A factual record.
An accountable publisher.
Cornell Alleged is an independent media source. Its reporting prioritizes verifiable facts, objective language and clear source attribution.
Independent of the institutions we cover
The project is not affiliated with Cornell University or any university in the archive. Institutional statements are identified as their authors’ accounts. Sponsors and donors cannot buy a reporting outcome or suppress a verified correction.
Why we say “alleged”
We describe unresolved criminal accusations as allegations and identify who makes each claim. Until a criminal court establishes guilt through a verdict or guilty plea, we do not describe an accused person as convicted or guilty. Civil findings, settlements and university discipline have different meanings.
Presenting a false accusation as a fact can lead to a defamation claim. “Alleged” is not a legal shield and cannot prevent someone from suing. We must also verify sources and identities, report fairly, include relevant responses and correct errors.
Legal Information Institute: defamation ↗
General reference, not case-specific legal advice.
Digital Media Law Project: fair report privilege ↗
Protections depend on jurisdiction, attribution, fairness and accuracy; not blanket immunity.
New York Civil Rights Law §74 ↗
New York protection for fair and true reports of qualifying official proceedings. Scope and application require legal assessment; it is not a guarantee against claims.
Careful language protects fair reporting; it does not dismiss someone’s experience or decide whether an allegation is true.
Facts, allegations and findings have different labels
We identify the speaker and the proceeding: a plaintiff alleges; an institution states; a regulator finds; a jury convicts. A civil settlement, criminal charge, disciplinary finding and conviction are not interchangeable. A constitutional ruling may dispose of a legal remedy without deciding whether an alleged assault occurred.
Reporting without personal opinion
News records use factual, non-inflammatory language. We link the source, show its date, note limitations and include relevant denials or replies. The Support Wall is a separately labeled space for reviewed reader encouragement, not evidence or a news report. Unverified tips are not public records.
Historical context without a predetermined conclusion
The archive enables comparison of institutions and decades. We attribute documented institutional failures to the findings that support them. Similar allegations do not by themselves establish the same failure, a universal pattern or an individual’s culpability.
Publication requires review
The editorial process must verify source authenticity and identity, assess relevance, protect survivor privacy, redact unnecessary personal details, seek a fair response and record the publication decision. Reports are not automatically published. Confidential evidence intake is not open; anonymous reader accounts are reviewed separately.
Every change carries a date
Timeline records show event date, source date, archive addition and last update. Unknown dates and approximate periods remain explicit. Future substantive edits require an update date and an explanation in the change log. Cornell news was checked 6 October 2026; each historical source retains its own check date.
Corrections and right of reply
Correct a material error promptly and visibly, identifying the record, the change and the date. Add relevant sourced replies alongside the allegation. Correction and reply requests enter a private queue for human review.
Explore a correction or replyAccurate reporting is not blanket legal immunity
Calling a claim “alleged,” using public information or identifying as media does not prevent someone from bringing a lawsuit. Defamation, privacy and image rights require care. Fair-report protections depend on the applicable law and fair, accurate attribution to qualifying records.
Legal Information Institute: defamation ↗
General reference, not case-specific legal advice.
Digital Media Law Project: fair report privilege ↗
Protections depend on jurisdiction, attribution, fairness and accuracy; not blanket immunity.
People are never targets
No harassment, threats, private addresses, family information, survivor identification or identification based solely on a matching name. We use only relevant verified information. Photographs carry credits and context.
Read the image credits →People decide.
Evidence stays in view.
Our archive does not depend on Meta’s platforms, engagement targets or automated feed rules. We will not remove responsibly sourced reporting merely because it is uncomfortable, unpopular or critical of a powerful institution.
No AI model decides which reader posts are approved, edited or removed here. Community publication requires a human member of the collective to review consent, context, privacy and attribution, then explicitly approve the edited text. Technical checks protect the service; they do not replace that judgment.
Preserving the record means keeping sources, dates, relevant replies and visible corrections. It does not mean exposing private identities or leaving threats, unsupported accusations or withdrawn accounts online. When an account cannot be published, a reviewer can leave a reason through the private receipt portal. Changes and corrections should be explained where it is safe to do so.