Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Cornell University Fraternity Sexual Assault Allegations and Reopened Investigation

Transcript

Cornell University Fraternity Sexual Assault Allegations and Reopened Investigation · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Imagine two courtrooms, right? And they are both looking at
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: the exact same night.
• 0:05
  Speaker 2: Okay, yeah.
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: One courtroom looks at the evidence, evaluates the timeline, and
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: basically declares, you know, no crime occurred here. There is
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: nothing to prosecute.
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: But then the other courtroom looks at that exact same evidence,
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: the exact same sequence of events, and permanently shuts down
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: a fraternity, handing out actual expulsions to multiple students.
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's quite the contrast.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: It is. And, you know, it makes you ask, how
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: does that even happen? Like, how can two completely different
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: justice systems dissect the same event and arrive at, well,
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: entirely contradictory conclusions?
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that is really the defining question of this incredibly
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: complex situation we're analyzing today on this deep dive.
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: Absolutely.
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: Because we are looking at a massive collision. It's a
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: collision between the really rigid requirements of state criminal law
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: and the internal disciplinary mechanisms of a major university. Right.
• 0:58
  Speaker 2: And it's a scenario that exposes all this friction between
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: how we define a crime, how we process trauma, and honestly,
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: how institutions protect or fail to protect their own communities. Exactly.
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: And for those of you joining us on this deep dive,
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: we need to set the parameters of our mission right
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: from the jump.
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: That's crucial.
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: We are going to be examining the allegations surrounding what
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: the media has been calling the Cornell 7.
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: And we are working from a big stack of source
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: material today. We've got a newly filed 101-page civil complaint.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: We have the initial police statements from 2024, public statements
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: from local district attorneys, and, you know, this sudden massive
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: political fallout involving the city of Ithaca and the state
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: of New York. Yeah.
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: And we must be absolutely clear with you, the listener,
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: about our role here today.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Yes. Ground rules. Right.
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: We are analyzing a set of explosive, highly, highly sensitive allegations.
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: and the systemic reactions to those allegations.
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: Which means we are not taking sides.
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: We are not a jury. We are not passing judgment
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: on guilt or innocence here. And we're definitely not endorsing
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: any political stances taken by the officials involved.
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: No, not at all. Our sole objective is just to
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: help you understand the anatomy of this case based strictly
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: on the reporting, the legal filings, and the data provided
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: in our sources. We're just dissecting the mechanics of the
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: systems at play.
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: Right. And to understand those mechanics, I think we really
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: have to start at the origin point.
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we have to go back to the beginning.
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: So let's rewind the clock to 2024, specifically to the
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: night in question at the Chi Phi fraternity at Cornell University.
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: Right, because the entire trajectory of this criminal investigation was
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: initially determined by one single document.
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah, a six-page statement.
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: Exactly, a six-page statement given to campus police by the
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: woman at the center of this case. who is identified
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: in all the legal filings as Jane Doe.
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: And that document, it's crucial, right?
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: Oh, it's entirely crucial because it served as the absolute
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: foundation for the initial decision made by the Tompkins County
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: District Attorney.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: That's Matthew Van Houten.
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: Right, Van Houten. And according to his public rationale for,
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: you know, why he dropped the case originally, that 2024
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: statement described an evening that began with voluntary consensual activity
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: in drug use.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and the DA pointed to some very specific details
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: in that initial account to justify his stance.
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: Right, like the text message.
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: Exactly, the text message. He noted that Jane Doe had
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: texted a male friend earlier that evening explicitly rating her
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: level of intoxication.
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: And she rated it as a 5 out of 10, right?
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah, a 5 out of 10.
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: Which, when you think about it from a prosecutorial standpoint, well,
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: it creates a massive immediate hurdle for a prosecutor.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: I have so.
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: Because a prosecutor has to prove incapacitation beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: Right. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: And if you have a victim who self-assessed their sobriety
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: in writing midway through the evening at a 5 out
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: of 10, well, that is a piece of evidence the
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: defense is going to heavily, heavily leverage.
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: Oh, for sure. The defense would be all over that.
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: And the DA's account of that statement continues, right? He
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: mentions her arriving at the fraternity, opening a beer and,
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: you know, engaging in activity with two men.
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and the statement reportedly indicated she felt, quote-unquote, pretty
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: okay with how the encounter began.
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: Right, pretty okay. But then the shift occurs later in
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: the timeline.
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah, things change when a third man enters the room.
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: Right, followed by four more men.
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: And this is exactly where the narrative in that initial
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: statement becomes really opaque.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah, murky.
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: The document apparently notes that her memory became fuzzy at
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: this specific juncture. She recalled someone offering her more ketamine.
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: And the statement... just sort of concluded that the activity
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: continued until roughly 5.45 in the morning.
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: Wow. So 5.45 a.m.
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: Yeah. And based on that specific six-page account, Van Houten
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: stated that multiple prosecutors and investigators reviewed the file, and
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: they determined they just could not prove a crime had
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: been committed.
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: I mean, we really have to break down the why
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: behind that decision.
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we do.
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: Because to the average person listening right now, a fuzzy
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: memory involving seven men and ketamine sounds... frankly, highly alarming.
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: It sounds like a nightmare.
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: Right. But the New York state penal law has very,
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: very rigid criteria for what actually constitutes a sex crime.
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: Exactly. To bring charges, the state absolutely must prove lack
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: of consent.
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: And the law requires demonstrating physical force, mental incapacitation, physical helplessness,
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: or an explicit lack of consent, right?
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: That's the statute. The penal code is designed to demand certainty.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: So If an initial statement includes self-reported moderate intoxication, you know,
• 5:47
  Speaker 2: the 5 out of 10, and an initial feeling of
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: being pretty okay with the situation, and then a subsequent
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: loss of memory without a definitive claim of force or
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: involuntary drugging in that specific document.
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: The DA is looking at a case that fails to
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: meet those statutory elements. Exactly.
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The prosecutor just cannot bring a case to trial
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: if they know the defense can easily introduce reasonable doubt,
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: specifically based on the victim's own initial statement.
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: Which brings us to the whiplash of the story.
• 6:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the huge pivot.
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: Because we move from that six-page statement in 2024 to
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: the present day. And now Jane Doe has filed a
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: 101-page civil complaint.
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: And the narrative in this new filing is, I mean,
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: it is drastically different.
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: Drastically.
• 6:32
  Speaker 2: She is suing Cornell, the Chi Phi fraternity. the Delta
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: Delta Delta sorority, Mooney's bar, and several individuals.
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: And the allegations are severe.
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: Extremely. She's alleging she was plied with ketamine and gang raped.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: Yeah. And the most startling specific allegation in that civil complaint,
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: to me at least, involves this digital paper trail.
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: Oh, the Snapchat group. Yes.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: The lawsuit claims that one of the defendants sent an
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: invitation via a Snapchat group advertising a, quote, free sexual
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: encounter to 57 different men.
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: 57 men. Yeah.
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: The complaint alleges that this was an act of solicitation
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: for other fraternity members to essentially join an ongoing assault.
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: And when you look at the defense's response to that
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: specific Snapchat allegation, it's, well, it's really a masterclass in
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: separating morality from legality. Oh, totally.
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: Totally. The attorney representing one of the accused men addressed
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: those texts directly. Right.
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: And he argued that while the words might be ugly
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: and immature and nasty.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: Typing terrible things does not equate to committing a violent felony.
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: Exactly. That is the absolute standard legal maneuver for handling
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: damaging but potentially non-criminal evidence.
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: Right. You isolate it.
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah. The defense strategy relies on isolating that text message.
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: They frame it as abhorrent social behavior, which, you know,
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: is not actually a crime.
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: All while continuing to lean on the ambiguity of the
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: original 2024 statement to defend against the physical allegations of assault.
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: The evolution of this narrative is just staggering. I kind
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: of think of it like looking at an image file.
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: Okay. An image file? How so?
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: Well, think about it. That initial six-page statement was like
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: a heavily pixelated, you know, low-resolution thumbnail.
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: Right. Blurry.
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: Yeah, blurry. The DA looked at it, couldn't quite make
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: out the clear boundaries of a crime, and so he
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: closed the file.
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: Sure.
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: But the 101-page civil suit is like a 4K, ultra-high-definition
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: reconstruction where you can suddenly see every terrifying detail in
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: the background.
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: That's a really good analogy.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: So my question to you is, how does the legal
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: system accommodate that kind of resolution upgrade? Like, does that
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: initial low-res thumbnail permanently dictate the outcome, or... Or does
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: the system actually allow for a retroactive understanding of an event?
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: Well, the system theoretically allows for it, but practically, it
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: is a monumental challenge. I bet. However, the emergence of
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: this high-resolution narrative, as you called it, has forced District
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: Attorney Van Houten to completely reverse his position.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: Right. He announced he's reopening the investigation.
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah. And sending the case to a grand jury. He
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: specifically stated he wants Jane Doe to, quote, tell her truth.
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: And the timeline of his pivot is remarkable, right?
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: Oh, it's incredibly fast. He learned of the civil suit
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: just 10 days before making the announcement to reopen the case.
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: 10 days. That is practically overnight in the legal world.
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: It really is. And his justification for that pivot leans
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: really heavily on the psychology of trauma.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: OK, let's get into that. Yeah.
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: So Van Helton publicly acknowledged that it often takes years
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: of therapy for survivors of sexual assault to fully process, understand,
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: and articulate what actually happened to them.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: So he's essentially admitting that the legal system's demand for
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: an immediate, coherent narrative often completely conflicts with human neuroscience.
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: Precisely. And this is where we really have to bring
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: in the perspective of the advocate cited in our sources. Palumbo. Right, Palumbo.
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: She specifically addresses why statements change over time like this.
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: She points to delayed disclosure and the nonlinear recollection of
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: traumatic events.
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: Nonlinear recollection. Break that down for us. What does that
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: mean in this context?
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: Well, when we talk about nonlinear recollection, we are talking
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: about how the brain fundamentally alters its encoding process during
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: a severe trauma. Okay. The brain does not operate like
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: a security camera recording a timestamp video file. Right.
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: It's not a hard drive.
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: Exactly. In moments of extreme stress, the hippocampus, which is
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: the part of the brain that helps organize memories chronologically,
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: it can just be totally overwhelmed.
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: Oh, wow.
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: Yeah. So the memory is stored in fragments. It might
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: be a sound, a feeling, a disjointed image, but not
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: a clear timeline.
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: And then you add intoxicants to that equation.
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: Specifically alcohol and ketamine. And ketamine, I mean, that is
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: a dissociative anesthetic. Right. It physically disconnects the conscious mind
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: from sensory input. So if the brain is already struggling
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: to encode a timeline due to trauma, introducing a dissociative
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: drug must just shatter the timeline completely.
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: It absolutely shatters it. It is entirely unrealistic to expect
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: a person under the influence of those substances while experiencing
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: trauma to just sit down days later. and draft a
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: perfectly sequential, logically airtight narrative.
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: A narrative that satisfies the rigid elements of the New
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: York state penal law.
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Palumbo's point is that as the brain heals, and
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: as the person processes the trauma and therapy, those fragments
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: slowly piece together into a clearer picture over years.
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: But, you know, let me play devil's advocate here and
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: challenge this from the perspective of the courtroom.
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: Okay, go for it.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: Because if we accept the science, right, that trauma makes
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: memory nonlinear and dissociatives fragment the timeline, how does a
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: prosecutor ever achieve a conviction?
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: Well, that's the million-dollar question.
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: Right, because the entire foundation of criminal law requires a
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: linear sequence of facts.
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: Yes, it does.
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: The state has to say, first, this action occurred, then
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: this intent was established, and here is the result. Right.
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: If the human brain stores trauma like a scattered jigsaw puzzle,
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: how do you prove something beyond a reasonable doubt?
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: You have literally just articulated the central crisis in prosecuting
• 12:32
  Speaker 2: drug-facilitated sexual assaults.
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: Because the legal statute requires the state to pinpoint the
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: exact moment consent was lost or the exact moment incapacitation occurred.
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: Wow, the exact moment.
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: Yes. And if the victim's memory is a jigsaw puzzle
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: missing crucial middle pieces, well, the defense will simply point
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: to the empty spaces on the table and call it
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: reasonable doubt.
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: That is so frustrating.
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: It is. The friction is that we have a legal
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: system built for linear logic, trying to evaluate biological systems
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: built for survival.
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: And this brings up a really crucial piece of reporting
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: from CBS News that just adds another whole layer of
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: complexity to this timeline.
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: Oh, the three-week statement. Yes.
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: So the DA based his initial refusal to prosecute on
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: that ambiguous six-page statement, right?
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: But CBS News obtained a different police statement, and this
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: one was taken by campus police just three weeks after
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: the incident.
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: And in that interview, Jane Doe explicitly stated, quote, I
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: can say with 100 percent confidence I was raped.
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: And that revelation shifts the context entirely.
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: Completely, entirely.
• 13:36
  Speaker 2: It indicates that the high resolution picture you were talking
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: about earlier, it was forming much earlier than 2026. Right.
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: It wasn't two years later.
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: No. Within three weeks, she was articulating a definitive claim
• 13:47
  Speaker 2: of assault to campus authorities.
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: Which really just raises the huge question of how information
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: flows or fails to flow between these various entities.
• 13:56
  Speaker 2: Oh, a massive failure of flow.
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: Because the DA stalled out, citing a lack of criminal elements.
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: But while the criminal justice system completely paused, Cornell University
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: moved forward on an entirely separate track.
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: And this is where we enter the realm of parallel justice.
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: Parallel justice. Right.
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: So Cornell initiated a months-long internal investigation under Title IX.
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: And the outcome of that internal process was severe. I mean,
• 14:22
  Speaker 2: they permanently closed the Chi Phi fraternity, and the hearing
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: panel handed down actual expulsions and suspensions to the students involved.
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, the sources highlight the analysis of Rick Trunfio on this.
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the former first assistant district attorney.
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: Right. And he was taken aback by this dual reality.
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: He was asked if an internal university process absolving someone
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: would hold any weight in a criminal context, and he
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: outright dismissed the idea.
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: Right. And Trumpio's analysis really requires us to unpack the
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: fundamental differences between Title IX and the penal code.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: They are two totally different beasts.
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: They are. Title IX is a federal civil rights law
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: designed to ensure equal access to education. Right. The university's
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: disciplinary process is essentially enforcing a code of conduct. It
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: is not criminal law.
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: And the mechanics of those hearings are totally different, right?
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: I mean, Tronfio points out that in a campus hearing,
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: hearsay is often admissible.
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: The cross-examination process is vastly restricted compared to a real courtroom.
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: And most importantly, the burden of proof is fundamentally lower.
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: So much lower.
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: A criminal trial requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: the jury must be almost entirely certain of guilt.
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: But a Title IX hearing typically operates on the preponderance
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: of the evidence standard.
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: Which means what exactly?
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: It simply means asking, is it more likely than not
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: that the policy violation occurred?
• 15:48
  Speaker 2: More likely than not.
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: More likely than not.
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: Yeah. If the panel is 51% convinced the misconduct happened,
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: they can expel a student.
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: 51%. That is wild. It's literally the difference between proving
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: a violent felony to a jury of your peers and
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: proving a severe conduct violation to a panel of university administrators.
• 16:10
  Speaker 2: Exactly. But Trumpio's critique goes far beyond just the burden
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: of proof.
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: Right. He goes after the whole system.
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: He really targets the very infrastructure of campus investigations, specifically
• 16:23
  Speaker 2: the reliance on campus police for cases of this magnitude. Yeah.
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: He argues pretty aggressively against using campus police to investigate
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: highly sensitive sex crimes.
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: Because his rationale is based on specialized expertise.
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: Investigating a multi-suspect, drug-facilitated sexual assault requires... a deep understanding
• 16:41
  Speaker 2: of forensic evidence collection, trauma-informed interviewing techniques, and interrogating multiple
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: targets simultaneously to find inconsistencies.
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: And he contrasts Cornell's handling of the situation with Syracuse University, right?
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: He does, yeah. In Syracuse, the Campus Department of Public
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: Safety immediately brings in the Municipal Syracuse Police Department when
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: a severe sex crime allegation surfaces.
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: Oh, so they just hand it right over.
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: Exactly. They hand it over to city detectives immediately.
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: And Trenfio's point is that municipal detectives spend decades specializing
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: in these exact types of investigations.
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: Yes. They are a dedicated resource that campus police, who
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: have to manage a much wider, more general array of
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: campus safety issues, simply cannot match in terms of targeted
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: forensic experience.
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: Look, I understand Trenfio's legal perspective, but let's consider the
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: practical reality for a moment. Because if you are a
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: parent and you are sending a student to a massive,
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: sprawling institution like Cornell... you kind of expect the campus
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: police to be the primary responders.
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: I mean, they know the geography, they have jurisdiction over
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: the dorms and Greek life houses, and they are embedded
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: in the community. You want them to be capable of
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: handling severe incidents on their own turf.
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: Proximity and geographical knowledge are absolutely vital for immediate crisis
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: response and securing a scene, for sure. Yeah. But the
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: analogy here is really the difference between emergency triage and
• 18:07
  Speaker 2: specialized surgery. Oh.
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: That makes me think of the school nurse.
• 18:11
  Speaker 2: The school nurse?
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah, think about it. If a student collapses in the
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: hallway with a heart attack, the school nurse is incredibly valuable.
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: Right, they're right there.
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: Exactly. They are down the hall. They arrive in 30 seconds.
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: They can administer an AED and take vitals.
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: Sure.
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: But if that student needs a complex arterial bypass, the
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: nurse doesn't perform the surgery.
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: No, they don't.
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: They hand the patient over to a cardiac surgeon.
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: So investigating a 2024 gang rape allegation involving dissociative anesthetics
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: and dozens of potential witnesses, that is investigative bypass surgery.
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: That is a brilliant analogy, and it perfectly encapsulates Trumpio's argument.
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: Thank you. The campus police are essential for the immediate response, yes.
• 18:55
  Speaker 2: But the complex forensic investigation requires the surgeons, so to speak.
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: Of the municipal police force.
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: And the failure to make that handoff is the exact
• 19:05
  Speaker 2: point where this entire situation ignited a massive political firestorm
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: in Ithaca.
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: Yes, because the sources reveal a frankly shocking logistical failure.
• 19:15
  Speaker 2: Unbelievable.
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: The actual municipal police force, the Ithaca Police Department, was
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: never notified about the 2024 allegations.
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: They were entirely in the dark.
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: Completely.
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: The Ithaca police stated publicly that they only became aware
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: of these severe allegations two years later. when the media
• 19:30
  Speaker 2: began reporting on the 101-page civil lawsuit.
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: I mean, just consider the sequence of events there for
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: you listening. Campus police investigate. The findings go to the
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: county DA. The DA drops the case. The university secretly
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: expels students and shuts down a frat. And the city
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: police officers who literally patrolled a outside that fraternity house
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: have zero knowledge that any of this occurred.
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: And when that reality became public, the local government's reaction
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: was just explosive.
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: Oh, they were furious.
• 20:00
  Speaker 2: Ithaca Mayor Robert Cantelmo did not hold back. He labeled
• 20:04
  Speaker 2: the lack of coordination a, quote, miscarriage of justice.
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: And the mayor didn't just stop at a statement. He
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: escalated the situation from a statement of disapproval to what
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: feels like a tactical siege.
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he really went for it.
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: He called for an immediate moratorium on all student and
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: special event permits, specifically zeroing in on Greek life gatherings
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: that require city approval.
• 20:26
  Speaker 2: And let's examine the mechanics of a moratorium like that,
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: because it is a blunt force instrument.
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: Yeah, how does that even work?
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: Well, the city controls the permits for large off-campus gatherings.
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: Noise ordinances and street closures.
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: By threatening to freeze all of those permits, the mayor's
• 20:43
  Speaker 2: basically using the city's bureaucratic leverage to completely disrupt a
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: university's social infrastructure.
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: But it sounds like a logistical nightmare to enforce.
• 20:52
  Speaker 2: Oh, a total nightmare.
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: I mean, are shitty police going to be dispatched to
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: break up every single unregistered mixer in an off-campus apartment?
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: Probably not, realistically.
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: Right. It feels less about actual crowd control and more
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: about a municipality demonstrating to an Ivy League institution that
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: it still holds structural power.
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: It is entirely about leverage.
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: And the mayor's aggressive stance was immediately reinforced by the
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: Ithaca Common Council, which is the city's legislative body.
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: And their rhetoric was intense.
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: It really highlights a deep, festering resentment. Yeah.
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: We have statements from Councilmember Defendini, who notably is actually
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: a Cornell alumnus himself.
• 21:29
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: And council member Matos, a lifelong Ithaca resident, they publicly
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: branded Cornell a, quote, runaway rogue institution.
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: Runaway rogue institution.
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah. They accused the university of harboring an environment where
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: elitist behavior is protected and where students operate under the
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: assumption that they will face zero real-world consequences for their actions.
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: That language, rogue institution, it gets right to the heart
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: of the town versus gown dynamic.
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: The town versus gown, yeah.
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: Because you have a multi-billion dollar entity operating within a
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: relatively small city.
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: When that entity manages its own police force, conducts its
• 22:06
  Speaker 2: own internal justice tribunals via Title IX, and quietly handles
• 22:11
  Speaker 2: violent felony allegations internally without even notifying local law enforcement.
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: It begins to function as a sovereign state.
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: It operates like its own country.
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: And the resentment is just palpable.
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: The Common Council even took the extraordinary step of issuing
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: an apology directly to Jane Doe.
• 22:29
  Speaker 2: Yeah. They said, quote, you can't turn to Cornell. You
• 22:32
  Speaker 2: can turn to us. Wow.
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: They are actively positioning the municipal government as the legitimate
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: guardian of safety, directly undermining the university's authority.
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: And this friction has reached the highest levels of state
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: government now. Yeah.
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: The governor stepped in. Right.
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: New York Governor Kathy Hochul is demanding an independent investigation
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: into Cornell's handling of the case.
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: So the state is intervening.
• 22:53
  Speaker 2: Yes, because the breakdown in trust between the institution and
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: the municipality is total. It's completely broken.
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: And, you know, we have to ask why the city
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: is willing to utilize such extreme measures over this. I mean,
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: threatening moratoriums, demanding state investigations, all over a single incident
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: from two years ago.
• 23:09
  Speaker 2: Right. It seems huge.
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: But the answer is found in the data. The sources
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: indicate that local officials are not reacting to an isolated
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: anomaly here. They are reacting to a documented statistical pattern.
• 23:22
  Speaker 2: The data really provides the context for all of this outrage.
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: Let's get into the numbers.
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: Okay. So we have to look at the statistics mandated
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: by the Clery Act.
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: And the Clery Act is a federal statute, right? Yes.
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: It requires universities to publicly report crimes that occur on
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: or near their campuses.
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: According to those official Clery Act reports, in 2024, there
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: were 44 reported incidents of on-campus rape or fondling at Cornell.
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: Forty-four. And, you know, when you just look at raw numbers,
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: it can sometimes be difficult to gauge the severity of
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: what that means.
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you need a baseline. Right.
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: But the sources provide a direct comparison. When adjusted for
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: the size of the student body, those 44 reports mean
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: that Cornell's rate of reported sexual assault is three times
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: higher than the rates at neighboring Syracuse University and Colgate University.
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: Three times higher. That is a massive statistical deviation. It is.
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: But remember, those are just the incidents officially reported to
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: campus authorities.
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: Right. The tip of the iceberg.
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Because the sources also break down a separate 2025
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: survey conducted internally by Cornell aimed at measuring the actual
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: climate of sexual misconduct on campus.
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: And the results of that survey are alarming, to say
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: the least. Very alarming. 35% of undergraduate women reported experiencing
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: non-consensual sexual contact since their arrival at Cornell.
• 24:47
  Speaker 2: Over one-third of the undergraduate female population.
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: Just staggering.
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: And when expanding the data to the entire student body,
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: including men and graduate students, the figure is 15%.
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: And the trajectory is perhaps the most concerning aspect here.
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: That 15% overall figure is an increase from just 11%
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: in the previous survey, which was conducted in 2023.
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: So it's going up.
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: The problem is demonstrably worsening according to the university's own
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: internal metrics.
• 25:14
  Speaker 2: But, and this is wild. The most revealing data point
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: in that survey is not a reported experience.
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: What is it then?
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: It is the absence of participation.
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: The sources note that only 15% of the students invited
• 25:30
  Speaker 2: to take the 2025 survey actually completed it. Wow. That
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: response rate is less than half of what they achieved
• 25:38
  Speaker 2: just two years prior.
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: Wait, so 85% of the student body received an invitation
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: to detail their experiences with campus safety and just chose
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: to ignore it?
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: 85% ignored it.
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: How do we interpret that massive drop-off? Because that can't
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: just be students forgetting to check their email.
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: No, absolutely not. Palumbo, the advocate we mentioned earlier, she
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: provides a really stark interpretation to this.
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: What does she say?
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: She argues that silence on this scale is an active
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: data point.
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: Silence as data? Yes.
• 26:11
  Speaker 2: A plummeting participation rate signifies a profound systemic loss of faith. Wow.
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: The student body has basically reached a point of exhaustion
• 26:20
  Speaker 2: and cynicism where they no longer believe that reporting their trauma,
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: even anonymously on a climate survey, will result in any
• 26:27
  Speaker 2: tangible institutional change.
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: When you synthesize the Clariac data with that survey data,
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: the scope of the problem becomes terrifyingly clear for the listener.
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it paints a very dark picture.
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: You have 44 official reports generating the Cleary statistics, but
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: then you have 35% of undergraduate women acknowledging non-consensual contact
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: in a survey where the vast majority of the campus
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: didn't even participate.
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: So those 44 official reports, they really are just the
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: visible tip of an enormous, completely unquantified iceberg of silent incidents.
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: And we hear the human reality behind those statistics in
• 27:04
  Speaker 2: the voices of the students interviewed in the source material.
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: Yeah, the student quotes really stood out to me. Right.
• 27:10
  Speaker 2: A senior named Athena Holloway detailed her experience of reporting
• 27:13
  Speaker 2: an incident during her freshman year.
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: And what was her take?
• 27:17
  Speaker 2: Her assessment of the Title IX office was that they
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: were just fundamentally unhelpful in providing resources.
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: And her ultimate conclusion was that the process left her
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: unwilling to pursue the matter any further, right?
• 27:28
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: In fact, when she was asked directly about her sense
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: of security, she definitively stated, quote, no, I do not
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: feel safe on campus.
• 27:36
  Speaker 2: And you also have the perspective of a freshman, Jaden Kim,
• 27:39
  Speaker 2: who has just arrived at the university.
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 27:43
  Speaker 2: Despite being brand new to the environment, he already characterizes
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: his trust in the university systems as, quote, shaky.
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: So you have an incoming class immediately adopting the distrust
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: forged by the graduating class.
• 27:54
  Speaker 2: Exactly. It's cyclical.
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: Put yourself in the position of a student reading these
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: statistics and hearing these testimonies. It's bleak.
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: Very bleak.
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: And the sources detail Cornell's response to this crisis, too.
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: Right, the task force.
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, the administration formed a, quote, campus sexual assault task
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: force in 2025 and issued all these statements about their
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: commitment to examine and strengthen its policies.
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: Which is essentially a bureaucratic response to an immediate physical threat.
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: And it highlights such a frustrating paradox. The administration points
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: to task forces and policy reviews as evidence of action.
• 28:27
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: But students like Athena Holloway view those exact same task
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: forces as a stalling tactic.
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah, just talk.
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: She notes that constantly having conversations about the issue without
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: implementing any tangible consequences serves no one. She even mentioned
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: feeling like a, quote, radical simply for demanding actionable change.
• 28:44
  Speaker 2: It's unbelievable.
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: I mean, how many administrative committees does it take to
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: actually alter the physical safety.
• 28:50
  Speaker 2: Of a campus? Well, when an institution continually defaults to
• 28:54
  Speaker 2: internal policy reviews rather than external transparency and immediate intervention,
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: it telegraphs to the community that Managing liability and public
• 29:04
  Speaker 2: relations is prioritized over structural reform.
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: That's a great point. Managing liability over reform. Yeah. Let's
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: trace the massive arc of this deep dive today because
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: we've covered a lot of ground.
• 29:16
  Speaker 2: We really have.
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: We started by examining how a six-page police statement in 2024,
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: a low-resolution account that failed to satisfy the rigid, linear
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: demands of the state penal code, how that allowed a
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: criminal investigation to just completely stall.
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: And then we explored... The science of trauma, really analyzing
• 29:33
  Speaker 2: how dissociative drugs and extreme stress fragment human memory.
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: Right. The hippocampus.
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: Exactly. And how those biological realities clash with a legal
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: system that demands chronological perfection just to achieve a conviction
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: Then we analyzed the vast chasm between Title IX tribunals
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: and criminal courts, illustrating how a university can expel students
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: using a lower burden of proof while the state declines
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: to prosecute those exact same students.
• 30:01
  Speaker 2: And we observed the institutional breakdown that occurs when a
• 30:04
  Speaker 2: university operates as a sovereign entity, failing to hand off
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: complex felony investigations to specialized municipal detectives.
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: Which led a city government to literally declare war on
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: its own educational anchor.
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: Right, the moratorium.
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: And finally, we contextualized all of this within the grim
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: reality of campus climate data. Yeah. A campus where reports
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: are three times higher than neighboring peers, where a third
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: of undergraduate women report non-consensual contact, and where an 85%
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: survey silence rate speaks to a student body that has
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: fundamentally given up on the internal systems designed to protect them.
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: The implications of this story extend so far beyond the
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: borders of Ithaca, New York.
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely.
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: This is a case study in Power Dynamics. It is.
• 30:49
  Speaker 2: It forces us to ask, when heavily endowed, immensely powerful
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: institutions are granted the autonomy to police their own most
• 30:57
  Speaker 2: severe crises, who is actually ensuring the safety of the
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: vulnerable individuals within those systems?
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: And that is the crucial takeaway for you listening today.
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: You are watching a system where the internal triage nurse
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: is performing open heart surgery, and the city's specialized surgeons
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: aren't even given the hospital's address until two years after
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: the patient has left the operating table.
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: It's a system failure.
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: Complete failure. And as we conclude this deep dive, I
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: want to leave you with a final, provocative angle to consider,
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: something that really builds on the fundamental flaws we've exposed today.
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: Okay, what is it?
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: We've spent all this time examining how federal frameworks like
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: Title IX and the Clery Act essentially permit universities to
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: manage felony-level allegations internally. Right. But what if that autonomy
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: is the actual root of the entire problem?
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: Interesting.
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: If universities continually prove, as the officials in Ithaca are
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: vehemently arguing right now, that they lack the specialized forensic
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: expertise to handle violent felony investigations, should those federal laws
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: be completely rewritten?
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: Rewritten entirely.
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: Yes. Imagine a legal framework where universities are explicitly stripped
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: of their jurisdiction over violent sexual assault allegations.
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: Just take it out of their hands.
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: Exactly. A system that mandates the immediate, automatic transfer of
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: any felony-level claim away from campus authorities and directly to
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: external municipal state investigators.
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: Wow.
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: Would entirely removing the university from the justice equation finally
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: provide students with the objective, specialized protection they actually need?
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: Or would it simply collapse the local court systems and
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: strip survivors of the few, albeit flawed, internal resources they
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: currently rely on?
• 32:33
  Speaker 2: That is a fascinating question.
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: When the internal mechanisms of justice are failing, who should
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: be given the authority to fix the machine?
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: Definitely something to think about.
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us on this deep dive into
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: the sources. Keep analyzing the institutions around you and keep
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: asking the hard questions.