New Evidence In The Cornell 7 Case Completely Blows The Accuser’s Story

A slew of text messages from the Cornell accuser have now been released, and they erase all doubt about what happened: This woman, according to her own contemporaneous statements, consented to deviant sexual activity in a frat house, and after the fact, she firmly believed that no crime had been committed. She even stated that “everyone needs to grow up ’cause sexuality and sex … is changing,” meaning that she saw her behavior as enlightened — as a feminist expression of her own freedom and empowerment. Then, not long afterwards, she began experiencing shame and humiliation when the entire campus found out about what she did. She stated her reputation was “destroyed” and accused a fraternity member of telling everyone what she had done.

The breaking point came when the fraternity disinvited her from their big Halloween party. This was the single most important social event of the semester, and they made it very clear they didn’t want her to attend. And suddenly, hearing this, she decided that she had been assaulted, retroactively withdrawing her consent long after the fact. That was the moment she decided that she would go scorched-earth: the second she was barred from a party at the very fraternity house where she was supposedly abused. Think about that for a second. She was bitterly disappointed that she couldn’t return to the place where she was supposedly subjected to a brutal gang rape. The very notion is farcical, of course. But she understood that, at a Left-wing, female-dominated campus like Cornell, she could immediately regain the moral high ground if she lied about what she had done, even if her story made absolutely no sense. And she was right.

We will go into the text messages and this whole timeline in just a moment. This is a case where facts matter, and we’re going to show every single text message, in context, to demonstrate that this woman is a liar. The evidence is not in dispute. No one can seriously take issue with any of it.

But first it’s important to establish, at the outset, that this case is not about one trashy woman at Cornell, or the male students who also engaged in depraved sex acts and drug use. And it’s not simply about due process and the seemingly nonexistent rights of the accused — although that’s obviously a very big part of the story. This woman is almost certainly going to be paid millions of dollars as a result of the con her lawyers are running, the male students’ lives will be destroyed, and we can expect a host of false allegations in the coming months and years as a result. That’s the expected outcome at this point, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. Everyone knows it.

The more interesting question is why this woman’s story — as fantastical and self-contradictory as it is — has resonated to such a great extent on the Left, with so many women all over the country. Democrat politicians are falling over themselves to make this case into a campaign issue — not because they have any principles, but because they’re responding to the frenzy that their female constituents are participating in. It’s supply and demand. There’s a whole TikTok trend right now where women claim to have been the victims of some horrible crime (many years after it supposedly happened). So why is this happening? Why did the accuser abruptly decide that she had been assaulted, and why are so many women defending her — even after it’s clear that she’s lying?

What we’re seeing here is the failure of the Left’s consent-based morality. They’ve chipped away at all sexual morals for decades. They’ve systematically eliminated every moral rule and standard governing human sexuality. And they have left “consent” as the only remaining principle. But it turns out that sex can be degrading and bad even when it’s consensual. And when that happens — when a woman feels gross and sad and embarrassed after a sexual encounter, even when it’s fully consensual — they have no moral language to even understand or talk about it, except “consent.” They can’t say that sex outside of marriage is bad, or that degrading group sex is bad, or that drunkenness and intoxication are bad. The only moral framework they have — the only line that can be crossed — revolves around “consent.” Therefore, any sex that makes a woman feel bad after the fact must have been ipso facto non-consensual. The concept of sex that was wrong yet consensual is foreign to her. She has been told, and has believed, that “wrong yet consensual” is a category that cannot exist.

This is not meant to be an excuse for the accuser. It’s not an excuse but an explanation about the worldview that feeds into these false rape allegations. If you are a rational person with a more robust and coherent moral framework, then it can be difficult to wrap your mind around this. But the fact is that a lot of people in this country today, especially those on the Left politically, truly believe that the only moral rule that obtains, in any situation (not just sexual), is consent. The only thing that matters morally, ever, is whether everyone involved in a particular act chose to be involved. In reality, however, consent is merely the first step, the first box to check. Obviously, sex must be consensual. But it also must respect the dignity and humanity of the other person involved, and yourself. What happened at Cornell was undignified, inhuman, animalistic. It was consensual. It checked that box. It didn’t check the second, or any other boxes beyond that. But the Left, again, has no moral language to describe bad, gross, undignified consensual sex. And they have no way in their moral philosophy, such as it is, to account for the possibility that a person — especially a woman — might feel really bad about something she actively chose to do. So if she feels bad, it must have been non-consensual.

This is how millions of women have been told to think about sex — they’ve heard this message from the media, from godless schoolteachers, from university administrators, and in many cases, from their own parents. It’s the same perspective that’s shared by Democrat politicians at all levels of government — up to and including the governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, and her staff. All of these people know that the Cornell incident was lurid and repulsive, and that everyone involved — the men and the woman — bears culpability for it. But if they were to condemn the debauchery, they would be undoing generations of work by feminists and sexual revolutionaries, who have dedicated their lives — and a lot of political capital — to the hedonistic maxim that sex is merely one more way for people to enjoy themselves, without the need for any deeper purpose or commitment. They can’t bring themselves to do that, under any circumstances. So instead, we’re treated to this charade on a national scale — to this absurd idea that a woman can retroactively revoke her consent to sexual activity to avoid confronting her shame about what she chose to do.

The charade reached the point of absurdity last week when Hochul appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the case, even though the alleged victim has admitted in writing via text message that no crime occurred. And the special prosecutor is none other than Letitia James, who’s best known for engineering a fake civil case against Donald Trump, which ultimately fell apart. She pre-judged that case — she actually ran for office on a pledge to investigate and convict Donald Trump — and she’s done the exact same thing here. This was a video posted by James just one day before she was appointed as special prosecutor:

BREAKING: Gov. Kathy Hochul signs an executive order appointing Attorney General Letitia James as special prosecutor in the Cornell 7 case. “I’ve lost faith in the Tompkins County DA’s ability to fairly oversee it.”

One day before her appointment, James said:

“My heart goes out to the victim. The survivor. And I stand with her and all individuals who unfortunately have been the victims of sexual assault.”

“We look forward to the outcome and to ensure that justice is served and there’s accountability for the survivor.”

Hochul says the appointment ensures the case will be handled “without conflict or bias.”

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) October 2, 2026

In a sane society, this wouldn’t simply disqualify James from serving as a special prosecutor in this case. This would also lead to her impeachment and removal as attorney general of New York. It would also lead to lawsuits that would bankrupt her for life. She’s repeatedly talking about a “victim” and a “survivor,” and outright stating that this woman was the victim of a “sexual assault” — all of which contradicts what the alleged “victim” herself has stated, as well as all of the available evidence. If anything, by the standards of “consent” set by the Left anyway, some of these men are victims. Several of them never even touched this woman. And at least two of them, based on the woman’s statement, were more intoxicated than she was.

So this would be inexcusable coming from a random online podcaster. But this is coming from the attorney general — who, under the law, isn’t supposed to prosecute any cases where she has an obvious bias. And in this case, she’s been tapped as a special prosecutor, which is a position that (by definition) requires that she doesn’t have any conflict of interest. But she clearly has one. And when she (and the governor) were asked about this, neither one of them had a coherent reply. James didn’t even bother to attempt to answer the question. Watch:

NEW: Attorney General Letitia James refuses to answer questions about her social media post affirming the Cornell 7 rape allegations before she was appointed to investigate them.

REPORTER: “On your Facebook page three days ago, you wrote, ‘What this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable… We stand with you.’ Why did you affirm her allegations as fact without doing your own fact-finding investigation?”

HOCHUL: “I will answer that. I have every confidence in our attorney general to… look at the facts, examine the record, and draw the proper conclusions.”

REPORTER: “Attorney General, please.”

JAMES: “I will not comment on a Facebook post.”

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) October 2, 2026

You hear people like Barack Obama say that if women ran the world, everything would be peaceful and run smoothly. And then you actually look at what happens when women run things, and inevitably, it looks a lot like this. Their top priority, as the highest-ranking officials in New York, is to launch a criminal investigation into a two-year-old booty call at a frat house, where no one was killed or suffered any significant physical injuries, which involved no criminal activity (even according to the alleged victim at the time), and which she didn’t consider an “assault” at all until she got disinvited from a Halloween party — a Halloween party she desperately wanted to attend at the very same place where she later claimed she was raped, and with the very same people who she now says raped her.

You get the sense that, at some level, these women realize they have no case. That’s why the governor is trying to change the law. Here’s what she posted:

Choosing to have a drink is not consent, and it’s never a license for sexual assault. New York law should reflect that. I support closing the voluntary intoxication loophole and will work with the Legislature to get it done.

So apparently she thinks there’s a “loophole” in the law, where if you have a drink of alcohol, you’re consenting to get sexually assaulted. But rest assured, I looked this up, and there is, in fact, no such “loophole.” Under the current law in New York, “choosing to have a drink” is not, in fact, consent. However, it is true that if you have a couple of drinks, then as long as you’re not unconscious or disabled, you’re still allowed to legally consent to sexual activity. And that makes sense. What she’s trying to do is change the law, so that if you have a few drinks, then for all intents and purposes, you can’t consent to anything.

Overnight, of course, this law would classify about 90% of people living in New York as rapists. It would also have a host of other consequences that these women obviously haven’t thought through because the process of thinking through anything requires a level of self-awareness and IQ that exceeds the grasp of Hochul and her henchwoman. According to Hochul’s proposal, the moment you’re “voluntarily intoxicated,” you simply cannot be held responsible for your actions. So if someone gets drunk and then decides to get behind the wheel of a car, how can we hold them responsible for a DUI? If they run over a family of five, how can we charge them with any crime? After all, once you’re “voluntarily intoxicated,” you bear no responsibility for anything, according to Hochul.

It’s totally incoherent. But it tracks with how women are being told to think about sexual assault. Take a look at this extraordinary report from ABC News, for example. This is designed to shock us into thinking that sexual assault is a major problem on campuses — but it manages to highlight another problem entirely.

A state-mandated survey of undergraduate students [at Cornell] revealed that more than one-third of undergraduate women said they had experienced sexual assault during their time at the Ivy League university. According to the school’s 2025 Survey of Sexual Assault and Related Misconduct (SARM), 35% of undergraduate women at the Ithaca, New York, school reported experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or incapacitation since entering Cornell. … “In 50% of cases, respondents reported being conscious but incapacitated by alcohol or drugs during all or part of the incident,” according to the report, with 19% saying they were “passed out or unconscious for some or all the time.”

All this report demonstrates, if anything, is that the crisis of fake sexual assault claims is far, far worse than we imagined. They’re saying that 35% of undergraduate women at Cornell have been sexually assaulted. Thirty-five percent. For comparison, according to a study of refugees at a camp in Mogadishu, 19% of women had “experienced gender-based violence in the preceding 12 months.” And that includes all forms of violence, not just sexual violence. I think this fact puts the Cornell claim in even sharper relief: During the decade-long civil war in Sierra Leone, 13% of households reported sexual violence, and 9% of women. Think about that for a moment. We’re supposed to believe that, at an Ivy League campus in the United States, women are being sexually assaulted at far higher rates than women in third-world refugee camps. We’re supposed to believe they’re being assaulted at triple the rate of women in war-torn African hellholes.

I decided to look into this survey because it gets at the root of the problem, which is that women are trained to recast unpleasant sexual experiences as sexual assault. The first thing I noticed — which the media doesn’t tell you — is that this survey had a response rate of 15%.

A total of 926 students participated in the 2025 survey, resulting in an overall response rate of 15%. … Graduate and professional women had the highest participation rate at approximately 19%, while undergraduate students responded at a lower rate of around 13%.

Already, this debunks the ABC report, and all of the media reporting on this survey. If only 13% of undergraduates reply to your survey, and 35% of the respondents say they were sexually assaulted, that obviously does not mean that 35% of undergraduates say they were assaulted. The people who are going to respond to a survey like this are far more likely to have a complaint. And the sample size therefore is not statistically useful. This is a very big issue, and the media is pretending not to understand it. The survey itself states that these issues “limit confidence in the accuracy of these estimates.” But we’re supposed to take it seriously, with these absurd headlines.

And when you look closer, you realize that the 35% number is fake too. Specifically, the survey notes, “This is the first administration of the survey where respondents were asked specifically about their experience with unwanted choking or strangulation. … The survey asked separately about incidents involving four different tactics: the use or threatened use of physical force; incapacitation due to drugs or alcohol; the use of coercion (i.e., threats of non-physical harm or promises of rewards); and the absence of affirmative consent (i.e., contact that occurred without the student’s knowing, voluntary and ongoing agreement).”

This is how they inflate the “sexual assault” statistics to absurd proportions — with the reference to “incapacitation due to drugs or alcohol.” In context, they’re not talking about women who are so incapacitated that they can’t consent. They’re talking about a very large category of women who voluntarily get drunk and high, and then later regret their actions.

There’s another contributing factor here, which is that, in general, women have much lower alcohol tolerance than men. And when you combine alcohol with the SSRIs that millions of women are taking, the effect is magnified even further. According to a study out of England, very few women who say they were “drugged” had actually been slipped something without their knowledge — they were actually just drunk.

They looked at 1,014 cases of “claimed drug-facilitated sexual assault.” And they found that only 21 cases (or 2%) involved a “sedative or disinhibiting drug” that the woman didn’t admit to taking. That includes three cases where the women were allegedly given ecstasy without their knowledge. But in general, according to the statistics, when women claim they were “drugged,” often they took the drugs themselves.

That’s an important point because The New York Times’ reporting on the Cornell accuser’s behavior in the days following this alleged ‘assault’ in the frat house makes it very clear that she falls in this category.

In October 2024, about a week after a Chi Phi fraternity party at Cornell University, the sophomore who would come to be known as Jane Doe was milling around an online forum about Greek life when she encountered a post that stopped her cold. “Are Chi Phi brothers Crips or Bloods because I hear they have been doing hell Gang Banging?” someone had written. “They do drugs and gang r*ped a sophomore,” another user said. “Report them.” Since the evening that began on Oct. 19, 2024, Jane Doe had recounted the night’s events to her roommates without identifying herself as a rape victim. She had exchanged friendly text messages with men she would later accuse of assault. She had heard uncharitable appraisals of herself from undergraduate gossips. Then she read the words. “That’s the first time I had ever heard the narrative change that I wasn’t a whore and that I was assaulted,” Jane Doe told investigators.

First off, reading this, it sounds a lot like this woman was the one leaving the anonymous messages on the forum. But even if she’s not, the paragraph is still extremely revealing. She’s voluntarily telling investigators that, until she saw someone else claim that she was assaulted, she didn’t think any assault occurred. So someone had to come along about a week after the incident, in her version of events, and plant this idea in her head.

Until that point, in every conversation she had, she affirmed that she was not assaulted.

On Oct. 21, Jane Doe went to her “big sister” — a woman designated as a mentor — at Cornell’s Tri Delta sorority and told her there were rumors circulating that she was a “slut.” The big sister, a junior at Cornell, told investigators that Jane Doe added with a laugh that “unfortunately they are true.’

The same day, she also wrote to one of her alleged attackers in a text message, saying, “At the end of the day none of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really liked being w u and matt.”

So this was her position, which she established in writing, repeatedly, two days after the alleged attack. But things began to change a couple of days later, as word began to spread.

On Oct. 23, Jane Doe texted Mr. Ingalls. “Bro,” she wrote, “everyone knows.” She said the episode was “RUINING my life temporarily” and that her reputation had been destroyed. She said all she could do was “sleep and cry all day.” … In the meantime, Jane Doe had delivered strict instructions to one of her roommates: “If anyone asks about this,” she said, according to the roommate’s testimony, “say it didn’t happen.” The roommate was plainly concerned. Initially, she said, Jane Doe was “kind of recounting it as this sort of crazy thing that she had done.”

As you look through these documents, there are indeed many indications that members of the frat (and everyone else on campus) were mocking this woman. They were shaming her for her behavior, which is appropriate, because her behavior was disgusting. But the turning point came when the fraternity decided, as a matter of official policy, to stop associating with her.

At Chi Phi, the fraternity was preparing for a Halloween party, and Jane Doe was eager to attend. Text messages included in the investigation show Mr. Ingalls assuring Jane Doe that he and other fraternity members wanted her to be there. “chi phi is your house and you are welcome here,” he wrote, relaying the views of the fraternity’s president, who was not among those accused of sexual assault. … “thank u i really appreciate that,” Jane Doe responded. “<3 i’ll bring my cigs tomorrow” But then Jane Doe received a phone call from the fraternity’s president, according to the text messages. She was disinvited from the party. It was for her own good, he said. Jane Doe sent a biting text to Mr. Ingalls. “I knew this was going to happen,” she wrote. “The woman will always get the short end of the stick. Yall aren’t my friends. Yall are covering your asses.” By Nov. 3, Jane Doe appears to have concluded that she was assaulted at the October party. She sent a text to Mr. Newell. “let’s be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual. i was given more key than i can remember,” she said, using a shorthand for ketamine, “and i know that i told u i felt uncomfortable and i didn’t know anyone in the room. … Four days later, on Nov. 7, according to the documents, Jane Doe went to an emergency room in Ithaca and requested a rape kit.

Yes, again, she concluded that she was assaulted only after the fraternity disinvited her from the Halloween Party. That was her “aha moment.” Once she realized that the men had used her and didn’t actually care about her — on top of the fact that everyone on campus knew she was a degenerate — she came to see the supposed “truth” about what actually happened. She told the campus police that she was assaulted. She gave a big statement to campus police, complete with 20 handwritten edits (which, upon a thorough review of the facts, did not actually allege a crime). And two years later, she filed a lawsuit.

If you read between the lines here, it’s possible that the woman’s sorority was so embarrassed by her behavior that they contacted the fraternity and told them to cut her off, to avoid any future incidents. That’s speculation, but it makes sense, considering the campus politics here. This woman was becoming a campus-wide embarrassment for everyone associated with her, and the reputation of her sorority was obviously taking a hit. Her reputation was destroyed. So, in a move that’s very common in Left-wing circles, she decided that she was actually a victim — apparently to save face.

At the same time, based on some of the texts from the members of the fraternity, this woman was indeed treated like garbage, and they took full advantage of her willingness to participate in something like this. And as you read their texts, it becomes clear why the school expelled the man who she came to see, as well as one of the men who texted everyone else in the group chat. Watch:

ABC News has obtained new video inside the Chi Phi fraternity house showing the room where Jane Doe alleges she was gang raped. @AaronKatersky reports on more Snapchat messages shared among fraternity brothers during the alleged gang rape. https://t.co/twrJL79ZML https://t.co/dWqCwPNMqc

— World News Tonight (@ABCWorldNews) October 2, 2026

Notice how they include the text where the guy says “I’m sorry for how things went down,” but they omit her response, which I’ll read one more time.

“At the end of the day none of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really liked being w u and matt.” I guess ABC didn’t find her response relevant for their report, which they broadcast to millions of people.

Regardless, these texts obviously reveal very low moral character, but they don’t prove (or even suggest) that this woman didn’t consent to everything that happened. And they don’t contradict the narrative of events that the men provided to the police. Indeed, there is no principled reason, whatsoever, for the Left to embrace the woman’s narrative, while disregarding the version of events provided by members of the fraternity. This is also from the Times:

When asked about his involvement with Jane Doe, Mr. Lopes said that she initiated their sexual contact and did not ask for his consent — a statement flatly at odds with her account of the night. Mr. Lopes left around 2 a.m., he said, after he said he became “uncomfortable,” and went with three friends to McDonald’s. He said he did not tell them about what had transpired, in part because he was “admittedly a bit embarrassed about what happened,” according to the interview records. Mr. Lee also said that Jane Doe initiated sexual activity without asking. He said he snorted a line of ketamine off her body and she tried to initiate sex. “I kind of took a step back because I didn’t want to engage in anything like sex,” Mr. Lee said. “I thought it wasn’t the time for that.” But later that night, Mr. Lee said he asked for Jane Doe’s consent before engaging in a threesome with her. He recalled telling Jane Doe that “if you’re uncomfortable with any of this or you won’t want to do this, that’s perfectly fine. We can call it a night.” He said Jane Doe replied: “We’re all consenting adults here.”

So this is, by the Left’s definition, “affirmative consent.” They did everything right. They repeatedly asked her for verbal consent, and then after-the-fact, in writing, she confirmed that nothing illegal had occurred. They crossed all the t’s and dotted all the i’s. And yet, here we are. We’re supposed to ignore all of the evidence, and all of the contemporaneous statements from both the men and their accuser — and we’re supposed to focus entirely on the accusations that she made weeks after the fact.

It’s also remarkable that, of the seven men named in this woman’s lawsuit, it appears that several of them never even made any physical contact with her. Two of them apparently went to the room when they saw the group text advertising “free” access to the woman — but they did so, according to these statements, simply to ensure that everything was consensual.

In her interview with the police, Jane Doe said that Mr. Kretzschmar and Mr. Norris were “more like voyeurs than anything,” the records show. Diego Sarabia said he entered the room after 2:30 a.m. and was shocked by the scene before him: Several fraternity brothers were there, and one was standing behind Jane Doe, although Mr. Sarabia refused to say whether the person was naked or dressed. “I was immensely concerned since I’ve never seen anything like this in my four years at the house,” he said, according to the records. But he said his concerns were allayed when “all the people in the room” told him to come in. “I remember the girl in specific saying something along the lines of, ‘This was normal in the medieval times,’” he said.

Yes, according to this statement, she said “this was normal in the medieval times.” This is the cutting edge of progressive thinking at Ivy League universities, apparently. The new progressive pitch is to take us back to “medieval times.” Which, actually, I can get on board with, as long as we bring back medieval punishments. You know what they’d do if you committed perjury? They’d make sure you could never tell another lie ever again. I’ll leave it to your imagination as to how they would achieve that. Never mind that alcohol fueled sex orgies with seven men and one woman were not, in fact, “normal in medieval times.” This Ivy League student has clearly received her education on medieval culture from “Game of Thrones.”

To be clear, she’s named these men in the lawsuit — the two guys who just walked in, after receiving that text, and were “more like voyeurs than anything.” To all appearances, they wanted to make sure that everything was OK, and that everyone was consenting. For that, the identities of these men have been plastered all over the internet. Here’s a video on TikTok with more than 4 million views, where someone calls for them to be executed. Watch:

4.1 million views on TikTok for this moron demanding the public execution of all seven Cornell defendants — despite, of course, having no frickin’ clue what the hell he’s talking about. Jane Doe’s lawyer admits they’re not even alleging that all seven of the men committed rape! https://t.co/7r4Pj3HmQj

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 4, 2026

It’s obviously defamatory. Nothing he said was true. But millions of people believe it. There’s an obvious incentive to produce videos like this, because women demand it. Just like we saw with Lindsay Clancy, Karen Read, and many other cases, millions of women simply do not care about the truth.

Along the same lines, someone named Amy Siskind is calling for Letitia James to round up everyone in the group chat — 57 people — and investigate every one of them.

As unhinged as this is, if you polled Cornell’s student body, probably 100% of them would agree with this. The campus is in a frenzy of performative outrage right now. Watch:

“I don’t know Jane Doe, but I know plenty of women like Jane Doe who do feel unsafe at frat houses.”

Current students at Cornell University spoke about the case of a former Cornell University student who claims she was drugged and gang-raped for multiple hours inside a fraternity house in October 2024, as the case gains national attention.

“Everyone deserves to know exactly what happened in 2024,” Cornell student body president Eeshaan Chaudhuri said. “We want to know exactly what happened that night to the best of the university’s ability.”

— CBS News (@CBSNews) October 4, 2026

What was it the woman said? “It should not be, protect your daughter, it should be educate your son.” This is something leftists love to do. They come up with these dumb little sayings in lieu of saying anything that actually makes sense. This is a case where a woman made the decision to get high and drunk and walk into a frat house, where she consented to sexual activity with multiple men who were so intoxicated that they were vomiting, and it’s the men who need to be educated in this scenario? And meanwhile we’re told that the women don’t “feel safe” — as if they’re being forced to attend orgies at frat houses, and then to text everyone how much they can’t wait to go back to the frat house. Women are thrilled to return to their alleged rape dungeons, and we’re supposed to pretend that they don’t feel “safe”?

As for the student body president and his demand for a thorough investigation into what exactly happened — well, that’s already been done. We have contemporaneous text messages and written statements documenting the event and its aftermath. There’s clear evidence — from the accuser herself — that several of the men were intoxicated even more than she was. In fact, just this morning, ABC News published a phone recording between the accuser and one of the accused. In the conversation, three weeks after the incident, the man claims that the accuser told the guys she was sober when she came to the party. There are a few other important details here. Listen:

Matthew Ingalls alleges that Lucy Craig raped him as he was too intoxicated to consent.

Follow: @AFpost https://t.co/amZYmvQbnS

— AF Post (@AFpost) October 5, 2026

Well, yes, again, by the very same standards that would make her a victim in a sexual encounter she willfully participated in, at least some of these men would also be victims because they, too, were inebriated. There’s no escaping this point. She willfully engaged in all of this activity. At no point did they prevent her from leaving or use any physical force or threats of any kind, and her original 2024 statement to police didn’t even claim that they did. The whole case rests on the fact that she was really drunk at the time. But so were they. Not to mention, she claims she was 10 shots deep, so drunk that she couldn’t help but have an orgy, and yet she also claims her memory of the incident is more reliable than the men’s — some of whom, she says, were more sober than she was. None of this makes any sense. And all we’re left with is the confused and confusing picture of a disgusting, gross, debauched sexual act willingly committed by a number of people, a woman and several men, who all now obviously regret having played any part in it. That’s unfortunate for all involved. But it’s not rape.

None of this is stopping any of the authority figures surrounding this case from convicting the men right out of the gate. This is the president of Cornell University in one of the most disgraceful videos we’ve seen from a college campus. Watch:

He’s flat-out accusing the men of “sexual assault” and prejudging their guilt. This university needs to be sued immediately, along with the student newspaper (which published an editorial that essentially accused all seven men of being rapists, by name).

If this president actually had some integrity — if he deserved the job he has — he would’ve delivered a very different statement. There’s one important takeaway from this Cornell case, and every case like it. One lesson — but the lesson that the Left refuses to learn. The lesson is that feminism, and the sexual revolution, have utterly and completely failed. Actually, it’s funny that the accuser brought up what’s allegedly “normal in medieval times.” Because, contrary to her HBO education in European history, boozy sex orgies were not normal, but I’ll tell you what was normal — not just in medieval times, but at any and all points in the history of Western civilization up until 14 seconds ago: strict sex segregation in schools and most other institutions. Clear rules governing how the sexes relate, connect, and court each other. Codes of chivalry. The patriarchy. Every Western society for centuries had versions of these rules. We did away with them. As the situation at Cornell clearly demonstrates, society is not functioning better as a result. The education system has not improved. Male-female relations have not improved. Our politics have not improved. Nothing has improved. People aren’t happier, in general. There’s just a lot of chaos and moral confusion.

If Cornell’s president had delivered that speech, he would’ve lost his job. The mob would’ve destroyed his house, someone would probably come forward to accuse him of sexual assault, and they’d throw him in prison. But at least he’d have accomplished something that no one at a major university seems capable of doing anymore, which is to tell women — who make up the majority of Cornell’s student body, and the majority of every major campus in this country — that they should be held accountable for their own actions. And if women can’t function in our society without guardrails, which they’re now admitting, then it’s time to bring those guardrails back.

In just the past few months, we’ve been told that women can’t be held responsible for systematically killing their own children. They can’t be held responsible for butchering their friends and carving pentagrams into their bodies. And now they can’t be held responsible for getting drunk and voluntarily participating in group sex at frat houses. Put it all together, and it sounds like, after a century of feminist victories — both political and cultural — they no longer want the responsibilities and the privileges of full citizenship. They’re saying they simply cannot take ownership of their own actions, and that they need adult supervision at all times. And what they don’t seem to realize is that — outside of their sheltered Ivy League campuses and the newsrooms on the East Coast — that message is being received, loud and clear.