Cornell student cited intoxication in call over sexual assault allegations
Jane Doe alleges that Matthew Ingalls and other Chi Phi fraternity members sexually assaulted her at Cornell’s fraternity house in October 2024. Records cited in a report include a call in which Ingalls said he was too intoxicated to consent and suggested Doe may have assaulted him; the allegations are also the subject of a civil lawsuit.
In the call, Ingalls recalled asking Doe about a threesome and said she appeared sober, while Doe said she had been drinking heavily and remembered multiple men in the room. Her lawsuit alleges that seven men participated, that Ingalls messaged the fraternity group during the incident, and that she lost consciousness around 5.45am. Cornell suspended the fraternity and seven students; the article says Ingalls and one other student were expelled.
- Doe alleges seven men assaulted her at a Cornell fraternity house.
- Ingalls said he was too intoxicated to consent, records reportedly show.
- Cornell suspended seven students and the fraternity.
New here? Start with this
Jane Doe has alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Matthew Ingalls and other members of Cornell University's Chi Phi fraternity at their house in October 2024. The incident has led to both civil legal action and university disciplinary proceedings.
Doe says she was drinking heavily and lost consciousness, with multiple men present. Ingalls disputes her account, stating he was too intoxicated to provide consent whilst noting that Doe appeared sober and that he had asked about a threesome.
Cornell University has responded to the allegations with institutional action. The Chi Phi fraternity was suspended, seven individual students were suspended, and two students including Ingalls were expelled. The allegation is also being pursued through civil litigation.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Ms Doe's loss of consciousness and heavy intoxication render consent impossible, regardless of Mr Ingalls' own intoxication level; his intoxication instead underscores collective judgment loss among multiple men. The apparent coordination evidenced by his messaging the fraternity during the incident suggests systematic rather than spontaneous conduct. Where one party cannot remember or respond, responsibility falls on those capable of decision-making.
The case against
The fundamentally disputed facts—particularly each party's actual sobriety and capacity that night—introduce reasonable doubt. Mr Ingalls' own claim of severe intoxication, combined with his account that Ms Doe appeared sober (directly contradicting her recollection), means both accounts cannot be simultaneously reliable given intoxication's effects on memory and perception. The serious consequences of expulsion warrant careful legal scrutiny of these contested claims rather than rapid institutional judgment, particularly given concerns about university disciplinary procedures lacking rigorous due-process protections.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Expelled ‘Cornell 7’ frat bro Matthew Ingalls claimed he was too drunk to attack Jane Doe and suggested she was the one who assaulted him, report says”.