AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "News Hour."

Anger and backlash are building at Cornell University this week over the way the school handled an alleged gang rape in 2024.

GEOFF BENNETT: Today, students staged a seven-hour sit-in and launched what they're calling an economic blackout, halting all spending on campus, including with any university operations.

That follows a rally earlier this week that drew thousands of students, faculty, and community members demanding justice for Jane Doe, who says she was sexually assaulted by multiple men at Cornell's Chi Phi fraternity two years ago.

SAYA TAYLOR, Cornell Protester: Jane Doe deserved an administration that delivered a fair and proper judicial process.

Jane Doe deserved a police department that would actually follow up on her case.

Instead, she was silenced, her rapists free to walk the grounds of Cornell under a system that chose the university over the student.

GEOFF BENNETT: Yesterday, Cornell announced former federal prosecutor Sally Yates will lead an independent review of the university's handling of the case.

And, late last week, Governor Kathy Hochul appointed New York Attorney General Letitia James a special prosecutor.

The local district attorney did not pursue charges back in 2024.

The case has renewed questions about how sexual assault allegations are investigated on college campuses and by law enforcement.

Northwestern Law Professor Deborah Tuerkheimer is a former prosecutor and author of "Credible: Why We Doubt Accusers and Protect Abusers."

She joins us now.

Thank you for being with us.

DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law: Thank you for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: New York data shows that most campus sexual assault cases never reach law enforcement, never result in serious discipline.

And yet we know that Jane Doe pursued many of the avenues available to her.

There was a Title IX investigation.

There was a police report.

Of course, there's now a civil lawsuit.

When you look at how this case was handled, what should have happened differently?

DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER: Well, from the beginning, the criminal investigation really never got off the ground.

From what we have been able to tell, there was no effort to build a relationship with Jane Doe.

There was no effort to take into account the impact of trauma and the way that traumatic memories are really stored and retrieved and encoded differently than other types of memories.

There was very little effort then to gather the kind of corroborative evidence that would give investigators a sense of whether charges were viable.

Instead, what we saw is that, from the very beginning, the investigation was dismissed, and Jane Doe was too.

GEOFF BENNETT: And Cornell handled this through Title IX, even though the allegations included serious crimes.

At what point should a university turn a case like this directly over to law enforcement?

DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER: Well, the choice of whether to take a case to law enforcement really belongs to a victim.

In this case, as you said, Jane Doe did seek to pursue both a criminal prosecution and also her Title IX complaint, and that is absolutely within the right of someone who's been the victim of sexual assault.

So, often, the proceedings proceed parallel, and they can happen at the same time.

One can happen before the other.

But, again, here, we saw only the Title IX proceeding go forward, and the criminal case never got off the ground.

GEOFF BENNETT: And New York law has come under scrutiny too, as you well know, over how voluntary intoxication affects sexual assault prosecutions.

How does that complicate questions of consent and prosecution?

DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER: Well, New York has a provision of its rape law that says that a person who is mentally incapacitated or temporarily unable to control or appraise their conduct due to alcohol or drugs is not able to consent, but only if those drugs or alcohol were administered without the consent of the victim.

So that's what's called the voluntary intoxication loophole.

About 19 states do treat voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication differently.

And what it means is that someone who's voluntarily ingested alcohol or drugs is deemed not to be a victim, unworthy of the law's protection.

GEOFF BENNETT: You have written extensively about consent, the skepticism directed at victims, the institutions that can protect the accused.

How does the Cornell case fit into that broader pattern that you have researched and written about?

DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER: Well, sadly, these dynamics are familiar, all too familiar.

And I say sadly, but also maddeningly.

In cases across the country every day, victims are met with undue skepticism.

They're met with blame.

They're met with disregard.

I call this the credibility discount, and we see it all the time.

It's ubiquitous.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we should say, the names and images of the seven men who have been accused have been spread widely across social media.

Their names have, in some cases, been reported, even though none have been criminally charged.

And we have seen cases, including the Duke lacrosse case, where men accused of sexual assault were ultimately exonerated.

So, what protections are owed to the accused?

DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER: Well, in criminal court, the a criminal defendant has the highest level of protection, and that's appropriate because of the consequences that can ensue.

And, on campus, there are also protections that are due to a respondent.

I think what we're seeing in this case is that the credibility discount means that investigators aren't even doing their job.

They're not even pursuing the possibility that a case is viable.

And in the Title IX context, all too often, even when a complainant is found to be credible, the sanctions are light and the process is flawed.

And so there are so many ways in which the legal system continues to fail accusers in these cases and to provide impunity for abusers.

GEOFF BENNETT: Northwestern Law Professor Deborah Tuerkheimer, thank you again for being with us.

DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER: Thank you.