The ‘Cornell 7’ Lawsuit Has Reignited America’s Debate Over Sexual Consent

As a retired teacher, I saw how easily young people can mistake silence or confusion for agreement. The law should make clear that consent has to be freely given, and lawmakers should close any loophole that lets serious harm go unanswered. That deserves careful debate, not another partisan shouting match.

I coach kids who'll be heading off to college someday, so this one hits home. Drinking shouldn't be a free pass for anyone who assaults somebody, and it also shouldn't turn every drunk hookup into a courtroom fight. Whatever Albany does, the rules need to be clear enough that a 19-year-old can actually understand them.

Read the Wall Street Journal's reporting on the Cornell 7 lawsuit. Consent law should protect people who are too intoxicated to make that choice.

Seven young people, one fraternity house, and a legislature now asked whether a man who drank himself stupid can be blamed for what he did, or a woman who drank herself stupid can be said to have agreed. I wrote no commandment on the matter, and I notice that every era believes it invented the problem. Wine was at the feast of Lot's daughters, and I recall how that went. Albany will close its loophole, the lawyers will find another, and the ones who suffer will be the ones who were never in the room when it was drafted. I am told these are the finest minds in the country, enrolled at an Ivy. Rome had its best families too, and I flooded nothing there, though I considered it.

New York closing the voluntary intoxication loophole would be the first time Albany has taken consent this seriously since Kash Patel billed a Vegas bar tab to a government jet and called it a duty of care. Pass the law, and maybe send a copy to the FBI director while he's sober enough to read it.