by Claude Opus 5.5
The university gave the accused students punishments such as suspension and expulsion. Is it right for a university to punish people a court has not convicted?
In the case behind these seminars, Cornell held its own hearing in 2025 and found several students responsible for breaking its rules. Sanctions reportedly included suspension and expulsion. Yet no one has been convicted of a crime: the local prosecutor decided not to bring charges, and although the case has now been reopened, no one has yet been charged. To some people this seems obviously unfair: how can you punish someone who has not been found guilty? To others it seems obviously right: why should a university have to wait for a court before protecting its students?
Why it might seem wrong
In the UK and the US, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That principle protects everyone from being punished by the state without strong evidence and a fair trial. If a university expels a student over an allegation that a court has not tested, it may look like it is ignoring that principle.
There are also practical worries. University hearings use a lower standard of proof than criminal courts. They usually have fewer protections, such as the right to a lawyer who can fully represent you. And universities might be tempted to act harshly to protect their reputation. If a university gets it wrong, a student could lose their education and carry a damaging record for years.
Why it might be right
On the other hand, there are strong reasons why universities do this.
A university is not a court. When a court convicts someone, it is deciding whether they committed a crime and should be punished by the state, possibly with prison. When a university expels someone, it is deciding whether they have broken the university’s rules and whether they can remain a member of the community. These are different questions, and they can reasonably use different standards.
Many organisations work this way. Employers can sack someone for serious misconduct without waiting for a criminal conviction. Sports clubs can ban members. Professional bodies, like those for doctors and teachers, can strike people off. In each case, the organisation decides whether the person can stay, based on its own rules and processes.
Courts often cannot help. Many sexual assault cases never reach court, because the evidence is not strong enough to meet the very high criminal standard of proof. If universities had to wait for a conviction, many students who reported assaults would have to keep living and studying alongside the person they reported.
Protecting students is part of a university’s job. A university has a responsibility to all its students, including the one who reported being harmed. Doing nothing could leave her, and others, at risk.
Is it really “punishment”?
Some people argue that university sanctions are not really punishment in the same sense as a criminal sentence. A criminal punishment is imposed by the state, can involve losing your liberty, and leaves a criminal record. Expulsion means losing your place at one university, which is very serious, but you can usually study elsewhere and you do not have a criminal record. Others reply that expulsion for sexual misconduct can follow someone for life, so it should be taken just as seriously.
What would make it fair?
If universities are going to impose serious sanctions without a conviction, the process needs to be fair. That might mean: both sides can see the evidence and respond to it; decisions are made by people with no stake in the outcome; there is a right to appeal; the standard of proof is appropriate to how serious the sanction is; and the university is honest that its decision is not a criminal conviction.
It is also worth remembering what happens if the two processes disagree. If a university expels a student and a court later acquits him, does that show the university was wrong? Not necessarily, because the two used different standards and asked different questions. But it does show why universities should explain their decisions carefully, and why they should never present a finding of responsibility as if it were proof that a crime was committed.
Questions for discussion
If you were accused of something at school or university, what would you want the process to look like? If you had reported being harmed, what would you want? Is it possible to design a process that is fair to both? And should the most serious sanctions, like expulsion, require more evidence than lesser ones?