I was first made aware of the sudden re-emergence of a 2024 gang rape allegation as a media and social media obsession when a friend who was raped began posting furiously about the story on Facebook. A knee-jerk progressive, she is certain that there was a cover-up at Cornell and that the alleged victim is telling the truth, because all women must be believed.
I don’t know what really happened at the Chi Phi fraternity on a fateful October night in 2024, and neither do you, and neither does my friend. Anyone who presumes they do know based on a partisan or ideological bias has elected to board the newly launched Cornell Frat Rape Ethics Train Wreck in the dining car. Shame on them.
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” is having a bad year—look at the sudden resurgence of anti-Semitism here—and fraternity rape hysteria should be viewed with particular skepticism. The infamous Duke Lacrosse case occurred in 2006 and my commentary was lost when the old Ethics Scoreboard left the building, but it is still a tag on Ethics Alarms, with this the most directly relevant post. The imaginary gang rape that disgraced Rolling Stone was extensively covered here, however, as you can see. In 2014, “Rolling Stone” reporter Sabrina Erdly wrote a feature about an imaginary co-ed named “Jackie” being gang raped at a University of Virginia fraternity party. UVA president Teresa A. Sullivan, a good little feminist, suspended all fraternities with no actual evidence of wrongdoing. But you know, men are pigs, women are always the victims, and one must always believe all women, even imaginary ones (there was no “Jackie”) when they cry “Rape!”
Ethics Alarms has analyzed several instances of false rape claims as well as the cynical #MeToo fad, which, like the Cornell episode was weaponized by the Left for political gain. The hysteria got many sexual predators their just desserts, and also amassed many unjustly maligned male victims. I don’t know what happened at Cornell, but I do know that the case has already been co-opted by Democrats to inflame a core constituency, angry white progressive women convinced that the U.S. is an oppressive patriarchy that would have the culture emulating “A Handmaiden’s Tale” if it had its way. There’s an election approaching, after all. Hence the emergence of a mother who murdered her three children as the object of sympathy.
Here are what I consider salient facts based on what we do know:
I think this is the Lacrosse rape case post you referenced: https://web.archive.org/web/20101122122017/http://ethicsscoreboard.com/list/nifong.html
Here is a list of Ethics Scoreboard posts saved in the Internet Archive: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQTsiJXscck07Ii7qw-oR9YKSzLhWYUOYcMk57lXye63CdzGN4WgIiHzn9c9eSpPCWxNXZXeSPopfHP/pubhtml
Thank you so much, Fred! I liked that post. I wish I knew how to find those things….
“For some reason that fact seems to be glossed over in many of the accounts.”
Despite the fact that she, and her attorney, conceded the fact, there are women who still believe Lindsay Clancey’s husband murdered the kids and tried to frame her.
They’re immune to the concept of “accountability”.
Here’s a relevant clip (not recent) of one of our greatest “hard truth tellers”, Camille Paglia, with whom I know you’re aware: https://x.com/rawdogmillionar/status/2105292799944052845
Side note: I discovered Camille Pagila while in college in the early 90s (when the “date rape” ball was set in motion) and wrote an approving column about her in the school paper. For that I was branded a “fascist”, “sexist”, and “rape apologist” by people who used to enjoy my columns. For two weeks the paper published furious rebuttals to my apostasy. Didn’t care (kind of liked it, honestly), and never looked back.
I’ve always loved her, and this clip is a great example why.
Another great clip. Especially love her exasperated growl around 30 seconds in: https://x.com/wokal_distance/status/1802967556954968483
I see plenty of material at YouTube from defense attorneys about false rape allegations. Normally there is a presumption of innocence in a criminal trial, where the prosecutor has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. In a rape trial all the prosecutor needs to bring charges and successfully prosecute the case are the statements of the alleged victim; no additional technical evidence or witnesses are needed. This means that for the defendant staying silent (e.g. by invoking the Fifth Amendment) is not a recommended strategy; the defendant has to do a lot of effort to offer proof that the accusations are false, e.g. by impeaching the accuser. There are limitations on the strategy of the defense, e.g. rape shield laws. So the deck is stacked against the defendants in a rape trial case.
Another observation is that women in many states face little legal consequences for making accusations that are later to be proven false.
These false accusations are often made because the accuser wants to duck moral responsibility for her actions, e.g. she does not want to be slut-shamed or have her relationship with her boyfriend ended. The strategy is to obtain a get-out-of-jail card by painting herself as the victim and all males involved as perpetrators. Intoxication (voluntary or not) is used as an argument that there was no real freely given consent. My understanding is that DA Van Houten in Tompkins County did not want to pursue charges due to her voluntary drunkenness during the events at the frat house.
I am not going to comment on the behavior of the males who participated in the gang bang, except that they acted in a foolish way. I prefer to leave it up to their parents to explain how poor their judgment is.
Feminist groups and anti-rape activists dismiss false rape allegations by saying only 2% of rape allegations are false.
Now THERE’s an imaginary statistic if there ever was one.
That 2% claim does not come from scientific research, but from a book “Against Our Will” from “Susan Brownmiller” in the 1970s which is a feminist book using comments and opinions to arrive at this number, according to the source below.
Police statistics will not count the case below as false reporting but as blackmail. False allegations are often made in divorce court to gain leverage in custody disputes.
I took a few minutes to read the Wikipedia account of this event. If it is accurate at all, there are so many contradictory statements from participants and witnesses and so little evidence, I understand why criminal charges were not pursued. It was nearly 3 weeks after the fact that the young woman sought a rape kit and provided testimony to the police department.
Certainly there is a lot of abhorrent behavior on display here. No heroes, maybe a villain or two, but most certainly a lot of stupidity and moral bankruptcy.
When these stories arise I am curious about the way drunkenness is weaponized against the defendants, yet they are not allowed its use as a defense. If she is too drunk to truly assent to sexual behavior, then she is too drunk to drive and if she got behind the wheel of a car we would hold her criminally responsible for whatever mayhem ensues. But we don’t hold her accountable for drunkenly assenting to sex? The young men are almost always drinking, their judgement is impaired so perhaps they believe there is consent, perhaps they don’t recognize that the young woman is drunk … they are held accountable for drunken behavior while she is not.
I am not defending rape. The story that has unfolded at Cornell is awful. Its ideological, social and moral implications are troublesome, and as is usual, there are those using this story to advance an agenda.
I am probably in Camille Paglia’s camp that the women’s movement demanded rights, freedoms and opportunities, but is willing to play the victim card when it is convenient. At the risk of victim shaming and blaming, this young woman appears to have played a role in at least some of the events that set the ball rolling, but that does not mean all the players were innocent. What a mess.
The one thing I read that happened was that one of the original two guys involved had sent out the group chat inviting others to join.
The notion of driving drunk was a good one, and if she were “guilty” of drunk driving and punished, than all the rest should be too.
It absolutely crushes me that men could treat another human being this way, drunk or not – given the oppressive patriarchal view that men should be protectors of women (I know, shame on me for such archaic thinking).
The harsh realization that she was a complete moron is also crushing.
Sad….
It has been a few decades since “Sexual Utopia in Power” by F. Roger Devlin came out. The essay brings clarity to how “sex with regrets” can be recast after the fact as “date rape” by a naive woman who doesn’t easily take responsibility for her choices and is intensely dissatisfied with how things worked out.
Since I read piecemeal like Dr. Samuel Johnson I may have never read the whole thing. If you can get to the bottom of p. 17 of the PDF linked before, you get his basic point.
https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v6n2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf
I read a lot of weird stuff. Thanks for letting me share.
charles w abbott
rochester NY
P.S.: The parents of teenage boys will like the essay.