to drive safely.
If we argue that an intoxicated woman should expect to be assaulted simply because she entered a fraternity house, what are we saying about fraternity houses – and about the men inside them? Are we prepared to say that rape is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a woman becoming intoxicated and entering a fraternity house? Is sexual assault now considered an expected outcome in polite society?
If the answer is yes, then we are not merely warning women to exercise caution. We are conceding that fraternity houses are inherently dangerous, that predatory behavior should be expected within them, and that a sober woman is safer only because she is more difficult to exploit. We would be treating a man’s decision to assault someone as though it were a natural, unavoidable consequence of a woman’s decision to drink. Is that where we, as a society, have come to?
Alcohol can impair judgment. It cannot assault someone. A fraternity house cannot assault someone. Sexual assault requires another human being to recognize someone’s vulnerability and choose to exploit it. Her intoxication did not create a perpetrator. And it did not create consent.
Risk reduction is not responsibility
Women are repeatedly taught not to drink too much, not to leave a drink unattended, not to go upstairs, not to walk alone, not to trust the wrong person, and not to place themselves in vulnerable situations. And I will continue to teach the young women in my life to be cautious because the unfortunate reality is that risk reduction is necessary. But those precautions would not be necessary if there were not people willing to exploit vulnerability.
That distinction is essential:
• Precautions may reduce risk.
• Failing to take every precaution does not create responsibility.
• The need for precautions originates with the existence of predators.
Women are told not to trust the wrong person. But how are they supposed to know which person is the wrong one? The wrong person rarely introduces himself as dangerous. Someone who intends to exploit another person’s trust may deliberately work to appear safe, respectful, and trustworthy.
Trusting someone who deceived you does not make you responsible for the deception.
We tell women to watch their drinks because predators exist, not because failing to anticipate a predator makes a woman responsible for what the predator chooses to do.
Accountability means taking ownership of your own choices. It does not mean accepting blame for someone else’s.
Jane Doe has acknowledged that she voluntarily drank alcohol and took some drugs. She can acknowledge that becoming intoxicated placed her in a vulnerable position. She can regret drinking, taking drugs, entering the fraternity house, or trusting people she believed were safe. She can take responsibility for those decisions without assuming responsibility for everything that allegedly happened afterward. Her civil complaint alleges that additional drugs were later given to her when she was no longer in a position to meaningfully consent to taking them.
Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic that can distort sight and sound and produce a sense of disconnection from one’s body, surroundings, or control. Depending on the dose, it can also cause sedation, impaired cognition, immobility, unconsciousness, and short-term amnesia. The Drug Enforcement Administration notes that ketamine has been used to facilitate sexual assault.
Those effects cannot tell us precisely what Jane Doe experienced or how any particular dose affected her. They do, however, illustrate why a person under its influence may not be able to understand what is happening, communicate clearly, resist, or immediately recall events as someone who was fully unimpaired would.
Taking an initial risk is not consenting to every act that follows. Agreeing to consume one substance at one point in the evening is not blanket consent to be given other substances later – particularly after the capacity to make an informed choice has been compromised.
Her choices may help explain how she initially became vulnerable. They do not make her responsible for anyone who allegedly recognized, compounded, or exploited that vulnerability.
She remains responsible for the choices she was capable of making. The people around her remain responsible for theirs.
Her accountability ends where their agency begins.
Her initial risk-taking did not relieve anyone else of the responsibility to recognize her incapacity, respect her bodily autonomy, and refrain from exploiting her. Nor did it transfer responsibility for their alleged actions onto her.
So, when people ask, “Where is her accountability?” while ignoring the actions of those accused of exploiting her, they are not demanding accountability. They are engaging in victim-blaming dressed in more respectable-sounding language.
Risk may explain vulnerability. It does not assign culpability.
If a drunk young man found himself in a sorority house, most of us would expect the women there to give him a pillow and blanket, tuck him in, call his friends, and keep him safe. Heck, one of the sorority sisters might even make him breakfast in the morning, or at the very least send him on his way with a Pop-Tart.
We would not call his intoxication consent. We would not say he should have anticipated being assaulted because he entered the house. We would not question his "accountability" for going into the sorority house.
We would recognize his vulnerability and expect the people around him not to exploit it.
Why are we willing to expect anything less from men?
And they wonder why so many women choose the bear. But men are not bears. They are not powerless against instinct. They are human beings with agency. They are capable of recognizing vulnerability, exercising restraint, and choosing to protect someone rather than exploit her.
Every time someone says a woman “should have known better,” they are suggesting that men cannot do better.
I reject that premise.
Hindsight and a “dress rehearsal”
It is easy to hear the outcome of someone else’s story and say, “I would never have allowed myself to get into that situation. I would have stood up for myself. I would have left.”
Hindsight offers clarity that did not exist in the moment. I have counseled hundreds of women who have asked themselves – and me – “Why did I do that? I am smarter than that. I should have known better. What was I thinking?”
But human behavior is not governed by intellect alone. Social pressure, the desire to belong, trust, intoxication, fear, and automatic survival responses can all influence what someone does – or is unable to do – in a particular moment.
Jane Doe’s story also gives the rest of us a dress rehearsal she never had. We now have the opportunity to consider the warning signs, imagine our options, and decide how we hope we would respond – while already knowing how her night ended. She did not have the benefit of that knowledge when she was faced with her choices.
If her experience helps you recognize danger or consider how you might respond, you can be grateful for that. But I would caution against taking it further than that.
Do not use the hindsight her story provided as evidence that she should have known then what you know now.
What some men will admit – as long as you don’t call it "rape"
A recently shared statistic claims that one-third of college men would rape a woman if there were no consequences. The underlying research is disturbing, but it should be described accurately.
In a small 2014 exploratory study, 86 heterosexual male college students were asked about their likelihood of engaging in sexual aggression if no one would know and there would be no consequences. Nearly 32% expressed some likelihood of forcing a woman into intercourse under those conditions. When the behavior was explicitly labeled "rape," approximately 14% expressed some likelihood.
Because this was a small, demographically narrow convenience sample from one university, the findings should not be generalized to all men. What it does reveal, though, is still deeply troubling: a disturbing number of men were willing to endorse behavior that constitutes rape as long as it wasn't called "rape."
The hypothetical in the study removed the possibility of being discovered or punished, but morality is not defined solely by whether consequences are likely.
We teach children, “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
In this context, the standard should be even clearer:
Just because someone cannot stop you does not mean you have permission.
Just because someone is too incapacitated to resist does not mean they have consented.
And just because you believe you can get away with something does not make it anything less than sexual violence.
That distinction matters. When people hear the word “rapist,” many imagine a stranger with a weapon, while failing to recognize sexual violence when it takes the form of coercion, exploitation of intoxication, or force used by someone the victim knows – as was true in my experience.
If prevention efforts focus only on telling men not to become the monster they already don't believe they are, those messages may never reach the men who refuse to recognize their own behavior in the definition.
The label is not what makes an act rape. The absence of consent does.
Jane Doe is a human being, and she doesn’t owe anyone her name
As online attention has intensified, so have efforts to uncover and publicize Jane Doe’s identity.
Let me be clear: a survivor’s anonymity is not an obstacle to the story. It is not evidence of deception. And it is not an invitation for strangers to investigate, expose, intimidate, or punish her.
Using the moniker “Jane Doe” is not hiding the truth.
Using the moniker “Jane Doe” is protecting a human being.
On October 1, Governor Kathy Hochul assigned the investigation to the New York Attorney General’s Office as special prosecutor, superseding the local district attorney for this case. Attorney General Letitia James has said her office will conduct an investigation “guided by the facts and the law.” While that is promising, it does not erase the questions raised by the original response, the harm caused when a survivor’s identity becomes the object of public consumption, or the fact that the law itself, as currently written, is PART OF THE PROBLEM.
I will not stand by while anyone attempts to expose her identity under the guise of "journalism."
I will stand with those working to protect her.
I will stand against the systems that failed her.
And I will stand firm in this truth:
Intoxication is not consent.
Incapacity is not consent.
Vulnerability is not an invitation.
She is not alone
The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that 45.1% of women in the United States – nearly 58 million women – have experienced some form of contact sexual violence during their lifetime. That category includes rape, sexual coercion, and unwanted sexual contact.
Nearly half.
Jane Doe is not only one woman at Cornell.
She is our friend.
Our coworker.
Our sister.
Our daughter.
She is the woman beside you who has never told you her story.
She is so many of us.
She is me.
I am Jane Doe.
If you have experienced unwanted sexual attention, coercion, contact, or assault – and it continues to affect you – you are not alone. You deserve a safe place to be heard, believed, and supported. Consider reaching out to us at Paraklesis Counseling, another qualified mental health professional, a sexual-assault support organization, or someone you trust. You do not have to carry this alone.
This article addresses a developing legal matter. Allegations discussed here have not been adjudicated, and details may change as the investigation and civil litigation proceed.
Sources:
• District Attorney statement regarding Jane Doe v. Cornell University, et al. (https://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/News-articles/District-Attorney-statement-regarding-Jane-Doe-v.-Cornell-University-et-al), Tompkins County District Attorney, September 2026.
• Attorney General James Releases Statement on Appointment as Special Prosecutor (https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/attorney-general-james-releases-statement-appointment-special-prosecutor), Office of the New York Attorney General, October 1, 2026.
• Woman told Cornell police 2 years ago she was 100% confident she was raped, report says (https://apnews.com/article/cornell-rape-allegations-investigation-7073e8da8b027fe9ee4530ea8a549f64), Associated Press, October 2026.
• New York governor appoints attorney general as special prosecutor (https://apnews.com/article/7203e55c76f7be14ab929764c90b60b1), Associated Press, October 2026.
• New York Senate Bill S10632: Prohibiting use of intoxication of the victim as a defense in sex crimes (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S10632), 2025–2026 legislative session.
• About Sexual Violence (https://www.cdc.gov/sexual-violence/about/index.html), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2023/2024 Sexual Violence Data Brief (https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/media/pdfs/sexualviolence-brief.pdf), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Edwards, S. R., Bradshaw, K. A., & Hinsz, V. B. (2014). Denying Rape but Endorsing Forceful Intercourse: Exploring Differences Among Responders (https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2014.0022). Violence and Gender, 1(4), 188–193.
• Ketamine Drug Fact Sheet (https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Ketamine-2020.pdf), U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 2020.
• Hetem LA, Danion JM, Diemunsch P, Brandt C. Effect of a subanesthetic dose of ketamine on memory and conscious awareness in healthy volunteers. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11105938)Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2000 Oct;152(3):283-8. doi: 10.1007/s002130000511. PMID: 11105938.
Tammy K. Allen, MA, LPC, CART
Licensed Professional Counselor, Author, and owner of Paraklesis Counseling
The information provided in this blog post is for general informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only and is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, counseling, psychotherapy, or personal advice. Reading this content does not establish a therapeutic relationship.
If you need professional support, we encourage you to schedule an appointment with Paraklesis Counseling (www.paraklesiscounseling.com) or a licensed therapist of your choosing. If you are experiencing a mental health emergency, please contact 988 or 911 immediately.
