In October 2024, a young woman at Cornell University says she was drugged and gang-raped at a Chi Phi fraternity house by seven men. Campus police investigated. The Tompkins County, New York, district attorney declined to bring charges. The university’s own Title IX process then found two of the men responsible and expelled them. Then the story broke, the governor lost faith in the DA, and the attorney general took over as special prosecutor.
I wish to highlight the spiritual and cultural collapse that made the assault possible and what biblical law mandates.
The legal facts are stark. The woman gave a two-day interview to campus police as an investigator typed her account, producing a roughly 120-page transcript. In it she said, “I can say with 100 percent confidence I was raped.” She described being completely incapacitated, being hit and hiding under covers because men blocked the exit.
The investigator then condensed that transcript into a six-page voluntary statement, which she signed after making about 20 handwritten corrections. The word “rape” does not appear in it. The DA’s office says it received only that statement and a Snapchat screenshot – not the transcript, not the interviews with the accused, not the testimony of 20 other witnesses. Based on what it had, it declined to charge.
The DA’s defense is that “I can say with 100 percent confidence I was raped” is a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation. Perhaps. But the statement itself described a woman who felt she was the victim of a crime, who was physically struck, who could not leave. Under these facts the prosecutor clearly failed in his job.
Now set that against the biblical model. Deuteronomy 22:23-27 treats a woman who could not cry out and be rescued as a victim of violence, not as a co-offender, because the law refuses to infer consent from silence when help was impossible. The men in that room knew she was drugged. Under biblical law, their knowledge is the crime. Leviticus 19:16 commands, “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.” The men who watched, who participated without stopping, who sent the Snapchat invite recruiting others – they share guilt with the ones who acted. And Ezekiel 34 condemns shepherds who feed themselves while the flock is scattered. The DA’s office and Cornell both held the full record and chose not to act on it.
Culturally, we’re primed for a political showdown over this case due to the infamous Duke lacrosse matter in 2006. That showcased one lesson: Institutions rush to judgment and allow false accusations to destroy innocent men. The Cornell case teaches the opposite lesson: Institutions can also refuse to see what is in front of them and throw raped women to the lions. The polarization of our culture means each side only sees the other side’s failures. The Right sees Duke as proof that women lie about men for monetary or political gain. The Left see sees Cornell as proof of a patriarchy protecting men from the consequences of their predation. Many on both sides decline to demand (or even accept) a standard of objective truth for fear of losing the argument.
The appointment of Letitia James as special prosecutor was a huge mistake. James is a notorious partisan skilled in the abuse of power for political gain and her appointment by hard-left Gov. Kathy Hochul carries an implicit foregone conclusion. Whatever she finds will be read as a political verdict, not a legal one, which further undermines public trust in a legal process already dragging the gutter.
The deeper problem here is the sexual revolution. The 1960s dismantled the old framework – chastity, courtship, marriage as the container for sex – and replaced it with consent as the only moral line. That framework has a real strength: It centers the victim’s agency. But it has a fatal weakness: It treats sex as a neutral act that only becomes wrong when consent is absent. When that moment is blurred by drugs, alcohol, or group pressure the only fallback is “he said/she said” in all of its political permutations.
Under the biblical model we once operated by, a woman’s sexual submission and partnership was the great prize a man sought to win as a reward for being a good man – one who could protect and keep a good wife. Having lost that, we now have a standard with no moral restrictions beyond the consent of two parties, and we have seen an unraveling of virtually every aspect of our society, even things that don’t seem related to sexuality. That is the great tragedy this case exposes.
The campus culture that followed is the predictable result: Hookup culture, co-ed binge drinking and now internet porn that normalizes the most extreme acts as routine. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is the mainstream, and it has been for two generations. The Cornell case is not an anomaly. It is what happens when a culture treats casual sex as harmless recreation and then acts shocked when it turns predatory.
The Snapchat screenshot the DA’s office did receive is the defining proof of guilt. A man sent a message inviting other men to a room where a heavily drugged woman lay. That is what porn culture legitimizes: highly deviant sex as a spectacle to be shared and consumed, with no memory of a time when it was a socially and legally protected mutually nurturing covenant between one man and one woman. The screenshot was not an outlier. It was our barbarian culture speaking in its own voice.
Jane Doe told investigators, “I felt like bait. I felt like lions around me.” She described the ketamine’s effect as “lights are on, but nobody’s home.” The lion image captures not just the conduct that night but the culture that facilitated it.
The sexual revolution did not liberate our society. It stripped it of moral safeguards and made it vulnerable to Satanic abuse – like a drunk woman on Ketamine in a frat house of porn lovers.
P.S. In the several days since I wrote this piece, news stories have revealed text messages from before filing her complaint in which Jane Doe appears to confess to limited consent to some of the acts of the night in question while also reiterating her extreme intoxication at the time. While that evidence may affect the degree of criminal exposure of some of the defendants, it does not change the larger analysis of my article.
Continue reading...
[ H/T WorldNetDaily ]
