Cornell expelled just two of 16 students its own investigators had found responsible for recent sexual assaults, with one asked to write a ‘reflection paper’ as punishment
Cornell University expelled two of 16 students found responsible for sexual assault in Title IX investigations between mid-2020 and mid-2024. The figures have renewed criticism of the university’s disciplinary response and raised questions about how it holds students accountable.
The university reviewed 51 formal complaints during that period. Six students received reprimands and seven faced other measures, including probation, no-contact orders or directed study; in some withdrawn cases, sanctions included writing a reflection paper or apology letter. Former student Kacey Lee said a student found responsible for assaulting her received a reflection paper among the sanctions, leaving her feeling betrayed. Cornell has not published figures for the academic year beginning in autumn 2024, and the article says it is unclear how many cases also led to criminal investigations.
- Cornell found 16 students responsible in sexual assault cases.
- Two were expelled between mid-2020 and mid-2024.
- Some sanctions included probation, directed study or reflection papers.
New here? Start with this
Title IX is a US law that prohibits sex discrimination in education, including sexual harassment and sexual assault. Colleges such as Cornell investigate formal complaints under their own procedures and can impose disciplinary measures on students found responsible.
Cornell is a private university in New York State. Its student discipline process is separate from the criminal justice system, so a university finding does not by itself establish whether there was a criminal investigation or prosecution.
The measures colleges impose can range from restrictions or probation to expulsion. How those decisions are made matters to students who report assaults, students accused of them and wider debates about campus safety and fair process.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Cornell’s approach could argue that disciplinary outcomes should reflect the evidence and circumstances in each case, and that a university process must distinguish among differing levels of responsibility rather than impose expulsion automatically. Measures such as probation, no-contact orders or directed study may be intended to protect students and address misconduct while allowing proportionate sanctions where the university concludes expulsion is not warranted.
The case against
Critics could argue that expelling only two of 16 students found responsible for sexual assault, with some cases resulting in measures such as a reflection paper, suggests sanctions may not match the seriousness of the harm. They may say that stronger, more consistent accountability is needed to support survivors’ trust in the process and reassure the campus community that safety is taken seriously.