Comment attachment by Anonymous

--- Page 1 --- i CORNELL UNIVERSITY Cornell Office of Civil Rights – Hearing Panel Decision (94428) August 18, 2025 I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... .... 1 II. Applicable Policy ...................................................................................................... . .... ..... 2 III. Procedural Overview .......................................................................................................... 3 IV. Findings and Responsibility Determinations ..................................... .... ......................... 6 A. Undisputed Relevant Facts – October 19 and 20, 2024 ....................... ............................. 6 B. Complainant’s First Consumption of Ketamine ............................ ................................. 10 C. .................................................................. ... ..... ................................... 12 1. Complaint Charges Against ............ .................................................. 12 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence ......... . ........................................................ 12 3. Findings and Determinations with Respect to .................................... 16 D. Complainant’s Second Consumption of Ketamine ........................................................... 19 E. ...................................... .......................................................................... 22 1. Complaint Charges Against ................................................................ 22 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 22 3. Findings and Determinations with Respect to .................................... 27 F. Respondent .... .. ....... ................................................................................................. 31 1. Complaint Charges Against Respondent ................................................................ 31 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 32 3. Findings and Determinations with Respect to Respondent .................................... 36 G. .................................................................................................................. 38 1. Complaint Charges Against ................................................................ 38 2 Party Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 38 3. Findings and Determinations with Respect to .................................... 42 H. .................................................................................................................. 43 1. Complaint Charges Against ................................................................. 43 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 44 Priv itted ... 1 ... 1 Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 1 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 2 --- ii 3. Findings and Determinations with Respect to ..................................... 49 I. ................................................................................................................ 52 1. Complaint Charges Against ............................................................... 52 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 53 3. Findings and Determinations with Respect to ................................... 66 J. ........................................................................................................... ..... 74 1. Complaint Charges Against ........................................................ ....... 74 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 74 3. Findings and Determinations with Respect to ... ...... ........................ 83 V. Sanctions and Recommendations .................................................. . ......... ........................ 87 A. ...................................................................... ..... ... ............................... 87 B. ........................................................... ........ ........................................... 89 C. Respondent ................................................................. ............................................... 90 D. ................................................... ...... ..................................................... 91 E. ........................................ .... ...... ............................................................ 92 F. ...................................... ..... .................................................................. 93 G. ................................. ..... ......................................................................... 95 H. Recommendations to the University ................................................................................ 96 VI. Appeal Information ....... ... ............................................................................................ 97 Priv itted 53 ..... 66 ..... 66 74 74 Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 2 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 3 --- Page 1 of 97 CORNELL UNIVERSITY Cornell Office of Civil Rights – Hearing Panel Decision (94428) August 18, 2025 I. Introduction This matter involves conduct that Cornell University (the “University”) undergraduate student (“Complainant”) reported to the Cornell Office of Civil Rights (COCR)1 regarding her experiences on October 19 and 20, 2024, at the Chi Phi Fraternity house located at 107 Edgemoor Lane in Ithaca, New York (the “Chi Phi house”), on the Cornell University (the “University”) campus. Complainant met with COCR and provided an initial in erview on November 14, 2024. The University initiated a Formal Complaint on November 22, 2024,2 alleging that the following University undergraduates and then-members of the Chi Phi Fraternity (the “fraternity” or “Chi Phi”) engaged in prohibited conduct on the night of October 19 into the early morning hours of October 20, 2024 (the “October 19 incidents”): (“ ”), (“ ”), chmar (“Respondent ”); Scott Norris (“ (“ ”), (“ ”), and (“ ”; collectively, “Respondents” and with Complainant, the “parties”). The Formal Complaint alleged that Respondents variously engaged in conduct constituting sexual assault sexual exploitation, and/or aiding prohibited conduct, as prohibited by University Policy 6.4.3 University Investigator Samantha Freeburn (the “Investigator”) investigated the Formal Complaint charges pursuant to the University’s Procedures for Resolution of Reports Against Students Under Cornell University Policy 6.4 (the “Procedures”). The Investigator summarized the relevant evidence collected in an Investigative Report (the “IR”) with accompanying appendices.4 A three-member Hearing Panel (the “Panel”) conducted a live hearing (the “hearing”) pursuant to the Procedures on May 2, 5, 12-15, 20-22, and 27-29, 2025. This Decision outlines the 1 At the time, COCR was named the Office of Institutional Equity & Title IX (OIETIX). 2 As di cussed further in Section III below, Complainant filed a Formal Complaint with OIETIX on January 16, 2025, which modified the Formal Complaint initiated by the University on November 22, 2024. That Formal Compla nt was further updated on March 13, 2025 (the “Formal Complaint”). All references herein to the Formal Complaint are to the March 13 updated Formal Complaint. 3 Charges specific to each Respondent are included in Sections IV.C, IV.E, IV.F, IV.G, IV.H, IV. I, and IV.J below. 4 All citations to materials in this Hearing Panel Decision (the “Decision”) reference the evidentiary record, which includes the appendices accompanying the IR (“App.”) and hearing transcripts (“Trans.”). All quotations herein are excerpted from such materials and retain their original spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization, unless otherwise indicated, except that non-material edits in punctuation and capitalization were made to certain quotations for clarity. Priv Co C Com Co 3 Ch Ch itted ntnt Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 3 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 4 --- Page 2 of 97 investigation and hearing process, summarizes the Panel’s findings, and provides the Panel’s determinations regarding the Formal Complaint charges and applicable University policy. As discussed further in Section IV below, upon due consideration of all information summarized in the Investigative Report and submitted by parties and witnesses in interviews, in writing, and at the hearing, the Panel found by a preponderance of the evidence: x x Respondent is responsible for attempted sexual exploitation in violation of the Policy. He is not responsible for sexual assault. x x Sanctions imposed by the Panel, as well as recommendations to the University based on its findings, may be found in Section V below. II. Applicable Policy In assessing the Formal Complaint allegations, the Panel applied the definitions of sexual exploitation, sexual assault, aiding prohibited conduct, and attempting to commit prohibited conduct set forth in Section 3 of the Procedures. The Procedures define sexual exploitation, in relevant part, as: [I]ntentionally [. . . o]bserving another person when that person is nude or engaged in sexual activity without the knowledge and consent of the person observed [. . .]; [. . .] and Priv In In explo exp con itted itt Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 4 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 5 --- Page 3 of 97 [c]ausing another person to become incapacitated with the intent of making that person vulnerable to nonconsensual sexual assault or sexual exploitation. The Procedures define sexual assault as “(1) sexual intercourse or (2) sexual contact (3) without affirmative consent.” The further definitions and provisions related to sexual assault under the Policy are incorporated herein by reference. Regarding aiding prohibited conduct, the Procedures provide, “A person aids prohibited conduct if, with the intent to promote or facilitate such conduct, that person helps another person commit the prohibited conduct.” Regarding attempting to commit prohibited conduct, the Procedures provide, “A person attempts to commit prohibited conduct if, with the intent to commit such conduct, that person engages in conduct directly tending toward completion of the prohibited conduct.” III. Procedural Overview5 On November 8, 2024, the Director of the University’s Office of Sorority and Fraternity Life filed an incident report with OIETIX regarding recently-alleged sexual assault and substance use at the Chi Phi house. On November 14, Complainant met with the Investigator and University Title IX Coordinator Lauren Branchini (the “Title IX Coordinator”), as well as representatives from the Cornell University Policy Department (CUPD) and the University’s Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (OSCCS). During that meeting, Complainant requested a formal complaint under the Policy. She was interviewed by the Investigator and CUPD Investigator Jeff Northrop that same day (Complainant’s “November 14 interview”). On November 15, Complainant was interviewed by the Investigator, Investigator Northrop, and OSCCS Investigator Sevyn Hardy (Complainant’s “November 15 interview”). Also on that date, Complainant reviewed, signed, and submitted to CUPD a written statement regarding the October 19 incidents (Complainant’s “November 15 CUPD statement”). After initial assessment, the Title IX Coordinator initiated a formal complaint and investigation regarding the information provided. Complainant was notified of this decision on November 21, 2024, on which date she informed the Title IX Office that she wished to be a party to the matter. On November 22, the Title IX Coordinator signed a University complaint and notified Respondents of the same in writing. The Investigator began collecting information—including by way of investigative interviews with parties and witnesses—shortly thereafter. On January 14, 2025, Complainant submitted an updated, signed version of the Formal Complaint (the “January 14 Formal Complaint”), by which she joined the matter as a party; Respondents received written 5 This Decision summarizes the procedural background of the matter. Additional details in this regard may be found in the Investigative Report and Appendices thereto, as well as within the hearing transcripts and record, which are incorporated herein by reference. Priv 2 14 F 14 itted Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 5 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 6 --- Page 4 of 97 notice of the same, as well as a copy of Complainant’s January 14 Formal Complaint, on January 16. On January 22, 2025, the parties received all information related to the January 14 Formal Complaint that had been collected by the Investigator thusfar. Initial investigative interviews with parties and witnesses in this matter took place as follows: x December 3, 2024: University undergraduate student ”; his “interview”) x December 6, 2024: University undergraduate student x December 9, 2024: (his “December 9 interview”) x December 9, 2024: University undergraduate student x December 9, 2024: University undergraduate student her “interview”) x December 10, 2024: University undergraduate student x December 11, 2024: (his “December 11 interview”) x December 13, 2024: University undergraduate student x December 16, 2024: Respondent (his “December 16 interview”) x December 17, 2024: University undergraduate student x December 17, 2024: University undergraduate student her “December 17 interview”) x December 18, 2024: (his “December 18 interview”) x December 18, 2024: (his “interview”) x December 18, 2024: University undergraduate student x December 19, 2024: National Chi Phi fraternity organization staff member Michael A. x December 19, 2024: University undergraduate student x December 19, 2024: University undergraduate student x December 20, 2024: University undergraduate student x December 23, 2024: University undergraduate student x December 23, 2024: University undergraduate student his “interview”) x January 6, 2025: University undergraduate student x January 6, 2025: University undergraduate student x January 6, 2025: University undergraduate student x January 7, 2025: University undergraduate student x January 8, 2025: (his “January 8 interview”) x January 8, 2025: University undergraduate student x January 9, 2025: University undergraduate student x January 16, 2025: Priv x itted ws: ws: Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 6 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 7 --- Page 5 of 97 x January 24, 2025: University undergraduate student x January 24, 2025: University undergraduate student x January 27, 2025: (his “January 27 interview”) Party follow-up interviews and additional witness interviews then took place as follows: x February 4, 2025: University undergraduate student x February 4, 2025: University undergraduate student x February 7, 2025: Complainant (her “February 7 interview”) x February 7, 2025: University undergraduate student x February 10, 2025: (his “February 10 interview”) x February 10, 2025: University undergraduate student x February 12, 2025: University undergraduate student x February 13, 2025: Complainant x February 13, 2025: x February 21, 2025: x February 24, 2025: Respondent x February 24, 2025: University undergraduate student x February 25, 2025: University undergraduate student x February 27, 2025: University undergraduate student x February 28, 2025: University undergraduate student x March 3, 2025: x March 5, 2025: In total, the Investigator conducted over 50 interviews during the investigation, including with 32 witnesses and all parties except who declined to participate in an interview in this matter.6 On March 12, 2025, Complainant filed an updated Formal Complaint, which added charges to the January 14 Formal Complaint. Respondents received a copy of the updated Formal Complaint on March 13. Consistent with the Procedures, the parties were provided with the investigative record and notified of the opportunity to respond to the same on March 21. The parties were notified of the Hearing Panel members on March 28 and April 4, 2025, and that Attorney Meaghan Borys would act as Hearing Chair for the matter on April 2. The Investigative Report was issued on April 16, 2025. Consistent with the Procedures, the Panel held the hearing via Zoom videoconference on May 2, 5, 12-15, 20-22, and 27-29. Complainant and all Respondents except for submitted written opening statements, submitted closing 6 Consistent with Procedures Section 21.1, the Panel did not draw any negative inference with respect to ’s decision in this regard. Priv Re R via Z via Re R itted Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 7 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 8 --- Page 6 of 97 statement(s)—orally and/or in writing—and answered questions of the Hearing Chair, Panel members, their own advisor, and other parties’ advisors during the hearing.7 The following witnesses also appeared at the hearing and answered questions posed by the Hearing Chair, Panel members, and party advisors: .8 After the close of the hearing, the Panel received written closing statements as submitted and engaged in deliberations on its findings, determinations, and sanctions on June 2, 5, 16-17, 26 30, and July 7, 2025. 9 IV. Findings and Responsibility Determinations The following findings and determinations were made by a majority vote f the Panel based on a preponderance of the evidence (“more-likely-than-not”) standard and resulted from evaluating all relevant information collected by the Investigator and during the hearing process, including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.10 Credibility assessments were not based on an individual’s status as Complainant, Respondent, or witness for any particular allegation(s). Consistent with Procedures Section 26.2, the Panel presumed all Respondents not responsible for any Policy violation prior to making its final determinations. A. Undisputed Relevant Facts – October 19 and 20, 2024 Based on its review of the evidentiary record, the Panel considered the following facts regarding the night of October 19 into October 20, 2024, to be materially undisputed and supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, which is incorporated herein by reference. The Panel included such undisputed facts in its findings and determinations, accordingly. On the night of October 19, 2024, Complainant consumed alcohol before arriving at the Chi Phi house at the invitation of . The fraternity was hosting a party that night. 7 Per Procedures Sect on 21.1 forfeited his opportunity to testify at the hearing in this matter by way of written opening statement, direct questioning, and closing statement(s) because he declined to participate in an investigative interview that the Investigator deemed necessary. (IR,12) was offered the opportunity to cross-examine other parties and witnesses through his advisor and to answer questions of the Hearing Chair, Panel, and other parties’ advisors as a witness. He elected to ask questions of other parties and witnesses through his advisor, but not to answer questions or attend the hearing. Consistent with Procedures Sections 21.1 and 21.2, and recogni ing that participation in the process was entirely voluntary for all parties, the Panel did not draw any negative inference from his decisions in this regard. 8 were also called to testify at the hearing but declined to participate. 9 Consistent with the Procedures, the Hearing Chair was present for and participated in deliberations, but did not vote with respect to findings of fact, determinations of responsibility, or sanctions. 10 While this section provides various summaries of evidence as relevant to the Panel’s findings and determinations, it is not intended to, nor does it, provide a comprehensive review of the entire evidentiary record with respect to all circumstances related to the Complaint and reviewed by the Panel. Priv 8 hearin hear 9 itted nd nd Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 8 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 9 --- was a sober monitor for the party, and were the fraternity's social chairs at the time. Shortly after Complainant's arrival, ked Complainant if she would like to engage in a "threesome." Complainant understood this suggestion to be indicative of sexual activity among herself, and a third person and expressed interest. As of that night, Complainant had strong romantic feelings for and sexual interest in | id had for sometime. The two then proceeded to a bedroom on the second floor of the house-belonging to , , and University undergraduate student known within the fraternity as the "alumni room." The alumni room was located off a balcony area where individuals often gathered and was generally regarded by membersof the fraternity as a social room, serving both as a bedroom for , and and as a generally-unlocked space where fraternity members (and, in particular, sophomore fraternity members such as would commonly congregate after parties. The furniture in the room at the time consisted of three beds, one loveseat-style couch, and at least one chair as present in the alumni room when Complainant and arrived.11 No others were present. Complainant and ere friends at the time and had engaged in sexual activity together in the past. After Complainant and entered the alumni room on October 19, the three parties engaged in sexual activity, for which Complainant provided consent. Specifically, Complainant engaged in oral sex with n or near the couch, while engaged in vaginal-penile sex with her from behind (the "threesome activity"). The parties ended the threesome activity after someminutes. At or around that time, the three consumedliquor and smokedmarijuana together. Ketamine was introduced among the group, as well, as discussed further in Section IV.B below. Ketamine was a substance used by multiple individuals in the Chi Phi house at the time, including who had overdosed on or about October 18, 2024. At somepoint, moved himself to a bed in the room and fell asleep or was otherwise unconscious. Complainant and remained together on or near the couch. At or around 1:00 a m. on October 20, 2024, entered the alumni room and engaged in sexual activity with Complainant, as discussed further in Section IV.C below. While was present in the alumni room, woke, and participated in contemporaneous sexual activity with Complainant for someamount of time, as discussed further in Section IV.H below. left the room shortly thereafter. " The Panel recognized the disputed issue of whether accompanied Complainant and a the alumni room initially (as recalled by or whether he was already in the roomwhen they arrived (as recalled by Comlainant . The Panel did not consider a finding on the sameto determinations and noted that was nonetheless present whenComplainant and entered the room. Page 7 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision- 9 of 99 Private [94428] Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 Distributed 08/18/2025 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 10 --- Page 8 of 97 At or just after 2:00 a.m., entered the alumni room. While present in the alumni room, he consumed ketamine off Complainant’s body, as discussed further in Section IV.I below. At or around 2:15 a.m., entered the alumni room. While present, he kissed Complainant and consumed ketamine off her body, as discussed further in Section IV.E below. At or around 2:30 a.m., Respondents entered the alumni room. At or around 5:00 a.m.,12 Complainant, , and moved from the alumni room to a common space on the fourth floor of the Chi Phi house known within the fraternity as the “Pentz”—off of which was the bedroom shared by and —after which they proceeded into a smaller room adjacent to the Pentz called the “foffice.” The foffice included both storage space and an alcove where had arranged a work space with at least one desk, a computer, and two chairs. While in the foffice, sexual activity occurred involving Complainant engaging in oral sex with , as discussed further in Section IV.I below, and vaginal-penile sex between Complainant and as discussed further in Section IV.J below. After that sexual activity ended, Complainant slept in bed with him before returning to her residence. Between 1:42 a.m. and 2:27 a.m. on October 20, 2024, multiple Respondents wrote messages and otherwise interacted with a Snapchat group chat titled “Chi Phi Actives” (the “Actives group”) that consisted of approximately 40 or more active members of the Chi Phi fraternity. That sequence of activity was captured by a videorecording contained in Appendix C (the “Snapchat video”)13 and summarized by the Investigator during the investigation (App. C, 21). Complainant had no contemporaneous knowledge of the existence of such messages. The Snapchat video showed a message at 1 42 a m. that read, “Free pussy in alum pu[.]” (App. C, 21) The Panel found by a preponderance of the evidence—including multiple Respondents’ statements—that “alum” referred to the alumni room and that “pu” was an abbreviation of the phrase “pull up,” which indicated an invitation. The Panel further found that the word “pussy” more likely than not referred to female sexual anatomy, specifically, the vagina.14 Complainant corr sponded directly with by text message after the night of October 19, 2024. 12 Based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record—including information submitted by —the Panel found that and appeared in the alumni room at or around 5:00 a.m. and requested, in some form, that all those present exit the room. The Panel further credited that were with and at that time. 13 The Snapchat video was submitted anonymously. The recording depicted an unknown individual’s cell phone screen, on which was displayed the Actives group Snapchat messages discussed herein. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the Panel understood that the unknown user whose cell phone was recorded by way of the Snapchat video necessarily was both a member of the Actives group and the Chi Phi fraternity as of October 20, 2024. 14 In addition to the evidentiary record, the Panel considered the reasonable interpretation of the word as commonly used—see, e.g., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pussy, defining “pussy” as “vulva,” “sexual intercourse,” and “the female partner in sexual intercourse.” 13 13 The Th scre scre itted he he Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 10 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 11 --- Page 9 of 97 As discussed throughout this Decision, numerous parties consumed the controlled substance ketamine in powdered form on the night of October 19 into the early morning hours of October 20, 2024. According to the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) 2024 Fact Sheet on Ketamine (the “DOJ and DEA fact sheet”) contained in the evidentiary record, ketamine is a “dissociative anesthetic that has some hallucinogenic effects. Ketamine distorts the perception of sight and sound and makes the user feel disconnected and not in control. [. . . I]t makes patients feel detached from their pain and environment.” (App. B, 344) The fact sheet continues, “Ketamine can induce a state of sedation (feeling calm and relaxed), immobility, relief from pain, and amnesia (no memory of events while under the influence of the drug) and is used for the dissociative sensations and hallucinogenic effects. Ketamine has also been used to facilitate sexual assault.” (App. B, 344) It also provides, “Ketamine comes in a [. . .] white or off-white powder. Powdered ketamine [. . .] is typically packaged in [. . .] small plastic bags [and . . .] is cut into lines known as bumps and snorted. [. . .] The onset of effects is rapid and often occurs within a few minutes of taking the drug[. . . It] may cause unwanted side effects such as: agitation, depression, cognitive difficulties, unconsciousness, and amnesia.” (App. B, 344-345) The DOJ and DEA fact sheet also indicates that cer ain effects of ketamine may last “approximately 30 to 60 minutes[.]” (App. B, 345) The scientific paper “Ketamine” contained in the evidentiary record (the “Ketamine paper”) confirmed that ketamine is a substance approved for use in the medical field “as a general anesthetic.” (App. B, 346) The Ketamine paper provided that, in “doses below a certain threshold, ketamine produces analgesia and sedation. However, [above that threshold], the characteristic dissociative state abruptly appears,” which “is inconsistent with [. . .] moderate setation or deep sedation[.]” (App. B, 348) The scientific article “Ketamine: 50 Years of Modulating the Mind” contained in the evidentiary record (collectively with the DOJ and DEA fact sheet and the Ketamine paper, the “expert materials”) similarly noted about the use of the drug in a clinical setting, “Ketamine produces an unusual state, sometimes referred to as ‘dissociative anesthesia[.]’ [. . .] During this dissociative state, patients might appear awake [. . .] but they are unable to respond to sensory input.” (App. B, 359) It continued, “At lower [‘recreational’] doses, stimulant effects predominate, and users experience mild dissociation with hallucinations and a distortion of time and space,” with “effects resolv[ing] approximately 2 h[ours] after acute ketamine use[.]” (App. B, 362) The Ketamine paper indicated that the “most common adverse drug reactions associated with ketamine are nausea, vomiting, dizziness, diplopia, drowsiness, dysphoria, and confusion.” (App. B, 350) Complainant consumed ketamine in powdered form on the night of October 19, 2024. During the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant described her experience of the effects of ketamine to include feeling like her “lights were on, but no one was home,” which she indicated was a state of “vague consciousness” wherein she “d[id]n’t know what’s going on from thing to thing.” (Trans. 5/2; 21, 63, 64) At the hearing on May 5, she elaborated on her experience of that effect by saying, “You look like an operating human being. [. . . Y]ou don’t look dead or asleep Priv Com Co hear hea ini itted nd not nd not 44) 44) Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 11 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 12 --- Page 10 of 97 necessarily. So, lights are on, but nobody’s home. Your brain is not functioning at its proper level.” (Trans. 5/5; 90) The Panel found this “lights on, nobody home” description consistent with the known “dissociative” effect of ketamine repeatedly emphasized in the expert materials. B. Complainant’s First Consumption of Ketamine Complainant consistently recounted that she consumed ketamine with close in time to their threesome activity on October 19, 2024. She referenced it as “the first time” she did ketamine that night during recorded telephone calls with that took place on or about November 6 and 7. (App. B, 171-173; App. C, 24, 28, 38) In her November 14 interview, she explained that while she did not have an independent memory of consuming ketamine for the first time that evening, she nonetheless “kn[e]w” it occurred based on an experience with ketamine later in the night, when she “remember[ed] thinking [it] was [her] second time doing it” and that she “already did it once [before]” (App. A; 47, 70) Complainant likewise indicated in her November 15 CUPD statement about that experience, “[I]t hit me that I had taken [k]etamine on the couch with [ and [ earlier in the night. [. . .] I remember smoking marijuana but he ket mine [. . .] I have zero memory of. All I could remember was the feeling that I had already done [k]etamine once[.]” Complainant said at the hearing on May 2, 2025, “I know that it was given to me. [ also did it. It was on the couch[;] it was the three of us had ketamine. [. . .] I know it sounds super weird to say. I know it happened, but I don’t remember it.” (Trans. 5/2; 32) In November 7, 2024, recorded call with Complainant (the “ November 7 call”), he said about himself, Complainant, and in the alumni room that night, “[W]e’re on the couch, and it’s star ing. And then after like 10 minutes, we slowed down a bit. Then [ pulled out the [‘liquor’], and we drank it. And then we started smoking from there, maybe another five to 10 minutes afterwards. And then the K[15] started happening.” (App. C, 29) also submitted a written statement during the investigation dated March 17, 2025 (his “March 17 statement”), regarding what occurred after the threesome activity. He wrote in this regard, “I inquired for ketamine from [. . . .] He poured the powder on a small key for himself and snorted it, then handed me the key and the bag which contained the ketamine. I poured myself several keys’ worth and inhaled them in rapid succession.” (App. B, 259) He continued, “[Complainant] did not ingest any ketamine at this point However, she shared a sip of Jamaican liquor along with me and .” (App. B, 259) In interview, he said about the threesome activity and thereafter, “[W]e started having sex in my room, the three of us. [. . .] We stopped, took a break. And that’s when [ noticed a bag of ketamine[. . . .] And so, [ offers us, ‘Hey, do 15 Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Panel understood use of the letter “K” in this statement to reference ketamine. Priv B, B In In h itted me” me” Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 12 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 13 --- Page 11 of 97 you want to do some?’ I said, ‘Sure.’ [Complainant] declined at that point. So, we didn’t really push her past that.” (App. A, 184-185) At the hearing on May 12, 2025, first said about this time of the night, “We were all sitting on the couch talking. [. . . ] reaches over, sees [the bag of ketamine], picks it up, asks if we want some.” (Trans. 5/12; 60-61) He also stated, “[Complainant] said no, she’d never done it before. We didn’t ask again.” Later in the hearing, when asked about what, if any, substances gave to Complainant said, “I guess, ketamine, alcohol, weed[. . . .] Me and [ did it, we offered it to her. She chose to take it. We didn’t force her to do anything.” (Trans. 5/12; 149) In assessing the totality of the information provided in this regard, the Panel weighed Complainant’s description of having ingested ketamine with against the latter two’s account that she did not. The Panel first considered Complainant’s candor regarding not having a specific memory of consuming ketamine at that time to be reasonably against her self-interest and therefore somewhat indicative of credibility in her account, which the Panel noted was first provided close in time to the October 19 incidents and remained materially consistent thereafter. The Panel also considered Complainant’s lack of ability to remember the details of this consumption consistent with the typical effects of ketamine described in the expert materials. Likewise, the Panel noted Complainant’s lack of memory regarding many of her subsequent experiences with as discussed in Section IV.C below, and found consumption of ketamine consistent with the same. By contrast, the Panel noted that both confirmed that ketamine consumption occurred in the alumni room at that time in the night and yet offered materially contrasting memories of how the ketam ne was introduced, which reduced the weight attributed to both accounts. In addition, the Panel afforded less weight to written statement than those made during his recorded call with Complainant, given that his written statement was submitted afte he received notice of the Complaint allegations and therefore after he may have had a general motive to indicate that Complainant did not consume ketamine in his presence. Additionally, the Panel noted the apparent discrepancy in both stating that alone initiated the use of the ketamine and also using the pronoun “we” in the same context to indicate that the two “didn’t really push” or “ask” Complainant about it. The Panel found that this repeated inconsistency reduced the credibility of his account in this regard. The Panel further considered statement at the hearing, wherein he grouped ketamine with substances that he and “offered” Complainant and that she “chose to take,” to reasonably indicate that she did ingest ketamine with the two of them at or around the time of the threesome activity. Finally, the Panel considered the totality of the circumstances presented, including its findings, discussed in Sections IV.H and IV.J below, that both separately gave Complainant ketamine at later points in the night The Panel therefore considered their provision of ketamine to Complainant at this earlier point of the Priv s or ar or Fin F itted r in n t we we Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 13 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 14 --- I Page 12 of 97 night to be consistent with a pattern of conduct they each demonstrated later in time. The Panel also considered Complainant’s alcohol consumption prior to her arrival at the Chi Phi house, her friendship with , and her undisputed strong attraction for —the feeling of which she described in her November 15 interview as a “chokehold,” adding that she would have done “anything to please [him]” at the time. (App. A, 35) Understanding a typical effect of alcohol to be lowered inhibition in the context of the three parties having engaged in sexual activity together and having consumed alcohol and marijuana together, the Panel found based on the preponderance of the evidence that Complainant ingested ketamine with in the alumni room on the night of October 19 close in time to the threesome activity. C. 1. Complaint Charges Against As set forth in the Formal Complaint, was charged with violating the Policy’s prohibition against Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) kissed Complainant without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; (b) penetrated Complainant’s mouth with his penis without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; and (c) penetrated Complainant’s vulva with his penis without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation. 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence a. Complainant In Complainant’s November 14 interview, she indicated that after moved to a bed in the alumni room, she remained on the couch with who was “acting like he was about to throw up” into a “trash can.” (App. A, 50) She recalled that there was “a knock at the door,” that she answered it, and that she was wearing her dress at the time. (App. A, 52) She stated that told her to sit on his lap, which she did, and that then entered the room. During the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant was asked about what happened right before entered the alumni room. She stated, “I think I was scrambling to fix my dress at the same time [. . . t]here’s loud knocking at the door. [. . . ] is saying, ‘Let him in. Let him in. It’s ]. It’s [ ]’s room,’ [. . . a]nd I’m like, ‘Oh, my God, I’m this intruder in ]’s room.’ [. . .] And so, [I] grab the door[.]” (Trans. 5/2; 35) She added about her state of dress in those moments, “I know that [. . .] covering myself was a concern that I had.” (Trans. 5/2; 35) Complainant consistently indicated that she did not know prior to October 19, 2024. During Complainant’s November 14 interview, she said about what happened next, “[ ] introduces himself [and . . .] I think we shake hands, [which] turned into a grab that pulled me in and [ ] started making out with me.” (App. A, 54) When Priv r so, [ so know kno c itted inin d Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 14 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 15 --- Page 13 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision _ 15 of 99 Private [94428] Distribution Not Perrnitted, See Policy 6.4 Distributed 08/18/2025 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 16 --- Page 14 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision _ 16 of 99 Private [94428] Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 Distributed 08/18/2025 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 17 --- Page 15 of 97 himself.” (App. A, 281) He said about their relative physical positioning, “[Complainant] was stood up, bent over, her mouth on [‘my penis’], and [ inserting into her from the rear. Into her vagina.” (App. A; 290, 291) He continued, “So, this continued for a bit as well, until eventually she decided to sit on my lap facing away from me. So, I stayed seated [. . . ] She then got up, turned, and placed herself on my lap. And then she took hold of my penis, physically grabbed it, and inserted it into [‘her vagina’]. And once again, I didn’t have an issue with it at the time.” (App. A; 282, 292) About this change, he said, “I don’t think it would be accurate for me to say it just happened, but somebody may have said something that kind of prompted the switch, but I don’t remember the specifics.” (App. A, 291) then described that he Complainant, and “[‘collectively’] decided to move from the couch to [ ] bed” and “continued [the] arrangement” of Complainant engaging in oral sex with and penetrating her.” (App. A; 282, 293) In his December 18 interview, described as “laying on [a] bed” “sleeping” “partially dressed” in “what appeared to be a nap” for the majority of his time in the room and recalled exiting the room shortly after woke. (App. A; 282, 295) described as “perfectly receptive” in conversation—i.e., not appearing under the influence of any substance—and did not recall him vomiting or any similar behavior while he was present. (App. A, 287) At the hearing on May 14, described Complainant during the time he was in the alumni room that night as “positive,” “smiling,” “engaged,” and “talkative.” (Trans. 5/14; 15) He said, “[A]t no point in time [. . .] did I ever get any sort of indication that [Complainant] was under any sort of influence of anything.” (App. A, 281) At the hearing on May 14, indicated that he had been aware of and “helped” fellow fraternity members intoxicated by alcohol prior to October 19, 2024. (Trans. 5/14; 59) At the hearing on May 13, he noted that “people would occasionally smoke marijuana” in the alumni room after parties. (Trans. 5/13; 97) At the hearing on May 14, indicated that while he was not aware that his roommate, had used ketamine in the past, he knew as of October 19 that had overdosed on recreational drugs the night before. He also said that s “overdose largely informed [his] assumptions and thought process” on the night of October 19, specifically noting the “dangerous implications” of “recreational drug use” in the context of having recently “go[ne] to the hospital and nearly die[d].” (Trans 5/14; 21) c. During interview, he indicated that after consuming ketamine, alcohol, and marijuana in the alumni room with , he “started feeling really sick” and both he and “started throwing up [‘violently’] in trash cans” that were behind the couch. (App. A, 185) He recalled that then “passe[d] out on [his] roommate’s bed while Priv Duri Dur m itted allyly at the at the me me h Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 17 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 18 --- Page 16 of 97 [. . . Complainant was] helping [him] throw up, like patting [his] back.” (App. A, 185) He said about what happened next: My roommate [ walks in the room. [Complainant] invites him. They start talking [and . . .] started kissing. And I hear like, from the side, her telling him like, “You don’t know how long I’ve wanted to do this.” And eventually, they start having sex on his bed. While [ ]’s passed out in my other roommate’s bed. I’m still on the couch, still nauseous, like throwing up. (App. A, 185) He indicated that then “woke up” and that left the room shortly thereafter. During hearing on May 12, 2025, indicated that Complainant did not sit on his lap when entered and recalled, “I was on the right side of the couch. [Complainant] was in the middle. [ was] on the left side.” (Trans. 5/12; 73) He also indicated that he did not remember how and Complainant moved from the couch to the bed. When asked about account that Complainant engaged in oral sex with him on the couch while engaged in vaginal-penile sex with her from behind, replied, “I feel like I would remember it, but it is possible it did happen.” (Trans. 5/12; 76) Privivivi itted n his his he he Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 18 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 19 --- Page 17 of 97 Priviviviv itted ttitt Hearing Panel Decision - SK [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 19 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 20 --- Page 18 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 20 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 21 --- I Page 19 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 21 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 22 --- I Page 20 of 97 next, want[ed] me to do ketamine off of his dick in front of everybody. And I remember thinking this is my second time doing it, so why not?” (App. A, 47) She continued: I grabbed [ arm or something. I remember this part very clearly. [. . .] “I don’t know who any of these guys are. I’m really uncomfortable.” [. . .] So, I do remember I was able to muster the courage to say that, and he laughed and asked if I wanted to do more ketamine. [. . .] So, I do remember that’s the second time I did ketamine and I remember thinking I already did it once. Might as well do it again. [And I remember my best bet that I felt to get out of this situation would be if perhaps I was completely passed out.”] And [ said okay, and he poured it on his erect dick in front of all these guys and said, “Go for it,” and I said, “Wow,” and I did so. (App. A; 70-71) In her November 15 interview, Complainant added about the situation, “[T]he ketamine, I guess, was wearing off from the prior time. I guess an hour, whatever, had gone by.” (App. A, 139) During the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant indicated that this occurred while she and were in a bed in the alumni room, with “[o]n his knees, standing up a little bit.” (Trans. 5/2; 68) She continued, “My memory of this is my back is against the wall. He’s right next to me. I say I’m uncomfortable. He says, ‘You need more ketamine,’ gets up on his knees, somehow, it’s already ready to go, and his dick is already erect, and it gets poured on there [‘really close to me’].” (Trans. 5/2; 68-69) She also indicated at the hearing that she had no specific memory of who was present in that moment aside from . About when in the night this occurred, Complainant indicated during her November 14 interview that it was after left the alumni room and after she “ran” to bed because “[a] group of men walked in[.]” (App. A; 59-60) She said that the group included , but also that she was “not sure if people came in and out” at different points (App. A, 64). She recalled certain interactions with but also noted that she was “unsure” of “the sequence of [. . . events],” including if she consumed ketamine off of penis before or after those interactions. (App. A, 70) replied to Complainant’s October 21 message, “I have no memory of that” (App. B, 152), and Complainant ended the November 6 call without replying to her reference to consuming ketamine “off [his] dick.” During interview, he said that, after left the alumni room that night, Complainant and “joined [him] in [his] bed, under the sheets” and “that’s when [ ] and [ ] both walk[ed] in the room” and, later, . (App. A, 186) He indicated that all consumed ketamine off of Complainant’s body, after which “[Complainant] asked for some herself, and ] gave some to her[,]” and she took it from a “key[.]” (App. A; 214, 219) When was asked if he gave Complainant ketamine by placing it on his penis with others present in the room, he answered, “I Priv ] that that w itted d I d I Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 22 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 23 --- Page 21 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision - 23 of 99 Private [94428] Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 Distributed 08/18/2025 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 24 --- Page 22 of 97 group was kicked out of the room by at or around 5:00 a.m., with neither nor indicating that they observed Complainant’s second consumption of ketamine—and noting account of the sequence of events at that point in the night—the Panel found based on the preponderance of the evidence that the second consumption of ketamine occurred after left the alumni room and before and entered at or around 2:00 a.m. and 2:15 a.m., respectively. E. 1. Complaint Charges Against As set forth in the Formal Complaint, was charged with violating the Policy’s prohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her permission; (b) kissed Complainant without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; and (c) touched his nose to Complainant’s naked torso and inhaled a powdered substance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation. 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence a. Complainant During the November 7 call, Complainant stated, “And then [ said something really mean to me, and then I sat up and defended myself. I remember my boobs came uncovered[ . . .], and then he kissed me. He grabbed my face and made out with me in front of everybody.” (App. C, 31) then replied, “Yeah,” and she continued, “[ ] asked for drugs to be done off my body. I had already been exposed at some point, drunkenly and high. I said, ‘Yes.’” (App. C, 31) In Complainant’s November 14 interview, she recalled entering the alumni room at a point in the night when she was “naked” under bed coverings in bed. (App. A, 61) About what happened next, Complainant stated: I remember having myself covered up. And then, [ said something out of pocket to me. He said something I think it was slut-shaming me or it was criticizing something about me[. . . .] And so I sat up, and then it was like, boop, and now my boobs are out in front of all these guys. [ . . .] I got mad, and [ grabbed my face and started making out with me. (App. A, 64) She continued, “I don’t even remember how I got out of that. I think I just backed away or something. [. . .] I know it ended quickly, and that was on my own accord because I backed up. [. . .] I don’t remember having any feelings or anything happening in that moment. I was totally numbed out. I mean, I was super numb.” (App. A, 65) Priv (A ( itted and d Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 24 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 25 --- Page 23 of 97 Complainant also recalled getting out of the bed and “flexing” her muscles at some point, and “th[ought]” it occurred after the kiss with . (App. A, 68) About what happened next, Complainant noted that the “timeline [was] so unsure” for her but stated: [T]hey all started just berating me with compliments [. . .] because they were looking at my body and I was naked. [. . . And ] was like, “[Complainant] would you mind if we did ketamine off of your perfect body,” [. . . a]nd I was like, “I guess,” or whatever. And I was already partly lying down because it was so much easier to lie down I was super tired and so, I remember lying down and covering my face up. I remember very clearly I covered my face up and looked at the ceiling. And they just poured all sorts of stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. [. . .] I think everybody had a turn. [. . .] I didn’t ever look up because I knew that would be too much for me to see. So, I covered my face immediately and laid down. (App. A; 72-73) During her November 15 interview, Complainant said, “[T]hey were all partaking in the drugs because they did them off of my body. But I did put my hands over my face at that point. [. . .] I wanted to go to sleep at that point, too, so I didn’t really look up to see who was doing drugs off of my body.” (App. A; 126-127) During the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant described herself as “super incapacitated” in that moment. (Trans. 5/2; 72) She also indicated that her covering her face was not based on a “series of thoughts” but was “just more reflexive” “[i]n the case that someone took pictures[.]” (Trans. 5/2; 72-73) She also said about the October 19 incidents generally, “I have no clue about timeline in this[. . . . M]y phone was kind of inaccessible to me most of the time. And also, when you’re really drunk, things speed up, and when you’re on ketamine, things slow down, I guess. And so, it's like having the two of them together, and then add [marijuana], and it’s just like no clue.” (Trans. 5/2; 32-33) She added, “Following the events [of October 19 and 20, 2024,] I had to look up [. . .] what [ looked like. [. . .] I didn’t even know [his] face[] out in public.” (Trans. 5/2; 37) She also stated that she was “not sure” if Respondent “did the grabbing [her] thing” before or after he inhaled ketamine off of her body. (Trans. 5/2; 75) About how her second ketamine consumption affected her generally, Complainant said, “I felt the effects pretty intensely[. . . .] And then, also, past th[o]se moments, the whole thing’s blackout, right? And the whole thing is pretty spotty in memory. And the whole thing is difficult for me to remember. [. . .] I was super tired. I was weighed down. It just felt like a horse tranquilizer.” (Trans. 5/2; 69) b. was in his senior year as a University undergraduate as of October 19, 2024. During his January 8 interview, he recalled that the fraternity was hosting a party on the night of October 19 that he attended and during which he “had a small amount of beer.” (App. A, 411) He indicated that he later left the Chi Phi house and returned around 1:40 a.m. on October 20. He recalled that he then went to his room in the house and “watched some shows on [his] TV” with Priv itted d s,” or s,” or wn wn Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 25 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 26 --- M I Page 24 of 97 his friend and fellow University undergraduate student and Respondent (App. A; 413-414) He stated that the three of them “sipped maybe a beer each” “until approximately 2:30 in the morning,” when “he was informed” by of a Snapchat message sent to the Actives group by “along the lines of there being free pussy in alumni.” (App. A, 414) About his reaction to hearing about that message, said, “Basically, I just kind of question it because it’s something that I’ve neve seen before in my entire four years living in the [Chi Phi] house[.]” (App. A, 415) He indicated that then said that “he thought there was some type of orgy [meaning ‘group sex of some sort’] occurring within the house.” (App. A, 415) continued, “I honestly did not have a great understanding of what was happening at the time [. . .] but was very concerned and just overall curious about the matter.” (App. A, 415) recounted that he proceeded to the alumni room with Respondent and , knocked on the door, and opened the door “naked.” (App. A, 416) At the hearing on May 14, 2025, he recalled “almost immediately leaving [his] room” for the alumni room after his conversation with about the Snapchat message. (Trans. 5/14; 128-129) He also said “[U]sually people would just kind of walk in [to the alumni room] through the door without knocking.” (Trans. 5/14; 133) About his reaction to seeing state of dress, he said, “I was a little bit weirded out.” (Trans. 5/14; 134) In his January 8 interview, he said that he then entered the room alone and saw , and Complainant (though he did not know her at the time) “positioned on a bed” that entered shortly thereafter. (App. A, 418) At the hearing on May 14, he described as “shirtless” at the time and the group generally as “looking so joyous and happy.” (Trans. 5/14; 140, 148) About his reaction to the situation, said in his January 8 interview, “At that point, I’m like, ‘What the fuck is going on here?’ because I was immensely concerned [and ‘super shocked’] since I’ve never seen anything like this in my four years at the house.” (App. A; 418, 419) He recalled that Complainant “was under comforter sheets” at that time and that the group was “engaging in a casual conversation.” (App. A, 419) He recalled that he then joined the conversation “once all of [his] nerves [we]re settled.” (App. A, 420) About what happened next, said in his January 27 interview that asked “if he could do ketamine off of [Complainant], and she responded, ‘Yes’ to the matter.” (App. A, 423) said that proceeded to snort the powdered substance off of Complainant’s naked torso, while her upper body was exposed. He continued, “And then, at some point, I also ask if I could do the [‘ketamine’] off of her body,” to which she “responded enthusiastically.” (App. A; 423, 424) When asked at the hearing on May 14 why he did this, answered, “[W]hen I was first uncomfortable, I kind of felt almost overridden by how positive everyone was in the room[, and . . . m]aybe I’m the one that’s being weird if everyone around me is looking so joyous and happy to be talking to one another. And yeah, eventually, after [ ] did that action, he said something to the effect of I Priv “resp “re did t did o itted eve eve ed ed Hearing Panel Decision [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 26 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 27 --- Page 25 of 97 should as well, and since being in this positive atmosphere, I eventually asked, as well.” (Trans. 5/14; 148) In his January 27 interview, recalled that then poured the ketamine onto Complainant’s unclothed torso, in an area beneath her rib case, at the top of her stomach, and he inhaled it with “a dollar bill.” (App. A, 425) At the hearing on May 14, recalled that the covers were down to Complainant’s “waist area” and that he “saw her breast at th[at] moment.” (Trans. 5/14; 150) During his January 27 interview, he said that, “within either seconds [or], if anything, a minute, at most” he “became unable to stand anymore and then sat on the edge of the bed.” (App. A, 425) He described himself as being “in [his] own world” and “catatonic” until “Complainant start[ed] talking to [him].” (App. A; 425, 437) He continued: So, basically, [Complainant] just asked more about my involvement at Cornell. So, we started talking about the hotel school and seemed to be bonding over that a lot. [. . .] And then, at some point, in that conversation, I just remember her smiling and kind of leaning in towards me a little bit. And then, I eventually lean in, as well. Then, I recall our lips touched in kind of a pecking kissing motion, for maybe two or three seconds. And then, [. . .] I pulled my head away because I realized that there are other people in the room and I did not want to be kissing someone. (App. A, 426) He described Complainant as “happy” in those moments and said that she “did not seem incapacitated at all.” (App. A; 427, 450) About his own state, said, “I just remember being pretty nonverbal and minimally moving [a]lmost the entire time that I was in the room, until [Complainant’s] conversation broke me out, and it kind of gave me more life just talking to another human being. But every time I went back to my own self, or not talk to anybody, then I just became internally paralyzed, where I would just sit there.” (App. A, 439) At the hearing on May 14, he stated, “I remember feeling unable to stand”; “I felt extremely isolated”; and “I was just pretty messed up” (Trans. 5/14; 153-154, 162) At the hearing on May 20, he said, “[I]t was more difficult to understand” Respondent when he approached shortly after his kiss with Complainant. (Trans. 5/20; 69) About what happened next, said during his January 27 interview, “And then, after some more time passed, I just remember hearing [. . .] Complainant saying that she thought she was stronger than [ and . . .] getting up from the bed and basically flexing her muscles to everybody in the room.” (App. A, 428) On October 21, 2024, text messaged Complainant, “I just got your number and heard that I may have said some mean things when I walked in the room but I truly do not know what I said. I want to make amends with you because I’m not a mean person[.]” (App. B, 187) She replied, “[I] really appreciate the text and i didn’t think in your head you were a mean guy or anything. i figured it was a defensive thing cause like that was obv an insane night and i think everyone was really confused, drunk, high, and nervous.” (App. B, 188) Priv On O On hear hea w itted he he Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 27 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 28 --- Page 26 of 97 At the hearing on May 15, when asked his perspective on the culture of ketamine at the Chi Phi house as of October 19, 2024, answered, “I would [. . .] say [. . .] that it was definitely more of a problem. And it was something that was occurring almost every weekend.” (Trans. 5/15; 160) c. Additional Evidence In interview, he said that entered the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024, while he, Complainant, and were in his bed He described as “visibly intoxicated” at the time. (App. A, 186) He recalled Complainant conversing with from the “edge of the bed” about being “hotel majors” and that he, , and then ingested ketamine together at suggestion. (App. A; 186, 211) He continued, “And then, [ ] asked [Complainant] if he could do the ketamine off her chest. She said, ‘Yes.’ He did it, followed by [ ], who also asked her first.” (App. A, 186) He also said about Complainant and conversing, “At one point, I kind of look over, and I see [ ] and [Complainant] kissing.” (App. A, 212) He indicated that he did not notice who initiated the kissing and that the two were “kind of laughing about it after.” (App. A, 212) He also recalled Complainant exiting the bed and “flexing her muscles” while unclothed. (App. A, 216) He stated that he never noticed say anything that Complainant took offense to. At the hearing on May 12, 2025, confirmed that he was “still fully nude” at the time that entered the alumni room that night, though he “d[id]n’t remember going and opening the door for him.” (Trans. 5/12; 89, 179) In his December 16 interview, Respondent indicated that he went to room after the party ended at or around 1:30 a.m. on October 20, 2024, and that no one else was present at the time. He stated he was “there for around 50 minutes when [ called . . .] and came up[.]” (App. A, 370) He recalled leaving shortly thereafter. He said that he checked his cell phone “10 to 15 minutes” after left the room and saw a Snapchat message in the Actives group that read, “Free pussy in alumni.” (App. A, 370) He said that he and then went to the alumni room, where “[ was sitting on the very edge of the bed [. . .] talking.” (App. A, 371) He stated that, after some time, he “walked over [and] asked [ if he was alright because he [. . .] was sitting with his hands on his face [and ‘seemed a little drunk’]. [ then] said he was a little drunk, but he was okay.” (App. A; 371, 380) During the hearing on May 21, 2025, Respondent explained that had actually “abruptly” left his room before arrived, without indicating where he was going. (Trans. 5/21; 109) Respondent consistently indicated that he observed neither drug use nor a kiss between and Complainant while he was present in the alumni room that night. In his December 16 interview, he recalled Complainant “laughing” and participating in conversation while he was present in the room. (App. A, 382) Priv exp ex arriv arri ind i itted on on Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 28 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 29 --- Page 27 of 97 On December 4, 2024, submitted a document titled “Timeline of Events” (his “Timeline”), in which he indicated that he “called [Respondent ] and went to [ ’s room” at or around 2:23 a.m. on October 20, 2024, and that “[ was] leaving as [he] arrived.” (App. B, 272) In December 9 interview, he described that he and Respondent noted a Snapchat message to the Actives group that read, “Free pussy in alumni,” after which they went to the alumni room. (App. A, 330) About what happened while they were in the room, wrote in his Timeline, “[Complainant] was sitting up under the covers, and [. . . was] fully clothed and sitting on the bed. [. . . He] appeared intoxicated but said he was fine. We asked if he wanted to leave with us, but he declined.” (App. B, 273) In his February 10 interview, explained that he did not actually see leave his room at any time and that it was only Respondent who was present in that room when he arrived at or around 2:23 a.m. consistently indicated that he observed neither drug use nor a kiss between and Complainant while he was present in the alumni room that night. During his December 9 interview, stated that he observed Complainant “laugh[ing]” and “talking” with others while he was present in the room. (App. A, 334) Privivivi itted hile hile Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 29 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 30 --- Page 28 of 97 Priviviviv itted ttitti Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 30 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 31 --- Page 29 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 31 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 32 --- Page 30 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 32 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 33 --- Page 31 of 97 F. Respondent 1. Complaint Charges Against Respondent As set forth in the Formal Complaint, Respondent was charged with violating the Policy’s prohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her Priv itted itit Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 33 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 34 --- O Page 32 of 97 permission; and (b) touched his nose to Complainant’s naked body and inhaled a powdered substance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation. 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence a. Complainant In her November 14 interview, Complainant indicated that, at some point during the night of October 19, 2024, when she was “naked” in bed, “two guys named y” entered the room. (App. A, 62) She recalled being introduced to them while were also in the room. She described them as “standing” at the foot of the bed, adding, “They felt more like voyeurs than anything in the situation. They didn’t get as comfortable as everybody else did.” Although she was “unsure” of the particular “sequence of the[] events,” she then recalled certain interactions with exiting the bed while naked and “flexing,” and being “berated with compliments.” (App. A; 68-70, 72) She also indicated that asked to ingest ketamine off her body and that she agreed in some form. She continued, “I remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just poured all sorts of stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. [. . . S]everal lines [were] done by almost everybody.” (App. A, 73) In her November 15 interview, she stated, “I’m not even sure if the two are in Chi Phi. [. . .] But they all were partaking in the drugs because they did them off of my body. But I did put my hands over my face at that point.” (App. A; 126-127) In her February 7 interview, Complainant said, “[T]he , as far as I know, were voyeurs. Well, except the times that they did drugs off my body, and who knows if they touched anything while they were doing that[.]” (App. A, 137) Although she did not know what either of them looked like after that night, Complainant consistently indicated that either Respondent or asked if she was okay or otherwise physically supported her after entered the alumni room and told everyone to leave. (See, e.g., App. B, 32) b. Respondent Respondent consistently stated in his interviews, documentary submissions, and at the hearing that he did not observe Complainant naked at any time nor partake in any drug use while in the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024. At the hearing on May 21, 2025, he indicated that he did not know Complainant prior to the night of October 19. During Respondent December 16 interview, he described being at the party at the Chi Phi house that night, after which he went to room. He submitted a record of a ten-second call with at 2:23 a.m. on October 20. (App. B, 307) In his December 16 interview, he recalled inviting to join him in room during that call. He continued, “I was hitting [‘a nicotine vape’] at this point, and it was almost dead[. . . .A]nd by the time [ got there, we sat and talked for about two minutes, and [ got up and left the room. We didn’t know why[.]” (App. A, 370) About what happened next, he said: Priv wh w rec r itted Hearing Panel Decision [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 34 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 35 --- Page 33 of 97 After about 10 to 15 minutes with [ still being gone, I checked my phone and in [the Actives group] there was a text message [. . .] that said, “Free pussy in alumni.” [. . .] I had no idea what the text meant. I was kind of befuddled. So, me and [ talked about it. And the person that sent the text message [ ], he lived in that room, and I knew he had a vape, and my vape had just died. And we also speculated that maybe this is why [ had got up and left. (App. A, 370) He added, “So, my vape had died. I knew [ had one, and because of [ leaving and us not knowing the nature of if this was a joke or what was going on in the [alumni] room, me and [ decided to go into that room.” (App. A, 370). During the hearing on May 21, Respondent explained that had actually left his room before arrived, without indicating where he was going. About what happened when he and entered the alumni room on October 20, 2024, Respondent said during his December 16 interview that he saw Complainant and all in or on bed. He indicated that Complainant was under bed coverings at the time. He said that he sat on the couch and conversed with for some minutes before asking both and Complainant if they were “all right”—both of whom responded affirmatively—and exiting the room with (App. A, 371) He recalled an interaction with Complainant before exiting in which she “laughed” about both his and first names being “ ” (App. A, 372) He estimated that he was in the alumni room for “[n]o more than five minutes” that night. (App. A, 380) About his decision to go to the alumni room that night, Respondent stated, “[B]y no means were we going there to get free pussy[. . . .] That was not our intentions at all. We were just checking out to see if everything was okay[.]” (App. A, 377) During the hearing on May 21, 2025, he stated that after seeing the “free pussy in alumni” message, he “started to get kind of worried that that’s where [ had went” and that he “believe[d was intoxicated at the time.” (Trans. 5/21; 110, 116) He continued, “I was just worried cause again, the text was really out there. I had never seen something like that. [. . .] I just didn’t know what [ was doing and kind of if something was bad, I wanted to get him out of there.” (Trans. 5/21; 110-111) He also said, “[T]he text could have meant anything. There was a lot of things going through my head. I didn’t know if there was a lot of girls in there or what was going on[. . . .] But again, free pussy just seems like someone could have been in danger. It’s just free. What does free mean? Again, I don’t know. That’s why it could have meant anything.” (Trans. 5/21; 113) He also said, “If someone's having sex with someone in the room, they're not gonna send that text out. So, again, I just didn't know what was really happening in the room,” and, “I just didn’t think it was real.” (Trans. 5/21; 111, 114) Respondent further noted that although the alumni room was “a bedroom where a lot of people would go to hang out if they didn’t want to be in their room or if they had nothing to do,” Priv fre fr (Tran (Tr gon g itted we e Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 35 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 36 --- Page 34 of 97 he personally “just wasn’t really close with the [residents of the room as of October 19, 2024]. So, [he]’d go to [his] other friends’ rooms to hang out,” adding, “I was rarely ever in [the alumni room].” (Trans. 5/21; 104) During the investigation, Respondent submitted a record of a ketamine test performed by Omega Laboratories that indicated that his hair follicles were collected on November 26, 2024, and tested for ketamine presence (his “ketamine test”). The ketamine test came back “[n]egative” for the drug. (App. B.1; 8) At the hearing on May 21, Respondent stated that Omega Laboratories personnel told him at the time of collection, “[E]ven if you take [ketamine] one time, it can stay in your hair for up to three to six months.” (Trans. 5/21; 168) c. Additional Evidence Timeline indicated that he “called [Respondent ] and went to [ ]’s room” at or around 2:23 a.m. on October 20, 2024. (App. B, 272) In December 9 interview, he described that he and Respondent noted a Snapchat message to the Actives group that read, “Free pussy in alumni,” after which they went to the alumni room. (App. A, 330) He continued, “We saw that text and were somewhat concerned but thought it could just be crude humor.” (App. A, 330) He also wrote in his Timeline, “[Respondent ]’s vape had died, and he wanted to borrow someone else’s. He knew [ had a vape in [the alumni] room. [Respondent ] asked if I wanted to go check it out, and I agreed. [Respondent ] also mentioned that he thought [ was pretty inebriated while they were hanging out so we wanted to check on him.” (App. B, 272) About what happened after they entered the alumni room minutes later, recalled seeing Complainant under bed coverings, with all in or on the same bed. He recalled being in the room for “[f]ive minutes, maybe” (App. A, 344) and consistently stated that he both arrived and left with Respondent . He likewise consistently indicated that he did not observe any drug use or Complainant naked at any time he was present in the alumni room that night. On December 9, 2024, signed a document titled “Acknowledgement of Understanding of [Respondent ]’s Involvement,” in which he affirmed that Respondent “did not make any physical contact with [Complainant]” and “did not snort or consume drugs on or near [Complainant].” (App. B, 306) At the hearing on May 15, 2025, indicated that when he inquired about taking a hair follicle test for ketamine, he was told by the company Request A Test that the test is accurate for presence of the drug for up to “90 days.” (Trans. 5/15; 71) During interview, he recalled about after consumed ketamine off Complainant’s body, “two guys walked in, [Respondent ] and [ ]. They introduced themselves, started talking, and [Complainant] invited them in.” (App. A, 186) He continued, “And then, [ ] are telling [ ] about how they did ketamine off of [Complainant’s] chest. [. . .] And then, both [ ] asked her if they could do ketamine off her chest too, because [ ] Priv to Durin Du ket k itted 24,4, ative” ative” Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 36 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 37 --- Page 35 of 97 had told them about it. She said yeah, so they did.” (App. A, 187) He did not recall who poured that ketamine or how much they consumed. He also indicated that Complainant “got up out of the bed and started doing like a bodybuilder pose” while were in the alumni room. (App. A, 186) In January 8 interview, he recalled entering the alumni room in the early morning hours of October 20 and talking with Complainant and . He continued, “At some point, then the door opens in the room. I look back and I see [Respondent ] has entered the room. Then, I can’t recall if it was right behind him or a little bit later at some point [ walks into the room as well.” In the hearing on May 14, 2025, explained, “I believe sometime shortly before [ asked to ingest ketamine off of Complainant’s body], I remember actually hearing the door and glancing back and seeing them, but I actually don’t recall where they were exactly when he said those words specifically.” (Trans. 5/14; 144) In his January 27 interview, said that he and then ingested ketamine off Complainant’s body. In the hearing on May 14, he stated about that time, “I had not heard or seen [Respondent ] since I heard that door open in the moment, but I think I had the impression that they were in the room too somewhere in the background.” (Trans. 5/14; 147) When asked what gave him the impression that Respondent was still in the room at that time, answered, “I just didn’t recall hearing the door open again.” (Trans. 5/14; 147) In his January 27 interview, he said about what happened next, “I remember at some point, [Respondent ] just comes up to me. I’m not sure what he said, but he just walks up to me because he’s one of my friends. [. . .] I don’t remember the exact words he said to me, but I just remember him coming up to me, and then, going back to talking with, I believe, it was [ (App. A, 428) He recalled that the next thing that happened was Complainant exiting the bed and “flexing her muscles to everybody in the room,” after which “[came] into the room and basically kick[ed] everyone out[.]” (App. A, 428) He did not remember Respondent inhaling ketamine off Complainant’s body. each consistently recalled—both at their respective interviews and at the hearing—that they observed Respondent exiting the alumni room at or around 5:00 a.m. when they went to that room with and d. The Snapchat Messages As discussed in Section IV.A above, the Panel found that the 1:42 a.m. Snapchat message “Free pussy in alum pu” communicated an invitation for others to go to the alumni room, along with a reference to female sexual anatomy. At 2:29 a.m., Respondent wrote in the Alumni group, “the alumni shit is not a bit. First hand pov not a bit” (the “not a bit message”). During the hearing on May 21, 2025, Respondent said about that message: Priv As A pussy pus ref r itted . Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 37 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 38 --- Page 36 of 97 I found out from [someone] passing by as I was walking into the [alumni] room that there was a girl in there. So, I was just saying, I mean, firsthand from somebody else that there was a girl in that room and it’s not a [‘joke’], but again, it was an immature and dumb kind of just following along with what everybody else was saying in there. I shouldn’t have said it. And it is immature and a stupid text message for sure. (Trans. 5/21; 152, 153) He indicated that he interacted with that individual and sent the not a bit message while he was outside the alumni room, prior to entering. 3. Findings and Determinations with Respect to Respondent Procedures Section 3.6 defines sexual exploitation in relevant part as “intentionally engaging in [. . . o]bserving another person when that person is nude or engaged in sexual activity without the knowledge and consent of the person observed[.]” Per Procedures Section 3.5, sexual assault is “(1) sexual intercourse or (2) sexual contact (3) without affirmative consent.” Sexual contact is defined in relevant part as “intentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object or body part” including “intentional touching of another’s body part for the purpose of sexual gratification, arousal, humiliation, or degradation.” Regarding the charges against Respondent , the Panel first found the evidentiary record insufficient to show that he observed Complainant nude or engaged in sexual activity without her knowledge. Notably, even if Respondent was present when others consumed ketamine off her naked torso and/or when she exited the bed and flexed, the preponderance of the evidence showed that Complainant was aware, by her own account, that she was nude at those times. For this reason, the Panel determined that Respondent was not responsible for sexual exploitation under the Policy. However, the Panel considered Procedures Section 3.2, which prohibits attempting to commit prohibited conduct, and found that Respondent attempted to commit sexual exploitation when he went into the alumni room in the early morning hours of October 20, 2024. Specifically, by Respondent ’s own account, he went to the room, at least in part, because of a Snapchat message indicating there was “free pussy in alumni.” Also by Respondent ’s own account, he thought “something [. . .] bad” could be happening in the room, that someone could be “in danger,” and that the situation could involve “a lot of girls.” He also noted that, while he did not have specific knowledge of what was occurring in the room, he thought at the time, “If someone's having sex with someone in the room, they're not gonna send that text out.” Taking these statements together, the Panel considered it more likely than not that Respondent understood that the 1:42 a.m. message indicated some kind of sexual situation involving a female. The Panel likewise found the objectively reasonable understanding of the message to indicate some kind of sexual situation was occurring with a female in the alumni room. In addition, although Respondent repeatedly indicated that he thought the message was a “joke” or not real, the Panel found such statements unreasonably incompatible with his account that he was sufficiently “worried” about what was happening in the room that he went to check on the Priv the th unde und fem f itted a bit a bit Hearing Panel Decision [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 38 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 39 --- Page 37 of 97 situation—particularly when he noted that it was not a social room that he frequented and that he was not close to its residents—and therefore did not credit his account in this regard. The Panel further considered Respondent ’s not a bit message and his statements acknowledging that, by the time he arrived at the alumni room, he had received confirmation that there was “a girl” present in that space and still chose to enter it. The Panel therefore determined by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent understood that a female was likely nude and/or engaged in sexual activity in the alumni room on October 20, 2024, and entered the room on that basis, intending to observe the same.23 It is undisputed that Complainant had no knowledge of the Snapchat messages occurring in the Actives group that night, had no previous relationship with Respondent , and did not invite him to the alumni room. Therefore, the Panel determined that Respondent engaged in conduct directly tending towards completion of sexual exploitation (i.e., entering the alumni room) with the intent to commit sexual exploitation (i.e., to observe a person nude or engaged in sexual activity without their knowledge and consent) and that such conduct thus constituted attempting to commit prohibited conduct in violation of the Policy. The Panel next assessed the charge against Respondent regarding ingesting ketamine off Complainant’s naked torso in the alumni room on October 20, 2024. The Panel first noted that Respondent consistently denied consuming any drugs in the alumni room that night. The Panel also noted that all accounts indicated that Respondent entered the alumni room at or about the same time as and likewise consistently stated that Respondent did not ingest ketamine while in the room that night. The Panel further considered that Complainant thought Respondent participated in ingesting ketamine off her that night, but did not actually observe him do so. The Panel also noted that, although recalled Respondent inhaling ketamine off Complainant, neither nor indicated the same. Finally, the Panel considered the apparent negative results of Respondent ketamine test and that both and Respondent indicated that hair follicle tests for ketamine could reveal the drug’s presence for up to three months, with Respondent having taken the test within six weeks of October 20. Ultimately, in its review of the totality of the information collected, the Panel found the evidentiary record insufficient to show that Respondent ingested ketamine off Complainant’s body in the early morning hours of October 20 and therefore determined that he is not responsible for sexual assault under the Policy. 23 The Panel did not find Respondent ’s statements regarding his intent to borrow “vape” or check on to be material to its analysis in this regard as, even if true, he could have had multiple reasons for going to the alumni room that night—including to view someone in a state of undress or involved in sexual activity. Priv itted de de om om Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 39 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 40 --- Page 38 of 97 G. 1. Complaint Charges Against As set forth in the Formal Complaint, was charged with violating the Policy’s prohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her permission; and (b) touched his nose to Complainant’s naked torso and inhaled a powdered substance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation. 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence a. Complainant In her November 14 interview, Complainant indicated that, at some point during the night of October 19, 2024, when she was “naked” in bed, “two guys named ” entered the room. (App. A, 62) She recalled being introduced to them while were also in the room. She described them as “standing” at the foot of the bed, adding, “They felt more like voyeurs than anything in the situation. They didn’t get as comfortable as everybody else did.” Although she was “unsure” of the particular “sequence of the[] events,” she recalled certain interactions with exiting the bed while naked and “flexing,” and being “berated with compliments.” (App. A; 68-70, 72) She also indicated that asked to ingest ketamine off of her body and that she agreed in some form. She continued, “I remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just poured all sorts of stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. [. . . S]everal lines [were] done by almost everybody.” (App. A, 73) In her November 15 interview, she stated, “I’m not even sure if the two are in Chi Phi. [. . .] But they all were partaking in the drugs because they did them off of my body. But I did put my hands over my face at that point.” (App. A; 126-127) In her February 7 interview, Complainant said, “[T]he , as far as I know, were voyeurs. Well, except the times that the did drugs off my body, and who knows if they touched anything while they were doing that[.]” (App. A, 137) Although she did not know what either of them looked like after that night, Complainant consistently indicated that either Respondent or asked if she was okay or otherwise physically supported her after Student AV entered the alumni room and told everyone to leave. (See, e.g., App. B, 32) b. consistently stated in his interviews, documentary submissions, and at the hearing that he did not observe Complainant naked at any time nor partake in any drug use while in the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024. At the hearing on May 15, 2025, he confirmed that he had not known Complainant prior to that night. Regarding his account of what occurred, his Timeline indicated that he “called [Respondent ] and went to [ s Priv hea h itted ted Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 40 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 41 --- Page 39 of 97 room” at or around 2:23 a.m. on October 20, 2024, after having spent time at the fraternity’s party earlier in the night. (App. B, 272) In his December 9 interview, he said: Me and [Respondent ] were hanging out in [ room and [Respondent ], I think, happened to see [a Snapchat message in the Actives group] and said, “Hey, look at this,” and it was [. . .] to the effect of “Free pussy in alumni.” We saw that text and were somewhat concerned but thought it could be just crude humor. (App. A, 331) He continued, “I was genuinely concerned and wanted to investigate what’s going on.” (App. A, 335) He also wrote in his Timeline, “[Respondent ]’s vape had died, and he wanted to borrow someone else’s. He knew [ ] had a vape in [the alumni] room. [Respondent ] asked if I wanted to go check it out, and I agreed. [Respondent ] also mentioned that he thought [ was pretty inebriated while they were hanging out so we wanted to check on him.” (App. B, 272) During his February 10 interview, explained that he had actually seen the “Free pussy in alumni” Snapchat message before he called Respondent at 2:23 a.m. on October 20. In the hearing on May 15, stated, “I first saw [the message] while I was still down in the foyer, and [. . .] I kind of thought it was like an attention-seeking kind of joke to get people to go to the [alumni] room.” (Trans. 5/15; 26) About what happened after he and Respondent entered the alumni room, recalled seeing Complainant under bed coverings, with , all in or on that same bed. He recalled talking with Respondent , hearing some conversation from the bed area, that Respondent interacted briefly with , and that he and Respondent introduced themselves to Complainant. During his December 9 interview, said that he was in the room for “[f]ive minutes, maybe” (App. A, 334) and consistently stated that he both arrived and left with Respondent . About his decision to go to the alumni room that night, stated during his February 10 interview, “[Respondent and I] thought at that point [that the ‘Free pussy in alumni’ Snapchat message] was just a kind of absurd joke. No one really thought it was being serious[. . . . W]e knew [ was down there, I guess. And then when we went in there, I thought at that time – thinking that it was kind of a joke. And my concerns that it wasn’t kinda alleviated because people are just hanging out in there.” (App. A, 356) He continued, “[W]e seriously – I’ll emphasize seriously – did not think there was anything going – we thought it was just a joke.” (App. A, 362) In the hearing on May 15, said, “[Respondent and I] thought the message was a joke. But [in] the back of our head, it is a cruder-than- normal joke. And maybe we should go check it out. We wanted to go check out if [ ] was okay in there. [. . .] And also, it sounds kind of silly, but [Respondent ]’s vape had died, and he knew [ had a vape in there.” (Trans. 5/15; 35) When asked what he understood the message to reference, he answered, “[I]t’s just that there’s a free girl in the room. But again, no one took that literally as meaning there’s a free girl in the room. [. . .] Using the Priv it a norm nor itted t and and Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 41 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 42 --- Page 40 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision -M 42 of 99 Private [94428] Distribution Not Perrnitted, See Policy 6.4 Distributed 08/18/2025 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 43 --- I I I I Page 41 of 97 and all in or on bed. He indicated that Complainant was under bed coverings at the time. He said that he sat on the couch and conversed with for some minutes before asking both and Complainant if they were “all right”—both of whom responded affirmatively—and exiting the room with (App. A, 371) He recalled an interaction with Complainant before exiting in which she “laughed” about both his and first names being “ .” (App. A, 372) He estimated that he was in the alumni room for “[n]o more than five minutes” that night. (App. A, 380) Respondent consistently stated that he both arrived at the alumni room and left with on October 20. He likewise consistently indicated that he did not observe any drug use or Complainant naked at any time he was present in the alumni room that night. At the hearing on May 21, Respondent stated that, when he was getting his own ketamine test performed, he was told by the collections personnel at Omega Laboratories, “[E]ven if you take [ketamine] one time, it can stay in your hair for up to three to six months.” (Trans. 5/21; 168) During interview, he recalled about after consumed ketamine off of Complainant’s body, “two guys walked in, [Respondent ] and [ ]. They introduced themselves, started talking, and [Complainant] invited them in.” (App. A, 186) He continued, “And then, [ ] are telling [ ] about how they did ketamine off of [Complainant’s] chest. [. . .] And then, both [ ] asked her if they could do ketamine off her chest too, because [ ] had told them about it. She said yeah, so they did.” (App. A, 187) He did not recall who poured that ketamine or how much they consumed. He also indicated that Complainant “got up out of the bed and started doing like a bodybuilder pose” while were in the alumni room. (App. A, 186) In January 8 interview, he recalled entering the alumni room in the early morning hours of October 20 and talking with Complainant and He continued, “At some point, then the door opens in the room. I look back and I see [Respondent ] has entered the room. Then, I can’t recall if it was right behind him or a little bit later at some point [ walks into the room as well.” In the hearing on May 14, 2025, explained, “I believe sometime shortly before [ asked to ingest ketamine off of Complainant’s body], I remember actually hearing the door and glancing back and seeing them, but I actually don’t recall where they were exactly when he said those words specifically.” (Trans. 5/14; 144) In his January 27 interview, said that he and then ingested ketamine off Complainant’s body. In the hearing on May 14, he stated about that time, “I had not heard or seen [Respondent ] since I heard that door open in the moment, but I think I had the impression that [he and were in the room too somewhere in the background.” When asked what gave him the impression that was still in the room at that time, answered, “I just didn’t recall hearing the door open again.” In his January 27 interview, he said about what happened next, “I remember at some point, [Respondent ] just Priv In In ketam ket hea h itted A, A, ht. ht. ftft Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 43 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 44 --- Page 42 of 97 comes up to me. I’m not sure what he said, but he just walks up to me because he’s one of my friends. [. . .] I don’t remember the exact words he said to me, but I just remember him coming up to me, and then, going back to talking with, I believe, it was [ (App. A, 428) He recalled that the next thing that happened was Complainant exiting the bed and “flexing her muscles to everybody in the room,” after which “[came] into the room and basically kick[ed] everyone out[.]” (App. A, 428) He did not remember inhaling ketamine off Complainant’s body. Priviviviv itted ly mine mine Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 44 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 45 --- I I Page 43 of 97 H. 1. Complaint Charges Against As set forth in the Formal Complaint, was charged with violating the Policy’s prohibition against Sexual Assault, Sexual Exploitation, and Aiding Prohibited Conduct (Sexual Exploitation). Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) penetrated Complainant’s vulva with his penis without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; (b) struck Complainant’s buttocks without affirmative consent, 24 The Panel did not find statements regarding Respondent ’s contemporaneous interest in borrowing “vape” or checking on to be material to its analysis in this regard as, even if true, could have had multiple reasons for going to the alumni room that night—including to view someone in a state of undress or involved in sexual activity. Priv (Se (S Com Com con c itted it Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 45 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 46 --- Page 44 of 97 including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; (c) intentionally gave Complainant ketamine for the purpose of making her vulnerable to nonconsensual sexual assault and/or sexual exploitation by himself and/or others; (d) offered powdered ketamine to Complainant by placing it on his penis for her to inhale, requiring Complainant to touch her nose to his penis without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; (e) touched his nose to Complainant’s naked torso and inhaled a powdered substance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; and (f) sent messages to a SnapChat group chat in which he invited others to come to his residence to observe Complainant when she was nude or engaged in sexual activity and/or to engage in sexual activity with Complainant, without her knowledge and consent. As indicated in Section IV.A above, there is no dispute that Complainant generally consented to the sexual intercourse that took place during the initial threesome activity involving . As such, the Panel did not include that specific conduct in its analysis. 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence a. Complainant Complainant consistently stated that she engaged in vaginal-penile sex with — specifically, the threesome activity—while she was in the alumni room with him and on the night of October 19, 2024. About her experience of that threesome activity, Complainant’s November 15 CUPD statement included: I was completely naked[. . . .] I began to give oral sex to [ ], while [ ] had vaginal sex with me from behind. I would say that I was pretty ok with having this threesome with [ ] and ]. During the threesome, I began to feel ] hit me many times on my butt. I remember that the hits were hurting me, and one hit in particular sent a sharp pain through me which caused me to turn around and say, “Damn!” I remember that particular hit was jolting and forced me to pause momentarily. (App. B, 30) During Complainant’s November 14 interview, she said, “I just remember one sharp pain. I remember looking back [at once.” (App. A, 46) She also said, “At that time, I didn’t really realize how hard he was hitting me. But I do remember a burn.” (App. A, 39) She further recalled, “I took a photo on October 30[, 2024] of my butt because I never took pictures of the bruises. [. . .] And there were still little marks left where you could see where I had been hit.” (App. A, 45) On January 2, 2025, Complainant submitted a photograph to the Investigator by email, writing, “The picture of my buttox is the bruise left after 12 or so days after the incident. From what I remember the bruising on my buttox came from [ slapping me.” (App. B; 165-166) At the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant indicated that she thought the bruise was on her “left buttock”; that she did not have a sense of which hand Respondent used in that moment; and that she had “[no] memory of conversation” with Priv p had ha Inve Inv a itted s Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 46 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 47 --- Page 45 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision - 47 of 99 Private [94428] Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 Distributed 08/18/2025 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 48 --- Page 46 of 97 197) When asked if he ever “slap[ped] or spank[ed]” Complainant’s buttocks while “behind her,” answered, “No, I don’t recall doing so,” and, “[ ] did.” (App. A, 220) He then indicated that this occurred when the threesome activity at one point involved Complainant engaged in oral sex with , while engaged in vaginal- penile sex with Complainant from behind.25 When asked how many times struck Complainant in that manner, indicated he did not know, adding, “After the first one, she asked him to do it again,” and that Complainant “didn’t” indicate pain at any point. (App. A, 220) Later, explained that he was “[u]nsure” if conduct in this regard was “striking” or was “more of a grab/squeeze.” (App. A, 220) At the hearing on May 12, 2025, said, “So, when I was sitting on the couch while [Complainant] and [ ] were having sex, he did strike her buttocks. I just remember seeing that while I was there. [. . .] Like the action of his hand up and then going down.” (Trans. 5/12; 66, 67) He was “not sure” what hand used to do so or where on Complainant’s buttocks he made contact. (Trans. 5/12; 66) said that “did it again” when Complainant asked him to, but did not remember how many times did it in total. (Trans. 5/12; 67) About any sexual activity later in the night, said during his interview that there were “15-20 minutes of just [him] throwing up violently in a trash can” before entered the room. (App. A, 185) He recalled throwing up “next to [him] on the couch” around that same time, as well. (App. A, 207) About when was in the room, recalled that he “was throwing up” while Complainant and talked, “started kissing,” and “eventually” “start[ed] having sex on [ ] bed.” (App. A; 185, 208) At the hearing on May 12, he explained that was “on top of” Complainant on the bed. (Trans. 5/12; 76) During his interview, recalled that this continued with him “on the couch, still nauseous, like throwing up,” until “woke up,” at which time approached where and Complainant were positioned on the bed, and Complainant touched penis with her hand. (App. A, 185) At the hearing on May 12, recalled leaving shortly thereafter and the three remaining parties moving to his bed. He recalled that Complainant “was still fully nude” at the time. (Trans. 5/12; 86) When asked during his interview if he engaged in any form of penetrative sex with Complainant while was in the room, he answered, “No.” (App. A, 221) At the hearing on May 12, when asked if he engaged in sexual activity with Complainant while she and were on or near the couch in the room, answered, “I don’t remember having any sex from the point I threw up to when I went to bed.” (Trans. 5/12; 76) He then said, “I feel like I would remember it, but it is possible it did happen.” (Trans. 5/12; 77) 25 The Panel noted that, in the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant said, “I do remember [ hitting me. I don’t really have memory of [ ] hitting me, but of course, [ hit me earlier in the night. [. . .] It could be that [ ] did that, but I don’t have a memory of that.” (Trans. 5/2; 30) Priv went wen did d itted uck k first first Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 48 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 49 --- Page 47 of 97 also said that, after entered the alumni room that night, “asked if [they] wanted to do more ketamine,” and that then “did more ketamine with [ ].” (App. A, 186) He said that , all later ingested ketamine off Complainant’s body and stated that he “ha[d] no recollection” of doing it himself. (App. A, 227) He recalled that Complainant requested ketamine after the others took some and that “gave some to her” on a “key.” (App. A; 214, 219) He also stated that, although he had “no recollection” of offering Complainant ketamine from his penis, “there were pieces of [his] memory that [he] just can’t remember” and that there were “holes in [his] memory” from that night. (App. A, 219) At the hearing on May 12, when asked if he ingested ketamine off Complainant’s body on the night of October 19, 2024, said, “Not that I remember, but I feel like it definitely could have happened.” (Trans. 5/12; 104) c. Additional Evidence In March 17 statement, he described the threesome activity as involving two separate occasions of sexual activity, during both of which Complainant engaged in oral sex with while engaged in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant. did not indicate that he engaged in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant in the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024. He also wrote that, at some point, “[ began to throw up into a trash can[.]” (App. B, 260) In December 18 interview, he recalled about sexual activity that occurred while he was sitting on the couch in the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024, “[A]s [Complainant] was performing [oral sex] on me, it was at that point that [ proceeded to go behind her and insert himself. There was never any sort of verbal complaint, or any sort of indication, or any sort of signs of discomfort from [Complainant] upon this.” (App. A, 281) He described their relative physical positions in that moment as, “[Complainant] was stood up, bent over, her mouth on me, and [ ‘went behind her and inserted himself’] into her from the rear. Into her vagina.” (App. A, 291) At the hearing on May 13, 2025, was asked if there was any kind of communication with Complainant prior to moving behind her and engaging in sexual intercourse; he answered, “I don’t remember.” (Trans. 5/13; 116) He then indicated that the three of them “general[ly]” decided to move to bed to continue sexual activity together. (Trans. 5/13; 118) In December 11 interview, he recalled arriving at the alumni room during the early morning hours of October 20, 2024, and finding Complainant and . He said that, after some time, “[ ] took out some ketamine and [. . .] asked [Complainant ‘verbally’] for consent and to which [Complainant ‘verbally’ ] gave to take the ketamine off of her body.” (App. A, 232) He continued, “And when that happened, [ and Complainant] offered if I would like to take ketamine off of her body. [. . . S]he said that I could take ketamine off of her body. So, given that I had gotten consent, [ had Priv I early ear He s He [C [ itted ine A; 214, A; 214, Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 49 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 50 --- Page 48 of 97 laid the ketamine on [Complainant]’s torso or part of her body, and I took some ketamine.” (App. A; 232-233, 234) did not recall Complainant ingesting ketamine in the alumni room while he was present. In January 8 interview, he said that when he arrived at the alumni room at around 2:30 a.m. on October 20, 2024, answered the door “naked.” (App. A, 416) He stated that he entered the room and saw Complainant and in or on bed. He recalled that both he and later ingested ketamine off Complainant’s body. In the hearing on May 14, 2025, when was asked if he recalled ingesting any powdered substance while he was present in the room, answered, “No. I have no memory of [ ] ingesting a powdered substance when I was in the room.” He likewise did not indicate that Complainant consumed ketamine in the alumni room while he was present. d. The Snapchat Messages As indicated in Section IV.A above, the Snapchat video showed a message sent to the Actives group at 1:42 a.m. that read, “Free pussy in alum pu” (the “1:42 a.m. message”; App. C, 21) As also discussed in Section IV.A above, the Panel found that it communicated an invitation for others to go to the alumni room, along with a reference to female sexual anatomy. The 1:42 a.m. message was attributed to the name in the Snapchat video. When was asked during his interview if he was aware of “any sort of text exchanges or other messaging happening at or around the time when entered the alumni room in the early morning hours of October 20, 2024, answered, “Not that I recall, no.” (App. A, 222) was then asked if he recalled a Snapchat message in the Actives group that read “something along the lines of ‘Free pussy in Alumni Room,’” and he answered, “No, I don’t. I don’t.” At the hearing on May 12, 2025, he said about the 1:42 a.m. message, “I don’t remember using my phone at any point that night[. . . .] So, I don’t remember sending that text. I was honestly kind of mortified when I saw it was me.” (Trans. 5/12; 128) He indicated that it would not have been the first time that he sent a message without remembering having done so and recalled that it occurred on a prior occasion, “the last time [he] blacked out[.]” (Trans. 5/12; 151) The Panel noted that the username reflected a phonetic, albeit incorrect, spelling of name. The Panel also noted that the Snapchat video showing the 1:42 a.m. message depicted a recording of an unknown Snapchat user’s cell phone, which displayed the Actives group chat from that particular user’s frame of reference. The Panel understood from the preponderance of the evidence—including own statements—that the “ ” label was created by that unknown Snapchat user, not himself, and that a misspelling was therefore not unlikely in such context. Thus, based on the totality of the circumstances, the Panel found that sent the 1:42 a.m. message. Priv 1:4 1: displ disp un u itted 416) 416) r on r on Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 50 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 51 --- Page 49 of 97 Priviviviv itted tittitit Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 51 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 52 --- Page 50 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 52 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 53 --- Page 51 of 97 Priviviviv itted titit Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 53 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 54 --- Page 52 of 97 I. 1. Complaint Charges Against As set forth in the Formal Complaint, was charged with violating the Policy’s prohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited Priviv itted tt Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 54 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 55 --- I Page 53 of 97 conduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her permission; (b) touched his nose to Complainant’s naked torso and inhaled a powdered substance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; and (c) penetrated Complainant’s mouth with his penis without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation. 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence a. Complainant Complainant recalled in her November 14 interview that she met at the Chi Phi house during “fall break” 2024, prior to the night of October 19, 2024 (the “fall break interaction”).27 She stated that she brought her brother and that were present, as well. She indicated that she consumed marijuana on that occasion, adding, “And then, [ ] pulled out ketamine. [. . .] They offered me ketamine. I said no. [. . .] [ ] said that it was from his plug [. . . and told him, in essence, to shut up.” (App. A; 18, 22) She recalled that then ingested the ketamine, which she described as a “[w]hite powder in a [‘plastic’] bag.” (App. A; 18, 21) She continued, “They were clearly very experienced with it. They made that very known to me is that they were avid ketamine users. [. . .] And almost boasted themselves as avid ketamine users.” (App. A, 25) At the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant confirmed that this occurred in the Pentz of the Chi Phi house. In the November 7 call, Complainant said to “[Y]ou remember hanging out with me and my brother. I refused ketamine then because I had never done it before. And I’m not a hard drugs person,” and replied, “Sure. I guess.” (App. C, 38) About the night of October 19, 2024, Complainant recalled in her November 14 interview being in bed when a number of individuals entered the alumni room. She described their positioning in the moments that followed as, “[ lays in the bed to my right. [ gets in the corner to my left. This kid named [ the one from before, he walks in [. . .] and he sits between me and [ ]. [. . .] And then, there was a circle of guys around me. So, I was like literally cornered. [. . .] And I’m a naked woman[.]” (App. A, 61) She said about that occurrence, “I knew it was [ because I had met him before. He was like, ‘Good to see you again,’ and crawled in bed next to me.” (App. A, 63) About what happened next, Complainant said at the hearing on May 2, “Th[e] sequence could have been anything.” (Trans. 5/2; 55) During her November 14 interview, she recalled introductions occurring, certain interactions with and exiting the bed and flexing her muscles. She continued: [T]hey were looking at my body and I was naked. And I was berated with compliments. [. . .] It was a lot of really nice things all at once. [. . .] And then, it all kind of came to a 27 The Panel noted that the University’s 2024 fall break began on Saturday, October 12, and went through Tuesday, October 15, 2024. See https://registrar.cornell.edu/academic-calendar. Priv in her he itted Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 55 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 56 --- Page 54 of 97 head, and [ was like, “[Complainant], would you mind if we did ketamine off of your perfect body,” [. . . a]nd I was like, “I guess,” or whatever. And I was already partly lying down because it was so much easier to lie down. I was super tired and so, I remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just poured all sorts of stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. I’m not sure if there were other substances other than ketamine but several lines were done by almost everybody. I think everybody had a turn. (App. A, 73) In the November 7 call, Complainant stated, “[ asked for drugs to be done off of my body.” (App. C, 31) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant described herself as “severely incapacitated” when she responded to request, as well as being “surrounded by a ton of men” and feeling a “severe power imbalance[.]” (Trans. 5/2; 71) She continued about “[H]e also was not a friend of mine. I had known him from the week or two before. He was a stranger to me.” (Trans. 5/2; 71) She said that her covering her face did not result from “[a] series of thoughts,” but “was just more reflexive[, as] the world we live in is people have phones.” (Trans. 5/2; 73) She also said that she had “a specific memory” of “[ ]’s head [with ‘black hair’]” while he was ingesting ketamine off of her body. (Trans. 5/2; 74) During Complainant’s November 14 interview, she recounted and entering the alumni room later in the night. She recalled her experience of that time by saying, “I was very intoxicated. [. . .] The room was spinning. I was trying to find my dress. [. . .] And then, [ ] end up ushering me upstairs[.]” (App. A, 74) During the November 7 call, she stated, “And then after that, I was taken up to the room with you and [ ].” (App. C, 34) During her November 14 interview, Complainant stated that the two Respondents brought her to “a [‘teeny tiny’] closet that was repurposed into an office almost.” (App. A, 77) Complainant later confirmed that space as the foffice. She recalled at the hearing on May 5, “[W]e weren’t in [ s room [near the foffice] because [ ] was with a girl in there. I think [ told me [. . . p]robably when we first got up there.” (Trans. 5/5; 21) About the space she was in at that time, she said at the hearing on May 2, “It felt like there was a lot of stuff in there. I just felt like I couldn’t move. It felt like I was in a closet. [. . .] It was, again, like I was cornered.” (Trans. 5/2; 79) During Complainant’s November 14 interview, she described the space as having “a table and two monitors [on a desk] and like two chairs.” (App. A, 77) She continued: [ sat down in a chair. They gave me more ketamine. [. . .] I watched them pour a lot of it but, of course, I was super kind of in and out of consciousness so I wouldn’t have caught a slight of hand at all. [. . .] I just know [ asked to have sex again and I said no. I was like, “I don’t know. I’m like worn out,” and I also felt my eyes – it felt like one was going in that direction and [the other] was going in [another] direction. Priv itted Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 56 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 57 --- Page 55 of 97 (App. A, 78) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant said, “[W]hen we’re all funneled in there, I don’t think I’m given a chair or anything, so I grab onto the desk for support, and the wall for support, and then I just, I think, settle on the ground. [. . .] They’re facing me.” (Trans. 5/2; 81) She recalled that both were between her and the exit door. About her ketamine consumption in the foffice, Complainant said during her November 14 interview, “I don’t know how much they poured. I don’t know where I took it from. [. . .] I don’t know where it came from or how it got in my system. [. . .] I’m pretty sure it was that kind of final bump that made my eyes do the weird eye jerk.” (App. A; 78-79) At the hearing on May 5, Complainant said that she had “little to no recollection” of what was happening when she ingested ketamine in that moment, stating, “I just remember it was done because I had my nose on something. [‘It’s kind of like I wanna say my nose was on a table, but that’s all I ... But again, it could be that my nose was actually on a chair.’] That’s all I remember from that.” (Trans. 5/5; 3)28 She also said, “It’s just been a long time at this point. I don’t know. [. . . T]here’s a ton of time that elapsed in the foffice or whatever that I have no memory whatsoever.” (Trans. 5/5; 5) Complainant described how she felt in that moment by saying, “It’s maybe the most fucked up I’ve ever been in my life. [. . .] I remember saying a lot of things but I don’t know what I was saying. I was apparently just talking and talking. My eyes were closed and my mouth was running [. . . and] I felt like my eyes were going in different directions.” (App. A, 83) At the hearing on May 5, she explained, “I said I talked a lot because it felt I talked a lot, but it could be that I didn’t. But there were a lot of moments where they were talking, ‘cause I remember just sitting there ‘cause [. . . ‘I was kind of staring at the wall and talking like this over and over, maybe trying to distract from the fact that I thought my eyeballs were going like a chameleon.’ . . .] I just remember that being debilitating.” (Trans. 5/5; 9-10) She also said, “I couldn’t have communicated my middle name, I don’t think. I probably could have said my middle name, but any sort of thought about my perception of the world, not good, not possible.” (Trans. 5/5; 15) About how suggested sexual activity in the foffice, Complainant recalled, “I’m like, ‘Okay, I’m not feeling the effects of the ketamine as much anymore.’ And then around that same period of time – ‘cause I do think that I said that. [. . . ] And then around that same period of time I think was the ketamine being given to me again, and [ saying, following that sequence, ‘Do you wanna have sex again?’” (Trans. 5/5; 6) During her November 14 interview, Complainant recalled, “[ said he wanted redemption ‘cause he passed out earlier and didn’t get whatever he wanted.” (App. A, 79) She said that she replied by indicating that she “was tired.” (App. A, 79) She added, “He’d inquired about it multiple times. I think I said no. I think I said that I was tired or that I needed a minute. I prolonged [answering the question]. I put it off. I just didn’t want to do it again.” (App. A, 81) Complainant also recalled appearing in the foffice at some point and asking, “You all are still 28 When asked at the hearing on May 5 if there was any reason why Complainant would be in that position if not to ingest a substance, she answered, “No. There were times when I would lean up against something, but that’s a different movement[.]” (Trans. 5/5; 4) Priv in think thi the q the rer itted don’t don’t Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 57 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 58 --- Page 56 of 97 going?” to which she replied, “Yeah, unfortunately” in “a sad, [‘not enthusiastic’] tone.” (App. A, 81) She stated during the hearing on May 5 that was present when I suggested sexual activity in the foffice. About what happened next, Complainant said in her November 14 interview: I ended up in the same situation with [ ] as I had with the other threesome, as I ended up in another threesome. But I really did not want to be in that one. I was completely drugged and knocked out. I was half awake. I was on the floor of this closet. I hardly fit in the room. [. . .] And I was so depleted and so tired and wanting to leave so badly. And I don’t know how I made the situation stop. I’m not sure if somebody had finished. I’m not sure what happened. (App. A, 82) She indicated that, during this sexual activity, she was engaged in oral sex with , while engaged in vaginal-penile sex with her from behind. During the hearing on May 5, Complainant said, “I think at some point [ ] was having sex with me, and [ ] was literally just watching.” (Trans. 5/5; 14) She recalled going to room after the sexual activity ended, interacting briefly with “a girl” who was in the room with at the time, and sleeping in bed. (Trans. 5/5; 21) Regarding how it happened that she engaged in sexual activity with in the foffice, Complainant said at the hearing on May 5, “I couldn’t get much of anything out. I just felt kind of trapped. [ ] are sitting in front of the door, in front of the exit. I mean things are still being asked of me sexually. Ketamine is still being given during this point in time. It was just ... I don’t think I felt like I could get out.” (Trans. 5/5; 8) She added, “I didn’t want to, but I felt like I had to.” (Trans. 5/5; 11) During the November 7 call, she stated to , “I don’t really remember what happened upstairs either. So, I was not really awake. I remember saying a bunch of shit that made no fucking sense. Probably got all high and philosophical. [. . .] I remember I couldn’t open my eyes because I thought that I couldn’t feel the effect of ketamine. [. . . I]t felt like my eyeballs were going in different directions.” (App. C, 40) She continued, “So, I remember that part, but I don’t remember much else of what happened up in that room.” (App. C, 40) did not specifically respond to those statements during the call. b. In s December 11 interview, he confirmed that he “had met [Complainant] one time [. . .] a week before October 19[, 2024,]” adding, “It was on a Sunday during fall break.” (App. A, 250) About that interaction, recalled inviting him to meet Complainant, that he “reluctantly” agreed to go with to the Pentz, and that he then met Complainant and her brother. (App. A, 250) He said, “I remember they were drinking alcohol specifically like Keystone, smoking cigarettes. And they were just having some Priv In In tim t itted her her one. one. Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 58 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 59 --- “ Page 57 of 97 casual conversation. [. . . B]ut most of the time, I was on my phone playing poker.” (App. A, 250) He added, “I do not recall bringing out any ketamine,” and, “I do not recall [ ] bringing out any ketamine that night.” (App. A, 251) At the hearing on May 21, 2025, said that there may have been marijuana consumed among that group before he arrived in the room. At the hearing on May 22, he said that “[ and other of his friends [. . . ‘often’] smoke marijuana.” (Trans. 5/22; 27-28) During the hearing on May 20, stated that the alumni room was “one of the big social areas” for his fraternity pledge class—including , and Student AV—and that he was “in that room at least once a day.” (Trans. 5/20; 11, 14) About what activities occurred in the alumni room, he said, “To my knowledge, we would go there to eat, play FIFA, and some of the individuals in that room would also smoke marijuana.” (Trans. 5/20; 14). He also stated, “Ketamine was a prevalent substance that was used in our fraternity at the time.” (Trans. 5/20; 24) He indicated that he had consumed ketamine “[m]aybe three times, four times” prior to the night of October 19, 2024. (Trans. 5/20; 31) He recalled, “[W]hen I first tried ketamine, I was in my own world. I wasn’t really cognizant of my surroundings. I remember my mood being joyous or happy.” (Trans. 5/20; 31) At the hearing on May 22, he described experiencing being in and out of consciousness on “all” prior occasions in which he consumed ketamine. (Trans. 5/22; 68) Regarding the night of October 19, said that he had not consumed any alcohol or other substance prior to going to the alumni room at or just after 2:00 a.m. on October 20 when his sober duty ended, describing his “intoxication level” as “a zero out of 10.” (Trans. 5/20; 17) He also recounted how he had assisted an intoxicated female who had just thrown up elsewhere in the house. In the November 7 call, told Complainant that he went to the alumni rom because he “was just trying to smoke.” (App. C, 39) During his December 11 interview, he recalled entering the alumni room and seeing “three people under the sheets” of bed—Complainant, , and (App. A; 230, 231) He indicated that he began talking with the three other parties while lying on the couch, including about his night and his “handing out drinks” at the party. (App. A, 232) He continued, “After we started conversing, I remember [Complainant] took off the covers of the sheets,” and “[s]he was unclothed.” (App. A; 232, 233) In the hearing on May 22, said that “an alarm bell rang in [his] head” when he first noticed that Complainant was naked, but that “it kind of quickly dissipated when she spoke and she seemed like she was having fun[.]” (Trans. 5/22; 17) He said at the hearing on May 20, “When [Complainant] took off the sheets, as a byproduct, [ ]’s also fell off. So, I realized he was naked as well.” (Trans. 5/20; 19) He also described Complainant as “joking” about “a failed attempt at a threesome.” (Trans. 5/20; 19) At the hearing on May 21, Respondent indicated that he was “apprehensive of what was going on” at first and that the situation “was weird.” (Trans. 5/21; 60) During his December 11 interview, he stated about what happened next: Priv lik lik [Com [Co he h itted g Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 59 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 60 --- Page 58 of 97 So, after [. . .] we had a conversation for 10 minutes, [ ] took out some ketamine and he [‘verbally’] asked [Complainant] for consent and to which [Complainant ‘verbally’] gave to take the ketamine off of her body. [. . .] And when that happened, [ and Complainant] offered if I would like to take ketamine off of her body. And I asked [her], “[Complainant], is this okay?” [. . .] And to which she said that I could take ketamine off of her body. So, given that I had gotten consent, [ ] had laid the ketamine on [Complainant]’s torso or [‘around the belly button’], and I [‘inhaled’] some ketamine. (App. A; 232-233, 234, 235, 247) At the hearing on May 20, he said that “stood up from the bed” when he “first reached out to ask if he could consume ketamine” and that then saw that “was naked.” (Trans. 5/20; 19) During his December 11 interview, stated, “[W]hile I was taking the ketamine off of [Complainant]’s body, she actually was pulling down my pants, like tugging down my pants and kind of like in a sexual way. I kind of flinched and I kind of took a step back because I didn’t want to engage in anything like sex.” (App. A, 234) At the hearing on May 20, he described his body position in that moment by saying, “[A]n elbow may have been on the bed, as well as the top part of [my] body but the bottom half may have been on the ground.” (Trans. 5/20; 25) He did not recall which hand Complainant used, what kind of pants he was wearing at the time, or where were at that time. He also indicated that Complainant was lying down, with her “top half” exposed, while he was ingesting ketamine off her body and confirmed that he “inhaled the ketamine with [his] nose.” (Trans. 5/20; 22, 29) During his December 11 interview, did not recall Complainant or consuming ketamine while he was present in the room. About what happened next, said, “I remember talking to them. [. . . T]hen the ketamine started to hit harder [‘maybe like five, seven minutes’ later]. And I decided to lay down on the bed where [Complainant], [ ] were like sitting on. And I just lied there for like 30 minutes unconscious.” (App. A; 236, 237) He added, “[W]hen I was unconscious, I remember people coming in [to the alumni room], but I did not know who they were.” (App. A, 236) In January 16 interview, he explained, “When I said I was unconscious in the alumni room, [. . .] what I was trying to say is that I was out of it. I was looking at the ceiling the entire time, closing my eyes, and going into a lapse of – just was sleeping, I guess, and waking up, and blinking, and then closing my eyes again.” (App. A, 275) During the hearing on May 20, described this experience by saying, “I was very much concerned more about my sense of being and my own consciousness.” (Trans. 5/20; 40) When asked if it was possible that he was engaging with others in the room at the time, he answered, “It could be possible but I would doubt it. [. . .] Perhaps I was. I’m not completely sure.” (Trans. 5/20; 41-42) In his December 11 interview, recalled, “Then, when I woke up, everyone had left the alumni room.” (App. A, 236) At the hearing on May 20, he explained that he actually left with the rest of the group and recalled interacting with Priv Du D much mu Wh W itted at I ] Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 60 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 61 --- Page 59 of 97 as he did so. In the November 7 call, told Complainant, “I came [into the alumni room] when it was just you, [ ], and [ ]. And then, I left. [. . .] And then, I think this thing escalated and I left, actually.” (App. C, 39) Regarding his consumption of ketamine in the alumni room that night, said at the hearing on May 20, “I think perhaps when I was under the influence of ketamine, after having consumed it with I may have consumed it again. I’m not entirely sure and I don’t have a recollection of me consuming ketamine again. But I may have consumed ketamine a second time in the alumni room.” (Trans. 5/20; 27) When asked why he ingested ketamine off Complainant’s body that night, answered, “I think when I first entered the alumni room, I was first of all greeted by three people who seemed to be having a lot of fun and who seemed not to mind the fact that ketamine was active in that room.” (Trans. 5/20; 28) He continued, “But also, I feel maybe I was charmed by their energy and the fact that they were having fun and I wanted to have fun as well.” (Trans. 5/20; 28) He also described “the act of consuming a substance off of someone’s body” as “ludicrous [. . .] in hindsight.” (Trans. 5/20; 29) He indicated that he did not possess nor give ketamine to Complainant at any time. About what happened next, stated in his December 11 interview, “So, when I came out of the alumni room [at ‘around 3:15 a.m.’], I [‘immediately’] walked up to the Pentz, and that’s where I met [ s date, [ ], and [Complainant].” (App. A; 237, 238) described the Pentz as a social room in “the attic” of the Chi Phi house. (App. A, 237) He said that the five of them then “had a lively, nice conversation” for “around an hour.” (App. A, 237) At the hearing on May 20, he described specifically where everyone was seated on the couches in the Pentz as they talked.29 In his December 11 interview, he recalled, “[D]uring our conversations, [. . . Complainant] had specifically said that she could not feel the effects of ketamine. It went something along the lines of, ‘It’s weird, but I don’t think I can feel the effects of ketamine.’” (App. A, 237) At the hearing on May 20, indicated that he understood by Complainant’s statements in that regard that she had consumed ketamine in the alumni room earlier that night. During his December 11 interview, recalled that, at some point, “there were some people right outside of the attic who were listening into [the] conversations” due to “rumors coming out” about “some weird sexual activities that were happening” in the alumni room. (App. A, 239) He said, “[‘You could hear the whispers’ and ‘a little fidgeting of they’re walking.’] And [Complainant] was telling us about it. And they were like, ‘Yeah, we should probably go somewhere that’s more private, right.’ So, we went to the room that’s actually right 29 During the hearing on May 2, Complainant said, “I ended up in [the Pentz] for two seconds, but I don’t have any memory of sitting in that room. [. . .] I remember being shoved into the closet. [. . . A]t no time was I in this huge couch area, or anything like that. That would’ve been great. I’m sure I would’ve lied down and gone to sleep.” (Trans. 5/2; 78) About seeing account of this time period in the evidentiary record, Complainant said at hearing on May 5, “I read that. And I was like, “What is going on?” That was one of the most shocking ... I have no clue what [ was talking about. I do not remember that at all.” (Trans. 5/5; 30) Priv pro pr iv 2 itted sure sure Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 61 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 62 --- Page 60 of 97 next to [ s room, which is called the foffice.” (App. A; 239, 240) He also said, “I believe [Complainant] told us that she was uncomfortable with these random people in the other corner of the house listening to our conversation. So, the foffice is maybe five steps away from the [Pentz . . . .] So, we figured we could get more privacy there. I don’t remember clearly who mentioned let’s go into the foffice, but we did go in there.” (App. A, 253) He added, “I did not know there were rumors going around during the night.” (App. A, 240) also recalled that date left the Pentz after “maybe an hour.” (App. A, 239) In the hearing on May 20, recalled that after the three parties entered the foffice, he was “standing half-ish, half-ish sitting down on the desk,” Complainant was “sitting on the black reclinable chair,” and “[ ] was sitting on the wooden chair.” (Trans. 5/20; 58) Regarding what occurred in the foffice that night, indicated that he, Complainant, and engaged in conversation “for around an hour and a half” covering a variety of topics, including their respective high school experiences, music, the prior threesome activity, and previous rumors about Complainant. (App. A, 241) He also recalled Complainant playing music on the computer that was present in the space. During the hearing on May 20, described these conversations as “deep.” (Trans. 5/20; 61) He indicated in the hearing on May 21 that he felt “closer” to Complainant and that he “came [to] have more intimate connection with [her]” because of these interactions. (Trans. 5/21; 5, 64) He said during the hearing on May 20 that he “d[id]n’t really remember a lot [‘about’] how [ ] responded” during the conversations because the Formal Complaint charges involved him and Complainant, though he did recall that Complainant “was holding eye contact with [ ] a lot and looking at him.” (Trans. 5/20; 63, 66) During his December 11 interview, said: And because of these conversations, I did not think none of us were inebriated or under the influence of drugs anymore. [. . . B]ut then, after like an hour and a half [or “two hours”], [ asked [Complainant] if we could have a threesome, I assume, I don’t know why, maybe because it failed last time or something. I don’t know. And [Complainant] said [. . .], “Yeah, let’s do it.” But something I specifically remember after [ ] had asked [Complainant] if we could have a threesome, I had specifically stated, I said, “[Complainant], by the way, if you’re uncomfortable and you don’t want to do this, that’s perfectly okay. We can just call it a night.” To which she said, “No, it’s fine. We’re all consenting adults here,” and that she wants to have a threesome. (App. A; 242, 244) At the hearing on May 20, explained the reasons why he made those statements as, “I know she must have been tired, [‘it was so late,’. . . ‘I think we were all feeling a little bit tired at that time,’]”; “I didn’t know if she wanted to have another sexual activity so close [to the prior ‘failed threesome’]”; and, “I myself was reluctant to have a threesome.” (Trans. 5/20; 64, 65) He indicated that at no point did Complainant verbalize or otherwise communicate that she was tired while they were in the foffice. Priv (App (Ap ma m itted 3) ) ) ybe ybe Hearing Panel Decision - SK [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 62 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 63 --- Page 61 of 97 About what happened next, stated during his December 11 interview, “I asked [Complainant] if I could have oral sex,” and, “When she was giving me oral sex [as ‘I was sitting on my chair’], I struggled getting an erection. And I remember her telling me specifically not to be embarrassed and that this is perfectly fine and that no one would judge me.” (App. A, 245) He continued, “[A]fter she gave me oral sex for maybe two minutes, [ ] then proceeded to ask if he could have oral sex.” (App. A, 245) indicated that there then was “a bit of teasing” “in a sexual manner,” after which “[Complainant] gave [ oral sex [for ‘maybe two minutes’].” (App. A, 245) He stated, “After that, [ ] inserted his penis into [Complainant]’s vagina and [Complainant] gave me oral sex,” which activity “lasted two minutes, three minutes.” (App. A, 246) When asked if continued to engage in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant after the oral sex between Complainant and ended, answered, “I’m sorry, but from that night, I remember things about what happened with me, so I don’t remember.” (App. A, 246) He added, “I believe [ ] received oral sex afterwards and then, yeah. And that was it.” (App. A; 246-247) At the hearing on May 21, recalled that when Complainant stopped engaging in oral sex with him, he “walk[ed him]self to near the door of the foffice” and was there “on [his] phone [‘deliberately turned away’].” (Trans. 5/20; 7, 8) When asked during his December 11 interview if the three of them consumed ketamine in the foffice at any time, answered, “No, no, there was no drugs. There was no alcohol in the foffice.” (App. A, 254) indicated he was with and Complainant the entire time they were in the foffice. During his interviews, did not recall appearing in the foffice at any time, but explained at the hearing on May 21 that, “after reading all the accounts” in the evidentiary record, he was “reminded” that was present “briefly” in the foffice, “wearing his pajamas and [looking] fresh as though he had showered.” (Trans. 5/21; 11). About what happened after the sexual activity in the foffice ended, recalled in his December 11 interview, “[B]y the time we decided to go to bed[,] light was beginning to shine. Sunrise was happening. It was very, very early in the morning.” (App. A, 244) He indicated that the three parties left the foffice together, and Complainant then went to sleep in the bedroom shared with said, “It was around like 7:10 a.m.” when he went to bed thereafter. (App. A, 247) He also said, “I think one of the things that came up in my allegation was something to do with free pussy downstairs, like a text like that. For the record, my first time hearing about this was [. . .] on Side Chat [days later]. So, to be clear, I’ve never seen such a text or any pictures.” (App. A, 248) During his January 16 interview, recounted a telephone call with Complainant in November 2024.30 When asked if the parties discussed on the call “anything related to the [Formal Complaint allegations], or either [Complainant]’s experience from that night, or [his] 30 Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the Panel understood statements in this regard to refer to the November 7 call. Priv cle cl Duri Dur N itted here here Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 63 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 64 --- Page 62 of 97 recollections of that night,” answered, “No.” (App. A, 272) He added, “I remember one thing she told me was she was talking to the University [about] a leave of absence.” (App. A, 272) He also said they discussed a “Halloween party” at the Chi Phi house during that call. (App. A, 273) At the hearing on May 21, said about the November 7 call, “I think when I was having this phone call with [Complainant], [. . .] I was concerned that there would be [. . .] a crime alert that would come out accusing me of things that I didn’t do. [. . .] I was just trying not to argue with her. And for that reason, I was kind of reaffirming what she’s saying or kind of giving passing comments[.]” (Trans. 5/21; 25) He added, “I was not aware that this was a recorded phone call and I was kind of in a very casual state of mind.” (Trans. 5/21; 26) He also said about the call generally, “I don’t know this girl that much. I mean, that was the first time I ever had a conversation with her. So, I don’t feel like I had any obligation to be completely telling the truth with her[.]” (Trans. 5/21; 57) During the hearing on May 20, stated, “There are a lot of, I believe, gaps in my memory that I have recollected. [. . . After receiving notice of the Formal Complaint charges], I was trying to rationalize in my head how it was false and providing an explanation that I figured out and I thought was reasonable as to why these things were false.” (Trans. 5/20; 43) He continued, “For that reason, I was feeling very defensive about some of the accusations that were being pointed at me. [. . .] Because of that, I think I left out a lot of parts that I remembered from that night, that didn’t have to do with the things that I was directly being accused with. [. . .] I put myself in a very defensive position[.]” (Trans. 5/20; 43) c. Additional Evidence Complainant’s brother emailed the Investigator on March 5, 2025. He wrote in that message that he went with Complainant to the Chi Phi house on Friday, October 11, 2024, “around 12:00 a.m.” (App. B, 335) He continued, “My sister introduced me to [ and [ ] in the ‘penthouse’ [. . . and] shortly after, [ ] arrived, who neither of us knew. After around thirty minutes, [ offered [Complainant] ketamine, which she declined, and then offered me, and I also declined. I saw [ ] use ketamine.” (App. B, 335) At the beginning of the November 7 call, asked Complainant regarding October 19, 2024, “Do you want me to give my recollection of the entire night?” to which she replied, “Sure.” (App. C; 28-29) About what happened in the alumni room, then recalled that and “three to four guys came in” to the alumni room after he, Complainant, and had moved to bed. (App. C, 30) Complainant then indicated that entered the bed with the three parties, after which stated, “[A]fter that, we moved up to the foffice, you, me, and [ ]. Then, you tapped out. And we were like, ‘Fair enough.’ And then you moved to my room. [ ] dipped.” (App. C, 30) He recalled that he and Complainant then talked “a bit” before going to sleep. (App. C, 30) Priv r Com Co then then itted s that s that Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 64 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 65 --- I | Page 63 of 97 said during his interview that, after entered the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024, “asked if [they] wanted to do more ketamine,” and that then “did more ketamine with [ ].” (App. A, 186) recalled that ketamine was in “[t]he same kind of bag that [they] found earlier” in the room close in time to the threesome activity. (App. A, 212) When asked if shared where he had gotten the ketamine, answered, “Not that night. But we knew he got it from the same person every time. I don’t know who it is though. [. . .] He just has their number saved in his phone as an emoji.” (App. A, 212) also said during his interview that “asked [Complainant] if he could do ketamine off of her chest. She said, ‘Yes.’ He did it, followed by [ who also asked her first.” (App. A, 186) He recalled that Complainant requested ketamine after the others took some and that “gave some to her” on a “key.” (App. A; 214, 219) At the hearing on May 12, when was asked if he ingested ketamine off Complainant’s body on the night of October 19, said, “Not that I remember, but I feel like it definitely could have happened.” (Trans. 5/12; 104) When was asked during his interview if “stay[ed] awake for the whole time” they were both in the alumni room, answered, “Yes.” During the hearing on May 12, 2025, recalled “tapping on his phone” while they were both in the bed in the alumni room. (Trans. 5/12; 93) He also confirmed that saw him naked when entered the room. recalled going to the foffice after leaving the alumni room that night. He indicated that the door to the foffice was closed when he arrived. About what he saw when he entered, he said, “[Complainant] was sitting on the desk. [ ] were both sitting in chairs in front of her.” (Trans. 5/12; 124) When asked to describe their relative positions in further detail, recalled two desks “in the very back of the room” and that Complainant was on “one along the wall,” with “opposite her in chairs.” (Trans. 5/12; 124) When asked if he observed ketamine in the foffice that night, he answered, “No.” (Trans. 5/12; 127) During January 8 interview, he recalled about when he entered the alumni room at or around 2:15 a.m. that were in the room with Complainant, all “positioned on a bed,” “engaging in casual conversation.” (App. A; 418, 419) At the hearing on May 14, said that the group appeared “joyous and happy.” (Trans. 5/14; 140, 148) In his January 8 interview, he described position in the bed as “behind” Complainant. (App. A, 418) He continued, “[A]t some point, I believe, [ ], he was talking with [Complainant] and he basically said something about doing ketamine off of [her]. [. . .] Complainant was very enthusiastic.” (App. A, 423) then recounted how poured and inhaled ketamine from off Complainant’s torso. He added that, while he recalled it was who introduced the ketamine, he Priv A (Tra (T bed bed [ itted d, d, isis Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 65 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 66 --- J Page 64 of 97 “could not see where it came from.” (App. A, 423) He also stated that poured ketamine onto Complainant’s torso for to inhale. also recalled being in his own room after leaving the alumni room later that night. He said that came into his room “at some point” and said that “Complainant, [ ], and [ ] went to another room in the house.” (App. A, 431) About hearing that, recalled, “I was just pretty shocked because it was already late. And yeah, I didn’t know why they would go to another room.” (App. A, 432) During Respondent December 16 interview, he recalled about when he entered the alumni room at or around 2:30 a.m. on October 20, 2024, “[ was sitting on the bed next to [Complainant]. [ ] was sitting on the bed next to her. And [ was sitting on the very edge of the bed[. . . .] And they all seemed to be talking.” (App. A, 371) He recalled about his time in the room, “[ ] and [Complainant] were all engaging in a conversation with themselves.” (App. A, 380) He described them collectively as “talking coherently.” (App. A, 380) At the hearing on May 15, 2025, recalled seeing “sitting next to [ ] having a conversation” when he entered the alumni room at or around 2:30 a.m. on October 20, 2024. (Trans. 5/15; 49) When asked if appeared to be sleeping or passed out or otherwise not conscious at any point while was present, he answered, “No. If when I walked in [. . .] someone was sleeping, I would have been like, ‘Is he okay?’ or that kind of thing. So I know that no one was sleeping. Everyone was pretty lively and awake.” (Trans. 5/15; 49) During December 17 interview, she recalled seeing exiting the alumni room with , as well as Complainant, at or around 5:00 a.m. During interview, he confirmed that he shared a bedroom in the Chi Phi house with that was adjacent to the Pentz. He described the foffice as “a closet” where he “mainly [kept] clothes [. . .] and storage [. . . and] a desk[.]” (App. A, 668) He also recalled being present for an occasion “right before fall break [2024]” when he, Complainant, and “some relative” of Complainant were all “hanging out” in the Pentz. (App. A, 682) He indicated that he did not remember anyone producing or using recreational drugs at that time. About the night of October 19, 2024, recalled being at an external event from which he returned to the Chi Phi house with “around midnight,” danced at the fraternity’s party, and then “hung out [in the Pentz] for a little bit,” before going to bed. (App. A, 667) He said he initially saw and Complainant “on the balcony [. . .] talking” at around “midnight.” (App. A, 670) He continued, “But later in the night, I saw [ and Complainant] alongside few other people I don’t really remember [in the Pentz]. [ ] might’ve been there, but not really sure. And just a little more small talk, how things been, this, that, the other.” (App. A, 670) He described the later interaction by saying, “I was sort of in Priv he he party par sai s itted Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 66 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 67 --- I I Page 65 of 97 and out. So, I’d be in my room, and then leave to go hang out with them for a little bit, go back in. Not sure how long I did it for, but call it two, three times, I walked in and out.” (App. A; 671- 672) He “guess[ed]” that each time he went into the Pentz, he was there “between five and 15 minutes[.]” (App. A, 680) He indicated that the others were “just listening to music, just hanging out” in the Pentz during that time. (App. A, 671) recalled going to sleep “sometime after [. . .] three, four-ish maybe” on October 20 and “briefly” seeing and Complainant enter the bedroom and go to bed. (App. A; 672, 673) confirmed during her interview that she spent the night of October 19, 2024, at the Chi Phi house with in the bedroom he shared with She recalled meeting and Complainant together that night. About that occasion, said, “[W]e’re in [ and s ‘bedroom’] together, and we were all just talking.” (App. A; 685, 691) When asked if anyone else entered the room while the four of them were there, answered, “I don’t think so,” although she did recall that “a bunch of the guys in Chi Phi were outside the door” of the room, who left to speak with “multiple times.” (App. A; 686, 687, 688) When asked how long the four of them were in room before going to bed that night, answered, “Definitely less than an hour, probably less than 30 minutes.” (App. A, 688) She “guess[ed]” that she went to bed “around like 1:30-ish” on the morning of October 20. identified himself during his interview as roommate as of October 19, 2024. He said that he learned after that night that were “hanging out with [Complainant], talking to her in [the foffice for] a long time, like for a majority of the night.” (App. A, 613) He continued, “I think the next day, [ ] was telling me how awesome it was. [ , Complainant, and ‘were naked’ and] having deep conversations.” (App. A; 613, 614) At the hearing on May 28, 2025, was asked if she knew of ketamine being prevalent in the Chi Phi house. She answered, “I did,” and indicated that it was a “pretty regular” activity. (Trans. 5/28; 116) When asked if it was “everyone” or just “certain people” that she knew used the drug, said, “From what I know, I believe it was fall break that [ and and maybe a couple other people [. . .] spoke about how [ left his ketamine in [ s car.” (Trans. 5/28; 116) She continued, “So, seeing that, I believe that it was pretty regular use and I have seen them use it at other points in time.” (Trans. 5/28; 116) d. The Snapchat Messages As discussed in Section IV.H above, sent the 1:42 a.m. message to the Snapchat Actives group. At 2:19 a.m. on October 20, 2024, wrote in the Actives group, “Free. . .” (App. C, 21) At 2:20 a.m., Respondent wrote, “[ went 7 min ago and is not afk sooooo[.]” (App. C, 21) At 2:28 a.m., wrote, “I fucking love chi Priv As A itted e Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 67 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 68 --- Page 66 of 97 phi[.]” (App. C, 21) The next message to the Actives group, also sent at 2:28 a.m., was attributed to the username “ ,” and read, “CHI PHIII” (the “2:28 a.m. message”; App. C, 21) In the November 7 call, Complainant asked if he knew “why th[e] other guys [were] in” the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024, while she “was obviously naked underneath the covers,” and answered, “I actually have no idea why. [. . .] There was nothing saying that anything was happening in that room or anything.” (App. C, 40) said in his December 11 interview that his “first time hearing about” the 1:42 a.m. message was days later on “Side Chat,” adding that he had “never seen such a [‘free pussy’] text.” During the hearing on May 20, 2025, said about his participation in the Actives group on the night of October 19, “Looking at [. . .] where I had texted something in the group chat [. . .], it does appear as though I had texted in the group chat when I was in the alumni room. But I do not remember texting. I was very shocked when I saw a text that I had sent.” (Trans. 5/20; 44) In reviewing the totality of the circumstances, noting that the username “ ” is s first name and own statements, the Panel found by preponderance of evidence that he sent the 2:28 a.m. message. Priviviv itted [. . .] . .] 40) 40) Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 68 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 69 --- Page 67 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 69 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 70 --- Page 68 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 70 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 71 --- Page 69 of 97 Priv itted ittit Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 71 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 72 --- Page 70 of 97 Priv itted itit Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 72 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 73 --- Page 71 of 97 Priv itted itti Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 73 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 74 --- Page 72 of 97 Priviviv itted ittitt Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 74 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 75 --- Page 73 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 75 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 76 --- Page 74 of 97 J. 1. Complaint Charges Against As set forth in the Formal Complaint, was charged with violating the Policy’s prohibition against Sexual Assault, Sexual Exploitation, and Aiding Prohibited Conduct (Sexual Exploitation). Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) gave Complainant ketamine for the purpose of making her vulnerable to nonconsensual sexual assault and/or sexual exploitation by himself and/or others; (b) penetrated Complainant’s vulva with his penis without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; (c) touched his nose to Complainant’s naked torso and inhaled a powdered substance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; and (d) sent messages to a SnapChat group chat in which he invited others to come to the alumni room to observe Complainant when she was nude or engaged in sexual activity and/or to engage in sexual activity with Complainant, without her knowledge and consent. As indicated in Section IV.A above, there is no dispute that Complainant generally consented to the sexual interaction that took place during the initial threesome activity involving . As such, the Panel did not include that specific conduct in its analysis. 2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence a. Complainant On the November 7 call, Complainant referenced her first and second ketamine consumption on the night of October 19, 2024. She also stated about being in bed in the alumni room, “I remember yours and my head kept kind of tilting back. We both kept in and out of awake,” to which replied, “Yeah.” (App. C, 30) At one point in the call, Complainant said to , “But you really were fucked up most of the night. You were royally fucked,” and, “I think you and I were probably equal amounts of fucked up on different things.” (App. C, 31) During Complainant’s interview on November 14, she said that she recalled that, at some point in the alumni room while was present, requested to “d[o] Priv a of aw of Com Com r itted it Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 76 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 77 --- Page 75 of 97 ketamine off of [her . . .] body,” which she agreed to in some form. (App. A, 73) She continued, “I remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just poured all sorts of stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. I’m not sure if there were other substances other than ketamine but several lines were done by almost everybody. I think everybody had a turn.” (App. A, 73) In her November 15 interview, she stated, “[T]hey all were partaking in the drugs because they did them off of my body. But I did put my hands over my face at that point.” (App A; 126-127) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant described herself as “severely incapacitated” when she responded to request, as well as being “surrounded by a ton of men” and feeling a “severe power imbalance[.]” (Trans. 5/2; 71) During Complainant’s November 14 interview, she recounted Student AV and entering the alumni room later in the night. She recalled her experience of that time by saying, “I was very intoxicated. [. . .] The room was spinning. I was trying to find my dress. [. . .] And then, [ ] end up ushering me upstairs[.]” (App. A, 74) During the November 7 call, she stated, “And then after that, I was taken up to the room with you and [ ].” (App. C, 34) During her November 14 interview, Complainant stated that the two Respondents brought her to “a [‘teeny tiny’] closet that was repurposed into an office almost.” (App. A, 77) Complainant later confirmed that space as the foffice. She recalled at the hearing on May 5, “[W]e weren’t in [ s room [near the foffice] because [ ] was with a girl in there. I think [ told me [. . . p]robably when we first got up there.” (Trans. 5/5; 21) About the space she was in at that time, she said at the hearing on May 2, “It felt like there was a lot of stuff in there. I just felt like I couldn’t move. It felt like I was in a closet. [. . .] It was, again, like I was cornered.” (Trans. 5/2; 79) During Complainant’s November 14 interview, she described the space as having “a table and two monitors [on a desk] and like two chairs.” (App. A, 77) She continued: [ sat down in a chair. They gave me more ketamine. [. . .] I watched them pour a lot of it but, of course, I was super kind of in and out of consciousness so I wouldn’t have caught a slight of hand at all. [. . .] I just know [ ] asked to have sex again and I said no. I was like, “I don’t know. I’m like worn out,” and I also felt my eyes – it felt like one was going in that direction and [the other] was going in [another] direction. (App. A, 78) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant said, “[W]hen we’re all funneled in there, I don’t think I’m given a chair or anything, so I grab onto the desk for support, and the wall for support, and then I just, I think, settle on the ground. [. . .] They’re facing me.” (Trans. 5/2; 81) She indicated that both were between her and the exit door. About her ketamine consumption in the foffice, Complainant said during her November 14 interview, “I don’t know how much they poured. I don’t know where I took it from. [. . .] I don’t know where it came from or how it got in my system. [. . .] I’m pretty sure it was that kind of final bump that made my eyes do the weird eye jerk.” (App. A; 78-79) At the hearing on May 5, Priv sup su She i She A itted App App ted” ted” Hearing Panel Decision [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 77 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 78 --- Page 76 of 97 Complainant said that she had “little to no recollection” of what was happening when she ingested ketamine in that moment, stating, “I just remember it was done because I had my nose on something. [‘It’s kind of like I wanna say my nose was on a table, but that’s all I ... But again, it could be that my nose was actually on a chair.’] That’s all I remember from that.” (Trans. 5/5; 3)36 She also said, “It’s just been a long time at this point. I don’t know. [. . . T]here’s a ton of time that elapsed in the foffice or whatever that I have no memory whatsoever.” (Trans. 5/5; 5) Complainant described how she felt in that moment by saying, “It’s maybe the most fucked up I’ve ever been in my life. [. . .] I remember saying a lot of things but I don’t know what I was saying. I was apparently just talking and talking. My eyes were closed and my mouth was running [. . . and] I felt like my eyes were going in different directions.” (App. A, 83) At the hearing on May 5, she explained, “I said I talked a lot because it felt I talked a lot, but it could be that I didn’t. But there were a lot of moments where they were talking, ‘cause I remember just sitting there ‘cause [. . . ‘I was kind of staring at the wall and talking like this over and over, maybe trying to distract from the fact that I thought my eyeballs were going like a chameleon.’ . . .] I just remember that being debilitating.” (Trans. 5/5; 9-10) She also said, “I couldn’t have communicated my middle name, I don’t think. I probably could have said my middle name, but any sort of thought about my perception of the world, not good, not possible.” (Trans. 5/5; 15) About how suggested sexual activity in the foffice, Complainant recalled, “I’m like, ‘Okay, I’m not feeling the effects of the ketamine as much anymore.’ And then around that same period of time – ‘cause I do think that I said that. [. . . ] And then around that same period of time I think was the ketamine being given to me again, and [ saying, following that sequence, ‘Do you wanna have sex again?’” (Trans. 5/5; 6) During her November 14 interview, Complainant recalled, “[ said he wanted redemption ‘cause he passed out earlier and didn’t get whatever he wanted,” and, “And then he was trying to get his homeboy, [ ], some too, like to hook [ ] up too.” (App. A; 79, 80) She said that she replied by indicating that she “was tired.” (App. A, 79) She added, “He’d inquired about it multiple times. I think I said no. I think I said that I was tired or that I needed a minute. I prolonged [answering the question]. I put it off. I just didn’t want to do it again.” (App. A, 81) Complainant also recalled appearing in the foffice at some point and asking, “You all are still going?” to which she replied, “Yeah, unfortunately” in “a sad, [‘not enthusiastic’] tone.” (App. A, 81) She stated during the hearing on May 5 that was present when suggested sexual activity in the foffice. About what happened next, Complainant said in her November 14 interview: I ended up in the same situation with [ ] as I had with the other threesome, as I ended up in another threesome. But I really did not want to be in that one. 36 When asked at the hearing on May 5 if there was any reason why Complainant would be in that position if not to ingest a substance, she answered, “No. There were times when I would lean up against something, but that’s a different movement[.]” (Trans. 5/5; 4) Priv A itted ; 5) ; 5) up up Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 78 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 79 --- Page 77 of 97 I was completely drugged and knocked out. I was half awake. I was on the floor of this closet. I hardly fit in the room. [. . .] And I was so depleted and so tired and wanting to leave so badly. And I don’t know how I made the situation stop. I’m not sure if somebody had finished. I’m not sure what happened. (App. A, 82) She indicated that, during this sexual activity, she was engaged in oral sex with , while engaged in vaginal-penile sex with her from behind. She recalled going to room after the sexual activity ended, interacting briefly with “a girl” who was in the room with at the time, and sleeping in bed. (Trans. 5/5; 21) Regarding how it happened that she engaged in sexual activity with in the foffice, Complainant said at the hearing on May 5, “I couldn’t get much of anything out. I just felt kind of trapped. [ ] are sitting in front of the door, in front of the exit. I mean things are still being asked of me sexually. Ketamine is still being given during this point in time. It was just ... I don’t think I felt like I could get out.” (Trans. 5/5; 8) She added, “I didn’t want to, but I felt like I had to.” (Trans. 5/5; 11) During the November 7 call, she stated to , “I don’t really remember what happened upstairs either. So, I was not really awake. I remember saying a bunch of shit that made no fucking sense. Probably got all high and philosophical. [. . .] I remember I couldn’t open my eyes because I thought that I couldn’t feel the effect of ketamine. [. . . I]t felt like my eyeballs were going in different directions.” (App. C, 40) Complainant text messaged on October 23, 2024, “[E]veryone needs to grow up cause sexuality and sex and shit is changing and stuff like this is going to become more common[,]” and, “I luv u king[.]” (App. B; 242-243) During the hearing on May 5, Complainant explained that “king” is a term that she uses generally with friends, adding about that phrase in particular, “[T]hat’s more Stockholm Syndrome. That’s crazy. I mean that’s just shit embarrassing. I don’t even know what to say about that.” (Trans. 5/5; 51) About her “sexuality” comment, Complainant indicated that it referred to the rumors that were spreading about her involvement in a sexual situation with multiple male partners and the evolving norms of polyamory. b. chose not to participate in an investigative interview regarding this matter, nor to answer questions at the hearing. Consistent with the Procedures, the Panel drew no negative inferences from these decisions. Nonetheless, as reflected below, the information the Panel had with respect to his account of the night of October 19, 2024, was therefore necessarily limited to various submitted documentary materials, including recorded call with Complainant and a written statement he submitted on March 17, 2025. Priv answ an infer infe w itted . She . She h Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 79 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 80 --- Page 78 of 97 During the November 7 call, asked Complainant, “Do you want me to give my recollection of the entire night?” to which she replied, “Sure.” He then indicated that the threesome activity began in the alumni room and, “after like 10 minutes, [they] slowed down a bit,” “drank” alcohol, “started smoking,” and “then the K[37] started happening.” (App. C, 29) He continued, “And then, I think by this point it’d been like half and hour, and everything was hitting me at the same time. I thought I was about to die. [. . .] I moved to the bed and passed out[.]” (App. C, 29) then recalled waking up; leaving the room; the three parties moving to bed; entering the room; “three to four guys” coming in, as well; and Complainant’s second ketamine consumption. (App. C, 30) He then said, “And from there, it’s kind of hazy. I think people left eventually, after like 20 to 30 minutes. I was still in and out of consciousness. [. . .] But after that, we moved up to the foffice, you, me, and [ ]. Then, you tapped out. And we were like, ‘Fair enough.’ And then you moved to my room.” (App. C, 30) March 17 statement did not contain an account of what occurred among the parties after the threesome activity ended beyond providing his account of ingesting ketamine close in time to the threesome activity, as follows: No less than 10 minutes after consuming the ketamine I began to struggle breathing [. . . ‘gasping for breath and groaning uncomfortably’]. Several times I lost consciousness momentarily[. . . .] I was too incapacitated to consent to sexual activity anymore. [. . .] I attempted to remain conscious. [. . .] I could feel my face contorting as if I was crying, but no tears came out. [. . .] That was the last clear memory I have up until that point. (App. B, 260) c. Additional Evidence No Respondent indicated through statements during interviews or at the hearing that consumed ketamine off Complainant’s body while in the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024. During December 11 interview, he recalled meeting , and Complainant in the Pentz in the early morning hours of October 20, 2024, where the five of them then “had a lively, nice conversation” for “around an hour.” (App. A, 237) He also said, “[D]uring our conversations, [. . . Complainant] had specifically said that she could not feel the effects of ketamine. It went something along the lines of, ‘It’s weird, but I don’t think I can feel the effects of ketamine.’” (App. A, 237) At the hearing on May 20, 2025, said about that moment, “I was saying, ‘Yeah, I’m not feeling any of the ketamine anymore.’ That’s when [Complainant] had said, ‘Yeah, I didn’t feel any of the ketamine either. I feel like if I wanted to feel the ketamine, I should’ve taken a larger dose.’” (Trans. 5/20; 50) When asked 37 Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Panel understood use of the letter “K” in this statement to reference ketamine. Priv n I can I c T itted d d m; m; Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 80 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 81 --- Page 79 of 97 about his reaction to that statement, said, “I think me and [ ] were both surprised, like, ‘Oh, really?’” (Trans. 5/20; 50) He continued, “When I said we were expressing surprise, for me, I was like, ‘Oh, so you had taken ketamine in the alumni room,’ and I was shocked. For [ ], I’m not completely sure. I think he was more surprised that she was so good at – she had a good tolerance for the substance and that was what he was shocked about.” (Trans. 5/20; 52) During December 11 interview, he recalled that he, and Complainant then moved to the foffice because “there were some people right outside of the attic who were listening into [the] conversations” due to “rumors coming out” about “some weird sexual activities that were happening” in the alumni room. (App. A, 239) In the hearing on May 20, recalled that after the three parties entered the foffice, he was “standing half- ish, half-ish sitting down on the desk,” Complainant was “sitting on the black reclinable chair,” and “[ ] was sitting on the wooden chair.” (Trans. 5/20; 58) Regarding what occurred in the foffice that night, indicated that he, Complainant, and engaged in conversation “for around an hour and a half” covering a variety of topics, including their respective high school experiences, music, the prior threesome activity, and previous rumors about Complainant. (App. A, 241) He also recalled Complainant playing music on the computer that was present in the space. During the hearing on May 20, described these conversations as “deep.” (Trans. 5/20; 61) During his December 11 interview, said, “After like an hour and a half [or ‘two hours’], [ ] asked [Complainant] if we could have a threesome, I assume, I don’t know why, maybe because it failed last time or something.[38] I don’t know. And [Complainant] said [. . .], ‘Yeah, let’s do it.’” (App. A; 242, 244) At the hearing on May 21, said, “I had no idea why [ ] had asked if another threesome was possible. [. . .] I have no recollection of the word ‘redemption’ ever coming out of his mouth.” (Trans. 5/21; 55) At the hearing on May 20, recalled knowing that Complainant “must have been tired, [‘it was so late,’]” but indicated that at no point did Complainant verbalize or otherwise communicate that she was tired while they were in the foffice. (Trans. 5/20; 64) also recalled that Complainant’s behavior towards that night caused him to think, “Oh, wow. This girl really likes [ ].” (Trans. 5/20; 66) About what happened next, stated during his December 11 interview, “I asked [Complainant] if I could have oral sex,” and, “[A]fter [Complainant] gave me oral sex for maybe two minutes, [ ] then proceeded to ask if he could have oral sex.” (App. A, 245) indicated that there then was “a bit of teasing” “in a sexual manner,” after which “[Complainant] gave [ ] oral sex [for ‘maybe two minutes’].” (App. A, 245) He stated, “After that, [ ] inserted his penis into [Complainant]’s vagina and 38 In the hearing on May 20, recalled Complainant “joking” about “a failed attempt at a threesome” while in the alumni room. (Trans. 5/20; 19) Priv tw tw “[C itted Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 81 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 82 --- Page 80 of 97 [Complainant] gave me oral sex[.]” (App. A, 246) At the hearing on May 21, described their relative body positions in this moment as, “I was remaining sitting down on the wooden chair. [Complainant] was performing oral sex on me and [ ] was behind her. He had stood up, and he walked to be in a position behind her.” (Trans. 5/21; 5) When asked how Complainant communicated her willingness to engage in that sexual activity with answered: I believe [ ] asked verbally to [Complainant] if he could penetrate her from behind. And when doing so, I don't remember exactly if [Complainant] gave a specific verbal consent, but she positioned her body in a way so that when she was giving oral sex to me, her, I guess, behind was directed towards the ground. But when [ asked, her body position moved in a way so that [ ] could penetrate [Complainant] from behind. [. . . I]t was a noticeable change in body movement. (Trans. 5/21; 6-7) When asked how asked verbally “if he could penetrate [Complainant],” answered, “I just don’t remember the exact words that he asked.” (Trans. 5/21; 7) About Complainant’s change in body movement in those moments, indicated that when Complainant was engaged in oral sex with , her knees were “touching the ground. And when [ ] asked verbally if he could penetrate her from behind, she then kind of got up on not her two feet, but she kind of extended herself.” (Trans. 5/21; 7) He described it as “a significant change in body movement so that [ ]’s genitalia had access to [Complainant]’s vagina.” (Trans. 5/21; 7) When asked if continued to engage in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant after the oral sex between Complainant and ended, answered, “I’m sorry, but from that night, I remember things about what happened with me, so I don’t remember.” (App. A, 246) He added, “I believe [ received oral sex afterwards and then, yeah. And that was it.” (App. A; 246-247) At the hearing on May 21, recalled that when Complainant stopped engaging in oral sex with him, he “walk[ed him]self to near the door of the foffice” was there “on [his] phone [‘deliberately turned away’].” (Trans. 5/20; 7, 8) When asked during his December 11 interview if the three of them consumed ketamine in the foffice at any time, answered, “No, no, there was no drugs. There was no alcohol in the foffice.” (App. A, 254) indicated he was with and Complainant the entire time they were in the foffice. During his interviews, did not recall appearing in the foffice at any time, but explained at the hearing that, “after reading all the accounts” in the evidentiary record, he was “reminded” that Respondent was present “briefly” in the foffice, “wearing his pajamas and [looking] fresh as though he had showered.” (Trans. 5/21; 11). About what happened after the sexual activity in the foffice ended, recalled in his December 11 interview, “[B]y the time we decided to go to bed[,] light was beginning to shine. Sunrise was happening. It was very, very early in the morning.” (App. A, 244) He Priv at t at that R tha tho t itted om om Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 82 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 83 --- I Page 81 of 97 indicated that the three parties left the foffice together, and Complainant then went to sleep in the bedroom shared with said, “It was around like 7:10 a.m.” when he went to bed thereafter. (App. A, 247) During interview, he recalled going “to another brother’s room” after the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024, and then “up to [ ]’s room to check on [ ], [Complainant], and [ because he “knew they went up there.” (App. A, 187) He continued: I found the three of them in like, this little office space that’s right next to [ ]’s room. I walked in. They were just having a conversation. Nothing was going on. So I asked them like, “You guys are still up? How is she getting home? Is she okay?” All that. And she said, “Yeah, we’re still up.” She was gonna sleep in [ ]’s room that night. And I was like, “Okay, as long as that’s fine.” And I went back downstairs and went to bed. (App. A, 187) At the hearing on May 12, indicated that he thought the room he went to after the alumni room that night belonged to About why he went to “check on” the others, he stated, “I was just kind of curious what was going on up there, how [Complainant] was getting home, if she was going home that night, where she was sleeping.” (Trans. 5/12; 122) He recalled that he had “noticed them going up” towards the Pentz. He described the Pentz as “where [ ] usually hangs out.” (Trans. 5/12; 123) recalled that the door to the foffice was closed when he arrived there that night. About what he saw when he entered, he said, “[Complainant] was sitting on the desk. [ ] were both sitting in chairs in front of her.” (Trans. 5/12; 124) When asked to describe their relative positions in further detail, recalled two desks “in the very back of the room” and that Complainant was on “one along the wall,” with “opposite her in chairs.” (Trans. 5/12; 124) About the night of October 19, 2024, recalled being at an external event from which he returned to the Chi Phi house with “around midnight,” danced at the fraternity’s party, and then “hung out [in the Pentz] for a little bit,” before going to bed. (App. A, 667) He said he initially saw and Complainant “on the balcony [. . .] talking” at around “midnight.” (App. A, 670) He continued, “But later in the night, I saw [ and Complainant] alongside few other people I don’t really remember [in the Pentz]. [ ] might’ve been there, but not really sure. And just a little more small talk, how things been, this, that, the other.” (App. A, 670) He described the later interaction by saying, “I was sort of in and out. So, I’d be in my room, and then leave to go hang out with them for a little bit, go back in. Not sure how long I did it for, but call it two, three times, I walked in and out.” (App. A; 671- 672) He “guess[ed]” that each time he went into the Pentz, he was there “between five and 15 minutes[.]” (App. A, 680) He indicated that the others were “just listening to music, just hanging out” in the Pentz during that time. (App. A, 671) recalled going to sleep “sometime Priv this, this and a itted heck eck p Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 83 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 84 --- I I Page 82 of 97 after [. . .] three, four-ish maybe” on October 20 and “briefly” seeing and Complainant enter the bedroom and go to bed. (App. A; 672, 673) confirmed during her interview that she spent the night of October 19, 2024, at the Chi Phi house with in the bedroom he shared with She recalled meeting and Complainant together that night. About that occasion, said, “[W]e’re in [ and ‘bedroom’] together, and we were all talking.” (App. A; 685, 691) When asked if anyone else entered the room while the four of th were there, answered, “I don’t think so,” although she did recall that “a bunch of the guys in Chi Phi were outside the door” of the room, who left to speak with “multiple times.” (App. A; 686, 687, 688) She described and Complainant as “really friendly,” “cuddling [‘as they were falling asleep’],” and “a little bit tipsy.” (App. A; 688, 691) When asked how long the four of them were in room before going to bed that night, answered, “Definitely less than an hour, probably less than 30 minutes.” (App. A, 688) She “guess[ed]” that she went to bed “around like 1:30-ish” on the morning of October 20. During interview, she stated, “I was witness to some phone calls that happened particularly between [Complainant] and [ ].” (App. A, 506) She continued, “[H]e was saying, ‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry,’ over and over. And [Complainant would] describe back to him what had happened the same way she described it to me, saying, ‘How could you let this happen?’ And he was just quiet on the other line. And then, he just said, ‘I’m sorry.’ And she was very upset.’” (App. A, 506) added, “And [Complainant] would be very descriptive in these phone calls and say [. . .] ‘You had penetrative sex with me. I had so much ketamine, my eyes were crossed, and you still had sex with me.’ And he did not deny that.” (App. A, 506) She described those calls taking place “[a]bout a week” after October 19, 2024. (App. A, 506) d. The Snapchat Messages As shown in the Snapchat video, on October 20, 2024, after 1:42 a.m. message in the Actives group “Free pussy in alum pu” (see Section IV.H above), a username attributed to ” wrote “I fucking love chi phi” at 2:28 a.m.; “Like you can walk in and whit it out rn” at 2:31 a.m.; and shared a photograph of Complainant at 2:35 a.m. (the “2:35 a.m. image”).39 At 2:35 a.m., a different username wrote, “Shop still open?” and the “ ” username replied, “Yeah ͣͤͥ͢ ” and, “ laying rn [. . .] Lowkey he’s cucking all of us[.]” At or about 2:37 a.m., the ” username wrote, “Boys come whip it out[.]” In the totality of the circumstances, noting that the username “ exactly matched full name, the Panel found by preponderance of evidence that 39 This image is visible in the multimedia file labeled, “Chi Phi Actives Conversation” in Appendix C. Priv or o In th In t ed Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 84 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 85 --- Page 83 of 97 sent all Snapchat messages in the Actives group attributed to the username ,” including the 2:35 a.m. image (collectively, the “ Snapchat messages”). During Complainant’s February 7 interview, the Investigator showed her the 2:35 a.m. image. Upon viewing, Complainant stated, “What...in the world?” and, “I have no recollection of that whatsoever.” (App. A, 145) At the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant identified herself as “the person that’s smiling” in the photograph and said, “That image is kind of upsetting to me[. . . .] I look hammered in [it].” (Trans. 5/2; 67) She also stated, “It doesn't appear that I'm wearing a shirt. My eyes are closed. And I look like a hammered sorority girl, is what I call this image I have absolutely zero recollection of this picture being taken.” (Trans. 5/2; 67) Privivivi itted s me[. . me[. . g a g a Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 85 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 86 --- Page 84 of 97 Priviviviv itted it Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 86 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 87 --- Page 85 of 97 Priviviviv itted itt Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 87 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 88 --- Page 86 of 97 Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 88 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 89 --- Page 87 of 97 V. Sanctions and Recommendations In determining sanctions and remedies in this matter, the Panel considered the goals of the Policy and the Procedures, as well as all factors listed in Procedures Section 26.13, applied to each party individually, as appropriate. The Panel also considered the impact and mitigation statements submitted. Privivivi itted tit Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 89 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 90 --- Page 88 of 97 Privivivi itted tittit Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 90 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 91 --- Page 89 of 97 Priviviv itted titit Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 91 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 92 --- Page 90 of 97 C. Respondent In determining sanctions and remedies with respect to Respondent , the Panel reviewed the seriousness of the prohibited conduct committed (attempted sexual exploitation), as well as the underlying circumstances. The Panel considered that Respondent ’s conduct perpetuated for Complainant an experience of unwelcome and uninvited exposure. She described those moments in the hearing on May 2, 2025, by saying, “I felt like bait. I felt like lions around me. It just was a totally debilitating place to be in.” The Panel also acknowledged Respondent ’s statement at the hearing on May 21, 2025, “I was sorry that maybe if it wasn’t consensual and she was victimized, I was sorry for not stopping it. And that I’m sorry I couldn’t tell if she was under the influence [. . .] just sorry that I felt like if something actually bad happened, I didn’t stop it.” (Trans. 5/21; 176) Upon due deliberation, the Panel imposed the following sanction with respect to Respondent ’s Policy violation: x Imposition of a one-way No Contact Order (NCO) with Complainant, wherein all duties, burdens, and obligations of no contact between the parties are carried by Respondent for the duration of his enrollment at the University. o Modifications to the NCO may be made consistent with the Procedures only at the discretion of the Title IX Coordinator. A violation of the NCO may be additional prohibited conduct. x Within ninety (90) days after this Decision becomes final (otherwise subject to reasonable extension approved by the Title IX Coordinator), Respondent will participate in a Directed Study through COCR focused on the issues of social media use and sexual harassment, as well as bystander intervention. o Respondent will contact the COCR at ([email protected]) to coordinate and schedule this study with the Civil Rights Education and Training Specialist. The COCR will monitor compliance with this sanction. x Within ninety (90) days after this Decision becomes final (otherwise subject to reasonable extension approved by the Title IX Coordinator), Respondent will submit to the Title IX Office a reflection paper that engages with the specific circumstances for which he was found responsible and contains a detailed proposal for future University educational materials to train undergraduate students around the intersection of social media use and sexual harassment, as well as bystander intervention. The reflection paper must also include recommendations to the University’s Office of Sorority & Fraternity Life with respect to substance use prevention efforts in Greek Life organizations on campus. Use of artificial intelligence tools of any kind in the creation of this reflection paper is prohibited. x The Hearing Panel expects that Respondent will take this educational opportunity seriously and apply what he learns to help improve the University/Greek Life community. Priv itted ments ents was a was a Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 92 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 93 --- Page 91 of 97 To that end, and to the extent reasonably requested by COCR, Respondent will engage substantively in creating educational programming for the University community around the intersection of social media use and sexual harassment, as well as bystander intervention and substance use prevention on campus. The Panel imposes this sanction with knowledge of Respondent ’s lack of non-academic disciplinary record and with the intent that it provide him opportunity for understanding and maturation, as well as to actively contribute to the safety of both Complainant and the University community as a whole. Priv itted d tyty Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 93 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 94 --- Page 92 of 97 Priviviv itted it Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 94 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 95 --- Page 93 of 97 Priviviv itted ti Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 95 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 96 --- Page 94 of 97 Priv itted ittit Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 96 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 97 --- Page 95 of 97 Priviviviv itted it Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 97 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 98 --- Page 96 of 97 H. Recommendations to the University In the Panel’s review of this matter and consistent with its role in this process, the Panel recommends to the Title IX Coordinator that the University explore the following measures on campus to remedy the effect and/or prevent the reoccurrence of the prohibited conduct: x Consider a comprehensive Policy review of currently-prohibited conduct to remain consistent with ever-evolving uses of technology, including social media, and interactions of the same with sexual harassment on campus. x Consider an immunity Policy for reporting sexual misconduct occurring online, including by way of social media. x To the extent not already done, require trainings every semester for members of University Greek life on substance use, the Good Samaritan/Immunity policy, bystander intervention, and consequences for violating applicable conduct codes around substance use. The Panel makes this recommendation understanding that pledge season in the Spring may allow for the content of the two semesters’ trainings to differ in their approach and target audiences. Respectfully submitted, Savannah Bao Kelly King-O’Brien Rob Kotaska Priv Res Res itted ittitt Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 98 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026 --- Page 99 --- Page 97 of 97 VI. Appeal Information Parties may appeal this Determination. The Procedures set forth the process applicable to any appeal. In sum, appeals may be brought only upon one or more of the following grounds: 1. The sanctions or remedies are not commensurate with the injury/violation or are unjust. 2. A University official or officials, including the Hearing Panel, assigned responsibility for performing specific functions by these procedures, violated the fair application of relevant University procedures, and such violation may have had a prejudicial effect upon the outcome. This includes conflict of interest or bias. 3. A University official or officials, including the Hearing Panel, assigned responsibility for performing specific functions by these procedures, committed an error in interpreting Policy 6.4, these procedures, and such error may have had a prejudicial effect upon the outcome. This includes determinations of jurisdiction and determinations of Hearing Process. 4. The Hearing Panel rendered a decision that is clearly erroneous. 5. New evidence was discovered after the Hearing Panel’s decision that could not have readily been discovered before the decision and that would have probably changed the outcome. A party may commence an appeal by submitting a written statement to the Title IX Coordinator within ten (10) business days of issuance of the Hearing Panel’s decision. The appeal statement must set forth: • the determination(s) being appealed, • the specific ground(s) for the appeal, and • the facts supporting the grounds. The appeal statement will be limited to 3500 words. Failure to submit an appeal within the ten (10) business days or any approved extension constitutes waiver of the right to appeal. Priv itted for for Hearing Panel Decision - [94428] Distributed 08/18/2025 99 of 99 Private Distribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM INDEX NO. EF2026-0292 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026