by Claude Opus 5.5
What would a utilitarian say the university should have done? What would a Kantian say?
After the complainant in the case behind these seminars reported what had happened, Cornell faced a series of decisions. It opened a Title IX investigation, held a twelve-day hearing, imposed sanctions including expulsions and suspensions, closed the fraternity chapter, and kept most details confidential. Two of the most influential approaches in ethics, utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, can help us think about what the university should have done. They often agree about the outcome but disagree about the reasons, and sometimes they disagree about the outcome too.
Utilitarianism in brief
Utilitarianism, developed by thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, holds that the right action is the one that produces the best overall consequences, usually understood as the greatest happiness or well-being for everyone affected. Everyone’s well-being counts equally.
What a utilitarian might say
A utilitarian would ask: which response would produce the best outcomes for everyone affected, including the complainant, the accused, other students, the wider university community and future students?
Protecting students. If the accused students posed a risk to others, removing them from campus would reduce future harm. Expulsion might therefore be justified, even without a criminal conviction, if the evidence suggested a real risk.
Deterrence. Strong sanctions might discourage other students from similar behaviour, preventing harm in the future.
Encouraging reporting. If students see that complaints are taken seriously, more people might come forward, allowing the university to address more harm.
Supporting the complainant. Helping the complainant recover and continue her education would increase her well-being.
Fairness to the accused. A utilitarian would also count the harm to accused students if they were punished wrongly. A process that often punished innocent people would cause great suffering and undermine trust in the university.
Reputation. A utilitarian might also consider the university’s reputation, since it affects many people. But a utilitarian would warn against putting reputation ahead of justice, because hiding problems tends to cause more harm in the long run.
On this view, the university should have done whatever was most likely to reduce overall harm: a fair and thorough process, firm sanctions where responsibility was found, strong support for the complainant, clear communication with the community, and sharing information with prosecutors.
Kantian ethics in brief
Immanuel Kant argued that the morality of an action depends not on its consequences but on whether it respects the moral law. One of his key ideas is that we must always treat people as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end. Another is that we should act only on principles that we could will everyone to follow.
What a Kantian might say
A Kantian would ask: does the university’s response respect everyone involved as a person with dignity, and is it based on principles that could apply to everyone?
Respect for the complainant. The complainant must be treated as a person whose account matters, not as a problem to be managed or a threat to the university’s reputation. Ignoring her or treating her complaint as a nuisance would fail to respect her dignity.
Respect for the accused. The accused must also be treated as persons. They have a right to a fair process, to know what they are accused of, and to respond. Punishing them merely to make an example of them, or to protect the university’s image, would use them as means to an end.
Honesty. Kant placed great weight on honesty. A Kantian would be uncomfortable with an institution that misleads the public or hides behind technicalities, even if doing so produced better outcomes.
Universal principles. The university should apply the same rules to everyone, whether they belong to a prestigious fraternity or not.
On this view, the university should have run a fair process, respecting both the complainant and the accused, imposed sanctions that reflected what each person actually did, and been honest about its decisions.
Where they agree and disagree
Both theories would support a fair, thorough process and serious consequences for wrongdoing. But they might disagree in some areas. A utilitarian might accept closing the whole chapter to prevent future harm, even though some members did nothing wrong. A Kantian might object that punishing innocent members uses them as means. A utilitarian might accept some secrecy if it reduced harm; a Kantian would be more concerned about honesty.
Questions for discussion
Which approach do you find more convincing, and why? Is it ever right to punish a whole group to prevent harm? Should a university care about its reputation when making these decisions? And can you think of a decision in this case where the two theories would point in different directions?