From Ithaca to Makhanda: what Cornell’s case reveals about universities and sexual violence

Universities across continents are grappling with how they respond to allegations of sexual violence. Recent headlines from Cornell University where court documents record a complaint by a woman identified as Jane Doe alleging that seven fraternity members drugged and sexually assaulted her at the Chi Phi fraternity house in October 2024 echo familiar patterns South African students and survivors have been raising for years.

How institutional inquiry often becomes scrutiny of the survivor

Across the cases, a common pattern emerges: investigative attention frequently falls on the complainant’s behaviour. Questions about drinking, memory, resistance, what was said and how the survivor behaved afterwards can dominate the fact-finding process, sometimes sidelining scrutiny of the accused person’s basis for believing consent existed. The Cornell allegations which are contested and have not resulted in criminal convictions are situated in an institutional context that South African activists and students have long criticised.

Lessons from Makhanda: the #RUReferenceList

Ten years earlier at Rhodes University in Makhanda, students published a list called the “#RUReferenceList” in April 2016 containing names of current and former students they accused of sexual violence. The list deliberately invoked the university’s academic rules on referencing and plagiarism to make a point: students argued the university seemed better equipped to detect and punish plagiarism than to protect survivors of sexual violence. The protests sparked controversy, legal concerns and police involvement, but the underlying institutional critique persisted that formal procedures were not delivering the safety or accountability survivors sought.

Shifting legal thinking on consent

South African courts have started to confront the way investigations focus on victims’ responses. In Cola v S (2025) the Western Cape High Court criticised the traditional approach to sexual offences, observing that the method of inquiry “unfairly shifts the focus to the conduct of the victim who must prove that she did not consent, rather than the other way round.” That critique points to the need for changing how consent is analysed in both criminal and institutional processes.

From subjective belief to reasonable steps

The Pretoria High Court has also examined provisions that allowed an accused person to rely on a subjective belief in consent without demonstrating reasonable steps taken to establish consent. The shift urged by these rulings reframes questions from “How do we know she did not consent?” to “What made you believe she did?” This reframing is particularly relevant on campuses where alcohol, power imbalances, social pressure and incapacitation can complicate encounters.

Why university responses matter

Universities are not only educational spaces; they are employers, brand custodians, disciplinary authorities and communities. Institutional responses to allegations therefore carry reputational considerations as well as student safety responsibilities. Policies and complaint mechanisms can exist in name while survivors experience lengthy procedures, repeated interviews and intense scrutiny conditions that can leave formal processes feeling inaccessible or ineffective.

Demanding better justice

The comparisons between Ithaca and Makhanda do not collapse distinct legal systems or case facts, and allegations must be adjudicated fairly. But the recurring problem is institutional: when survivors feel required to demonstrate how clearly they did not consent, justice is not being served. The lesson argued here is a call for universities to prioritise survivor-centred processes and to examine how institutional practices, biases and self-interest shape outcomes.

Change, the piece suggests, must begin with rigorous institutional critique and a commitment to centring survivor voices and accountability.