I am Jane Doe but I don’t wanna be
A. Glasnovic
Society tends to work through patterns.
Whether it’s perceived in the way people create their own daily schedule, or in a deeper sense of a war being repeated because of an unresolved conflict, is entirely up to you.
The way history is seen falls in the eyes of who views it, whether it’d be politically or
aesthetically, there’s always a predictable route one takes; consequently, making such choices a pattern in on itself.
These routines exist due to a fear of change.
For instance let’s take how feminists expose recurring cycles of abuse with anger and insight, while Politicians and institutional leaders promise investigations, reforms and legislative action: As public attention gradually shifts elsewhere, meaningful progress often fails to follow.
For survivors, the consequences remain long after the headlines disappear, while the institutions responsible for addressing their experiences continue to face questions about accountability.
The very known sexual assault case involving Cornell University has brought this dynamic back into focus, fueling debate about sexual violence and the treatment of survivors within higher education.
A little bit of a refresher for those who need it, almost two years ago, a 20-year-old Cornell undergraduate was drugged and sexually assaulted at a fraternity house. According to a civil lawsuit filed by Jane Doe, she was pressured into taking ketamine and was put through two hours of sexual assault.
The investigation of the case proceeded through 12 hearings before the university reached its disciplinary decisions. Two of the seven students were expelled, while the remaining five received suspensions, a decision that received a lot of backlash.
According to reports, some of the students also had the opportunity to submit essays in an attempt to reduce the severity of their disciplinary consequences.The outcome naturally sparked criticism over whether the university's response reflected the
seriousness of the allegations; the answer to such a question so far has been a raging flaming no.
Evidence cited in the lawsuit included a screenshot from a Snapchat group chat involving members of the Chi Phi fraternity. One message reportedly read, “free p**** upstairs.”
Alongside Jane Doe's account, the screenshot intensified the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault and the broader environment in which it occurred, deepening the outrage young women felt for Jane Doe.
The case gained international attention after The Cornell Daily Sun, the university's student newspaper, reported on its details. Coverage across mainstream and social media transformed the lawsuit into a wider public controversy, prompting renewed feminist movement and debate about how universities investigate allegations of sexual violence. Critics questioned whether internal disciplinary procedures provide sufficient accountability, while the case placed additional pressure on higher education institutions to reconsider their investigative practices and responses
to survivors.
Is an essay enough for destroying a life?
However, Cornell's handling of this case cannot be put in isolation as it is not the first nor the last case of a young girl’s story. It forms part of a much longer history in which institutions operating within patriarchal societies have often granted men greater authority to define, investigate and respond to violence against women. For decades, feminist movements have challenged these structures, arguing that formal rules and procedures are insufficient when institutional cultures fail to take survivors seriously.
International human rights frameworks have helped advance this challenge. The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), adopted in 1979, established an important international foundation for addressing discrimination against women. Further interpretations and international developments have strengthened therecognition of gender-based violence as a human rights concern and reinforced the responsibility of states to address discrimination and protect women's rights.
Furthermore, institutional reforms have also tried to change through greater representation of women in legislatures, courts and law enforcement which has contributed to broader discussions about gender equality and institutional decision-making. Specialised support services and approaches centred on survivors' needs have also become increasingly important in efforts to improve responses to gender-based violence. Nevertheless, formal commitments do not automatically translate into effective implementation.
The controversy surrounding Cornell illustrates the continuing tension between institutional procedures and public expectations of accountability. Although universities have mechanisms for investigating and disciplining students, cases such as this raise difficult questions about transparency and the right to be heard.
Ultimately, the significance of the Cornell case extends beyond one university or one lawsuit. It is much more than that because it exposes a recurring problem: public outrage can absolutely generate a hollow promise of reform, but attention alone does not guarantee lasting change. If institutions are to respond effectively to sexual violence, accountability must extend beyond public statements. It requires procedures that actually work in this society. Procedures that are fair and responsive to survivors, alongside a willingness to examine the root of the patriarchy.
Without a meaningful reform that lasts, the pattern risks repeating itself: a case captures the public's attention, demands for justice grow louder, and then the spotlight moves on while the underlying problems remain.
Let’s not have another Jane Doe.
I don’t want to be one.
Commenti