Jane Doe said she felt ‘unsupported and disbelieved’ by Cornell president in letter sent to faculty leaders

Jane Doe Said She Felt Unsupported by Cornell President

Earthguardiansonline.com – Jane Doe said she felt unsupported and disbelieved after learning about comments she says Cornell University President Michael Kotlikoff made following her report of an alleged 2024 sexual assault. In a letter sent through her attorneys to faculty leaders, Doe said the information changed how she viewed the administration’s response.

Doe filed a 101-page lawsuit against Cornell last month alleging she was gang raped at a fraternity house. The lawsuit prompted renewed attention to the allegations, the university’s response and calls from students and faculty for a no-confidence vote involving the administration.

Letter raises concerns about reported January meeting

The letter was delivered to Cornell’s Dean of Faculty and the Speaker of the Faculty Senate on October 14, the day the Senate met to consider a no-confidence vote concerning Kotlikoff’s leadership. Jane Doe said she felt the reported remarks suggested that her account was being questioned.

Doe wrote that her sorority president met with Kotlikoff after Doe disclosed the alleged assault. According to Doe’s letter, the sorority president understood a question from Kotlikoff as being along the lines of why Doe had waited so long to report the incident. Doe acknowledged that the account was relayed through another person rather than coming from a direct conversation with the president.

“It diminished my confidence in the administration’s ability to approach my experience with the understanding, sensitivity, and fairness I had hoped for and expected from what had been my dream school.”

Cornell disputed Doe’s characterization of the January 2025 exchange. A university spokesperson said a documented firsthand account shows Kotlikoff’s question concerned bystanders who had not used Cornell’s anonymous tip line despite continued social-media discussion of the incident in October 2024. The spokesperson said he was not questioning Doe’s decision to report.

“He was not questioning Jane Doe’s reporting.”

Faculty Senate deliberations and the alleged assault

Doe alleges she was assaulted during the early hours of October 20, 2024, at a fraternity house. She contacted Cornell University police on November 8. Jane Doe said she felt it was important for faculty members to know about her account before deciding how to respond to the administration.

She said she did not intend to tell the Faculty Senate how to interpret the letter or how to vote. Instead, she wanted its members to have information they could consider or investigate further as they weighed concerns about leadership, communication and trust.

Two Cornell professors said the letter was not distributed to the full Faculty Senate before its wider existence became known. Paul Ortiz, a Cornell professor who sponsored the no-confidence measure, said faculty should have been able to review Doe’s message directly.

“I am disappointed that the letter that Jane Doe sent to Cornell faculty has still not been shared with the faculty and that we are only learning about it because of media coverage.”

The conflicting accounts underscore how an institution’s language and response can affect a student who reports alleged sexual violence. Jane Doe said she felt unsupported, while Cornell maintained that the question at issue was directed at potential witnesses, not at her.

FAQ for the Cornell community

What did Jane Doe’s letter say? Doe said she learned of comments attributed to Kotlikoff that left her feeling unsupported and disbelieved. She asked that faculty leaders have the opportunity to consider the information.

What is Cornell’s response? Cornell said the secondhand account in the letter was incorrect and that Kotlikoff’s question was about bystanders’ use of the university’s anonymous tip line, not Doe’s reporting.

Why is the letter significant? The letter became part of a broader discussion about Cornell’s handling of the allegations and the Faculty Senate’s consideration of a no-confidence measure involving the administration.