Cornell 7 frat student who sent initial text was expelled for assaulting Jane Doe ‘without her consent,’ her lawyer says
A lawyer for Jane Doe says Cornell expelled Jonathan Newell after a Title IX hearing found he began intercourse without her consent and publicised her vulnerability. The decision matters because it is a university finding in a case where prosecutors declined to bring criminal charges; it does not establish criminal guilt.
Doe’s civil lawsuit alleges that seven Chi Phi fraternity members drugged and sexually assaulted her after a party in October 2024. Her lawyer says Newell’s Snapchat post invited further abuse and argues that messages in which Doe later played down the encounter do not show it was consensual. Cornell also expelled Matthew Ingalls, while all seven men deny the allegations and those who acknowledge sexual activity say it was consensual; New York has appointed the state attorney general to investigate.
- Cornell expelled Newell after a Title IX hearing.
- Doe alleges seven fraternity members assaulted her in 2024.
- The accused deny the allegations; prosecutors brought no charges.
New here? Start with this
In October 2024, a woman known as Jane Doe alleged she was drugged and sexually assaulted by seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity at Cornell University following a party. The case has since proceeded through multiple separate legal and institutional processes.
Cornell University has its own disciplinary process for sexual misconduct allegations on campus, which operates separately from the criminal justice system. The university has found two students guilty of misconduct and expelled them, though New York prosecutors declined to bring criminal charges against any of the seven men. Doe has also filed a separate civil lawsuit seeking monetary damages.
The case is significant because it illustrates how different systems can evaluate the same allegations and reach different conclusions. It also raises broader questions about campus sexual assault, institutional accountability, and the role of evidence such as social media posts. The accused students deny the allegations or assert that any sexual activity was consensual.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Universities have a responsibility to maintain safe environments and take sexual assault allegations seriously. The Title IX hearing found evidence that intercourse began without consent, a concern heightened by allegations of drugging which impairs capacity to consent. The fact that Jane Doe later downplayed the encounter is consistent with common trauma responses and does not undermine the seriousness of what occurred. Jonathan Newell's decision to publicise her vulnerability through social media compounds the harm and demonstrates a disregard for her wellbeing.
The case against
This case warrants scrutiny because prosecutors, who apply a higher evidentiary standard, declined to bring criminal charges, suggesting the evidence may not establish wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt. When both parties acknowledge sexual activity but contest consent, and the accuser subsequently sent messages characterising the encounter differently, universities must exercise extreme caution before expelling students based on contested facts. Title IX proceedings operate under a lower burden of proof than criminal trials, raising questions about whether expulsion—a life-altering sanction—is proportionate when evidence is genuinely disputed and alternative explanations exist for the accuser's communications.