What exactly happened inside Cornell University's Chi Phi fraternity house one evening in October 2024?

Almost two years later, that question has become the center of a horrifying scandal involving allegations of gang rape, accusations of institutional negligence, and a sexual culture so morally bankrupt that the distinction between consent and coercion appears to have become dangerously blurred.

According to court documents, a 20-year-old student (identified as Jane Doe) arrived at the fraternity house in Ithaca, New York, after a night of heavy drinking. There, she allegedly participated in consensual sexual activity with two fraternity members, before continuing to drink and take drugs (including ketamine) as the rest of the evening descended into something that went beyond "just" one threesome in a frat house.

Today, Jane Doe is alleging that she was sexually assaulted, and the question has become whether her allegations are true or false in the context of the legal system, with the difference between legality and morality exploding onto the scene as Americans across the country become ever-more nauseated by the details that unfold.

All while, predictably, this became the latest true crime fetish for the country.

And there's one issue at the heart of this sordid case: consent.

Did some (or all) of those involved consent?

But I can't help but feel we're missing the real problem here.

There may be no one who truly knows what actually happened that evening, and whether each person involved (each of whom was reportedly drunk and/or drugged) consented to each respective sexual act. For the legally innocent, that is a tragedy, and for the legally guilty, that is an advantage that has been embraced by far too many in the past.

But there's something else — beyond drugs and alcohol — that every single person shared that night: a complete lack of self-respect.

Apparently, it's too much to ask that people have respect for others, but how did we get to the stage where people don't even have respect for themselves?

In this sense, the same can be said of Jane Doe and her unclear number of alleged sexual abusers — regardless of whether they behaved in a legal way (or a legally ambiguous way, especially if we ignore the consumption of illegal drugs), not one of them had any respect for themselves.

By reducing the entire field of sexual morality to a question of consent, we are pretending that consent can automatically transform something degrading into something dignified, and as if exploitation, promiscuity and humiliation are suddenly worth celebrating because "consent" was involved.

This is nothing but a catastrophically shallow understanding of morality.

Consent is obviously an indispensable aspect of sex, and without it, sex becomes sexual assault. But let's not kid ourselves that it's the only aspect of sex, and that with consent, any and all sexual acts should be embraced by society as a moral good.

On the subject of Jane Doe, why did she think so little of herself? On the subject of the fraternity members who were involved, why did they think so little of themselves?

No matter what the courts ultimately determine (or do not determine) about the legal concepts of innocence or guilt, the behavior described in this case reveals a devastating absence of self-respect. Until we rediscover the difference between what we can consent to and what we should consent to, scandals such as Cornell will remain symptoms of a much deeper cultural sickness.

Ian Haworth is a syndicated columnist. You can find his work on Substack and follow him on X (@ighaworth). To find out more about Ian Haworth and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Monique Caraballo at Unsplash