A Cornell University sexual assault case from October 2024 involving an Ivy League fraternity has resurfaced to shake American society two years later. At the time, a female student reported that she had been sexually assaulted by seven male students. However, because prosecutors chose not to indict the suspects, the case seemed to be forgotten. The situation came back to the surface last September when the woman claiming victimization filed a civil lawsuit.
Materials released afterward cast doubt on the initial prosecution investigation. It was revealed that prosecutors decided not to file charges without reviewing key materials such as the university police interview records. Criticism grew over whether sufficient efforts had been made to determine the truth of the incident.
As the case gained nationwide attention, a familiar and cruel scene repeated itself. Information presumed to be the victim’s identity spread online, and other women were mistakenly singled out as ‘Jane Doe.’ One political commentator even vowed to track down and reveal the real name of the woman who filed the lawsuit.
This contradiction has lingered deeply in the mind. Prosecutors did not thoroughly examine the materials that could reveal the truth of the case. The president of Cornell University did not even know that the female student had left the school after the incident. The world was shockingly indifferent to her. Yet, people are now obsessed with finding out who she is, driven by a morbid fascination.
The gaze directed at the victim penetrated not only her identity but also every single action and attitude after the incident. When it was revealed that ‘Jane Doe’ had exchanged friendly text messages with some of the male students right after the incident, voices arose questioning her sexual assault claims. The New York Post even published a column arguing that “a real sexual assault victim couldn’t act this way.” But who set the standard for “victim-like behavior”?
Thorough fact-checking is certainly necessary. The presumption of innocence must be maintained, and guilty verdicts should not be handed down based solely on suspicion. However, guaranteeing the rights of the accused and doubting the victim are two different matters.
There is a question that lingered throughout the tracking of this case. How much are we demanding of victims under the guise of ‘what if’ possibilities? Is it not that a victim, already experiencing difficult days, must endlessly explain and justify their actions? The person who tried to reveal the victimization ended up in a position where she had to defend herself instead.
This does not mean denying the necessity of verification. However, it is also questionable whether all the pain generated in the process of uncovering the truth must be accepted as inevitable.
American poet Adrienne Rich published a poem titled ‘Rape’ in 1973. In the poem, a woman who experienced an incident must visit the police station to report it.
To borrow the poem’s expression, “Your mind reels, but you have to confess to him, you are guilty of the crime done to you. And you see his blue eyes, the blue eyes of all the family you have known, narrowing and glittering. His hand types the details. He typed out your worst moments and filed them away.”
The poem ends with a question of whether the woman should tell the truth or swallow the words she intended to say, denying what happened, and return home.
Half a century has passed since that poem was published. Although laws and systems to protect sexual violence victims have evolved, how much has the world changed for those who must talk about their ‘worst moments’?
The fact that a poem from half a century ago still feels familiar today is a bitter reality in itself. The fear experienced by the woman in the 1973 poem remains present tense in 2026.
