On October 13, Columbia University juniors Nikos Mohammadi and Christina Ma published an opinion piece on the alleged rape of “Jane Doe” by seven members of a fraternity at Cornell. Dissenting from general campus opinion, they argued that it was “worth taking a pause before jumping to wide-sweeping conclusions” about the case, and that the prevailing rhetoric—that women lack meaningful agency when choosing to perform acts they may later come to regret—was infantilizing.
Seething responses flooded in. “Brother you gotta go kill yourself,” one read. “I hope this follows you around forever,” read another. “[H]ope both are shown the same cruelty you carry in your heart for someone you don’t even know,” read a third. The Columbia Open Discourse Alliance, “a non-partisan coalition for free speech and open discourse,” condemned Sundial, where the piece was published, claiming that it “promotes rape culture.” Such opinions simply should not be permitted, argued the Columbia Political Review.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
That the piece was published, and that Sundial is standing its ground, is a good sign for free speech on campus. But as the backlash demonstrates, conformity to an apparent socially acceptable position continues to take precedence for many students at America’s most prestigious schools.
In their essay, Mohammadi and Ma argue that the Cornell incident is complicated by significant legal and moral nuance, and that students should therefore pause and think rather than vandalizing buildings or summarily concluding that this confirms the existence of “campus rape culture.” They further argue that it infantilizes women and denies them agency to suggest that no sex is permissible if a woman later comes to feel, after consenting in the moment, that the experience was traumatic or immoral. In other words, they maintain, freedom includes the possibility of making bad decisions.
Established in 2024, Sundial—where Mohammadi is a deputy editor and Ma a staff writer—sets out to “overcome echo chambers, and encourage healthy competition of ideas to strengthen campus discourse,” in its founder’s words.
“If we didn’t publish this, nobody on campus would have published anything remotely similar to this,” Mohammadi told me. As he and Ma observe in their piece, beyond the gates of college campuses, journalists and commentators have approached the Cornell story with a healthy skepticism. But such skepticism “was a little taboo on campus, and the point is it shouldn’t be taboo,” said Mohammadi.
After an internal discussion, Sundial’s editorial board signed off on Mohammadi and Ma’s essay. It went live on Tuesday, October 13, alongside another article offering an opposing viewpoint.
The blowback has been ferocious. Seventy posts condemning Sundial for publishing the piece were left on Sidechat, an anonymous posting board for college students. Ma told me that others had taken aim at her friends and friends’ family members simply for associating with her. Many, she said, “haven’t read the article. They’re responding to claims that we never made.” Of those who had read the piece, several “pulled quotes out of it” out of context, “in order to support their own opinion.”
The next day, the Columbia Open Discourse Alliance (CODA), established with the aim of sparking “bold conversations that challenge assumptions,” canceled an event entitled “Press Freedom and the Public Square,” at which Nick Baum, editor-in-chief of Sundial, was scheduled to speak. CODA issued a statement condemning Sundial for publishing a piece that “promotes rape culture.”
The Columbia Political Review—which regularly invoked the virtues of free speech to defend the campus anti-Israel protest movement—responded with a statement from its editorial board condemning “the Sundial’s decision to publish the article.” The editorial went to express its concern that “the Sundial allowed its authors to leave out what academic literature and lived experience show contribute to rape on college campuses: fraternities, insufficient disciplinary processes, and a resounding culture of silence and fear.”
Reactions like these suggest that assertions about a campus rape culture—covered extensively by City Journal’s Heather Mac Donald—cannot be challenged. Anyone who challenges the notion that campus rape is a widespread phenomenon, or that alleged victims must automatically be believed, supports and upholds “cultures and systems of rape, sexual assault, and violence,” in the words of Columbia Political Review.
Jonas Du, founder and former editor-in-chief of Sundial, believes the magazine’s decision to publish was the right one. “Nick Baum [the current editor] 100 percent made the right decision,” he told me. “It’s a gross mischaracterization to suggest the authors support ‘rape culture’—they make a good faith argument calling into question the narrative of a highly controversial case that’s very relevant to campus politics.”
“It’s their prerogative to publish that and a service to the Columbia community when you present an unpopular but well-argued viewpoint because that’s how we make progress on important issues,” Du added.
Despite the blowback, Mohammadi and Ma’s willingness to speak out helps challenge the illusion of consensus on the Cornell case and the broader issues it invokes. Mohammadi said that “ten to fifteen people” had reached out to him privately to tell him they agreed with the piece and to thank him for writing it. After the Columbia Spectator reported on the controversy, the majority of the comments on a linked Instagram post defended Sundial’s right to publish. “Nothing was said that was particularly controversial or unusual that would justify censure,” read one.
Mohammadi and Ma deserve praise for their willingness to express a reasoned argument in the face of a tide of unreasoned opposition they surely knew they would face. Despite the reaction of some to squelch an important debate, free speech is still flickering at Columbia.