Sexual violence is no longer the unspoken elephant in the room.
Attributing this increased dialogue solely to the #MeToo movement leaves out a large part of the story. We must recognize the systems that fail to correct themselves when sexual violence happens, enabling these cycles of harm to continue.
On Sept. 16, a former student of Cornell under the pseudonym of Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against the seven members of Cornell Chi Phi fraternity who allegedly sexually assaulted her in October 2024. Referred to in the media as the “Cornell 7,” this case is reviving conversations of sexual violence across college campuses.
Campus assault cases are not new, so why has the Cornell 7 gained so much traction? One reason is the scale of the alleged assault: Doe was allegedly assaulted by seven members of the Cornell Chi Phi fraternity on October 19, 2024. The men forced themselves onto Doe for hours.
Another is the role of social media exploitation and substance abuse. According to Doe’s testimony, two of the men offered her ketamine and alcohol, and five other fraternity members were informed of her incapacitated state through “Chi Phi Actives” on Snapchat.
The biggest reason, though, is the gap between the scale of the assault and the university’s response. In early November 2024, Doe took the incident to the Cornell police. Cornell waited nearly three weeks to issue a statement, and the formal investigation began in January under Cornell’s Title IX office, with hearings in May 2025. At the end of the investigation, the university expelled only two of the accused and suspended two others. The rest of the men received minor punishments, such as bystander intervention training.
Reflecting on Doe’s case—particularly the university’s slow and unsatisfactory response—raises questions about how other colleges ought to respond. How should Harvard address the Cornell 7?
Harvard should not state the Cornell 7, but instead allocate greater resources and attention to sexual assault prevention on campus. A statement from Harvard would carry weight, but such commentary can put the administration in a difficult position and undermine follow-through.
Originally, I thought yes. Of course Harvard should speak out. I was practically waiting for an email.
Whenever a consequential event occurred at schools near Chapin, my high school, the administration offered remarks to both students and parents. Chapin enrolls 810 students. By contrast, Harvard has over 24,000 students across its schools and is consistently recognized as one of the world’s best universities. As a leading voice for academic institutions globally, Harvard must respond to issues that undermine students’ well-being.
Harvard’s 2024 Report on Institutional Voice in the University states that “the university has a responsibility to speak out to protect and promote its core function.” If fostering a safe environment, free of sexual assault, is included under the university’s “core function,” then Harvard must speak out.
However, after reading more of the report and considering the implications of such a statement, my stance has shifted.
While the report supports addressing matters that directly target Harvard, it advises against Harvard speaking on public events that do not take place on campus. “If the university and its leaders become accustomed to issuing official statements about matters beyond the core function of the university, they will inevitably come under intense pressure to do so from multiple, competing sides on nearly every imaginable issue of the day,” the institution reasons.
Opening this door to administration-level social advocacy puts the school in a conundrum. If Harvard engages with one matter, it must do the same for the next, and the cycle becomes inescapable. When these messages become too consistent, they lose their gravity. I can attest to this from my own high school experience: while Chapin’s frequent messaging was sometimes comforting, it also felt redundant and routine.
Such communications can also become a cop-out, letting Harvard offer token sympathy to an affected individual or group without responding systemically. If the school makes a statement, surely that is enough. Administrators can offer empty words and still get away with the public image of meeting due diligence, avoiding the need to address the issue directly. Furthermore, speaking on events in which Harvard has no direct role can seem presumptuous, centering the institution, rather than those most impacted.
Instead of statements, the report declares that Harvard “must dedicate resources to training staff most directly in contact with affected members. These concrete actions should prove, in the end, more effective and meaningful.” The administration should react to the Cornell 7 by actively expanding resources aimed at preventing sexual assault on campus.
One in eight students experiences sexual violence during college, but prevention helps reduce this number. Prevention assumes the form of promoting consent, bystander intervention, and attitudes that condemn sexual violence.
Harvard begins prevention freshman fall through an online anti-sexual violence training module and on-campus workshop series. Having just completed these training sessions, I can attest that these resources are hardly enough. The modules were easy to speed through at 2x, and the lectures were beyond unengaging.
Although the entryway meeting on Harvard’s Title IX policy and bystander intervention was more robust, the dialogue around the content ended when we left the room. Instead, many students focused on complaining about how many required meetings remained.
We had checked the box of sexual violence awareness. In theory, I could now provide a friend with proper direction and resources if something happened to them, or intervene if I saw someone in trouble. Nevertheless, one week of prevention at the start of first year isn’t enough.
Harvard’s resources for survivors and individuals who may have caused harm are extensive. Sexual Harassment/Assault Resources and Education has everything from coping skills workshops to survivor yoga groups and private counseling.
By contrast, Harvard’s Prevention Team offers limited resources. They attended a summit back in 2024, and their primary current project, beyond first-year orientation week programming, is analyzing data from the Higher Education Sexual Misconduct and Awareness (HESMA) survey. Beyond these objectives, the Prevention Team could use additional direction and resources to strengthen their agenda.
A Johns Hopkins University study applied the Haddon Matrix, an injury prevention framework, to preventing sexual violence. The Matrix considers how the physical and social environment induces injuries. To prevent sexual violence, the study proposes that universities focus on the “3Es”: engineering, enforcement, and education.
I propose that Harvard expands its educational prevention requirements beyond first year.
Engineering the physical environment to reduce harm and enforcing policies regarding sexual violence have not proven successful in mitigating harm yet. Still, education has a 60% success rate—teaching students not to victimize survivors and to intervene as trained bystanders. Education may have even helped prevent perpetration, with 25% of individuals reporting behavioral changes.
During the first weeks of school, every undergraduate should be required to attend a sexual violence prevention panel, encompassing bystander intervention, substance use awareness, and social media behavior.
Next, Harvard should bring in sexual violence survivors and bystanders who can share their stories. Stories work better than rules. One fond memory of a high school keynote involved a direct demonstration. A speaker had students come on the stage to complete the Human Chair Challenge, emphasizing how supporting each other is crucial to success.
Third, the University should also send periodic email reminders throughout the school year about Title IX and available resources. An ideal time to send one of these emails would have been during the resurgence of the Cornell 7, reminding students of available resources.
Actions speak louder than words. Harvard replying to the Cornell 7 by reinforcing prevention resources is more powerful than issuing a potentially detached statement. Students should be the voice of the institution, protesting these issues, and Harvard should respond to their needs by acknowledging concerns through concrete changes to cultivate a safe, responsible campus environment.
Zoë Macklowe ’30 (zmacklowe@college.harvard.edu) should adhere more closely to the original Haddon Matrix, as she keeps getting injured.