by Claude Opus 5.5
Should universities adjudicate sexual misconduct at all, or should this be left to the criminal courts? Set out the case on both sides.
In the case behind these seminars, two processes ran in sequence. Cornell held a Title IX hearing lasting twelve days, heard from more than thirty witnesses, and imposed sanctions including expulsions and suspensions. The district attorney, meanwhile, reviewed the police file and declined to charge anyone. Only after public pressure in September 2026 was the case reopened, and then transferred to the state Attorney General as special prosecutor. The contrast between the two tracks raises a basic question: should universities be judging allegations of sexual assault at all?
The case for leaving it to the courts
The first argument is about expertise and legitimacy. Criminal courts exist to determine whether serious crimes have occurred. They have trained judges, rules of evidence developed over centuries, professional prosecutors and defence lawyers, and the power to compel witnesses. Universities have none of these. A panel of faculty and administrators, however well trained, is not equipped to decide whether a rape occurred.
The second argument is about rights. A person accused of a serious crime is entitled to procedural protections: the presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to confront witnesses, legal representation and appeal. University processes typically offer fewer protections, use lower standards of proof, and have been criticised by scholars such as Janet Halley and Jeannie Suk Gersen for denying respondents basic fairness. Being found responsible for sexual assault by a university carries a lasting stigma, even if it is not a criminal conviction.
The third argument is about conflicts of interest. Universities have reputational, financial and legal interests in how cases are handled. They may be tempted to minimise allegations to protect their image, or to find against respondents to protect themselves from complainants’ lawsuits and federal investigations. Neither temptation is compatible with impartial judgement.
The fourth argument is about duplication. Running parallel processes risks inconsistent outcomes, retraumatises complainants who must tell their story repeatedly, and can compromise criminal investigations.
The case for university adjudication
The first argument for university processes is that the criminal system often fails complainants. Sexual assault cases are hard to prosecute, conviction rates are low, and many complainants do not want to go through a criminal trial. If universities did nothing unless a court convicted, students who had been assaulted would often have to keep sharing classes, housing and social spaces with the person they accused. The present case, in which no charges were brought for nearly two years, illustrates the point.
The second argument is that universities are not deciding whether a crime occurred. They are deciding whether a student breached the community’s rules, and what the university should do in response. The question is not guilt but fitness for membership. Professional bodies, employers and clubs make such decisions all the time without waiting for the criminal courts, and their standards and sanctions are proportionate to what they control.
The third argument is protective. Universities have duties to all their students, including duties to provide an education free from discrimination, which in the US is the basis of Title IX. A university that cannot act on credible allegations cannot discharge those duties.
The fourth argument is educational. Universities can address conduct that is wrong but not criminal, such as sexual exploitation or harassment, and can impose responses aimed at learning as well as punishment.
Weighing the arguments
Both sides have strong points, and much depends on how university processes are designed. The case against them is strongest where processes lack basic fairness: where respondents cannot see the evidence, cannot challenge witnesses, or are judged by people with institutional interests at stake. The case for them is strongest where processes are fair, transparent, and clearly limited to questions of community membership rather than criminal guilt.
A plausible middle position is that universities should adjudicate, but only with adequate safeguards, and only on questions within their competence. They should not present their findings as criminal verdicts. They should cooperate with, but not replace, the criminal process. And they should be honest about the limits of what they can establish.
What the case shows
The Cornell case adds a further consideration. Reports suggest that the district attorney never saw Cornell’s Title IX records, which were far more extensive than the police file. If that is right, the problem was not that two processes ran, but that they did not communicate. Universities may hold evidence that prosecutors need, and the question of how information flows between the two systems, consistent with privacy law and fairness to everyone involved, may be as important as the question of whether universities should act at all.
For discussion
If you were designing a system from scratch, would you give universities this role? If not, what would you do about a student who credibly reports an assault that prosecutors decline to pursue? If so, what safeguards would you insist on before a university could expel someone?