The Cornell Daily Sun decided to name seven men from the Chi Phi fraternity in an editorial published on Sept. 21 who were identified as defendants in a civil lawsuit filed Sept. 14 alleging the drugging and gang rape of an anonymous student, only identified as Jane Doe, in October 2024.
The allegations from Jane Doe are horrifying and sickening, and while the editors of The Santa Clara understand the concerns about the legitimacy of publishing the names of the accused prior to determining fault, it is also important to recognize the difficult ethical and legal decisions journalists face when weighing the potential for harm against the public interest.
The decision to publish the defendants’ names raises difficult questions about journalistic responsibility, particularly when reporting on allegations of sexual violence. While identifying individuals accused of serious wrongdoing can cause significant harm, withholding their identities can also limit the public’s ability to scrutinize institutions and their responses to allegations of misconduct.
As journalists, our fundamental purpose is to inform the public about events, issues and topics that affect their lives. As such, The Santa Clara believes The Cornell Daily Sun was justified in naming the seven defendants.
The decision to name the defendants at Cornell is protected under Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (1975), in which the Supreme Court held that the government cannot impose liability on the press for accurately publishing information contained in public judicial records.
In California, similar protections exist under Civil Code § 47(d), which protects fair and true reports of judicial proceedings, according to the Student Press Law Center. However, our institutional differences from The Sun complicate this comparison.
Unlike The Sun, which operates independently of Cornell University, The Santa Clara remains institutionally affiliated with Santa Clara University. That distinction raises important questions about the pressures student journalists may face when reporting on allegations involving their own campus communities.
California’s Leonard Law protects student expression at private colleges. These protections are particularly relevant to The Santa Clara, a private university, when we navigate our own institutional affiliation and exercise our editorial independence.
Our institutional affiliation must not determine which allegations receive scrutiny or whose conduct warrants investigation. Editorial independence matters only when journalists are willing to make difficult reporting decisions, including those that may make institutions uncomfortable.
The Santa Clara abides by four widely understood journalistic principles, which are also outlined in our handbook: the responsibility to seek the truth and report it, to act independently, to be accountable and, most pertinently, to minimize harm.
Minimizing harm, in this context, refers to considering the potential for unnecessary damage to an individual’s reputation, privacy or well-being, particularly when the facts have yet to be established.
A practical application of this principle is the rule of thumb that we shall not name defendants who have not been formally charged, for it is not “minimizing harm” to subject them to public judgment before they have been found responsible in a court of law.
The distinction between criminal charges and civil proceedings is important here. The seven men were named as defendants in a civil lawsuit, which does not mean they have been criminally charged or found responsible for the alleged conduct. Still, identifying individuals before responsibility has been established raises legitimate concerns about reputational harm and the presumption of innocence.
The Santa Clara generally exercises caution when identifying individuals accused of wrongdoing before a court has determined responsibility. Such decisions can carry lasting reputational consequences, particularly when allegations remain unproven.
The Sun’s decision to name the defendants also had consequences beyond the lawsuit itself. After their names were published, several online figures mistakenly identified a United States Marine who shared a name with one of the alleged perpetrators.
Acknowledging this harm does not necessarily mean that withholding the defendants’ names would have been the more just decision. Minimizing harm requires journalists to weigh the foreseeable consequences of publication against the public interest served by disclosure.
In this case, the public interest extends beyond the allegations against seven individuals. It encompasses the responsibilities of fraternities, university administrators and institutions charged with protecting students. The university’s reported response to the 2024 allegations, including assigning essays rather than imposing stronger disciplinary measures, raises questions about whether its actions adequately addressed the seriousness of the allegations and prioritized student safety.
By naming the defendants in 2026, The Sun brought renewed attention to both the individuals named in the civil lawsuit and the university’s earlier handling of the allegations. The defendants’ identities were relevant not merely to public curiosity, but to examining how universities respond to serious allegations and whether their actions adequately protect students. In this case, identifying the defendants served a broader journalistic purpose: bringing questions of institutional accountability and student safety into public view.
We, The Santa Clara, assert that The Sun, in exercising a degree of watchdog journalism, made the right decision in naming these seven men. Our institutional differences do not diminish the importance of that decision, nor do they change the journalistic principles by which we assess it. By naming the defendants, The Sun brought public attention to allegations that might otherwise have received little scrutiny. This decision, though fraught with the potential for harm, reflects the importance of transparency and accountability within university organizations.
We call on student news organizations across the country to uphold their editorial independence, hold institutions accountable and pursue the truth even when doing so is difficult. The responsibility to minimize harm must not come at the expense of the public’s right to scrutinize the institutions entrusted with their safety.
The views expressed are those of The Santa Clara Editorial Board and do not necessarily reflect Santa Clara University’s official positions. The board includes Editor-in-Chief Sofia Ruvalcaba ’27, Managing Editor Kylie Bennett ’27, and Section Editors Sophia Taylor ’27, Saul Johnson ’28 and Aneeka Sawarkar ’27.