Disgusting behavior. Serious allegations. And a political fight that keeps getting louder. New messages and competing accounts surrounding the Cornell Seven are fueling the debate. But are people looking for the truth, or just ammunition for their side?
Today on Stinchfield, I’m tackling the disconnect: Democrats leaning into outrage and immorality, conservatives demanding answers about evidence, consent, and whether a crime can be proven. In my opinion, condemning vile behavior is easy. Determining criminal guilt requires more than disgust. Consent remains central, and consent to one encounter does not establish consent to everything that follows.
Then there’s the accusation of “victim shaming.” Teaching young women to recognize danger, look out for friends, and take precautions is preparation. We cannot control someone else’s decisions, but we can talk honestly about steps that may reduce our exposure to danger. That conversation should never be off limits.
Precautions cannot guarantee safety, and failing to take them never excuses an assault. Perpetrators must be held accountable, survivors must be treated with dignity, and every allegation must be examined seriously. But guilt must be established through evidence and due process. Consent must remain the standard, not a political talking point. We can protect survivors, pursue the truth, and uphold fairness at the same time. That is not weakness; it is justice.
Ad block users: Some site features may not work correctly while an ad blocker is enabled, because they break scripts and content this website depends on. If you can’t see comments below, for example, please disable your ad blocker.
