Cornell University Civil Lawsuit

All right, we're just giving it a few minutes here to let people join us, uh, for this discussion before we get going here today. Let's just give it a moment here for that purpose. If you're joining us, go ahead, jump in the comments, let us know you're here as we get started. We're just setting up a little early while people can join us. So we're just going to give it a minute or 2 here while we get started to discuss this case. We're going to give about 2 more minutes for people to join us and also see where we are coming in live at. Oh, so we are live on Facebook. We are live on YouTube right now. We should be live there also, so we'll see here in a second if we are. So we're just giving a second for people to join us here. Feel free to use the comments if you are with us right now. This will allow us to see who's joining us, who's out there. I'm trying to make sure that it is working live everywhere like it's supposed to, so that it's on all the proper channels the way it's supposed to be. So we're just checking on that real quick and making sure that that is live, all the proper channels the way it's supposed to be. And we are. Okay, we are live there. So we're just double-checking that all the live channels are feeding. It looks like they are. We're about to start here, about a minute, 1 minute away from starting and having this conversation. You'll be able to use the comments to chat with me, and I'll be responding to those comments. I can see them. We're on about 3 different platforms right now. We're coming from Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook, all 3 platforms at once to have this conversation. And I can see any comments that you put in the comments, so please feel free to do that. Use the comments area. So we can see which— what brought you here tonight to join us for this conversation. And like I said, we're just going to give it a couple minutes for people to join and then dive right in to this conversation around Cornell University, the lawsuit, how that lawsuit's being handled, how it's being treated by the media, how it appears to be treated by the DA's office, and how it's being treated by Cornell University. All 3 of those entities. We're going to look at all 3 elements of that with a bit of a deep dive here into that area of conversation. And so if you're just joining us, let us know in the comments you're with us. Let us know what you're thinking about this case, what you've heard, things that concern you, things that maybe you feel that, hey, that's, that's a good approach, something that's happening positive from this. So you could share that in your comments. You could share the concerning parts of this, uh, parts that don't shock you, parts that do shock you, so we can have a real conversation around this. And I see people starting to join now, so that's fantastic, uh, as far as we're happy that we can have this conversation. So once again, use the comments, let us know you're there, and I'm going to get started here around the conversation to try to be as comprehensive as possible with this conversation. And also discussing the disgusting elements of it, while also trying to really lay out all the facts based on the submitted lawsuit, based on what the DA has said since, and based on what the university is now saying. So we're going to put all that together in one place, because what we're seeing a lot of online today, and I'm seeing it a lot, is one source over here said this and somebody runs with it, and then this source over here ran with it, and then somebody runs with it. And they're not putting everything in one place, taking a full perspective view on this and what took place to get to this place. First of all, the lawsuit really became public last week. I first created a video on this on Thursday because this first broke sort of late Wednesday. And so I'm sorry, Friday was when my video went live. I knew I was— Thursday is when it really caught some momentum and I was diving deeper in it before I wanted to do a video. From when it first broke on late Wednesday, and then I did one on Thursday. In that video, I talked about lack of education here could have definitely played a role, and some people got really mad at me about that and said, how could education have changed something like this? This is so horrific. There's no education that could have made a difference. Yeah, there is. First of all, what we now know to be this chat group, which, by the way, a screenshot of the conversation Is submitted as evidence in the lawsuit. So let's be very clear, this isn't a hypothetical at this point. There's a screenshot from the actual chat conversation in the submitted lawsuit, and by the way, that screenshot is online now, so you can actually see evidence from this case online by looking up the screenshot. It's horrific to read, and this is why I do believe education could have made a difference here. Let me explain what. I'm not saying that education would have changed who set this up, what they did, and/or a few people that joined in. I'm not saying education would help there. Maybe they are wired in a way in their belief systems that education wouldn't have mattered. Where education could have made a huge influence though is all the people in that chat group who did nothing. I mean nothing, as far as we can tell from this lawsuit. including from the DA's office, including from Cornell University, there appears to be no reference of people coming forward. Nobody on that chat group called the police that night, according to records, right? So there was multitudes of people in that chat group. Now, some people say, well, we don't know who saw it or didn't see it. All right, well, the odds are more people saw it than the 7 that were involved, right? That's just, odds are good, especially On a party situation night on a campus. So let's talk about the lack of bystander intervention that is horrific in this case. Because by the way, even if you want to make the argument, let's say you want to make the argument that one of the many, many, many, many other people in that chat group didn't see it till the next morning. Why didn't they call the police the next morning and say, I have a chat screen here, see any human beings available upstairs? This can't be legal, right? This can't be. There's this doesn't make sense, does it? Why didn't they go to the other people who are listed in the chat as saying so and so just made this available, right? And say, "Hey, what was this last night?" And are you talking about you committed a sexual assault last night? There are so many paths of which bystander intervention could have played a role here, and of which. It appears zero people engaged in bystander intervention. And that's where the right education matters. Thanks for jumping in here. Nora made a comment on the fact that bystander intervention could have changed this path. Absolutely it could have. And now I have people going, well, I'm sure they went to the mandated Welcome Week session on Title IX. That doesn't mean it was effective education. I just don't think education makes a difference. It needs to be effective. Effective education. It needs to be effective bystander intervention training. And let me be clear, effective bystander intervention training is not just, here's how to intervene, step 1, 2, 3, 4. We do teach how to intervene. I give the exact steps of how to intervene in situations like this, exact steps in our standard programming. And let me stress, that's not the key element of the bystander intervention training that I provide schools. The steps are super helpful. They're not the key element. You want to know what the key element is when I'm doing training? Connecting the humanity. That's the key element of bystander intervention training. This is everything. When I'm with audiences, I talk to those students about who are you in that moment when nobody takes action? Look in the mirror and ask, who am I? Is this person who's being harmed worth intervening for? I ask that exact question of audiences— middle schools, high schools, universities. You know what they all yell? Yes, they are. And I say, why are they worth intervening for? What makes them worth intervening for? And students are smart. They know. They raise their hand and they say, because it's a human being. And I said, let me get this straight. So you believe every human being deserves a basic level of dignity and respect? And let me be clear, I'm on college campuses all over the country this time of year. Right now I'm in Texas about to speak at a high school tomorrow morning, parents and students. The next day, speaking at another high school here in the Dallas region, parents in the morning, then students after. And every time the students yell, yes, every human being deserves dignity and respect. And by the way, I know many students who have, who have intervened in scenes like this at parties and others. So let's not make it sound like this is the the norm to not intervene. I see people doing that all over the internet, like, well, look, this is just the way— no, this is not normal. When you teach people of all ages, by the way, not just students, that every human being matters, that every human being deserves a basic level of dignity and respect, at least a basic level, when you teach that, you connect the Their soul to the humanity of the person who's being impacted. And you help them understand, I want to intervene because it's who I am, not just because I don't want to get our fraternity in trouble. I don't want to get our Greek life in trouble. I don't want to— so I want to intervene before a sexual assault happens so we don't get in trouble. That's weak. How about you want to intervene because it's who you are? That's strength. Right? That's caring about fellow human beings. That's the approach that is critical if we want to really create shifts in how people react in moments like this. I want to stress again, remember, multitudes of people in that chat the next day, if even if they didn't see it that night, could have brought this forward. In theory, you could have 10, 20 people in that chat that all went together to the police and said, we all got it. What do we do to help support this being convicted? Or how do we have to— we know this is messed up. Or they go to the university and say, we all got this. What do we have to do? Because we're not going to hide it, even though it's someone we know, even though it's a friend or it's a Greek life brother. Yeah. That's not what it means to have brotherhood. It doesn't mean to cover up for horrific crimes. It actually means when you really care about somebody, you hold them Responsible. That's what you do, right? Massive difference in those approaches. And so that's what we want to be able to talk about when we talk about this case. Now let's go into some of this case. We do have people saying, yes, that's correct. No, according to the details, 57 people were in it. That's why I said massive number. If just 20 of them, if just 2 of them, if just one of them had come forward with their phone and said, here's what I have on my phone, Just one. Just one. But I'm thinking, imagine if 10 did. Imagine if 20 did, right? So that's a massive difference in a failure of bystander intervention. Now, some people are wondering, how did the campus let 2 people potentially come back and graduate? Well, in the lawsuit, they do clearly state, at least from the lawsuit perspective, which of the 7 did what. And there are 2 that appear to, and this is graphic, so I wanna give warning to anybody watching right now. I'm not gonna use graphic language, but it's graphic whether I use graphic language or not. Because at one point, the lawsuit says that people snorted ketamine off the survivor's body. And the lawsuit says all 7 did that at one point or another. And in there, the lawsuit states that 2 of the 7— 2 of the 7. That's what they did. They did that. They didn't— there's no reporting of them trying to kiss the survivor, touch the survivor, engage sexual activity with the survivor. And, and so there's— if you were to look at those details, and I have not been able to look it up yet, I'm wondering if those were the 2 that were allowed to graduate. Now, is this messed up? Yes, because that means those 2 still walked into that room. They got that text. Saying what that text said, free the word P word for describing female genitalia. I'm trying to make sure this video doesn't get censored in P U room. P literally the letter P, the letter U room something or alum something like that. So it must have been a room, the name of the room that's in the chat when you actually look at it. So but they went in the room knowing that's what it said, and you know what they didn't do? They didn't stop the others. They didn't call the police on the others. And people are arguing, well, the counterargument now from attorneys representing some of the people that are named in the lawsuit is, yes, they went in the room, but they didn't do anything sexual. So let's all get this straight. They got a text, or a group chat, that said, free blank in PEU alum, the room name. They went in that room, did nothing to stop anything horrible from happening, did not get her to a place of safety, did not call the police, did not contact campus, didn't do any of that. So just went in the room, checked it out, and walked out. Is that the implication here, that they didn't do anything, right? Even though they were responding to the chat, right? So You can see all the problems here with people being, rightfully so, being upset. Well, let's say that 2 people did that. They snorted the ketamine off and did nothing more. And so that's why they got a lighter response and they weren't expelled from school. But many people are going to say, so wait, they were part of a group that committed a crime and they knowingly were part of that group, right? And so they literally responded to the chat describing this. So, and now the other 5, the lawsuit says, involved at some level of kissing and/or sexual activity. That's what the lawsuit says, right? And so this is when you look at the details and you get into some of this, you rightfully have people furious all over the country. And here's the other part we haven't discussed yet that's really important to understand. Remember, use the chat. I can see the comments so I can respond if you're in comments. Like Nora's been engaging on the chat. Here's the part that I want to really address, and it's the District Attorney's comments that came out today. Maybe they came out yesterday, but I'm pretty sure they came out today because today's Monday. And so from what I read, they came out today, and it's the DA saying reopening the case, we're going to put it to a grand jury. Here's what the DA has said. In the initial information the DA got, it was understood that the survivor willingly Drank and willingly consumed these drugs. Willingly. And so that's why a case was not pursued. That's part of the reason. I hope everybody's listening to this and thinking, what does that have to do with anything? Because that's the right response. Willingly drinking, willing consuming other drugs does not mean that you no longer have consent laws apply. Not how this works at all. In fact, the more drugs you think they might have willingly took and the more alcohol you think they might have willingly drank, which by the way, in this lawsuit, the person who submits the lawsuit that was bringing the case forward estimates they had had 10 drinks by a certain point in the night. So they're not denying that at all. Let's be very clear about this, right? Right? And here's what that would tell us. If we believe they willingly drank a lot of alcohol and they willingly consumed certain drugs, there's a high, high odds that they would've been in a place of incapacitation, not of sound mind to be able to give consent. Which means if any legal experts saw that, they should've been able to look at this and go, okay, it appears it was willingly consumed and at a very high volume, which means there's a super high risk here. This is a of sexual assault because nothing sexual potentially could have been consented to. This is the part people are missing. And I see people even defending, going, well, now they're saying— the news is saying she willingly drank, she willingly took drugs. Willingly has nothing to do with it. Let me stress again that if you go down to a bar and somebody's drunk to the point of incapacitation and you engage with them sexually, It's a sexual assault. Incapacitation means unable to give consent. And almost every state in the country uses the same wording of incapacitated. It's a very common legal term around this topic. So this becomes really important for people to understand when we're having these conversations, right? And therefore, willingly or not, should have no in any way influence on whether charges were ever brought forward on this if the survivor willingly drank. All right, this is— so that's a wild statement to come forward today, and it actually in many ways makes the DA look worse because it almost looks like they don't know how to pursue a sexual assault case, is what it looks like. Now, if their argument was, well, we think it's going to be hard to win with a jury because the person willingly Did these things. That's a sad statement because now they're telling us they're not pursuing justice because they don't think they're going to win. And I'm not saying they said that. They didn't, by the way. But that— if that's the implication, that'd be pathetic. With that said, let me go down that road because I see Beverly here, who also has worked in this field, and people who've worked in this field are well aware of where I'm about to go with this, probably. but we need to discuss for anybody who doesn't work in this field. Here it is. Sadly, many prosecutors will not take a case for justice if they absolutely don't think they can win. They view it and say it's, it's a waste of resources. So you're wasting the community's money and people's taxes. It's a waste of the government's systems in place to try to bring justice. And some prosecutors fear the more they lose these cases, the more that they will be voted out of office. These are all factors that can play into our justice system, right? But let's be clear, when it comes to sexual assault, a survivor getting justice should be the first priority, even if you think you might lose, because they deserve that. They deserve that justice, right? At least an attempt at justice. This is so important for people to understand when we're having those conversations. Let me know what you're thinking in the chat right now, in the comments. Leave a comment. I'm happy to respond to the comments. We can see everybody's comments here, so please feel free to leave a comment so I can respond. And if you have questions, use that to ask questions, right? Use the comment section to add questions. We've had Beverly, we've had Nora adding to the comment section, and I appreciate that. So I'm just going to wait a little bit more here while people feel free to use that chat as we discuss this case. So far we've discussed the DA's comments, we've discussed the details of potentially why the university had 2 were allowed to graduate and 5 were not. We're not by the way, that we agree with that at all. We're explaining where maybe that came from by some of the lawsuit details that have come forward by the person who's filing the lawsuit, by the way, to be clear. So we've gone over that, and then we've gone over just taking the big picture of how this works. The last piece I'm going to discuss is a reality with universities, and that is their inability to share details of what happened in a case as far as what they decide it would be penalties, consequences because of privacy laws. They are— universities are so, so, so scared and liability-driven around breaching privacy, and rightfully so for this reason, because of losses that happen, not just this crime, on other issues that has been costly to universities across the country for breaching privacy. Right, so understand that there can be elements of that that's reasonable to understand. It still doesn't explain one major thing that we haven't discussed yet, and here it is, ready? The university almost immediately shut down that fraternity when this happened. What does that tell you? Here's what it tells you. They believed something happened. This is not a case of where the university's saying, well, we didn't think it happened, And therefore, this— that's why we went lighter here and here and here. No, they shut down the fraternity, which shows you they believe something messed up happened here. They believe that, right? The question becomes, well, then you shut it down. Why wasn't more done against the 7? Why wasn't this more addressed publicly where you legally could? Because we know privacy laws, right? Why did the survivor never feel that the campus fully responded in a justice-focused path, right, that led to this, that led to this lawsuit? These are all legitimate questions, and we don't know all the answers yet, right, from all the other entities involved. But let's be clear about one thing. We want every survivor out there to know one thing. That you're going to— when we see this case, we're already starting to see people start to go to victim blaming on it. Know that if you're a survivor watching this right now, your strength, your courage is what I see when I meet survivors. And I want you to always know that those of us who work in this field, those of us who've met survivors, know that strength and that courage. And I hope that you can always see that in yourself. And if you can't, know that we do for you. Thank you. And this is so important for survivors to know, especially when a case like this is front and center. It can activate a lot of history and memories and triggering that can be very difficult for mental health. And so please know resources are always available. RAINN is a great organization, rainn.org. They have lots of great resources out there. If anybody has any last questions they'd like to ask me in the chat— oh, here we go. Wanda's joined us. Hi, Wanda. Wanda's agreeing with me. Yeah, it should be about survivors getting justice. And Wanda works in this field too, so I appreciate, Wanda, for you joining me. Wanda says universities need to develop and uphold no tolerance policies for sexual assault. Students are taught about consent these days, so there's no reason to tolerate this anymore. Yeah, see, Wanda, that's the key thing. I talked about that a little bit earlier. I do welcome programming on this topic on college campuses, on many college campuses. Cornell's not one of my clients at all. Unfortunately, what many colleges are still doing to this day, in this day and age, is the bare minimum. They're doing the bare minimum Title IX presentation at Welcome Week. That's it. They're making sure that policies are known, definitions are known, and here are your choices when something goes wrong. That does not connect to the soul or the humanity of human beings. It doesn't. Great training connects— the person in front of the room is connecting the audience to their humanity and to the humanity of everybody else on campus so we don't treat each other like this, so that we do stand up for each other. This is what good training looks like. It doesn't just say, here's what consent is. Yeah, consent's not this, consent's not that. No, it engages at a heart level and teaches consent and teaches what it sounds like, looks like, and it teaches bystander intervention in a realistic manner where students will feel, hey, I can do that, I can intervene, I can speak up, right? That's what good education does, and that's what we need more of out there. So if you're watching right now, feel free to leave comments. It's awesome. We've had Beverly and Wanda. Both work in this field. Nora has also in the past. So I love all the comments that we're seeing from people, and, and I've had people here commenting from Facebook, but you can be on YouTube and comment, and I can see that. You can be on Instagram right now and comment, I'd be able to see that. So we want to see your comments so that I'm able to respond. We can have a deeper conversation around this. So please feel free to use those resources. So we can have these conversations right now, because that's what we really want to be able to do around these topics, right? And that's why we're doing this live video today, so we can answer questions and see what people are thinking. Conversation around this. And I'm even checking online to make sure I'm not missing any of the live chat that's happening on any of the channels. And so feel free, once again, use your comments to ask me questions, state your thoughts about this case. Before we wrap up for the evening, I really appreciate you all, all of you joining me here today for this conversation because it's very layered. There's a lot going on to unpack in this case. So feel free, once again, leave a comment, let me know what you're thinking, maybe a question you have. Happy to answer questions around this field. For those of you just joining us, this is what I do for a living is education on this topic. I am currently in Dallas, Texas, where I just landed today because I'm speaking at a high school in the morning. I'm gonna be speaking to parents. I'm gonna be speaking to 11th graders in a more advanced program. The school's bringing me back. So they've seen my Foundation Year program, and I have no doubt this is gonna come up tomorrow, and we're gonna dive into it because it's important people have the right tools and perspectives around these conversations. The next day, I'm at another high school here in the Dallas area where I'm speaking to parents in the morning and then students afterwards during the school day. So we are out there trying to make a difference, and many people are, by the way, trying to make a difference. The key is the right kind of education. It cannot just be definitions. It cannot just be PowerPoint. It cannot be fearmongering. The right education connects to the soul, connects to the heart and humanity of everybody in the room. That's the right kind of education that prevents and lowers sexual assault from happening, not just tactical. Policy and procedure, right? It's incredibly ineffective. So before we wrap up here, once again, feel free to leave any comments if you want. I'm going to check. I'm watching for those comments. By the way, it's really cool because we're even able to like bring you know like there we go. Wanda's comments on the screen right there, and and we can show some great comments here from Beverly's. Got some great comments, and I love. What Nora said about the humanity of it all, right? And then we all should be coming from a place humanity. And Beverly, you can't give consent when incapacitated. Now that's really key here for people to understand. If somebody's been drinking, are they able to give consent? It is possible legally. It is possible for somebody to give consent when they have drank alcohol. Here's the key: in almost every state, they absolutely cannot be incapacitated. If they're incapacitated, they cannot give consent. Right now, campuses will sometimes have a higher bar that'll say of sound mind. They need to be of sound mind, which is a healthier bar, by the way. And so that's important. Wanda's comment about the no tolerance— if there's really no tolerance, then there should be no tolerance, right? And so this becomes really important around these conversations, but the lack of bystander intervention all around in this case It's appalling and concerning, deeply concerning. So I want to thank Nora for joining us tonight, Beverly for joining us, Wanda. If you're in the— if you're watching right now, we have several other people watching. Donna, thank you, appreciate your comments for that. Donna said that we're making a difference doing this work. I so appreciate that, Donna. Thank you for that comment. Let the legal process proceed. Let us not forget in 2026 In 2006, Duke lacrosse. Hey, Bill, the legal aspects here are out. There are things we can absolutely discuss, Bill. The Snapchat screenshot is in evidence. This is not something that they don't know took place. So let's be clear, the university shut down the fraternity when this happened. So the university believed it happened when it happened, right? The legal— the reason people are not waiting for the legal system It's because it has failed survivors over and over again. People love to refer to one or two cases where there was a false report and go, see, this is the travesty when we jump too quick. What about the thousands of cases where survivors were not given justice? How come nobody yells and brings that forward? Because by the way, that happens all the time. So let me be very clear about that. People say, well, look what happened with Cross. So jump too quick. All right, that's one false report. How about the thousands of cases every year that never get justice? If we waited for the courts to respond, none of those survivors would ever get support from crisis centers. Nothing would ever change in those schools. And so yes, the legal system, we want to take its role, but we have evidence in this case, both from the university and in the lawsuit, that is clear evidence. So nobody's making stuff up at this point. On the evidence, and I've only spoke to the evidence tonight, let me be clear. And when I've spoke of the lawsuit, I have said the lawsuit says. I did not say this is what's actually taking place. I wasn't there. But I do state the lawsuit said this, and then I state the DA said this, right? So it's really, really important. Uh, Nora just said, hey, it's really hard for a— and there it is, Nora said it right here. It's really hard for a fraternity to lose its charter. So if they found enough evidence to do that, that tells us something, right? And yes, Wanda, I'm happy to challenge that notion that we need to wait for the legal system to do its job to have this conversation. Because let me tell you how that works. If we wait till the legal system before any of us say anything, you know who's not quiet? The people who are defending the people who've been accused. And so what happens when nobody speaks up for survivors until a case is done is that the only voices are the voices blaming survivors that get heard. In many cases, this has been true in the history of sexual assault investigations, the people doing the most talking are the people who were accused because they're out there trying to defend their name. So if you waited for the legal system You'd only hear from one side for a year, victim blaming, because these trials can take well over a year. For a year, victim blaming. So I have no problem with people wanting to speak up for survivors before the legal case is done, because survivors deserve to have a voice and people deserve to speak up for survivors. This is so important around this topic, right? And so yeah, use the comments, keep them coming. Those are the last few couple ones. God is going into some important conversations around this. So once again, jump in with your comments. You saw Wanda did here, Nora has, Bill has, so has— who did we say earlier did too? So we had one other person jump in with comments. Your comments help us to keep this conversation going, and you might bring up some points we have not brought up yet. So let's go there. Let's have that conversation. I'm watching the comments before we wrap up here. Probably going to wrap up in a few minutes, but just want to make sure if there's any other comments you wanted to add. So yes, should the legal process take its course? Yes, it should. That also doesn't mean the rest of the world has to stay quiet, right? Notice I have not in any way named anybody in this case. So I haven't done it. I know many people are doing that, and that's their rights because it's public information right now. They have the right to do that. Let me be clear, I have not anywhere done that, right? The only thing I've named is the university that the lawsuit is up against because that is well known. That's a public fact, right? That's it. All right, so I am trying to honor the privacy of the survivor throughout this, and I actually have not brought up any of the other names either, right? Because I think what's important is we talk about how to stop this from ever happening in the future. By understanding what went wrong in this case. And let's be clear, nothing a survivor can do can cause a sexual assault. Zero. Nothing. If you jumped in late, maybe you didn't hear me explain earlier that some people said, well, in the early reports they thought the survivor willingly drank the alcohol and willingly took the drugs. And let me be clear about that whole willingly. Has nothing to do with not convicting. You can willingly get drunk to the point of incapacitation and not be able to give consent. You can willingly consume drugs to the place you're not of sound mind and you're incapacitated and therefore can't consent. So willingly does not mean a sexual assault does not take place at all. Let's be super clear about that, right? Nor said it does not mean there should not be real-life ramifications for those who have evidence against them. Correct, Nora. That's right. So once again, once this lawsuit does take place, that's what we're hoping happens, is that there is a full investigation done by the university, deeper than they did the first time, even more well-rounded hopefully. And maybe they're going to come out and show they did do a well-rounded one. Maybe that's going to happen. But definitely from the legal world, because here's what happened that we haven't discussed. The other thing the DA said, Is they only were using the investigation from Cornell University Police. They did not do their own. And what's fascinating about that, at least from what the lawsuit says and what media is reporting, nobody interviewed the 7. If that's true, that's mind-boggling. Mind-boggling. So they never brought charges and they never interviewed any of the 7. If that's true, I mean, that's such a horrific misjustice, right? Misjustice, I don't think is even a word, but it's such a horrific violation of justice is what it is if that's true. All right. Now, to be fair, there are some university police departments that have trained sexual assault response officers, where they, they are highly trained in these areas to be able to have these crimes. It's not what people used to think of campus police. There are places now that do, and maybe Cornell does. Even so, it's odd that the DA didn't look at this in any way, think, yeah, we need some more information, or that the Cornell Police Department, if this is true with the university, if they did not interview, if that's true, maybe we're going to be proven wrong, that's not But if that's not— if that's true, so problematic here. Hey, leaving my keys in my car does not give you the right to steal my car. Correct. That's right. That's right. And we know that's a bad analogy because a body and the human soul is way more important than a car. And I know Nora knows that too, but I'm making sure that that is said out loud. Okay. That's super important. Yeah, Donna, it is a while to understand that if that part is true, That none of the 7 were interviewed by police or the DA's office. Very deeply concerning in the past. Hey, I saw a young woman with a t-shirt that read, it's a dress, not a yes. There's nothing that's a yes except a yes. And by the way, a yes is not consent when somebody's incapacitated. This is why you don't see me running around with, yes, Yes means yes. Yes means yes. No, an underage yes is not consensual. A— when I say underage, under the age of consent. An incapacitated person's yes is not consent. This is why yes means yes slogans are not, are not ideal at all. And I'm very upfront about that in consent education. If you really want to focus on consent education, for those watching right now, here's what you focus on. Not no means no, not yes means yes. Yes means yes. You focus on, did you ask? And did you respect the answer? Now, that requires a person who's capable of consenting. So even that requires a person capable of consenting. But notice what it does. It puts the responsibility on the person pursuing the sexual activity. Before you touch them, did you ask? Did you respect the answer? No means no puts the responsibility on the person it's happening to, to say no. Yes means yes puts the responsibility on this person to say yes. Right. Neither of them are saying, did you give them a yes/no option in the first place? Which is what ours does. We say, did you ask? Right? And then, did you respect the answer? So big difference there. Uh, we'll give you a minute, a moment or two if you want to add something to the comments before we wrap up here. But as you can see, we're, we're responding to the comments that are here so we can have this conversation. So feel free to add a comment before we close up here. I want to thank Wanda, Donna, Nora, Bill, all of you for joining us here tonight for this conversation. Beverly, for all joining us for this conversation. I'll wait here a moment to see if we have any last people jumping in with any comments before we wrap on this video. Thank you all again for joining us. Hard to believe we've been on now for 36 minutes. We've been rolling. Hope you all have a wonderful evening and that you're speaking out on behalf of survivors and letting it be clear. Beverly, thank you for your work. Beverly's thanking me for the work we do. Hey, we're doing our best every day we can to make a difference in this world of consent education. Thank you all for joining us. Have an amazing rest of your night. And thank you, Wanda, too. Appreciate you. Thank you.