Cornell, the DA and the communication choices that deepened a crisis

Erin Kramer is owner of Erin Kramer Consulting. 

There are few issues more difficult to navigate than sex crimes, for universities, prosecutors, lawmakers and, especially, victims. Cases like the one unfolding at Cornell University garner significant attention not only because details are salacious but because sexual assault is one of the most common, devastating and underreported crimes.

During a decade running communications in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, sex crimes brought more intense reputational scrutiny than any other crime — and were among the most difficult cases to prove. During my time overseeing University Communications at Duke, its handling of the school’s own high-profile sexual assault case 20 years ago still loomed large, and remains a cautionary tale at universities and prosecutors’ offices around the country.

Having worked in these worlds and on these cases for most of my career (in a DA’s office, at a major university, with civil attorneys and, most importantly, with victims of sex crimes themselves), there are important communications lessons that should inform all of our work.

Let’s start with Cornell.

Who is speaking, and what are they saying?

Cornell released three statements in under two weeks related to the rape allegations and the school’s response.

The first two came from Vice President for University Relations Kyle Kimball, with the first headlined as a response to Jane Doe’s lawsuit and the second as a response to the DA’s reopened investigation. The framing alone is problematic: Cornell is reacting and following, not leading.

Kimball’s September 21^st statement was appropriately straightforward. It acknowledged the allegations, explained what Cornell could and could not say and linked to Cornell’s report following its 2025 Sexual Assault Task Force.

But it also directed students to use an online reporting tool, a jarringly impersonal response to one of the most traumatic crimes imaginable, and did not include meaningful detail about the changes Cornell says it is making as a result of that report.

Kimball’s second statement created much bigger problems. The very first sentence refers to Jane Doe’s detailed allegations of rape as her “story.” Every word matters, and that word is insulting and a lightning rod for advocates.

But it is the final line that sets Cornell up for longer-term messaging failure:

“A continuation of the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this case is irresponsible, will make victims feel less safe and supported, and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault.”

It is hard for so many problems to exist in one sentence.

The term “false narrative” casts doubt on the victim, attempts to preemptively shut down appropriate questioning of Cornell’s handling of sex crimes, shifts the core issue to the narrative instead of the crime, doubles down on Cornell’s assertion that its secret consequences were sufficient and then has the audacity to suggest that the questions being raised are the real problem for sexual assault victims.

No. Just no.

Particularly when statements about violence against women are coming from men, there is no room for language that minimizes, deflects or seems to question the very existence of a crime.

The following day, more than a week after the civil case was filed and the firestorm began in earnest, a joint communication was issued by the chair of Cornell’s Board of Trustees, the president and the provost. The gravity of the three authors alone was an improvement. The message was stronger, included links to prior statements, the report and more resources for students, and included an FAQ which addressed specific questions in a way a statement cannot. It also provides a space for answering more questions as they arise, mitigating in some part the need for a continuous stream of statements.

The 2026 Presidential Task Force on Campus Sexual Assault report is its own communications tool, and fails to meaningfully address Cornell’s shocking statistic that 52%of Greek affiliated women reported being sexually assaulted at Cornell. It also includes proposes that a fundraising campaign cover the modest recommendations, for a school with an $11.8 billion endowment.

And then there is the DA

The Tompkins County District Attorney’s response warrants its own analysis.

District Attorney Matthew Van Houten released a summary and parts of Jane Doe’s statement to his office when it wasn’t otherwise accessible to the public, blamed others for his office’s lack of follow through and then capped of a week of terrible communications decisions with an appearance on CNN.

Let me bottom line this: Prosecutors should not talk during open investigations. If absolutely necessary, if silence creates a significant and real impediment to public safety, only say the bare minimum.

By now, Van Houten has talked himself out of deserving to keep the case, and there’s a very likely chance a special prosecutor will come in. He should accept the help, because he will never publicly recover this fumble: If Van Houten ultimately declines to charge the men accused of gang raping Jane Doe, critics will say he prejudged the case and protected his original decision. If he brings charges, defense attorneys will argue that he bowed to extraordinary political and media pressure, and overcharged it. It’s in the best interest of the victim and the DA’s Office for this case to get a truly fresh look.

What happens next

Reading the statements, court documents, Cornell report and media coverage, I started making a list of what everyone involved should already be preparing for, and stopped when I filled a legal pad. In addition to Cornell and the DA’s office, there will be questions for the Board of Trustees, the local police, lawmakers, the fraternity, the civil attorneys, and how other universities use this crisis to look at their own communications and sexual assault responses.

For Cornell, an independent outside review of its 2024 response (which it agreed to yesterday); much broader scrutiny of Greek life; questions about what recommendations from its sexual assault task force were actually implemented; scrutiny of victim-reporting systems and campus police protocols; potential admissions and donor fallout; and the very real possibility that additional former or current students come forward with their own experiences.

For the DA, the list is much shorter. A request for a special prosecutor is already foreseeable and may now be the cleanest way to preserve Jane Doe’s case and confidence in the criminal justice system. He should say little else.

For her attorney, I initially thought the communications mandate is the cleanest. He has accomplished his goal, Cornell is on its heels, the likelihood of a significant settlement and systemic, far-reaching policy change is high. If this was purely a criminal case, I would strongly recommend not putting Jane Doe in front of the media while the case is pending, as sexual assault cases can fall apart if details in media interviews differ from what a victim has told investigators (the victim is then unfairly cast as unreliable by defense attorneys). But I’ve changed my mind. With a lower probability of criminal convictions and a high likelihood of a settlement, it’s Jane Doe’s story to tell if and when she chooses. In my experience the universities that extol free speech silence students, faculty and staff with NDAs. Cornell will likely insist on an NDA in exchange for a settlement, silencing a woman whose autonomy has already been shattered.

And for Jane Doe: We hear you, we see you and this will not be leaving the news cycle any time soon.