World · North America · 2 hrs ago
Cornell denies president questioned sexual assault accuser’s report
A former Cornell student who accused seven Chi Phi fraternity members of sexual assault in 2024 says she felt unsupported by the university’s president.
In a letter to Cornell’s faculty senate, she said a sorority leader told her President Michael Kotlikoff had asked why she waited so long to report the assault.
Cornell says the question was about bystanders, who did not use an anonymous tip line, and was not directed at the student.
The allegations are part of a civil lawsuit against Cornell, the fraternity and seven former members; the men have denied wrongdoing and none have been criminally charged.
The student’s letter was sent as faculty senators consider a no-confidence vote in the administration.
The senate is scheduled to debate the resolution on 28 October, followed by electronic voting.
The case has drawn criticism of Cornell’s handling of the allegations.
A former Cornell student said she felt “unsupported and disbelieved” after being told that President Michael Kotlikoff had questioned why she waited to report a sexual assault.
Cornell said the account was incorrect and that Kotlikoff’s question was directed at bystanders, not the student.
The student, identified in court documents as Jane Doe, shared the second-hand account in a letter to Cornell faculty senate members.
She said she wrote because the information might be relevant to the senate’s consideration of a no-confidence resolution.
The senate scheduled a meeting on 28 October to debate the resolution, followed by electronic voting.
- Who
- Jane Doe, a former Cornell student, and Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff.
- What
- Jane Doe said she felt unsupported after hearing Kotlikoff had asked why she waited to report an assault. Cornell denied that he questioned her report.
- When
- The alleged assault was in October 2024; the reported meeting was in January 2025. Jane Doe’s letter was dated 14 October.
- Where
- Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.
- Why
- Jane Doe said she shared the account because it might be relevant to faculty senate deliberations on a no-confidence resolution.
Jane Doe
Cornell University
Question about the report
Jane Doe
Jane Doe said she was told Kotlikoff asked, “Why did she wait so long to report it?” and that the sorority president interpreted the question as doubt about her story.
Cornell University
Cornell said the question was directed at bystanders who did not use the university’s anonymous tip line, not at Jane Doe.
Meaning of the comment
Jane Doe
Jane Doe said the reported comment diminished her confidence in the administration and made her feel unsupported and disbelieved.
Cornell University
Cornell said the second-hand account was incorrect, based on a documented first-hand account.
Jane Doe accused seven Chi Phi fraternity members of sexually assaulting her at a party at the fraternity house.
A meeting took place between Kotlikoff and the leader of Jane Doe’s sorority, according to the New York Times account cited by the Guardian.
Jane Doe dated her letter to Cornell faculty senate members.
The Guardian reported on Jane Doe’s account and Cornell’s denial.
Cornell’s faculty senate scheduled a meeting to debate the no-confidence resolution, followed by electronic voting.
- Accuser
- Jane Doe, a pseudonym used in court documents
- University president
- Michael Kotlikoff
- Alleged assault
- October 2024, at a Chi Phi fraternity house on campus
- Letter date
- 14 October
- Senate meeting
- 28 October; debate on a no-confidence resolution followed by electronic voting
3 sources
What people are saying
The question ‘why did it take so long for the assault to be reported’ was directed at bystanders who did not use Cornell’s anonymous tip line, despite ongoing social media activity about the incident in October 2024
When the then-Tri Delta President relayed this conversation to me, I felt unsupported and disbelieved by President Kotlikoff
I would not want to withhold something potentially pertinent, only for Senate members to later discover that information relevant to their deliberations had not been made available to them.