Two Columbia Students Dissented on the Cornell Seven Case—then the Blowback Began
On October 13, Columbia University juniors Nikos Mohammadi and Christina Ma published an opinion piece on the alleged rape of “Jane Doe” by seven members of a fraternity at Cornell. Dissenting from general campus opinion, they argued that it was “worth taking a pause before jumping to wide-sweeping conclusions” about the case, and that the prevailing rhetoric—that women lack meaningful agency when choosing to perform acts they may later come to regret—was infantilizing.
Seething responses flooded in. “Brother you gotta go kill yourself,” one read. “I hope this follows you around forever,” read another. “[H]ope both are shown the same cruelty you carry in your heart for someone you don’t even know,” read a third. The Columbia Open Discourse Alliance, “a non-partisan coalition for free speech and open discourse,” condemned Sundial, where the piece was published, claiming that it “promotes rape culture.” Such opinions simply should not be permitted, arguedthe Columbia Political Review.
That the piece was published, and that Sundial is standing its ground, is a good sign for free speech on campus. But as the backlash demonstrates, conformity to an apparent socially acceptable position continues to take precedence for many students at America’s most prestigious schools.
