Cornell expelled two men and suspended three over fraternity assault allegations
Cornell University has released disciplinary records following gang rape allegations against seven Chi Phi fraternity members in October 2024. The alleged victim, identified as Jane Doe, claimed the men drugged and assaulted her, but prosecutors declined to press criminal charges due to insufficient evidence. A university disciplinary panel concluded that only two of the seven—Matthew Ingalls and Jonathan Newell—were responsible for sexual assault, expelling them from the institution. This outcome has prompted criticism from Jane Doe's lawyer, who argues the punishments do not reflect the severity of the allegations.
The remaining five accused members received lighter punishments: Winston Lee was suspended for two years with probation, Gillio Lopes for three semesters with two years of probation, and Diego Sarabia was barred from campus for three years (having already graduated). Two others, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar, faced disciplinary measures but were not found responsible for sexual assault. Jane Doe's lawyer has argued that most of the accused will graduate with their Cornell degrees intact, in contrast to the alleged victim's situation.
- Two Cornell fraternity members expelled for sexual assault; five others received lighter punishments
- Prosecutors declined criminal charges; disciplinary panel found not all seven were responsible
- Victim's lawyer says penalties don't reflect severity of allegations
New here? Start with this
In October 2024, a woman alleged that seven members of Cornell University's Chi Phi fraternity had sexually assaulted her, claiming they had drugged her. Prosecutors investigated the allegations but concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges, leading Cornell to conduct its own disciplinary process.
The university's disciplinary panel found that two of the accused men—Matthew Ingalls and Jonathan Newell—were responsible for sexual assault, resulting in their expulsion. The other five received varying punishments, including suspensions, probation, and barring from campus, with two found not responsible for assault.
Universities often investigate sexual assault allegations independently of criminal proceedings, as they operate under different legal standards. This case illustrates the different outcomes that can result when both systems examine the same allegations.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Sexual assault allegations of this magnitude deserve institutional responses proportionate to their seriousness and impact on the survivor. With only two expelled and three suspended, most accused members will graduate with intact degrees, creating an unjust disparity where survivors bear lasting consequences whilst perpetrators escape meaningful accountability. Universities have both a moral and legal duty to maintain safe learning environments; when criminal prosecution fails due to evidentiary challenges endemic to sexual assault cases, institutional action becomes essential for accountability and protection.
The case against
University disciplinary panels must maintain rigorous procedural standards and high evidentiary burdens to protect accused students' fundamental fairness rights. The prosecutors' finding of insufficient evidence reflects genuine investigative challenges, and the panel's measured differentiation—expelling those with strongest evidence whilst exercising restraint on others—represents responsible institutional judgment. Expulsion carries devastating consequences for accused students' futures; universities have obligations to all students to ensure that serious sanctions are applied only where evidence genuinely warrants them.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Two Cornell students accused of rape were expelled and others suspended as extent of punishments revealed in new records”.