Author’s note: this story is developing even by the hour. Two revisions have already been made after this article was first published, September 30, 2026. At some point this essay must crystalize, tied to when it was written and published. There may be additional revisions in the version posted on The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, but that window is closing. It should be noted, however, that shortly after the latest revision, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced she had appointed New York Attorney General Letitia James as special prosecutor for this case.

A Summary of The Rape Allegation Scandal

As many readers are doubtlessly well aware, there is another college rape scandal allegation sweeping the nation, this from the Ivy League Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York. The allegations stem from a series of events on October 19 and into the wee hours of October 20. The scandal involves one Jane Doe, who at the time belonged to Delta Delta Delta, also known as “Tri Delta.” Jane Doe has been identified by some as one Lucy Craig, although this has yet to be confirmed. A brief summary of the evening’s timeline is as follows. On October 19, 2024, Doe had been drinking earlier that evening at her sorority house. She then went to Moonies Bar and later “Lot 10,” before finally walking to the Chi Phi fraternity house on Edgemoor Lane to meet Matthew Ingalls. Between her arrival at the fraternity house and before ending the orgy at 5:45 A.M., “Doe” had engaged in group sex with four different men in three separate pairings (Ingalls and Newell, Newell and Gillio Lopes, and Ingalls and Lee ). The threesomes always involved simultaneous oral and vaginal sex. This is colloquially known as “spit-roasting.”

The discrepancy lies between her statement to the University Police and the district attorney’s office several weeks later in 2024 and the civil suit filed against the now barred-from-campus Chi Phi fraternity chapter, her former sorority, Cornell University, the sorority “house mother, Jade,” the seven individual fraternity members, Moonie’s Bar, and several other entities and individuals. Cornell imposed its own sanctions as part of its own, separate Title IX investigation, leading to two expulsions, two suspensions, one student beyond reach due to graduation, and two findings of no responsibility.1 The discrepancy is further compounded by text messages (released only in part) which further indicate that Doe engaged in these sexual acts and consumed alcohol and ketamine voluntarily.

In the civil suit filed September of 2026, unlike her original statement made several weeks after the incident occurred, she alleges that the seven individual fraternity defendants committed sexual acts against her will. It is on that basis and, more particularly, the growing public backlash and outrage that the Tompkins County district attorney Matthew Van Houten has reopened the investigation.

The problem with this case is that proper conviction for sexual assault, like any crime, requires that all elements of the crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless there is some undiscovered video footage or hard evidence proving she did not consent, the many conflicts between her original statement, this civil suit, and likely any statement made in accordance with the new, ongoing investigation should prevent conviction by any juror who follows the law and this standard of proof for criminal conviction. As the wrongful convictions of Derek Chauvin others associated with the arrest of George Floyd, as well as the Ahmaud Arbery case and other miscarriages of justice all demonstrate, biased and politically motivated juries are likely to circumvent or ignore these evidentiary requirements. This danger is particularly likely in controversies like these that garner national attention, above all in leftist strongholds like the very liberal Ithaca, New York.

Because of the public outrage and backlash, district attorney Van Houten released a statement explaining in detail why no charges were filed. Readers are highly encouraged to read this document in its entirety. According to her original statement, as set forth in this document, Doe went to the Chi Phi with defendant Ingalls willingly. Indeed, they planned earlier in the week to get together that night. When she arrived, she described her intoxication at “5 out of 10.” After opening a formerly unopened can of beer, Ingalls propositioned her to have a threesome with Newell. She consented, stating to the district attorney that “she was pretty ok with having this threesome.” At this time, she described her level of intoxication as five or six out of ten. The statement by the district attorney recounts every notable detail as she then related what occurred in November, several weeks after the incident. She had several different threesomes with different pairings. When she indicated she was too tired at 5:45 A.M., she described her intoxication as eight out of ten.” Critically, the district attorney notes that every time she said no or did not want to do something, these refusals were complied with. This includes a proposed foursome involving simultaneous vaginal, oral, and, anal sex, to which she reportedly said “hell no” on account of her aversion to anal sex.

The legal analysis set forth by district attorney Van Houten is illuminating. The legal standard under New York Criminal law is succinctly stated as follows:

Under New York State Penal Law 130.05, every sexual assault offense requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim. As it relates to this case, lack of consent can result from 1) forcible compulsion by the actor, 2) mental incapacitation of the victim, 3) physical helplessness of the victim, or 4) with certain criminal charges where the victim clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act. See N.Y. Penal Law 130.05.

Critically, under New York law, according to district attorney Van Houten, inebriation cannot qualify under the “mental incapacitation” element of the statute if alcohol or drugs are voluntarily consumed:

Under New York State Law, “mental incapacitation” occurs when a victim is rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct due to the administration of a drug without her consent. The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent.

Van Houten would later reiterate that because she voluntarily consumed alcohol—even to excess—and because she voluntarily consumed ketamine, the facts, stated in her original statement to authorities, do not satisfy the New York criminal statute for sexual assault as a matter of law. This of course conflicts with feminist rhetoric about consent, and more particularly the notion that women in particular should be allowed to get drunk or otherwise partake in mind-altering drugs that impair good judgment and that society is expected to protect such an individual from such decisions in all instances and with what is tantamount to strict liability. All of this seems very cut-and-dried, and yet the public furor over a decision not to prosecute required of any prosecutor under New York law seems unfazed.

Both the civil complaint and public outrage about these allegations focus on a Snapchat message in the “Chi Phi Actives” thread. That message, attributed to Newell, stated that there was “free pussy” upstairs. Men came in, at which point Doe felt embarrassed and covered herself up. The outrage fixates on this fact because it is ugly, but it is what an orgy in a fraternity house looks like when someone advertises it. It is not, by itself, a gang rape. In the November statement Van Houten summarized, she hid under the covers, turned her face from a kiss, and, as already stated, had already refused a foursome by stating “hell no” on account of an aversion to anal sex. Those refusals, according to this statement, were honored and respected. caGaps in memory are alleged by both sides, but they hardly prove sexual assault or rape. Absent concrete evidence that a nonconsensual sexual act did occur (such as a video recording), none of this proves that any of the accused are rapists. Nor do they contradict what she does remember, which includes most especially repeatedly and consistently consenting to both sex and consumption of alcohol and ketamine

As of writing this essay, on September 30, 2026, CBS News reported that there is a transcript of Doe’s interviews with campus police, an interview that began on November 14, 2024 and concluded the next day (and thus often described as the November Interview). That CBS has not yet released the full transcript of these interviews but only excerpts should raise serious concerns. From the excerpts that have been released, it may appear at initial glance that there is some contradiction between statements in those excerpts and the description of Doe’s six-page written statement in Van Houten’s written statement. Notably, this six-page statement by Doe has not yet been released. Van Houten also stated that transcript was not provided to him. This perhaps explains why the phrase “I was raped” does not appear in the signed six-page statement his office reviewed. More importantly, a close reading of the news report indicates Doe simply states she is confident she was raped. The sentence “I was raped” is a mere conclusion, not even a legal conclusion in any real sense because it does not relate the facts alleged to the statutory requirements necessary to sustain an indictment and conviction for sexual assault. It does not, by itself, establish that a drug was administered without consent, that she was physically helpless, or that unwanted sexual contact persisted after refusal.

Nothing however refutes Van Houten’s conclusion that anything was done by any of the accused after saying “no.” The report does indicate gaps in memory, but this was already noted in Van Houten’s written statement. She does describe herself as being “super drunk” upon arrival at the fraternity house, but this is contradicted by her characterization that her inebriation was five on a scale of one to ten. Because she voluntarily consumed both alcohol and ketamine, this does not satisfy the requirements to sustain a conviction for sexual assault under the criminal code, as set forth in Van Houten’s written statement.

The most troubling aspect of the excerpts released on September 30 pertain to the claim that she was “physically hit very, very hard,” that she gave in under “coercion.” But they also indicate her operative words at the end were “I’m tired,” not “no.” It is likely these claims were contradicted by the accused. By waiting until November 8, it is also likely there is no way to corroborate any claim of being “hit very, very hard.”

The day after this article was initially published, The New York Times published “How a Cornell Student Went From Shame to Action.” The article was written and published in conjunction with the gray old lady acquiring files pertaining to Cornell’s Title IX investigation. Although the article seeks to depict Doe and her allegations in a favorable light, much of it discredits these allegations even further. It should be noted that of course The New York Times has not released these files, not even with Jane Doe and other names redacted. Readers should thus regard this piece with great skepticism.

Some key details from this report include the following. The next day Doe was informed by her sorority “mentor” (also known as a big sister) told Doe that “there were rumors circulating that she was a “‘slut.’” The mentor recalled Doe responding with a laugh, stating ““unfortunately they are true.” The Times article also confirmed friendly texts with Newell, including confirmation that her sexual depravity was consensual, that she enjoyed it, and wanted to do it again with Ingalls and Newell. Her verbatim response to Newell reads as follows:

“At the end of the day non of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really liked being w[ith] u and matt. . ..” (sic)

Then, two days later, after Doe had become even a greater object or ridicule and derision and gossip, she complained to Ingalls that people were disseminating details. “Bro,” she wrote, “everyone knows.” Later she would complain that the “episode was ‘RUINING my life temporarily’ and that her reputation had been destroyed.” She said all she could do was “sleep and cry all day.” As an aside, it is impossible to ruin someone’s life temporarily. Axiomatically, damage that is only transient or temporary in nature cannot ruin someone’s entire life, which categorically means serious, life-altering harm that cannot be recovered from.

These statements must be placed in the overall context, specifically this additonal text sent on October 23, 2024. Significantly, the New York Times piece omitted this text. It was however featured in a CBS News Report on September 30, 2026. The text reads as follows:

you’re right it’ll get better and u think everyone’s jealous of us.. but also like everyone needs to grow up cause sexuality and sex and [redacted] is changing and stuff like this is going to become more common,, i’m also really open minded tho. i luv u king,, also tell anyone who gives u [redacted] that i’ll actually beat them up that don’t want the smoke i promise. (sic)

It would be an understatement of comic proportions to characterize this text, as well as others indicating that she consented and enjoyed having a threesome with Ingalls and Newell, as a mere “statement against interest.”

The inflection point, the tipping point that convinced Doe to claim this was sexual assault was the fraternity’s decision to disinvite her from the Halloween party. Before being disinvited, she “eager to attend. She received a call from the fraternity president saying this was for her own good. She responded in anger via a text to Ingalls:

I knew this was going to happen. . .. The woman will always get the short end of the stick. Yall aren’t my friends. Yall are covering your asses.

By November 3, 2024, Doe had convinced herself it was not consensual. Her text to Newell reads as follows:

“let’s be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual. i was given more key than i can remember,” she said, using a shorthand for ketamine, “and i know that i told u i felt uncomfortable and i didn’t know anyone in the room.”

It should be noted that the article characterizes other sorority sisters as having the view that the incident in question was not consensual. One roommate described the matter thusly to investigators: “I think she wanted it to be consensual. . ..” The roommate further recounted:

I’d have conversations and she would describe a part of what happened and I would tell her that that is what could be classified as rape. …

This of course echoes the assertion “I was raped” that apparently exists in the transcripts of the November 14-15 interviews; indeed it is almost certain this roommate and perhaps others who convinced Doe it was rape, out of ignorance of the actual legal requirements to sustain a sexual assault under New York law. As set forth above and in Van Houten’s published statement on the matter, inebriation cannot, under New York law, sustain an indictment let alone a conviction for sexual assault provided drugs or alcohol were consumed voluntarily, which they were. The only other way to satisfy the elements of sexual assault would be if she were unconscious. So far she has not alleged that, although memory gaps suggest the possibility. A suggested possibility, absent more, cannot, or at least should not, sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commentary and Analysis

With this summary of the controversy set forth, several observations and commentaries are in order. A brief perusal of expressions of outrage and protest by feminists, certain effete and emasculated “male feminist” sorts, and even those who regard themselves as centrist are working themselves up in quite a lather about this. The ire, predictably enough, is directed at young men generally, but fraternities particularly. Not fraternities and sororities, although some denounce “Greek life” while denouncing “rape culture” and other properties associated with fraternities. Some are calling for fraternities—not Greek life, but fraternities—to be abolished. Those that do call for the Greek system to be abolished focus their rhetoric squarely at fraternities rather than the Greek system as a whole.

This creates a bit of a conundrum, insofar as this publication has condemned Greek life and its nefarious influences on American college and academic standards on multiple occasions in several essays. As is often the case, the tension lies in why Greek ought to be condemned and the reasons feminists and others condemn fraternities in particular.

As explained at lengthce before, fraternities have been gaming the “dating game”—and more recently the hook up game—for over a century, with the basic principles of the scheme first articulated in Willard Waller’s “The Dating and Rating Complex.” An unnatural monopoly on alcohol as well as access to fraternity houses, being able to rent large party venues, the general wherewithal to host large parties that other, unaffiliated men cannot: all of these and other privileges extol fraternity men with social status by way of social proof and social opportunities. This is compounded by the minimum drinking age of 21 and more particularly the uneven enforcement of this ridiculous law which often turns a blind eye to fraternities serving “underage” persons,2 as well as a categorical ban across sororities from serving alcohol. This combined with various unsavory elements in the culture—including American norms where colleges are effectively reduced to a baby-sitting service for the adult children of upper-middle and upper class families to partake in various debaucheries and diversions on daddy’s dime—has rendered fraternities and sororities—collectively regarded as Greek life—as a prominent source of moral dissolution and even depravity. Greek life combined with how American universities have prostituted themselves as the minor league system to the NFL and NBA have further tainted the supposed “academic environment” that pervades all universities. Sportsball and Greek life are key, critical factors as to why most college students can hardly be considered scholars at all, as the term is properly understood.3

The uproar about fraternities expressed in most popular discourse entertains no such concerns in any real sense. Indeed, very little of this hue and cry points any accusatory tone at sororities which are also complicit in facilitating the fraternity house’s dubious role as “campus party headquarters” across colleges around the nation. Indeed, hardly anything is said about female behavior let alone Doe’s role in this matter. It is of note that Doe’s civil complaint mentions the “Abolish Greek Life” movement. A brief perusal of Internet search queries reveals little mention of these or other concerns, but frames the call to abolish the Greek system in the usual jargon, with a focus on “racism” and bigotry.” To this movement’s credit, it does mention classism and elitism, but any sensible person knows this activism has little concern for white males whose families either cannot or chose not to spend tens of thousands of dollars to buy their son a syndicate of “frat douchebag” friends. They have no concern for the Adam Gellins in college life.4

The evidence is really piling up about college girls just being groupies for frat boy douchebags. And we tolerate it as a society. We tolerate it and even promote it.

By all accounts, a critical mass of the female student body—and most especially large numbers of sororities—have debased themselves as little more than groupies for frat boy douchebags first and foremost and student “athletes” as well. It never seems to occur to such persons that fraternities have gamed various dating and more particularly hook-up strategies because they work. While women are consensus driven, men will do practically anything to succeed in the sexual and dating marketplace, including getting into fisticuffs, engaging in any number of risky and life-threatening behavior. Such was the very point of Helen of Troy, the face that launched a thousand ships. Some readers may recall the Internet sensation “hot chicks with douchebags” that was successful for a brief time in the mid naughts. Men become these “douchebags” (to use the very term used by the website’s founder) because a critical mass of alluring, desirable women have stated a preference for this gestalt. Men join fraternities and partake in these strategies because a critical mass of women have, for decades, voted with their feet time and time again–and more particularly by pulling their ankles right over their shoulders and, in this case, bending over for a nice “spit roast.” The very instant large swathes of college women stop throwing themselves at frat douchebag assholes, the incentive for this behavior would stop post haste.

In the instance of Jane Doe, at least according to her initial statement, she consented to various threesome couplings in the wee hours of that night, to 5:45 AM in fact. Remarkably, the CNN host who questioned Van Houten in a hostile, confrontational manner seems to concede that, even by the civil complaint, she unquestionably consented to the first threesome between Ingalls and Newell.

While much of the outrage condemns these seven for such debauchery, no one, in mainstream discourse at least, is condemning this behavior by Doe in particular or “collegiate” women more broadly. It seems getting “spit-roasted” multiple times by three different men in separate pairings has become commonplace, something banal, a cornerstone even of any young woman’s sex life while at college.

Those of such a persuasion are likely to denounce such sentiments as “victim blaming.” To the contrary, this is nothing more than what should be without controversy: a call for a return to some minimum semblance of decency, a return to the very most minimum of moral norms and standards. Simply stated, men and women should not be engaging in such debauchery. College women, particularly those at elite institutions such as Cornell, should not be getting “spit-roasted” by multiple pairings in alcohol and drug fueled orgies. This is not hedonism, but sexual profligacy. It is bad for women, bad for men, and bad for society. And yet outrage is only ever directed at the men. Indeed, the official statement by district attorney Van Houten explicitly denounces the men, while daring not utter a single word of criticism for Doe’s decisions, stating that “the behavior of certain Chi Phi fraternity members was without question disgusting and morally reprehensible. . ..”

This asymmetric formulation condemning men for unspeakable debauchery while giving women carte blanche license to do as they will is so popular it is doubtful a critical mass can be readily convinced to see and understand how harmful these ideas really are. This asymmetry effectively encourages greater and greater sensual libertinism by women, while also narrowing the parameters of consent, but only as consent pertains to men. This is readily evidenced in how the men are accused of sexually violating Doe on account of her inebriation, and yet Ingalls in particular passed out at one point and was more inebriated than she. And yet she instigated and continued sexual contact on him in this inebriated state.

Both feminism and many aspects of modern society claim that women should be able to drink as much as they want, take any number of mind-altering, illicit drugs (like ketamine) with impunity, all while insisting they bear no responsibility whatsoever for any negative consequences that inevitably arise from such dangerous, self-destructive behavior. In this view, it is society’s responsibility to protect these women in all instances, with effective strict liability, regardless of how dangerous and reckless such conduct actually is. Indeed, women are encouraged to engage in the most extreme sexual profligacy that is harmful to them and to society, and which begets any number of risks. Besides increased chances of sexual assault, other risks include sexually transmitted diseases, and even a urinary tract infection, which Doe did sufferfrom. In this particular incident, Doe was mortified only when news of what she had done had become the subject of gossip on campus. A good way not to be talked about for being a whore is to simply not be one.

Taking illicit drugs obviously does not give men a license to rape or do other illegal activity. It is rather striking that shrill feminists are now demand the right to “whatever fucking drugs [they[ want” free of consequence. As set forth above, her take is wrong legally, provided a woman does not indicate she does not consent and provided she consume such drugs voluntarily.

Similarly, extreme sexual promiscuity and even profligacy degrades pair bonding and diminishes chances both of marrying and more importantly in the marriage succeeding. Degraded pair bonding increases the chance of both divorce and infidelity. In this way, this peculiar message embraced both by feminism and conventional wisdom is a key, critical factor in record numbers of women being miserable, as it is also a vector for increased instances of single motherhood, divorce, infidelity and the myriad number of social ills and harms that emanate from this trifecta. This has many negative ramifications for society at large that provide an obvious refutation of the “consenting adults” paradigm that has unfortunately obtained near intractable favor in modern American discourse.

Particularly given the inconsistencies between Doe’s original statement to the district attorney and campus police on one hand and the civil complaint on the other, this matter is likely to conclude in a similar manner as the infamous Duke Lacrosse scandal and other similar scandals including most especially the UVA Fraternity scandal of 2014. In these scandals, the allegations were eventually revealed to be lies and fabrications, exonerating the accused completely and totally.

Unlike Duke and UVA, the encounters here are not imaginary; what may collapse is the accusation this was an (at certain times) non-consensual gang rape. This is the key, critical difference between this newest scandal and prior scandals where the allegations collapsed in such spectacular fashion: namely a lot of the actions in both the original statement and civil complaint are not in dispute, at least not yet. Doe did have a threesome with Ingalls and Newell, and later Newell and Lopes. Finally, there was a third threesome pairing in a different room with Ingalls and Winston Lee that ended at 5:45 A.M. She did consume ketamine, voluntarily by all accounts, absent new information. The question hinges on consent. As stated, the wild inconsistencies should require a finding of reasonable doubt, but the jury system is frequently fraught with peril, particularly in an area such as Ithaca, New York.

Where this publication differs from most outrage at Doe’s allegations is animus towards fraternities and, it must be admitted, the defendants themselves. With a brief perusal over their pictures, their biographies as known, it can only be stated the accused are hardly sympathetic people. However, as stated earlier, condemnation of these men and what they stand for does not end there, but includes Doe’s disastrous choices, particularly as such choices are not really individual choices at all, but part of a larger cultural and sociological phenomenon where this sort of degeneracy has become commonplace, an everyday occurrence, even. College women debasing themselves for fraternity men is hardly an isolated incident. As satisfying as it may be in other contexts to see these men suffer harsh consequences, such comeuppance, in this particular context, would be in the service of far greater evils, namely the asymmetric set of social and sexual norms and mores that encourage young women to indulge in all manner of unspeakable depravity and demand absolute immunity free from consequence or admonition, all while applying a very different set of norms to young men. That is unconscionable. This is why, absent proof that Doe actually did not consent, these allegations must fail.

Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.