Underwatch

We Monitor Family Abduction, Parental Alienation, False Allegations, Children of the Underground, Protective Parent, Family Law Custody Cases and Trials.

[Underwatch @underwatchEd]

Parental Kidnapping Trial: Julie Valadez and Kathryn Alamea-Xian fled to Canada then tried to claim Amnesty to kidnap child from Wisconsin Family Law Court Order - #protectiveparent trial starts In June 2026

[HispanicNewsNetwork @news_HNNUSA]

Breaking News: Julie Valadez And Kathryn Alamea-Xian, Both Wanted In Walworth County, Wisconsin For Allegedly Interfering With Child Custody Of Another Parent, Are No Longer Living Together In Canada https://t.co/2ZJ6biUKlX

[Bridget Ayers @BridgetAyers]

Cornell's Real Crisis Is Irrationalism & Victimhood, Not Rape

The problem isn't just fraternities or toxic masculinity. It's a culture that celebrates women's independence while increasingly refusing to hold them accountable for their own choices, and demanding that institutions make those choices for them.

Finally, an article that addresses a much bigger issue facing Cornell and other college campuses. Heather Mac Donald's @CityJournal piece challenges the protests, demands for leadership changes, accusations of institutional rape culture, and the increasingly popular narrative that female college students are helpless victims who need institutions to protect them from their own decisions.

I added victimhood to her title because I think the two go hand in hand. And before the predictable accusations of victim-blaming and rape apologism start flying, let's examine a few things.

Where was this outrage two years ago?

Jane Doe's allegations weren't national news in 2024, but campus social circles and group chats were already discussing the incident. Where were the widespread protests then? Why did female students continue attending Chi Phi and other fraternity parties?

And this wasn't Cornell's first controversy involving fraternities and sexual assault allegations. In 2022, Cornell temporarily suspended fraternity social events following reports of sexual assault and drugging. Yet students continued attending fraternity parties after restrictions were lifted.

So what changed? Did the risks suddenly become more serious? Or did national media attention, social media outrage, and political pressure transform longstanding issues (student intoxication, questionable decisions, disputed consent, and sexual assault) into a campus-wide crisis?

Let's talk about personal responsibility.

Female students choose to attend Cornell. They compete for admission and pay extraordinary amounts of money for an Ivy League education and the opportunities it may provide.

Partying is an added bonus. It's also a choice. Women choose whether to attend fraternity parties, whether to drink alcohol or use recreational drugs, and how intoxicated they're willing to become. Men make those choices too.

And those choices can have consequences. Alcohol and drugs lower inhibitions, impair judgment, and can lead to sexual encounters people later regret. They can also make someone more vulnerable to people willing to exploit that impairment.

That doesn't excuse sexual assault. Someone who commits sexual assault is responsible for that crime. But when did encouraging adults to make decisions that reduce their vulnerability become an attack on women?

Why is acknowledging the relationship between intoxication, impaired judgment, and sexual risk treated as victim-blaming? We can hold perpetrators accountable while acknowledging that personal responsibility is an essential part of personal safety. Those ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

More institutional control will not solve the problem.

Ban fraternity parties. Remove administrators. Rewrite policies. Expand bureaucracies. Change laws. And then what?

Students will still drink, use drugs, have sex, and sometimes make terrible decisions. The parties will simply move somewhere else. Treating every fraternity member as a potential rapist won't solve the problem. Neither will treating every regretted sexual encounter as sexual assault.

There are important distinctions between consensual sex, impaired judgment, unwanted sexual contact, and criminal sexual assault. We should be able to discuss those distinctions without being accused of defending predators.

Female students don't need to surrender their independence to protect themselves.

They can make choices that reduce their exposure to risk. Go out with friends. Have a sober person in the group. Limit alcohol consumption. Avoid recreational drugs. Recognize environments where intoxication and impaired judgment are less safe.

These are basic precautions we encourage in countless other situations. Yet somehow, when the conversation turns to sexual assault, discussing personal safety becomes controversial.

Activism Over Accountability

We tell women they're independent, empowered adults capable of making their own decisions. Then, when discussing sex and drinking, we increasingly portray them as powerless to manage those decisions. Which is it?

You cannot meaningfully promote equality and independence while treating responsibility as something that belongs exclusively to everyone else. And you cannot create a safety by focusing on one aspect while ignoring the behaviors and circumstances that contribute to risk.

If Cornell students genuinely want to improve campus safety, why not demand better education about alcohol and drugs, meaningful consent education, stronger bystander intervention, appropriate cameras in common areas, accountability for actual misconduct, and an honest evaluation of existing policies?

Why is the loudest demand so often to ban, punish, remove, or regulate rather than educate, prevent, and empower?

Not every allegation establishes a campus-wide culture of sexual violence. Not every fraternity member is a predator. And not every criticism of an allegation is an attack on women.

At what point did empowering women stop meaning teaching them to exercise their own power?

We can do better.

https://t.co/rAVfw7DbNS

[TMZ @TMZ]

🚨 BREAKING: Cornell Chi Phi fraternity president dropped from Jane Doe lawsuit.

Details: https://t.co/DdevtUzCrC

[JACBailey @JACBailey1]

Feminists: Believe all women!

Man: okay, I believe Jane Doe when she said nothing illegal happened. I believe her when she said she consented to everything and that its "just sex and sexuality". I believe she consented to the three ways because she thought it meant (1/2)

[JACBailey @JACBailey1]

(2/2) that the men were gay. I believe she felt uncomfortable and planned to take ketamine to pass out to accuse them all of rape later. I believe she wanted to do it again at the Halloween party

Feminists: No! youre only supposed to believe her newest allegations 2 years later!

[Pati Light @pati_light]

@BillAckman To knowingly misinform authorities of a crime against an innocent person is a serious crime. The accuser should be awarded the same punishment that the wrongly accused would have served, if found guilty. Same goes for the DAs who pad charges for their own agendas. Judges too.

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

A woman who falsely accuses a man of sexual harassment and/or rape causes enormous harm not just to the man, but to all women who have actually been harassed or raped as their truthful claims will sadly be perceived to be less credible.

The result: fewer guilty rapists will be convicted, and more innocent accused rapists will be punished with extended time in jail for a crime they did not commit.

And yes, the same is true regardless of the gender of the accuser and the accused.

As such, the punishment for such a false accusation should be extremely severe, i.e., jail time, to discourage such behavior.

Tell me why I am wrong.

[uncomfortably numb @hardtired]

@WMurphyLaw Tainted Juries (Yankel Rosenbaum, E.Jean Carroll, Lindsay Clancy, O.J.Simpson, Derek Chauvin) often pervert justice. Lucy Craig is trying to turn regret sex into rape and a payday to remove her rep. Deserves to fail in the attempt.

[Tom Weiss @weiss1163770]

@WMurphyLaw No, the standard for charging someone with a crime is "probable cause", a woman saying she didn't consent alone doesn't meet the standard.

[BaBa THEE Black Sheep 🐑 @BSLivesMatter]

@WMurphyLaw No.

She had text messages that she consented. She doesn’t get to withdraw consent AFTER and cry rape. I hope they put this bitch in prison.

[Zero Followers- Leif Von Eric Kat @Liefvonerickat]

@WMurphyLaw The number of Me Too false claims have revealed this to be regressive thinking

[Underwatch @underwatchEd]

#wendymurphy #guiltyuntilproveninnocent @WMurphyLaw - wondering why she has not been disbarred yet!

[Kyle Connery @Iwearvans928]

@WMurphyLaw "Every aspect of this case has been riddled with inaccuracies, misrepresentation and distortion by Ms. Murphy"

[Underwatch @underwatchEd]

According to @wmurphylaw Women never lie — Murphy has a history of supporting women who make #falseallegations #protectiveparent

[Wendy Murphy @WMurphyLaw]

When a woman says she didn’t consent, that’s it. Case closed. The investigation is over - let a jury decide if they believe her beyond a reasonable doubt. Women have a constitutional right of redress under the 1st Amendment. Let the jury-NOT patriarchal politics-decide. #Cornell

[Bridget Ayers @BridgetAyers]

Why do fraternities need to be shut down?

Women aren't required to attend fraternity parties, and those who choose to attend aren't required to drink or use drugs.

If the concern is intoxication, impaired judgment, and the risks associated with party environments, shouldn't we also be talking about personal responsibility and making choices that reduce those risks?

Of course, choosing to drink or attend a party doesn't excuse sexual assault. Anyone who commits a crime should be held accountable.

But shutting down fraternities doesn't eliminate drinking, drugs, sex, or poor decisions. Those things happen well beyond fraternity houses.

Wouldn't it make more sense to address specific misconduct, enforce rules, and encourage better decision-making rather than assume eliminating fraternity parties will solve the problem?

[New York Post @nypost]

Killer mom drained husband's 401(k) for Great Wolf Lodge trip before hacking him, son to death: step-mom https://t.co/w83DwpBwfE

[Joseph @joehex67]

@BridgetAyers Cut the bullshit. SHE IS A LIAR

[Jenin Younes @JeninYounesEsq]

I’ve held my tongue for a while, but being from Ithaca, a Cornell alum and a former criminal defense attorney, and seeing how out of hand this story has gotten, I am compelled to comment on the lawsuit alleging a gang rape at Cornell.

I cannot purport to know what happened one night at a frat house in October 2024—any more than you can. However, here are a few basic principles much of the public appears not to understand.

A lawsuit is a series of allegations made by the plaintiff. It is not proof. Allegations made in lawsuit turn out to be untrue all the time, either due to mistake, intentional misrepresentation, or flat-out lies. Unfortunately, people often misrepresent the truth in lawsuits due to monetary and other incentives. In the past, there have been instances of fabricated rape allegations. About a decade ago, Rolling Stone published a piece about an allegedly horrendous rape that occurred on the UVA campus that garnered similiar outrage to this incident and turned out to be entirely fabricated.
I have read the DA’s press release and the lawsuit itself. According to the cited portions of Jane Doe’s statements to police shortly after the incident, crediting it as entirely true, there was simply no basis to charge the alleged perpetrators. Everyone involved was apparently extremely intoxicated. Jane Doe gave consent to the encounter at the beginning and does not explicitly recall any activity occurring after consent was withdrawn. It is possible that, due to her inability to recall, she had not given consent for some of the activity towards the end, but possible is not a basis for a district attorney to file criminal charges.

Her current lawsuit is fairly consistent with her initial statement—except it omits the portions where she told the police she gave consent. Is she lying? Did she later remember something she didn’t initially? Is she mistaken? I do not know—and again, neither do you.

What I do know is that if we are to live in a society of laws, going after the jobs and reputations young men who may have participated in an entirely consensual incident, and the DA who made the correct decision not to charge, is mindless mob justice. We actually want prosecutors to decline to seek indictments when there’s insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

None of this is to say I approve of what happened as reported in the initial statement to police. That’s a cultural and parenting issue, though, not a matter for law enforcement. I encourage people to let the DA’s office handle the case going forward, and not to participate in the witch hunt against either the prosecutors involved or the young men who, as of now, have not been charged or shown to have committed any crime.

[Rich Lowry @RichLowry]

The Cornell 7 case has all the hallmarks of a collective hysteria on par with Ferguson, Missouri—“I am Jane Doe” is the equivalent of “Hands up, don’t shoot.”

In this case, just like in Ferguson, the most fervent advocates don’t know the facts of the case and don’t care to know them, lest they complicate a narrative condemning a group of people as a class—the police back then, fraternity members now.

To dissent from the orthodoxy is, once again, considered a hateful act. It was all but forbidden back then to suggest that Michael Brown got shot because of what he himself did (assault a police officer), and the mob this time has no tolerance for the idea that Jane Doe should bear responsibility for own conduct and decision-making.

Brown was considered *inherently* a victim, and so is Jane Doe.

This is not the way to think about such cases in a rational society. Now, there is much that still hasn’t been made fully public in the Cornell 7 case, but what we’ve seen of the evidentiary record clearly points to consensual acts that Jane Doe came to regret (and to the abysmal conduct of almost all of the young men involved).

But the facts are irrelevant if they don’t align with the ideological narrative, and if in the fullness of time, this case proves to have been a hysteria and witch hunt, it won’t matter—all the celebrities, Democratic politicians, influencers, advocates, and journalists will move on, unchastened, to the next thing, just like they did with “Hands up, don’t shoot.”

[Colette Harrington @sweetcarolinatv]

Drunken orgies aren’t rape. Don’t care what anyone else says. Drugging a person is another story, but openly participating and taking drugs has its own consequences. Drunk people on drugs make bad choices. Duh.

[#MenToo @TheRealMenToo]

Hurrah, finally a win against a university which failed to protect a male student from harassment following a false allegation.
A male college student falsely accused of sexual assault scored a major victory for due process and equal rights late last month, after a federal jury found the University of Maryland failed to protect him from severe harassment after he was falsely accused and ultimately cleared through the school’s own Title IX process.

https://t.co/iUJ6cr2Ufq

[Heather Mac Donald @HMDatMI]

An unambiguous case of consensual sex. The aftermath of the Cornell group sex episode is a peerless example of the hypocrisy of the feminist movement, which proclaims the oppressiveness of any remaining traces the chivalric code.

Females deliberately drink themselves blotto in order to lower their sexual inhibitions, voluntarily participate in sex, and then, after the regrets set in, deny their agency and put exclusive responsibility for their drunken encounter on their male partner, on the grounds that they are helpless to take care of themselves.

I've written about the campus rape myth in @CityJournal: https://t.co/AJNchaogWT

From my interview on @realDailyWire's Wired in Live with @cabot_phillips ⬇️