{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"Comment attachment by Anonymous","alternateName":"6_-_EXHIBITS_-_3_Sealed_Redacted-less_redacted.pdf","caption":"","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/576/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-21T23:18:19+00:00","description":"","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"576","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/576/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/576/index.md"},"name":"Comment attachment by Anonymous","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\ni \nCORNELL UNIVERSITY \nCornell Office of Civil Rights \u2013 Hearing Panel Decision (94428) \nAugust 18, 2025 \nI.\nIntroduction ...................................................................................................................... .... 1\nII.\nApplicable Policy ...................................................................................................... . .... ..... 2\nIII.\nProcedural Overview .......................................................................................................... 3\nIV.\nFindings and Responsibility Determinations ..................................... .... ......................... 6\nA.\nUndisputed Relevant Facts \u2013 October 19 and 20, 2024 ....................... ............................. 6\nB.\nComplainant\u2019s First Consumption of Ketamine ............................ ................................. 10\nC.\n .................................................................. ... ..... ................................... 12\n1.\nComplaint Charges Against\n ............ .................................................. 12\n2.\nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ......... . ........................................................ 12\n3.\nFindings and Determinations with Respect to\n .................................... 16\nD.\nComplainant\u2019s Second Consumption of Ketamine ........................................................... 19\nE.\n...................................... .......................................................................... 22\n1.\nComplaint Charges Against\n ................................................................ 22\n2.\nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 22\n3.\nFindings and Determinations with Respect to\n .................................... 27\nF.\nRespondent \n.... .. ....... ................................................................................................. 31\n1.\nComplaint Charges Against Respondent \n ................................................................ 31\n2.\nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 32\n3.\nFindings and Determinations with Respect to Respondent \n .................................... 36\nG.\n.................................................................................................................. 38\n1.\nComplaint Charges Against\n ................................................................ 38\n2\nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 38\n3.\nFindings and Determinations with Respect to\n .................................... 42\nH.\n.................................................................................................................. 43\n1.\nComplaint Charges Against\n ................................................................. 43\n2.\nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 44\nPriv\nitted\n... 1\n... 1\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n1 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nii \n3. \nFindings and Determinations with Respect to \n ..................................... 49\nI. \n ................................................................................................................ 52\n1. \nComplaint Charges Against \n ............................................................... 52\n2. \nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 53\n3. \nFindings and Determinations with Respect to \n ................................... 66\nJ. \n ........................................................................................................... ..... 74\n1. \nComplaint Charges Against \n ........................................................ ....... 74\n2. \nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 74\n3. \nFindings and Determinations with Respect to \n ... ...... ........................ 83\nV. \nSanctions and Recommendations .................................................. . ......... ........................ 87\nA. \n ...................................................................... ..... ... ............................... 87\nB. \n........................................................... ........ ........................................... 89\nC. \nRespondent\n................................................................. ............................................... 90\nD. \n................................................... ...... ..................................................... 91\nE. \n ........................................ .... ...... ............................................................ 92\nF. \n ...................................... ..... .................................................................. 93\nG. \n ................................. ..... ......................................................................... 95\nH. Recommendations to the University ................................................................................ 96\nVI. \nAppeal Information ....... ... ............................................................................................ 97\nPriv\nitted\n53\n..... 66\n..... 66\n74\n74\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n2 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nPage 1 of 97\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY \nCornell Office of Civil Rights \u2013 Hearing Panel Decision (94428) \nAugust 18, 2025 \nI.\nIntroduction\nThis matter involves conduct that Cornell University (the \u201cUniversity\u201d) undergraduate student\n(\u201cComplainant\u201d) reported to the Cornell Office of Civil Rights (COCR)1 regarding \nher experiences on October 19 and 20, 2024, at the Chi Phi Fraternity house located at 107 \nEdgemoor Lane in Ithaca, New York (the \u201cChi Phi house\u201d), on the Cornell University (the \n\u201cUniversity\u201d) campus. Complainant met with COCR and provided an initial in erview on \nNovember 14, 2024. The University initiated a Formal Complaint on November 22, 2024,2\nalleging that the following University undergraduates and then-members of the Chi Phi \nFraternity (the \u201cfraternity\u201d or \u201cChi Phi\u201d) engaged in prohibited conduct on the night of October \n19 into the early morning hours of October 20, 2024 (the \u201cOctober 19 incidents\u201d): \n(\u201c\n\u201d), \n (\u201c\n\u201d),\nchmar (\u201cRespondent \n\u201d); \nScott Norris (\u201c\n (\u201c\n\u201d), \n(\u201c\n\u201d), and \n (\u201c\n\u201d; collectively, \u201cRespondents\u201d and \nwith Complainant, the \u201cparties\u201d). The Formal Complaint alleged that Respondents variously \nengaged in conduct constituting sexual assault sexual exploitation, and/or aiding prohibited \nconduct, as prohibited by University Policy 6.4.3\nUniversity Investigator Samantha Freeburn (the \u201cInvestigator\u201d) investigated the Formal \nComplaint charges pursuant to the University\u2019s Procedures for Resolution of Reports Against \nStudents Under Cornell University Policy 6.4 (the \u201cProcedures\u201d). The Investigator summarized \nthe relevant evidence collected in an Investigative Report (the \u201cIR\u201d) with accompanying \nappendices.4\nA three-member Hearing Panel (the \u201cPanel\u201d) conducted a live hearing (the \u201chearing\u201d) pursuant \nto the Procedures on May 2, 5, 12-15, 20-22, and 27-29, 2025. This Decision outlines the \n1 At the time, COCR was named the Office of Institutional Equity & Title IX (OIETIX). \n2 As di cussed further in Section III below, Complainant filed a Formal Complaint with OIETIX on January 16, \n2025, which modified the Formal Complaint initiated by the University on November 22, 2024. That Formal \nCompla nt was further updated on March 13, 2025 (the \u201cFormal Complaint\u201d). All references herein to the Formal \nComplaint are to the March 13 updated Formal Complaint. \n3 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. \n4 All citations to materials in this Hearing Panel Decision (the \u201cDecision\u201d) reference the evidentiary record, which \nincludes the appendices accompanying the IR (\u201cApp.\u201d) and hearing transcripts (\u201cTrans.\u201d). All quotations herein are \nexcerpted from such materials and retain their original spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization, unless \notherwise indicated, except that non-material edits in punctuation and capitalization were made to certain quotations \nfor clarity. \nPriv\nCo\nC\nCom\nCo\n3 Ch\nCh\nitted\nntnt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n3 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nPage 2 of 97\ninvestigation and hearing process, summarizes the Panel\u2019s findings, and provides the Panel\u2019s \ndeterminations regarding the Formal Complaint charges and applicable University policy.  \nAs discussed further in Section IV below, upon due consideration of all information summarized \nin the Investigative Report and submitted by parties and witnesses in interviews, in writing, and \nat the hearing, the Panel found by a preponderance of the evidence: \nx\n  \n  \nx\nRespondent \nis responsible for attempted sexual exploitation in violation of the \nPolicy. He is not responsible for sexual assault. \nx\n  \nx\n  \n  \n  \nSanctions imposed by the Panel, as well as recommendations to the University based on its \nfindings, may be found in Section V below.  \nII.\nApplicable Policy  \nIn assessing the Formal Complaint allegations, the Panel applied the definitions of sexual \nexploitation, sexual assault, aiding prohibited conduct, and attempting to commit prohibited \nconduct set forth in Section 3 of the Procedures. The Procedures define sexual exploitation, in \nrelevant part, as: \n[I]ntentionally [. . . o]bserving another person when that person is nude or engaged in \nsexual activity without the knowledge and consent of the person observed [. . .]; [. . .] and \nPriv\nIn\nIn\nexplo\nexp\ncon\nitted\nitt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n4 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 5 ---\nPage 3 of 97\n[c]ausing another person to become incapacitated with the intent of making that person \nvulnerable to nonconsensual sexual assault or sexual exploitation. \nThe Procedures define sexual assault as \u201c(1) sexual intercourse or (2) sexual contact (3) without \naffirmative consent.\u201d The further definitions and provisions related to sexual assault under the \nPolicy are incorporated herein by reference.  \nRegarding aiding prohibited conduct, the Procedures provide, \u201cA person aids prohibited \nconduct if, with the intent to promote or facilitate such conduct, that person helps another person \ncommit the prohibited conduct.\u201d \nRegarding attempting to commit prohibited conduct, the Procedures provide, \u201cA person \nattempts to commit prohibited conduct if, with the intent to commit such conduct, that person \nengages in conduct directly tending toward completion of the prohibited conduct.\u201d \nIII.\nProcedural Overview5  \nOn November 8, 2024, the Director of the University\u2019s Office of Sorority and Fraternity Life \nfiled an incident report with OIETIX regarding recently-alleged sexual assault and substance use \nat the Chi Phi house. On November 14, Complainant met with the Investigator and University \nTitle IX Coordinator Lauren Branchini (the \u201cTitle IX Coordinator\u201d), as well as representatives \nfrom the Cornell University Policy Department (CUPD) and the University\u2019s Office of Student \nConduct and Community Standards (OSCCS). During that meeting, Complainant requested a \nformal complaint under the Policy. She was interviewed by the Investigator and CUPD \nInvestigator Jeff Northrop that same day (Complainant\u2019s \u201cNovember 14 interview\u201d). On \nNovember 15, Complainant was interviewed by the Investigator, Investigator Northrop, and \nOSCCS Investigator Sevyn Hardy (Complainant\u2019s \u201cNovember 15 interview\u201d). Also on that date, \nComplainant reviewed, signed, and submitted to CUPD a written statement regarding the \nOctober 19 incidents (Complainant\u2019s \u201cNovember 15 CUPD statement\u201d).  \nAfter initial assessment, the Title IX Coordinator initiated a formal complaint and investigation \nregarding the information provided. Complainant was notified of this decision on November 21, \n2024, on which date she informed the Title IX Office that she wished to be a party to the matter. \nOn November 22, the Title IX Coordinator signed a University complaint and notified \nRespondents of the same in writing. The Investigator began collecting information\u2014including \nby way of investigative interviews with parties and witnesses\u2014shortly thereafter. On January 14, \n2025, Complainant submitted an updated, signed version of the Formal Complaint (the \u201cJanuary \n14 Formal Complaint\u201d), by which she joined the matter as a party; Respondents received written \n5 This Decision summarizes the procedural background of the matter. Additional details in this regard may be found \nin the Investigative Report and Appendices thereto, as well as within the hearing transcripts and record, which are \nincorporated herein by reference.  \nPriv\n2\n14 F\n14\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n5 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nPage 4 of 97\nnotice of the same, as well as a copy of Complainant\u2019s January 14 Formal Complaint, on January \n16.  \nOn January 22, 2025, the parties received all information related to the January 14 Formal \nComplaint that had been collected by the Investigator thusfar.  \nInitial investigative interviews with parties and witnesses in this matter took place as follows: \nx\nDecember 3, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \n \n\u201d; his \n\u201cinterview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 6, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nDecember 9, 2024: \n (his \u201cDecember 9 interview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 9, 2024: University undergraduate student\n \nx\nDecember 9, 2024: University undergraduate student \n her \n\u201cinterview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 10, 2024: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nDecember 11, 2024: \n (his \u201cDecember 11 interview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 13, 2024: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nDecember 16, 2024: Respondent \n (his \u201cDecember 16 interview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 17, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nDecember 17, 2024: University undergraduate student \n her \n\u201cDecember 17 interview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 18, 2024: \n (his \u201cDecember 18 interview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 18, 2024: \n (his \u201cinterview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 18, 2024: University undergraduate student\n \nx\nDecember 19, 2024: National Chi Phi fraternity organization staff member Michael A.  \nx\nDecember 19, 2024: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nDecember 19, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nDecember 20, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nDecember 23, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nDecember 23, 2024: University undergraduate student \n his \n\u201cinterview\u201d) \nx\nJanuary 6, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nJanuary 6, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nJanuary 6, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nJanuary 7, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nJanuary 8, 2025: \n (his \u201cJanuary 8 interview\u201d) \nx\nJanuary 8, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nJanuary 9, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nJanuary 16, 2025: \n  \nPriv\nx\nitted\nws: \nws:\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n6 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nPage 5 of 97\nx\nJanuary 24, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nJanuary 24, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nJanuary 27, 2025: \n (his \u201cJanuary 27 interview\u201d) \nParty follow-up interviews and additional witness interviews then took place as follows: \nx\nFebruary 4, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nFebruary 4, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nFebruary 7, 2025: Complainant (her \u201cFebruary 7 interview\u201d) \nx\nFebruary 7, 2025: University undergraduate student\n  \nx\nFebruary 10, 2025: \n (his \u201cFebruary 10 interview\u201d) \nx\nFebruary 10, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nFebruary 12, 2025: University undergraduate student\n  \nx\nFebruary 13, 2025: Complainant  \nx\nFebruary 13, 2025: \n \nx\nFebruary 21, 2025: \n  \nx\nFebruary 24, 2025: Respondent\n  \nx\nFebruary 24, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nFebruary 25, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nFebruary 27, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nFebruary 28, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nMarch 3, 2025: \n \nx\nMarch 5, 2025: \n \nIn total, the Investigator conducted over 50 interviews during the investigation, including with 32 \nwitnesses and all parties except \n who declined to participate in an interview in \nthis matter.6\nOn March 12, 2025, Complainant filed an updated Formal Complaint, which added charges to \nthe January 14 Formal Complaint. Respondents received a copy of the updated Formal \nComplaint on March 13. Consistent with the Procedures, the parties were provided with the \ninvestigative record and notified of the opportunity to respond to the same on March 21.  \nThe parties were notified of the Hearing Panel members on March 28 and April 4, 2025, and that \nAttorney Meaghan Borys would act as Hearing Chair for the matter on April 2. The Investigative \nReport was issued on April 16, 2025. Consistent with the Procedures, the Panel held the hearing \nvia Zoom videoconference on May 2, 5, 12-15, 20-22, and 27-29. Complainant and all \nRespondents except for \n submitted written opening statements, submitted closing \n6 Consistent with Procedures Section 21.1, the Panel did not draw any negative inference with respect to \n \n\u2019s decision in this regard.  \nPriv\nRe\nR\nvia Z\nvia \nRe\nR\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n7 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nPage 6 of 97\nstatement(s)\u2014orally and/or in writing\u2014and answered questions of the Hearing Chair, Panel \nmembers, their own advisor, and other parties\u2019 advisors during the hearing.7 The following \nwitnesses also appeared at the hearing and answered questions posed by the Hearing Chair, Panel \nmembers, and party advisors:\n \n.8  \nAfter the close of the hearing, the Panel received written closing statements as submitted and \nengaged in deliberations on its findings, determinations, and sanctions on June 2, 5, 16-17, 26 \n30, and July 7, 2025. 9  \nIV.\nFindings and Responsibility Determinations  \nThe following findings and determinations were made by a majority vote f the Panel based on a \npreponderance of the evidence (\u201cmore-likely-than-not\u201d) standard and resulted from evaluating all \nrelevant information collected by the Investigator and during the hearing process, including both \ninculpatory and exculpatory evidence.10 Credibility assessments were not based on an \nindividual\u2019s status as Complainant, Respondent, or witness for any particular allegation(s). \nConsistent with Procedures Section 26.2, the Panel presumed all Respondents not responsible for \nany Policy violation prior to making its final determinations. \nA. Undisputed Relevant Facts \u2013 October 19 and 20, 2024 \nBased on its review of the evidentiary record, the Panel considered the following facts regarding \nthe night of October 19 into October 20, 2024, to be materially undisputed and supported by a \npreponderance of the evidence in the record, which is incorporated herein by reference. The \nPanel included such undisputed facts in its findings and determinations, accordingly. \nOn the night of October 19, 2024, Complainant consumed alcohol before arriving at the Chi Phi \nhouse at the invitation of \n. The fraternity was hosting a party that night. \n7 Per Procedures Sect on 21.1 \n forfeited his opportunity to testify at the hearing in this matter by way \nof written opening statement, direct questioning, and closing statement(s) because he declined to participate in an \ninvestigative interview that the Investigator deemed necessary. (IR,12) \n was offered the opportunity \nto cross-examine other parties and witnesses through his advisor and to answer questions of the Hearing Chair, \nPanel, and other parties\u2019 advisors as a witness. He elected to ask questions of other parties and witnesses through his \nadvisor, but not to answer questions or attend the hearing. Consistent with Procedures Sections 21.1 and 21.2, and \nrecogni ing that participation in the process was entirely voluntary for all parties, the Panel did not draw any \nnegative inference from his decisions in this regard.  \n8 \nwere also called to testify at the \nhearing but declined to participate.  \n9 Consistent with the Procedures, the Hearing Chair was present for and participated in deliberations, but did not \nvote with respect to findings of fact, determinations of responsibility, or sanctions.  \n10 While this section provides various summaries of evidence as relevant to the Panel\u2019s findings and determinations, \nit is not intended to, nor does it, provide a comprehensive review of the entire evidentiary record with respect to all \ncircumstances related to the Complaint and reviewed by the Panel. \nPriv\n8 \nhearin\nhear\n9\nitted\nnd\nnd\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n8 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 9 ---\nwas a sober monitor\nfor\nthe party,\nand\nwere the\nfraternity's\nsocial\nchairs\nat the time.\nShortly\nafter\nComplainant's\narrival,\nked\nComplainant\nif she would like\nto engage in a \"threesome.\"\nComplainant\nunderstood\nthis\nsuggestion\nto be indicative\nof sexual\nactivity\namong herself,\nand a third\nperson\nand expressed\ninterest.\nAs of that\nnight,\nComplainant\nhad strong romantic\nfeelings\nfor and sexual\ninterest\nin\n| id had for sometime.\nThe two then proceeded to a bedroom on the\nsecond floor\nof the house-belonging\nto\n,\n, and University\nundergraduate\nstudent\nknown within\nthe fraternity\nas the \"alumni\nroom.\" The alumni room was located\noff a balcony area where individuals\noften\ngathered\nand\nwas generally\nregarded\nby membersof the\nfraternity\nas a social\nroom, serving\nboth as a bedroom\nfor\n, and\nand as a generally-unlocked\nspace where\nfraternity\nmembers (and,\nin particular,\nsophomore fraternity\nmembers such as\nwould commonly congregate\nafter\nparties.\nThe furniture\nin the room at the time\nconsisted\nof three\nbeds, one loveseat-style\ncouch,\nand at least\none chair\nas present\nin the alumni room when Complainant\nand\narrived.11\nNo others\nwere present.\nComplainant\nand\nere friends\nat the time and had\nengaged in sexual\nactivity\ntogether\nin the past.\nAfter\nComplainant\nand\nentered\nthe alumni room on October\n19, the three parties\nengaged in sexual\nactivity,\nfor which\nComplainant\nprovided\nconsent.\nSpecifically,\nComplainant\nengaged in oral\nsex with\nn or near the couch,\nwhile\nengaged in vaginal-penile\nsex with her from\nbehind (the \"threesome\nactivity\").\nThe parties\nended the threesome activity\nafter\nsomeminutes.\nAt or around that\ntime,\nthe three\nconsumedliquor\nand smokedmarijuana\ntogether.\nKetamine was\nintroduced\namong the group,\nas well,\nas discussed\nfurther\nin Section\nIV.B below.\nKetamine was a\nsubstance\nused by multiple\nindividuals\nin the Chi Phi house at the time,\nincluding\nwho had overdosed on or about October\n18, 2024.\nAt somepoint,\nmoved himself\nto a bed in the room and fell\nasleep or was\notherwise\nunconscious.\nComplainant\nand\nremained together\non or near the couch.\nAt or around 1:00 a m. on October 20, 2024,\nentered\nthe alumni room and\nengaged in sexual\nactivity\nwith Complainant,\nas discussed\nfurther\nin Section\nIV.C below.\nWhile\nwas present\nin the alumni room,\nwoke, and\nparticipated\nin contemporaneous\nsexual\nactivity\nwith Complainant\nfor someamount of time,\nas\ndiscussed\nfurther\nin Section\nIV.H below.\nleft\nthe room shortly\nthereafter.\n\" The Panel recognized\nthe disputed\nissue of whether\naccompanied Complainant\nand\na the alumni room initially\n(as recalled\nby\nor whether he was already\nin the roomwhen\nthey arrived\n(as recalled\nby Comlainant\n. The Panel did not consider a finding\non the sameto\ndeterminations\nand noted that\nwas nonetheless present whenComplainant\nand\nentered the room.\nPage 7 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision-\n9 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Permitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 10 ---\nPage 8 of 97\nAt or just after 2:00 a.m., \n entered the alumni room. While present in the alumni \nroom, he consumed ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body, as discussed further in Section IV.I below. \nAt or around 2:15 a.m., \n entered the alumni room. While present, he kissed \nComplainant and consumed ketamine off her body, as discussed further in Section IV.E below. At \nor around 2:30 a.m., Respondents \n entered the alumni room.  \nAt or around 5:00 a.m.,12 Complainant, \n, and \n moved from the \nalumni room to a common space on the fourth floor of the Chi Phi house known within the \nfraternity as the \u201cPentz\u201d\u2014off of which was the bedroom shared by \n and \n \n\u2014after which they proceeded into a smaller room adjacent to the Pentz called the \u201cfoffice.\u201d \nThe foffice included both storage space and an alcove where \n had arranged a work \nspace with at least one desk, a computer, and two chairs. While in the foffice, sexual activity \noccurred involving Complainant engaging in oral sex with \n, as discussed further \nin Section IV.I below, and vaginal-penile sex between Complainant and \n as \ndiscussed further in Section IV.J below. After that sexual activity ended, Complainant slept in \n bed with him before returning to her residence. \nBetween 1:42 a.m. and 2:27 a.m. on October 20, 2024, multiple Respondents wrote messages \nand otherwise interacted with a Snapchat group chat titled \u201cChi Phi Actives\u201d (the \u201cActives \ngroup\u201d) that consisted of approximately 40 or more active members of the Chi Phi fraternity. \nThat sequence of activity was captured by a videorecording contained in Appendix C (the \n\u201cSnapchat video\u201d)13 and summarized by the Investigator during the investigation (App. C, 21). \nComplainant had no contemporaneous knowledge of the existence of such messages. The \nSnapchat video showed a message at 1 42 a m. that read, \u201cFree pussy in alum pu[.]\u201d (App. C, 21) \nThe Panel found by a preponderance of the evidence\u2014including multiple Respondents\u2019 \nstatements\u2014that \u201calum\u201d referred to the alumni room and that \u201cpu\u201d was an abbreviation of the \nphrase \u201cpull up,\u201d which indicated an invitation. The Panel further found that the word \u201cpussy\u201d \nmore likely than not referred to female sexual anatomy, specifically, the vagina.14    \nComplainant corr sponded directly with \n by text message after the \nnight of October 19, 2024.      \n12 Based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record\u2014including information submitted by \n \n\u2014the Panel found that \n and \n appeared in the alumni room at or around 5:00 a.m. \nand requested, in some form, that all those present exit the room. The Panel further credited that \n \n were with \nand \n at that time.  \n13 The Snapchat video was submitted anonymously. The recording depicted an unknown individual\u2019s cell phone \nscreen, on which was displayed the Actives group Snapchat messages discussed herein. Based on the preponderance \nof the evidence, the Panel understood that the unknown user whose cell phone was recorded by way of the Snapchat \nvideo necessarily was both a member of the Actives group and the Chi Phi fraternity as of October 20, 2024.  \n14 In addition to the evidentiary record, the Panel considered the reasonable interpretation of the word as commonly \nused\u2014see, e.g., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pussy, defining \u201cpussy\u201d as \u201cvulva,\u201d \u201csexual \nintercourse,\u201d and \u201cthe female partner in sexual intercourse.\u201d  \n13\n13 The\n Th\nscre\nscre\nitted\nhe\nhe\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n10 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 11 ---\nPage 9 of 97\nAs discussed throughout this Decision, numerous parties consumed the controlled substance \nketamine in powdered form on the night of October 19 into the early morning hours of October \n20, 2024. According to the United States Department of Justice (\u201cDOJ\u201d) and Drug Enforcement \nAgency (\u201cDEA\u201d) 2024 Fact Sheet on Ketamine (the \u201cDOJ and DEA fact sheet\u201d) contained in the \nevidentiary record, ketamine is a \u201cdissociative anesthetic that has some hallucinogenic effects. \nKetamine distorts the perception of sight and sound and makes the user feel disconnected and not \nin control. [. . . I]t makes patients feel detached from their pain and environment.\u201d (App. B, 344) \nThe fact sheet continues, \u201cKetamine can induce a state of sedation (feeling calm and relaxed), \nimmobility, relief from pain, and amnesia (no memory of events while under the influence of the \ndrug) and is used for the dissociative sensations and hallucinogenic effects. Ketamine has also \nbeen used to facilitate sexual assault.\u201d (App. B, 344) It also provides, \u201cKetamine comes in a [. . .] \nwhite or off-white powder. Powdered ketamine [. . .] is typically packaged in [. . .] small plastic \nbags [and . . .] is cut into lines known as bumps and snorted. [. . .] The onset of effects is rapid \nand often occurs within a few minutes of taking the drug[. . . It] may cause unwanted side effects \nsuch as: agitation, depression, cognitive difficulties, unconsciousness, and amnesia.\u201d (App. B, \n344-345) The DOJ and DEA fact sheet also indicates that cer ain effects of ketamine may last \n\u201capproximately 30 to 60 minutes[.]\u201d (App. B, 345) \nThe scientific paper \u201cKetamine\u201d contained in the evidentiary record (the \u201cKetamine paper\u201d) \nconfirmed that ketamine is a substance approved for use in the medical field \u201cas a general \nanesthetic.\u201d (App. B, 346) The Ketamine paper provided that, in \u201cdoses below a certain \nthreshold, ketamine produces analgesia and sedation. However, [above that threshold], the \ncharacteristic dissociative state abruptly appears,\u201d which \u201cis inconsistent with [. . .] moderate \nsetation or deep sedation[.]\u201d (App. B, 348) The scientific article \u201cKetamine: 50 Years of \nModulating the Mind\u201d contained in the evidentiary record (collectively with the DOJ and DEA \nfact sheet and the Ketamine paper, the \u201cexpert materials\u201d) similarly noted about the use of the \ndrug in a clinical setting, \u201cKetamine produces an unusual state, sometimes referred to as \n\u2018dissociative anesthesia[.]\u2019 [. . .] During this dissociative state, patients might appear awake [. . .] \nbut they are unable to respond to sensory input.\u201d (App. B, 359) It continued, \u201cAt lower \n[\u2018recreational\u2019] doses, stimulant effects predominate, and users experience mild dissociation with \nhallucinations and a distortion of time and space,\u201d with \u201ceffects resolv[ing] approximately 2 \nh[ours] after acute ketamine use[.]\u201d (App. B, 362) The Ketamine paper indicated that the \u201cmost \ncommon adverse drug reactions associated with ketamine are nausea, vomiting, dizziness, \ndiplopia, drowsiness, dysphoria, and confusion.\u201d (App. B, 350) \nComplainant consumed ketamine in powdered form on the night of October 19, 2024. During the \nhearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant described her experience of the effects of ketamine to \ninclude feeling like her \u201clights were on, but no one was home,\u201d which she indicated was a state \nof \u201cvague consciousness\u201d wherein she \u201cd[id]n\u2019t know what\u2019s going on from thing to thing.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/2; 21, 63, 64) At the hearing on May 5, she elaborated on her experience of that effect \nby saying, \u201cYou look like an operating human being. [. . . Y]ou don\u2019t look dead or asleep \nPriv\nCom\nCo\nhear\nhea\nini\nitted\nnd not\nnd not\n44) \n44) \nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n11 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 12 ---\nPage 10 of 97\nnecessarily. So, lights are on, but nobody\u2019s home. Your brain is not functioning at its proper \nlevel.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 90) The Panel found this \u201clights on, nobody home\u201d description consistent \nwith the known \u201cdissociative\u201d effect of ketamine repeatedly emphasized in the expert materials.   \nB. Complainant\u2019s First Consumption of Ketamine \nComplainant consistently recounted that she consumed ketamine with \n \nclose in time to their threesome activity on October 19, 2024. She referenced it as \u201cthe first time\u201d \nshe did ketamine that night during recorded telephone calls with \n \nthat took place on or about November 6 and 7. (App. B, 171-173; App. C, 24, 28, 38) In her \nNovember 14 interview, she explained that while she did not have an independent memory of \nconsuming ketamine for the first time that evening, she nonetheless \u201ckn[e]w\u201d it occurred based \non an experience with ketamine later in the night, when she \u201cremember[ed] thinking [it] was \n[her] second time doing it\u201d and that she \u201calready did it once [before]\u201d (App. A; 47, 70) \nComplainant likewise indicated in her November 15 CUPD statement about that experience, \u201c[I]t \nhit me that I had taken [k]etamine on the couch with [\n and [\nearlier in the night. [. . .] I remember smoking marijuana but he ket mine [. . .] I have zero \nmemory of. All I could remember was the feeling that I had already done [k]etamine once[.]\u201d \nComplainant said at the hearing on May 2, 2025, \u201cI know that it was given to me. [\n \n also did it. It was on the couch[;] it was the three of us had ketamine. [. \n. .] I know it sounds super weird to say. I know it happened, but I don\u2019t remember it.\u201d (Trans. \n5/2; 32)  \nIn \n November 7, 2024, recorded call with Complainant (the \u201c\nNovember 7 \ncall\u201d), he said about himself, Complainant, and \n in the alumni room that night, \n\u201c[W]e\u2019re on the couch, and it\u2019s star ing. And then after like 10 minutes, we slowed down a bit. \nThen [\n pulled out the [\u2018liquor\u2019], and we drank it. And then we started smoking \nfrom there, maybe another five to 10 minutes afterwards. And then the K[15] started happening.\u201d \n(App. C, 29) \n also submitted a written statement during the investigation dated \nMarch 17, 2025 (his \u201cMarch 17 statement\u201d), regarding what occurred after the threesome \nactivity. He wrote in this regard, \u201cI inquired for ketamine from \n[. . . .] He poured \nthe powder on a small key for himself and snorted it, then handed me the key and the bag which \ncontained the ketamine. I poured myself several keys\u2019 worth and inhaled them in rapid \nsuccession.\u201d (App. B, 259) He continued, \u201c[Complainant] did not ingest any ketamine at this \npoint However, she shared a sip of Jamaican liquor along with me and \n.\u201d (App. \nB, 259) \nIn \ninterview, he said about the threesome activity and thereafter, \u201c[W]e started \nhaving sex in my room, the three of us. [. . .] We stopped, took a break. And that\u2019s when \n[\n noticed a bag of ketamine[. . . .] And so, [\n offers us, \u2018Hey, do \n15 Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Panel understood \n use of the letter \u201cK\u201d in this \nstatement to reference ketamine.  \nPriv\nB, \nB\nIn\nIn\nh\nitted\n \nme\u201d\nme\u201d\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n12 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 13 ---\nPage 11 of 97\nyou want to do some?\u2019 I said, \u2018Sure.\u2019 [Complainant] declined at that point. So, we didn\u2019t really \npush her past that.\u201d (App. A, 184-185) At the hearing on May 12, 2025, \n first said \nabout this time of the night, \u201cWe were all sitting on the couch talking. [. . . \n] \nreaches over, sees [the bag of ketamine], picks it up, asks if we want some.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 60-61) \nHe also stated, \u201c[Complainant] said no, she\u2019d never done it before. We didn\u2019t ask again.\u201d Later in \nthe hearing, when asked about what, if any, substances \n gave to Complainant \n said, \u201cI guess, ketamine, alcohol, weed[. . . .] Me and [\n did it, we \noffered it to her. She chose to take it. We didn\u2019t force her to do anything.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 149)    \nIn assessing the totality of the information provided in this regard, the Panel weighed \nComplainant\u2019s description of having ingested ketamine with\n against the \nlatter two\u2019s account that she did not. The Panel first considered Complainant\u2019s candor regarding \nnot having a specific memory of consuming ketamine at that time to be reasonably against her \nself-interest and therefore somewhat indicative of credibility in her account, which the Panel \nnoted was first provided close in time to the October 19 incidents and remained materially \nconsistent thereafter. The Panel also considered Complainant\u2019s lack of ability to remember the \ndetails of this consumption consistent with the typical effects of ketamine described in the expert \nmaterials. Likewise, the Panel noted Complainant\u2019s lack of memory regarding many of her \nsubsequent experiences with \n as discussed in Section IV.C below, and found \nconsumption of ketamine consistent with the same.  \nBy contrast, the Panel noted that \n both confirmed that ketamine \nconsumption occurred in the alumni room at that time in the night and yet offered materially \ncontrasting memories of how the ketam ne was introduced, which reduced the weight attributed \nto both accounts. In addition, the Panel afforded less weight to \n written \nstatement than those made during his recorded call with Complainant, given that his written \nstatement was submitted afte he received notice of the Complaint allegations and therefore after \nhe may have had a general motive to indicate that Complainant did not consume ketamine in his \npresence. Additionally, the Panel noted the apparent discrepancy in \n both stating \nthat \n alone initiated the use of the ketamine and also using the pronoun \u201cwe\u201d in \nthe same context to indicate that the two \n \u201cdidn\u2019t really push\u201d or \u201cask\u201d Complainant \nabout it. The Panel found that this repeated inconsistency reduced the credibility of his account \nin this regard. The Panel further considered \n statement at the hearing, wherein \nhe grouped ketamine with substances that he and \n \u201coffered\u201d Complainant and that \nshe \u201cchose to take,\u201d to reasonably indicate that she did ingest ketamine with the two of them at \nor around the time of the threesome activity.    \nFinally, the Panel considered the totality of the circumstances presented, including its findings, \ndiscussed in Sections IV.H and IV.J below, that \n both separately gave \nComplainant ketamine at later points in the night \nThe \nPanel therefore considered their provision of ketamine to Complainant at this earlier point of the \nPriv\ns\nor ar\nor \nFin\nF\nitted\nr in n\nt\nwe \nwe \nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n13 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 14 ---\nI\nPage 12 of 97\nnight to be consistent with a pattern of conduct they each demonstrated later in time. The Panel \nalso considered Complainant\u2019s alcohol consumption prior to her arrival at the Chi Phi house, her \nfriendship with \n, and her undisputed strong attraction for \n\u2014the \nfeeling of which she described in her November 15 interview as a \u201cchokehold,\u201d adding that she \nwould have done \u201canything to please [him]\u201d at the time. (App. A, 35) Understanding a typical \neffect of alcohol to be lowered inhibition in the context of the three parties having engaged in \nsexual activity together and having consumed alcohol and marijuana together, the Panel found \nbased on the preponderance of the evidence that Complainant ingested ketamine with \n in the alumni room on the night of October 19 close in time to the \nthreesome activity.  \nC.\n1. Complaint Charges Against \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \n was charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) \nkissed Complainant without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation; (b) penetrated Complainant\u2019s mouth with his penis without affirmative consent, \nincluding lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; and (c) penetrated Complainant\u2019s \nvulva with his penis without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation.  \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence \na.\nComplainant \nIn Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she indicated that after \n moved to a \nbed in the alumni room, she remained on the couch with \n who was \u201cacting like he \nwas about to throw up\u201d into a \u201ctrash can.\u201d (App. A, 50) She recalled that there was \u201ca knock at \nthe door,\u201d that she answered it, and that she was wearing her dress at the time. (App. A, 52) She \nstated that \n told her to sit on his lap, which she did, and that \n then \nentered the room. During the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant was asked about what \nhappened right before \n entered the alumni room. She stated, \u201cI think I was \nscrambling to fix my dress at the same time [. . . t]here\u2019s loud knocking at the door. [. . . \n] is saying, \u2018Let him in. Let him in. It\u2019s \n]. It\u2019s [\n]\u2019s \nroom,\u2019 [. . . a]nd I\u2019m like, \u2018Oh, my God, I\u2019m this intruder in \n]\u2019s room.\u2019 [. . .] And \nso, [I] grab the door[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 35) She added about her state of dress in those moments, \u201cI \nknow that [. . .] covering myself was a concern that I had.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 35) Complainant \nconsistently indicated that she did not know \n prior to October 19, 2024. \nDuring Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she said about what happened next, \n\u201c[\n] introduces himself [and . . .] I think we shake hands, [which] turned into a \ngrab that pulled me in and [\n] started making out with me.\u201d (App. A, 54) When \nPriv\nr\nso, [\nso\nknow\nkno\nc\nitted\ninin\nd\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n14 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 15 ---\nPage 13 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision\n_\n15 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Perrnitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 16 ---\nPage 14 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision\n_\n16 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Permitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 17 ---\nPage 15 of 97\nhimself.\u201d (App. A, 281) He said about their relative physical positioning, \u201c[Complainant] was \nstood up, bent over, her mouth on [\u2018my penis\u2019], and [\n inserting into her from the \nrear. Into her vagina.\u201d (App. A; 290, 291) He continued, \u201cSo, this continued for a bit as well, \nuntil eventually she decided to sit on my lap facing away from me. So, I stayed seated [. . . ] She \nthen got up, turned, and placed herself on my lap. And then she took hold of my penis, physically \ngrabbed it, and inserted it into [\u2018her vagina\u2019]. And once again, I didn\u2019t have an issue with it at the \ntime.\u201d (App. A; 282, 292) About this change, he said, \u201cI don\u2019t think it would be accurate for me \nto say it just happened, but somebody may have said something that kind of prompted the switch, \nbut I don\u2019t remember the specifics.\u201d (App. A, 291) \n then described that he \nComplainant, and \n \u201c[\u2018collectively\u2019] decided to move from the couch to \n[\n] bed\u201d and \u201ccontinued [the] arrangement\u201d of Complainant engaging in oral sex \nwith \n and \n penetrating her.\u201d (App. A; 282, 293) \nIn his December 18 interview, \n described \n as \u201claying on [a] bed\u201d \n\u201csleeping\u201d \u201cpartially dressed\u201d in \u201cwhat appeared to be a nap\u201d for the majority of his time in the \nroom and recalled exiting the room shortly after \n woke. (App. A; 282, 295) \n described \n as \u201cperfectly receptive\u201d in conversation\u2014i.e., not \nappearing under the influence of any substance\u2014and did not recall him vomiting or any similar \nbehavior while he was present. (App. A, 287) At the hearing on May 14, \ndescribed Complainant during the time he was in the alumni room that night as \u201cpositive,\u201d \n\u201csmiling,\u201d \u201cengaged,\u201d and \u201ctalkative.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 15) He said, \u201c[A]t no point in time [. . .] did \nI ever get any sort of indication that [Complainant] was under any sort of influence of anything.\u201d \n(App. A, 281)   \nAt the hearing on May 14, \n indicated that he had been aware of and \u201chelped\u201d \nfellow fraternity members intoxicated by alcohol prior to October 19, 2024. (Trans. 5/14; 59) At \nthe hearing on May 13, he noted that \u201cpeople would occasionally smoke marijuana\u201d in the \nalumni room after parties. (Trans. 5/13; 97) At the hearing on May 14, \nindicated \nthat while he was not aware that his roommate, \n had used ketamine in the past, he \nknew as of October 19 that \n had overdosed on recreational drugs the night before. He \nalso said that \n \ns \u201coverdose largely informed [his] assumptions and thought process\u201d \non the night of October 19, specifically noting the \u201cdangerous implications\u201d of \u201crecreational drug \nuse\u201d in the context of \n having recently \u201cgo[ne] to the hospital and nearly die[d].\u201d \n(Trans 5/14; 21)  \nc.\nDuring \n interview, he indicated that after consuming ketamine, alcohol, and \nmarijuana in the alumni room with \n, he \u201cstarted feeling really sick\u201d and both he \nand \n\u201cstarted throwing up [\u2018violently\u2019] in trash cans\u201d that were behind the couch. \n(App. A, 185) He recalled that \n then \u201cpasse[d] out on [his] roommate\u2019s bed while \nPriv\nDuri\nDur\nm\nitted\nallyly\nat the\nat the\nme\nme\nh\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n17 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 18 ---\nPage 16 of 97\n[. . . Complainant was] helping [him] throw up, like patting [his] back.\u201d (App. A, 185) He said \nabout what happened next: \nMy roommate [\n walks in the room. [Complainant] invites him. They start \ntalking [and . . .] started kissing. And I hear like, from the side, her telling him like, \u201cYou \ndon\u2019t know how long I\u2019ve wanted to do this.\u201d And eventually, they start having sex on his \nbed. While [\n]\u2019s passed out in my other roommate\u2019s bed. I\u2019m still on the \ncouch, still nauseous, like throwing up.  \n(App. A, 185) He indicated that \n then \u201cwoke up\u201d and that \n left the \nroom shortly thereafter. During hearing on May 12, 2025, \n indicated that \nComplainant did not sit on his lap when \n entered and recalled, \u201cI was on the right \nside of the couch. [Complainant] was in the middle. [\n was] on the left side.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/12; 73) He also indicated that he did not remember how \n and \nComplainant moved from the couch to the bed. When asked about \n account that \nComplainant engaged in oral sex with him on the couch while \n engaged in \nvaginal-penile sex with her from behind,\n replied, \u201cI feel like I would remember \nit, but it is possible it did happen.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 76)  \n  \nPrivivivi\nitted\nn his\nhis\nhe\nhe\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n18 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 19 ---\nPage 17 of 97\n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\nttitt\nHearing Panel Decision - SK \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n19 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 20 ---\nPage 18 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n20 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 21 ---\nI\nPage 19 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n21 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 22 ---\nI\nPage 20 of 97\nnext, \n want[ed] me to do ketamine off of his dick in front of everybody. And I \nremember thinking this is my second time doing it, so why not?\u201d (App. A, 47) She continued: \nI grabbed [\n arm or something. I remember this part very clearly. [. . .] \u201cI \ndon\u2019t know who any of these guys are. I\u2019m really uncomfortable.\u201d [. . .] So, I do \nremember I was able to muster the courage to say that, and he laughed and asked if I \nwanted to do more ketamine. [. . .] So, I do remember that\u2019s the second time I did \nketamine and I remember thinking I already did it once. Might as well do it again. [And I \nremember my best bet that I felt to get out of this situation would be if perhaps I was \ncompletely passed out.\u201d] And [\n said okay, and he poured it on his erect \ndick in front of all these guys and said, \u201cGo for it,\u201d and I said, \u201cWow,\u201d and I did so.  \n(App. A; 70-71) In her November 15 interview, Complainant added about the situation, \u201c[T]he \nketamine, I guess, was wearing off from the prior time. I guess an hour, whatever, had gone by.\u201d \n(App. A, 139) \nDuring the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant indicated that this occurred while she and \n were in a bed in the alumni room, with \n \u201c[o]n his knees, standing \nup a little bit.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 68) She continued, \u201cMy memory of this is my back is against the \nwall. He\u2019s right next to me. I say I\u2019m uncomfortable. He says, \u2018You need more ketamine,\u2019 gets up \non his knees, somehow, it\u2019s already ready to go, and his dick is already erect, and it gets poured \non there [\u2018really close to me\u2019].\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 68-69) She also indicated at the hearing that she had \nno specific memory of who was present in that moment aside from \n. About when \nin the night this occurred, Complainant indicated during her November 14 interview that it was \nafter \n left the alumni room and after she \u201cran\u201d to \n bed because \n\u201c[a] group of men walked in[.]\u201d (App. A; 59-60) She said that the group included \n \n, but also that she was \u201cnot sure if people came in and out\u201d at different \npoints (App. A, 64). She recalled certain interactions with \n but also noted that she \nwas \u201cunsure\u201d of \u201cthe sequence of [. . . events],\u201d including if she consumed ketamine off of \n penis before or after those interactions. (App. A, 70) \n replied to Complainant\u2019s October 21 message, \u201cI have no memory of that\u201d (App. \nB, 152), and Complainant ended the November 6 call without \n replying to her \nreference to consuming ketamine \u201coff [his] dick.\u201d During \n interview, he said \nthat, after \n left the alumni room that night, Complainant and \n \n\u201cjoined [him] in [his] bed, under the sheets\u201d and \u201cthat\u2019s when [\n] and [\n \n] both walk[ed] in the room\u201d and, later, \n. (App. A, 186) He indicated \nthat \n all consumed ketamine off of Complainant\u2019s body, after \nwhich \u201c[Complainant] asked for some herself, and \n] gave some to her[,]\u201d and \nshe took it from a \u201ckey[.]\u201d (App. A; 214, 219) When \n was asked if he gave \nComplainant ketamine by placing it on his penis with others present in the room, he answered, \u201cI \nPriv\n] \nthat \nthat\nw\nitted\nd I\nd I\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n22 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 23 ---\nPage 21 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision\n-\n23 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Permitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 24 ---\nPage 22 of 97\ngroup was kicked out of the room by \n at or around 5:00 a.m., with neither \n \n nor \n indicating that they observed Complainant\u2019s second consumption of \nketamine\u2014and noting \n account of the sequence of events at that point in the \nnight\u2014the Panel found based on the preponderance of the evidence that the second consumption \nof ketamine occurred after \n left the alumni room and before \n and \n entered at or around 2:00 a.m. and 2:15 a.m., respectively.      \nE.\n \n1. Complaint Charges Against \n \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \n was charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited \nconduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her\npermission; (b) kissed Complainant without her affirmative consent, including lack of \naffirmative consent due to incapacitation; and (c) touched his nose to Complainant\u2019s naked torso \nand inhaled a powdered substance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of \naffirmative consent due to incapacitation.   \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence \na.\nComplainant \nDuring the \nNovember 7 call, Complainant stated, \u201cAnd then [\n said \nsomething really mean to me, and then I sat up and defended myself. I remember my boobs came \nuncovered[ . . .], and then he kissed me. He grabbed my face and made out with me in front of \neverybody.\u201d (App. C, 31) \n then replied, \u201cYeah,\u201d and she continued, \u201c[\n \n] asked for drugs to be done off my body. I had already been exposed at some point, \ndrunkenly and high. I said, \u2018Yes.\u2019\u201d (App. C, 31) \nIn Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she recalled \n entering the alumni room \nat a point in the night when she was \u201cnaked\u201d under bed coverings in \n bed. (App. \nA, 61) About what happened next, Complainant stated: \nI remember having myself covered up. And then, [\n said something out of \npocket to me. He said something I think it was slut-shaming me or it was criticizing \nsomething about me[. . . .] And so I sat up, and then it was like, boop, and now my boobs \nare out in front of all these guys. [ . . .] I got mad, and [\n grabbed my face \nand started making out with me.  \n(App. A, 64) She continued, \u201cI don\u2019t even remember how I got out of that. I think I just backed \naway or something. [. . .] I know it ended quickly, and that was on my own accord because I \nbacked up. [. . .] I don\u2019t remember having any feelings or anything happening in that moment. I \nwas totally numbed out. I mean, I was super numb.\u201d (App. A, 65)  \nPriv\n(A\n(\nitted\nand d \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n24 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 25 ---\nPage 23 of 97\nComplainant also recalled getting out of the bed and \u201cflexing\u201d her muscles at some point, and \n\u201cth[ought]\u201d it occurred after the kiss with \n. (App. A, 68) About what happened \nnext, Complainant noted that the \u201ctimeline [was] so unsure\u201d for her but stated: \n[T]hey all started just berating me with compliments [. . .] because they were looking at \nmy body and I was naked. [. . . And \n] was like, \u201c[Complainant] would \nyou mind if we did ketamine off of your perfect body,\u201d [. . . a]nd I was like, \u201cI guess,\u201d or \nwhatever. And I was already partly lying down because it was so much easier to lie down \nI was super tired and so, I remember lying down and covering my face up. I remember \nvery clearly I covered my face up and looked at the ceiling. And they just poured all sorts \nof stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. [. . .] I think everybody had a \nturn. [. . .] I didn\u2019t ever look up because I knew that would be too much for me to see. So, \nI covered my face immediately and laid down. \n(App. A; 72-73) During her November 15 interview, Complainant said, \u201c[T]hey were all \npartaking in the drugs because they did them off of my body. But I did put my hands over my \nface at that point. [. . .] I wanted to go to sleep at that point, too, so I didn\u2019t really look up to see \nwho was doing drugs off of my body.\u201d (App. A; 126-127) During the hearing on May 2, 2025, \nComplainant described herself as \u201csuper incapacitated\u201d in that moment. (Trans. 5/2; 72) She also \nindicated that her covering her face was not based on a \u201cseries of thoughts\u201d but was \u201cjust more \nreflexive\u201d \u201c[i]n the case that someone took pictures[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 72-73) She also said about \nthe October 19 incidents generally, \u201cI have no clue about timeline in this[. . . . M]y phone was \nkind of inaccessible to me most of the time. And also, when you\u2019re really drunk, things speed up, \nand when you\u2019re on ketamine, things slow down, I guess. And so, it's like having the two of them \ntogether, and then add [marijuana], and it\u2019s just like no clue.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 32-33) She added, \n\u201cFollowing the events [of October 19 and 20, 2024,] I had to look up [. . .] what [\n \n looked like. [. . .] I didn\u2019t even know [his] face[] out in public.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 37) She also \nstated that she was \u201cnot sure\u201d if Respondent \u201cdid the grabbing [her] thing\u201d before or after he \ninhaled ketamine off of her body. (Trans. 5/2; 75) \nAbout how her second ketamine consumption affected her generally, Complainant said, \u201cI felt \nthe effects pretty intensely[. . . .] And then, also, past th[o]se moments, the whole thing\u2019s \nblackout, right? And the whole thing is pretty spotty in memory. And the whole thing is difficult \nfor me to remember. [. . .] I was super tired. I was weighed down. It just felt like a horse \ntranquilizer.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 69)  \nb.\n \n was in his senior year as a University undergraduate as of October 19, 2024. \nDuring his January 8 interview, he recalled that the fraternity was hosting a party on the night of \nOctober 19 that he attended and during which he \u201chad a small amount of beer.\u201d (App. A, 411) He \nindicated that he later left the Chi Phi house and returned around 1:40 a.m. on October 20. He \nrecalled that he then went to his room in the house and \u201cwatched some shows on [his] TV\u201d with \nPriv\nitted\nd \ns,\u201d or \ns,\u201d or \nwn \nwn \nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n25 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 26 ---\nM\nI\nPage 24 of 97\nhis friend and fellow University undergraduate student\n and \nRespondent \n (App. A; 413-414) He stated that the three of them \u201csipped maybe a beer each\u201d \n\u201cuntil approximately 2:30 in the morning,\u201d when \u201che was informed\u201d by \n of a \nSnapchat message sent to the Actives group by \n \u201calong the lines of there being \nfree pussy in alumni.\u201d (App. A, 414) About his reaction to hearing about that message, \n said, \u201cBasically, I just kind of question it because it\u2019s something that I\u2019ve neve \nseen before in my entire four years living in the [Chi Phi] house[.]\u201d (App. A, 415) He indicated \nthat\n then said that \u201che thought there was some type of orgy [meaning \u2018group sex of \nsome sort\u2019] occurring within the house.\u201d (App. A, 415) \n continued, \u201cI honestly \ndid not have a great understanding of what was happening at the time [. . .] but was very \nconcerned and just overall curious about the matter.\u201d (App. A, 415)  \n recounted that he proceeded to the alumni room with Respondent \n and \n, knocked on the door, and \n opened the door \u201cnaked.\u201d (App. A, 416) At \nthe hearing on May 14, 2025, he recalled \u201calmost immediately leaving [his] room\u201d for the \nalumni room after his conversation with\n about the Snapchat message. (Trans. 5/14; \n128-129) He also said \u201c[U]sually people would just kind of walk in [to the alumni room] through \nthe door without knocking.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 133) About his reaction to seeing \nstate of dress, he said, \u201cI was a little bit weirded out.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 134) In his January 8 \ninterview, he said that he then entered the room alone and saw \n, \nand Complainant (though he did not know her at the time) \u201cpositioned on a bed\u201d that \n \n entered shortly thereafter. (App. A, 418) At the hearing on May 14, he described \n \n as \u201cshirtless\u201d at the time and the group generally as \u201clooking so joyous and happy.\u201d (Trans. \n5/14; 140, 148) About his reaction to the situation, \n said in his January 8 \ninterview, \u201cAt that point, I\u2019m like, \u2018What the fuck is going on here?\u2019 because I was immensely \nconcerned [and \u2018super shocked\u2019] since I\u2019ve never seen anything like this in my four years at the \nhouse.\u201d (App. A; 418, 419) He recalled that Complainant \u201cwas under comforter sheets\u201d at that \ntime and that the group was \u201cengaging in a casual conversation.\u201d (App. A, 419) He recalled that \nhe then joined the conversation \u201conce all of [his] nerves [we]re settled.\u201d (App. A, 420)  \nAbout what happened next, \nsaid in his January 27 interview that \n \nasked \u201cif he could do ketamine off of [Complainant], and she responded, \u2018Yes\u2019 to the matter.\u201d \n(App. A, 423) \n said that \n proceeded to snort the powdered \nsubstance off of Complainant\u2019s naked torso, while her upper body was exposed. He continued, \n\u201cAnd then, at some point, I also ask if I could do the [\u2018ketamine\u2019] off of her body,\u201d to which she \n\u201cresponded enthusiastically.\u201d (App. A; 423, 424) When asked at the hearing on May 14 why he \ndid this, \n answered, \u201c[W]hen I was first uncomfortable, I kind of felt almost \noverridden by how positive everyone was in the room[, and . . . m]aybe I\u2019m the one that\u2019s being \nweird if everyone around me is looking so joyous and happy to be talking to one another. And \nyeah, eventually, after [\n] did that action, he said something to the effect of I \nPriv\n\u201cresp\n\u201cre\ndid t\ndid\no\nitted\neve\neve\ned \ned \nHearing Panel Decision \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n26 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 27 ---\nPage 25 of 97\nshould as well, and since being in this positive atmosphere, I eventually asked, as well.\u201d (Trans. \n5/14; 148) \nIn his January 27 interview, \n recalled that \n then poured the \nketamine onto Complainant\u2019s unclothed torso, in an area beneath her rib case, at the top of her \nstomach, and he inhaled it with \u201ca dollar bill.\u201d (App. A, 425) At the hearing on May 14, \n recalled that the covers were down to Complainant\u2019s \u201cwaist area\u201d and that he \n\u201csaw her breast at th[at] moment.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 150) During his January 27 interview, he said \nthat, \u201cwithin either seconds [or], if anything, a minute, at most\u201d he \u201cbecame unable to stand \nanymore and then sat on the edge of the bed.\u201d (App. A, 425) He described himself as being \u201cin \n[his] own world\u201d and \u201ccatatonic\u201d until \u201cComplainant start[ed] talking to [him].\u201d (App. A; 425, \n437) He continued: \nSo, basically, [Complainant] just asked more about my involvement at Cornell. So, we \nstarted talking about the hotel school and seemed to be bonding over that a lot. [. . .] And \nthen, at some point, in that conversation, I just remember her smiling and kind of leaning \nin towards me a little bit. And then, I eventually lean in, as well. Then, I recall our lips \ntouched in kind of a pecking kissing motion, for maybe two or three seconds. And then, [. \n. .] I pulled my head away because I realized that there are other people in the room and I \ndid not want to be kissing someone.   \n(App. A, 426) He described Complainant as \u201chappy\u201d in those moments and said that she \u201cdid not \nseem incapacitated at all.\u201d (App. A; 427, 450) About his own state, \n said, \u201cI just \nremember being pretty nonverbal and minimally moving [a]lmost the entire time that I was in the \nroom, until [Complainant\u2019s] conversation broke me out, and it kind of gave me more life just \ntalking to another human being. But every time I went back to my own self, or not talk to \nanybody, then I just became internally paralyzed, where I would just sit there.\u201d (App. A, 439) At \nthe hearing on May 14, he stated, \u201cI remember feeling unable to stand\u201d; \u201cI felt extremely \nisolated\u201d; and \u201cI was just pretty messed up\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 153-154, 162) At the hearing on May \n20, he said, \u201c[I]t was more difficult to understand\u201d Respondent \n when he approached \n shortly after his kiss with Complainant. (Trans. 5/20; 69) About what happened \nnext, \nsaid during his January 27 interview, \u201cAnd then, after some more time \npassed, I just remember hearing [. . .] Complainant saying that she thought she was stronger than \n[\n and . . .] getting up from the bed and basically flexing her muscles to \neverybody in the room.\u201d (App. A, 428)  \nOn October 21, 2024, \n text messaged Complainant, \u201cI just got your number and \nheard that I may have said some mean things when I walked in the room but I truly do not know \nwhat I said. I want to make amends with you because I\u2019m not a mean person[.]\u201d (App. B, 187) \nShe replied, \u201c[I] really appreciate the text and i didn\u2019t think in your head you were a mean guy or \nanything. i figured it was a defensive thing cause like that was obv an insane night and i think \neveryone was really confused, drunk, high, and nervous.\u201d (App. B, 188) \nPriv\nOn O\nOn\nhear\nhea\nw\nitted\nhe\nhe\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n27 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 28 ---\nPage 26 of 97\nAt the hearing on May 15, when asked his perspective on the culture of ketamine at the Chi Phi \nhouse as of October 19, 2024, \n answered, \u201cI would [. . .] say [. . .] that it was \ndefinitely more of a problem. And it was something that was occurring almost every weekend.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/15; 160) \nc.\nAdditional Evidence\nIn \n interview, he said that \n entered the alumni room on \nthe night of October 19, 2024, while he, Complainant, and \n were in his bed He \ndescribed \n as \u201cvisibly intoxicated\u201d at the time. (App. A, 186) He recalled \nComplainant conversing with \n from the \u201cedge of the bed\u201d about being \u201chotel \nmajors\u201d and that he, \n, and \n then ingested ketamine together at \n suggestion. (App. A; 186, 211) He continued, \u201cAnd then, [\n] \nasked [Complainant] if he could do the ketamine off her chest. She said, \u2018Yes.\u2019 He did it, \nfollowed by [\n], who also asked her first.\u201d (App. A, 186) He also said about \nComplainant and \n conversing, \u201cAt one point, I kind of look over, and I see \n[\n] and [Complainant] kissing.\u201d (App. A, 212) He indicated that he did not notice \nwho initiated the kissing and that the two were \u201ckind of laughing about it after.\u201d (App. A, 212) \nHe also recalled Complainant exiting the bed and \u201cflexing her muscles\u201d while unclothed. (App. \nA, 216) He stated that he never noticed \n say anything that Complainant took \noffense to. At the hearing on May 12, 2025, \n confirmed that he was \u201cstill fully \nnude\u201d at the time that \n entered the alumni room that night, though he \u201cd[id]n\u2019t \nremember going and opening the door for him.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 89, 179) \nIn his December 16 interview, Respondent \n indicated that he went to \n room \nafter the party ended at or around 1:30 a.m. on October 20, 2024, and that no one else was \npresent at the time. He stated he was \u201cthere for around 50 minutes when [\n called . \n. .] and came up[.]\u201d (App. A, 370) He recalled \n leaving shortly thereafter. He said \nthat he checked his cell phone \u201c10 to 15 minutes\u201d after \n left the room and saw a \nSnapchat message in the Actives group that read, \u201cFree pussy in alumni.\u201d (App. A, 370) He said \nthat he and \n then went to the alumni room, where \u201c[\n was sitting \non the very edge of the bed [. . .] talking.\u201d (App. A, 371) He stated that, after some time, he \n\u201cwalked over [and] asked [\n if he was alright because he [. . .] was sitting with his \nhands on his face [and \u2018seemed a little drunk\u2019]. [\n then] said he was a little drunk, \nbut he was okay.\u201d (App. A; 371, 380) During the hearing on May 21, 2025, Respondent \nexplained that \n had actually \u201cabruptly\u201d left his room before \narrived, without indicating where he was going. (Trans. 5/21; 109) Respondent \n consistently \nindicated that he observed neither drug use nor a kiss between \nand Complainant \nwhile he was present in the alumni room that night. In his December 16 interview, he recalled \nComplainant \u201claughing\u201d and participating in conversation while he was present in the room. \n(App. A, 382)  \nPriv\nexp\nex\narriv\narri\nind\ni\nitted\non\non\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n28 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 29 ---\nPage 27 of 97\nOn December 4, 2024, \nsubmitted a document titled \u201cTimeline of Events\u201d (his \n\u201cTimeline\u201d), in which he indicated that he \u201ccalled [Respondent \n] and went to [\n \n\u2019s room\u201d at or around 2:23 a.m. on October 20, 2024, and that \u201c[\n was] leaving \nas [he] arrived.\u201d (App. B, 272) In \n December 9 interview, he described that he \nand Respondent \n noted a Snapchat message to the Actives group that read, \u201cFree pussy in \nalumni,\u201d after which they went to the alumni room. (App. A, 330) About what happened while \nthey were in the room, \n wrote in his Timeline, \u201c[Complainant] was sitting up \nunder the covers, and [. . . \n was] fully clothed and sitting on the bed. [. . . He] \nappeared intoxicated but said he was fine. We asked if he wanted to leave with us, but he \ndeclined.\u201d (App. B, 273) In his February 10 interview, \n explained that he did not \nactually see \nleave his room at any time and that it was only Respondent \n who \nwas present in that room when he arrived at or around 2:23 a.m. \n consistently \nindicated that he observed neither drug use nor a kiss between \nand Complainant \nwhile he was present in the alumni room that night. During his December 9 interview, \n stated that he observed Complainant \u201claugh[ing]\u201d and \u201ctalking\u201d with others \nwhile he was present in the room. (App. A, 334)  \n  \nPrivivivi\nitted\nhile\nhile\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n29 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 30 ---\nPage 28 of 97\n         \n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\nttitti\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n30 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 31 ---\nPage 29 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n31 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 32 ---\nPage 30 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n32 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 33 ---\nPage 31 of 97\nF. Respondent \n \n1. Complaint Charges Against Respondent \n \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, Respondent \nwas charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited \nconduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her \nPriv\nitted\nitit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n33 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 34 ---\nO\nPage 32 of 97\npermission; and (b) touched his nose to Complainant\u2019s naked body and inhaled a powdered \nsubstance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation.  \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence\na.\nComplainant\nIn her November 14 interview, Complainant indicated that, at some point during the night of \nOctober 19, 2024, when she was \u201cnaked\u201d in \n bed, \u201ctwo guys named \ny\u201d \nentered the room. (App. A, 62) She recalled being introduced to them while \n \n were also in the room. She described them as \u201cstanding\u201d at the foot of the bed, \nadding, \u201cThey felt more like voyeurs than anything in the situation. They didn\u2019t get as \ncomfortable as everybody else did.\u201d Although she was \u201cunsure\u201d of the particular \u201csequence of \nthe[] events,\u201d she then recalled certain interactions with \n exiting the bed while \nnaked and \u201cflexing,\u201d and being \u201cberated with compliments.\u201d (App. A; 68-70, 72) She also \nindicated that \n asked to ingest ketamine off her body and that she agreed in some \nform. She continued, \u201cI remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just \npoured all sorts of stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. [. . . S]everal lines \n[were] done by almost everybody.\u201d (App. A, 73) In her November 15 interview, she stated, \u201cI\u2019m \nnot even sure if the two \n are in Chi Phi. [. . .] But they all were partaking in the drugs \nbecause they did them off of my body. But I did put my hands over my face at that point.\u201d (App. \nA; 126-127) In her February 7 interview, Complainant said, \u201c[T]he \n, as far as I know, \nwere voyeurs. Well, except the times that they did drugs off my body, and who knows if they \ntouched anything while they were doing that[.]\u201d (App. A, 137) Although she did not know what \neither of them looked like after that night, Complainant consistently indicated that either \nRespondent \n or \n asked if she was okay or otherwise physically supported her \nafter \n entered the alumni room and told everyone to leave. (See, e.g., App. B, 32) \nb. Respondent \nRespondent \n consistently stated in his interviews, documentary submissions, and at the \nhearing that he did not observe Complainant naked at any time nor partake in any drug use while \nin the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024. At the hearing on May 21, 2025, he \nindicated that he did not know Complainant prior to the night of October 19. During Respondent \n December 16 interview, he described being at the party at the Chi Phi house that night, after \nwhich he went to \n room. He submitted a record of a ten-second call with \n at 2:23 a.m. on October 20. (App. B, 307) In his December 16 interview, he \nrecalled inviting \n to join him in \n room during that call. He \ncontinued, \u201cI was hitting [\u2018a nicotine vape\u2019] at this point, and it was almost dead[. . . .A]nd by the \ntime [\n got there, we sat and talked for about two minutes, and [\n \ngot up and left the room. We didn\u2019t know why[.]\u201d (App. A, 370) About what happened next, he \nsaid: \nPriv\nwh\nw\nrec\nr\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n34 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 35 ---\nPage 33 of 97\nAfter about 10 to 15 minutes with [\n still being gone, I checked my phone \nand in [the Actives group] there was a text message [. . .] that said, \u201cFree pussy in \nalumni.\u201d [. . .] I had no idea what the text meant. I was kind of befuddled. So, me and \n[\n talked about it. And the person that sent the text message [\n \n], he lived in that room, and I knew he had a vape, and my vape had just died. And we \nalso speculated that maybe this is why [\n had got up and left.  \n(App. A, 370) He added, \u201cSo, my vape had died. I knew [\n had one, and because \nof [\n leaving and us not knowing the nature of if this was a joke or what was \ngoing on in the [alumni] room, me and [\n decided to go into that room.\u201d (App. A, \n370). During the hearing on May 21, Respondent \n explained that \nhad actually \nleft his room before \n arrived, without indicating where he was going.  \nAbout what happened when he and \n entered the alumni room on October 20, \n2024, Respondent \n said during his December 16 interview that he saw Complainant and \n all in or on \n bed. He indicated that \nComplainant was under bed coverings at the time. He said that he sat on the couch and conversed \nwith \n for some minutes before asking both \n and Complainant if \nthey were \u201call right\u201d\u2014both of whom responded affirmatively\u2014and exiting the room with \n (App. A, 371) He recalled an interaction with Complainant before exiting in \nwhich she \u201claughed\u201d about both his and \n first names being \u201c\n\u201d (App. A, \n372) He estimated that he was in the alumni room for \u201c[n]o more than five minutes\u201d that night. \n(App. A, 380)  \nAbout his decision to go to the alumni room that night, Respondent \n stated, \u201c[B]y no means \nwere we going there to get free pussy[. . . .] That was not our intentions at all. We were just \nchecking out to see if everything was okay[.]\u201d (App. A, 377) During the hearing on May 21, \n2025, he stated that after seeing the \u201cfree pussy in alumni\u201d message, he \u201cstarted to get kind of \nworried that that\u2019s where [\n had went\u201d and that he \u201cbelieve[d \n \nwas intoxicated at the time.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 110, 116) He continued, \u201cI was just worried cause \nagain, the text was really out there. I had never seen something like that. [. . .] I just didn\u2019t know \nwhat [\nwas doing and kind of if something was bad, I wanted to get him out of \nthere.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 110-111) He also said, \u201c[T]he text could have meant anything. There was a \nlot of things going through my head. I didn\u2019t know if there was a lot of girls in there or what was \ngoing on[. . . .] But again, free pussy just seems like someone could have been in danger. It\u2019s just \nfree. What does free mean? Again, I don\u2019t know. That\u2019s why it could have meant anything.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/21; 113) He also said, \u201cIf someone's having sex with someone in the room, they're not \ngonna send that text out. So, again, I just didn't know what was really happening in the room,\u201d \nand, \u201cI just didn\u2019t think it was real.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 111, 114) \nRespondent \nfurther noted that although the alumni room was \u201ca bedroom where a lot of \npeople would go to hang out if they didn\u2019t want to be in their room or if they had nothing to do,\u201d \nPriv\nfre\nfr\n(Tran\n(Tr\ngon\ng\nitted\nwe e\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n35 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 36 ---\nPage 34 of 97\nhe personally \u201cjust wasn\u2019t really close with the [residents of the room as of October 19, 2024]. \nSo, [he]\u2019d go to [his] other friends\u2019 rooms to hang out,\u201d adding, \u201cI was rarely ever in [the alumni \nroom].\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 104)  \nDuring the investigation, Respondent \n submitted a record of a ketamine test performed by \nOmega Laboratories that indicated that his hair follicles were collected on November 26, 2024, \nand tested for ketamine presence (his \u201cketamine test\u201d). The ketamine test came back \u201c[n]egative\u201d \nfor the drug. (App. B.1; 8) At the hearing on May 21, Respondent \n stated that Omega \nLaboratories personnel told him at the time of collection, \u201c[E]ven if you take [ketamine] one \ntime, it can stay in your hair for up to three to six months.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 168) \nc.\nAdditional Evidence   \nTimeline indicated that he \u201ccalled [Respondent \n] and went to [\n \n]\u2019s room\u201d at or around 2:23 a.m. on October 20, 2024. (App. B, 272) In \n \nDecember 9 interview, he described that he and Respondent \n noted a Snapchat message to the \nActives group that read, \u201cFree pussy in alumni,\u201d after which they went to the alumni room. (App. \nA, 330) He continued, \u201cWe saw that text and were somewhat concerned but thought it could just \nbe crude humor.\u201d (App. A, 330) He also wrote in his Timeline, \u201c[Respondent \n]\u2019s vape had \ndied, and he wanted to borrow someone else\u2019s. He knew [\n had a vape in [the \nalumni] room. [Respondent \n] asked if I wanted to go check it out, and I agreed. [Respondent \n] also mentioned that he thought [\n was pretty inebriated while they were \nhanging out so we wanted to check on him.\u201d (App. B, 272) \nAbout what happened after they entered the alumni room minutes later, \n recalled \nseeing Complainant under bed coverings, with \n all in or on the \nsame bed. He recalled being in the room for \u201c[f]ive minutes, maybe\u201d (App. A, 344) and \nconsistently stated that he both arrived and left with Respondent \n. He likewise consistently \nindicated that he did not observe any drug use or Complainant naked at any time he was present \nin the alumni room that night. On December 9, 2024, \n signed a document titled \n\u201cAcknowledgement of Understanding of [Respondent \n]\u2019s Involvement,\u201d in which he affirmed \nthat Respondent \n \u201cdid not make any physical contact with [Complainant]\u201d and \u201cdid not snort \nor consume drugs on or near [Complainant].\u201d (App. B, 306) At the hearing on May 15, 2025, \n indicated that when he inquired about taking a hair follicle test for ketamine, he \nwas told by the company Request A Test that the test is accurate for presence of the drug for up \nto \u201c90 days.\u201d (Trans. 5/15; 71) \nDuring \n interview, he recalled about after \n consumed \nketamine off Complainant\u2019s body, \u201ctwo guys walked in, [Respondent \n] and [\n]. \nThey introduced themselves, started talking, and [Complainant] invited them in.\u201d (App. A, 186) \nHe continued, \u201cAnd then, [\n] are telling [\n] about \nhow they did ketamine off of [Complainant\u2019s] chest. [. . .] And then, both [\n \n] asked her if they could do ketamine off her chest too, because [\n] \nPriv\nto\nDurin\nDu\nket\nk\nitted\n24,4,\native\u201d\native\u201d\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n36 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 37 ---\nPage 35 of 97\nhad told them about it. She said yeah, so they did.\u201d (App. A, 187) He did not recall who poured \nthat ketamine or how much they consumed. He also indicated that Complainant \u201cgot up out of \nthe bed and started doing like a bodybuilder pose\u201d while \n were in the \nalumni room. (App. A, 186) \nIn \nJanuary 8 interview, he recalled entering the alumni room in the early \nmorning hours of October 20 and talking with Complainant and \n \n. \nHe continued, \u201cAt some point, then the door opens in the room. I look back and I see \n[Respondent \n] has entered the room. Then, I can\u2019t recall if it was right behind him or a little \nbit later at some point [\n walks into the room as well.\u201d In the hearing on May 14, \n2025, \nexplained, \u201cI believe sometime shortly before [\n asked to \ningest ketamine off of Complainant\u2019s body], I remember actually hearing the door and glancing \nback and seeing them, but I actually don\u2019t recall where they were exactly when he said those \nwords specifically.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 144)  \nIn his January 27 interview, \nsaid that he and \n then ingested \nketamine off Complainant\u2019s body. In the hearing on May 14, he stated about that time, \u201cI had not \nheard or seen [Respondent \n] since I heard that door open in the moment, but I think I had the \nimpression that they were in the room too somewhere in the background.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 147) \nWhen asked what gave him the impression that Respondent \n was still in the room at that time, \nanswered, \u201cI just didn\u2019t recall hearing the door open again.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 147) In \nhis January 27 interview, he said about what happened next, \u201cI remember at some point, \n[Respondent \n] just comes up to me. I\u2019m not sure what he said, but he just walks up to me \nbecause he\u2019s one of my friends. [. . .] I don\u2019t remember the exact words he said to me, but I just \nremember him coming up to me, and then, going back to talking with, I believe, it was \n[\n (App. A, 428) He recalled that the next thing that happened was Complainant \nexiting the bed and \u201cflexing her muscles to everybody in the room,\u201d after which \n \n\u201c[came] into the room and basically kick[ed] everyone out[.]\u201d  (App. A, 428) He did not \nremember Respondent \n inhaling ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body.  \n each consistently recalled\u2014both at their respective interviews and at the \nhearing\u2014that they observed Respondent \n exiting the alumni room at or around 5:00 a.m. \nwhen they went to that room with \n and \nd. The Snapchat Messages \nAs discussed in Section IV.A above, the Panel found that the 1:42 a.m. Snapchat message \u201cFree \npussy in alum pu\u201d communicated an invitation for others to go to the alumni room, along with a \nreference to female sexual anatomy. At 2:29 a.m., Respondent \n wrote in the Alumni group, \n\u201cthe alumni shit is not a bit. First hand pov not a bit\u201d (the \u201cnot a bit message\u201d). During the \nhearing on May 21, 2025, Respondent \nsaid about that message: \nPriv\nAs\nA\npussy\npus\nref\nr\nitted\n.\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n37 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 38 ---\nPage 36 of 97\nI found out from [someone] passing by as I was walking into the [alumni] room that there \nwas a girl in there. So, I was just saying, I mean, firsthand from somebody else that there \nwas a girl in that room and it\u2019s not a [\u2018joke\u2019], but again, it was an immature and dumb \nkind of just following along with what everybody else was saying in there. I shouldn\u2019t \nhave said it. And it is immature and a stupid text message for sure. \n(Trans. 5/21; 152, 153) He indicated that he interacted with that individual and sent the not a bit \nmessage while he was outside the alumni room, prior to entering.         \n3. Findings and Determinations with Respect to Respondent \n \nProcedures Section 3.6 defines sexual exploitation in relevant part as \u201cintentionally engaging in \n[. . . o]bserving another person when that person is nude or engaged in sexual activity without the \nknowledge and consent of the person observed[.]\u201d Per Procedures Section 3.5, sexual assault is \n\u201c(1) sexual intercourse or (2) sexual contact (3) without affirmative consent.\u201d Sexual contact is \ndefined in relevant part as \u201cintentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object or body \npart\u201d including \u201cintentional touching of another\u2019s body part for the purpose of sexual \ngratification, arousal, humiliation, or degradation.\u201d  \nRegarding the charges against Respondent \n, the Panel first found the evidentiary record \ninsufficient to show that he observed Complainant nude or engaged in sexual activity without her \nknowledge. Notably, even if Respondent \n was present when others consumed ketamine off her \nnaked torso and/or when she exited the bed and flexed, the preponderance of the evidence \nshowed that Complainant was aware, by her own account, that she was nude at those times. For \nthis reason, the Panel determined that Respondent \n was not responsible for sexual exploitation \nunder the Policy.  \nHowever, the Panel considered Procedures Section 3.2, which prohibits attempting to commit \nprohibited conduct, and found that Respondent \n attempted to commit sexual exploitation \nwhen he went into the alumni room in the early morning hours of October 20, 2024. Specifically, \nby Respondent \n\u2019s own account, he went to the room, at least in part, because of a Snapchat \nmessage indicating there was \u201cfree pussy in alumni.\u201d Also by Respondent \n\u2019s own account, he \nthought \u201csomething [. . .] bad\u201d could be happening in the room, that someone could be \u201cin \ndanger,\u201d and that the situation could involve \u201ca lot of girls.\u201d He also noted that, while he did not \nhave specific knowledge of what was occurring in the room, he thought at the time, \u201cIf \nsomeone's having sex with someone in the room, they're not gonna send that text out.\u201d Taking \nthese statements together, the Panel considered it more likely than not that Respondent \n \nunderstood that the 1:42 a.m. message indicated some kind of sexual situation involving a \nfemale. The Panel likewise found the objectively reasonable understanding of the message to \nindicate some kind of sexual situation was occurring with a female in the alumni room. In \naddition, although Respondent \n repeatedly indicated that he thought the message was a \u201cjoke\u201d \nor not real, the Panel found such statements unreasonably incompatible with his account that he \nwas sufficiently \u201cworried\u201d about what was happening in the room that he went to check on the \nPriv\nthe\nth\nunde\nund\nfem\nf\nitted\na bit\na bit\nHearing Panel Decision \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n38 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 39 ---\nPage 37 of 97\nsituation\u2014particularly when he noted that it was not a social room that he frequented and that he \nwas not close to its residents\u2014and therefore did not credit his account in this regard. The Panel \nfurther considered Respondent \n\u2019s not a bit message and his statements acknowledging that, by \nthe time he arrived at the alumni room, he had received confirmation that there was \u201ca girl\u201d \npresent in that space and still chose to enter it. The Panel therefore determined by a \npreponderance of the evidence that Respondent \n understood that a female was likely nude \nand/or engaged in sexual activity in the alumni room on October 20, 2024, and entered the room \non that basis, intending to observe the same.23  \nIt is undisputed that Complainant had no knowledge of the Snapchat messages occurring in the \nActives group that night, had no previous relationship with Respondent \n, and did not invite \nhim to the alumni room. Therefore, the Panel determined that Respondent \n engaged in \nconduct directly tending towards completion of sexual exploitation (i.e., entering the alumni \nroom) with the intent to commit sexual exploitation (i.e., to observe a person nude or engaged in \nsexual activity without their knowledge and consent) and that such conduct thus constituted \nattempting to commit prohibited conduct in violation of the Policy. \nThe Panel next assessed the charge against Respondent \n regarding ingesting ketamine off \nComplainant\u2019s naked torso in the alumni room on October 20, 2024. The Panel first noted that \nRespondent \n consistently denied consuming any drugs in the alumni room that night. The \nPanel also noted that all accounts indicated that Respondent \n entered the alumni room at or \nabout the same time as \n and \n likewise consistently stated that \nRespondent \n did not ingest ketamine while in the room that night. The Panel further \nconsidered that Complainant thought Respondent \n participated in ingesting ketamine off her \nthat night, but did not actually observe him do so. The Panel also noted that, although \n recalled Respondent \n inhaling ketamine off Complainant, neither \n \n nor \nindicated the same. Finally, the Panel considered the apparent negative \nresults of Respondent \n ketamine test and that both \nand Respondent \n \nindicated that hair follicle tests for ketamine could reveal the drug\u2019s presence for up to three \nmonths, with Respondent \nhaving taken the test within six weeks of October 20. Ultimately, in \nits review of the totality of the information collected, the Panel found the evidentiary record \ninsufficient to show that Respondent \ningested ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body in the early \nmorning hours of October 20 and therefore determined that he is not responsible for sexual \nassault under the Policy.  \n23 The Panel did not find Respondent \n\u2019s statements regarding his intent to borrow \n \u201cvape\u201d or \ncheck on \n to be material to its analysis in this regard as, even if true, he could have had multiple \nreasons for going to the alumni room that night\u2014including to view someone in a state of undress or involved in \nsexual activity.  \nPriv\nitted\nde\nde\nom\nom\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n39 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 40 ---\nPage 38 of 97\nG.\n \n1. Complaint Charges Against \n \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \nwas charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited \nconduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her \npermission; and (b) touched his nose to Complainant\u2019s naked torso and inhaled a powdered \nsubstance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation.  \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence \na.\nComplainant \nIn her November 14 interview, Complainant indicated that, at some point during the night of \nOctober 19, 2024, when she was \u201cnaked\u201d in \n bed, \u201ctwo guys named \n\u201d \nentered the room. (App. A, 62) She recalled being introduced to them while \n \n were also in the room. She described them as \u201cstanding\u201d at the foot of the bed, \nadding, \u201cThey felt more like voyeurs than anything in the situation. They didn\u2019t get as \ncomfortable as everybody else did.\u201d Although she was \u201cunsure\u201d of the particular \u201csequence of \nthe[] events,\u201d she recalled certain interactions with \nexiting the bed while naked \nand \u201cflexing,\u201d and being \u201cberated with compliments.\u201d (App. A; 68-70, 72) She also indicated \nthat \n asked to ingest ketamine off of her body and that she agreed in some form. \nShe continued, \u201cI remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just poured all \nsorts of stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. [. . . S]everal lines [were] done \nby almost everybody.\u201d (App. A, 73) In her November 15 interview, she stated, \u201cI\u2019m not even sure \nif the two \nare in Chi Phi. [. . .] But they all were partaking in the drugs because they did \nthem off of my body. But I did put my hands over my face at that point.\u201d (App. A; 126-127) In \nher February 7 interview, Complainant said, \u201c[T]he \n, as far as I know, were voyeurs. \nWell, except the times that the did drugs off my body, and who knows if they touched anything \nwhile they were doing that[.]\u201d (App. A, 137) Although she did not know what either of them \nlooked like after that night, Complainant consistently indicated that either Respondent \n or \n asked if she was okay or otherwise physically supported her after Student AV \nentered the alumni room and told everyone to leave. (See, e.g., App. B, 32) \nb.\n \n consistently stated in his interviews, documentary submissions, and at the \nhearing that he did not observe Complainant naked at any time nor partake in any drug use while \nin the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024. At the hearing on May 15, 2025, he \nconfirmed that he had not known Complainant prior to that night. Regarding his account of what \noccurred, his Timeline indicated that he \u201ccalled [Respondent \n] and went to [\ns \nPriv\nhea\nh\nitted\nted \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n40 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 41 ---\nPage 39 of 97\nroom\u201d at or around 2:23 a.m. on October 20, 2024, after having spent time at the fraternity\u2019s \nparty earlier in the night. (App. B, 272) In his December 9 interview, he said:  \nMe and [Respondent \n] were hanging out in [\n room and [Respondent \n], I think, happened to see [a Snapchat message in the Actives group] and said, \u201cHey, \nlook at this,\u201d and it was [. . .] to the effect of \u201cFree pussy in alumni.\u201d We saw that text and \nwere somewhat concerned but thought it could be just crude humor. \n(App. A, 331) He continued, \u201cI was genuinely concerned and wanted to investigate what\u2019s going \non.\u201d (App. A, 335) He also wrote in his Timeline, \u201c[Respondent \n]\u2019s vape had died, and he \nwanted to borrow someone else\u2019s. He knew [\n] had a vape in [the alumni] room. \n[Respondent \n] asked if I wanted to go check it out, and I agreed. [Respondent \n] also \nmentioned that he thought [\n was pretty inebriated while they were hanging out \nso we wanted to check on him.\u201d (App. B, 272) During his February 10 interview, \n \nexplained that he had actually seen the \u201cFree pussy in alumni\u201d Snapchat message before he \ncalled Respondent \n at 2:23 a.m. on October 20. In the hearing on May 15, \n \nstated, \u201cI first saw [the message] while I was still down in the foyer, and [. . .] I kind of thought it \nwas like an attention-seeking kind of joke to get people to go to the [alumni] room.\u201d (Trans. \n5/15; 26) \nAbout what happened after he and Respondent \n entered the alumni room, \n \nrecalled seeing Complainant under bed coverings, with \n, all in \nor on that same bed. He recalled talking with Respondent \n, hearing some conversation from \nthe bed area, that Respondent\n interacted briefly with \n, and that he and \nRespondent \n introduced themselves to Complainant. During his December 9 interview, \n said that he was in the room for \u201c[f]ive minutes, maybe\u201d (App. A, 334) and \nconsistently stated that he both arrived and left with Respondent \n. \nAbout his decision to go to the alumni room that night, \n stated during his \nFebruary 10 interview, \u201c[Respondent \n and I] thought at that point [that the \u2018Free pussy in \nalumni\u2019 Snapchat message] was just a kind of absurd joke. No one really thought it was being \nserious[. . . . W]e knew [\n was down there, I guess. And then when we went in \nthere, I thought at that time \u2013 thinking that it was kind of a joke. And my concerns that it wasn\u2019t \nkinda alleviated because people are just hanging out in there.\u201d (App. A, 356) He continued, \n\u201c[W]e seriously \u2013 I\u2019ll emphasize seriously \u2013 did not think there was anything going \u2013 we thought \nit was just a joke.\u201d (App. A, 362) In the hearing on May 15, \nsaid, \u201c[Respondent \n and I] thought the message was a joke. But [in] the back of our head, it is a cruder-than-\nnormal joke. And maybe we should go check it out. We wanted to go check out if [\n \n] was okay in there. [. . .] And also, it sounds kind of silly, but [Respondent \n]\u2019s vape had \ndied, and he knew [\n had a vape in there.\u201d (Trans. 5/15; 35) When asked what he \nunderstood the message to reference, he answered, \u201c[I]t\u2019s just that there\u2019s a free girl in the room. \nBut again, no one took that literally as meaning there\u2019s a free girl in the room. [. . .] Using the \nPriv\nit\na\nnorm\nnor\nitted\nt and\nand \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n41 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 42 ---\nPage 40 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision\n-M\n42 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Perrnitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 43 ---\nI\nI\nI\nI\nPage 41 of 97\n and \n all in or on \n bed. He indicated that \nComplainant was under bed coverings at the time. He said that he sat on the couch and conversed \nwith \n for some minutes before asking both\n and Complainant if \nthey were \u201call right\u201d\u2014both of whom responded affirmatively\u2014and exiting the room with \n (App. A, 371) He recalled an interaction with Complainant before exiting in \nwhich she \u201claughed\u201d about both his and \n first names being \u201c\n.\u201d (App. A, \n372) He estimated that he was in the alumni room for \u201c[n]o more than five minutes\u201d that night. \n(App. A, 380) Respondent \n consistently stated that he both arrived at the alumni room and left \nwith \n on October 20. He likewise consistently indicated that he did not observe \nany drug use or Complainant naked at any time he was present in the alumni room that night. At \nthe hearing on May 21, Respondent \n stated that, when he was getting his own ketamine test \nperformed, he was told by the collections personnel at Omega Laboratories, \u201c[E]ven if you take \n[ketamine] one time, it can stay in your hair for up to three to six months.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 168) \nDuring \n interview, he recalled about after \n consumed \nketamine off of Complainant\u2019s body, \u201ctwo guys walked in, [Respondent \n] and [\n \n]. They introduced themselves, started talking, and [Complainant] invited them in.\u201d (App. A, \n186) He continued, \u201cAnd then, [\n] are telling [\n] \nabout how they did ketamine off of [Complainant\u2019s] chest. [. . .] And then, both [\n \n] asked her if they could do ketamine off her chest too, because [\n \n] had told them about it. She said yeah, so they did.\u201d (App. A, 187) He did not recall who \npoured that ketamine or how much they consumed. He also indicated that Complainant \u201cgot up \nout of the bed and started doing like a bodybuilder pose\u201d while \n were in \nthe alumni room. (App. A, 186) \nIn \n January 8 interview, he recalled entering the alumni room in the early \nmorning hours of October 20 and talking with Complainant and \n \nHe continued, \u201cAt some point, then the door opens in the room. I look back and I see \n[Respondent \n] has entered the room. Then, I can\u2019t recall if it was right behind him or a little \nbit later at some point [\n walks into the room as well.\u201d In the hearing on May 14, \n2025, \n explained, \u201cI believe sometime shortly before [\n asked to \ningest ketamine off of Complainant\u2019s body], I remember actually hearing the door and glancing \nback and seeing them, but I actually don\u2019t recall where they were exactly when he said those \nwords specifically.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 144)  \nIn his January 27 interview, \n said that he and \n then ingested \nketamine off Complainant\u2019s body. In the hearing on May 14, he stated about that time, \u201cI had not \nheard or seen [Respondent \n] since I heard that door open in the moment, but I think I had the \nimpression that [he and \n were in the room too somewhere in the background.\u201d \nWhen asked what gave him the impression that \nwas still in the room at that time, \n answered, \u201cI just didn\u2019t recall hearing the door open again.\u201d In his January 27 \ninterview, he said about what happened next, \u201cI remember at some point, [Respondent \n] just \nPriv\nIn \nIn\nketam\nket\nhea\nh\nitted\nA, \nA,\nht.\nht.\nftft\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n43 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 44 ---\nPage 42 of 97\ncomes up to me. I\u2019m not sure what he said, but he just walks up to me because he\u2019s one of my \nfriends. [. . .] I don\u2019t remember the exact words he said to me, but I just remember him coming \nup to me, and then, going back to talking with, I believe, it was [\n (App. A, 428) \nHe recalled that the next thing that happened was Complainant exiting the bed and \u201cflexing her \nmuscles to everybody in the room,\u201d after which \n \u201c[came] into the room and basically \nkick[ed] everyone out[.]\u201d (App. A, 428) He did not remember \n inhaling ketamine \noff Complainant\u2019s body. \n  \n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\nly\nmine\nmine\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n44 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 45 ---\nI\nI\nPage 43 of 97\nH.\n1. Complaint Charges Against\nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \n was charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Assault, Sexual Exploitation, and Aiding Prohibited Conduct \n(Sexual Exploitation). Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) penetrated \nComplainant\u2019s vulva with his penis without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative \nconsent due to incapacitation; (b) struck Complainant\u2019s buttocks without affirmative consent, \n24 The Panel did not find \n statements regarding Respondent \n\u2019s contemporaneous interest in \nborrowing \n \u201cvape\u201d or checking on \n to be material to its analysis in this regard as, \neven if true, \n could have had multiple reasons for going to the alumni room that night\u2014including to \nview someone in a state of undress or involved in sexual activity.  \nPriv\n(Se\n(S\nCom\nCom\ncon\nc\nitted\nit\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n45 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 46 ---\nPage 44 of 97\nincluding lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; (c) intentionally gave Complainant \nketamine for the purpose of making her vulnerable to nonconsensual sexual assault and/or sexual \nexploitation by himself and/or others; (d) offered powdered ketamine to Complainant by placing \nit on his penis for her to inhale, requiring Complainant to touch her nose to his penis without her \naffirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; (e) touched his \nnose to Complainant\u2019s naked torso and inhaled a powdered substance off her body without \naffirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; and (f) sent \nmessages to a SnapChat group chat in which he invited others to come to his residence to \nobserve Complainant when she was nude or engaged in sexual activity and/or to engage in \nsexual activity with Complainant, without her knowledge and consent.  \nAs indicated in Section IV.A above, there is no dispute that Complainant generally consented to \nthe sexual intercourse that took place during the initial threesome activity involving \n \n. As such, the Panel did not include that specific conduct in its analysis.  \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence  \na.\nComplainant \nComplainant consistently stated that she engaged in vaginal-penile sex with \n\u2014\nspecifically, the threesome activity\u2014while she was in the alumni room with him and \n \n on the night of October 19, 2024. About her experience of that threesome activity, \nComplainant\u2019s November 15 CUPD statement included: \nI was completely naked[. . . .] I began to give oral sex to [\n], while \n[\n] had vaginal sex with me from behind. I would say that I was pretty ok \nwith having this threesome with [\n] and \n]. During the \nthreesome, I began to feel \n] hit me many times on my butt. I remember \nthat the hits were hurting me, and one hit in particular sent a sharp pain through me which \ncaused me to turn around and say, \u201cDamn!\u201d I remember that particular hit was jolting and \nforced me to pause momentarily.   \n(App. B, 30) During Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she said, \u201cI just remember one sharp \npain. I remember looking back [at \n once.\u201d (App. A, 46) She also said, \u201cAt that \ntime, I didn\u2019t really realize how hard he was hitting me. But I do remember a burn.\u201d (App. A, 39) \nShe further recalled, \u201cI took a photo on October 30[, 2024] of my butt because I never took \npictures of the bruises. [. . .] And there were still little marks left where you could see where I \nhad been hit.\u201d (App. A, 45) On January 2, 2025, Complainant submitted a photograph to the \nInvestigator by email, writing, \u201cThe picture of my buttox is the bruise left after 12 or so days \nafter the incident. From what I remember the bruising on my buttox came from [\n \nslapping me.\u201d (App. B; 165-166) At the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant indicated that she \nthought the bruise was on her \u201cleft buttock\u201d; that she did not have a sense of which hand \nRespondent used in that moment; and that she had \u201c[no] memory of conversation\u201d with \nPriv\np\nhad \nha\nInve\nInv\na\nitted\ns \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n46 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 47 ---\nPage 45 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision\n-\n47 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Permitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 48 ---\nPage 46 of 97\n197) When asked if he ever \u201cslap[ped] or spank[ed]\u201d Complainant\u2019s buttocks while \u201cbehind her,\u201d \n answered, \u201cNo, I don\u2019t recall doing so,\u201d and, \u201c[\n] did.\u201d (App. A, \n220) He then indicated that this occurred when the threesome activity at one point involved \nComplainant engaged in oral sex with \n, while \n engaged in vaginal-\npenile sex with Complainant from behind.25 When asked how many times \n struck \nComplainant in that manner, \n indicated he did not know, adding, \u201cAfter the first \none, she asked him to do it again,\u201d and that Complainant \u201cdidn\u2019t\u201d indicate pain at any point. \n(App. A, 220) Later, \n explained that he was \u201c[u]nsure\u201d if \n \nconduct in this regard was \u201cstriking\u201d or was \u201cmore of a grab/squeeze.\u201d (App. A, 220) At the \nhearing on May 12, 2025, \n said, \u201cSo, when I was sitting on the couch while \n[Complainant] and [\n] were having sex, he did strike her buttocks. I just remember \nseeing that while I was there. [. . .] Like the action of his hand up and then going down.\u201d (Trans. \n5/12; 66, 67) He was \u201cnot sure\u201d what hand \n used to do so or where on \nComplainant\u2019s buttocks he made contact. (Trans. 5/12; 66) \n said that \n \n \u201cdid it again\u201d when Complainant asked him to, but did not remember how many times \n did it in total. (Trans. 5/12; 67)  \nAbout any sexual activity later in the night, \n said during his interview that there \nwere \u201c15-20 minutes of just [him] throwing up violently in a trash can\u201d before \nentered the room. (App. A, 185) He recalled \n throwing up \u201cnext to [him] on the \ncouch\u201d around that same time, as well. (App. A, 207) About when \n was in the \nroom, \n recalled that he \u201cwas throwing up\u201d while Complainant and \ntalked, \u201cstarted kissing,\u201d and \u201ceventually\u201d \u201cstart[ed] having sex on [\n] bed.\u201d \n(App. A; 185, 208) At the hearing on May 12, he explained that \n was \u201con top of\u201d \nComplainant on the bed. (Trans. 5/12; 76) During his interview, \n recalled that this \ncontinued with him \u201con the couch, still nauseous, like throwing up,\u201d until \n \u201cwoke \nup,\u201d at which time \n approached where \n and Complainant were \npositioned on the bed, and Complainant touched \n penis with her hand. (App. A, \n185) At the hearing on May 12, \n recalled \n leaving shortly \nthereafter and the three remaining parties moving to his bed. He recalled that Complainant \u201cwas \nstill fully nude\u201d at the time. (Trans. 5/12; 86) When asked during his interview if he engaged in \nany form of penetrative sex with Complainant while \n was in the room, he \nanswered, \u201cNo.\u201d (App. A, 221) At the hearing on May 12, when asked if he engaged in sexual \nactivity with Complainant while she and \n were on or near the couch in the room, \n answered, \u201cI don\u2019t remember having any sex from the point I threw up to when I \nwent to bed.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 76) He then said, \u201cI feel like I would remember it, but it is possible it \ndid happen.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 77) \n25 The Panel noted that, in the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant said, \u201cI do remember [\n hitting \nme. I don\u2019t really have memory of [\n] hitting me, but of course, [\n hit me earlier in the \nnight. [. . .] It could be that [\n] did that, but I don\u2019t have a memory of that.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 30) \nPriv\nwent\nwen\ndid\nd\nitted\nuck k \nfirst\nfirst\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n48 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 49 ---\nPage 47 of 97\n also said that, after \n entered the alumni room that night, \n \u201casked if [they] wanted to do more ketamine,\u201d and that \n then \u201cdid \nmore ketamine with [\n].\u201d (App. A, 186) He said that \n \n, all later ingested ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body and stated that he \u201cha[d] no \nrecollection\u201d of doing it himself. (App. A, 227) He recalled that Complainant requested ketamine \nafter the others took some and that \n \u201cgave some to her\u201d on a \u201ckey.\u201d (App. A; 214, \n219) He also stated that, although he had \u201cno recollection\u201d of offering Complainant ketamine \nfrom his penis, \u201cthere were pieces of [his] memory that [he] just can\u2019t remember\u201d and that there \nwere \u201choles in [his] memory\u201d from that night. (App. A, 219) At the hearing on May 12, when \nasked if he ingested ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body on the night of October 19, 2024, \n said, \u201cNot that I remember, but I feel like it definitely could have happened.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/12; 104)  \nc.\nAdditional Evidence \nIn \n March 17 statement, he described the threesome activity as involving two \nseparate occasions of sexual activity, during both of which Complainant engaged in oral sex with \n while \n engaged in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant. \ndid not indicate that he engaged in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant in the \nalumni room on the night of October 19, 2024. He also wrote that, at some point, \u201c[\n \n began to throw up into a trash can[.]\u201d (App. B, 260) \nIn \n December 18 interview, he recalled about sexual activity that occurred while \nhe was sitting on the couch in the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024, \u201c[A]s \n[Complainant] was performing [oral sex] on me, it was at that point that [\n \nproceeded to go behind her and insert himself. There was never any sort of verbal complaint, or \nany sort of indication, or any sort of signs of discomfort from [Complainant] upon this.\u201d (App. A, \n281) He described their relative physical positions in that moment as, \u201c[Complainant] was stood \nup, bent over, her mouth on me, and [\n \u2018went behind her and inserted himself\u2019] \ninto her from the rear. Into her vagina.\u201d (App. A, 291) At the hearing on May 13, 2025, \n was asked if there was any kind of communication with Complainant prior to \n moving behind her and engaging in sexual intercourse; he answered, \u201cI don\u2019t \nremember.\u201d (Trans. 5/13; 116) He then indicated that the three of them \u201cgeneral[ly]\u201d decided to \nmove to \n bed to continue sexual activity together. (Trans. 5/13; 118) \nIn \n December 11 interview, he recalled arriving at the alumni room during the \nearly morning hours of October 20, 2024, and finding Complainant and \n. \nHe said that, after some time, \u201c[\n] took out some ketamine and [. . .] asked \n[Complainant \u2018verbally\u2019] for consent and to which [Complainant \u2018verbally\u2019 ] gave to take the \nketamine off of her body.\u201d (App. A, 232) He continued, \u201cAnd when that happened, [\n \nand Complainant] offered if I would like to take ketamine off of her body. [. . . S]he said that \nI could take ketamine off of her body. So, given that I had gotten consent, [\n had \nPriv\nI\nearly\near\nHe s\nHe\n[C\n[\nitted\nine\nA; 214,\nA; 214,\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n49 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 50 ---\nPage 48 of 97\nlaid the ketamine on [Complainant]\u2019s torso or part of her body, and I took some ketamine.\u201d (App. \nA; 232-233, 234) \n did not recall Complainant ingesting ketamine in the alumni \nroom while he was present.   \nIn\n January 8 interview, he said that when he arrived at the alumni room at \naround 2:30 a.m. on October 20, 2024, \n answered the door \u201cnaked.\u201d (App. A, 416) \nHe stated that he entered the room and saw Complainant and \n in or on \n bed. He recalled that both he and \n later ingested ketamine off \nComplainant\u2019s body. In the hearing on May 14, 2025, when \n was asked if he \nrecalled \n ingesting any powdered substance while he was present in the room, \n answered, \u201cNo. I have no memory of [\n] ingesting a powdered \nsubstance when I was in the room.\u201d He likewise did not indicate that Complainant consumed \nketamine in the alumni room while he was present.  \nd. The Snapchat Messages \nAs indicated in Section IV.A above, the Snapchat video showed a message sent to the Actives \ngroup at 1:42 a.m. that read, \u201cFree pussy in alum pu\u201d (the \u201c1:42 a.m. message\u201d; App. C, 21) As \nalso discussed in Section IV.A above, the Panel found that it communicated an invitation for \nothers to go to the alumni room, along with a reference to female sexual anatomy. The 1:42 a.m. \nmessage was attributed to the name \n in the Snapchat video.            \nWhen \n was asked during his interview if he was aware of \u201cany sort of text \nexchanges or other messaging happening at or around the time when \n \nentered the alumni room in the early morning hours of October 20, 2024, \n \nanswered, \u201cNot that I recall, no.\u201d (App. A, 222) \n was then asked if he recalled a \nSnapchat message in the Actives group that read \u201csomething along the lines of \u2018Free pussy in \nAlumni Room,\u2019\u201d and he answered, \u201cNo, I don\u2019t. I don\u2019t.\u201d At the hearing on May 12, 2025, he \nsaid about the 1:42 a.m. message, \u201cI don\u2019t remember using my phone at any point that night[. . . \n.] So, I don\u2019t remember sending that text. I was honestly kind of mortified when I saw it was \nme.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 128) He indicated that it would not have been the first time that he sent a \nmessage without remembering having done so and recalled that it occurred on a prior occasion, \n\u201cthe last time [he] blacked out[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 151)  \nThe Panel noted that the username \n reflected a phonetic, albeit incorrect, \nspelling of \n name. The Panel also noted that the Snapchat video showing the \n1:42 a.m. message depicted a recording of an unknown Snapchat user\u2019s cell phone, which \ndisplayed the Actives group chat from that particular user\u2019s frame of reference. The Panel \nunderstood from the preponderance of the evidence\u2014including \n own \nstatements\u2014that the \u201c\n\u201d label was created by that unknown Snapchat user, not \n himself, and that a misspelling was therefore not unlikely in such context. Thus, \nbased on the totality of the circumstances, the Panel found that \n sent the 1:42 a.m. \nmessage. \nPriv\n1:4\n1:\ndispl\ndisp\nun\nu\nitted\n416) \n416) \nr on \nr on \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n50 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 51 ---\nPage 49 of 97\n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\ntittitit\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n51 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 52 ---\nPage 50 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n52 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 53 ---\nPage 51 of 97\n  \n     \nPriviviviv\nitted\ntitit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n53 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 54 ---\nPage 52 of 97\n  \n  \n   \nI.\n \n1. Complaint Charges Against \n \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \n was charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited \nPriviv\nitted\ntt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n54 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 55 ---\nI\nPage 53 of 97\nconduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her \npermission; (b) touched his nose to Complainant\u2019s naked torso and inhaled a powdered substance \noff her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation; and (c) penetrated Complainant\u2019s mouth with his penis without her affirmative \nconsent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation.  \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence \na.\nComplainant \nComplainant recalled in her November 14 interview that she met \n at the Chi Phi \nhouse during \u201cfall break\u201d 2024, prior to the night of October 19, 2024 (the \u201cfall break \ninteraction\u201d).27 She stated that she brought her brother and that \n \n \nwere present, as well. She indicated that she consumed marijuana on that occasion, adding, \u201cAnd \nthen, [\n] pulled out ketamine. [. . .] They offered me ketamine. I said no. [. . .] \n[\n] said that it was from his plug [. . . and \n told him, in essence, to \nshut up.\u201d (App. A; 18, 22) She recalled that \n then ingested the ketamine, \nwhich she described as a \u201c[w]hite powder in a [\u2018plastic\u2019] bag.\u201d (App. A; 18, 21) She continued, \n\u201cThey were clearly very experienced with it. They made that very known to me is that they were \navid ketamine users. [. . .] And almost boasted themselves as avid ketamine users.\u201d (App. A, 25) \nAt the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant confirmed that this occurred in the Pentz of the Chi \nPhi house. In the \n November 7 call, Complainant said to \n \u201c[Y]ou remember \nhanging out with me and my brother. I refused ketamine then because I had never done it before. \nAnd I\u2019m not a hard drugs person,\u201d and \n replied, \u201cSure. I guess.\u201d (App. C, 38)  \nAbout the night of October 19, 2024, Complainant recalled in her November 14 interview being \nin \n bed when a number of individuals entered the alumni room. She described \ntheir positioning in the moments that followed as, \u201c[\n lays in the bed to my right. \n[\n gets in the corner to my left. This kid named [\n the one from \nbefore, he walks in [. . .] and he sits between me and [\n]. [. . .] And then, there was \na circle of guys around me. So, I was like literally cornered. [. . .] And I\u2019m a naked woman[.]\u201d \n(App. A, 61) She said about that occurrence, \u201cI knew it was [\n because I had met \nhim before. He was like, \u2018Good to see you again,\u2019 and crawled in bed next to me.\u201d (App. A, 63) \nAbout what happened next, Complainant said at the hearing on May 2, \u201cTh[e] sequence could \nhave been anything.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 55) During her November 14 interview, she recalled \nintroductions occurring, certain interactions with \n and exiting the bed and flexing \nher muscles. She continued: \n[T]hey were looking at my body and I was naked. And I was berated with compliments. [. \n. .] It was a lot of really nice things all at once. [. . .] And then, it all kind of came to a \n27 The Panel noted that the University\u2019s 2024 fall break began on Saturday, October 12, and went through Tuesday, \nOctober 15, 2024. See https://registrar.cornell.edu/academic-calendar.  \nPriv\nin\nher \nhe\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n55 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 56 ---\nPage 54 of 97\nhead, and [\n was like, \u201c[Complainant], would you mind if we did \nketamine off of your perfect body,\u201d [. . . a]nd I was like, \u201cI guess,\u201d or whatever. And I \nwas already partly lying down because it was so much easier to lie down. I was super \ntired and so, I remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just poured \nall sorts of stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. I\u2019m not sure if there \nwere other substances other than ketamine but several lines were done by almost \neverybody. I think everybody had a turn.       \n(App. A, 73) In the \n November 7 call, Complainant stated, \u201c[\n asked for drugs \nto be done off of my body.\u201d (App. C, 31) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant described \nherself as \u201cseverely incapacitated\u201d when she responded to \n request, as well as \nbeing \u201csurrounded by a ton of men\u201d and feeling a \u201csevere power imbalance[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 71) \nShe continued about \n \u201c[H]e also was not a friend of mine. I had known him \nfrom the week or two before. He was a stranger to me.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 71) She said that her \ncovering her face did not result from \u201c[a] series of thoughts,\u201d but \u201cwas just more reflexive[, as] \nthe world we live in is people have phones.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 73) She also said that she had \u201ca \nspecific memory\u201d of \u201c[\n]\u2019s head [with \u2018black hair\u2019]\u201d while he was ingesting \nketamine off of her body. (Trans. 5/2; 74) \nDuring Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she recounted \n and \nentering the alumni room later in the night. She recalled her experience of that time by saying, \u201cI \nwas very intoxicated. [. . .] The room was spinning. I was trying to find my dress. [. . .] And then, \n[\n] end up ushering me upstairs[.]\u201d (App. A, 74) During the \n \nNovember 7 call, she stated, \u201cAnd then after that, I was taken up to the room with you and \n[\n].\u201d (App. C, 34) During her November 14 interview, Complainant stated that the \ntwo Respondents brought her to \u201ca [\u2018teeny tiny\u2019] closet that was repurposed into an office \nalmost.\u201d (App. A, 77) Complainant later confirmed that space as the foffice. She recalled at the \nhearing on May 5, \u201c[W]e weren\u2019t in [\ns room [near the foffice] because [\n \n] was with a girl in there. I think [\n told me [. . . p]robably when we first got \nup there.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 21) About the space she was in at that time, she said at the hearing on May \n2, \u201cIt felt like there was a lot of stuff in there. I just felt like I couldn\u2019t move. It felt like I was in a \ncloset. [. . .] It was, again, like I was cornered.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 79) During Complainant\u2019s \nNovember 14 interview, she described the space as having \u201ca table and two monitors [on a desk] \nand like two chairs.\u201d (App. A, 77) She continued: \n[\n sat down in a chair. They gave me more ketamine. [. . .] I \nwatched them pour a lot of it but, of course, I was super kind of in and out of \nconsciousness so I wouldn\u2019t have caught a slight of hand at all. [. . .] I just know \n[\n asked to have sex again and I said no. I was like, \u201cI don\u2019t know. I\u2019m \nlike worn out,\u201d and I also felt my eyes \u2013 it felt like one was going in that direction and \n[the other] was going in [another] direction.    \nPriv\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n56 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 57 ---\nPage 55 of 97\n(App. A, 78) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant said, \u201c[W]hen we\u2019re all funneled in there, I \ndon\u2019t think I\u2019m given a chair or anything, so I grab onto the desk for support, and the wall for \nsupport, and then I just, I think, settle on the ground. [. . .] They\u2019re facing me.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 81) \nShe recalled that both \n were between her and the exit door.  \nAbout her ketamine consumption in the foffice, Complainant said during her November 14 \ninterview, \u201cI don\u2019t know how much they poured. I don\u2019t know where I took it from. [. . .] I don\u2019t \nknow where it came from or how it got in my system. [. . .] I\u2019m pretty sure it was that kind of \nfinal bump that made my eyes do the weird eye jerk.\u201d (App. A; 78-79) At the hearing on May 5, \nComplainant said that she had \u201clittle to no recollection\u201d of what was happening when she \ningested ketamine in that moment, stating, \u201cI just remember it was done because I had my nose \non something. [\u2018It\u2019s kind of like I wanna say my nose was on a table, but that\u2019s all I ... But again, \nit could be that my nose was actually on a chair.\u2019] That\u2019s all I remember from that.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; \n3)28 She also said, \u201cIt\u2019s just been a long time at this point. I don\u2019t know. [. . . T]here\u2019s a ton of \ntime that elapsed in the foffice or whatever that I have no memory whatsoever.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 5) \nComplainant described how she felt in that moment by saying, \u201cIt\u2019s maybe the most fucked up \nI\u2019ve ever been in my life. [. . .] I remember saying a lot of things but I don\u2019t know what I was \nsaying. I was apparently just talking and talking. My eyes were closed and my mouth was \nrunning [. . . and] I felt like my eyes were going in different directions.\u201d (App. A, 83) At the \nhearing on May 5, she explained, \u201cI said I talked a lot because it felt I talked a lot, but it could be \nthat I didn\u2019t. But there were a lot of moments where they were talking, \u2018cause I remember just \nsitting there \u2018cause [. . . \u2018I was kind of staring at the wall and talking like this over and over, \nmaybe trying to distract from the fact that I thought my eyeballs were going like a chameleon.\u2019 . . \n.] I just remember that being debilitating.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 9-10) She also said, \u201cI couldn\u2019t have \ncommunicated my middle name, I don\u2019t think. I probably could have said my middle name, but \nany sort of thought about my perception of the world, not good, not possible.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 15) \nAbout how \n suggested sexual activity in the foffice, Complainant recalled, \u201cI\u2019m \nlike, \u2018Okay, I\u2019m not feeling the effects of the ketamine as much anymore.\u2019 And then around that \nsame period of time \u2013 \u2018cause I do think that I said that. [. . . ] And then around that same period \nof time I think was the ketamine being given to me again, and [\n saying, \nfollowing that sequence, \u2018Do you wanna have sex again?\u2019\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 6) During her November \n14 interview, Complainant recalled, \u201c[\n said he wanted redemption \u2018cause he \npassed out earlier and didn\u2019t get whatever he wanted.\u201d (App. A, 79) She said that she replied by \nindicating that she \u201cwas tired.\u201d (App. A, 79) She added, \u201cHe\u2019d inquired about it multiple times. I \nthink I said no. I think I said that I was tired or that I needed a minute. I prolonged [answering \nthe question]. I put it off. I just didn\u2019t want to do it again.\u201d (App. A, 81) Complainant also \nrecalled \n appearing in the foffice at some point and asking, \u201cYou all are still \n28 When asked at the hearing on May 5 if there was any reason why Complainant would be in that position if not to \ningest a substance, she answered, \u201cNo. There were times when I would lean up against something, but that\u2019s a \ndifferent movement[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 4) \nPriv\nin\nthink\nthi\nthe q\nthe\nrer\nitted\ndon\u2019t\ndon\u2019t\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n57 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 58 ---\nPage 56 of 97\ngoing?\u201d to which she replied, \u201cYeah, unfortunately\u201d in \u201ca sad, [\u2018not enthusiastic\u2019] tone.\u201d (App. A, \n81) She stated during the hearing on May 5 that \n was present when \n \nI suggested sexual activity in the foffice.  \nAbout what happened next, Complainant said in her November 14 interview: \nI ended up in the same situation with [\n] as I had with the other \nthreesome, as I ended up in another threesome. But I really did not want to be in that one. \nI was completely drugged and knocked out. I was half awake. I was on the floor of this \ncloset. I hardly fit in the room. [. . .] And I was so depleted and so tired and wanting to \nleave so badly. And I don\u2019t know how I made the situation stop. I\u2019m not sure if somebody \nhad finished. I\u2019m not sure what happened. \n(App. A, 82) She indicated that, during this sexual activity, she was engaged in oral sex with \n, while \n engaged in vaginal-penile sex with her from behind. \nDuring the hearing on May 5, Complainant said, \u201cI think at some point [\n] was \nhaving sex with me, and [\n] was literally just watching.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 14) She \nrecalled going to \n room after the sexual activity ended, interacting briefly with \n\u201ca girl\u201d who was in the room with \n at the time, and sleeping in \n bed. \n(Trans. 5/5; 21) \nRegarding how it happened that she engaged in sexual activity with \n in \nthe foffice, Complainant said at the hearing on May 5, \u201cI couldn\u2019t get much of anything out. I \njust felt kind of trapped. [\n] are sitting in front of the door, in front of the \nexit. I mean things are still being asked of me sexually. Ketamine is still being given during this \npoint in time. It was just ... I don\u2019t think I felt like I could get out.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 8) She added, \u201cI \ndidn\u2019t want to, but I felt like I had to.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 11)  \nDuring the \n November 7 call, she stated to \n, \u201cI don\u2019t really remember what \nhappened upstairs either. So, I was not really awake. I remember saying a bunch of shit that \nmade no fucking sense. Probably got all high and philosophical. [. . .] I remember I couldn\u2019t \nopen my eyes because I thought that I couldn\u2019t feel the effect of ketamine. [. . . I]t felt like my \neyeballs were going in different directions.\u201d (App. C, 40) She continued, \u201cSo, I remember that \npart, but I don\u2019t remember much else of what happened up in that room.\u201d (App. C, 40) \n did not specifically respond to those statements during the call.  \nb.\n \nIn \ns December 11 interview, he confirmed that he \u201chad met [Complainant] one \ntime [. . .] a week before October 19[, 2024,]\u201d adding, \u201cIt was on a Sunday during fall break.\u201d \n(App. A, 250) About that interaction, \n recalled \n inviting him to \nmeet Complainant, that he \u201creluctantly\u201d agreed to go with \n to the Pentz, and that \nhe then met Complainant and her brother. (App. A, 250) He said, \u201cI remember they were \ndrinking alcohol specifically like Keystone, smoking cigarettes. And they were just having some \nPriv\nIn \nIn \ntim\nt\nitted\nher \nher \none.\none.\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n58 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 59 ---\n\u201c\nPage 57 of 97\ncasual conversation. [. . . B]ut most of the time, I was on my phone playing poker.\u201d (App. A, \n250) He added, \u201cI do not recall bringing out any ketamine,\u201d and, \u201cI do not recall [\n \n] bringing out any ketamine that night.\u201d (App. A, 251) At the hearing on May 21, 2025, \n said that there may have been marijuana consumed among that group before he \narrived in the room. At the hearing on May 22, he said that \u201c[\n and other of his \nfriends [. . . \u2018often\u2019] smoke marijuana.\u201d (Trans. 5/22; 27-28) \nDuring the hearing on May 20, \n stated that the alumni room was \u201cone of the big \nsocial areas\u201d for his fraternity pledge class\u2014including \n, and Student AV\u2014and that he was \u201cin that room at least once a day.\u201d (Trans. \n5/20; 11, 14) About what activities occurred in the alumni room, he said, \u201cTo my knowledge, we \nwould go there to eat, play FIFA, and some of the individuals in that room would also smoke \nmarijuana.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 14). He also stated, \u201cKetamine was a prevalent substance that was used \nin our fraternity at the time.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 24) He indicated that he had consumed ketamine \n\u201c[m]aybe three times, four times\u201d prior to the night of October 19, 2024. (Trans. 5/20; 31) He \nrecalled, \u201c[W]hen I first tried ketamine, I was in my own world. I wasn\u2019t really cognizant of my \nsurroundings. I remember my mood being joyous or happy.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 31) At the hearing on \nMay 22, he described experiencing being in and out of consciousness on \u201call\u201d prior occasions in \nwhich he consumed ketamine. (Trans. 5/22; 68) \nRegarding the night of October 19, \n said that he had not consumed any alcohol \nor other substance prior to going to the alumni room at or just after 2:00 a.m. on October 20 \nwhen his sober duty ended, describing his \u201cintoxication level\u201d as \u201ca zero out of 10.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; \n17) He also recounted how he had assisted an intoxicated female who had just thrown up \nelsewhere in the house. In the \n November 7 call, \n told Complainant that he \nwent to the alumni rom because he \u201cwas just trying to smoke.\u201d (App. C, 39)  \nDuring his December 11 interview, he recalled entering the alumni room and seeing \u201cthree \npeople under the sheets\u201d of \n bed\u2014Complainant, \n, and \n (App. A; 230, 231) He indicated that he began talking with the three other \nparties while lying on the couch, including about his night and his \u201chanding out drinks\u201d at the \nparty. (App. A, 232) He continued, \u201cAfter we started conversing, I remember [Complainant] took \noff the covers of the sheets,\u201d and \u201c[s]he was unclothed.\u201d (App. A; 232, 233) In the hearing on \nMay 22, \n said that \u201can alarm bell rang in [his] head\u201d when he first noticed that \nComplainant was naked, but that \u201cit kind of quickly dissipated when she spoke and she seemed \nlike she was having fun[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/22; 17) He said at the hearing on May 20, \u201cWhen \n[Complainant] took off the sheets, as a byproduct, [\n]\u2019s also fell off. So, I realized \nhe was naked as well.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 19) He also described Complainant as \u201cjoking\u201d about \u201ca \nfailed attempt at a threesome.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 19) At the hearing on May 21, Respondent indicated \nthat he was \u201capprehensive of what was going on\u201d at first and that the situation \u201cwas weird.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/21; 60) During his December 11 interview, he stated about what happened next: \nPriv\nlik\nlik\n[Com\n[Co\nhe \nh\nitted\ng\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n59 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 60 ---\nPage 58 of 97\nSo, after [. . .] we had a conversation for 10 minutes, [\n] took out some \nketamine and he [\u2018verbally\u2019] asked [Complainant] for consent and to which [Complainant \n\u2018verbally\u2019] gave to take the ketamine off of her body. [. . .] And when that happened, \n[\n and Complainant] offered if I would like to take ketamine off of her \nbody. And I asked [her], \u201c[Complainant], is this okay?\u201d [. . .] And to which she said that I \ncould take ketamine off of her body. So, given that I had gotten consent, [\n \n] \nhad laid the ketamine on [Complainant]\u2019s torso or [\u2018around the belly button\u2019], and I \n[\u2018inhaled\u2019] some ketamine.  \n(App. A; 232-233, 234, 235, 247) At the hearing on May 20, he said that \n \u201cstood \nup from the bed\u201d when he \u201cfirst reached out to ask if he could consume ketamine\u201d and that \n then saw that \n \u201cwas naked.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 19)  \nDuring his December 11 interview, \n stated, \u201c[W]hile I was taking the ketamine off of \n[Complainant]\u2019s body, she actually was pulling down my pants, like tugging down my pants and \nkind of like in a sexual way. I kind of flinched and I kind of took a step back because I didn\u2019t \nwant to engage in anything like sex.\u201d (App. A, 234) At the hearing on May 20, he described his \nbody position in that moment by saying, \u201c[A]n elbow may have been on the bed, as well as the \ntop part of [my] body but the bottom half may have been on the ground.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 25) He \ndid not recall which hand Complainant used, what kind of pants he was wearing at the time, or \nwhere \n were at that time. He also indicated that Complainant was lying \ndown, with her \u201ctop half\u201d exposed, while he was ingesting ketamine off her body and confirmed \nthat he \u201cinhaled the ketamine with [his] nose.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 22, 29) During his December 11 \ninterview, \n did not recall Complainant or \n consuming ketamine \nwhile he was present in the room.  \nAbout what happened next, \n said, \u201cI remember talking to them. [. . . T]hen the \nketamine started to hit harder [\u2018maybe like five, seven minutes\u2019 later]. And I decided to lay down \non the bed where [Complainant], [\n] were like sitting on. \nAnd I just lied there for like 30 minutes unconscious.\u201d (App. A; 236, 237) He added, \u201c[W]hen I \nwas unconscious, I remember people coming in [to the alumni room], but I did not know who \nthey were.\u201d (App. A, 236) In \n January 16 interview, he explained, \u201cWhen I said \nI was unconscious in the alumni room, [. . .] what I was trying to say is that I was out of it. I was \nlooking at the ceiling the entire time, closing my eyes, and going into a lapse of \u2013 just was \nsleeping, I guess, and waking up, and blinking, and then closing my eyes again.\u201d (App. A, 275) \nDuring the hearing on May 20, \ndescribed this experience by saying, \u201cI was very \nmuch concerned more about my sense of being and my own consciousness.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 40) \nWhen asked if it was possible that he was engaging with others in the room at the time, he \nanswered, \u201cIt could be possible but I would doubt it. [. . .] Perhaps I was. I\u2019m not completely \nsure.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 41-42) In his December 11 interview, \n recalled, \u201cThen, when \nI woke up, everyone had left the alumni room.\u201d (App. A, 236) At the hearing on May 20, he \nexplained that he actually left with the rest of the group and recalled interacting with \n \nPriv\nDu\nD\nmuch\nmu\nWh\nW\nitted\nat I\n]\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n60 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 61 ---\nPage 59 of 97\nas he did so. In the \n November 7 call, \n told Complainant, \u201cI came [into the \nalumni room] when it was just you, [\n], and [\n]. And then, I left. [. . \n.] And then, I think this thing escalated and I left, actually.\u201d (App. C, 39)  \nRegarding his consumption of ketamine in the alumni room that night, \n said at \nthe hearing on May 20, \u201cI think perhaps when I was under the influence of ketamine, after \nhaving consumed it with \n I may have consumed it again. I\u2019m not entirely sure \nand I don\u2019t have a recollection of me consuming ketamine again. But I may have consumed \nketamine a second time in the alumni room.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 27) When asked why he ingested \nketamine off Complainant\u2019s body that night, \n answered, \u201cI think when I first \nentered the alumni room, I was first of all greeted by three people who seemed to be having a lot \nof fun and who seemed not to mind the fact that ketamine was active in that room.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; \n28) He continued, \u201cBut also, I feel maybe I was charmed by their energy and the fact that they \nwere having fun and I wanted to have fun as well.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 28) He also described \u201cthe act \nof consuming a substance off of someone\u2019s body\u201d as \u201cludicrous [. . .] in hindsight.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; \n29) He indicated that he did not possess nor give ketamine to Complainant at any time.  \nAbout what happened next, \n stated in his December 11 interview, \u201cSo, when I \ncame out of the alumni room [at \u2018around 3:15 a.m.\u2019], I [\u2018immediately\u2019] walked up to the Pentz, \nand that\u2019s where I met [\ns date, [\n], and \n[Complainant].\u201d (App. A; 237, 238) \n described the Pentz as a social room in \u201cthe \nattic\u201d of the Chi Phi house. (App. A, 237) He said that the five of them then \u201chad a lively, nice \nconversation\u201d for \u201caround an hour.\u201d (App. A, 237) At the hearing on May 20, he described \nspecifically where everyone was seated on the couches in the Pentz as they talked.29 In his \nDecember 11 interview, he recalled, \u201c[D]uring our conversations, [. . . Complainant] had \nspecifically said that she could not feel the effects of ketamine. It went something along the lines \nof, \u2018It\u2019s weird, but I don\u2019t think I can feel the effects of ketamine.\u2019\u201d (App. A, 237) At the hearing \non May 20, \n indicated that he understood by Complainant\u2019s statements in that \nregard that she had consumed ketamine in the alumni room earlier that night.  \nDuring his December 11 interview, \n recalled that, at some point, \u201cthere were \nsome people right outside of the attic who were listening into [the] conversations\u201d due to \n\u201crumors coming out\u201d about \u201csome weird sexual activities that were happening\u201d in the alumni \nroom. (App. A, 239) He said, \u201c[\u2018You could hear the whispers\u2019 and \u2018a little fidgeting of they\u2019re \nwalking.\u2019] And [Complainant] was telling us about it. And they were like, \u2018Yeah, we should \nprobably go somewhere that\u2019s more private, right.\u2019 So, we went to the room that\u2019s actually right \n29 During the hearing on May 2, Complainant said, \u201cI ended up in [the Pentz] for two seconds, but I don\u2019t have any \nmemory of sitting in that room. [. . .] I remember being shoved into the closet. [. . . A]t no time was I in this huge \ncouch area, or anything like that. That would\u2019ve been great. I\u2019m sure I would\u2019ve lied down and gone to sleep.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/2; 78) About seeing \n account of this time period in the evidentiary record, Complainant \nsaid at hearing on May 5, \u201cI read that. And I was like, \u201cWhat is going on?\u201d That was one of the most shocking ... I \nhave no clue what [\n was talking about. I do not remember that at all.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 30)   \nPriv\npro\npr\niv\n2\nitted\nsure\nsure\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n61 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 62 ---\nPage 60 of 97\nnext to [\n \ns room, which is called the foffice.\u201d (App. A; 239, 240) \nHe also said, \u201cI believe [Complainant] told us that she was uncomfortable with these random \npeople in the other corner of the house listening to our conversation. So, the foffice is maybe five \nsteps away from the [Pentz . . . .] So, we figured we could get more privacy there. I don\u2019t \nremember clearly who mentioned let\u2019s go into the foffice, but we did go in there.\u201d (App. A, 253) \nHe added, \u201cI did not know there were rumors going around during the night.\u201d (App. A, 240) \n also recalled that \n date left the Pentz after \u201cmaybe \nan hour.\u201d (App. A, 239)  \nIn the hearing on May 20, \n recalled that after the three parties entered the foffice, \nhe was \u201cstanding half-ish, half-ish sitting down on the desk,\u201d Complainant was \u201csitting on the \nblack reclinable chair,\u201d and \u201c[\n] was sitting on the wooden chair.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; \n58) Regarding what occurred in the foffice that night, \nindicated that he, \nComplainant, and \n engaged in conversation \u201cfor around an hour and a half\u201d \ncovering a variety of topics, including their respective high school experiences, music, the prior \nthreesome activity, and previous rumors about Complainant. (App. A, 241) He also recalled \nComplainant playing music on the computer that was present in the space. During the hearing on \nMay 20, \n described these conversations as \u201cdeep.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 61) He indicated \nin the hearing on May 21 that he felt \u201ccloser\u201d to Complainant and that he \u201ccame [to] have more \nintimate connection with [her]\u201d because of these interactions. (Trans. 5/21; 5, 64) He said during \nthe hearing on May 20 that he \u201cd[id]n\u2019t really remember a lot [\u2018about\u2019] how [\n] \nresponded\u201d during the conversations because the Formal Complaint charges involved him and \nComplainant, though he did recall that Complainant \u201cwas holding eye contact with [\n \n] a lot and looking at him.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 63, 66) During his December 11 interview, \n said: \nAnd because of these conversations, I did not think none of us were inebriated or under \nthe influence of drugs anymore. [. . . B]ut then, after like an hour and a half [or \u201ctwo \nhours\u201d], [\n asked [Complainant] if we could have a threesome, I assume, I \ndon\u2019t know why, maybe because it failed last time or something. I don\u2019t know. And \n[Complainant] said [. . .], \u201cYeah, let\u2019s do it.\u201d But something I specifically remember after \n[\n] had asked [Complainant] if we could have a threesome, I had \nspecifically stated, I said, \u201c[Complainant], by the way, if you\u2019re uncomfortable and you \ndon\u2019t want to do this, that\u2019s perfectly okay. We can just call it a night.\u201d To which she said, \n\u201cNo, it\u2019s fine. We\u2019re all consenting adults here,\u201d and that she wants to have a threesome.  \n(App. A; 242, 244) At the hearing on May 20, \n explained the reasons why he \nmade those statements as, \u201cI know she must have been tired, [\u2018it was so late,\u2019. . . \u2018I think we were \nall feeling a little bit tired at that time,\u2019]\u201d; \u201cI didn\u2019t know if she wanted to have another sexual \nactivity so close [to the prior \u2018failed threesome\u2019]\u201d; and, \u201cI myself was reluctant to have a \nthreesome.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 64, 65) He indicated that at no point did Complainant verbalize or \notherwise communicate that she was tired while they were in the foffice.  \nPriv\n(App\n(Ap\nma\nm\nitted\n3) )\n)\nybe\nybe\nHearing Panel Decision - SK \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n62 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 63 ---\nPage 61 of 97\nAbout what happened next, \n stated during his December 11 interview, \u201cI asked \n[Complainant] if I could have oral sex,\u201d and, \u201cWhen she was giving me oral sex [as \u2018I was sitting \non my chair\u2019], I struggled getting an erection. And I remember her telling me specifically not to \nbe embarrassed and that this is perfectly fine and that no one would judge me.\u201d (App. A, 245) He \ncontinued, \u201c[A]fter she gave me oral sex for maybe two minutes, [\n] then \nproceeded to ask if he could have oral sex.\u201d (App. A, 245) \n indicated that there \nthen was \u201ca bit of teasing\u201d \u201cin a sexual manner,\u201d after which \u201c[Complainant] gave [\n \n oral sex [for \u2018maybe two minutes\u2019].\u201d (App. A, 245) He stated, \u201cAfter that, [\n] \ninserted his penis into [Complainant]\u2019s vagina and [Complainant] gave me oral sex,\u201d which \nactivity \u201clasted two minutes, three minutes.\u201d (App. A, 246) When asked if \n \ncontinued to engage in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant after the oral sex between \nComplainant and \n ended, \n answered, \u201cI\u2019m sorry, but from that \nnight, I remember things about what happened with me, so I don\u2019t remember.\u201d (App. A, 246) He \nadded, \u201cI believe [\n] received oral sex afterwards and then, yeah. And that was it.\u201d \n(App. A; 246-247) At the hearing on May 21, \n recalled that when Complainant \nstopped engaging in oral sex with him, he \u201cwalk[ed him]self to near the door of the foffice\u201d and \nwas there \u201con [his] phone [\u2018deliberately turned away\u2019].\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 7, 8) When asked during \nhis December 11 interview if the three of them consumed ketamine in the foffice at any time, \nanswered, \u201cNo, no, there was no drugs. There was no alcohol in the foffice.\u201d \n(App. A, 254) \n indicated he was with \n and Complainant the entire \ntime they were in the foffice. During his interviews, \ndid not recall \n \n appearing in the foffice at any time, but explained at the hearing on May 21 that, \u201cafter \nreading all the accounts\u201d in the evidentiary record, he was \u201creminded\u201d that \n was \npresent \u201cbriefly\u201d in the foffice, \u201cwearing his pajamas and [looking] fresh as though he had \nshowered.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 11).  \nAbout what happened after the sexual activity in the foffice ended, \n recalled in \nhis December 11 interview, \u201c[B]y the time we decided to go to bed[,] light was beginning to \nshine. Sunrise was happening. It was very, very early in the morning.\u201d (App. A, 244) He \nindicated that the three parties left the foffice together, and Complainant then went to sleep in the \nbedroom \n shared with \n \n said, \u201cIt was around like 7:10 \na.m.\u201d when he went to bed thereafter. (App. A, 247) He also said, \u201cI think one of the things that \ncame up in my allegation was something to do with free pussy downstairs, like a text like that. \nFor the record, my first time hearing about this was [. . .] on Side Chat [days later]. So, to be \nclear, I\u2019ve never seen such a text or any pictures.\u201d (App. A, 248)   \nDuring his January 16 interview, \n recounted a telephone call with Complainant in \nNovember 2024.30 When asked if the parties discussed on the call \u201canything related to the \n[Formal Complaint allegations], or either [Complainant]\u2019s experience from that night, or [his] \n30 Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the Panel understood \n statements in this regard to \nrefer to the \n November 7 call.  \nPriv\ncle\ncl\nDuri\nDur\nN\nitted\nhere\nhere\n \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n63 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 64 ---\nPage 62 of 97\nrecollections of that night,\u201d \n answered, \u201cNo.\u201d (App. A, 272) He added, \u201cI \nremember one thing she told me was she was talking to the University [about] a leave of \nabsence.\u201d (App. A, 272) He also said they discussed a \u201cHalloween party\u201d at the Chi Phi house \nduring that call. (App. A, 273) At the hearing on May 21, \n said about the \n \nNovember 7 call, \u201cI think when I was having this phone call with [Complainant], [. . .] I was \nconcerned that there would be [. . .] a crime alert that would come out accusing me of things that \nI didn\u2019t do. [. . .] I was just trying not to argue with her. And for that reason, I was kind of \nreaffirming what she\u2019s saying or kind of giving passing comments[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 25) He \nadded, \u201cI was not aware that this was a recorded phone call and I was kind of in a very casual \nstate of mind.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 26) He also said about the call generally, \u201cI don\u2019t know this girl that \nmuch. I mean, that was the first time I ever had a conversation with her. So, I don\u2019t feel like I had \nany obligation to be completely telling the truth with her[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 57) \nDuring the hearing on May 20, \n stated, \u201cThere are a lot of, I believe, gaps in my \nmemory that I have recollected. [. . . After receiving notice of the Formal Complaint charges], I \nwas trying to rationalize in my head how it was false and providing an explanation that I figured \nout and I thought was reasonable as to why these things were false.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 43) He \ncontinued, \u201cFor that reason, I was feeling very defensive about some of the accusations that were \nbeing pointed at me. [. . .] Because of that, I think I left out a lot of parts that I remembered from \nthat night, that didn\u2019t have to do with the things that I was directly being accused with. [. . .] I put \nmyself in a very defensive position[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 43) \nc.\nAdditional Evidence  \nComplainant\u2019s brother emailed the Investigator on March 5, 2025. He wrote in that message that \nhe went with Complainant to the Chi Phi house on Friday, October 11, 2024, \u201caround 12:00 \na.m.\u201d (App. B, 335) He continued, \u201cMy sister introduced me to [\n and [\n \n] in the \u2018penthouse\u2019 [. . . and] shortly after, [\n] arrived, who neither of us knew. \nAfter around thirty minutes, [\n offered [Complainant] ketamine, which she \ndeclined, and then offered me, and I also declined. I saw [\n] use \nketamine.\u201d (App. B, 335) \nAt the beginning of the \nNovember 7 call, \n asked Complainant regarding \nOctober 19, 2024, \u201cDo you want me to give my recollection of the entire night?\u201d to which she \nreplied, \u201cSure.\u201d (App. C; 28-29) About what happened in the alumni room, \n then \nrecalled that \n and \u201cthree to four guys came in\u201d to the alumni room after he, \nComplainant, and\n had moved to \n bed. (App. C, 30) Complainant \nthen indicated that \n entered the bed with the three parties, after which \n stated, \u201c[A]fter that, we moved up to the foffice, you, me, and [\n]. \nThen, you tapped out. And we were like, \u2018Fair enough.\u2019 And then you moved to my room. \n[\n] dipped.\u201d (App. C, 30) He recalled that he and Complainant then talked \u201ca bit\u201d \nbefore going to sleep. (App. C, 30) \nPriv\nr\nCom\nCo\nthen\nthen\nitted\ns that\ns that\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n64 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 65 ---\nI\n|\nPage 63 of 97\n said during his interview that, after \n entered the alumni room on \nthe night of October 19, 2024, \n \u201casked if [they] wanted to do more ketamine,\u201d \nand that \n then \u201cdid more ketamine with [\n].\u201d (App. A, \n186) \n recalled that \n ketamine was in \u201c[t]he same kind of bag that \n[they] found earlier\u201d in the room close in time to the threesome activity. (App. A, 212) When \nasked if \n shared where he had gotten the ketamine, \n answered, \n\u201cNot that night. But we knew he got it from the same person every time. I don\u2019t know who it is \nthough. [. . .] He just has their number saved in his phone as an emoji.\u201d (App. A, 212)  \n also said during his interview that \n \u201casked [Complainant] if he \ncould do ketamine off of her chest. She said, \u2018Yes.\u2019 He did it, followed by [\n who \nalso asked her first.\u201d (App. A, 186) He recalled that Complainant requested ketamine after the \nothers took some and that\n \n \u201cgave some to her\u201d on a \u201ckey.\u201d (App. A; 214, 219) At \nthe hearing on May 12, when \n was asked if he ingested ketamine off \nComplainant\u2019s body on the night of October 19, \n said, \u201cNot that I remember, but I \nfeel like it definitely could have happened.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 104)  \nWhen \n was asked during his interview if \n \u201cstay[ed] awake for the \nwhole time\u201d they were both in the alumni room,\n answered, \u201cYes.\u201d During the \nhearing on May 12, 2025, \n recalled \n \u201ctapping on his phone\u201d while \nthey were both in the bed in the alumni room. (Trans. 5/12; 93) He also confirmed that \n saw him naked when \n entered the room.  \n recalled going to the foffice after leaving the alumni room that night. He \nindicated that the door to the foffice was closed when he arrived. About what he saw when he \nentered, he said, \u201c[Complainant] was sitting on the desk. [\n] were both \nsitting in chairs in front of her.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 124) When asked to describe their relative \npositions in further detail, \n recalled two desks \u201cin the very back of the room\u201d and \nthat Complainant was on \u201cone along the wall,\u201d with \n \u201copposite her in \nchairs.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 124) When asked if he observed ketamine in the foffice that night, he \nanswered, \u201cNo.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 127) \nDuring \n January 8 interview, he recalled about when he entered the alumni \nroom at or around 2:15 a.m. that \n were in the room with \nComplainant, all \u201cpositioned on a bed,\u201d \u201cengaging in casual conversation.\u201d (App. A; 418, 419) \nAt the hearing on May 14, \n said that the group appeared \u201cjoyous and happy.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/14; 140, 148) In his January 8 interview, he described \n position in the \nbed as \u201cbehind\u201d Complainant. (App. A, 418) He continued, \u201c[A]t some point, I believe, \n[\n], he was talking with [Complainant] and he basically said something about \ndoing ketamine off of [her]. [. . .] Complainant was very enthusiastic.\u201d (App. A, 423) \n \n then recounted how \n poured and inhaled ketamine from off Complainant\u2019s \ntorso. He added that, while he recalled it was \nwho introduced the ketamine, he \nPriv\nA\n(Tra\n(T\nbed \nbed\n[\nitted\nd, \nd,\nisis\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n65 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 66 ---\nJ\nPage 64 of 97\n\u201ccould not see where it came from.\u201d (App. A, 423) He also stated that \n poured \nketamine onto Complainant\u2019s torso for \n to inhale. \nalso recalled \nbeing in his own room after leaving the alumni room later that night. He said that \n \ncame into his room \u201cat some point\u201d and said that \u201cComplainant, [\n], and \n[\n] went to another room in the house.\u201d (App. A, 431) About hearing that, \n recalled, \u201cI was just pretty shocked because it was already late. And yeah, I \ndidn\u2019t know why they would go to another room.\u201d (App. A, 432)  \nDuring Respondent \nDecember 16 interview, he recalled about when he entered the alumni \nroom at or around 2:30 a.m. on October 20, 2024, \u201c[\n was sitting on the bed next \nto [Complainant]. [\n] was sitting on the bed next to her. And [\n \nwas sitting on the very edge of the bed[. . . .] And they all seemed to be talking.\u201d (App. A, 371) \nHe recalled about his time in the room, \u201c[\n] and [Complainant] were \nall engaging in a conversation with themselves.\u201d (App. A, 380) He described them collectively as \n\u201ctalking coherently.\u201d (App. A, 380) \nAt the hearing on May 15, 2025, \n recalled seeing \n \u201csitting next to \n[\n] having a conversation\u201d when he entered the alumni room at or around 2:30 \na.m. on October 20, 2024. (Trans. 5/15; 49) When asked if \n appeared to be \nsleeping or passed out or otherwise not conscious at any point while \n was present, \nhe answered, \u201cNo. If when I walked in [. . .] someone was sleeping, I would have been like, \u2018Is \nhe okay?\u2019 or that kind of thing. So I know that no one was sleeping. Everyone was pretty lively \nand awake.\u201d (Trans. 5/15; 49) \nDuring \n December 17 interview, she recalled seeing \n exiting the \nalumni room with \n, as well as Complainant, at or around 5:00 a.m.  \nDuring \n interview, he confirmed that he shared a bedroom in the Chi Phi house with \n that was adjacent to the Pentz. He described the foffice as \u201ca closet\u201d where he \n\u201cmainly [kept] clothes [. . .] and storage [. . . and] a desk[.]\u201d (App. A, 668) He also recalled being \npresent for an occasion \u201cright before fall break [2024]\u201d when he, \n \n Complainant, and \u201csome relative\u201d of Complainant were all \u201changing out\u201d in the Pentz. \n(App. A, 682) He indicated that he did not remember anyone producing or using recreational \ndrugs at that time. \nAbout the night of October 19, 2024, \n recalled being at an external event from which \nhe returned to the Chi Phi house with \n \u201caround midnight,\u201d danced at the fraternity\u2019s \nparty, and then \u201chung out [in the Pentz] for a little bit,\u201d before going to bed. (App. A, 667) He \nsaid he initially saw \n and Complainant \u201con the balcony [. . .] talking\u201d at around \n\u201cmidnight.\u201d (App. A, 670) He continued, \u201cBut later in the night, I saw [\nand \nComplainant] alongside few other people I don\u2019t really remember [in the Pentz]. [\n \n] might\u2019ve been there, but not really sure. And just a little more small talk, how things been, \nthis, that, the other.\u201d (App. A, 670) He described the later interaction by saying, \u201cI was sort of in \nPriv\nhe \nhe\nparty\npar\nsai\ns\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n66 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 67 ---\nI\nI\nPage 65 of 97\nand out. So, I\u2019d be in my room, and then leave to go hang out with them for a little bit, go back \nin. Not sure how long I did it for, but call it two, three times, I walked in and out.\u201d (App. A; 671-\n672) He \u201cguess[ed]\u201d that each time he went into the Pentz, he was there \u201cbetween five and 15 \nminutes[.]\u201d (App. A, 680) He indicated that the others were \u201cjust listening to music, just hanging \nout\u201d in the Pentz during that time. (App. A, 671) \n recalled going to sleep \u201csometime \nafter [. . .] three, four-ish maybe\u201d on October 20 and \u201cbriefly\u201d seeing \n and \nComplainant enter the bedroom and go to bed. (App. A; 672, 673)  \n confirmed during her interview that she spent the night of October 19, 2024, at the \nChi Phi house with \nin the bedroom he shared with \n She recalled \nmeeting \n and Complainant together that night. About that occasion, \n \nsaid, \u201c[W]e\u2019re in [\n and \ns \u2018bedroom\u2019] together, and we were all just \ntalking.\u201d (App. A; 685, 691) When asked if anyone else entered the room while the four of them \nwere there, \nanswered, \u201cI don\u2019t think so,\u201d although she did recall that \u201ca bunch of the \nguys in Chi Phi were outside the door\u201d of the room, who \n left to speak with \u201cmultiple \ntimes.\u201d (App. A; 686, 687, 688) When asked how long the four of them were in \n \nroom before going to bed that night, \n answered, \u201cDefinitely less than an hour, \nprobably less than 30 minutes.\u201d (App. A, 688) She \u201cguess[ed]\u201d that she went to bed \u201caround like \n1:30-ish\u201d on the morning of October 20.  \nidentified himself during his interview as \n roommate as of October \n19, 2024. He said that he learned after that night that \n were \u201changing out \nwith [Complainant], talking to her in [the foffice for] a long time, like for a majority of the \nnight.\u201d (App. A, 613) He continued, \u201cI think the next day, [\n] was telling me how \nawesome it was. [\n, Complainant, and \n \u2018were naked\u2019 and] having \ndeep conversations.\u201d (App. A; 613, 614) \nAt the hearing on May 28, 2025, \nwas asked if she knew of ketamine being prevalent \nin the Chi Phi house. She answered, \u201cI did,\u201d and indicated that it was a \u201cpretty regular\u201d activity. \n(Trans. 5/28; 116) When asked if it was \u201ceveryone\u201d or just \u201ccertain people\u201d that she knew used \nthe drug, \n said, \u201cFrom what I know, I believe it was fall break that [\n and \n and maybe a couple other people [. . .] spoke about how \n[\n left his ketamine in [\ns car.\u201d (Trans. 5/28; 116) She continued, \n\u201cSo, seeing that, I believe that it was pretty regular use and I have seen them use it at other points \nin time.\u201d (Trans. 5/28; 116) \nd. The Snapchat Messages \nAs discussed in Section IV.H above, \nsent the 1:42 a.m. message to the Snapchat \nActives group. At 2:19 a.m. on October 20, 2024, \n wrote in the Actives group, \n\u201cFree. . .\u201d (App. C, 21) At 2:20 a.m., Respondent \n wrote, \u201c[\n went 7 min ago \nand is not afk sooooo[.]\u201d (App. C, 21) At 2:28 a.m., \n wrote, \u201cI fucking love chi \nPriv\nAs\nA\nitted\ne\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n67 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 68 ---\nPage 66 of 97\nphi[.]\u201d (App. C, 21) The next message to the Actives group, also sent at 2:28 a.m., was attributed \nto the username \u201c\n,\u201d and read, \u201cCHI PHIII\u201d (the \u201c2:28 a.m. message\u201d; App. C, 21)  \nIn the \n November 7 call, Complainant asked \n if he knew \u201cwhy th[e] other \nguys [were] in\u201d the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024, while she \u201cwas obviously \nnaked underneath the covers,\u201d and \n answered, \u201cI actually have no idea why. [. . .] \nThere was nothing saying that anything was happening in that room or anything.\u201d (App. C, 40) \n said in his December 11 interview that his \u201cfirst time hearing about\u201d the 1:42 \na.m. message was days later on \u201cSide Chat,\u201d adding that he had \u201cnever seen such a [\u2018free pussy\u2019] \ntext.\u201d During the hearing on May 20, 2025, \n said about his participation in the \nActives group on the night of October 19, \u201cLooking at [. . .] where I had texted something in the \ngroup chat [. . .], it does appear as though I had texted in the group chat when I was in the alumni \nroom. But I do not remember texting. I was very shocked when I saw a text that I had sent.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/20; 44)  \nIn reviewing the totality of the circumstances, noting that the username \u201c\n\u201d is \n \ns first name and \n own statements, the Panel found by preponderance of \nevidence that he sent the 2:28 a.m. message. \nPriviviv\nitted\n[. . .]\n. .]\n40) \n40) \nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n68 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 69 ---\nPage 67 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n69 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 70 ---\nPage 68 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n70 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 71 ---\nPage 69 of 97\n      \nPriv\nitted\nittit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n71 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 72 ---\nPage 70 of 97\n     \n  \nPriv\nitted\nitit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n72 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 73 ---\nPage 71 of 97\n  \n  \nPriv\nitted\nitti\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n73 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 74 ---\nPage 72 of 97\n  \n  \n  \n  \nPriviviv\nitted\nittitt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n74 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 75 ---\nPage 73 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n75 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 76 ---\nPage 74 of 97\nJ.\n  \n1. Complaint Charges Against \n \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \n was charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Assault, Sexual Exploitation, and Aiding Prohibited Conduct \n(Sexual Exploitation). Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) gave \nComplainant ketamine for the purpose of making her vulnerable to nonconsensual sexual assault \nand/or sexual exploitation by himself and/or others; (b) penetrated Complainant\u2019s vulva with his \npenis without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation; (c) touched his nose to Complainant\u2019s naked torso and inhaled a powdered \nsubstance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation; and (d) sent messages to a SnapChat group chat in which he invited others to \ncome to the alumni room to observe Complainant when she was nude or engaged in sexual \nactivity and/or to engage in sexual activity with Complainant, without her knowledge and \nconsent.  \nAs indicated in Section IV.A above, there is no dispute that Complainant generally consented to \nthe sexual interaction that took place during the initial threesome activity involving \n \n. As such, the Panel did not include that specific conduct in its analysis. \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence \na.\nComplainant \nOn the \nNovember 7 call, Complainant referenced her first and second ketamine consumption \non the night of October 19, 2024. She also stated about being in \n bed in the \nalumni room, \u201cI remember yours and my head kept kind of tilting back. We both kept in and out \nof awake,\u201d to which \nreplied, \u201cYeah.\u201d (App. C, 30) At one point in the call, \nComplainant said to \n, \u201cBut you really were fucked up most of the night. You were \nroyally fucked,\u201d and, \u201cI think you and I were probably equal amounts of fucked up on different \nthings.\u201d (App. C, 31) \nDuring Complainant\u2019s interview on November 14, she said that she recalled that, at some point \nin the alumni room while \nwas present,\n requested to \u201cd[o] \nPriv\na\nof aw\nof \nCom\nCom\nr\nitted\nit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n76 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 77 ---\nPage 75 of 97\nketamine off of [her . . .] body,\u201d which she agreed to in some form. (App. A, 73) She continued, \n\u201cI remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just poured all sorts of stuff all \nover me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. I\u2019m not sure if there were other substances other \nthan ketamine but several lines were done by almost everybody. I think everybody had a turn.\u201d \n(App. A, 73) In her November 15 interview, she stated, \u201c[T]hey all were partaking in the drugs \nbecause they did them off of my body. But I did put my hands over my face at that point.\u201d (App \nA; 126-127) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant described herself as \u201cseverely incapacitated\u201d \nwhen she responded to \n request, as well as being \u201csurrounded by a ton of men\u201d \nand feeling a \u201csevere power imbalance[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 71) \nDuring Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she recounted Student AV and \nentering the alumni room later in the night. She recalled her experience of that time by saying, \u201cI \nwas very intoxicated. [. . .] The room was spinning. I was trying to find my dress. [. . .] And then, \n[\n] end up ushering me upstairs[.]\u201d (App. A, 74) During the \n \nNovember 7 call, she stated, \u201cAnd then after that, I was taken up to the room with you and \n[\n].\u201d (App. C, 34) During her November 14 interview, Complainant stated that the \ntwo Respondents brought her to \u201ca [\u2018teeny tiny\u2019] closet that was repurposed into an office \nalmost.\u201d (App. A, 77) Complainant later confirmed that space as the foffice. She recalled at the \nhearing on May 5, \u201c[W]e weren\u2019t in [\ns room [near the foffice] because [\n \n] was with a girl in there. I think [\n told me [. . . p]robably when we first got \nup there.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 21) About the space she was in at that time, she said at the hearing on May \n2, \u201cIt felt like there was a lot of stuff in there. I just felt like I couldn\u2019t move. It felt like I was in a \ncloset. [. . .] It was, again, like I was cornered.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 79) During Complainant\u2019s \nNovember 14 interview, she described the space as having \u201ca table and two monitors [on a desk] \nand like two chairs.\u201d (App. A, 77) She continued: \n[\n sat down in a chair. They gave me more ketamine. [. . .] I \nwatched them pour a lot of it but, of course, I was super kind of in and out of \nconsciousness so I wouldn\u2019t have caught a slight of hand at all. [. . .] I just know \n[\n] asked to have sex again and I said no. I was like, \u201cI don\u2019t know. I\u2019m \nlike worn out,\u201d and I also felt my eyes \u2013 it felt like one was going in that direction and \n[the other] was going in [another] direction.    \n(App. A, 78) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant said, \u201c[W]hen we\u2019re all funneled in there, I \ndon\u2019t think I\u2019m given a chair or anything, so I grab onto the desk for support, and the wall for \nsupport, and then I just, I think, settle on the ground. [. . .] They\u2019re facing me.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 81) \nShe indicated that both \n were between her and the exit door.  \nAbout her ketamine consumption in the foffice, Complainant said during her November 14 \ninterview, \u201cI don\u2019t know how much they poured. I don\u2019t know where I took it from. [. . .] I don\u2019t \nknow where it came from or how it got in my system. [. . .] I\u2019m pretty sure it was that kind of \nfinal bump that made my eyes do the weird eye jerk.\u201d (App. A; 78-79) At the hearing on May 5, \nPriv\nsup\nsu\nShe i\nShe\nA\nitted\nApp \nApp \nted\u201d\nted\u201d\nHearing Panel Decision \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n77 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 78 ---\nPage 76 of 97\nComplainant said that she had \u201clittle to no recollection\u201d of what was happening when she \ningested ketamine in that moment, stating, \u201cI just remember it was done because I had my nose \non something. [\u2018It\u2019s kind of like I wanna say my nose was on a table, but that\u2019s all I ... But again, \nit could be that my nose was actually on a chair.\u2019] That\u2019s all I remember from that.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; \n3)36 She also said, \u201cIt\u2019s just been a long time at this point. I don\u2019t know. [. . . T]here\u2019s a ton of \ntime that elapsed in the foffice or whatever that I have no memory whatsoever.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 5) \nComplainant described how she felt in that moment by saying, \u201cIt\u2019s maybe the most fucked up \nI\u2019ve ever been in my life. [. . .] I remember saying a lot of things but I don\u2019t know what I was \nsaying. I was apparently just talking and talking. My eyes were closed and my mouth was \nrunning [. . . and] I felt like my eyes were going in different directions.\u201d (App. A, 83) At the \nhearing on May 5, she explained, \u201cI said I talked a lot because it felt I talked a lot, but it could be \nthat I didn\u2019t. But there were a lot of moments where they were talking, \u2018cause I remember just \nsitting there \u2018cause [. . . \u2018I was kind of staring at the wall and talking like this over and over, \nmaybe trying to distract from the fact that I thought my eyeballs were going like a chameleon.\u2019 . . \n.] I just remember that being debilitating.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 9-10) She also said, \u201cI couldn\u2019t have \ncommunicated my middle name, I don\u2019t think. I probably could have said my middle name, but \nany sort of thought about my perception of the world, not good, not possible.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 15) \nAbout how \n suggested sexual activity in the foffice, Complainant recalled, \u201cI\u2019m \nlike, \u2018Okay, I\u2019m not feeling the effects of the ketamine as much anymore.\u2019 And then around that \nsame period of time \u2013 \u2018cause I do think that I said that. [. . . ] And then around that same period \nof time I think was the ketamine being given to me again, and [\n saying, \nfollowing that sequence, \u2018Do you wanna have sex again?\u2019\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 6) During her November \n14 interview, Complainant recalled, \u201c[\n said he wanted redemption \u2018cause he \npassed out earlier and didn\u2019t get whatever he wanted,\u201d and, \u201cAnd then he was trying to get his \nhomeboy, [\n], some too, like to hook [\n] up too.\u201d (App. A; 79, 80) \nShe said that she replied by indicating that she \u201cwas tired.\u201d (App. A, 79) She added, \u201cHe\u2019d \ninquired about it multiple times. I think I said no. I think I said that I was tired or that I needed a \nminute. I prolonged [answering the question]. I put it off. I just didn\u2019t want to do it again.\u201d (App. \nA, 81) Complainant also recalled \n appearing in the foffice at some point and \nasking, \u201cYou all are still going?\u201d to which she replied, \u201cYeah, unfortunately\u201d in \u201ca sad, [\u2018not \nenthusiastic\u2019] tone.\u201d (App. A, 81) She stated during the hearing on May 5 that \n \nwas present when \n suggested sexual activity in the foffice.  \nAbout what happened next, Complainant said in her November 14 interview: \nI ended up in the same situation with [\n] as I had with the other \nthreesome, as I ended up in another threesome. But I really did not want to be in that one. \n36 When asked at the hearing on May 5 if there was any reason why Complainant would be in that position if not to \ningest a substance, she answered, \u201cNo. There were times when I would lean up against something, but that\u2019s a \ndifferent movement[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 4) \nPriv\nA\nitted\n; 5)\n; 5)\nup\nup\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n78 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 79 ---\nPage 77 of 97\nI was completely drugged and knocked out. I was half awake. I was on the floor of this \ncloset. I hardly fit in the room. [. . .] And I was so depleted and so tired and wanting to \nleave so badly. And I don\u2019t know how I made the situation stop. I\u2019m not sure if somebody \nhad finished. I\u2019m not sure what happened. \n(App. A, 82) She indicated that, during this sexual activity, she was engaged in oral sex with \n, while \n engaged in vaginal-penile sex with her from behind. She \nrecalled going to \n room after the sexual activity ended, interacting briefly with \n\u201ca girl\u201d who was in the room with \n at the time, and sleeping in \n bed. \n(Trans. 5/5; 21) \nRegarding how it happened that she engaged in sexual activity with \n in \nthe foffice, Complainant said at the hearing on May 5, \u201cI couldn\u2019t get much of anything out. I \njust felt kind of trapped. [\n] are sitting in front of the door, in front of the \nexit. I mean things are still being asked of me sexually. Ketamine is still being given during this \npoint in time. It was just ... I don\u2019t think I felt like I could get out.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 8) She added, \u201cI \ndidn\u2019t want to, but I felt like I had to.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 11)  \nDuring the \n November 7 call, she stated to \n, \u201cI don\u2019t really remember what \nhappened upstairs either. So, I was not really awake. I remember saying a bunch of shit that \nmade no fucking sense. Probably got all high and philosophical. [. . .] I remember I couldn\u2019t \nopen my eyes because I thought that I couldn\u2019t feel the effect of ketamine. [. . . I]t felt like my \neyeballs were going in different directions.\u201d (App. C, 40)  \nComplainant text messaged \n on October 23, 2024, \u201c[E]veryone needs to grow up \ncause sexuality and sex and shit is changing and stuff like this is going to become more \ncommon[,]\u201d and, \u201cI luv u king[.]\u201d (App. B; 242-243) During the hearing on May 5, Complainant \nexplained that \u201cking\u201d is a term that she uses generally with friends, adding about that phrase in \nparticular, \u201c[T]hat\u2019s more Stockholm Syndrome. That\u2019s crazy. I mean that\u2019s just shit \nembarrassing. I don\u2019t even know what to say about that.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 51) About her \u201csexuality\u201d \ncomment, Complainant indicated that it referred to the rumors that were spreading about her \ninvolvement in a sexual situation with multiple male partners and the evolving norms of \npolyamory.   \nb.\n \nchose not to participate in an investigative interview regarding this matter, nor to \nanswer questions at the hearing. Consistent with the Procedures, the Panel drew no negative \ninferences from these decisions. Nonetheless, as reflected below, the information the Panel had \nwith respect to his account of the night of October 19, 2024, was therefore necessarily limited to \nvarious submitted documentary materials, including \n recorded call with \nComplainant and a written statement he submitted on March 17, 2025.  \nPriv\nansw\nan\ninfer\ninfe\nw\nitted\n. She \n. She \nh\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n79 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 80 ---\nPage 78 of 97\nDuring the \n November 7 call, \n asked Complainant, \u201cDo you want me to give \nmy recollection of the entire night?\u201d to which she replied, \u201cSure.\u201d He then indicated that the \nthreesome activity began in the alumni room and, \u201cafter like 10 minutes, [they] slowed down a \nbit,\u201d \u201cdrank\u201d alcohol, \u201cstarted smoking,\u201d and \u201cthen the K[37] started happening.\u201d (App. C, 29) He \ncontinued, \u201cAnd then, I think by this point it\u2019d been like half and hour, and everything was \nhitting me at the same time. I thought I was about to die. [. . .] I moved to the bed and passed \nout[.]\u201d (App. C, 29) \n then recalled waking up; \n leaving the room; \nthe three parties moving to \n bed; \n entering the room; \u201cthree to \nfour guys\u201d coming in, as well; and Complainant\u2019s second ketamine consumption. (App. C, 30) \nHe then said, \u201cAnd from there, it\u2019s kind of hazy. I think people left eventually, after like 20 to 30 \nminutes. I was still in and out of consciousness. [. . .] But after that, we moved up to the foffice, \nyou, me, and [\n]. Then, you tapped out. And we were like, \u2018Fair enough.\u2019 And \nthen you moved to my room.\u201d (App. C, 30) \n March 17 statement did not contain an account of what occurred among the \nparties after the threesome activity ended beyond providing his account of ingesting ketamine \nclose in time to the threesome activity, as follows: \nNo less than 10 minutes after consuming the ketamine I began to struggle breathing [. . . \n\u2018gasping for breath and groaning uncomfortably\u2019]. Several times I lost consciousness \nmomentarily[. . . .] I was too incapacitated to consent to sexual activity anymore. [. . .] I \nattempted to remain conscious. [. . .] I could feel my face contorting as if I was crying, \nbut no tears came out. [. . .] That was the last clear memory I have up until that point. \n(App. B, 260)  \nc.\nAdditional Evidence  \nNo Respondent indicated through statements during interviews or at the hearing that \n \nconsumed ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body while in the alumni room on the night of \nOctober 19, 2024.  \nDuring \n December 11 interview, he recalled meeting \n \n, and Complainant in the Pentz in the early morning hours of October 20, 2024, \nwhere the five of them then \u201chad a lively, nice conversation\u201d for \u201caround an hour.\u201d (App. A, 237) \nHe also said, \u201c[D]uring our conversations, [. . . Complainant] had specifically said that she could \nnot feel the effects of ketamine. It went something along the lines of, \u2018It\u2019s weird, but I don\u2019t think \nI can feel the effects of ketamine.\u2019\u201d (App. A, 237) At the hearing on May 20, 2025, \n \n said about that moment, \u201cI was saying, \u2018Yeah, I\u2019m not feeling any of the ketamine anymore.\u2019 \nThat\u2019s when [Complainant] had said, \u2018Yeah, I didn\u2019t feel any of the ketamine either. I feel like if \nI wanted to feel the ketamine, I should\u2019ve taken a larger dose.\u2019\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 50) When asked \n37 Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Panel understood \n use of the letter \u201cK\u201d in this \nstatement to reference ketamine.  \nPriv\nn\nI can\nI c\nT\nitted\nd d \nm;\nm;\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n80 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 81 ---\nPage 79 of 97\nabout his reaction to that statement, \n said, \u201cI think me and [\n] were \nboth surprised, like, \u2018Oh, really?\u2019\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 50) He continued, \u201cWhen I said we were \nexpressing surprise, for me, I was like, \u2018Oh, so you had taken ketamine in the alumni room,\u2019 and \nI was shocked. For [\n], I\u2019m not completely sure. I think he was more surprised that \nshe was so good at \u2013 she had a good tolerance for the substance and that was what he was \nshocked about.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 52) \nDuring \n December 11 interview, he recalled that he, \n and \nComplainant then moved to the foffice because \u201cthere were some people right outside of the attic \nwho were listening into [the] conversations\u201d due to \u201crumors coming out\u201d about \u201csome weird \nsexual activities that were happening\u201d in the alumni room. (App. A, 239) In the hearing on May \n20, \n recalled that after the three parties entered the foffice, he was \u201cstanding half-\nish, half-ish sitting down on the desk,\u201d Complainant was \u201csitting on the black reclinable chair,\u201d \nand \u201c[\n] was sitting on the wooden chair.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 58) Regarding what \noccurred in the foffice that night, \n indicated that he, Complainant, and \n engaged in conversation \u201cfor around an hour and a half\u201d covering a variety of \ntopics, including their respective high school experiences, music, the prior threesome activity, \nand previous rumors about Complainant. (App. A, 241) He also recalled Complainant playing \nmusic on the computer that was present in the space. During the hearing on May 20, \n \n described these conversations as \u201cdeep.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 61)  \nDuring his December 11 interview, \n said, \u201cAfter like an hour and a half [or \u2018two \nhours\u2019], [\n] asked [Complainant] if we could have a threesome, I assume, I don\u2019t \nknow why, maybe because it failed last time or something.[38] I don\u2019t know. And [Complainant] \nsaid [. . .], \u2018Yeah, let\u2019s do it.\u2019\u201d (App. A; 242, 244) At the hearing on May 21, \n \nsaid, \u201cI had no idea why [\n] had asked if another threesome was possible. [. . .] I \nhave no recollection of the word \u2018redemption\u2019 ever coming out of his mouth.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 55) \nAt the hearing on May 20, \n recalled knowing that Complainant \u201cmust have been \ntired, [\u2018it was so late,\u2019]\u201d but indicated that at no point did Complainant verbalize or otherwise \ncommunicate that she was tired while they were in the foffice. (Trans. 5/20; 64) \n \nalso recalled that Complainant\u2019s behavior towards \n that night caused him to think, \n\u201cOh, wow. This girl really likes [\n].\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 66)   \nAbout what happened next, \n stated during his December 11 interview, \u201cI asked \n[Complainant] if I could have oral sex,\u201d and, \u201c[A]fter [Complainant] gave me oral sex for maybe \ntwo minutes, [\n] then proceeded to ask if he could have oral sex.\u201d (App. A, 245) \n indicated that there then was \u201ca bit of teasing\u201d \u201cin a sexual manner,\u201d after which \n\u201c[Complainant] gave [\n] oral sex [for \u2018maybe two minutes\u2019].\u201d (App. A, 245) He \nstated, \u201cAfter that, [\n] inserted his penis into [Complainant]\u2019s vagina and \n38 In the hearing on May 20, \n recalled Complainant  \u201cjoking\u201d about \u201ca failed attempt at a threesome\u201d \nwhile in the alumni room. (Trans. 5/20; 19) \nPriv\ntw\ntw\n\u201c[C\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n81 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 82 ---\nPage 80 of 97\n[Complainant] gave me oral sex[.]\u201d (App. A, 246) At the hearing on May 21, \n \ndescribed their relative body positions in this moment as, \u201cI was remaining sitting down on the \nwooden chair. [Complainant] was performing oral sex on me and [\n] was behind \nher. He had stood up, and he walked to be in a position behind her.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 5) When asked \nhow Complainant communicated her willingness to engage in that sexual activity with \n answered: \nI believe [\n] asked verbally to [Complainant] if he could penetrate her from \nbehind. And when doing so, I don't remember exactly if [Complainant] gave a specific \nverbal consent, but she positioned her body in a way so that when she was giving oral sex \nto me, her, I guess, behind was directed towards the ground. But when [\n \nasked, her body position moved in a way so that [\n] could penetrate \n[Complainant] from behind. [. . . I]t was a noticeable change in body movement. \n(Trans. 5/21; 6-7) When asked how \n asked verbally \u201cif he could penetrate \n[Complainant],\u201d \n answered, \u201cI just don\u2019t remember the exact words that he \nasked.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 7) About Complainant\u2019s change in body movement in those moments, \n indicated that when Complainant was engaged in oral sex with \n, \nher knees were \u201ctouching the ground. And when [\n] asked verbally if he could \npenetrate her from behind, she then kind of got up on not her two feet, but she kind of extended \nherself.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 7) He described it as \u201ca significant change in body movement so that \n[\n]\u2019s genitalia had access to [Complainant]\u2019s vagina.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 7)  \nWhen asked if \n continued to engage in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant after \nthe oral sex between Complainant and \n ended, \n answered, \u201cI\u2019m \nsorry, but from that night, I remember things about what happened with me, so I don\u2019t \nremember.\u201d (App. A, 246) He added, \u201cI believe [\n received oral sex afterwards \nand then, yeah. And that was it.\u201d (App. A; 246-247) At the hearing on May 21, \n \nrecalled that when Complainant stopped engaging in oral sex with him, he \u201cwalk[ed him]self to \nnear the door of the foffice\u201d was there \u201con [his] phone [\u2018deliberately turned away\u2019].\u201d (Trans. \n5/20; 7, 8) When asked during his December 11 interview if the three of them consumed \nketamine in the foffice at any time, \n answered, \u201cNo, no, there was no drugs. \nThere was no alcohol in the foffice.\u201d (App. A, 254) \n indicated he was with \n and Complainant the entire time they were in the foffice. During his interviews, \n did not recall \n appearing in the foffice at any time, but explained \nat the hearing that, \u201cafter reading all the accounts\u201d in the evidentiary record, he was \u201creminded\u201d \nthat Respondent was present \u201cbriefly\u201d in the foffice, \u201cwearing his pajamas and [looking] fresh as \nthough he had showered.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 11).  \nAbout what happened after the sexual activity in the foffice ended, \n recalled in \nhis December 11 interview, \u201c[B]y the time we decided to go to bed[,] light was beginning to \nshine. Sunrise was happening. It was very, very early in the morning.\u201d (App. A, 244) He \nPriv\nat t\nat\nthat R\ntha\ntho\nt\nitted\nom\nom\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n82 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 83 ---\nI\nPage 81 of 97\nindicated that the three parties left the foffice together, and Complainant then went to sleep in the \nbedroom \n shared with \n \n said, \u201cIt was around like 7:10 \na.m.\u201d when he went to bed thereafter. (App. A, 247) \nDuring \n interview, he recalled going \u201cto another brother\u2019s room\u201d after the \nalumni room on the night of October 19, 2024, and then \u201cup to [\n]\u2019s room to check \non [\n], [Complainant], and [\n because he \u201cknew they went up \nthere.\u201d (App. A, 187) He continued: \nI found the three of them in like, this little office space that\u2019s right next to [\n \n]\u2019s room. I walked in. They were just having a conversation. Nothing was going on. So \nI asked them like, \u201cYou guys are still up? How is she getting home? Is she okay?\u201d All \nthat. And she said, \u201cYeah, we\u2019re still up.\u201d She was gonna sleep in [\n]\u2019s \nroom that night. And I was like, \u201cOkay, as long as that\u2019s fine.\u201d And I went back \ndownstairs and went to bed. \n(App. A, 187) At the hearing on May 12, \nindicated that he thought the room he \nwent to after the alumni room that night belonged to \n About why he went to \n\u201ccheck on\u201d the others, he stated, \u201cI was just kind of curious what was going on up there, how \n[Complainant] was getting home, if she was going home that night, where she was sleeping.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/12; 122) He recalled that he had \u201cnoticed them going up\u201d towards the Pentz. He \ndescribed the Pentz as \u201cwhere [\n] usually hangs out.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 123)  \n recalled that the door to the foffice was closed when he arrived there that night. \nAbout what he saw when he entered, he said, \u201c[Complainant] was sitting on the desk. \n[\n] were both sitting in chairs in front of her.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 124) When \nasked to describe their relative positions in further detail, \nrecalled two desks \u201cin \nthe very back of the room\u201d and that Complainant was on \u201cone along the wall,\u201d with \n \n \u201copposite her in chairs.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 124) \nAbout the night of October 19, 2024, \nrecalled being at an external event from which \nhe returned to the Chi Phi house with \n \u201caround midnight,\u201d danced at the fraternity\u2019s \nparty, and then \u201chung out [in the Pentz] for a little bit,\u201d before going to bed. (App. A, 667) He \nsaid he initially saw \n and Complainant \u201con the balcony [. . .] talking\u201d at around \n\u201cmidnight.\u201d (App. A, 670) He continued, \u201cBut later in the night, I saw [\n and \nComplainant] alongside few other people I don\u2019t really remember [in the Pentz]. [\n \n] might\u2019ve been there, but not really sure. And just a little more small talk, how things been, \nthis, that, the other.\u201d (App. A, 670) He described the later interaction by saying, \u201cI was sort of in \nand out. So, I\u2019d be in my room, and then leave to go hang out with them for a little bit, go back \nin. Not sure how long I did it for, but call it two, three times, I walked in and out.\u201d (App. A; 671-\n672) He \u201cguess[ed]\u201d that each time he went into the Pentz, he was there \u201cbetween five and 15 \nminutes[.]\u201d (App. A, 680) He indicated that the others were \u201cjust listening to music, just hanging \nout\u201d in the Pentz during that time. (App. A, 671) \n recalled going to sleep \u201csometime \nPriv\nthis, \nthis\nand\na\nitted\nheck \neck \np\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n83 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 84 ---\nI\nI\nPage 82 of 97\nafter [. . .] three, four-ish maybe\u201d on October 20 and \u201cbriefly\u201d seeing \n and \nComplainant enter the bedroom and go to bed. (App. A; 672, 673)  \n confirmed during her interview that she spent the night of October 19, 2024, at the \nChi Phi house with \n in the bedroom he shared with \n She recalled \nmeeting \n and Complainant together that night. About that occasion, \nsaid, \u201c[W]e\u2019re in [\nand \n \u2018bedroom\u2019] together, and we were all \ntalking.\u201d (App. A; 685, 691) When asked if anyone else entered the room while the four of th\nwere there, \nanswered, \u201cI don\u2019t think so,\u201d although she did recall that \u201ca bunch of the \nguys in Chi Phi were outside the door\u201d of the room, who \n left to speak with \u201cmultiple \ntimes.\u201d (App. A; 686, 687, 688) She described \n and Complainant as \u201creally \nfriendly,\u201d \u201ccuddling [\u2018as they were falling asleep\u2019],\u201d and \u201ca little bit tipsy.\u201d (App. A; 688, 691) \nWhen asked how long the four of them were in \n room before going to bed that \nnight, \n answered, \u201cDefinitely less than an hour, probably less than 30 minutes.\u201d (App. \nA, 688) She \u201cguess[ed]\u201d that she went to bed \u201caround like 1:30-ish\u201d on the morning of October \n20.  \nDuring \n interview, she stated, \u201cI was witness to some phone calls that happened \nparticularly between [Complainant] and [\n].\u201d (App. A, 506) She continued, \u201c[H]e \nwas saying, \u2018I\u2019m sorry, I\u2019m sorry,\u2019 over and over. And [Complainant would] describe back to him\nwhat had happened the same way she described it to me, saying, \u2018How could you let this \nhappen?\u2019 And he was just quiet on the other line. And then, he just said, \u2018I\u2019m sorry.\u2019 And she was \nvery upset.\u2019\u201d (App. A, 506) \n added, \u201cAnd [Complainant] would be very descriptive in \nthese phone calls and say [. . .] \u2018You had penetrative sex with me. I had so much ketamine, my \neyes were crossed, and you still had sex with me.\u2019 And he did not deny that.\u201d (App. A, 506) She \ndescribed those calls taking place \u201c[a]bout a week\u201d after October 19, 2024. (App. A, 506)  \nd. The Snapchat Messages \nAs shown in the Snapchat video, on October 20, 2024, after \n 1:42 a.m. message \nin the Actives group \u201cFree pussy in alum pu\u201d (see Section IV.H above), a username attributed to \n\u201d wrote \u201cI fucking love chi phi\u201d at 2:28 a.m.; \u201cLike you can walk in and whit it \nout rn\u201d at 2:31 a.m.; and shared a photograph of Complainant at 2:35 a.m. (the \u201c2:35 a.m. \nimage\u201d).39 At 2:35 a.m., a different username wrote, \u201cShop still open?\u201d and the \u201c\n\u201d \nusername replied, \u201cYeah \u0362\u0363\u0364\u0365\n\u201d and, \u201c\n laying rn [. . .] Lowkey he\u2019s cucking all of us[.]\u201d At \nor about 2:37 a.m., the \n\u201d username wrote, \u201cBoys come whip it out[.]\u201d   \nIn the totality of the circumstances, noting that the username \u201c\n exactly matched \nfull name, the Panel found by preponderance of evidence that \n \n39 This image is visible in the multimedia file labeled, \u201cChi Phi Actives Conversation\u201d in Appendix C. \nPriv\nor\no\nIn th\nIn t\ned\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n84 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 85 ---\nPage 83 of 97\nsent all Snapchat messages in the Actives group attributed to the username \n,\u201d \nincluding the 2:35 a.m. image (collectively, the \u201c\n Snapchat messages\u201d).  \nDuring Complainant\u2019s February 7 interview, the Investigator showed her the 2:35 a.m. image. \nUpon viewing, Complainant stated, \u201cWhat...in the world?\u201d and, \u201cI have no recollection of that \nwhatsoever.\u201d (App. A, 145) At the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant identified herself as \n\u201cthe person that\u2019s smiling\u201d in the photograph and said, \u201cThat image is kind of upsetting to me[. . \n. .] I look hammered in [it].\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 67) She also stated, \u201cIt doesn't appear that I'm wearing a \nshirt. My eyes are closed. And I look like a hammered sorority girl, is what I call this image I \nhave absolutely zero recollection of this picture being taken.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 67) \n  \n  \nPrivivivi\nitted\ns\nme[. .\nme[. .\ng a\ng a\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n85 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 86 ---\nPage 84 of 97\n  \n          \nPriviviviv\nitted\nit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n86 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 87 ---\nPage 85 of 97\n   \n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\nitt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n87 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 88 ---\nPage 86 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n88 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 89 ---\nPage 87 of 97\n       \nV.\nSanctions and Recommendations  \nIn determining sanctions and remedies in this matter, the Panel considered the goals of the Policy \nand the Procedures, as well as all factors listed in Procedures Section 26.13, applied to each party \nindividually, as appropriate. The Panel also considered the impact and mitigation statements \nsubmitted.  \nPrivivivi\nitted\ntit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n89 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 90 ---\nPage 88 of 97\n  \n  \n    \nPrivivivi\nitted\ntittit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n90 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 91 ---\nPage 89 of 97\n        \n   \n       \n  \n  \nPriviviv\nitted\ntitit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n91 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 92 ---\nPage 90 of 97\nC. Respondent \n \nIn determining sanctions and remedies with respect to Respondent \n, the Panel reviewed the \nseriousness of the prohibited conduct committed (attempted sexual exploitation), as well as the \nunderlying circumstances. The Panel considered that Respondent \n\u2019s conduct perpetuated for \nComplainant an experience of unwelcome and uninvited exposure. She described those moments \nin the hearing on May 2, 2025, by saying, \u201cI felt like bait. I felt like lions around me. It just was a \ntotally debilitating place to be in.\u201d The Panel also acknowledged Respondent \n\u2019s statement at \nthe hearing on May 21, 2025, \u201cI was sorry that maybe if it wasn\u2019t consensual and she was \nvictimized, I was sorry for not stopping it. And that I\u2019m sorry I couldn\u2019t tell if she was under the \ninfluence [. . .] just sorry that I felt like if something actually bad happened, I didn\u2019t stop it.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/21; 176) \nUpon due deliberation, the Panel imposed the following sanction with respect to Respondent \n\u2019s Policy violation: \nx\nImposition of a one-way No Contact Order (NCO) with Complainant, wherein all duties, \nburdens, and obligations of no contact between the parties are carried by Respondent \n \nfor the duration of his enrollment at the University.  \no\nModifications to the NCO may be made consistent with the Procedures only at the \ndiscretion of the Title IX Coordinator. A violation of the NCO may be additional \nprohibited conduct.    \nx\nWithin ninety (90) days after this Decision becomes final (otherwise subject to \nreasonable extension approved by the Title IX Coordinator), Respondent \nwill \nparticipate in a Directed Study through COCR focused on the issues of social media use \nand sexual harassment, as well as bystander intervention. \no\nRespondent \n will contact the COCR at (titleix@cornell.edu) to coordinate and \nschedule this study with the Civil Rights Education and Training Specialist. The \nCOCR will monitor compliance with this sanction. \nx\nWithin ninety (90) days after this Decision becomes final (otherwise subject to \nreasonable extension approved by the Title IX Coordinator), Respondent \n will submit \nto the Title IX Office a reflection paper that engages with the specific circumstances for \nwhich he was found responsible and contains a detailed proposal for future University \neducational materials to train undergraduate students around the intersection of social \nmedia use and sexual harassment, as well as bystander intervention. The reflection paper \nmust also include recommendations to the University\u2019s Office of Sorority & Fraternity \nLife with respect to substance use prevention efforts in Greek Life organizations on \ncampus. Use of artificial intelligence tools of any kind in the creation of this reflection \npaper is prohibited.  \nx\nThe Hearing Panel expects that Respondent \n will take this educational opportunity \nseriously and apply what he learns to help improve the University/Greek Life community. \nPriv\nitted\nments\nents\nwas a\nwas a\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n92 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 93 ---\nPage 91 of 97\nTo that end, and to the extent reasonably requested by COCR, Respondent \n will \nengage substantively in creating educational programming for the University community \naround the intersection of social media use and sexual harassment, as well as bystander \nintervention and substance use prevention on campus.  \nThe Panel imposes this sanction with knowledge of Respondent \n\u2019s lack of non-academic \ndisciplinary record and with the intent that it provide him opportunity for understanding and \nmaturation, as well as to actively contribute to the safety of both Complainant and the University \ncommunity as a whole.  \n    \nPriv\nitted\nd\ntyty\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n93 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 94 ---\nPage 92 of 97\n  \n  \n  \nPriviviv\nitted\nit\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n94 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 95 ---\nPage 93 of 97\n       \n   \n      \n  \nPriviviv\nitted\nti\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n95 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 96 ---\nPage 94 of 97\n  \n     \nPriv\nitted\nittit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n96 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 97 ---\nPage 95 of 97\n  \n  \n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\nit\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n97 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 98 ---\nPage 96 of 97\n  \n   \nH. Recommendations to the University  \nIn the Panel\u2019s review of this matter and consistent with its role in this process, the Panel \nrecommends to the Title IX Coordinator that the University explore the following measures on \ncampus to remedy the effect and/or prevent the reoccurrence of the prohibited conduct: \nx\nConsider a comprehensive Policy review of currently-prohibited conduct to remain \nconsistent with ever-evolving uses of technology, including social media, and interactions \nof the same with sexual harassment on campus.  \nx\nConsider an immunity Policy for reporting sexual misconduct occurring online, including \nby way of social media.  \nx\nTo the extent not already done, require trainings every semester for members of \nUniversity Greek life on substance use, the Good Samaritan/Immunity policy, bystander \nintervention, and consequences for violating applicable conduct codes around substance \nuse. The Panel makes this recommendation understanding that pledge season in the \nSpring may allow for the content of the two semesters\u2019 trainings to differ in their \napproach and target audiences.  \nRespectfully submitted,  \nSavannah Bao \nKelly King-O\u2019Brien \nRob Kotaska \nPriv\nRes\nRes\nitted\nittitt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n98 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 99 ---\nPage 97 of 97\nVI.\nAppeal Information  \nParties may appeal this Determination. The Procedures set forth the process applicable to any \nappeal. In sum, appeals may be brought only upon one or more of the following grounds:  \n1.  The sanctions or remedies are not commensurate with the injury/violation or are unjust. \n2.  A University official or officials, including the Hearing Panel, assigned responsibility for \nperforming specific functions by these procedures, violated the fair application of relevant \nUniversity procedures, and such violation may have had a prejudicial effect upon the \noutcome. This includes conflict of interest or bias. \n3.  A University official or officials, including the Hearing Panel, assigned responsibility for \nperforming specific functions by these procedures, committed an error in interpreting Policy \n6.4, these procedures, and such error may have had a prejudicial effect upon the outcome. \nThis includes determinations of jurisdiction and determinations of Hearing Process.  \n4.  The Hearing Panel rendered a decision that is clearly erroneous. \n5.  New evidence was discovered after the Hearing Panel\u2019s decision that could not have \nreadily been discovered before the decision and that would have probably changed the \noutcome. \nA party may commence an appeal by submitting a written statement to the Title IX Coordinator \nwithin ten (10) business days of issuance of the Hearing Panel\u2019s decision. The appeal statement \nmust set forth: \n\u2022  the determination(s) being appealed, \n\u2022  the specific ground(s) for the appeal, and \n\u2022  the facts supporting the grounds. \nThe appeal statement will be limited to 3500 words. Failure to submit an appeal within the ten \n(10) business days or any approved extension constitutes waiver of the right to appeal. \nPriv\nitted\nfor \nfor \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n99 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026","text":"--- Page 1 ---\ni \nCORNELL UNIVERSITY \nCornell Office of Civil Rights \u2013 Hearing Panel Decision (94428) \nAugust 18, 2025 \nI.\nIntroduction ...................................................................................................................... .... 1\nII.\nApplicable Policy ...................................................................................................... . .... ..... 2\nIII.\nProcedural Overview .......................................................................................................... 3\nIV.\nFindings and Responsibility Determinations ..................................... .... ......................... 6\nA.\nUndisputed Relevant Facts \u2013 October 19 and 20, 2024 ....................... ............................. 6\nB.\nComplainant\u2019s First Consumption of Ketamine ............................ ................................. 10\nC.\n .................................................................. ... ..... ................................... 12\n1.\nComplaint Charges Against\n ............ .................................................. 12\n2.\nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ......... . ........................................................ 12\n3.\nFindings and Determinations with Respect to\n .................................... 16\nD.\nComplainant\u2019s Second Consumption of Ketamine ........................................................... 19\nE.\n...................................... .......................................................................... 22\n1.\nComplaint Charges Against\n ................................................................ 22\n2.\nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 22\n3.\nFindings and Determinations with Respect to\n .................................... 27\nF.\nRespondent \n.... .. ....... ................................................................................................. 31\n1.\nComplaint Charges Against Respondent \n ................................................................ 31\n2.\nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 32\n3.\nFindings and Determinations with Respect to Respondent \n .................................... 36\nG.\n.................................................................................................................. 38\n1.\nComplaint Charges Against\n ................................................................ 38\n2\nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 38\n3.\nFindings and Determinations with Respect to\n .................................... 42\nH.\n.................................................................................................................. 43\n1.\nComplaint Charges Against\n ................................................................. 43\n2.\nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 44\nPriv\nitted\n... 1\n... 1\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n1 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nii \n3. \nFindings and Determinations with Respect to \n ..................................... 49\nI. \n ................................................................................................................ 52\n1. \nComplaint Charges Against \n ............................................................... 52\n2. \nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 53\n3. \nFindings and Determinations with Respect to \n ................................... 66\nJ. \n ........................................................................................................... ..... 74\n1. \nComplaint Charges Against \n ........................................................ ....... 74\n2. \nParty Accounts and Additional Evidence ...................................................................... 74\n3. \nFindings and Determinations with Respect to \n ... ...... ........................ 83\nV. \nSanctions and Recommendations .................................................. . ......... ........................ 87\nA. \n ...................................................................... ..... ... ............................... 87\nB. \n........................................................... ........ ........................................... 89\nC. \nRespondent\n................................................................. ............................................... 90\nD. \n................................................... ...... ..................................................... 91\nE. \n ........................................ .... ...... ............................................................ 92\nF. \n ...................................... ..... .................................................................. 93\nG. \n ................................. ..... ......................................................................... 95\nH. Recommendations to the University ................................................................................ 96\nVI. \nAppeal Information ....... ... ............................................................................................ 97\nPriv\nitted\n53\n..... 66\n..... 66\n74\n74\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n2 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nPage 1 of 97\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY \nCornell Office of Civil Rights \u2013 Hearing Panel Decision (94428) \nAugust 18, 2025 \nI.\nIntroduction\nThis matter involves conduct that Cornell University (the \u201cUniversity\u201d) undergraduate student\n(\u201cComplainant\u201d) reported to the Cornell Office of Civil Rights (COCR)1 regarding \nher experiences on October 19 and 20, 2024, at the Chi Phi Fraternity house located at 107 \nEdgemoor Lane in Ithaca, New York (the \u201cChi Phi house\u201d), on the Cornell University (the \n\u201cUniversity\u201d) campus. Complainant met with COCR and provided an initial in erview on \nNovember 14, 2024. The University initiated a Formal Complaint on November 22, 2024,2\nalleging that the following University undergraduates and then-members of the Chi Phi \nFraternity (the \u201cfraternity\u201d or \u201cChi Phi\u201d) engaged in prohibited conduct on the night of October \n19 into the early morning hours of October 20, 2024 (the \u201cOctober 19 incidents\u201d): \n(\u201c\n\u201d), \n (\u201c\n\u201d),\nchmar (\u201cRespondent \n\u201d); \nScott Norris (\u201c\n (\u201c\n\u201d), \n(\u201c\n\u201d), and \n (\u201c\n\u201d; collectively, \u201cRespondents\u201d and \nwith Complainant, the \u201cparties\u201d). The Formal Complaint alleged that Respondents variously \nengaged in conduct constituting sexual assault sexual exploitation, and/or aiding prohibited \nconduct, as prohibited by University Policy 6.4.3\nUniversity Investigator Samantha Freeburn (the \u201cInvestigator\u201d) investigated the Formal \nComplaint charges pursuant to the University\u2019s Procedures for Resolution of Reports Against \nStudents Under Cornell University Policy 6.4 (the \u201cProcedures\u201d). The Investigator summarized \nthe relevant evidence collected in an Investigative Report (the \u201cIR\u201d) with accompanying \nappendices.4\nA three-member Hearing Panel (the \u201cPanel\u201d) conducted a live hearing (the \u201chearing\u201d) pursuant \nto the Procedures on May 2, 5, 12-15, 20-22, and 27-29, 2025. This Decision outlines the \n1 At the time, COCR was named the Office of Institutional Equity & Title IX (OIETIX). \n2 As di cussed further in Section III below, Complainant filed a Formal Complaint with OIETIX on January 16, \n2025, which modified the Formal Complaint initiated by the University on November 22, 2024. That Formal \nCompla nt was further updated on March 13, 2025 (the \u201cFormal Complaint\u201d). All references herein to the Formal \nComplaint are to the March 13 updated Formal Complaint. \n3 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. \n4 All citations to materials in this Hearing Panel Decision (the \u201cDecision\u201d) reference the evidentiary record, which \nincludes the appendices accompanying the IR (\u201cApp.\u201d) and hearing transcripts (\u201cTrans.\u201d). All quotations herein are \nexcerpted from such materials and retain their original spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization, unless \notherwise indicated, except that non-material edits in punctuation and capitalization were made to certain quotations \nfor clarity. \nPriv\nCo\nC\nCom\nCo\n3 Ch\nCh\nitted\nntnt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n3 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nPage 2 of 97\ninvestigation and hearing process, summarizes the Panel\u2019s findings, and provides the Panel\u2019s \ndeterminations regarding the Formal Complaint charges and applicable University policy.  \nAs discussed further in Section IV below, upon due consideration of all information summarized \nin the Investigative Report and submitted by parties and witnesses in interviews, in writing, and \nat the hearing, the Panel found by a preponderance of the evidence: \nx\n  \n  \nx\nRespondent \nis responsible for attempted sexual exploitation in violation of the \nPolicy. He is not responsible for sexual assault. \nx\n  \nx\n  \n  \n  \nSanctions imposed by the Panel, as well as recommendations to the University based on its \nfindings, may be found in Section V below.  \nII.\nApplicable Policy  \nIn assessing the Formal Complaint allegations, the Panel applied the definitions of sexual \nexploitation, sexual assault, aiding prohibited conduct, and attempting to commit prohibited \nconduct set forth in Section 3 of the Procedures. The Procedures define sexual exploitation, in \nrelevant part, as: \n[I]ntentionally [. . . o]bserving another person when that person is nude or engaged in \nsexual activity without the knowledge and consent of the person observed [. . .]; [. . .] and \nPriv\nIn\nIn\nexplo\nexp\ncon\nitted\nitt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n4 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 5 ---\nPage 3 of 97\n[c]ausing another person to become incapacitated with the intent of making that person \nvulnerable to nonconsensual sexual assault or sexual exploitation. \nThe Procedures define sexual assault as \u201c(1) sexual intercourse or (2) sexual contact (3) without \naffirmative consent.\u201d The further definitions and provisions related to sexual assault under the \nPolicy are incorporated herein by reference.  \nRegarding aiding prohibited conduct, the Procedures provide, \u201cA person aids prohibited \nconduct if, with the intent to promote or facilitate such conduct, that person helps another person \ncommit the prohibited conduct.\u201d \nRegarding attempting to commit prohibited conduct, the Procedures provide, \u201cA person \nattempts to commit prohibited conduct if, with the intent to commit such conduct, that person \nengages in conduct directly tending toward completion of the prohibited conduct.\u201d \nIII.\nProcedural Overview5  \nOn November 8, 2024, the Director of the University\u2019s Office of Sorority and Fraternity Life \nfiled an incident report with OIETIX regarding recently-alleged sexual assault and substance use \nat the Chi Phi house. On November 14, Complainant met with the Investigator and University \nTitle IX Coordinator Lauren Branchini (the \u201cTitle IX Coordinator\u201d), as well as representatives \nfrom the Cornell University Policy Department (CUPD) and the University\u2019s Office of Student \nConduct and Community Standards (OSCCS). During that meeting, Complainant requested a \nformal complaint under the Policy. She was interviewed by the Investigator and CUPD \nInvestigator Jeff Northrop that same day (Complainant\u2019s \u201cNovember 14 interview\u201d). On \nNovember 15, Complainant was interviewed by the Investigator, Investigator Northrop, and \nOSCCS Investigator Sevyn Hardy (Complainant\u2019s \u201cNovember 15 interview\u201d). Also on that date, \nComplainant reviewed, signed, and submitted to CUPD a written statement regarding the \nOctober 19 incidents (Complainant\u2019s \u201cNovember 15 CUPD statement\u201d).  \nAfter initial assessment, the Title IX Coordinator initiated a formal complaint and investigation \nregarding the information provided. Complainant was notified of this decision on November 21, \n2024, on which date she informed the Title IX Office that she wished to be a party to the matter. \nOn November 22, the Title IX Coordinator signed a University complaint and notified \nRespondents of the same in writing. The Investigator began collecting information\u2014including \nby way of investigative interviews with parties and witnesses\u2014shortly thereafter. On January 14, \n2025, Complainant submitted an updated, signed version of the Formal Complaint (the \u201cJanuary \n14 Formal Complaint\u201d), by which she joined the matter as a party; Respondents received written \n5 This Decision summarizes the procedural background of the matter. Additional details in this regard may be found \nin the Investigative Report and Appendices thereto, as well as within the hearing transcripts and record, which are \nincorporated herein by reference.  \nPriv\n2\n14 F\n14\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n5 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nPage 4 of 97\nnotice of the same, as well as a copy of Complainant\u2019s January 14 Formal Complaint, on January \n16.  \nOn January 22, 2025, the parties received all information related to the January 14 Formal \nComplaint that had been collected by the Investigator thusfar.  \nInitial investigative interviews with parties and witnesses in this matter took place as follows: \nx\nDecember 3, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \n \n\u201d; his \n\u201cinterview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 6, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nDecember 9, 2024: \n (his \u201cDecember 9 interview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 9, 2024: University undergraduate student\n \nx\nDecember 9, 2024: University undergraduate student \n her \n\u201cinterview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 10, 2024: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nDecember 11, 2024: \n (his \u201cDecember 11 interview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 13, 2024: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nDecember 16, 2024: Respondent \n (his \u201cDecember 16 interview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 17, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nDecember 17, 2024: University undergraduate student \n her \n\u201cDecember 17 interview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 18, 2024: \n (his \u201cDecember 18 interview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 18, 2024: \n (his \u201cinterview\u201d) \nx\nDecember 18, 2024: University undergraduate student\n \nx\nDecember 19, 2024: National Chi Phi fraternity organization staff member Michael A.  \nx\nDecember 19, 2024: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nDecember 19, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nDecember 20, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nDecember 23, 2024: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nDecember 23, 2024: University undergraduate student \n his \n\u201cinterview\u201d) \nx\nJanuary 6, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nJanuary 6, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nJanuary 6, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nJanuary 7, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nJanuary 8, 2025: \n (his \u201cJanuary 8 interview\u201d) \nx\nJanuary 8, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nJanuary 9, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nJanuary 16, 2025: \n  \nPriv\nx\nitted\nws: \nws:\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n6 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nPage 5 of 97\nx\nJanuary 24, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nJanuary 24, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nJanuary 27, 2025: \n (his \u201cJanuary 27 interview\u201d) \nParty follow-up interviews and additional witness interviews then took place as follows: \nx\nFebruary 4, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nFebruary 4, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nFebruary 7, 2025: Complainant (her \u201cFebruary 7 interview\u201d) \nx\nFebruary 7, 2025: University undergraduate student\n  \nx\nFebruary 10, 2025: \n (his \u201cFebruary 10 interview\u201d) \nx\nFebruary 10, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nFebruary 12, 2025: University undergraduate student\n  \nx\nFebruary 13, 2025: Complainant  \nx\nFebruary 13, 2025: \n \nx\nFebruary 21, 2025: \n  \nx\nFebruary 24, 2025: Respondent\n  \nx\nFebruary 24, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nFebruary 25, 2025: University undergraduate student \n \nx\nFebruary 27, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nFebruary 28, 2025: University undergraduate student \n  \nx\nMarch 3, 2025: \n \nx\nMarch 5, 2025: \n \nIn total, the Investigator conducted over 50 interviews during the investigation, including with 32 \nwitnesses and all parties except \n who declined to participate in an interview in \nthis matter.6\nOn March 12, 2025, Complainant filed an updated Formal Complaint, which added charges to \nthe January 14 Formal Complaint. Respondents received a copy of the updated Formal \nComplaint on March 13. Consistent with the Procedures, the parties were provided with the \ninvestigative record and notified of the opportunity to respond to the same on March 21.  \nThe parties were notified of the Hearing Panel members on March 28 and April 4, 2025, and that \nAttorney Meaghan Borys would act as Hearing Chair for the matter on April 2. The Investigative \nReport was issued on April 16, 2025. Consistent with the Procedures, the Panel held the hearing \nvia Zoom videoconference on May 2, 5, 12-15, 20-22, and 27-29. Complainant and all \nRespondents except for \n submitted written opening statements, submitted closing \n6 Consistent with Procedures Section 21.1, the Panel did not draw any negative inference with respect to \n \n\u2019s decision in this regard.  \nPriv\nRe\nR\nvia Z\nvia \nRe\nR\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n7 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nPage 6 of 97\nstatement(s)\u2014orally and/or in writing\u2014and answered questions of the Hearing Chair, Panel \nmembers, their own advisor, and other parties\u2019 advisors during the hearing.7 The following \nwitnesses also appeared at the hearing and answered questions posed by the Hearing Chair, Panel \nmembers, and party advisors:\n \n.8  \nAfter the close of the hearing, the Panel received written closing statements as submitted and \nengaged in deliberations on its findings, determinations, and sanctions on June 2, 5, 16-17, 26 \n30, and July 7, 2025. 9  \nIV.\nFindings and Responsibility Determinations  \nThe following findings and determinations were made by a majority vote f the Panel based on a \npreponderance of the evidence (\u201cmore-likely-than-not\u201d) standard and resulted from evaluating all \nrelevant information collected by the Investigator and during the hearing process, including both \ninculpatory and exculpatory evidence.10 Credibility assessments were not based on an \nindividual\u2019s status as Complainant, Respondent, or witness for any particular allegation(s). \nConsistent with Procedures Section 26.2, the Panel presumed all Respondents not responsible for \nany Policy violation prior to making its final determinations. \nA. Undisputed Relevant Facts \u2013 October 19 and 20, 2024 \nBased on its review of the evidentiary record, the Panel considered the following facts regarding \nthe night of October 19 into October 20, 2024, to be materially undisputed and supported by a \npreponderance of the evidence in the record, which is incorporated herein by reference. The \nPanel included such undisputed facts in its findings and determinations, accordingly. \nOn the night of October 19, 2024, Complainant consumed alcohol before arriving at the Chi Phi \nhouse at the invitation of \n. The fraternity was hosting a party that night. \n7 Per Procedures Sect on 21.1 \n forfeited his opportunity to testify at the hearing in this matter by way \nof written opening statement, direct questioning, and closing statement(s) because he declined to participate in an \ninvestigative interview that the Investigator deemed necessary. (IR,12) \n was offered the opportunity \nto cross-examine other parties and witnesses through his advisor and to answer questions of the Hearing Chair, \nPanel, and other parties\u2019 advisors as a witness. He elected to ask questions of other parties and witnesses through his \nadvisor, but not to answer questions or attend the hearing. Consistent with Procedures Sections 21.1 and 21.2, and \nrecogni ing that participation in the process was entirely voluntary for all parties, the Panel did not draw any \nnegative inference from his decisions in this regard.  \n8 \nwere also called to testify at the \nhearing but declined to participate.  \n9 Consistent with the Procedures, the Hearing Chair was present for and participated in deliberations, but did not \nvote with respect to findings of fact, determinations of responsibility, or sanctions.  \n10 While this section provides various summaries of evidence as relevant to the Panel\u2019s findings and determinations, \nit is not intended to, nor does it, provide a comprehensive review of the entire evidentiary record with respect to all \ncircumstances related to the Complaint and reviewed by the Panel. \nPriv\n8 \nhearin\nhear\n9\nitted\nnd\nnd\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n8 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 9 ---\nwas a sober monitor\nfor\nthe party,\nand\nwere the\nfraternity's\nsocial\nchairs\nat the time.\nShortly\nafter\nComplainant's\narrival,\nked\nComplainant\nif she would like\nto engage in a \"threesome.\"\nComplainant\nunderstood\nthis\nsuggestion\nto be indicative\nof sexual\nactivity\namong herself,\nand a third\nperson\nand expressed\ninterest.\nAs of that\nnight,\nComplainant\nhad strong romantic\nfeelings\nfor and sexual\ninterest\nin\n| id had for sometime.\nThe two then proceeded to a bedroom on the\nsecond floor\nof the house-belonging\nto\n,\n, and University\nundergraduate\nstudent\nknown within\nthe fraternity\nas the \"alumni\nroom.\" The alumni room was located\noff a balcony area where individuals\noften\ngathered\nand\nwas generally\nregarded\nby membersof the\nfraternity\nas a social\nroom, serving\nboth as a bedroom\nfor\n, and\nand as a generally-unlocked\nspace where\nfraternity\nmembers (and,\nin particular,\nsophomore fraternity\nmembers such as\nwould commonly congregate\nafter\nparties.\nThe furniture\nin the room at the time\nconsisted\nof three\nbeds, one loveseat-style\ncouch,\nand at least\none chair\nas present\nin the alumni room when Complainant\nand\narrived.11\nNo others\nwere present.\nComplainant\nand\nere friends\nat the time and had\nengaged in sexual\nactivity\ntogether\nin the past.\nAfter\nComplainant\nand\nentered\nthe alumni room on October\n19, the three parties\nengaged in sexual\nactivity,\nfor which\nComplainant\nprovided\nconsent.\nSpecifically,\nComplainant\nengaged in oral\nsex with\nn or near the couch,\nwhile\nengaged in vaginal-penile\nsex with her from\nbehind (the \"threesome\nactivity\").\nThe parties\nended the threesome activity\nafter\nsomeminutes.\nAt or around that\ntime,\nthe three\nconsumedliquor\nand smokedmarijuana\ntogether.\nKetamine was\nintroduced\namong the group,\nas well,\nas discussed\nfurther\nin Section\nIV.B below.\nKetamine was a\nsubstance\nused by multiple\nindividuals\nin the Chi Phi house at the time,\nincluding\nwho had overdosed on or about October\n18, 2024.\nAt somepoint,\nmoved himself\nto a bed in the room and fell\nasleep or was\notherwise\nunconscious.\nComplainant\nand\nremained together\non or near the couch.\nAt or around 1:00 a m. on October 20, 2024,\nentered\nthe alumni room and\nengaged in sexual\nactivity\nwith Complainant,\nas discussed\nfurther\nin Section\nIV.C below.\nWhile\nwas present\nin the alumni room,\nwoke, and\nparticipated\nin contemporaneous\nsexual\nactivity\nwith Complainant\nfor someamount of time,\nas\ndiscussed\nfurther\nin Section\nIV.H below.\nleft\nthe room shortly\nthereafter.\n\" The Panel recognized\nthe disputed\nissue of whether\naccompanied Complainant\nand\na the alumni room initially\n(as recalled\nby\nor whether he was already\nin the roomwhen\nthey arrived\n(as recalled\nby Comlainant\n. The Panel did not consider a finding\non the sameto\ndeterminations\nand noted that\nwas nonetheless present whenComplainant\nand\nentered the room.\nPage 7 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision-\n9 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Permitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 10 ---\nPage 8 of 97\nAt or just after 2:00 a.m., \n entered the alumni room. While present in the alumni \nroom, he consumed ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body, as discussed further in Section IV.I below. \nAt or around 2:15 a.m., \n entered the alumni room. While present, he kissed \nComplainant and consumed ketamine off her body, as discussed further in Section IV.E below. At \nor around 2:30 a.m., Respondents \n entered the alumni room.  \nAt or around 5:00 a.m.,12 Complainant, \n, and \n moved from the \nalumni room to a common space on the fourth floor of the Chi Phi house known within the \nfraternity as the \u201cPentz\u201d\u2014off of which was the bedroom shared by \n and \n \n\u2014after which they proceeded into a smaller room adjacent to the Pentz called the \u201cfoffice.\u201d \nThe foffice included both storage space and an alcove where \n had arranged a work \nspace with at least one desk, a computer, and two chairs. While in the foffice, sexual activity \noccurred involving Complainant engaging in oral sex with \n, as discussed further \nin Section IV.I below, and vaginal-penile sex between Complainant and \n as \ndiscussed further in Section IV.J below. After that sexual activity ended, Complainant slept in \n bed with him before returning to her residence. \nBetween 1:42 a.m. and 2:27 a.m. on October 20, 2024, multiple Respondents wrote messages \nand otherwise interacted with a Snapchat group chat titled \u201cChi Phi Actives\u201d (the \u201cActives \ngroup\u201d) that consisted of approximately 40 or more active members of the Chi Phi fraternity. \nThat sequence of activity was captured by a videorecording contained in Appendix C (the \n\u201cSnapchat video\u201d)13 and summarized by the Investigator during the investigation (App. C, 21). \nComplainant had no contemporaneous knowledge of the existence of such messages. The \nSnapchat video showed a message at 1 42 a m. that read, \u201cFree pussy in alum pu[.]\u201d (App. C, 21) \nThe Panel found by a preponderance of the evidence\u2014including multiple Respondents\u2019 \nstatements\u2014that \u201calum\u201d referred to the alumni room and that \u201cpu\u201d was an abbreviation of the \nphrase \u201cpull up,\u201d which indicated an invitation. The Panel further found that the word \u201cpussy\u201d \nmore likely than not referred to female sexual anatomy, specifically, the vagina.14    \nComplainant corr sponded directly with \n by text message after the \nnight of October 19, 2024.      \n12 Based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record\u2014including information submitted by \n \n\u2014the Panel found that \n and \n appeared in the alumni room at or around 5:00 a.m. \nand requested, in some form, that all those present exit the room. The Panel further credited that \n \n were with \nand \n at that time.  \n13 The Snapchat video was submitted anonymously. The recording depicted an unknown individual\u2019s cell phone \nscreen, on which was displayed the Actives group Snapchat messages discussed herein. Based on the preponderance \nof the evidence, the Panel understood that the unknown user whose cell phone was recorded by way of the Snapchat \nvideo necessarily was both a member of the Actives group and the Chi Phi fraternity as of October 20, 2024.  \n14 In addition to the evidentiary record, the Panel considered the reasonable interpretation of the word as commonly \nused\u2014see, e.g., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pussy, defining \u201cpussy\u201d as \u201cvulva,\u201d \u201csexual \nintercourse,\u201d and \u201cthe female partner in sexual intercourse.\u201d  \n13\n13 The\n Th\nscre\nscre\nitted\nhe\nhe\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n10 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 11 ---\nPage 9 of 97\nAs discussed throughout this Decision, numerous parties consumed the controlled substance \nketamine in powdered form on the night of October 19 into the early morning hours of October \n20, 2024. According to the United States Department of Justice (\u201cDOJ\u201d) and Drug Enforcement \nAgency (\u201cDEA\u201d) 2024 Fact Sheet on Ketamine (the \u201cDOJ and DEA fact sheet\u201d) contained in the \nevidentiary record, ketamine is a \u201cdissociative anesthetic that has some hallucinogenic effects. \nKetamine distorts the perception of sight and sound and makes the user feel disconnected and not \nin control. [. . . I]t makes patients feel detached from their pain and environment.\u201d (App. B, 344) \nThe fact sheet continues, \u201cKetamine can induce a state of sedation (feeling calm and relaxed), \nimmobility, relief from pain, and amnesia (no memory of events while under the influence of the \ndrug) and is used for the dissociative sensations and hallucinogenic effects. Ketamine has also \nbeen used to facilitate sexual assault.\u201d (App. B, 344) It also provides, \u201cKetamine comes in a [. . .] \nwhite or off-white powder. Powdered ketamine [. . .] is typically packaged in [. . .] small plastic \nbags [and . . .] is cut into lines known as bumps and snorted. [. . .] The onset of effects is rapid \nand often occurs within a few minutes of taking the drug[. . . It] may cause unwanted side effects \nsuch as: agitation, depression, cognitive difficulties, unconsciousness, and amnesia.\u201d (App. B, \n344-345) The DOJ and DEA fact sheet also indicates that cer ain effects of ketamine may last \n\u201capproximately 30 to 60 minutes[.]\u201d (App. B, 345) \nThe scientific paper \u201cKetamine\u201d contained in the evidentiary record (the \u201cKetamine paper\u201d) \nconfirmed that ketamine is a substance approved for use in the medical field \u201cas a general \nanesthetic.\u201d (App. B, 346) The Ketamine paper provided that, in \u201cdoses below a certain \nthreshold, ketamine produces analgesia and sedation. However, [above that threshold], the \ncharacteristic dissociative state abruptly appears,\u201d which \u201cis inconsistent with [. . .] moderate \nsetation or deep sedation[.]\u201d (App. B, 348) The scientific article \u201cKetamine: 50 Years of \nModulating the Mind\u201d contained in the evidentiary record (collectively with the DOJ and DEA \nfact sheet and the Ketamine paper, the \u201cexpert materials\u201d) similarly noted about the use of the \ndrug in a clinical setting, \u201cKetamine produces an unusual state, sometimes referred to as \n\u2018dissociative anesthesia[.]\u2019 [. . .] During this dissociative state, patients might appear awake [. . .] \nbut they are unable to respond to sensory input.\u201d (App. B, 359) It continued, \u201cAt lower \n[\u2018recreational\u2019] doses, stimulant effects predominate, and users experience mild dissociation with \nhallucinations and a distortion of time and space,\u201d with \u201ceffects resolv[ing] approximately 2 \nh[ours] after acute ketamine use[.]\u201d (App. B, 362) The Ketamine paper indicated that the \u201cmost \ncommon adverse drug reactions associated with ketamine are nausea, vomiting, dizziness, \ndiplopia, drowsiness, dysphoria, and confusion.\u201d (App. B, 350) \nComplainant consumed ketamine in powdered form on the night of October 19, 2024. During the \nhearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant described her experience of the effects of ketamine to \ninclude feeling like her \u201clights were on, but no one was home,\u201d which she indicated was a state \nof \u201cvague consciousness\u201d wherein she \u201cd[id]n\u2019t know what\u2019s going on from thing to thing.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/2; 21, 63, 64) At the hearing on May 5, she elaborated on her experience of that effect \nby saying, \u201cYou look like an operating human being. [. . . Y]ou don\u2019t look dead or asleep \nPriv\nCom\nCo\nhear\nhea\nini\nitted\nnd not\nnd not\n44) \n44) \nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n11 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 12 ---\nPage 10 of 97\nnecessarily. So, lights are on, but nobody\u2019s home. Your brain is not functioning at its proper \nlevel.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 90) The Panel found this \u201clights on, nobody home\u201d description consistent \nwith the known \u201cdissociative\u201d effect of ketamine repeatedly emphasized in the expert materials.   \nB. Complainant\u2019s First Consumption of Ketamine \nComplainant consistently recounted that she consumed ketamine with \n \nclose in time to their threesome activity on October 19, 2024. She referenced it as \u201cthe first time\u201d \nshe did ketamine that night during recorded telephone calls with \n \nthat took place on or about November 6 and 7. (App. B, 171-173; App. C, 24, 28, 38) In her \nNovember 14 interview, she explained that while she did not have an independent memory of \nconsuming ketamine for the first time that evening, she nonetheless \u201ckn[e]w\u201d it occurred based \non an experience with ketamine later in the night, when she \u201cremember[ed] thinking [it] was \n[her] second time doing it\u201d and that she \u201calready did it once [before]\u201d (App. A; 47, 70) \nComplainant likewise indicated in her November 15 CUPD statement about that experience, \u201c[I]t \nhit me that I had taken [k]etamine on the couch with [\n and [\nearlier in the night. [. . .] I remember smoking marijuana but he ket mine [. . .] I have zero \nmemory of. All I could remember was the feeling that I had already done [k]etamine once[.]\u201d \nComplainant said at the hearing on May 2, 2025, \u201cI know that it was given to me. [\n \n also did it. It was on the couch[;] it was the three of us had ketamine. [. \n. .] I know it sounds super weird to say. I know it happened, but I don\u2019t remember it.\u201d (Trans. \n5/2; 32)  \nIn \n November 7, 2024, recorded call with Complainant (the \u201c\nNovember 7 \ncall\u201d), he said about himself, Complainant, and \n in the alumni room that night, \n\u201c[W]e\u2019re on the couch, and it\u2019s star ing. And then after like 10 minutes, we slowed down a bit. \nThen [\n pulled out the [\u2018liquor\u2019], and we drank it. And then we started smoking \nfrom there, maybe another five to 10 minutes afterwards. And then the K[15] started happening.\u201d \n(App. C, 29) \n also submitted a written statement during the investigation dated \nMarch 17, 2025 (his \u201cMarch 17 statement\u201d), regarding what occurred after the threesome \nactivity. He wrote in this regard, \u201cI inquired for ketamine from \n[. . . .] He poured \nthe powder on a small key for himself and snorted it, then handed me the key and the bag which \ncontained the ketamine. I poured myself several keys\u2019 worth and inhaled them in rapid \nsuccession.\u201d (App. B, 259) He continued, \u201c[Complainant] did not ingest any ketamine at this \npoint However, she shared a sip of Jamaican liquor along with me and \n.\u201d (App. \nB, 259) \nIn \ninterview, he said about the threesome activity and thereafter, \u201c[W]e started \nhaving sex in my room, the three of us. [. . .] We stopped, took a break. And that\u2019s when \n[\n noticed a bag of ketamine[. . . .] And so, [\n offers us, \u2018Hey, do \n15 Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Panel understood \n use of the letter \u201cK\u201d in this \nstatement to reference ketamine.  \nPriv\nB, \nB\nIn\nIn\nh\nitted\n \nme\u201d\nme\u201d\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n12 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 13 ---\nPage 11 of 97\nyou want to do some?\u2019 I said, \u2018Sure.\u2019 [Complainant] declined at that point. So, we didn\u2019t really \npush her past that.\u201d (App. A, 184-185) At the hearing on May 12, 2025, \n first said \nabout this time of the night, \u201cWe were all sitting on the couch talking. [. . . \n] \nreaches over, sees [the bag of ketamine], picks it up, asks if we want some.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 60-61) \nHe also stated, \u201c[Complainant] said no, she\u2019d never done it before. We didn\u2019t ask again.\u201d Later in \nthe hearing, when asked about what, if any, substances \n gave to Complainant \n said, \u201cI guess, ketamine, alcohol, weed[. . . .] Me and [\n did it, we \noffered it to her. She chose to take it. We didn\u2019t force her to do anything.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 149)    \nIn assessing the totality of the information provided in this regard, the Panel weighed \nComplainant\u2019s description of having ingested ketamine with\n against the \nlatter two\u2019s account that she did not. The Panel first considered Complainant\u2019s candor regarding \nnot having a specific memory of consuming ketamine at that time to be reasonably against her \nself-interest and therefore somewhat indicative of credibility in her account, which the Panel \nnoted was first provided close in time to the October 19 incidents and remained materially \nconsistent thereafter. The Panel also considered Complainant\u2019s lack of ability to remember the \ndetails of this consumption consistent with the typical effects of ketamine described in the expert \nmaterials. Likewise, the Panel noted Complainant\u2019s lack of memory regarding many of her \nsubsequent experiences with \n as discussed in Section IV.C below, and found \nconsumption of ketamine consistent with the same.  \nBy contrast, the Panel noted that \n both confirmed that ketamine \nconsumption occurred in the alumni room at that time in the night and yet offered materially \ncontrasting memories of how the ketam ne was introduced, which reduced the weight attributed \nto both accounts. In addition, the Panel afforded less weight to \n written \nstatement than those made during his recorded call with Complainant, given that his written \nstatement was submitted afte he received notice of the Complaint allegations and therefore after \nhe may have had a general motive to indicate that Complainant did not consume ketamine in his \npresence. Additionally, the Panel noted the apparent discrepancy in \n both stating \nthat \n alone initiated the use of the ketamine and also using the pronoun \u201cwe\u201d in \nthe same context to indicate that the two \n \u201cdidn\u2019t really push\u201d or \u201cask\u201d Complainant \nabout it. The Panel found that this repeated inconsistency reduced the credibility of his account \nin this regard. The Panel further considered \n statement at the hearing, wherein \nhe grouped ketamine with substances that he and \n \u201coffered\u201d Complainant and that \nshe \u201cchose to take,\u201d to reasonably indicate that she did ingest ketamine with the two of them at \nor around the time of the threesome activity.    \nFinally, the Panel considered the totality of the circumstances presented, including its findings, \ndiscussed in Sections IV.H and IV.J below, that \n both separately gave \nComplainant ketamine at later points in the night \nThe \nPanel therefore considered their provision of ketamine to Complainant at this earlier point of the \nPriv\ns\nor ar\nor \nFin\nF\nitted\nr in n\nt\nwe \nwe \nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n13 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 14 ---\nI\nPage 12 of 97\nnight to be consistent with a pattern of conduct they each demonstrated later in time. The Panel \nalso considered Complainant\u2019s alcohol consumption prior to her arrival at the Chi Phi house, her \nfriendship with \n, and her undisputed strong attraction for \n\u2014the \nfeeling of which she described in her November 15 interview as a \u201cchokehold,\u201d adding that she \nwould have done \u201canything to please [him]\u201d at the time. (App. A, 35) Understanding a typical \neffect of alcohol to be lowered inhibition in the context of the three parties having engaged in \nsexual activity together and having consumed alcohol and marijuana together, the Panel found \nbased on the preponderance of the evidence that Complainant ingested ketamine with \n in the alumni room on the night of October 19 close in time to the \nthreesome activity.  \nC.\n1. Complaint Charges Against \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \n was charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) \nkissed Complainant without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation; (b) penetrated Complainant\u2019s mouth with his penis without affirmative consent, \nincluding lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; and (c) penetrated Complainant\u2019s \nvulva with his penis without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation.  \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence \na.\nComplainant \nIn Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she indicated that after \n moved to a \nbed in the alumni room, she remained on the couch with \n who was \u201cacting like he \nwas about to throw up\u201d into a \u201ctrash can.\u201d (App. A, 50) She recalled that there was \u201ca knock at \nthe door,\u201d that she answered it, and that she was wearing her dress at the time. (App. A, 52) She \nstated that \n told her to sit on his lap, which she did, and that \n then \nentered the room. During the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant was asked about what \nhappened right before \n entered the alumni room. She stated, \u201cI think I was \nscrambling to fix my dress at the same time [. . . t]here\u2019s loud knocking at the door. [. . . \n] is saying, \u2018Let him in. Let him in. It\u2019s \n]. It\u2019s [\n]\u2019s \nroom,\u2019 [. . . a]nd I\u2019m like, \u2018Oh, my God, I\u2019m this intruder in \n]\u2019s room.\u2019 [. . .] And \nso, [I] grab the door[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 35) She added about her state of dress in those moments, \u201cI \nknow that [. . .] covering myself was a concern that I had.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 35) Complainant \nconsistently indicated that she did not know \n prior to October 19, 2024. \nDuring Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she said about what happened next, \n\u201c[\n] introduces himself [and . . .] I think we shake hands, [which] turned into a \ngrab that pulled me in and [\n] started making out with me.\u201d (App. A, 54) When \nPriv\nr\nso, [\nso\nknow\nkno\nc\nitted\ninin\nd\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n14 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 15 ---\nPage 13 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision\n_\n15 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Perrnitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 16 ---\nPage 14 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision\n_\n16 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Permitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 17 ---\nPage 15 of 97\nhimself.\u201d (App. A, 281) He said about their relative physical positioning, \u201c[Complainant] was \nstood up, bent over, her mouth on [\u2018my penis\u2019], and [\n inserting into her from the \nrear. Into her vagina.\u201d (App. A; 290, 291) He continued, \u201cSo, this continued for a bit as well, \nuntil eventually she decided to sit on my lap facing away from me. So, I stayed seated [. . . ] She \nthen got up, turned, and placed herself on my lap. And then she took hold of my penis, physically \ngrabbed it, and inserted it into [\u2018her vagina\u2019]. And once again, I didn\u2019t have an issue with it at the \ntime.\u201d (App. A; 282, 292) About this change, he said, \u201cI don\u2019t think it would be accurate for me \nto say it just happened, but somebody may have said something that kind of prompted the switch, \nbut I don\u2019t remember the specifics.\u201d (App. A, 291) \n then described that he \nComplainant, and \n \u201c[\u2018collectively\u2019] decided to move from the couch to \n[\n] bed\u201d and \u201ccontinued [the] arrangement\u201d of Complainant engaging in oral sex \nwith \n and \n penetrating her.\u201d (App. A; 282, 293) \nIn his December 18 interview, \n described \n as \u201claying on [a] bed\u201d \n\u201csleeping\u201d \u201cpartially dressed\u201d in \u201cwhat appeared to be a nap\u201d for the majority of his time in the \nroom and recalled exiting the room shortly after \n woke. (App. A; 282, 295) \n described \n as \u201cperfectly receptive\u201d in conversation\u2014i.e., not \nappearing under the influence of any substance\u2014and did not recall him vomiting or any similar \nbehavior while he was present. (App. A, 287) At the hearing on May 14, \ndescribed Complainant during the time he was in the alumni room that night as \u201cpositive,\u201d \n\u201csmiling,\u201d \u201cengaged,\u201d and \u201ctalkative.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 15) He said, \u201c[A]t no point in time [. . .] did \nI ever get any sort of indication that [Complainant] was under any sort of influence of anything.\u201d \n(App. A, 281)   \nAt the hearing on May 14, \n indicated that he had been aware of and \u201chelped\u201d \nfellow fraternity members intoxicated by alcohol prior to October 19, 2024. (Trans. 5/14; 59) At \nthe hearing on May 13, he noted that \u201cpeople would occasionally smoke marijuana\u201d in the \nalumni room after parties. (Trans. 5/13; 97) At the hearing on May 14, \nindicated \nthat while he was not aware that his roommate, \n had used ketamine in the past, he \nknew as of October 19 that \n had overdosed on recreational drugs the night before. He \nalso said that \n \ns \u201coverdose largely informed [his] assumptions and thought process\u201d \non the night of October 19, specifically noting the \u201cdangerous implications\u201d of \u201crecreational drug \nuse\u201d in the context of \n having recently \u201cgo[ne] to the hospital and nearly die[d].\u201d \n(Trans 5/14; 21)  \nc.\nDuring \n interview, he indicated that after consuming ketamine, alcohol, and \nmarijuana in the alumni room with \n, he \u201cstarted feeling really sick\u201d and both he \nand \n\u201cstarted throwing up [\u2018violently\u2019] in trash cans\u201d that were behind the couch. \n(App. A, 185) He recalled that \n then \u201cpasse[d] out on [his] roommate\u2019s bed while \nPriv\nDuri\nDur\nm\nitted\nallyly\nat the\nat the\nme\nme\nh\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n17 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 18 ---\nPage 16 of 97\n[. . . Complainant was] helping [him] throw up, like patting [his] back.\u201d (App. A, 185) He said \nabout what happened next: \nMy roommate [\n walks in the room. [Complainant] invites him. They start \ntalking [and . . .] started kissing. And I hear like, from the side, her telling him like, \u201cYou \ndon\u2019t know how long I\u2019ve wanted to do this.\u201d And eventually, they start having sex on his \nbed. While [\n]\u2019s passed out in my other roommate\u2019s bed. I\u2019m still on the \ncouch, still nauseous, like throwing up.  \n(App. A, 185) He indicated that \n then \u201cwoke up\u201d and that \n left the \nroom shortly thereafter. During hearing on May 12, 2025, \n indicated that \nComplainant did not sit on his lap when \n entered and recalled, \u201cI was on the right \nside of the couch. [Complainant] was in the middle. [\n was] on the left side.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/12; 73) He also indicated that he did not remember how \n and \nComplainant moved from the couch to the bed. When asked about \n account that \nComplainant engaged in oral sex with him on the couch while \n engaged in \nvaginal-penile sex with her from behind,\n replied, \u201cI feel like I would remember \nit, but it is possible it did happen.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 76)  \n  \nPrivivivi\nitted\nn his\nhis\nhe\nhe\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n18 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 19 ---\nPage 17 of 97\n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\nttitt\nHearing Panel Decision - SK \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n19 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 20 ---\nPage 18 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n20 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 21 ---\nI\nPage 19 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n21 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 22 ---\nI\nPage 20 of 97\nnext, \n want[ed] me to do ketamine off of his dick in front of everybody. And I \nremember thinking this is my second time doing it, so why not?\u201d (App. A, 47) She continued: \nI grabbed [\n arm or something. I remember this part very clearly. [. . .] \u201cI \ndon\u2019t know who any of these guys are. I\u2019m really uncomfortable.\u201d [. . .] So, I do \nremember I was able to muster the courage to say that, and he laughed and asked if I \nwanted to do more ketamine. [. . .] So, I do remember that\u2019s the second time I did \nketamine and I remember thinking I already did it once. Might as well do it again. [And I \nremember my best bet that I felt to get out of this situation would be if perhaps I was \ncompletely passed out.\u201d] And [\n said okay, and he poured it on his erect \ndick in front of all these guys and said, \u201cGo for it,\u201d and I said, \u201cWow,\u201d and I did so.  \n(App. A; 70-71) In her November 15 interview, Complainant added about the situation, \u201c[T]he \nketamine, I guess, was wearing off from the prior time. I guess an hour, whatever, had gone by.\u201d \n(App. A, 139) \nDuring the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant indicated that this occurred while she and \n were in a bed in the alumni room, with \n \u201c[o]n his knees, standing \nup a little bit.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 68) She continued, \u201cMy memory of this is my back is against the \nwall. He\u2019s right next to me. I say I\u2019m uncomfortable. He says, \u2018You need more ketamine,\u2019 gets up \non his knees, somehow, it\u2019s already ready to go, and his dick is already erect, and it gets poured \non there [\u2018really close to me\u2019].\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 68-69) She also indicated at the hearing that she had \nno specific memory of who was present in that moment aside from \n. About when \nin the night this occurred, Complainant indicated during her November 14 interview that it was \nafter \n left the alumni room and after she \u201cran\u201d to \n bed because \n\u201c[a] group of men walked in[.]\u201d (App. A; 59-60) She said that the group included \n \n, but also that she was \u201cnot sure if people came in and out\u201d at different \npoints (App. A, 64). She recalled certain interactions with \n but also noted that she \nwas \u201cunsure\u201d of \u201cthe sequence of [. . . events],\u201d including if she consumed ketamine off of \n penis before or after those interactions. (App. A, 70) \n replied to Complainant\u2019s October 21 message, \u201cI have no memory of that\u201d (App. \nB, 152), and Complainant ended the November 6 call without \n replying to her \nreference to consuming ketamine \u201coff [his] dick.\u201d During \n interview, he said \nthat, after \n left the alumni room that night, Complainant and \n \n\u201cjoined [him] in [his] bed, under the sheets\u201d and \u201cthat\u2019s when [\n] and [\n \n] both walk[ed] in the room\u201d and, later, \n. (App. A, 186) He indicated \nthat \n all consumed ketamine off of Complainant\u2019s body, after \nwhich \u201c[Complainant] asked for some herself, and \n] gave some to her[,]\u201d and \nshe took it from a \u201ckey[.]\u201d (App. A; 214, 219) When \n was asked if he gave \nComplainant ketamine by placing it on his penis with others present in the room, he answered, \u201cI \nPriv\n] \nthat \nthat\nw\nitted\nd I\nd I\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n22 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 23 ---\nPage 21 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision\n-\n23 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Permitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 24 ---\nPage 22 of 97\ngroup was kicked out of the room by \n at or around 5:00 a.m., with neither \n \n nor \n indicating that they observed Complainant\u2019s second consumption of \nketamine\u2014and noting \n account of the sequence of events at that point in the \nnight\u2014the Panel found based on the preponderance of the evidence that the second consumption \nof ketamine occurred after \n left the alumni room and before \n and \n entered at or around 2:00 a.m. and 2:15 a.m., respectively.      \nE.\n \n1. Complaint Charges Against \n \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \n was charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited \nconduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her\npermission; (b) kissed Complainant without her affirmative consent, including lack of \naffirmative consent due to incapacitation; and (c) touched his nose to Complainant\u2019s naked torso \nand inhaled a powdered substance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of \naffirmative consent due to incapacitation.   \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence \na.\nComplainant \nDuring the \nNovember 7 call, Complainant stated, \u201cAnd then [\n said \nsomething really mean to me, and then I sat up and defended myself. I remember my boobs came \nuncovered[ . . .], and then he kissed me. He grabbed my face and made out with me in front of \neverybody.\u201d (App. C, 31) \n then replied, \u201cYeah,\u201d and she continued, \u201c[\n \n] asked for drugs to be done off my body. I had already been exposed at some point, \ndrunkenly and high. I said, \u2018Yes.\u2019\u201d (App. C, 31) \nIn Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she recalled \n entering the alumni room \nat a point in the night when she was \u201cnaked\u201d under bed coverings in \n bed. (App. \nA, 61) About what happened next, Complainant stated: \nI remember having myself covered up. And then, [\n said something out of \npocket to me. He said something I think it was slut-shaming me or it was criticizing \nsomething about me[. . . .] And so I sat up, and then it was like, boop, and now my boobs \nare out in front of all these guys. [ . . .] I got mad, and [\n grabbed my face \nand started making out with me.  \n(App. A, 64) She continued, \u201cI don\u2019t even remember how I got out of that. I think I just backed \naway or something. [. . .] I know it ended quickly, and that was on my own accord because I \nbacked up. [. . .] I don\u2019t remember having any feelings or anything happening in that moment. I \nwas totally numbed out. I mean, I was super numb.\u201d (App. A, 65)  \nPriv\n(A\n(\nitted\nand d \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n24 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 25 ---\nPage 23 of 97\nComplainant also recalled getting out of the bed and \u201cflexing\u201d her muscles at some point, and \n\u201cth[ought]\u201d it occurred after the kiss with \n. (App. A, 68) About what happened \nnext, Complainant noted that the \u201ctimeline [was] so unsure\u201d for her but stated: \n[T]hey all started just berating me with compliments [. . .] because they were looking at \nmy body and I was naked. [. . . And \n] was like, \u201c[Complainant] would \nyou mind if we did ketamine off of your perfect body,\u201d [. . . a]nd I was like, \u201cI guess,\u201d or \nwhatever. And I was already partly lying down because it was so much easier to lie down \nI was super tired and so, I remember lying down and covering my face up. I remember \nvery clearly I covered my face up and looked at the ceiling. And they just poured all sorts \nof stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. [. . .] I think everybody had a \nturn. [. . .] I didn\u2019t ever look up because I knew that would be too much for me to see. So, \nI covered my face immediately and laid down. \n(App. A; 72-73) During her November 15 interview, Complainant said, \u201c[T]hey were all \npartaking in the drugs because they did them off of my body. But I did put my hands over my \nface at that point. [. . .] I wanted to go to sleep at that point, too, so I didn\u2019t really look up to see \nwho was doing drugs off of my body.\u201d (App. A; 126-127) During the hearing on May 2, 2025, \nComplainant described herself as \u201csuper incapacitated\u201d in that moment. (Trans. 5/2; 72) She also \nindicated that her covering her face was not based on a \u201cseries of thoughts\u201d but was \u201cjust more \nreflexive\u201d \u201c[i]n the case that someone took pictures[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 72-73) She also said about \nthe October 19 incidents generally, \u201cI have no clue about timeline in this[. . . . M]y phone was \nkind of inaccessible to me most of the time. And also, when you\u2019re really drunk, things speed up, \nand when you\u2019re on ketamine, things slow down, I guess. And so, it's like having the two of them \ntogether, and then add [marijuana], and it\u2019s just like no clue.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 32-33) She added, \n\u201cFollowing the events [of October 19 and 20, 2024,] I had to look up [. . .] what [\n \n looked like. [. . .] I didn\u2019t even know [his] face[] out in public.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 37) She also \nstated that she was \u201cnot sure\u201d if Respondent \u201cdid the grabbing [her] thing\u201d before or after he \ninhaled ketamine off of her body. (Trans. 5/2; 75) \nAbout how her second ketamine consumption affected her generally, Complainant said, \u201cI felt \nthe effects pretty intensely[. . . .] And then, also, past th[o]se moments, the whole thing\u2019s \nblackout, right? And the whole thing is pretty spotty in memory. And the whole thing is difficult \nfor me to remember. [. . .] I was super tired. I was weighed down. It just felt like a horse \ntranquilizer.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 69)  \nb.\n \n was in his senior year as a University undergraduate as of October 19, 2024. \nDuring his January 8 interview, he recalled that the fraternity was hosting a party on the night of \nOctober 19 that he attended and during which he \u201chad a small amount of beer.\u201d (App. A, 411) He \nindicated that he later left the Chi Phi house and returned around 1:40 a.m. on October 20. He \nrecalled that he then went to his room in the house and \u201cwatched some shows on [his] TV\u201d with \nPriv\nitted\nd \ns,\u201d or \ns,\u201d or \nwn \nwn \nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n25 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 26 ---\nM\nI\nPage 24 of 97\nhis friend and fellow University undergraduate student\n and \nRespondent \n (App. A; 413-414) He stated that the three of them \u201csipped maybe a beer each\u201d \n\u201cuntil approximately 2:30 in the morning,\u201d when \u201che was informed\u201d by \n of a \nSnapchat message sent to the Actives group by \n \u201calong the lines of there being \nfree pussy in alumni.\u201d (App. A, 414) About his reaction to hearing about that message, \n said, \u201cBasically, I just kind of question it because it\u2019s something that I\u2019ve neve \nseen before in my entire four years living in the [Chi Phi] house[.]\u201d (App. A, 415) He indicated \nthat\n then said that \u201che thought there was some type of orgy [meaning \u2018group sex of \nsome sort\u2019] occurring within the house.\u201d (App. A, 415) \n continued, \u201cI honestly \ndid not have a great understanding of what was happening at the time [. . .] but was very \nconcerned and just overall curious about the matter.\u201d (App. A, 415)  \n recounted that he proceeded to the alumni room with Respondent \n and \n, knocked on the door, and \n opened the door \u201cnaked.\u201d (App. A, 416) At \nthe hearing on May 14, 2025, he recalled \u201calmost immediately leaving [his] room\u201d for the \nalumni room after his conversation with\n about the Snapchat message. (Trans. 5/14; \n128-129) He also said \u201c[U]sually people would just kind of walk in [to the alumni room] through \nthe door without knocking.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 133) About his reaction to seeing \nstate of dress, he said, \u201cI was a little bit weirded out.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 134) In his January 8 \ninterview, he said that he then entered the room alone and saw \n, \nand Complainant (though he did not know her at the time) \u201cpositioned on a bed\u201d that \n \n entered shortly thereafter. (App. A, 418) At the hearing on May 14, he described \n \n as \u201cshirtless\u201d at the time and the group generally as \u201clooking so joyous and happy.\u201d (Trans. \n5/14; 140, 148) About his reaction to the situation, \n said in his January 8 \ninterview, \u201cAt that point, I\u2019m like, \u2018What the fuck is going on here?\u2019 because I was immensely \nconcerned [and \u2018super shocked\u2019] since I\u2019ve never seen anything like this in my four years at the \nhouse.\u201d (App. A; 418, 419) He recalled that Complainant \u201cwas under comforter sheets\u201d at that \ntime and that the group was \u201cengaging in a casual conversation.\u201d (App. A, 419) He recalled that \nhe then joined the conversation \u201conce all of [his] nerves [we]re settled.\u201d (App. A, 420)  \nAbout what happened next, \nsaid in his January 27 interview that \n \nasked \u201cif he could do ketamine off of [Complainant], and she responded, \u2018Yes\u2019 to the matter.\u201d \n(App. A, 423) \n said that \n proceeded to snort the powdered \nsubstance off of Complainant\u2019s naked torso, while her upper body was exposed. He continued, \n\u201cAnd then, at some point, I also ask if I could do the [\u2018ketamine\u2019] off of her body,\u201d to which she \n\u201cresponded enthusiastically.\u201d (App. A; 423, 424) When asked at the hearing on May 14 why he \ndid this, \n answered, \u201c[W]hen I was first uncomfortable, I kind of felt almost \noverridden by how positive everyone was in the room[, and . . . m]aybe I\u2019m the one that\u2019s being \nweird if everyone around me is looking so joyous and happy to be talking to one another. And \nyeah, eventually, after [\n] did that action, he said something to the effect of I \nPriv\n\u201cresp\n\u201cre\ndid t\ndid\no\nitted\neve\neve\ned \ned \nHearing Panel Decision \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n26 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 27 ---\nPage 25 of 97\nshould as well, and since being in this positive atmosphere, I eventually asked, as well.\u201d (Trans. \n5/14; 148) \nIn his January 27 interview, \n recalled that \n then poured the \nketamine onto Complainant\u2019s unclothed torso, in an area beneath her rib case, at the top of her \nstomach, and he inhaled it with \u201ca dollar bill.\u201d (App. A, 425) At the hearing on May 14, \n recalled that the covers were down to Complainant\u2019s \u201cwaist area\u201d and that he \n\u201csaw her breast at th[at] moment.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 150) During his January 27 interview, he said \nthat, \u201cwithin either seconds [or], if anything, a minute, at most\u201d he \u201cbecame unable to stand \nanymore and then sat on the edge of the bed.\u201d (App. A, 425) He described himself as being \u201cin \n[his] own world\u201d and \u201ccatatonic\u201d until \u201cComplainant start[ed] talking to [him].\u201d (App. A; 425, \n437) He continued: \nSo, basically, [Complainant] just asked more about my involvement at Cornell. So, we \nstarted talking about the hotel school and seemed to be bonding over that a lot. [. . .] And \nthen, at some point, in that conversation, I just remember her smiling and kind of leaning \nin towards me a little bit. And then, I eventually lean in, as well. Then, I recall our lips \ntouched in kind of a pecking kissing motion, for maybe two or three seconds. And then, [. \n. .] I pulled my head away because I realized that there are other people in the room and I \ndid not want to be kissing someone.   \n(App. A, 426) He described Complainant as \u201chappy\u201d in those moments and said that she \u201cdid not \nseem incapacitated at all.\u201d (App. A; 427, 450) About his own state, \n said, \u201cI just \nremember being pretty nonverbal and minimally moving [a]lmost the entire time that I was in the \nroom, until [Complainant\u2019s] conversation broke me out, and it kind of gave me more life just \ntalking to another human being. But every time I went back to my own self, or not talk to \nanybody, then I just became internally paralyzed, where I would just sit there.\u201d (App. A, 439) At \nthe hearing on May 14, he stated, \u201cI remember feeling unable to stand\u201d; \u201cI felt extremely \nisolated\u201d; and \u201cI was just pretty messed up\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 153-154, 162) At the hearing on May \n20, he said, \u201c[I]t was more difficult to understand\u201d Respondent \n when he approached \n shortly after his kiss with Complainant. (Trans. 5/20; 69) About what happened \nnext, \nsaid during his January 27 interview, \u201cAnd then, after some more time \npassed, I just remember hearing [. . .] Complainant saying that she thought she was stronger than \n[\n and . . .] getting up from the bed and basically flexing her muscles to \neverybody in the room.\u201d (App. A, 428)  \nOn October 21, 2024, \n text messaged Complainant, \u201cI just got your number and \nheard that I may have said some mean things when I walked in the room but I truly do not know \nwhat I said. I want to make amends with you because I\u2019m not a mean person[.]\u201d (App. B, 187) \nShe replied, \u201c[I] really appreciate the text and i didn\u2019t think in your head you were a mean guy or \nanything. i figured it was a defensive thing cause like that was obv an insane night and i think \neveryone was really confused, drunk, high, and nervous.\u201d (App. B, 188) \nPriv\nOn O\nOn\nhear\nhea\nw\nitted\nhe\nhe\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n27 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 28 ---\nPage 26 of 97\nAt the hearing on May 15, when asked his perspective on the culture of ketamine at the Chi Phi \nhouse as of October 19, 2024, \n answered, \u201cI would [. . .] say [. . .] that it was \ndefinitely more of a problem. And it was something that was occurring almost every weekend.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/15; 160) \nc.\nAdditional Evidence\nIn \n interview, he said that \n entered the alumni room on \nthe night of October 19, 2024, while he, Complainant, and \n were in his bed He \ndescribed \n as \u201cvisibly intoxicated\u201d at the time. (App. A, 186) He recalled \nComplainant conversing with \n from the \u201cedge of the bed\u201d about being \u201chotel \nmajors\u201d and that he, \n, and \n then ingested ketamine together at \n suggestion. (App. A; 186, 211) He continued, \u201cAnd then, [\n] \nasked [Complainant] if he could do the ketamine off her chest. She said, \u2018Yes.\u2019 He did it, \nfollowed by [\n], who also asked her first.\u201d (App. A, 186) He also said about \nComplainant and \n conversing, \u201cAt one point, I kind of look over, and I see \n[\n] and [Complainant] kissing.\u201d (App. A, 212) He indicated that he did not notice \nwho initiated the kissing and that the two were \u201ckind of laughing about it after.\u201d (App. A, 212) \nHe also recalled Complainant exiting the bed and \u201cflexing her muscles\u201d while unclothed. (App. \nA, 216) He stated that he never noticed \n say anything that Complainant took \noffense to. At the hearing on May 12, 2025, \n confirmed that he was \u201cstill fully \nnude\u201d at the time that \n entered the alumni room that night, though he \u201cd[id]n\u2019t \nremember going and opening the door for him.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 89, 179) \nIn his December 16 interview, Respondent \n indicated that he went to \n room \nafter the party ended at or around 1:30 a.m. on October 20, 2024, and that no one else was \npresent at the time. He stated he was \u201cthere for around 50 minutes when [\n called . \n. .] and came up[.]\u201d (App. A, 370) He recalled \n leaving shortly thereafter. He said \nthat he checked his cell phone \u201c10 to 15 minutes\u201d after \n left the room and saw a \nSnapchat message in the Actives group that read, \u201cFree pussy in alumni.\u201d (App. A, 370) He said \nthat he and \n then went to the alumni room, where \u201c[\n was sitting \non the very edge of the bed [. . .] talking.\u201d (App. A, 371) He stated that, after some time, he \n\u201cwalked over [and] asked [\n if he was alright because he [. . .] was sitting with his \nhands on his face [and \u2018seemed a little drunk\u2019]. [\n then] said he was a little drunk, \nbut he was okay.\u201d (App. A; 371, 380) During the hearing on May 21, 2025, Respondent \nexplained that \n had actually \u201cabruptly\u201d left his room before \narrived, without indicating where he was going. (Trans. 5/21; 109) Respondent \n consistently \nindicated that he observed neither drug use nor a kiss between \nand Complainant \nwhile he was present in the alumni room that night. In his December 16 interview, he recalled \nComplainant \u201claughing\u201d and participating in conversation while he was present in the room. \n(App. A, 382)  \nPriv\nexp\nex\narriv\narri\nind\ni\nitted\non\non\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n28 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 29 ---\nPage 27 of 97\nOn December 4, 2024, \nsubmitted a document titled \u201cTimeline of Events\u201d (his \n\u201cTimeline\u201d), in which he indicated that he \u201ccalled [Respondent \n] and went to [\n \n\u2019s room\u201d at or around 2:23 a.m. on October 20, 2024, and that \u201c[\n was] leaving \nas [he] arrived.\u201d (App. B, 272) In \n December 9 interview, he described that he \nand Respondent \n noted a Snapchat message to the Actives group that read, \u201cFree pussy in \nalumni,\u201d after which they went to the alumni room. (App. A, 330) About what happened while \nthey were in the room, \n wrote in his Timeline, \u201c[Complainant] was sitting up \nunder the covers, and [. . . \n was] fully clothed and sitting on the bed. [. . . He] \nappeared intoxicated but said he was fine. We asked if he wanted to leave with us, but he \ndeclined.\u201d (App. B, 273) In his February 10 interview, \n explained that he did not \nactually see \nleave his room at any time and that it was only Respondent \n who \nwas present in that room when he arrived at or around 2:23 a.m. \n consistently \nindicated that he observed neither drug use nor a kiss between \nand Complainant \nwhile he was present in the alumni room that night. During his December 9 interview, \n stated that he observed Complainant \u201claugh[ing]\u201d and \u201ctalking\u201d with others \nwhile he was present in the room. (App. A, 334)  \n  \nPrivivivi\nitted\nhile\nhile\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n29 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 30 ---\nPage 28 of 97\n         \n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\nttitti\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n30 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 31 ---\nPage 29 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n31 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 32 ---\nPage 30 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n32 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 33 ---\nPage 31 of 97\nF. Respondent \n \n1. Complaint Charges Against Respondent \n \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, Respondent \nwas charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited \nconduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her \nPriv\nitted\nitit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n33 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 34 ---\nO\nPage 32 of 97\npermission; and (b) touched his nose to Complainant\u2019s naked body and inhaled a powdered \nsubstance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation.  \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence\na.\nComplainant\nIn her November 14 interview, Complainant indicated that, at some point during the night of \nOctober 19, 2024, when she was \u201cnaked\u201d in \n bed, \u201ctwo guys named \ny\u201d \nentered the room. (App. A, 62) She recalled being introduced to them while \n \n were also in the room. She described them as \u201cstanding\u201d at the foot of the bed, \nadding, \u201cThey felt more like voyeurs than anything in the situation. They didn\u2019t get as \ncomfortable as everybody else did.\u201d Although she was \u201cunsure\u201d of the particular \u201csequence of \nthe[] events,\u201d she then recalled certain interactions with \n exiting the bed while \nnaked and \u201cflexing,\u201d and being \u201cberated with compliments.\u201d (App. A; 68-70, 72) She also \nindicated that \n asked to ingest ketamine off her body and that she agreed in some \nform. She continued, \u201cI remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just \npoured all sorts of stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. [. . . S]everal lines \n[were] done by almost everybody.\u201d (App. A, 73) In her November 15 interview, she stated, \u201cI\u2019m \nnot even sure if the two \n are in Chi Phi. [. . .] But they all were partaking in the drugs \nbecause they did them off of my body. But I did put my hands over my face at that point.\u201d (App. \nA; 126-127) In her February 7 interview, Complainant said, \u201c[T]he \n, as far as I know, \nwere voyeurs. Well, except the times that they did drugs off my body, and who knows if they \ntouched anything while they were doing that[.]\u201d (App. A, 137) Although she did not know what \neither of them looked like after that night, Complainant consistently indicated that either \nRespondent \n or \n asked if she was okay or otherwise physically supported her \nafter \n entered the alumni room and told everyone to leave. (See, e.g., App. B, 32) \nb. Respondent \nRespondent \n consistently stated in his interviews, documentary submissions, and at the \nhearing that he did not observe Complainant naked at any time nor partake in any drug use while \nin the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024. At the hearing on May 21, 2025, he \nindicated that he did not know Complainant prior to the night of October 19. During Respondent \n December 16 interview, he described being at the party at the Chi Phi house that night, after \nwhich he went to \n room. He submitted a record of a ten-second call with \n at 2:23 a.m. on October 20. (App. B, 307) In his December 16 interview, he \nrecalled inviting \n to join him in \n room during that call. He \ncontinued, \u201cI was hitting [\u2018a nicotine vape\u2019] at this point, and it was almost dead[. . . .A]nd by the \ntime [\n got there, we sat and talked for about two minutes, and [\n \ngot up and left the room. We didn\u2019t know why[.]\u201d (App. A, 370) About what happened next, he \nsaid: \nPriv\nwh\nw\nrec\nr\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n34 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 35 ---\nPage 33 of 97\nAfter about 10 to 15 minutes with [\n still being gone, I checked my phone \nand in [the Actives group] there was a text message [. . .] that said, \u201cFree pussy in \nalumni.\u201d [. . .] I had no idea what the text meant. I was kind of befuddled. So, me and \n[\n talked about it. And the person that sent the text message [\n \n], he lived in that room, and I knew he had a vape, and my vape had just died. And we \nalso speculated that maybe this is why [\n had got up and left.  \n(App. A, 370) He added, \u201cSo, my vape had died. I knew [\n had one, and because \nof [\n leaving and us not knowing the nature of if this was a joke or what was \ngoing on in the [alumni] room, me and [\n decided to go into that room.\u201d (App. A, \n370). During the hearing on May 21, Respondent \n explained that \nhad actually \nleft his room before \n arrived, without indicating where he was going.  \nAbout what happened when he and \n entered the alumni room on October 20, \n2024, Respondent \n said during his December 16 interview that he saw Complainant and \n all in or on \n bed. He indicated that \nComplainant was under bed coverings at the time. He said that he sat on the couch and conversed \nwith \n for some minutes before asking both \n and Complainant if \nthey were \u201call right\u201d\u2014both of whom responded affirmatively\u2014and exiting the room with \n (App. A, 371) He recalled an interaction with Complainant before exiting in \nwhich she \u201claughed\u201d about both his and \n first names being \u201c\n\u201d (App. A, \n372) He estimated that he was in the alumni room for \u201c[n]o more than five minutes\u201d that night. \n(App. A, 380)  \nAbout his decision to go to the alumni room that night, Respondent \n stated, \u201c[B]y no means \nwere we going there to get free pussy[. . . .] That was not our intentions at all. We were just \nchecking out to see if everything was okay[.]\u201d (App. A, 377) During the hearing on May 21, \n2025, he stated that after seeing the \u201cfree pussy in alumni\u201d message, he \u201cstarted to get kind of \nworried that that\u2019s where [\n had went\u201d and that he \u201cbelieve[d \n \nwas intoxicated at the time.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 110, 116) He continued, \u201cI was just worried cause \nagain, the text was really out there. I had never seen something like that. [. . .] I just didn\u2019t know \nwhat [\nwas doing and kind of if something was bad, I wanted to get him out of \nthere.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 110-111) He also said, \u201c[T]he text could have meant anything. There was a \nlot of things going through my head. I didn\u2019t know if there was a lot of girls in there or what was \ngoing on[. . . .] But again, free pussy just seems like someone could have been in danger. It\u2019s just \nfree. What does free mean? Again, I don\u2019t know. That\u2019s why it could have meant anything.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/21; 113) He also said, \u201cIf someone's having sex with someone in the room, they're not \ngonna send that text out. So, again, I just didn't know what was really happening in the room,\u201d \nand, \u201cI just didn\u2019t think it was real.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 111, 114) \nRespondent \nfurther noted that although the alumni room was \u201ca bedroom where a lot of \npeople would go to hang out if they didn\u2019t want to be in their room or if they had nothing to do,\u201d \nPriv\nfre\nfr\n(Tran\n(Tr\ngon\ng\nitted\nwe e\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n35 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 36 ---\nPage 34 of 97\nhe personally \u201cjust wasn\u2019t really close with the [residents of the room as of October 19, 2024]. \nSo, [he]\u2019d go to [his] other friends\u2019 rooms to hang out,\u201d adding, \u201cI was rarely ever in [the alumni \nroom].\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 104)  \nDuring the investigation, Respondent \n submitted a record of a ketamine test performed by \nOmega Laboratories that indicated that his hair follicles were collected on November 26, 2024, \nand tested for ketamine presence (his \u201cketamine test\u201d). The ketamine test came back \u201c[n]egative\u201d \nfor the drug. (App. B.1; 8) At the hearing on May 21, Respondent \n stated that Omega \nLaboratories personnel told him at the time of collection, \u201c[E]ven if you take [ketamine] one \ntime, it can stay in your hair for up to three to six months.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 168) \nc.\nAdditional Evidence   \nTimeline indicated that he \u201ccalled [Respondent \n] and went to [\n \n]\u2019s room\u201d at or around 2:23 a.m. on October 20, 2024. (App. B, 272) In \n \nDecember 9 interview, he described that he and Respondent \n noted a Snapchat message to the \nActives group that read, \u201cFree pussy in alumni,\u201d after which they went to the alumni room. (App. \nA, 330) He continued, \u201cWe saw that text and were somewhat concerned but thought it could just \nbe crude humor.\u201d (App. A, 330) He also wrote in his Timeline, \u201c[Respondent \n]\u2019s vape had \ndied, and he wanted to borrow someone else\u2019s. He knew [\n had a vape in [the \nalumni] room. [Respondent \n] asked if I wanted to go check it out, and I agreed. [Respondent \n] also mentioned that he thought [\n was pretty inebriated while they were \nhanging out so we wanted to check on him.\u201d (App. B, 272) \nAbout what happened after they entered the alumni room minutes later, \n recalled \nseeing Complainant under bed coverings, with \n all in or on the \nsame bed. He recalled being in the room for \u201c[f]ive minutes, maybe\u201d (App. A, 344) and \nconsistently stated that he both arrived and left with Respondent \n. He likewise consistently \nindicated that he did not observe any drug use or Complainant naked at any time he was present \nin the alumni room that night. On December 9, 2024, \n signed a document titled \n\u201cAcknowledgement of Understanding of [Respondent \n]\u2019s Involvement,\u201d in which he affirmed \nthat Respondent \n \u201cdid not make any physical contact with [Complainant]\u201d and \u201cdid not snort \nor consume drugs on or near [Complainant].\u201d (App. B, 306) At the hearing on May 15, 2025, \n indicated that when he inquired about taking a hair follicle test for ketamine, he \nwas told by the company Request A Test that the test is accurate for presence of the drug for up \nto \u201c90 days.\u201d (Trans. 5/15; 71) \nDuring \n interview, he recalled about after \n consumed \nketamine off Complainant\u2019s body, \u201ctwo guys walked in, [Respondent \n] and [\n]. \nThey introduced themselves, started talking, and [Complainant] invited them in.\u201d (App. A, 186) \nHe continued, \u201cAnd then, [\n] are telling [\n] about \nhow they did ketamine off of [Complainant\u2019s] chest. [. . .] And then, both [\n \n] asked her if they could do ketamine off her chest too, because [\n] \nPriv\nto\nDurin\nDu\nket\nk\nitted\n24,4,\native\u201d\native\u201d\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n36 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 37 ---\nPage 35 of 97\nhad told them about it. She said yeah, so they did.\u201d (App. A, 187) He did not recall who poured \nthat ketamine or how much they consumed. He also indicated that Complainant \u201cgot up out of \nthe bed and started doing like a bodybuilder pose\u201d while \n were in the \nalumni room. (App. A, 186) \nIn \nJanuary 8 interview, he recalled entering the alumni room in the early \nmorning hours of October 20 and talking with Complainant and \n \n. \nHe continued, \u201cAt some point, then the door opens in the room. I look back and I see \n[Respondent \n] has entered the room. Then, I can\u2019t recall if it was right behind him or a little \nbit later at some point [\n walks into the room as well.\u201d In the hearing on May 14, \n2025, \nexplained, \u201cI believe sometime shortly before [\n asked to \ningest ketamine off of Complainant\u2019s body], I remember actually hearing the door and glancing \nback and seeing them, but I actually don\u2019t recall where they were exactly when he said those \nwords specifically.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 144)  \nIn his January 27 interview, \nsaid that he and \n then ingested \nketamine off Complainant\u2019s body. In the hearing on May 14, he stated about that time, \u201cI had not \nheard or seen [Respondent \n] since I heard that door open in the moment, but I think I had the \nimpression that they were in the room too somewhere in the background.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 147) \nWhen asked what gave him the impression that Respondent \n was still in the room at that time, \nanswered, \u201cI just didn\u2019t recall hearing the door open again.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 147) In \nhis January 27 interview, he said about what happened next, \u201cI remember at some point, \n[Respondent \n] just comes up to me. I\u2019m not sure what he said, but he just walks up to me \nbecause he\u2019s one of my friends. [. . .] I don\u2019t remember the exact words he said to me, but I just \nremember him coming up to me, and then, going back to talking with, I believe, it was \n[\n (App. A, 428) He recalled that the next thing that happened was Complainant \nexiting the bed and \u201cflexing her muscles to everybody in the room,\u201d after which \n \n\u201c[came] into the room and basically kick[ed] everyone out[.]\u201d  (App. A, 428) He did not \nremember Respondent \n inhaling ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body.  \n each consistently recalled\u2014both at their respective interviews and at the \nhearing\u2014that they observed Respondent \n exiting the alumni room at or around 5:00 a.m. \nwhen they went to that room with \n and \nd. The Snapchat Messages \nAs discussed in Section IV.A above, the Panel found that the 1:42 a.m. Snapchat message \u201cFree \npussy in alum pu\u201d communicated an invitation for others to go to the alumni room, along with a \nreference to female sexual anatomy. At 2:29 a.m., Respondent \n wrote in the Alumni group, \n\u201cthe alumni shit is not a bit. First hand pov not a bit\u201d (the \u201cnot a bit message\u201d). During the \nhearing on May 21, 2025, Respondent \nsaid about that message: \nPriv\nAs\nA\npussy\npus\nref\nr\nitted\n.\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n37 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 38 ---\nPage 36 of 97\nI found out from [someone] passing by as I was walking into the [alumni] room that there \nwas a girl in there. So, I was just saying, I mean, firsthand from somebody else that there \nwas a girl in that room and it\u2019s not a [\u2018joke\u2019], but again, it was an immature and dumb \nkind of just following along with what everybody else was saying in there. I shouldn\u2019t \nhave said it. And it is immature and a stupid text message for sure. \n(Trans. 5/21; 152, 153) He indicated that he interacted with that individual and sent the not a bit \nmessage while he was outside the alumni room, prior to entering.         \n3. Findings and Determinations with Respect to Respondent \n \nProcedures Section 3.6 defines sexual exploitation in relevant part as \u201cintentionally engaging in \n[. . . o]bserving another person when that person is nude or engaged in sexual activity without the \nknowledge and consent of the person observed[.]\u201d Per Procedures Section 3.5, sexual assault is \n\u201c(1) sexual intercourse or (2) sexual contact (3) without affirmative consent.\u201d Sexual contact is \ndefined in relevant part as \u201cintentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object or body \npart\u201d including \u201cintentional touching of another\u2019s body part for the purpose of sexual \ngratification, arousal, humiliation, or degradation.\u201d  \nRegarding the charges against Respondent \n, the Panel first found the evidentiary record \ninsufficient to show that he observed Complainant nude or engaged in sexual activity without her \nknowledge. Notably, even if Respondent \n was present when others consumed ketamine off her \nnaked torso and/or when she exited the bed and flexed, the preponderance of the evidence \nshowed that Complainant was aware, by her own account, that she was nude at those times. For \nthis reason, the Panel determined that Respondent \n was not responsible for sexual exploitation \nunder the Policy.  \nHowever, the Panel considered Procedures Section 3.2, which prohibits attempting to commit \nprohibited conduct, and found that Respondent \n attempted to commit sexual exploitation \nwhen he went into the alumni room in the early morning hours of October 20, 2024. Specifically, \nby Respondent \n\u2019s own account, he went to the room, at least in part, because of a Snapchat \nmessage indicating there was \u201cfree pussy in alumni.\u201d Also by Respondent \n\u2019s own account, he \nthought \u201csomething [. . .] bad\u201d could be happening in the room, that someone could be \u201cin \ndanger,\u201d and that the situation could involve \u201ca lot of girls.\u201d He also noted that, while he did not \nhave specific knowledge of what was occurring in the room, he thought at the time, \u201cIf \nsomeone's having sex with someone in the room, they're not gonna send that text out.\u201d Taking \nthese statements together, the Panel considered it more likely than not that Respondent \n \nunderstood that the 1:42 a.m. message indicated some kind of sexual situation involving a \nfemale. The Panel likewise found the objectively reasonable understanding of the message to \nindicate some kind of sexual situation was occurring with a female in the alumni room. In \naddition, although Respondent \n repeatedly indicated that he thought the message was a \u201cjoke\u201d \nor not real, the Panel found such statements unreasonably incompatible with his account that he \nwas sufficiently \u201cworried\u201d about what was happening in the room that he went to check on the \nPriv\nthe\nth\nunde\nund\nfem\nf\nitted\na bit\na bit\nHearing Panel Decision \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n38 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 39 ---\nPage 37 of 97\nsituation\u2014particularly when he noted that it was not a social room that he frequented and that he \nwas not close to its residents\u2014and therefore did not credit his account in this regard. The Panel \nfurther considered Respondent \n\u2019s not a bit message and his statements acknowledging that, by \nthe time he arrived at the alumni room, he had received confirmation that there was \u201ca girl\u201d \npresent in that space and still chose to enter it. The Panel therefore determined by a \npreponderance of the evidence that Respondent \n understood that a female was likely nude \nand/or engaged in sexual activity in the alumni room on October 20, 2024, and entered the room \non that basis, intending to observe the same.23  \nIt is undisputed that Complainant had no knowledge of the Snapchat messages occurring in the \nActives group that night, had no previous relationship with Respondent \n, and did not invite \nhim to the alumni room. Therefore, the Panel determined that Respondent \n engaged in \nconduct directly tending towards completion of sexual exploitation (i.e., entering the alumni \nroom) with the intent to commit sexual exploitation (i.e., to observe a person nude or engaged in \nsexual activity without their knowledge and consent) and that such conduct thus constituted \nattempting to commit prohibited conduct in violation of the Policy. \nThe Panel next assessed the charge against Respondent \n regarding ingesting ketamine off \nComplainant\u2019s naked torso in the alumni room on October 20, 2024. The Panel first noted that \nRespondent \n consistently denied consuming any drugs in the alumni room that night. The \nPanel also noted that all accounts indicated that Respondent \n entered the alumni room at or \nabout the same time as \n and \n likewise consistently stated that \nRespondent \n did not ingest ketamine while in the room that night. The Panel further \nconsidered that Complainant thought Respondent \n participated in ingesting ketamine off her \nthat night, but did not actually observe him do so. The Panel also noted that, although \n recalled Respondent \n inhaling ketamine off Complainant, neither \n \n nor \nindicated the same. Finally, the Panel considered the apparent negative \nresults of Respondent \n ketamine test and that both \nand Respondent \n \nindicated that hair follicle tests for ketamine could reveal the drug\u2019s presence for up to three \nmonths, with Respondent \nhaving taken the test within six weeks of October 20. Ultimately, in \nits review of the totality of the information collected, the Panel found the evidentiary record \ninsufficient to show that Respondent \ningested ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body in the early \nmorning hours of October 20 and therefore determined that he is not responsible for sexual \nassault under the Policy.  \n23 The Panel did not find Respondent \n\u2019s statements regarding his intent to borrow \n \u201cvape\u201d or \ncheck on \n to be material to its analysis in this regard as, even if true, he could have had multiple \nreasons for going to the alumni room that night\u2014including to view someone in a state of undress or involved in \nsexual activity.  \nPriv\nitted\nde\nde\nom\nom\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n39 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 40 ---\nPage 38 of 97\nG.\n \n1. Complaint Charges Against \n \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \nwas charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited \nconduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her \npermission; and (b) touched his nose to Complainant\u2019s naked torso and inhaled a powdered \nsubstance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation.  \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence \na.\nComplainant \nIn her November 14 interview, Complainant indicated that, at some point during the night of \nOctober 19, 2024, when she was \u201cnaked\u201d in \n bed, \u201ctwo guys named \n\u201d \nentered the room. (App. A, 62) She recalled being introduced to them while \n \n were also in the room. She described them as \u201cstanding\u201d at the foot of the bed, \nadding, \u201cThey felt more like voyeurs than anything in the situation. They didn\u2019t get as \ncomfortable as everybody else did.\u201d Although she was \u201cunsure\u201d of the particular \u201csequence of \nthe[] events,\u201d she recalled certain interactions with \nexiting the bed while naked \nand \u201cflexing,\u201d and being \u201cberated with compliments.\u201d (App. A; 68-70, 72) She also indicated \nthat \n asked to ingest ketamine off of her body and that she agreed in some form. \nShe continued, \u201cI remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just poured all \nsorts of stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. [. . . S]everal lines [were] done \nby almost everybody.\u201d (App. A, 73) In her November 15 interview, she stated, \u201cI\u2019m not even sure \nif the two \nare in Chi Phi. [. . .] But they all were partaking in the drugs because they did \nthem off of my body. But I did put my hands over my face at that point.\u201d (App. A; 126-127) In \nher February 7 interview, Complainant said, \u201c[T]he \n, as far as I know, were voyeurs. \nWell, except the times that the did drugs off my body, and who knows if they touched anything \nwhile they were doing that[.]\u201d (App. A, 137) Although she did not know what either of them \nlooked like after that night, Complainant consistently indicated that either Respondent \n or \n asked if she was okay or otherwise physically supported her after Student AV \nentered the alumni room and told everyone to leave. (See, e.g., App. B, 32) \nb.\n \n consistently stated in his interviews, documentary submissions, and at the \nhearing that he did not observe Complainant naked at any time nor partake in any drug use while \nin the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024. At the hearing on May 15, 2025, he \nconfirmed that he had not known Complainant prior to that night. Regarding his account of what \noccurred, his Timeline indicated that he \u201ccalled [Respondent \n] and went to [\ns \nPriv\nhea\nh\nitted\nted \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n40 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 41 ---\nPage 39 of 97\nroom\u201d at or around 2:23 a.m. on October 20, 2024, after having spent time at the fraternity\u2019s \nparty earlier in the night. (App. B, 272) In his December 9 interview, he said:  \nMe and [Respondent \n] were hanging out in [\n room and [Respondent \n], I think, happened to see [a Snapchat message in the Actives group] and said, \u201cHey, \nlook at this,\u201d and it was [. . .] to the effect of \u201cFree pussy in alumni.\u201d We saw that text and \nwere somewhat concerned but thought it could be just crude humor. \n(App. A, 331) He continued, \u201cI was genuinely concerned and wanted to investigate what\u2019s going \non.\u201d (App. A, 335) He also wrote in his Timeline, \u201c[Respondent \n]\u2019s vape had died, and he \nwanted to borrow someone else\u2019s. He knew [\n] had a vape in [the alumni] room. \n[Respondent \n] asked if I wanted to go check it out, and I agreed. [Respondent \n] also \nmentioned that he thought [\n was pretty inebriated while they were hanging out \nso we wanted to check on him.\u201d (App. B, 272) During his February 10 interview, \n \nexplained that he had actually seen the \u201cFree pussy in alumni\u201d Snapchat message before he \ncalled Respondent \n at 2:23 a.m. on October 20. In the hearing on May 15, \n \nstated, \u201cI first saw [the message] while I was still down in the foyer, and [. . .] I kind of thought it \nwas like an attention-seeking kind of joke to get people to go to the [alumni] room.\u201d (Trans. \n5/15; 26) \nAbout what happened after he and Respondent \n entered the alumni room, \n \nrecalled seeing Complainant under bed coverings, with \n, all in \nor on that same bed. He recalled talking with Respondent \n, hearing some conversation from \nthe bed area, that Respondent\n interacted briefly with \n, and that he and \nRespondent \n introduced themselves to Complainant. During his December 9 interview, \n said that he was in the room for \u201c[f]ive minutes, maybe\u201d (App. A, 334) and \nconsistently stated that he both arrived and left with Respondent \n. \nAbout his decision to go to the alumni room that night, \n stated during his \nFebruary 10 interview, \u201c[Respondent \n and I] thought at that point [that the \u2018Free pussy in \nalumni\u2019 Snapchat message] was just a kind of absurd joke. No one really thought it was being \nserious[. . . . W]e knew [\n was down there, I guess. And then when we went in \nthere, I thought at that time \u2013 thinking that it was kind of a joke. And my concerns that it wasn\u2019t \nkinda alleviated because people are just hanging out in there.\u201d (App. A, 356) He continued, \n\u201c[W]e seriously \u2013 I\u2019ll emphasize seriously \u2013 did not think there was anything going \u2013 we thought \nit was just a joke.\u201d (App. A, 362) In the hearing on May 15, \nsaid, \u201c[Respondent \n and I] thought the message was a joke. But [in] the back of our head, it is a cruder-than-\nnormal joke. And maybe we should go check it out. We wanted to go check out if [\n \n] was okay in there. [. . .] And also, it sounds kind of silly, but [Respondent \n]\u2019s vape had \ndied, and he knew [\n had a vape in there.\u201d (Trans. 5/15; 35) When asked what he \nunderstood the message to reference, he answered, \u201c[I]t\u2019s just that there\u2019s a free girl in the room. \nBut again, no one took that literally as meaning there\u2019s a free girl in the room. [. . .] Using the \nPriv\nit\na\nnorm\nnor\nitted\nt and\nand \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n41 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 42 ---\nPage 40 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision\n-M\n42 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Perrnitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 43 ---\nI\nI\nI\nI\nPage 41 of 97\n and \n all in or on \n bed. He indicated that \nComplainant was under bed coverings at the time. He said that he sat on the couch and conversed \nwith \n for some minutes before asking both\n and Complainant if \nthey were \u201call right\u201d\u2014both of whom responded affirmatively\u2014and exiting the room with \n (App. A, 371) He recalled an interaction with Complainant before exiting in \nwhich she \u201claughed\u201d about both his and \n first names being \u201c\n.\u201d (App. A, \n372) He estimated that he was in the alumni room for \u201c[n]o more than five minutes\u201d that night. \n(App. A, 380) Respondent \n consistently stated that he both arrived at the alumni room and left \nwith \n on October 20. He likewise consistently indicated that he did not observe \nany drug use or Complainant naked at any time he was present in the alumni room that night. At \nthe hearing on May 21, Respondent \n stated that, when he was getting his own ketamine test \nperformed, he was told by the collections personnel at Omega Laboratories, \u201c[E]ven if you take \n[ketamine] one time, it can stay in your hair for up to three to six months.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 168) \nDuring \n interview, he recalled about after \n consumed \nketamine off of Complainant\u2019s body, \u201ctwo guys walked in, [Respondent \n] and [\n \n]. They introduced themselves, started talking, and [Complainant] invited them in.\u201d (App. A, \n186) He continued, \u201cAnd then, [\n] are telling [\n] \nabout how they did ketamine off of [Complainant\u2019s] chest. [. . .] And then, both [\n \n] asked her if they could do ketamine off her chest too, because [\n \n] had told them about it. She said yeah, so they did.\u201d (App. A, 187) He did not recall who \npoured that ketamine or how much they consumed. He also indicated that Complainant \u201cgot up \nout of the bed and started doing like a bodybuilder pose\u201d while \n were in \nthe alumni room. (App. A, 186) \nIn \n January 8 interview, he recalled entering the alumni room in the early \nmorning hours of October 20 and talking with Complainant and \n \nHe continued, \u201cAt some point, then the door opens in the room. I look back and I see \n[Respondent \n] has entered the room. Then, I can\u2019t recall if it was right behind him or a little \nbit later at some point [\n walks into the room as well.\u201d In the hearing on May 14, \n2025, \n explained, \u201cI believe sometime shortly before [\n asked to \ningest ketamine off of Complainant\u2019s body], I remember actually hearing the door and glancing \nback and seeing them, but I actually don\u2019t recall where they were exactly when he said those \nwords specifically.\u201d (Trans. 5/14; 144)  \nIn his January 27 interview, \n said that he and \n then ingested \nketamine off Complainant\u2019s body. In the hearing on May 14, he stated about that time, \u201cI had not \nheard or seen [Respondent \n] since I heard that door open in the moment, but I think I had the \nimpression that [he and \n were in the room too somewhere in the background.\u201d \nWhen asked what gave him the impression that \nwas still in the room at that time, \n answered, \u201cI just didn\u2019t recall hearing the door open again.\u201d In his January 27 \ninterview, he said about what happened next, \u201cI remember at some point, [Respondent \n] just \nPriv\nIn \nIn\nketam\nket\nhea\nh\nitted\nA, \nA,\nht.\nht.\nftft\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n43 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 44 ---\nPage 42 of 97\ncomes up to me. I\u2019m not sure what he said, but he just walks up to me because he\u2019s one of my \nfriends. [. . .] I don\u2019t remember the exact words he said to me, but I just remember him coming \nup to me, and then, going back to talking with, I believe, it was [\n (App. A, 428) \nHe recalled that the next thing that happened was Complainant exiting the bed and \u201cflexing her \nmuscles to everybody in the room,\u201d after which \n \u201c[came] into the room and basically \nkick[ed] everyone out[.]\u201d (App. A, 428) He did not remember \n inhaling ketamine \noff Complainant\u2019s body. \n  \n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\nly\nmine\nmine\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n44 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 45 ---\nI\nI\nPage 43 of 97\nH.\n1. Complaint Charges Against\nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \n was charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Assault, Sexual Exploitation, and Aiding Prohibited Conduct \n(Sexual Exploitation). Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) penetrated \nComplainant\u2019s vulva with his penis without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative \nconsent due to incapacitation; (b) struck Complainant\u2019s buttocks without affirmative consent, \n24 The Panel did not find \n statements regarding Respondent \n\u2019s contemporaneous interest in \nborrowing \n \u201cvape\u201d or checking on \n to be material to its analysis in this regard as, \neven if true, \n could have had multiple reasons for going to the alumni room that night\u2014including to \nview someone in a state of undress or involved in sexual activity.  \nPriv\n(Se\n(S\nCom\nCom\ncon\nc\nitted\nit\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n45 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 46 ---\nPage 44 of 97\nincluding lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; (c) intentionally gave Complainant \nketamine for the purpose of making her vulnerable to nonconsensual sexual assault and/or sexual \nexploitation by himself and/or others; (d) offered powdered ketamine to Complainant by placing \nit on his penis for her to inhale, requiring Complainant to touch her nose to his penis without her \naffirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; (e) touched his \nnose to Complainant\u2019s naked torso and inhaled a powdered substance off her body without \naffirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation; and (f) sent \nmessages to a SnapChat group chat in which he invited others to come to his residence to \nobserve Complainant when she was nude or engaged in sexual activity and/or to engage in \nsexual activity with Complainant, without her knowledge and consent.  \nAs indicated in Section IV.A above, there is no dispute that Complainant generally consented to \nthe sexual intercourse that took place during the initial threesome activity involving \n \n. As such, the Panel did not include that specific conduct in its analysis.  \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence  \na.\nComplainant \nComplainant consistently stated that she engaged in vaginal-penile sex with \n\u2014\nspecifically, the threesome activity\u2014while she was in the alumni room with him and \n \n on the night of October 19, 2024. About her experience of that threesome activity, \nComplainant\u2019s November 15 CUPD statement included: \nI was completely naked[. . . .] I began to give oral sex to [\n], while \n[\n] had vaginal sex with me from behind. I would say that I was pretty ok \nwith having this threesome with [\n] and \n]. During the \nthreesome, I began to feel \n] hit me many times on my butt. I remember \nthat the hits were hurting me, and one hit in particular sent a sharp pain through me which \ncaused me to turn around and say, \u201cDamn!\u201d I remember that particular hit was jolting and \nforced me to pause momentarily.   \n(App. B, 30) During Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she said, \u201cI just remember one sharp \npain. I remember looking back [at \n once.\u201d (App. A, 46) She also said, \u201cAt that \ntime, I didn\u2019t really realize how hard he was hitting me. But I do remember a burn.\u201d (App. A, 39) \nShe further recalled, \u201cI took a photo on October 30[, 2024] of my butt because I never took \npictures of the bruises. [. . .] And there were still little marks left where you could see where I \nhad been hit.\u201d (App. A, 45) On January 2, 2025, Complainant submitted a photograph to the \nInvestigator by email, writing, \u201cThe picture of my buttox is the bruise left after 12 or so days \nafter the incident. From what I remember the bruising on my buttox came from [\n \nslapping me.\u201d (App. B; 165-166) At the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant indicated that she \nthought the bruise was on her \u201cleft buttock\u201d; that she did not have a sense of which hand \nRespondent used in that moment; and that she had \u201c[no] memory of conversation\u201d with \nPriv\np\nhad \nha\nInve\nInv\na\nitted\ns \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n46 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 47 ---\nPage 45 of 97\nHearing\nPanel Decision\n-\n47 of 99\nPrivate\n[94428]\nDistribution\nNot Permitted,\nSee Policy\n6.4\nDistributed\n08/18/2025\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 48 ---\nPage 46 of 97\n197) When asked if he ever \u201cslap[ped] or spank[ed]\u201d Complainant\u2019s buttocks while \u201cbehind her,\u201d \n answered, \u201cNo, I don\u2019t recall doing so,\u201d and, \u201c[\n] did.\u201d (App. A, \n220) He then indicated that this occurred when the threesome activity at one point involved \nComplainant engaged in oral sex with \n, while \n engaged in vaginal-\npenile sex with Complainant from behind.25 When asked how many times \n struck \nComplainant in that manner, \n indicated he did not know, adding, \u201cAfter the first \none, she asked him to do it again,\u201d and that Complainant \u201cdidn\u2019t\u201d indicate pain at any point. \n(App. A, 220) Later, \n explained that he was \u201c[u]nsure\u201d if \n \nconduct in this regard was \u201cstriking\u201d or was \u201cmore of a grab/squeeze.\u201d (App. A, 220) At the \nhearing on May 12, 2025, \n said, \u201cSo, when I was sitting on the couch while \n[Complainant] and [\n] were having sex, he did strike her buttocks. I just remember \nseeing that while I was there. [. . .] Like the action of his hand up and then going down.\u201d (Trans. \n5/12; 66, 67) He was \u201cnot sure\u201d what hand \n used to do so or where on \nComplainant\u2019s buttocks he made contact. (Trans. 5/12; 66) \n said that \n \n \u201cdid it again\u201d when Complainant asked him to, but did not remember how many times \n did it in total. (Trans. 5/12; 67)  \nAbout any sexual activity later in the night, \n said during his interview that there \nwere \u201c15-20 minutes of just [him] throwing up violently in a trash can\u201d before \nentered the room. (App. A, 185) He recalled \n throwing up \u201cnext to [him] on the \ncouch\u201d around that same time, as well. (App. A, 207) About when \n was in the \nroom, \n recalled that he \u201cwas throwing up\u201d while Complainant and \ntalked, \u201cstarted kissing,\u201d and \u201ceventually\u201d \u201cstart[ed] having sex on [\n] bed.\u201d \n(App. A; 185, 208) At the hearing on May 12, he explained that \n was \u201con top of\u201d \nComplainant on the bed. (Trans. 5/12; 76) During his interview, \n recalled that this \ncontinued with him \u201con the couch, still nauseous, like throwing up,\u201d until \n \u201cwoke \nup,\u201d at which time \n approached where \n and Complainant were \npositioned on the bed, and Complainant touched \n penis with her hand. (App. A, \n185) At the hearing on May 12, \n recalled \n leaving shortly \nthereafter and the three remaining parties moving to his bed. He recalled that Complainant \u201cwas \nstill fully nude\u201d at the time. (Trans. 5/12; 86) When asked during his interview if he engaged in \nany form of penetrative sex with Complainant while \n was in the room, he \nanswered, \u201cNo.\u201d (App. A, 221) At the hearing on May 12, when asked if he engaged in sexual \nactivity with Complainant while she and \n were on or near the couch in the room, \n answered, \u201cI don\u2019t remember having any sex from the point I threw up to when I \nwent to bed.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 76) He then said, \u201cI feel like I would remember it, but it is possible it \ndid happen.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 77) \n25 The Panel noted that, in the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant said, \u201cI do remember [\n hitting \nme. I don\u2019t really have memory of [\n] hitting me, but of course, [\n hit me earlier in the \nnight. [. . .] It could be that [\n] did that, but I don\u2019t have a memory of that.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 30) \nPriv\nwent\nwen\ndid\nd\nitted\nuck k \nfirst\nfirst\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n48 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 49 ---\nPage 47 of 97\n also said that, after \n entered the alumni room that night, \n \u201casked if [they] wanted to do more ketamine,\u201d and that \n then \u201cdid \nmore ketamine with [\n].\u201d (App. A, 186) He said that \n \n, all later ingested ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body and stated that he \u201cha[d] no \nrecollection\u201d of doing it himself. (App. A, 227) He recalled that Complainant requested ketamine \nafter the others took some and that \n \u201cgave some to her\u201d on a \u201ckey.\u201d (App. A; 214, \n219) He also stated that, although he had \u201cno recollection\u201d of offering Complainant ketamine \nfrom his penis, \u201cthere were pieces of [his] memory that [he] just can\u2019t remember\u201d and that there \nwere \u201choles in [his] memory\u201d from that night. (App. A, 219) At the hearing on May 12, when \nasked if he ingested ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body on the night of October 19, 2024, \n said, \u201cNot that I remember, but I feel like it definitely could have happened.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/12; 104)  \nc.\nAdditional Evidence \nIn \n March 17 statement, he described the threesome activity as involving two \nseparate occasions of sexual activity, during both of which Complainant engaged in oral sex with \n while \n engaged in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant. \ndid not indicate that he engaged in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant in the \nalumni room on the night of October 19, 2024. He also wrote that, at some point, \u201c[\n \n began to throw up into a trash can[.]\u201d (App. B, 260) \nIn \n December 18 interview, he recalled about sexual activity that occurred while \nhe was sitting on the couch in the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024, \u201c[A]s \n[Complainant] was performing [oral sex] on me, it was at that point that [\n \nproceeded to go behind her and insert himself. There was never any sort of verbal complaint, or \nany sort of indication, or any sort of signs of discomfort from [Complainant] upon this.\u201d (App. A, \n281) He described their relative physical positions in that moment as, \u201c[Complainant] was stood \nup, bent over, her mouth on me, and [\n \u2018went behind her and inserted himself\u2019] \ninto her from the rear. Into her vagina.\u201d (App. A, 291) At the hearing on May 13, 2025, \n was asked if there was any kind of communication with Complainant prior to \n moving behind her and engaging in sexual intercourse; he answered, \u201cI don\u2019t \nremember.\u201d (Trans. 5/13; 116) He then indicated that the three of them \u201cgeneral[ly]\u201d decided to \nmove to \n bed to continue sexual activity together. (Trans. 5/13; 118) \nIn \n December 11 interview, he recalled arriving at the alumni room during the \nearly morning hours of October 20, 2024, and finding Complainant and \n. \nHe said that, after some time, \u201c[\n] took out some ketamine and [. . .] asked \n[Complainant \u2018verbally\u2019] for consent and to which [Complainant \u2018verbally\u2019 ] gave to take the \nketamine off of her body.\u201d (App. A, 232) He continued, \u201cAnd when that happened, [\n \nand Complainant] offered if I would like to take ketamine off of her body. [. . . S]he said that \nI could take ketamine off of her body. So, given that I had gotten consent, [\n had \nPriv\nI\nearly\near\nHe s\nHe\n[C\n[\nitted\nine\nA; 214,\nA; 214,\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n49 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 50 ---\nPage 48 of 97\nlaid the ketamine on [Complainant]\u2019s torso or part of her body, and I took some ketamine.\u201d (App. \nA; 232-233, 234) \n did not recall Complainant ingesting ketamine in the alumni \nroom while he was present.   \nIn\n January 8 interview, he said that when he arrived at the alumni room at \naround 2:30 a.m. on October 20, 2024, \n answered the door \u201cnaked.\u201d (App. A, 416) \nHe stated that he entered the room and saw Complainant and \n in or on \n bed. He recalled that both he and \n later ingested ketamine off \nComplainant\u2019s body. In the hearing on May 14, 2025, when \n was asked if he \nrecalled \n ingesting any powdered substance while he was present in the room, \n answered, \u201cNo. I have no memory of [\n] ingesting a powdered \nsubstance when I was in the room.\u201d He likewise did not indicate that Complainant consumed \nketamine in the alumni room while he was present.  \nd. The Snapchat Messages \nAs indicated in Section IV.A above, the Snapchat video showed a message sent to the Actives \ngroup at 1:42 a.m. that read, \u201cFree pussy in alum pu\u201d (the \u201c1:42 a.m. message\u201d; App. C, 21) As \nalso discussed in Section IV.A above, the Panel found that it communicated an invitation for \nothers to go to the alumni room, along with a reference to female sexual anatomy. The 1:42 a.m. \nmessage was attributed to the name \n in the Snapchat video.            \nWhen \n was asked during his interview if he was aware of \u201cany sort of text \nexchanges or other messaging happening at or around the time when \n \nentered the alumni room in the early morning hours of October 20, 2024, \n \nanswered, \u201cNot that I recall, no.\u201d (App. A, 222) \n was then asked if he recalled a \nSnapchat message in the Actives group that read \u201csomething along the lines of \u2018Free pussy in \nAlumni Room,\u2019\u201d and he answered, \u201cNo, I don\u2019t. I don\u2019t.\u201d At the hearing on May 12, 2025, he \nsaid about the 1:42 a.m. message, \u201cI don\u2019t remember using my phone at any point that night[. . . \n.] So, I don\u2019t remember sending that text. I was honestly kind of mortified when I saw it was \nme.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 128) He indicated that it would not have been the first time that he sent a \nmessage without remembering having done so and recalled that it occurred on a prior occasion, \n\u201cthe last time [he] blacked out[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 151)  \nThe Panel noted that the username \n reflected a phonetic, albeit incorrect, \nspelling of \n name. The Panel also noted that the Snapchat video showing the \n1:42 a.m. message depicted a recording of an unknown Snapchat user\u2019s cell phone, which \ndisplayed the Actives group chat from that particular user\u2019s frame of reference. The Panel \nunderstood from the preponderance of the evidence\u2014including \n own \nstatements\u2014that the \u201c\n\u201d label was created by that unknown Snapchat user, not \n himself, and that a misspelling was therefore not unlikely in such context. Thus, \nbased on the totality of the circumstances, the Panel found that \n sent the 1:42 a.m. \nmessage. \nPriv\n1:4\n1:\ndispl\ndisp\nun\nu\nitted\n416) \n416) \nr on \nr on \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n50 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 51 ---\nPage 49 of 97\n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\ntittitit\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n51 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 52 ---\nPage 50 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n52 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 53 ---\nPage 51 of 97\n  \n     \nPriviviviv\nitted\ntitit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n53 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 54 ---\nPage 52 of 97\n  \n  \n   \nI.\n \n1. Complaint Charges Against \n \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \n was charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault. Specifically, the alleged prohibited \nPriviv\nitted\ntt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n54 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 55 ---\nI\nPage 53 of 97\nconduct was that he: (a) intentionally viewed Complainant in a state of undress without her \npermission; (b) touched his nose to Complainant\u2019s naked torso and inhaled a powdered substance \noff her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation; and (c) penetrated Complainant\u2019s mouth with his penis without her affirmative \nconsent, including lack of affirmative consent due to incapacitation.  \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence \na.\nComplainant \nComplainant recalled in her November 14 interview that she met \n at the Chi Phi \nhouse during \u201cfall break\u201d 2024, prior to the night of October 19, 2024 (the \u201cfall break \ninteraction\u201d).27 She stated that she brought her brother and that \n \n \nwere present, as well. She indicated that she consumed marijuana on that occasion, adding, \u201cAnd \nthen, [\n] pulled out ketamine. [. . .] They offered me ketamine. I said no. [. . .] \n[\n] said that it was from his plug [. . . and \n told him, in essence, to \nshut up.\u201d (App. A; 18, 22) She recalled that \n then ingested the ketamine, \nwhich she described as a \u201c[w]hite powder in a [\u2018plastic\u2019] bag.\u201d (App. A; 18, 21) She continued, \n\u201cThey were clearly very experienced with it. They made that very known to me is that they were \navid ketamine users. [. . .] And almost boasted themselves as avid ketamine users.\u201d (App. A, 25) \nAt the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant confirmed that this occurred in the Pentz of the Chi \nPhi house. In the \n November 7 call, Complainant said to \n \u201c[Y]ou remember \nhanging out with me and my brother. I refused ketamine then because I had never done it before. \nAnd I\u2019m not a hard drugs person,\u201d and \n replied, \u201cSure. I guess.\u201d (App. C, 38)  \nAbout the night of October 19, 2024, Complainant recalled in her November 14 interview being \nin \n bed when a number of individuals entered the alumni room. She described \ntheir positioning in the moments that followed as, \u201c[\n lays in the bed to my right. \n[\n gets in the corner to my left. This kid named [\n the one from \nbefore, he walks in [. . .] and he sits between me and [\n]. [. . .] And then, there was \na circle of guys around me. So, I was like literally cornered. [. . .] And I\u2019m a naked woman[.]\u201d \n(App. A, 61) She said about that occurrence, \u201cI knew it was [\n because I had met \nhim before. He was like, \u2018Good to see you again,\u2019 and crawled in bed next to me.\u201d (App. A, 63) \nAbout what happened next, Complainant said at the hearing on May 2, \u201cTh[e] sequence could \nhave been anything.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 55) During her November 14 interview, she recalled \nintroductions occurring, certain interactions with \n and exiting the bed and flexing \nher muscles. She continued: \n[T]hey were looking at my body and I was naked. And I was berated with compliments. [. \n. .] It was a lot of really nice things all at once. [. . .] And then, it all kind of came to a \n27 The Panel noted that the University\u2019s 2024 fall break began on Saturday, October 12, and went through Tuesday, \nOctober 15, 2024. See https://registrar.cornell.edu/academic-calendar.  \nPriv\nin\nher \nhe\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n55 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 56 ---\nPage 54 of 97\nhead, and [\n was like, \u201c[Complainant], would you mind if we did \nketamine off of your perfect body,\u201d [. . . a]nd I was like, \u201cI guess,\u201d or whatever. And I \nwas already partly lying down because it was so much easier to lie down. I was super \ntired and so, I remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just poured \nall sorts of stuff all over me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. I\u2019m not sure if there \nwere other substances other than ketamine but several lines were done by almost \neverybody. I think everybody had a turn.       \n(App. A, 73) In the \n November 7 call, Complainant stated, \u201c[\n asked for drugs \nto be done off of my body.\u201d (App. C, 31) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant described \nherself as \u201cseverely incapacitated\u201d when she responded to \n request, as well as \nbeing \u201csurrounded by a ton of men\u201d and feeling a \u201csevere power imbalance[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 71) \nShe continued about \n \u201c[H]e also was not a friend of mine. I had known him \nfrom the week or two before. He was a stranger to me.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 71) She said that her \ncovering her face did not result from \u201c[a] series of thoughts,\u201d but \u201cwas just more reflexive[, as] \nthe world we live in is people have phones.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 73) She also said that she had \u201ca \nspecific memory\u201d of \u201c[\n]\u2019s head [with \u2018black hair\u2019]\u201d while he was ingesting \nketamine off of her body. (Trans. 5/2; 74) \nDuring Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she recounted \n and \nentering the alumni room later in the night. She recalled her experience of that time by saying, \u201cI \nwas very intoxicated. [. . .] The room was spinning. I was trying to find my dress. [. . .] And then, \n[\n] end up ushering me upstairs[.]\u201d (App. A, 74) During the \n \nNovember 7 call, she stated, \u201cAnd then after that, I was taken up to the room with you and \n[\n].\u201d (App. C, 34) During her November 14 interview, Complainant stated that the \ntwo Respondents brought her to \u201ca [\u2018teeny tiny\u2019] closet that was repurposed into an office \nalmost.\u201d (App. A, 77) Complainant later confirmed that space as the foffice. She recalled at the \nhearing on May 5, \u201c[W]e weren\u2019t in [\ns room [near the foffice] because [\n \n] was with a girl in there. I think [\n told me [. . . p]robably when we first got \nup there.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 21) About the space she was in at that time, she said at the hearing on May \n2, \u201cIt felt like there was a lot of stuff in there. I just felt like I couldn\u2019t move. It felt like I was in a \ncloset. [. . .] It was, again, like I was cornered.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 79) During Complainant\u2019s \nNovember 14 interview, she described the space as having \u201ca table and two monitors [on a desk] \nand like two chairs.\u201d (App. A, 77) She continued: \n[\n sat down in a chair. They gave me more ketamine. [. . .] I \nwatched them pour a lot of it but, of course, I was super kind of in and out of \nconsciousness so I wouldn\u2019t have caught a slight of hand at all. [. . .] I just know \n[\n asked to have sex again and I said no. I was like, \u201cI don\u2019t know. I\u2019m \nlike worn out,\u201d and I also felt my eyes \u2013 it felt like one was going in that direction and \n[the other] was going in [another] direction.    \nPriv\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n56 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 57 ---\nPage 55 of 97\n(App. A, 78) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant said, \u201c[W]hen we\u2019re all funneled in there, I \ndon\u2019t think I\u2019m given a chair or anything, so I grab onto the desk for support, and the wall for \nsupport, and then I just, I think, settle on the ground. [. . .] They\u2019re facing me.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 81) \nShe recalled that both \n were between her and the exit door.  \nAbout her ketamine consumption in the foffice, Complainant said during her November 14 \ninterview, \u201cI don\u2019t know how much they poured. I don\u2019t know where I took it from. [. . .] I don\u2019t \nknow where it came from or how it got in my system. [. . .] I\u2019m pretty sure it was that kind of \nfinal bump that made my eyes do the weird eye jerk.\u201d (App. A; 78-79) At the hearing on May 5, \nComplainant said that she had \u201clittle to no recollection\u201d of what was happening when she \ningested ketamine in that moment, stating, \u201cI just remember it was done because I had my nose \non something. [\u2018It\u2019s kind of like I wanna say my nose was on a table, but that\u2019s all I ... But again, \nit could be that my nose was actually on a chair.\u2019] That\u2019s all I remember from that.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; \n3)28 She also said, \u201cIt\u2019s just been a long time at this point. I don\u2019t know. [. . . T]here\u2019s a ton of \ntime that elapsed in the foffice or whatever that I have no memory whatsoever.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 5) \nComplainant described how she felt in that moment by saying, \u201cIt\u2019s maybe the most fucked up \nI\u2019ve ever been in my life. [. . .] I remember saying a lot of things but I don\u2019t know what I was \nsaying. I was apparently just talking and talking. My eyes were closed and my mouth was \nrunning [. . . and] I felt like my eyes were going in different directions.\u201d (App. A, 83) At the \nhearing on May 5, she explained, \u201cI said I talked a lot because it felt I talked a lot, but it could be \nthat I didn\u2019t. But there were a lot of moments where they were talking, \u2018cause I remember just \nsitting there \u2018cause [. . . \u2018I was kind of staring at the wall and talking like this over and over, \nmaybe trying to distract from the fact that I thought my eyeballs were going like a chameleon.\u2019 . . \n.] I just remember that being debilitating.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 9-10) She also said, \u201cI couldn\u2019t have \ncommunicated my middle name, I don\u2019t think. I probably could have said my middle name, but \nany sort of thought about my perception of the world, not good, not possible.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 15) \nAbout how \n suggested sexual activity in the foffice, Complainant recalled, \u201cI\u2019m \nlike, \u2018Okay, I\u2019m not feeling the effects of the ketamine as much anymore.\u2019 And then around that \nsame period of time \u2013 \u2018cause I do think that I said that. [. . . ] And then around that same period \nof time I think was the ketamine being given to me again, and [\n saying, \nfollowing that sequence, \u2018Do you wanna have sex again?\u2019\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 6) During her November \n14 interview, Complainant recalled, \u201c[\n said he wanted redemption \u2018cause he \npassed out earlier and didn\u2019t get whatever he wanted.\u201d (App. A, 79) She said that she replied by \nindicating that she \u201cwas tired.\u201d (App. A, 79) She added, \u201cHe\u2019d inquired about it multiple times. I \nthink I said no. I think I said that I was tired or that I needed a minute. I prolonged [answering \nthe question]. I put it off. I just didn\u2019t want to do it again.\u201d (App. A, 81) Complainant also \nrecalled \n appearing in the foffice at some point and asking, \u201cYou all are still \n28 When asked at the hearing on May 5 if there was any reason why Complainant would be in that position if not to \ningest a substance, she answered, \u201cNo. There were times when I would lean up against something, but that\u2019s a \ndifferent movement[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 4) \nPriv\nin\nthink\nthi\nthe q\nthe\nrer\nitted\ndon\u2019t\ndon\u2019t\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n57 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 58 ---\nPage 56 of 97\ngoing?\u201d to which she replied, \u201cYeah, unfortunately\u201d in \u201ca sad, [\u2018not enthusiastic\u2019] tone.\u201d (App. A, \n81) She stated during the hearing on May 5 that \n was present when \n \nI suggested sexual activity in the foffice.  \nAbout what happened next, Complainant said in her November 14 interview: \nI ended up in the same situation with [\n] as I had with the other \nthreesome, as I ended up in another threesome. But I really did not want to be in that one. \nI was completely drugged and knocked out. I was half awake. I was on the floor of this \ncloset. I hardly fit in the room. [. . .] And I was so depleted and so tired and wanting to \nleave so badly. And I don\u2019t know how I made the situation stop. I\u2019m not sure if somebody \nhad finished. I\u2019m not sure what happened. \n(App. A, 82) She indicated that, during this sexual activity, she was engaged in oral sex with \n, while \n engaged in vaginal-penile sex with her from behind. \nDuring the hearing on May 5, Complainant said, \u201cI think at some point [\n] was \nhaving sex with me, and [\n] was literally just watching.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 14) She \nrecalled going to \n room after the sexual activity ended, interacting briefly with \n\u201ca girl\u201d who was in the room with \n at the time, and sleeping in \n bed. \n(Trans. 5/5; 21) \nRegarding how it happened that she engaged in sexual activity with \n in \nthe foffice, Complainant said at the hearing on May 5, \u201cI couldn\u2019t get much of anything out. I \njust felt kind of trapped. [\n] are sitting in front of the door, in front of the \nexit. I mean things are still being asked of me sexually. Ketamine is still being given during this \npoint in time. It was just ... I don\u2019t think I felt like I could get out.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 8) She added, \u201cI \ndidn\u2019t want to, but I felt like I had to.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 11)  \nDuring the \n November 7 call, she stated to \n, \u201cI don\u2019t really remember what \nhappened upstairs either. So, I was not really awake. I remember saying a bunch of shit that \nmade no fucking sense. Probably got all high and philosophical. [. . .] I remember I couldn\u2019t \nopen my eyes because I thought that I couldn\u2019t feel the effect of ketamine. [. . . I]t felt like my \neyeballs were going in different directions.\u201d (App. C, 40) She continued, \u201cSo, I remember that \npart, but I don\u2019t remember much else of what happened up in that room.\u201d (App. C, 40) \n did not specifically respond to those statements during the call.  \nb.\n \nIn \ns December 11 interview, he confirmed that he \u201chad met [Complainant] one \ntime [. . .] a week before October 19[, 2024,]\u201d adding, \u201cIt was on a Sunday during fall break.\u201d \n(App. A, 250) About that interaction, \n recalled \n inviting him to \nmeet Complainant, that he \u201creluctantly\u201d agreed to go with \n to the Pentz, and that \nhe then met Complainant and her brother. (App. A, 250) He said, \u201cI remember they were \ndrinking alcohol specifically like Keystone, smoking cigarettes. And they were just having some \nPriv\nIn \nIn \ntim\nt\nitted\nher \nher \none.\none.\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n58 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 59 ---\n\u201c\nPage 57 of 97\ncasual conversation. [. . . B]ut most of the time, I was on my phone playing poker.\u201d (App. A, \n250) He added, \u201cI do not recall bringing out any ketamine,\u201d and, \u201cI do not recall [\n \n] bringing out any ketamine that night.\u201d (App. A, 251) At the hearing on May 21, 2025, \n said that there may have been marijuana consumed among that group before he \narrived in the room. At the hearing on May 22, he said that \u201c[\n and other of his \nfriends [. . . \u2018often\u2019] smoke marijuana.\u201d (Trans. 5/22; 27-28) \nDuring the hearing on May 20, \n stated that the alumni room was \u201cone of the big \nsocial areas\u201d for his fraternity pledge class\u2014including \n, and Student AV\u2014and that he was \u201cin that room at least once a day.\u201d (Trans. \n5/20; 11, 14) About what activities occurred in the alumni room, he said, \u201cTo my knowledge, we \nwould go there to eat, play FIFA, and some of the individuals in that room would also smoke \nmarijuana.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 14). He also stated, \u201cKetamine was a prevalent substance that was used \nin our fraternity at the time.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 24) He indicated that he had consumed ketamine \n\u201c[m]aybe three times, four times\u201d prior to the night of October 19, 2024. (Trans. 5/20; 31) He \nrecalled, \u201c[W]hen I first tried ketamine, I was in my own world. I wasn\u2019t really cognizant of my \nsurroundings. I remember my mood being joyous or happy.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 31) At the hearing on \nMay 22, he described experiencing being in and out of consciousness on \u201call\u201d prior occasions in \nwhich he consumed ketamine. (Trans. 5/22; 68) \nRegarding the night of October 19, \n said that he had not consumed any alcohol \nor other substance prior to going to the alumni room at or just after 2:00 a.m. on October 20 \nwhen his sober duty ended, describing his \u201cintoxication level\u201d as \u201ca zero out of 10.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; \n17) He also recounted how he had assisted an intoxicated female who had just thrown up \nelsewhere in the house. In the \n November 7 call, \n told Complainant that he \nwent to the alumni rom because he \u201cwas just trying to smoke.\u201d (App. C, 39)  \nDuring his December 11 interview, he recalled entering the alumni room and seeing \u201cthree \npeople under the sheets\u201d of \n bed\u2014Complainant, \n, and \n (App. A; 230, 231) He indicated that he began talking with the three other \nparties while lying on the couch, including about his night and his \u201chanding out drinks\u201d at the \nparty. (App. A, 232) He continued, \u201cAfter we started conversing, I remember [Complainant] took \noff the covers of the sheets,\u201d and \u201c[s]he was unclothed.\u201d (App. A; 232, 233) In the hearing on \nMay 22, \n said that \u201can alarm bell rang in [his] head\u201d when he first noticed that \nComplainant was naked, but that \u201cit kind of quickly dissipated when she spoke and she seemed \nlike she was having fun[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/22; 17) He said at the hearing on May 20, \u201cWhen \n[Complainant] took off the sheets, as a byproduct, [\n]\u2019s also fell off. So, I realized \nhe was naked as well.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 19) He also described Complainant as \u201cjoking\u201d about \u201ca \nfailed attempt at a threesome.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 19) At the hearing on May 21, Respondent indicated \nthat he was \u201capprehensive of what was going on\u201d at first and that the situation \u201cwas weird.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/21; 60) During his December 11 interview, he stated about what happened next: \nPriv\nlik\nlik\n[Com\n[Co\nhe \nh\nitted\ng\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n59 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 60 ---\nPage 58 of 97\nSo, after [. . .] we had a conversation for 10 minutes, [\n] took out some \nketamine and he [\u2018verbally\u2019] asked [Complainant] for consent and to which [Complainant \n\u2018verbally\u2019] gave to take the ketamine off of her body. [. . .] And when that happened, \n[\n and Complainant] offered if I would like to take ketamine off of her \nbody. And I asked [her], \u201c[Complainant], is this okay?\u201d [. . .] And to which she said that I \ncould take ketamine off of her body. So, given that I had gotten consent, [\n \n] \nhad laid the ketamine on [Complainant]\u2019s torso or [\u2018around the belly button\u2019], and I \n[\u2018inhaled\u2019] some ketamine.  \n(App. A; 232-233, 234, 235, 247) At the hearing on May 20, he said that \n \u201cstood \nup from the bed\u201d when he \u201cfirst reached out to ask if he could consume ketamine\u201d and that \n then saw that \n \u201cwas naked.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 19)  \nDuring his December 11 interview, \n stated, \u201c[W]hile I was taking the ketamine off of \n[Complainant]\u2019s body, she actually was pulling down my pants, like tugging down my pants and \nkind of like in a sexual way. I kind of flinched and I kind of took a step back because I didn\u2019t \nwant to engage in anything like sex.\u201d (App. A, 234) At the hearing on May 20, he described his \nbody position in that moment by saying, \u201c[A]n elbow may have been on the bed, as well as the \ntop part of [my] body but the bottom half may have been on the ground.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 25) He \ndid not recall which hand Complainant used, what kind of pants he was wearing at the time, or \nwhere \n were at that time. He also indicated that Complainant was lying \ndown, with her \u201ctop half\u201d exposed, while he was ingesting ketamine off her body and confirmed \nthat he \u201cinhaled the ketamine with [his] nose.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 22, 29) During his December 11 \ninterview, \n did not recall Complainant or \n consuming ketamine \nwhile he was present in the room.  \nAbout what happened next, \n said, \u201cI remember talking to them. [. . . T]hen the \nketamine started to hit harder [\u2018maybe like five, seven minutes\u2019 later]. And I decided to lay down \non the bed where [Complainant], [\n] were like sitting on. \nAnd I just lied there for like 30 minutes unconscious.\u201d (App. A; 236, 237) He added, \u201c[W]hen I \nwas unconscious, I remember people coming in [to the alumni room], but I did not know who \nthey were.\u201d (App. A, 236) In \n January 16 interview, he explained, \u201cWhen I said \nI was unconscious in the alumni room, [. . .] what I was trying to say is that I was out of it. I was \nlooking at the ceiling the entire time, closing my eyes, and going into a lapse of \u2013 just was \nsleeping, I guess, and waking up, and blinking, and then closing my eyes again.\u201d (App. A, 275) \nDuring the hearing on May 20, \ndescribed this experience by saying, \u201cI was very \nmuch concerned more about my sense of being and my own consciousness.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 40) \nWhen asked if it was possible that he was engaging with others in the room at the time, he \nanswered, \u201cIt could be possible but I would doubt it. [. . .] Perhaps I was. I\u2019m not completely \nsure.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 41-42) In his December 11 interview, \n recalled, \u201cThen, when \nI woke up, everyone had left the alumni room.\u201d (App. A, 236) At the hearing on May 20, he \nexplained that he actually left with the rest of the group and recalled interacting with \n \nPriv\nDu\nD\nmuch\nmu\nWh\nW\nitted\nat I\n]\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n60 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 61 ---\nPage 59 of 97\nas he did so. In the \n November 7 call, \n told Complainant, \u201cI came [into the \nalumni room] when it was just you, [\n], and [\n]. And then, I left. [. . \n.] And then, I think this thing escalated and I left, actually.\u201d (App. C, 39)  \nRegarding his consumption of ketamine in the alumni room that night, \n said at \nthe hearing on May 20, \u201cI think perhaps when I was under the influence of ketamine, after \nhaving consumed it with \n I may have consumed it again. I\u2019m not entirely sure \nand I don\u2019t have a recollection of me consuming ketamine again. But I may have consumed \nketamine a second time in the alumni room.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 27) When asked why he ingested \nketamine off Complainant\u2019s body that night, \n answered, \u201cI think when I first \nentered the alumni room, I was first of all greeted by three people who seemed to be having a lot \nof fun and who seemed not to mind the fact that ketamine was active in that room.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; \n28) He continued, \u201cBut also, I feel maybe I was charmed by their energy and the fact that they \nwere having fun and I wanted to have fun as well.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 28) He also described \u201cthe act \nof consuming a substance off of someone\u2019s body\u201d as \u201cludicrous [. . .] in hindsight.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; \n29) He indicated that he did not possess nor give ketamine to Complainant at any time.  \nAbout what happened next, \n stated in his December 11 interview, \u201cSo, when I \ncame out of the alumni room [at \u2018around 3:15 a.m.\u2019], I [\u2018immediately\u2019] walked up to the Pentz, \nand that\u2019s where I met [\ns date, [\n], and \n[Complainant].\u201d (App. A; 237, 238) \n described the Pentz as a social room in \u201cthe \nattic\u201d of the Chi Phi house. (App. A, 237) He said that the five of them then \u201chad a lively, nice \nconversation\u201d for \u201caround an hour.\u201d (App. A, 237) At the hearing on May 20, he described \nspecifically where everyone was seated on the couches in the Pentz as they talked.29 In his \nDecember 11 interview, he recalled, \u201c[D]uring our conversations, [. . . Complainant] had \nspecifically said that she could not feel the effects of ketamine. It went something along the lines \nof, \u2018It\u2019s weird, but I don\u2019t think I can feel the effects of ketamine.\u2019\u201d (App. A, 237) At the hearing \non May 20, \n indicated that he understood by Complainant\u2019s statements in that \nregard that she had consumed ketamine in the alumni room earlier that night.  \nDuring his December 11 interview, \n recalled that, at some point, \u201cthere were \nsome people right outside of the attic who were listening into [the] conversations\u201d due to \n\u201crumors coming out\u201d about \u201csome weird sexual activities that were happening\u201d in the alumni \nroom. (App. A, 239) He said, \u201c[\u2018You could hear the whispers\u2019 and \u2018a little fidgeting of they\u2019re \nwalking.\u2019] And [Complainant] was telling us about it. And they were like, \u2018Yeah, we should \nprobably go somewhere that\u2019s more private, right.\u2019 So, we went to the room that\u2019s actually right \n29 During the hearing on May 2, Complainant said, \u201cI ended up in [the Pentz] for two seconds, but I don\u2019t have any \nmemory of sitting in that room. [. . .] I remember being shoved into the closet. [. . . A]t no time was I in this huge \ncouch area, or anything like that. That would\u2019ve been great. I\u2019m sure I would\u2019ve lied down and gone to sleep.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/2; 78) About seeing \n account of this time period in the evidentiary record, Complainant \nsaid at hearing on May 5, \u201cI read that. And I was like, \u201cWhat is going on?\u201d That was one of the most shocking ... I \nhave no clue what [\n was talking about. I do not remember that at all.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 30)   \nPriv\npro\npr\niv\n2\nitted\nsure\nsure\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n61 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 62 ---\nPage 60 of 97\nnext to [\n \ns room, which is called the foffice.\u201d (App. A; 239, 240) \nHe also said, \u201cI believe [Complainant] told us that she was uncomfortable with these random \npeople in the other corner of the house listening to our conversation. So, the foffice is maybe five \nsteps away from the [Pentz . . . .] So, we figured we could get more privacy there. I don\u2019t \nremember clearly who mentioned let\u2019s go into the foffice, but we did go in there.\u201d (App. A, 253) \nHe added, \u201cI did not know there were rumors going around during the night.\u201d (App. A, 240) \n also recalled that \n date left the Pentz after \u201cmaybe \nan hour.\u201d (App. A, 239)  \nIn the hearing on May 20, \n recalled that after the three parties entered the foffice, \nhe was \u201cstanding half-ish, half-ish sitting down on the desk,\u201d Complainant was \u201csitting on the \nblack reclinable chair,\u201d and \u201c[\n] was sitting on the wooden chair.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; \n58) Regarding what occurred in the foffice that night, \nindicated that he, \nComplainant, and \n engaged in conversation \u201cfor around an hour and a half\u201d \ncovering a variety of topics, including their respective high school experiences, music, the prior \nthreesome activity, and previous rumors about Complainant. (App. A, 241) He also recalled \nComplainant playing music on the computer that was present in the space. During the hearing on \nMay 20, \n described these conversations as \u201cdeep.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 61) He indicated \nin the hearing on May 21 that he felt \u201ccloser\u201d to Complainant and that he \u201ccame [to] have more \nintimate connection with [her]\u201d because of these interactions. (Trans. 5/21; 5, 64) He said during \nthe hearing on May 20 that he \u201cd[id]n\u2019t really remember a lot [\u2018about\u2019] how [\n] \nresponded\u201d during the conversations because the Formal Complaint charges involved him and \nComplainant, though he did recall that Complainant \u201cwas holding eye contact with [\n \n] a lot and looking at him.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 63, 66) During his December 11 interview, \n said: \nAnd because of these conversations, I did not think none of us were inebriated or under \nthe influence of drugs anymore. [. . . B]ut then, after like an hour and a half [or \u201ctwo \nhours\u201d], [\n asked [Complainant] if we could have a threesome, I assume, I \ndon\u2019t know why, maybe because it failed last time or something. I don\u2019t know. And \n[Complainant] said [. . .], \u201cYeah, let\u2019s do it.\u201d But something I specifically remember after \n[\n] had asked [Complainant] if we could have a threesome, I had \nspecifically stated, I said, \u201c[Complainant], by the way, if you\u2019re uncomfortable and you \ndon\u2019t want to do this, that\u2019s perfectly okay. We can just call it a night.\u201d To which she said, \n\u201cNo, it\u2019s fine. We\u2019re all consenting adults here,\u201d and that she wants to have a threesome.  \n(App. A; 242, 244) At the hearing on May 20, \n explained the reasons why he \nmade those statements as, \u201cI know she must have been tired, [\u2018it was so late,\u2019. . . \u2018I think we were \nall feeling a little bit tired at that time,\u2019]\u201d; \u201cI didn\u2019t know if she wanted to have another sexual \nactivity so close [to the prior \u2018failed threesome\u2019]\u201d; and, \u201cI myself was reluctant to have a \nthreesome.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 64, 65) He indicated that at no point did Complainant verbalize or \notherwise communicate that she was tired while they were in the foffice.  \nPriv\n(App\n(Ap\nma\nm\nitted\n3) )\n)\nybe\nybe\nHearing Panel Decision - SK \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n62 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 63 ---\nPage 61 of 97\nAbout what happened next, \n stated during his December 11 interview, \u201cI asked \n[Complainant] if I could have oral sex,\u201d and, \u201cWhen she was giving me oral sex [as \u2018I was sitting \non my chair\u2019], I struggled getting an erection. And I remember her telling me specifically not to \nbe embarrassed and that this is perfectly fine and that no one would judge me.\u201d (App. A, 245) He \ncontinued, \u201c[A]fter she gave me oral sex for maybe two minutes, [\n] then \nproceeded to ask if he could have oral sex.\u201d (App. A, 245) \n indicated that there \nthen was \u201ca bit of teasing\u201d \u201cin a sexual manner,\u201d after which \u201c[Complainant] gave [\n \n oral sex [for \u2018maybe two minutes\u2019].\u201d (App. A, 245) He stated, \u201cAfter that, [\n] \ninserted his penis into [Complainant]\u2019s vagina and [Complainant] gave me oral sex,\u201d which \nactivity \u201clasted two minutes, three minutes.\u201d (App. A, 246) When asked if \n \ncontinued to engage in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant after the oral sex between \nComplainant and \n ended, \n answered, \u201cI\u2019m sorry, but from that \nnight, I remember things about what happened with me, so I don\u2019t remember.\u201d (App. A, 246) He \nadded, \u201cI believe [\n] received oral sex afterwards and then, yeah. And that was it.\u201d \n(App. A; 246-247) At the hearing on May 21, \n recalled that when Complainant \nstopped engaging in oral sex with him, he \u201cwalk[ed him]self to near the door of the foffice\u201d and \nwas there \u201con [his] phone [\u2018deliberately turned away\u2019].\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 7, 8) When asked during \nhis December 11 interview if the three of them consumed ketamine in the foffice at any time, \nanswered, \u201cNo, no, there was no drugs. There was no alcohol in the foffice.\u201d \n(App. A, 254) \n indicated he was with \n and Complainant the entire \ntime they were in the foffice. During his interviews, \ndid not recall \n \n appearing in the foffice at any time, but explained at the hearing on May 21 that, \u201cafter \nreading all the accounts\u201d in the evidentiary record, he was \u201creminded\u201d that \n was \npresent \u201cbriefly\u201d in the foffice, \u201cwearing his pajamas and [looking] fresh as though he had \nshowered.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 11).  \nAbout what happened after the sexual activity in the foffice ended, \n recalled in \nhis December 11 interview, \u201c[B]y the time we decided to go to bed[,] light was beginning to \nshine. Sunrise was happening. It was very, very early in the morning.\u201d (App. A, 244) He \nindicated that the three parties left the foffice together, and Complainant then went to sleep in the \nbedroom \n shared with \n \n said, \u201cIt was around like 7:10 \na.m.\u201d when he went to bed thereafter. (App. A, 247) He also said, \u201cI think one of the things that \ncame up in my allegation was something to do with free pussy downstairs, like a text like that. \nFor the record, my first time hearing about this was [. . .] on Side Chat [days later]. So, to be \nclear, I\u2019ve never seen such a text or any pictures.\u201d (App. A, 248)   \nDuring his January 16 interview, \n recounted a telephone call with Complainant in \nNovember 2024.30 When asked if the parties discussed on the call \u201canything related to the \n[Formal Complaint allegations], or either [Complainant]\u2019s experience from that night, or [his] \n30 Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the Panel understood \n statements in this regard to \nrefer to the \n November 7 call.  \nPriv\ncle\ncl\nDuri\nDur\nN\nitted\nhere\nhere\n \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n63 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 64 ---\nPage 62 of 97\nrecollections of that night,\u201d \n answered, \u201cNo.\u201d (App. A, 272) He added, \u201cI \nremember one thing she told me was she was talking to the University [about] a leave of \nabsence.\u201d (App. A, 272) He also said they discussed a \u201cHalloween party\u201d at the Chi Phi house \nduring that call. (App. A, 273) At the hearing on May 21, \n said about the \n \nNovember 7 call, \u201cI think when I was having this phone call with [Complainant], [. . .] I was \nconcerned that there would be [. . .] a crime alert that would come out accusing me of things that \nI didn\u2019t do. [. . .] I was just trying not to argue with her. And for that reason, I was kind of \nreaffirming what she\u2019s saying or kind of giving passing comments[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 25) He \nadded, \u201cI was not aware that this was a recorded phone call and I was kind of in a very casual \nstate of mind.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 26) He also said about the call generally, \u201cI don\u2019t know this girl that \nmuch. I mean, that was the first time I ever had a conversation with her. So, I don\u2019t feel like I had \nany obligation to be completely telling the truth with her[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 57) \nDuring the hearing on May 20, \n stated, \u201cThere are a lot of, I believe, gaps in my \nmemory that I have recollected. [. . . After receiving notice of the Formal Complaint charges], I \nwas trying to rationalize in my head how it was false and providing an explanation that I figured \nout and I thought was reasonable as to why these things were false.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 43) He \ncontinued, \u201cFor that reason, I was feeling very defensive about some of the accusations that were \nbeing pointed at me. [. . .] Because of that, I think I left out a lot of parts that I remembered from \nthat night, that didn\u2019t have to do with the things that I was directly being accused with. [. . .] I put \nmyself in a very defensive position[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 43) \nc.\nAdditional Evidence  \nComplainant\u2019s brother emailed the Investigator on March 5, 2025. He wrote in that message that \nhe went with Complainant to the Chi Phi house on Friday, October 11, 2024, \u201caround 12:00 \na.m.\u201d (App. B, 335) He continued, \u201cMy sister introduced me to [\n and [\n \n] in the \u2018penthouse\u2019 [. . . and] shortly after, [\n] arrived, who neither of us knew. \nAfter around thirty minutes, [\n offered [Complainant] ketamine, which she \ndeclined, and then offered me, and I also declined. I saw [\n] use \nketamine.\u201d (App. B, 335) \nAt the beginning of the \nNovember 7 call, \n asked Complainant regarding \nOctober 19, 2024, \u201cDo you want me to give my recollection of the entire night?\u201d to which she \nreplied, \u201cSure.\u201d (App. C; 28-29) About what happened in the alumni room, \n then \nrecalled that \n and \u201cthree to four guys came in\u201d to the alumni room after he, \nComplainant, and\n had moved to \n bed. (App. C, 30) Complainant \nthen indicated that \n entered the bed with the three parties, after which \n stated, \u201c[A]fter that, we moved up to the foffice, you, me, and [\n]. \nThen, you tapped out. And we were like, \u2018Fair enough.\u2019 And then you moved to my room. \n[\n] dipped.\u201d (App. C, 30) He recalled that he and Complainant then talked \u201ca bit\u201d \nbefore going to sleep. (App. C, 30) \nPriv\nr\nCom\nCo\nthen\nthen\nitted\ns that\ns that\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n64 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 65 ---\nI\n|\nPage 63 of 97\n said during his interview that, after \n entered the alumni room on \nthe night of October 19, 2024, \n \u201casked if [they] wanted to do more ketamine,\u201d \nand that \n then \u201cdid more ketamine with [\n].\u201d (App. A, \n186) \n recalled that \n ketamine was in \u201c[t]he same kind of bag that \n[they] found earlier\u201d in the room close in time to the threesome activity. (App. A, 212) When \nasked if \n shared where he had gotten the ketamine, \n answered, \n\u201cNot that night. But we knew he got it from the same person every time. I don\u2019t know who it is \nthough. [. . .] He just has their number saved in his phone as an emoji.\u201d (App. A, 212)  \n also said during his interview that \n \u201casked [Complainant] if he \ncould do ketamine off of her chest. She said, \u2018Yes.\u2019 He did it, followed by [\n who \nalso asked her first.\u201d (App. A, 186) He recalled that Complainant requested ketamine after the \nothers took some and that\n \n \u201cgave some to her\u201d on a \u201ckey.\u201d (App. A; 214, 219) At \nthe hearing on May 12, when \n was asked if he ingested ketamine off \nComplainant\u2019s body on the night of October 19, \n said, \u201cNot that I remember, but I \nfeel like it definitely could have happened.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 104)  \nWhen \n was asked during his interview if \n \u201cstay[ed] awake for the \nwhole time\u201d they were both in the alumni room,\n answered, \u201cYes.\u201d During the \nhearing on May 12, 2025, \n recalled \n \u201ctapping on his phone\u201d while \nthey were both in the bed in the alumni room. (Trans. 5/12; 93) He also confirmed that \n saw him naked when \n entered the room.  \n recalled going to the foffice after leaving the alumni room that night. He \nindicated that the door to the foffice was closed when he arrived. About what he saw when he \nentered, he said, \u201c[Complainant] was sitting on the desk. [\n] were both \nsitting in chairs in front of her.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 124) When asked to describe their relative \npositions in further detail, \n recalled two desks \u201cin the very back of the room\u201d and \nthat Complainant was on \u201cone along the wall,\u201d with \n \u201copposite her in \nchairs.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 124) When asked if he observed ketamine in the foffice that night, he \nanswered, \u201cNo.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 127) \nDuring \n January 8 interview, he recalled about when he entered the alumni \nroom at or around 2:15 a.m. that \n were in the room with \nComplainant, all \u201cpositioned on a bed,\u201d \u201cengaging in casual conversation.\u201d (App. A; 418, 419) \nAt the hearing on May 14, \n said that the group appeared \u201cjoyous and happy.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/14; 140, 148) In his January 8 interview, he described \n position in the \nbed as \u201cbehind\u201d Complainant. (App. A, 418) He continued, \u201c[A]t some point, I believe, \n[\n], he was talking with [Complainant] and he basically said something about \ndoing ketamine off of [her]. [. . .] Complainant was very enthusiastic.\u201d (App. A, 423) \n \n then recounted how \n poured and inhaled ketamine from off Complainant\u2019s \ntorso. He added that, while he recalled it was \nwho introduced the ketamine, he \nPriv\nA\n(Tra\n(T\nbed \nbed\n[\nitted\nd, \nd,\nisis\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n65 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 66 ---\nJ\nPage 64 of 97\n\u201ccould not see where it came from.\u201d (App. A, 423) He also stated that \n poured \nketamine onto Complainant\u2019s torso for \n to inhale. \nalso recalled \nbeing in his own room after leaving the alumni room later that night. He said that \n \ncame into his room \u201cat some point\u201d and said that \u201cComplainant, [\n], and \n[\n] went to another room in the house.\u201d (App. A, 431) About hearing that, \n recalled, \u201cI was just pretty shocked because it was already late. And yeah, I \ndidn\u2019t know why they would go to another room.\u201d (App. A, 432)  \nDuring Respondent \nDecember 16 interview, he recalled about when he entered the alumni \nroom at or around 2:30 a.m. on October 20, 2024, \u201c[\n was sitting on the bed next \nto [Complainant]. [\n] was sitting on the bed next to her. And [\n \nwas sitting on the very edge of the bed[. . . .] And they all seemed to be talking.\u201d (App. A, 371) \nHe recalled about his time in the room, \u201c[\n] and [Complainant] were \nall engaging in a conversation with themselves.\u201d (App. A, 380) He described them collectively as \n\u201ctalking coherently.\u201d (App. A, 380) \nAt the hearing on May 15, 2025, \n recalled seeing \n \u201csitting next to \n[\n] having a conversation\u201d when he entered the alumni room at or around 2:30 \na.m. on October 20, 2024. (Trans. 5/15; 49) When asked if \n appeared to be \nsleeping or passed out or otherwise not conscious at any point while \n was present, \nhe answered, \u201cNo. If when I walked in [. . .] someone was sleeping, I would have been like, \u2018Is \nhe okay?\u2019 or that kind of thing. So I know that no one was sleeping. Everyone was pretty lively \nand awake.\u201d (Trans. 5/15; 49) \nDuring \n December 17 interview, she recalled seeing \n exiting the \nalumni room with \n, as well as Complainant, at or around 5:00 a.m.  \nDuring \n interview, he confirmed that he shared a bedroom in the Chi Phi house with \n that was adjacent to the Pentz. He described the foffice as \u201ca closet\u201d where he \n\u201cmainly [kept] clothes [. . .] and storage [. . . and] a desk[.]\u201d (App. A, 668) He also recalled being \npresent for an occasion \u201cright before fall break [2024]\u201d when he, \n \n Complainant, and \u201csome relative\u201d of Complainant were all \u201changing out\u201d in the Pentz. \n(App. A, 682) He indicated that he did not remember anyone producing or using recreational \ndrugs at that time. \nAbout the night of October 19, 2024, \n recalled being at an external event from which \nhe returned to the Chi Phi house with \n \u201caround midnight,\u201d danced at the fraternity\u2019s \nparty, and then \u201chung out [in the Pentz] for a little bit,\u201d before going to bed. (App. A, 667) He \nsaid he initially saw \n and Complainant \u201con the balcony [. . .] talking\u201d at around \n\u201cmidnight.\u201d (App. A, 670) He continued, \u201cBut later in the night, I saw [\nand \nComplainant] alongside few other people I don\u2019t really remember [in the Pentz]. [\n \n] might\u2019ve been there, but not really sure. And just a little more small talk, how things been, \nthis, that, the other.\u201d (App. A, 670) He described the later interaction by saying, \u201cI was sort of in \nPriv\nhe \nhe\nparty\npar\nsai\ns\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n66 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 67 ---\nI\nI\nPage 65 of 97\nand out. So, I\u2019d be in my room, and then leave to go hang out with them for a little bit, go back \nin. Not sure how long I did it for, but call it two, three times, I walked in and out.\u201d (App. A; 671-\n672) He \u201cguess[ed]\u201d that each time he went into the Pentz, he was there \u201cbetween five and 15 \nminutes[.]\u201d (App. A, 680) He indicated that the others were \u201cjust listening to music, just hanging \nout\u201d in the Pentz during that time. (App. A, 671) \n recalled going to sleep \u201csometime \nafter [. . .] three, four-ish maybe\u201d on October 20 and \u201cbriefly\u201d seeing \n and \nComplainant enter the bedroom and go to bed. (App. A; 672, 673)  \n confirmed during her interview that she spent the night of October 19, 2024, at the \nChi Phi house with \nin the bedroom he shared with \n She recalled \nmeeting \n and Complainant together that night. About that occasion, \n \nsaid, \u201c[W]e\u2019re in [\n and \ns \u2018bedroom\u2019] together, and we were all just \ntalking.\u201d (App. A; 685, 691) When asked if anyone else entered the room while the four of them \nwere there, \nanswered, \u201cI don\u2019t think so,\u201d although she did recall that \u201ca bunch of the \nguys in Chi Phi were outside the door\u201d of the room, who \n left to speak with \u201cmultiple \ntimes.\u201d (App. A; 686, 687, 688) When asked how long the four of them were in \n \nroom before going to bed that night, \n answered, \u201cDefinitely less than an hour, \nprobably less than 30 minutes.\u201d (App. A, 688) She \u201cguess[ed]\u201d that she went to bed \u201caround like \n1:30-ish\u201d on the morning of October 20.  \nidentified himself during his interview as \n roommate as of October \n19, 2024. He said that he learned after that night that \n were \u201changing out \nwith [Complainant], talking to her in [the foffice for] a long time, like for a majority of the \nnight.\u201d (App. A, 613) He continued, \u201cI think the next day, [\n] was telling me how \nawesome it was. [\n, Complainant, and \n \u2018were naked\u2019 and] having \ndeep conversations.\u201d (App. A; 613, 614) \nAt the hearing on May 28, 2025, \nwas asked if she knew of ketamine being prevalent \nin the Chi Phi house. She answered, \u201cI did,\u201d and indicated that it was a \u201cpretty regular\u201d activity. \n(Trans. 5/28; 116) When asked if it was \u201ceveryone\u201d or just \u201ccertain people\u201d that she knew used \nthe drug, \n said, \u201cFrom what I know, I believe it was fall break that [\n and \n and maybe a couple other people [. . .] spoke about how \n[\n left his ketamine in [\ns car.\u201d (Trans. 5/28; 116) She continued, \n\u201cSo, seeing that, I believe that it was pretty regular use and I have seen them use it at other points \nin time.\u201d (Trans. 5/28; 116) \nd. The Snapchat Messages \nAs discussed in Section IV.H above, \nsent the 1:42 a.m. message to the Snapchat \nActives group. At 2:19 a.m. on October 20, 2024, \n wrote in the Actives group, \n\u201cFree. . .\u201d (App. C, 21) At 2:20 a.m., Respondent \n wrote, \u201c[\n went 7 min ago \nand is not afk sooooo[.]\u201d (App. C, 21) At 2:28 a.m., \n wrote, \u201cI fucking love chi \nPriv\nAs\nA\nitted\ne\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n67 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 68 ---\nPage 66 of 97\nphi[.]\u201d (App. C, 21) The next message to the Actives group, also sent at 2:28 a.m., was attributed \nto the username \u201c\n,\u201d and read, \u201cCHI PHIII\u201d (the \u201c2:28 a.m. message\u201d; App. C, 21)  \nIn the \n November 7 call, Complainant asked \n if he knew \u201cwhy th[e] other \nguys [were] in\u201d the alumni room on the night of October 19, 2024, while she \u201cwas obviously \nnaked underneath the covers,\u201d and \n answered, \u201cI actually have no idea why. [. . .] \nThere was nothing saying that anything was happening in that room or anything.\u201d (App. C, 40) \n said in his December 11 interview that his \u201cfirst time hearing about\u201d the 1:42 \na.m. message was days later on \u201cSide Chat,\u201d adding that he had \u201cnever seen such a [\u2018free pussy\u2019] \ntext.\u201d During the hearing on May 20, 2025, \n said about his participation in the \nActives group on the night of October 19, \u201cLooking at [. . .] where I had texted something in the \ngroup chat [. . .], it does appear as though I had texted in the group chat when I was in the alumni \nroom. But I do not remember texting. I was very shocked when I saw a text that I had sent.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/20; 44)  \nIn reviewing the totality of the circumstances, noting that the username \u201c\n\u201d is \n \ns first name and \n own statements, the Panel found by preponderance of \nevidence that he sent the 2:28 a.m. message. \nPriviviv\nitted\n[. . .]\n. .]\n40) \n40) \nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n68 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 69 ---\nPage 67 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n69 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 70 ---\nPage 68 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n70 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 71 ---\nPage 69 of 97\n      \nPriv\nitted\nittit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n71 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 72 ---\nPage 70 of 97\n     \n  \nPriv\nitted\nitit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n72 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 73 ---\nPage 71 of 97\n  \n  \nPriv\nitted\nitti\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n73 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 74 ---\nPage 72 of 97\n  \n  \n  \n  \nPriviviv\nitted\nittitt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n74 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 75 ---\nPage 73 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n75 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 76 ---\nPage 74 of 97\nJ.\n  \n1. Complaint Charges Against \n \nAs set forth in the Formal Complaint, \n was charged with violating the Policy\u2019s \nprohibition against Sexual Assault, Sexual Exploitation, and Aiding Prohibited Conduct \n(Sexual Exploitation). Specifically, the alleged prohibited conduct was that he: (a) gave \nComplainant ketamine for the purpose of making her vulnerable to nonconsensual sexual assault \nand/or sexual exploitation by himself and/or others; (b) penetrated Complainant\u2019s vulva with his \npenis without her affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation; (c) touched his nose to Complainant\u2019s naked torso and inhaled a powdered \nsubstance off her body without affirmative consent, including lack of affirmative consent due to \nincapacitation; and (d) sent messages to a SnapChat group chat in which he invited others to \ncome to the alumni room to observe Complainant when she was nude or engaged in sexual \nactivity and/or to engage in sexual activity with Complainant, without her knowledge and \nconsent.  \nAs indicated in Section IV.A above, there is no dispute that Complainant generally consented to \nthe sexual interaction that took place during the initial threesome activity involving \n \n. As such, the Panel did not include that specific conduct in its analysis. \n2. Party Accounts and Additional Evidence \na.\nComplainant \nOn the \nNovember 7 call, Complainant referenced her first and second ketamine consumption \non the night of October 19, 2024. She also stated about being in \n bed in the \nalumni room, \u201cI remember yours and my head kept kind of tilting back. We both kept in and out \nof awake,\u201d to which \nreplied, \u201cYeah.\u201d (App. C, 30) At one point in the call, \nComplainant said to \n, \u201cBut you really were fucked up most of the night. You were \nroyally fucked,\u201d and, \u201cI think you and I were probably equal amounts of fucked up on different \nthings.\u201d (App. C, 31) \nDuring Complainant\u2019s interview on November 14, she said that she recalled that, at some point \nin the alumni room while \nwas present,\n requested to \u201cd[o] \nPriv\na\nof aw\nof \nCom\nCom\nr\nitted\nit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n76 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 77 ---\nPage 75 of 97\nketamine off of [her . . .] body,\u201d which she agreed to in some form. (App. A, 73) She continued, \n\u201cI remember lying down and covering my face up. [. . .] And they just poured all sorts of stuff all \nover me and did all sorts of drugs off my body. I\u2019m not sure if there were other substances other \nthan ketamine but several lines were done by almost everybody. I think everybody had a turn.\u201d \n(App. A, 73) In her November 15 interview, she stated, \u201c[T]hey all were partaking in the drugs \nbecause they did them off of my body. But I did put my hands over my face at that point.\u201d (App \nA; 126-127) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant described herself as \u201cseverely incapacitated\u201d \nwhen she responded to \n request, as well as being \u201csurrounded by a ton of men\u201d \nand feeling a \u201csevere power imbalance[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 71) \nDuring Complainant\u2019s November 14 interview, she recounted Student AV and \nentering the alumni room later in the night. She recalled her experience of that time by saying, \u201cI \nwas very intoxicated. [. . .] The room was spinning. I was trying to find my dress. [. . .] And then, \n[\n] end up ushering me upstairs[.]\u201d (App. A, 74) During the \n \nNovember 7 call, she stated, \u201cAnd then after that, I was taken up to the room with you and \n[\n].\u201d (App. C, 34) During her November 14 interview, Complainant stated that the \ntwo Respondents brought her to \u201ca [\u2018teeny tiny\u2019] closet that was repurposed into an office \nalmost.\u201d (App. A, 77) Complainant later confirmed that space as the foffice. She recalled at the \nhearing on May 5, \u201c[W]e weren\u2019t in [\ns room [near the foffice] because [\n \n] was with a girl in there. I think [\n told me [. . . p]robably when we first got \nup there.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 21) About the space she was in at that time, she said at the hearing on May \n2, \u201cIt felt like there was a lot of stuff in there. I just felt like I couldn\u2019t move. It felt like I was in a \ncloset. [. . .] It was, again, like I was cornered.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 79) During Complainant\u2019s \nNovember 14 interview, she described the space as having \u201ca table and two monitors [on a desk] \nand like two chairs.\u201d (App. A, 77) She continued: \n[\n sat down in a chair. They gave me more ketamine. [. . .] I \nwatched them pour a lot of it but, of course, I was super kind of in and out of \nconsciousness so I wouldn\u2019t have caught a slight of hand at all. [. . .] I just know \n[\n] asked to have sex again and I said no. I was like, \u201cI don\u2019t know. I\u2019m \nlike worn out,\u201d and I also felt my eyes \u2013 it felt like one was going in that direction and \n[the other] was going in [another] direction.    \n(App. A, 78) At the hearing on May 2, Complainant said, \u201c[W]hen we\u2019re all funneled in there, I \ndon\u2019t think I\u2019m given a chair or anything, so I grab onto the desk for support, and the wall for \nsupport, and then I just, I think, settle on the ground. [. . .] They\u2019re facing me.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 81) \nShe indicated that both \n were between her and the exit door.  \nAbout her ketamine consumption in the foffice, Complainant said during her November 14 \ninterview, \u201cI don\u2019t know how much they poured. I don\u2019t know where I took it from. [. . .] I don\u2019t \nknow where it came from or how it got in my system. [. . .] I\u2019m pretty sure it was that kind of \nfinal bump that made my eyes do the weird eye jerk.\u201d (App. A; 78-79) At the hearing on May 5, \nPriv\nsup\nsu\nShe i\nShe\nA\nitted\nApp \nApp \nted\u201d\nted\u201d\nHearing Panel Decision \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n77 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 78 ---\nPage 76 of 97\nComplainant said that she had \u201clittle to no recollection\u201d of what was happening when she \ningested ketamine in that moment, stating, \u201cI just remember it was done because I had my nose \non something. [\u2018It\u2019s kind of like I wanna say my nose was on a table, but that\u2019s all I ... But again, \nit could be that my nose was actually on a chair.\u2019] That\u2019s all I remember from that.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; \n3)36 She also said, \u201cIt\u2019s just been a long time at this point. I don\u2019t know. [. . . T]here\u2019s a ton of \ntime that elapsed in the foffice or whatever that I have no memory whatsoever.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 5) \nComplainant described how she felt in that moment by saying, \u201cIt\u2019s maybe the most fucked up \nI\u2019ve ever been in my life. [. . .] I remember saying a lot of things but I don\u2019t know what I was \nsaying. I was apparently just talking and talking. My eyes were closed and my mouth was \nrunning [. . . and] I felt like my eyes were going in different directions.\u201d (App. A, 83) At the \nhearing on May 5, she explained, \u201cI said I talked a lot because it felt I talked a lot, but it could be \nthat I didn\u2019t. But there were a lot of moments where they were talking, \u2018cause I remember just \nsitting there \u2018cause [. . . \u2018I was kind of staring at the wall and talking like this over and over, \nmaybe trying to distract from the fact that I thought my eyeballs were going like a chameleon.\u2019 . . \n.] I just remember that being debilitating.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 9-10) She also said, \u201cI couldn\u2019t have \ncommunicated my middle name, I don\u2019t think. I probably could have said my middle name, but \nany sort of thought about my perception of the world, not good, not possible.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 15) \nAbout how \n suggested sexual activity in the foffice, Complainant recalled, \u201cI\u2019m \nlike, \u2018Okay, I\u2019m not feeling the effects of the ketamine as much anymore.\u2019 And then around that \nsame period of time \u2013 \u2018cause I do think that I said that. [. . . ] And then around that same period \nof time I think was the ketamine being given to me again, and [\n saying, \nfollowing that sequence, \u2018Do you wanna have sex again?\u2019\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 6) During her November \n14 interview, Complainant recalled, \u201c[\n said he wanted redemption \u2018cause he \npassed out earlier and didn\u2019t get whatever he wanted,\u201d and, \u201cAnd then he was trying to get his \nhomeboy, [\n], some too, like to hook [\n] up too.\u201d (App. A; 79, 80) \nShe said that she replied by indicating that she \u201cwas tired.\u201d (App. A, 79) She added, \u201cHe\u2019d \ninquired about it multiple times. I think I said no. I think I said that I was tired or that I needed a \nminute. I prolonged [answering the question]. I put it off. I just didn\u2019t want to do it again.\u201d (App. \nA, 81) Complainant also recalled \n appearing in the foffice at some point and \nasking, \u201cYou all are still going?\u201d to which she replied, \u201cYeah, unfortunately\u201d in \u201ca sad, [\u2018not \nenthusiastic\u2019] tone.\u201d (App. A, 81) She stated during the hearing on May 5 that \n \nwas present when \n suggested sexual activity in the foffice.  \nAbout what happened next, Complainant said in her November 14 interview: \nI ended up in the same situation with [\n] as I had with the other \nthreesome, as I ended up in another threesome. But I really did not want to be in that one. \n36 When asked at the hearing on May 5 if there was any reason why Complainant would be in that position if not to \ningest a substance, she answered, \u201cNo. There were times when I would lean up against something, but that\u2019s a \ndifferent movement[.]\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 4) \nPriv\nA\nitted\n; 5)\n; 5)\nup\nup\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n78 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 79 ---\nPage 77 of 97\nI was completely drugged and knocked out. I was half awake. I was on the floor of this \ncloset. I hardly fit in the room. [. . .] And I was so depleted and so tired and wanting to \nleave so badly. And I don\u2019t know how I made the situation stop. I\u2019m not sure if somebody \nhad finished. I\u2019m not sure what happened. \n(App. A, 82) She indicated that, during this sexual activity, she was engaged in oral sex with \n, while \n engaged in vaginal-penile sex with her from behind. She \nrecalled going to \n room after the sexual activity ended, interacting briefly with \n\u201ca girl\u201d who was in the room with \n at the time, and sleeping in \n bed. \n(Trans. 5/5; 21) \nRegarding how it happened that she engaged in sexual activity with \n in \nthe foffice, Complainant said at the hearing on May 5, \u201cI couldn\u2019t get much of anything out. I \njust felt kind of trapped. [\n] are sitting in front of the door, in front of the \nexit. I mean things are still being asked of me sexually. Ketamine is still being given during this \npoint in time. It was just ... I don\u2019t think I felt like I could get out.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 8) She added, \u201cI \ndidn\u2019t want to, but I felt like I had to.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 11)  \nDuring the \n November 7 call, she stated to \n, \u201cI don\u2019t really remember what \nhappened upstairs either. So, I was not really awake. I remember saying a bunch of shit that \nmade no fucking sense. Probably got all high and philosophical. [. . .] I remember I couldn\u2019t \nopen my eyes because I thought that I couldn\u2019t feel the effect of ketamine. [. . . I]t felt like my \neyeballs were going in different directions.\u201d (App. C, 40)  \nComplainant text messaged \n on October 23, 2024, \u201c[E]veryone needs to grow up \ncause sexuality and sex and shit is changing and stuff like this is going to become more \ncommon[,]\u201d and, \u201cI luv u king[.]\u201d (App. B; 242-243) During the hearing on May 5, Complainant \nexplained that \u201cking\u201d is a term that she uses generally with friends, adding about that phrase in \nparticular, \u201c[T]hat\u2019s more Stockholm Syndrome. That\u2019s crazy. I mean that\u2019s just shit \nembarrassing. I don\u2019t even know what to say about that.\u201d (Trans. 5/5; 51) About her \u201csexuality\u201d \ncomment, Complainant indicated that it referred to the rumors that were spreading about her \ninvolvement in a sexual situation with multiple male partners and the evolving norms of \npolyamory.   \nb.\n \nchose not to participate in an investigative interview regarding this matter, nor to \nanswer questions at the hearing. Consistent with the Procedures, the Panel drew no negative \ninferences from these decisions. Nonetheless, as reflected below, the information the Panel had \nwith respect to his account of the night of October 19, 2024, was therefore necessarily limited to \nvarious submitted documentary materials, including \n recorded call with \nComplainant and a written statement he submitted on March 17, 2025.  \nPriv\nansw\nan\ninfer\ninfe\nw\nitted\n. She \n. She \nh\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n79 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 80 ---\nPage 78 of 97\nDuring the \n November 7 call, \n asked Complainant, \u201cDo you want me to give \nmy recollection of the entire night?\u201d to which she replied, \u201cSure.\u201d He then indicated that the \nthreesome activity began in the alumni room and, \u201cafter like 10 minutes, [they] slowed down a \nbit,\u201d \u201cdrank\u201d alcohol, \u201cstarted smoking,\u201d and \u201cthen the K[37] started happening.\u201d (App. C, 29) He \ncontinued, \u201cAnd then, I think by this point it\u2019d been like half and hour, and everything was \nhitting me at the same time. I thought I was about to die. [. . .] I moved to the bed and passed \nout[.]\u201d (App. C, 29) \n then recalled waking up; \n leaving the room; \nthe three parties moving to \n bed; \n entering the room; \u201cthree to \nfour guys\u201d coming in, as well; and Complainant\u2019s second ketamine consumption. (App. C, 30) \nHe then said, \u201cAnd from there, it\u2019s kind of hazy. I think people left eventually, after like 20 to 30 \nminutes. I was still in and out of consciousness. [. . .] But after that, we moved up to the foffice, \nyou, me, and [\n]. Then, you tapped out. And we were like, \u2018Fair enough.\u2019 And \nthen you moved to my room.\u201d (App. C, 30) \n March 17 statement did not contain an account of what occurred among the \nparties after the threesome activity ended beyond providing his account of ingesting ketamine \nclose in time to the threesome activity, as follows: \nNo less than 10 minutes after consuming the ketamine I began to struggle breathing [. . . \n\u2018gasping for breath and groaning uncomfortably\u2019]. Several times I lost consciousness \nmomentarily[. . . .] I was too incapacitated to consent to sexual activity anymore. [. . .] I \nattempted to remain conscious. [. . .] I could feel my face contorting as if I was crying, \nbut no tears came out. [. . .] That was the last clear memory I have up until that point. \n(App. B, 260)  \nc.\nAdditional Evidence  \nNo Respondent indicated through statements during interviews or at the hearing that \n \nconsumed ketamine off Complainant\u2019s body while in the alumni room on the night of \nOctober 19, 2024.  \nDuring \n December 11 interview, he recalled meeting \n \n, and Complainant in the Pentz in the early morning hours of October 20, 2024, \nwhere the five of them then \u201chad a lively, nice conversation\u201d for \u201caround an hour.\u201d (App. A, 237) \nHe also said, \u201c[D]uring our conversations, [. . . Complainant] had specifically said that she could \nnot feel the effects of ketamine. It went something along the lines of, \u2018It\u2019s weird, but I don\u2019t think \nI can feel the effects of ketamine.\u2019\u201d (App. A, 237) At the hearing on May 20, 2025, \n \n said about that moment, \u201cI was saying, \u2018Yeah, I\u2019m not feeling any of the ketamine anymore.\u2019 \nThat\u2019s when [Complainant] had said, \u2018Yeah, I didn\u2019t feel any of the ketamine either. I feel like if \nI wanted to feel the ketamine, I should\u2019ve taken a larger dose.\u2019\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 50) When asked \n37 Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Panel understood \n use of the letter \u201cK\u201d in this \nstatement to reference ketamine.  \nPriv\nn\nI can\nI c\nT\nitted\nd d \nm;\nm;\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n80 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 81 ---\nPage 79 of 97\nabout his reaction to that statement, \n said, \u201cI think me and [\n] were \nboth surprised, like, \u2018Oh, really?\u2019\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 50) He continued, \u201cWhen I said we were \nexpressing surprise, for me, I was like, \u2018Oh, so you had taken ketamine in the alumni room,\u2019 and \nI was shocked. For [\n], I\u2019m not completely sure. I think he was more surprised that \nshe was so good at \u2013 she had a good tolerance for the substance and that was what he was \nshocked about.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 52) \nDuring \n December 11 interview, he recalled that he, \n and \nComplainant then moved to the foffice because \u201cthere were some people right outside of the attic \nwho were listening into [the] conversations\u201d due to \u201crumors coming out\u201d about \u201csome weird \nsexual activities that were happening\u201d in the alumni room. (App. A, 239) In the hearing on May \n20, \n recalled that after the three parties entered the foffice, he was \u201cstanding half-\nish, half-ish sitting down on the desk,\u201d Complainant was \u201csitting on the black reclinable chair,\u201d \nand \u201c[\n] was sitting on the wooden chair.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 58) Regarding what \noccurred in the foffice that night, \n indicated that he, Complainant, and \n engaged in conversation \u201cfor around an hour and a half\u201d covering a variety of \ntopics, including their respective high school experiences, music, the prior threesome activity, \nand previous rumors about Complainant. (App. A, 241) He also recalled Complainant playing \nmusic on the computer that was present in the space. During the hearing on May 20, \n \n described these conversations as \u201cdeep.\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 61)  \nDuring his December 11 interview, \n said, \u201cAfter like an hour and a half [or \u2018two \nhours\u2019], [\n] asked [Complainant] if we could have a threesome, I assume, I don\u2019t \nknow why, maybe because it failed last time or something.[38] I don\u2019t know. And [Complainant] \nsaid [. . .], \u2018Yeah, let\u2019s do it.\u2019\u201d (App. A; 242, 244) At the hearing on May 21, \n \nsaid, \u201cI had no idea why [\n] had asked if another threesome was possible. [. . .] I \nhave no recollection of the word \u2018redemption\u2019 ever coming out of his mouth.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 55) \nAt the hearing on May 20, \n recalled knowing that Complainant \u201cmust have been \ntired, [\u2018it was so late,\u2019]\u201d but indicated that at no point did Complainant verbalize or otherwise \ncommunicate that she was tired while they were in the foffice. (Trans. 5/20; 64) \n \nalso recalled that Complainant\u2019s behavior towards \n that night caused him to think, \n\u201cOh, wow. This girl really likes [\n].\u201d (Trans. 5/20; 66)   \nAbout what happened next, \n stated during his December 11 interview, \u201cI asked \n[Complainant] if I could have oral sex,\u201d and, \u201c[A]fter [Complainant] gave me oral sex for maybe \ntwo minutes, [\n] then proceeded to ask if he could have oral sex.\u201d (App. A, 245) \n indicated that there then was \u201ca bit of teasing\u201d \u201cin a sexual manner,\u201d after which \n\u201c[Complainant] gave [\n] oral sex [for \u2018maybe two minutes\u2019].\u201d (App. A, 245) He \nstated, \u201cAfter that, [\n] inserted his penis into [Complainant]\u2019s vagina and \n38 In the hearing on May 20, \n recalled Complainant  \u201cjoking\u201d about \u201ca failed attempt at a threesome\u201d \nwhile in the alumni room. (Trans. 5/20; 19) \nPriv\ntw\ntw\n\u201c[C\nitted\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n81 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 82 ---\nPage 80 of 97\n[Complainant] gave me oral sex[.]\u201d (App. A, 246) At the hearing on May 21, \n \ndescribed their relative body positions in this moment as, \u201cI was remaining sitting down on the \nwooden chair. [Complainant] was performing oral sex on me and [\n] was behind \nher. He had stood up, and he walked to be in a position behind her.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 5) When asked \nhow Complainant communicated her willingness to engage in that sexual activity with \n answered: \nI believe [\n] asked verbally to [Complainant] if he could penetrate her from \nbehind. And when doing so, I don't remember exactly if [Complainant] gave a specific \nverbal consent, but she positioned her body in a way so that when she was giving oral sex \nto me, her, I guess, behind was directed towards the ground. But when [\n \nasked, her body position moved in a way so that [\n] could penetrate \n[Complainant] from behind. [. . . I]t was a noticeable change in body movement. \n(Trans. 5/21; 6-7) When asked how \n asked verbally \u201cif he could penetrate \n[Complainant],\u201d \n answered, \u201cI just don\u2019t remember the exact words that he \nasked.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 7) About Complainant\u2019s change in body movement in those moments, \n indicated that when Complainant was engaged in oral sex with \n, \nher knees were \u201ctouching the ground. And when [\n] asked verbally if he could \npenetrate her from behind, she then kind of got up on not her two feet, but she kind of extended \nherself.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 7) He described it as \u201ca significant change in body movement so that \n[\n]\u2019s genitalia had access to [Complainant]\u2019s vagina.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 7)  \nWhen asked if \n continued to engage in vaginal-penile sex with Complainant after \nthe oral sex between Complainant and \n ended, \n answered, \u201cI\u2019m \nsorry, but from that night, I remember things about what happened with me, so I don\u2019t \nremember.\u201d (App. A, 246) He added, \u201cI believe [\n received oral sex afterwards \nand then, yeah. And that was it.\u201d (App. A; 246-247) At the hearing on May 21, \n \nrecalled that when Complainant stopped engaging in oral sex with him, he \u201cwalk[ed him]self to \nnear the door of the foffice\u201d was there \u201con [his] phone [\u2018deliberately turned away\u2019].\u201d (Trans. \n5/20; 7, 8) When asked during his December 11 interview if the three of them consumed \nketamine in the foffice at any time, \n answered, \u201cNo, no, there was no drugs. \nThere was no alcohol in the foffice.\u201d (App. A, 254) \n indicated he was with \n and Complainant the entire time they were in the foffice. During his interviews, \n did not recall \n appearing in the foffice at any time, but explained \nat the hearing that, \u201cafter reading all the accounts\u201d in the evidentiary record, he was \u201creminded\u201d \nthat Respondent was present \u201cbriefly\u201d in the foffice, \u201cwearing his pajamas and [looking] fresh as \nthough he had showered.\u201d (Trans. 5/21; 11).  \nAbout what happened after the sexual activity in the foffice ended, \n recalled in \nhis December 11 interview, \u201c[B]y the time we decided to go to bed[,] light was beginning to \nshine. Sunrise was happening. It was very, very early in the morning.\u201d (App. A, 244) He \nPriv\nat t\nat\nthat R\ntha\ntho\nt\nitted\nom\nom\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n82 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 83 ---\nI\nPage 81 of 97\nindicated that the three parties left the foffice together, and Complainant then went to sleep in the \nbedroom \n shared with \n \n said, \u201cIt was around like 7:10 \na.m.\u201d when he went to bed thereafter. (App. A, 247) \nDuring \n interview, he recalled going \u201cto another brother\u2019s room\u201d after the \nalumni room on the night of October 19, 2024, and then \u201cup to [\n]\u2019s room to check \non [\n], [Complainant], and [\n because he \u201cknew they went up \nthere.\u201d (App. A, 187) He continued: \nI found the three of them in like, this little office space that\u2019s right next to [\n \n]\u2019s room. I walked in. They were just having a conversation. Nothing was going on. So \nI asked them like, \u201cYou guys are still up? How is she getting home? Is she okay?\u201d All \nthat. And she said, \u201cYeah, we\u2019re still up.\u201d She was gonna sleep in [\n]\u2019s \nroom that night. And I was like, \u201cOkay, as long as that\u2019s fine.\u201d And I went back \ndownstairs and went to bed. \n(App. A, 187) At the hearing on May 12, \nindicated that he thought the room he \nwent to after the alumni room that night belonged to \n About why he went to \n\u201ccheck on\u201d the others, he stated, \u201cI was just kind of curious what was going on up there, how \n[Complainant] was getting home, if she was going home that night, where she was sleeping.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/12; 122) He recalled that he had \u201cnoticed them going up\u201d towards the Pentz. He \ndescribed the Pentz as \u201cwhere [\n] usually hangs out.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 123)  \n recalled that the door to the foffice was closed when he arrived there that night. \nAbout what he saw when he entered, he said, \u201c[Complainant] was sitting on the desk. \n[\n] were both sitting in chairs in front of her.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 124) When \nasked to describe their relative positions in further detail, \nrecalled two desks \u201cin \nthe very back of the room\u201d and that Complainant was on \u201cone along the wall,\u201d with \n \n \u201copposite her in chairs.\u201d (Trans. 5/12; 124) \nAbout the night of October 19, 2024, \nrecalled being at an external event from which \nhe returned to the Chi Phi house with \n \u201caround midnight,\u201d danced at the fraternity\u2019s \nparty, and then \u201chung out [in the Pentz] for a little bit,\u201d before going to bed. (App. A, 667) He \nsaid he initially saw \n and Complainant \u201con the balcony [. . .] talking\u201d at around \n\u201cmidnight.\u201d (App. A, 670) He continued, \u201cBut later in the night, I saw [\n and \nComplainant] alongside few other people I don\u2019t really remember [in the Pentz]. [\n \n] might\u2019ve been there, but not really sure. And just a little more small talk, how things been, \nthis, that, the other.\u201d (App. A, 670) He described the later interaction by saying, \u201cI was sort of in \nand out. So, I\u2019d be in my room, and then leave to go hang out with them for a little bit, go back \nin. Not sure how long I did it for, but call it two, three times, I walked in and out.\u201d (App. A; 671-\n672) He \u201cguess[ed]\u201d that each time he went into the Pentz, he was there \u201cbetween five and 15 \nminutes[.]\u201d (App. A, 680) He indicated that the others were \u201cjust listening to music, just hanging \nout\u201d in the Pentz during that time. (App. A, 671) \n recalled going to sleep \u201csometime \nPriv\nthis, \nthis\nand\na\nitted\nheck \neck \np\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n83 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 84 ---\nI\nI\nPage 82 of 97\nafter [. . .] three, four-ish maybe\u201d on October 20 and \u201cbriefly\u201d seeing \n and \nComplainant enter the bedroom and go to bed. (App. A; 672, 673)  \n confirmed during her interview that she spent the night of October 19, 2024, at the \nChi Phi house with \n in the bedroom he shared with \n She recalled \nmeeting \n and Complainant together that night. About that occasion, \nsaid, \u201c[W]e\u2019re in [\nand \n \u2018bedroom\u2019] together, and we were all \ntalking.\u201d (App. A; 685, 691) When asked if anyone else entered the room while the four of th\nwere there, \nanswered, \u201cI don\u2019t think so,\u201d although she did recall that \u201ca bunch of the \nguys in Chi Phi were outside the door\u201d of the room, who \n left to speak with \u201cmultiple \ntimes.\u201d (App. A; 686, 687, 688) She described \n and Complainant as \u201creally \nfriendly,\u201d \u201ccuddling [\u2018as they were falling asleep\u2019],\u201d and \u201ca little bit tipsy.\u201d (App. A; 688, 691) \nWhen asked how long the four of them were in \n room before going to bed that \nnight, \n answered, \u201cDefinitely less than an hour, probably less than 30 minutes.\u201d (App. \nA, 688) She \u201cguess[ed]\u201d that she went to bed \u201caround like 1:30-ish\u201d on the morning of October \n20.  \nDuring \n interview, she stated, \u201cI was witness to some phone calls that happened \nparticularly between [Complainant] and [\n].\u201d (App. A, 506) She continued, \u201c[H]e \nwas saying, \u2018I\u2019m sorry, I\u2019m sorry,\u2019 over and over. And [Complainant would] describe back to him\nwhat had happened the same way she described it to me, saying, \u2018How could you let this \nhappen?\u2019 And he was just quiet on the other line. And then, he just said, \u2018I\u2019m sorry.\u2019 And she was \nvery upset.\u2019\u201d (App. A, 506) \n added, \u201cAnd [Complainant] would be very descriptive in \nthese phone calls and say [. . .] \u2018You had penetrative sex with me. I had so much ketamine, my \neyes were crossed, and you still had sex with me.\u2019 And he did not deny that.\u201d (App. A, 506) She \ndescribed those calls taking place \u201c[a]bout a week\u201d after October 19, 2024. (App. A, 506)  \nd. The Snapchat Messages \nAs shown in the Snapchat video, on October 20, 2024, after \n 1:42 a.m. message \nin the Actives group \u201cFree pussy in alum pu\u201d (see Section IV.H above), a username attributed to \n\u201d wrote \u201cI fucking love chi phi\u201d at 2:28 a.m.; \u201cLike you can walk in and whit it \nout rn\u201d at 2:31 a.m.; and shared a photograph of Complainant at 2:35 a.m. (the \u201c2:35 a.m. \nimage\u201d).39 At 2:35 a.m., a different username wrote, \u201cShop still open?\u201d and the \u201c\n\u201d \nusername replied, \u201cYeah \u0362\u0363\u0364\u0365\n\u201d and, \u201c\n laying rn [. . .] Lowkey he\u2019s cucking all of us[.]\u201d At \nor about 2:37 a.m., the \n\u201d username wrote, \u201cBoys come whip it out[.]\u201d   \nIn the totality of the circumstances, noting that the username \u201c\n exactly matched \nfull name, the Panel found by preponderance of evidence that \n \n39 This image is visible in the multimedia file labeled, \u201cChi Phi Actives Conversation\u201d in Appendix C. \nPriv\nor\no\nIn th\nIn t\ned\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n84 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 85 ---\nPage 83 of 97\nsent all Snapchat messages in the Actives group attributed to the username \n,\u201d \nincluding the 2:35 a.m. image (collectively, the \u201c\n Snapchat messages\u201d).  \nDuring Complainant\u2019s February 7 interview, the Investigator showed her the 2:35 a.m. image. \nUpon viewing, Complainant stated, \u201cWhat...in the world?\u201d and, \u201cI have no recollection of that \nwhatsoever.\u201d (App. A, 145) At the hearing on May 2, 2025, Complainant identified herself as \n\u201cthe person that\u2019s smiling\u201d in the photograph and said, \u201cThat image is kind of upsetting to me[. . \n. .] I look hammered in [it].\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 67) She also stated, \u201cIt doesn't appear that I'm wearing a \nshirt. My eyes are closed. And I look like a hammered sorority girl, is what I call this image I \nhave absolutely zero recollection of this picture being taken.\u201d (Trans. 5/2; 67) \n  \n  \nPrivivivi\nitted\ns\nme[. .\nme[. .\ng a\ng a\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n85 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 86 ---\nPage 84 of 97\n  \n          \nPriviviviv\nitted\nit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n86 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 87 ---\nPage 85 of 97\n   \n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\nitt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n87 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 88 ---\nPage 86 of 97\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n88 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 89 ---\nPage 87 of 97\n       \nV.\nSanctions and Recommendations  \nIn determining sanctions and remedies in this matter, the Panel considered the goals of the Policy \nand the Procedures, as well as all factors listed in Procedures Section 26.13, applied to each party \nindividually, as appropriate. The Panel also considered the impact and mitigation statements \nsubmitted.  \nPrivivivi\nitted\ntit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n89 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 90 ---\nPage 88 of 97\n  \n  \n    \nPrivivivi\nitted\ntittit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n90 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 91 ---\nPage 89 of 97\n        \n   \n       \n  \n  \nPriviviv\nitted\ntitit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n91 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 92 ---\nPage 90 of 97\nC. Respondent \n \nIn determining sanctions and remedies with respect to Respondent \n, the Panel reviewed the \nseriousness of the prohibited conduct committed (attempted sexual exploitation), as well as the \nunderlying circumstances. The Panel considered that Respondent \n\u2019s conduct perpetuated for \nComplainant an experience of unwelcome and uninvited exposure. She described those moments \nin the hearing on May 2, 2025, by saying, \u201cI felt like bait. I felt like lions around me. It just was a \ntotally debilitating place to be in.\u201d The Panel also acknowledged Respondent \n\u2019s statement at \nthe hearing on May 21, 2025, \u201cI was sorry that maybe if it wasn\u2019t consensual and she was \nvictimized, I was sorry for not stopping it. And that I\u2019m sorry I couldn\u2019t tell if she was under the \ninfluence [. . .] just sorry that I felt like if something actually bad happened, I didn\u2019t stop it.\u201d \n(Trans. 5/21; 176) \nUpon due deliberation, the Panel imposed the following sanction with respect to Respondent \n\u2019s Policy violation: \nx\nImposition of a one-way No Contact Order (NCO) with Complainant, wherein all duties, \nburdens, and obligations of no contact between the parties are carried by Respondent \n \nfor the duration of his enrollment at the University.  \no\nModifications to the NCO may be made consistent with the Procedures only at the \ndiscretion of the Title IX Coordinator. A violation of the NCO may be additional \nprohibited conduct.    \nx\nWithin ninety (90) days after this Decision becomes final (otherwise subject to \nreasonable extension approved by the Title IX Coordinator), Respondent \nwill \nparticipate in a Directed Study through COCR focused on the issues of social media use \nand sexual harassment, as well as bystander intervention. \no\nRespondent \n will contact the COCR at (titleix@cornell.edu) to coordinate and \nschedule this study with the Civil Rights Education and Training Specialist. The \nCOCR will monitor compliance with this sanction. \nx\nWithin ninety (90) days after this Decision becomes final (otherwise subject to \nreasonable extension approved by the Title IX Coordinator), Respondent \n will submit \nto the Title IX Office a reflection paper that engages with the specific circumstances for \nwhich he was found responsible and contains a detailed proposal for future University \neducational materials to train undergraduate students around the intersection of social \nmedia use and sexual harassment, as well as bystander intervention. The reflection paper \nmust also include recommendations to the University\u2019s Office of Sorority & Fraternity \nLife with respect to substance use prevention efforts in Greek Life organizations on \ncampus. Use of artificial intelligence tools of any kind in the creation of this reflection \npaper is prohibited.  \nx\nThe Hearing Panel expects that Respondent \n will take this educational opportunity \nseriously and apply what he learns to help improve the University/Greek Life community. \nPriv\nitted\nments\nents\nwas a\nwas a\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n92 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 93 ---\nPage 91 of 97\nTo that end, and to the extent reasonably requested by COCR, Respondent \n will \nengage substantively in creating educational programming for the University community \naround the intersection of social media use and sexual harassment, as well as bystander \nintervention and substance use prevention on campus.  \nThe Panel imposes this sanction with knowledge of Respondent \n\u2019s lack of non-academic \ndisciplinary record and with the intent that it provide him opportunity for understanding and \nmaturation, as well as to actively contribute to the safety of both Complainant and the University \ncommunity as a whole.  \n    \nPriv\nitted\nd\ntyty\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n93 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 94 ---\nPage 92 of 97\n  \n  \n  \nPriviviv\nitted\nit\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n94 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 95 ---\nPage 93 of 97\n       \n   \n      \n  \nPriviviv\nitted\nti\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n95 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 96 ---\nPage 94 of 97\n  \n     \nPriv\nitted\nittit\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n96 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 97 ---\nPage 95 of 97\n  \n  \n  \nPriviviviv\nitted\nit\nHearing Panel Decision -\n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n97 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 98 ---\nPage 96 of 97\n  \n   \nH. Recommendations to the University  \nIn the Panel\u2019s review of this matter and consistent with its role in this process, the Panel \nrecommends to the Title IX Coordinator that the University explore the following measures on \ncampus to remedy the effect and/or prevent the reoccurrence of the prohibited conduct: \nx\nConsider a comprehensive Policy review of currently-prohibited conduct to remain \nconsistent with ever-evolving uses of technology, including social media, and interactions \nof the same with sexual harassment on campus.  \nx\nConsider an immunity Policy for reporting sexual misconduct occurring online, including \nby way of social media.  \nx\nTo the extent not already done, require trainings every semester for members of \nUniversity Greek life on substance use, the Good Samaritan/Immunity policy, bystander \nintervention, and consequences for violating applicable conduct codes around substance \nuse. The Panel makes this recommendation understanding that pledge season in the \nSpring may allow for the content of the two semesters\u2019 trainings to differ in their \napproach and target audiences.  \nRespectfully submitted,  \nSavannah Bao \nKelly King-O\u2019Brien \nRob Kotaska \nPriv\nRes\nRes\nitted\nittitt\nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n98 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 99 ---\nPage 97 of 97\nVI.\nAppeal Information  \nParties may appeal this Determination. The Procedures set forth the process applicable to any \nappeal. In sum, appeals may be brought only upon one or more of the following grounds:  \n1.  The sanctions or remedies are not commensurate with the injury/violation or are unjust. \n2.  A University official or officials, including the Hearing Panel, assigned responsibility for \nperforming specific functions by these procedures, violated the fair application of relevant \nUniversity procedures, and such violation may have had a prejudicial effect upon the \noutcome. This includes conflict of interest or bias. \n3.  A University official or officials, including the Hearing Panel, assigned responsibility for \nperforming specific functions by these procedures, committed an error in interpreting Policy \n6.4, these procedures, and such error may have had a prejudicial effect upon the outcome. \nThis includes determinations of jurisdiction and determinations of Hearing Process.  \n4.  The Hearing Panel rendered a decision that is clearly erroneous. \n5.  New evidence was discovered after the Hearing Panel\u2019s decision that could not have \nreadily been discovered before the decision and that would have probably changed the \noutcome. \nA party may commence an appeal by submitting a written statement to the Title IX Coordinator \nwithin ten (10) business days of issuance of the Hearing Panel\u2019s decision. The appeal statement \nmust set forth: \n\u2022  the determination(s) being appealed, \n\u2022  the specific ground(s) for the appeal, and \n\u2022  the facts supporting the grounds. \nThe appeal statement will be limited to 3500 words. Failure to submit an appeal within the ten \n(10) business days or any approved extension constitutes waiver of the right to appeal. \nPriv\nitted\nfor \nfor \nHearing Panel Decision - \n \n[94428] \nDistributed 08/18/2025\n99 of 99\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 6\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/576/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/576"}