I am going to tiptoe around my latest essay and hope to avoid the huge controversy surrounding it. When I mention that it is a commentary concerning the ‘Cornell Seven’ case, currently being prosecuted on Tik Toc, you will see what I mean. At this time my view is, strangely, somewhat in line with that of Sunny Hostin of The View fame. She warned against pre judging the case as it is still evolving. We can see a hurricane of judgements on the net, like AOC and Jameela Jamil, who have pronounced the seven guilty before bothering to read the facts that are currently in the public domain. I am not going to review the material available to the public to date, as it is changing by the minute. However, there are some interesting issues that have arisen, even at this early stage.
There is huge public interest in this case and it seems that every commentator, influencer, celebrity, politician and person with a keyboard has reached a verdict, even though there have been no charges laid against the seven male students. The vast majority seemed to be filled with hatred and venom directed against the seven, their families and anyone who raises the question about due process. For those who parade the First Amendment as the crowning glory of the Constitution, they might acknowledge that there are real consequences to allowing this volume of prejudicial misinformation to be unchallenged. One partial, solution may be to copy the Irish Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 which gives anonymity to both parties until the case is decided.
The other thing Sunny referred to was, the Law in this case. A civil complaint was filed in New York State Supreme Court, which has an interesting take on agency and intoxication that AOC and Jameela might not be aware of. A very brief history recalls that after the Cornell hearings, the Tompkins County District Attorney, Matthew Van Houten declined to proceed with criminal charges. Sunny, who was a state prosecutor, agreed that with the information available to Van Houten, at the time, that she wouldn’t have proceeded either. NY Post 29/09/26 With the filing and subsequent public outpouring, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul appointed the notorious New York Attorney General Letitia James as a special prosecutor. Not taking Sunny Hostin’s view that you should wait until all the evidence is available, James wrote that “what this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable”, pledging to stand by “survivors”. BBC 06/10/26. One defence lawyer has already demanded that James recuse herself. Good luck on that one. The other point that Sunny Hostin made, was the question of consent. I understand that this will be a key point in the forthcoming trial but she clarified one aspect in relation to the law when she said, “Under New York law, voluntary intoxication or drug use that merely impairs judgment does not legally constitute an inability to consent to sexual activity.” NY Post 29/09/26. You can see how this would play if an assailant claimed that he was under the influence of drink and drugs and therefore could not be prosecuted because he was temporally not of a sound mind.
The other thing that struck me was the continuous references to the 1 in 4 campus sexual assault statistic. I am not a statistician but I am very suspicious of this sort of unsourced number being bandied about by politicians, pundits and the NYT. I did some research into a similar, much quoted claim that ‘97% of all scientists agree that climate change is real.’ The question that immediately came to mind was, where was the other 3%? Giving a miniscule allowance for flat earthers, surely 99.99% of scientists agree that the climate has changed since the earth was molten rock, through the Ice Age and to the present day. You can read my essay on the following link (97% of Scientists agree) and I don’t intend to drill down any further with the climate change stat, other than to point out the similarities with the rape and sexual assault number. The first link is that both numbers were repeatedly used by President Obama, VP Biden and others to promote a political cause. PBS 15/12/14. I pointed out in my essay on climate, that President Obama truncated the full quote by cutting off the second part of the findings, that made sense of the first part. However, in each case the numbers fit comfortably on a students protest placard.
There are a number of problems in trying to get an accurate statistic of sexual assault on US college campuses, including those mentioned above. One source would be government and state records but even these are subject to political influence. In the 2024 Presidential election the FBI was forced to adjust the overall crime figures from a reported -2% decrease to an actual 4% increase y-on-y. There is also the understandable reluctance of victims not wanting to relive their horrifying experience in court. Equally as difficult, is the level of proof a criminal prosecution requires in a crime where, in a large number of cases, the issue of consent is disputed. This is probably why the Tompkins County District Attorney, Matthew Van Houten didn’t bring a criminal case to court originally. It is also why a civil action has been brought, with the lower burden of proof required. As a result of these impediments, we are left with a multitude of polls and surveys. If we take a step back to the origin of the ‘one in four’ or, ‘one in five’ stat, Jake New of PBS ascribes it to the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault Study. Brian D. Earp highlighted the AAU Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct (2015) report as a contributory source and Heather Mac Donald cites Ms. magazine as being the first to publish the stat in 1987. All of these studies attract some or, all of the criticisms levied at campus assault stats. So what are the most common criticisms of these surveys? Sample size and selection, methodology, replicability and conclusions supported by evidence. For example, the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault Study was criticised for the small sample size of it’s online survey but also because there was a self selection bias in that only those interested in the subject of the survey, completed it. Under methodology, Heather MacDonald tells the story of Mary Koss who was asked to construct a survey that explained why previous surveys had reported a low level of rape. Koss designed a survey where she interpreted the respondents answers by classifying various experiences as amounting to rape. Her interpreted numbers were reported, even though 73% of respondents said they had not been raped. City Journal 2008 The very definition of rape and sexual assault varies from State to State and survey to survey. This is especially relevant when the definition of sexual assault encompasses violent physical assault to unwanted advances. The use of the ‘One in Four’ or ‘Five’ statistic with its inherent weakness’s leaves it open to being binned in the ‘just another trick to disguise an ideological cause with bad science’ receptacle.
So where does that leave us? If we look at the following headlines, what do they have in common. I will give you a clue. They all omit one word.
Law Commentary Cornell 7 Rape Case Escalates as Judge Orders Response to Bid to Remove Letitia James
New York Post Hochul appoints AG Letitia James to take over ‘Cornell 7’ gang rape probe after losing faith in upstate DA’s investigation
BBC What we know about Cornell University frat house rape investigation
For those of us in the Sunny Hostin corner (the first and last time, I promise) the missing word is ALLEGED. For those of us who believe in due process and innocent until proved guilty, the huge wash of emotional, vitriolic, self-righteous, hypocritical and ideological commentary, in this case, is depressing. I do not condone or defend the activities of either party but as evidenced by the headlines above, in most cases, there is no pretense at being even handed. To add to the print media and the internet influencers clamour, we now have a Netflix “documentary” to add to the noise. I do not call for a news blackout or, a ban on commentary but can we at least recognise that we have only heard one side of the argument? Given the facts in the public domain there are many issues that need to be resolved and this is best done in a controlled environment with rules that protect both parties.
There’s always such a rush to judgment. It makes a fair trial hard to get.— John Grisham
Sources
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_grisham_432598
Brandon Drenon, 06/10/26, BBC, Lawyer for one of Cornell Seven calls for special prosecutor to be removed over previous comments, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9p8gxygvpg6o
Alex Oliveira, 29/09/26, The New York Post, ‘The View’ host Sunny Hostin backs DA’s 2024 decision not to charge ‘Cornell 7’ accused of gang rape: ‘No way’, https://nypost.com/2026/09/29/us-news/sunny-hostin-backs-das-2024-decision-not-to-charge-cornell-7-accused-of-gang-rape-no-way/
Jake New, 15/12/14, PBS, What does the oft-cited ‘1 in 5’ campus sexual assault stat really mean? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/critics-advocates-alike-doubt-oft-cited-1-5-campus-sexual-assault
heather-mac-donald, 2008, City Journal, The Campus Rape Myth, https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-campus-rape-myth
https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-evidence-in-the-cornell-7-case-completely-blows-the-accusers-story?row=0&elementPosition=23&rowType=Web+Search
Brian D. Earp, 29/09/25, 1 in 4 women: How the latest sexual assault statistics were turned into click bait by the New York Times, https://blog.uehiro.ox.ac.uk/tag/1-in-4/