{"id":377929,"date":"2026-10-20T14:22:08","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T14:22:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/377929\/"},"modified":"2026-10-20T14:22:08","modified_gmt":"2026-10-20T14:22:08","slug":"two-columbia-students-dissented-on-the-cornell-seven-case-then-the-blowback-began","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/377929\/","title":{"rendered":"Two Columbia Students Dissented on the Cornell Seven Case\u2014then the Blowback Began"},"content":{"rendered":"

On October 13, Columbia University juniors Nikos Mohammadi and Christina Ma published an opinion piece on the alleged rape<\/a> of \u201cJane Doe\u201d by seven members of a fraternity at Cornell. Dissenting from general campus opinion, they argued<\/a> that it was \u201cworth taking a pause before jumping to wide-sweeping conclusions\u201d about the case, and that the prevailing rhetoric\u2014that women lack meaningful agency when choosing to perform acts they may later come to regret\u2014was infantilizing<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Seething responses flooded in. \u201cBrother you gotta go kill yourself,\u201d one read<\/a>. \u201cI hope this follows you around forever,\u201d read another. \u201c[H]ope both are shown the same cruelty you carry in your heart for someone you don\u2019t even know,\u201d read a third. The Columbia Open Discourse Alliance<\/a>, \u201ca non-partisan coalition for free speech and open discourse,\u201d condemned<\/a> Sundial, where the piece was published, claiming that it \u201cpromotes rape culture.\u201d Such opinions simply should not be permitted, argued<\/a> the Columbia Political Review.<\/p>\n

Finally, a reason to check your email.<\/p>\n

Sign up for our free newsletter today.<\/p>\n

That the piece was published, and that Sundial is standing its ground<\/a>, 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\u2019s most prestigious schools.<\/p>\n

In their essay, Mohammadi and Ma argue that the Cornell incident is complicated by significant legal and moral nuance, and that students should therefore pause and think rather than vandalizing<\/a> buildings or summarily concluding that this confirms the existence of \u201ccampus rape culture.\u201d They further argue that it infantilizes women and denies them agency to suggest that no sex is permissible if a woman later comes to feel, after consenting in the moment, that the experience was traumatic or immoral. In other words, they maintain, freedom includes the possibility of making bad decisions.<\/p>\n

Established in 2024, Sundial\u2014where Mohammadi is a deputy editor and Ma a staff writer\u2014sets out to \u201covercome echo chambers, and encourage healthy competition of ideas to strengthen campus discourse,\u201d in its founder\u2019s words<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we didn\u2019t publish this, nobody on campus would have published anything remotely similar to this,\u201d Mohammadi told me. As he and Ma observe in their piece, beyond the gates of college campuses, journalists<\/a> and commentators<\/a> have approached the Cornell story with a healthy skepticism. But such skepticism \u201cwas a little taboo on campus, and the point is it shouldn\u2019t be taboo,\u201d said Mohammadi.<\/p>\n

After an internal discussion, Sundial\u2019s editorial board signed off on Mohammadi and Ma\u2019s essay. It went live on Tuesday, October 13, alongside another article<\/a> offering an opposing viewpoint.<\/p>\n

The blowback has been ferocious. Seventy posts condemning Sundial for publishing the piece were left on Sidechat, an anonymous posting board for college students. Ma told me that others had taken aim at her friends and friends\u2019 family members simply for associating with her. Many, she said, \u201chaven\u2019t read the article. They\u2019re responding to claims that we never made.\u201d Of those who had read the piece, several \u201cpulled quotes out of it\u201d out of context, \u201cin order to support their own opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n

The next day, the Columbia Open Discourse Alliance (CODA), established with the aim<\/a> of sparking \u201cbold conversations that challenge assumptions,\u201d canceled<\/a> an event entitled \u201cPress Freedom and the Public Square,\u201d at which Nick Baum, editor-in-chief of Sundial, was scheduled to speak. CODA issued a statement<\/a> condemning Sundial for publishing a piece that \u201cpromotes rape culture.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Columbia Political Review\u2014which regularly<\/a> invoked<\/a> the virtues of free speech to defend the campus anti-Israel protest movement\u2014responded<\/a> with a statement from its editorial board condemning \u201cthe Sundial\u2019s decision to publish the article.\u201d The editorial went to express its concern that \u201cthe Sundial allowed its authors to leave out what academic literature and lived experience show<\/a> contribute to rape on college campuses: fraternities, insufficient disciplinary processes, and a resounding culture of silence and fear.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reactions like these suggest that assertions about a campus rape culture\u2014covered extensively by City Journal\u2019s Heather Mac Donald<\/a>\u2014cannot be challenged. Anyone who challenges the notion that campus rape is a widespread phenomenon, or that alleged victims must automatically be believed, supports and upholds \u201ccultures and systems of rape, sexual assault, and violence,\u201d in the words of Columbia Political Review.<\/p>\n

Jonas Du, founder and former editor-in-chief of Sundial, believes the magazine\u2019s decision to publish was the right one. \u201cNick Baum [the current editor] 100 percent made the right decision,\u201d he told me. \u201cIt\u2019s a gross mischaracterization to suggest the authors support \u2018rape culture\u2019\u2014they make a good faith argument calling into question the narrative of a highly controversial case that\u2019s very relevant to campus politics.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s their prerogative to publish that and a service to the Columbia community when you present an unpopular but well-argued viewpoint because that\u2019s how we make progress on important issues,\u201d Du added.<\/p>\n

Despite the blowback, Mohammadi and Ma\u2019s willingness to speak out helps challenge the illusion of consensus on the Cornell case and the broader issues it invokes. Mohammadi said that \u201cten to fifteen people\u201d had reached out to him privately to tell him they agreed with the piece and to thank him for writing it. After the Columbia Spectator reported<\/a> on the controversy, the majority of the comments on a linked Instagram post defended Sundial\u2019s right to publish. \u201cNothing was said that was particularly controversial or unusual that would justify censure,\u201d read one.<\/p>\n

Mohammadi and Ma deserve praise for their willingness to express a reasoned argument in the face of a tide of unreasoned opposition they surely knew they would face. Despite the reaction of some to squelch an important debate, free speech is still flickering at Columbia.<\/p>\n

Donate<\/a><\/p>\n

City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank. Are you interested in supporting the magazine? As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, donations in support of MI and City Journal are fully tax-deductible as provided by law (EIN #13-2912529).<\/p>\n