Pemberton's NYT Column Mischaracterizes Skeptics of the Cornell 'Jane Doe' Allegations
Source: Eddie Scarry. "NYT Writer: Everyone Would Just Shut Up And Believe 'Jane Doe'." October 20, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author says the New York Times columnist is wrong that critics of the Cornell 'Jane Doe' case are smearing her or can't challenge her story. In his telling, her own lawsuit and her earlier statements undercut her claim, and the columnist is just calling people bigots because his side is losing. He also argues that exposing her name is no worse than what was done to the accused men.
Conclusion
Nathan Tayler Pemberton's New York Times claims, that skeptics are smearing Jane Doe and cannot dispute the basic narrative of the assault, are false. His column is a dishonest effort to label critics as bigots because the case against Doe's account is strong.
Premises
- Doe's own lawsuit says she got drunk, went to a male friend at a fraternity house, and took part in a drug-fueled threesome, so critics need not portray her as anything because the facts come from her own filing.
- Doe contemporaneously assured those involved that the sex was consensual and told others she had taken part in group sex, with no sign that she felt offended or assaulted.
- Doe told one of the men she looked forward to attending an upcoming party at the same house, and only began suggesting the sex was non-consensual after she was disinvited.
- Doe said multiple times that she agreed to the group sex and reversed herself almost two weeks later, and she filed suit two years after that, so little of the 'basic narrative' remains undisputed.
- Publishing Doe's name is not unfair 'harassment', because the seven accused men were named by Cornell's student newspaper, had their faces posted online, and are named in her public lawsuit.
- Pemberton's anger comes from his preferred narrative having been all but proven false, not from concern for the victim, since everyone serious is angry about rape allegations and nobody is gleeful.
Assumptions
- The article's account of Doe's texts, statements, and the timeline is accurate and complete.
- Earlier statements of consent made soon after the event are more reliable than later claims of non-consent.
- A possible motive, such as being disinvited, is good evidence that a later allegation is false.
- Being drunk or voluntarily taking drugs undermines or weakens a later claim of non-consent.
- Naming an accuser and naming the accused are morally equivalent, even though one is an accuser in a civil suit and the other has been accused but not found liable.
- Pemberton's column is representative of the left or media, and its claims about the 'online right' are fully answered by rebutting its factual assertions.
- Doe's lawyer's argument about the sorority's responsibility says something about the credibility of the underlying claim.