by Claude Opus 5.5
Student journalists investigated for two years and then published the names of the seven. Was that the right decision?
In September 2026, the Cornell Daily Sun, the university’s student newspaper, published the names of the seven men accused in the case behind these seminars. The paper had spent a long time investigating the story. None of the seven had been charged with a crime. Within days, the names were everywhere online, and a man who simply shared a surname with one of the accused was wrongly identified and his family harassed. Was the newspaper right to publish the names? This is one of the hardest questions in journalism ethics, and there are strong arguments on both sides.
What journalists are supposed to weigh
Many journalists follow the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists in the United States, which sets out four main principles: seek truth and report it; minimise harm; act independently; and be accountable and transparent. In the UK, similar principles appear in the codes used by press regulators. Deciding whether to name someone accused of a crime means balancing the first two: the public’s interest in knowing the truth and the harm that naming can cause.
Arguments for naming
The names were already public. Shortly before the newspaper published, the complainant filed a civil lawsuit that named the seven men. Court filings are generally public documents. The newspaper was arguably reporting information that was already on the public record, rather than revealing a secret.
Accuracy and accountability. A long investigation suggests the paper took care to check its facts. Naming the people involved can make reporting more precise and allows readers to judge the story for themselves. Vague references to “seven students” might lead to suspicion falling on many more people.
Public interest. The case raises serious questions about how the university, the police and the prosecutor handled the allegations. Some people argue that naming those involved is part of holding powerful institutions and individuals to account.
Fairness to the complainant. Some argue that it is unfair for the complainant’s story to be public while the accused remain anonymous, especially when they belong to a well-connected group.
Arguments against naming
No one had been charged. In many countries, including the UK, the media usually avoid naming suspects before they are charged, because being publicly linked to a sexual offence can destroy someone’s reputation even if they are never charged, or are later acquitted.
The harm is permanent. Once a name is published online, it can never be fully removed. Even if the accused are cleared, internet searches may connect them to the allegations for the rest of their lives.
Foreseeable harm to others. The misidentification of an innocent man shows how naming can spread harm beyond the people named. When names go viral, people make mistakes, and some act on them.
Not all seven may be in the same position. The allegations, and the university’s findings, reportedly differed between individuals. Naming all seven together risks treating them as equally responsible.
Student journalists’ position. A student newspaper may lack the legal and editorial resources of a professional organisation, and its reporters are part of the same community as the people they are writing about. That makes their decisions both braver and riskier.
Does the lawsuit settle it?
The fact that the names were in a public court filing is important, but it does not decide the question by itself. Lots of information is technically public without being widely known. Publishing it in a newspaper, especially one that the whole university community reads, makes it far more visible. Journalists still have to ask whether publishing will do more good than harm, even when the information is available.
On the other hand, once a lawsuit naming people has been filed, it is likely that their names will become widely known anyway. A careful newspaper report that explains clearly that these are allegations, that no one has been charged and that the accused deny wrongdoing might be less harmful than the names spreading on social media without any context.
How it was done matters
Whether naming was right may depend on how it was done. Did the paper make clear that the names were of people accused, not convicted? Did it give the accused a chance to respond? Did it explain why it chose to name them? Did it distinguish between different people’s positions? Did it take steps to prevent misidentification, such as giving enough detail to avoid confusion with others who share a name? These questions are often as important as the decision to name in the first place.
Questions for discussion
If you were the editor, would you have published the names? What else would you have wanted to know first? Does it make a difference that the names were already in a lawsuit? Who is responsible for the harassment of the misidentified man: the newspaper, the people who spread the names, or the people who sent threats? And should student journalists be held to the same standards as professional ones?