Jane Doe said she felt ‘unsupported and disbelieved’ by Cornell president in letter sent to faculty leaders

Cornell Faculty Leaders Receive Letter From Jane Doe Ahead of No-Confidence Debate

Healfromzero.com – A woman identified in court records as Jane Doe told two senior Cornell University faculty leaders that she felt “unsupported and disbelieved” after reporting an alleged sexual assault in 2024, describing concerns about the response she believed came from Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff.

The letter reached Cornell’s Dean of Faculty and the Speaker of the Faculty Senate on October 14, the same day the Senate gathered to discuss a possible vote of no confidence in Kotlikoff’s leadership. Doe wrote that she was sharing her experience so Senate members could decide for themselves whether the information warranted consideration or further examination.

“It is important to me that the Faculty Senate be made aware of this letter so that its members can make an informed choice about how they wish to consider or act upon the information it contains.”

Doe filed a 101-page lawsuit against Cornell last month over an alleged gang rape at a fraternity house. The filing has led to a renewed investigation into her allegations and has intensified scrutiny of how colleges respond when students report sexual violence.

Concern Centered on a January 2025 Meeting

In her letter, Doe described a conversation relayed to her by the president of her sorority. She wrote that the sorority leader had met with Kotlikoff after Doe reported the alleged assault and understood him to have asked a question similar to: “Why did she wait so long to report it?”

Doe made clear in the letter that this account came second-hand. Still, she said the sorority president viewed the question as casting doubt on the truthfulness of Doe’s allegation. That understanding, Doe wrote, affected her confidence in Cornell’s leadership.

“It diminished my confidence in the administration’s ability to approach my experience with the understanding, sensitivity, and fairness I had hoped for and expected from what had been my dream school.”

A university spokesperson rejected Doe’s characterization of the exchange. The spokesperson said a documented first-hand account showed that Kotlikoff’s question was directed at bystanders who had not used Cornell’s anonymous reporting line, despite social-media discussion of the incident in October 2024. The spokesperson said he was not challenging Doe’s decision to report.

The distinction is central to the dispute. Questions about reporting timelines can carry significant weight for survivors of alleged sexual assault, particularly when they are interpreted as skepticism. Cornell’s response maintains that the president was addressing the actions of others who may have known about the incident, rather than Doe herself.

Timeline of the Alleged Assault and Report

Doe has alleged that she was assaulted during the early hours of October 20, 2024. She reported the incident to Cornell University police on November 8. Her lawsuit has raised broader questions about whether institutional processes provide students with sufficient support, clarity and confidence after an allegation is made.

Universities commonly face competing responsibilities in these cases: responding to a student’s needs, preserving fairness in investigative procedures, meeting legal obligations and communicating responsibly with the campus community. The Cornell matter has brought those pressures into sharp focus as faculty members consider the administration’s handling of the situation.

Doe did not ask the Faculty Senate to reach a prescribed outcome. Instead, her letter said its purpose was to make members aware of information they might choose to weigh or investigate.

“I do not want to prescribe how the Senate should interpret this account, but rather to provide information that its members may wish to consider or investigate further.”

Faculty Questions Over Distribution of the Letter

The letter was not circulated to the full Faculty Senate before its deliberations, two Cornell professors said. That decision has become another point of concern for some faculty members, who have argued that the Senate should have been able to review the communication while considering the no-confidence measure.

Paul Ortiz, a Cornell professor who sponsored the Senate’s no-confidence vote, expressed disappointment that faculty had not received the letter directly.

“I am disappointed that the letter that Jane Doe sent to Cornell faculty has still not been shared with the faculty and that we are only learning about it because of media coverage.”

On Tuesday morning, Dean of Faculty Chris Schaffer sent Senate members an email confirming that he had received Doe’s letter on October 14. He wrote that he forwarded it to Cornell’s Office of the General Counsel, which then sent it to the investigative team led by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

“In the interests of transparency, I am writing now to inform the Senate that I received this communication, that I passed it on to the Office of the General Counsel, and that they have sent it to the investigatory team led by Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.”

The letter adds a personal account to an already consequential debate at Cornell. It also underscores how the language used by university leaders, the handling of internal communications and the process for investigating allegations can shape confidence in an institution long before an inquiry reaches its conclusion.