我曾起诉的每一家涉及性侵的机构，在诉讼提交后，都会说出某种版本的同样话：我们对此极其重视。随后我拿到卷宗。而太多时候，我发现的情况与公众所得到的声明完全不符。往往存在先前的投诉、有文件记录的警告、有人已经提出质疑的行为，以及一项仅仅检查了程序性条款却未追问关键问题的调查。这些决定往往更像是在保护机构而非站出来的人。
Every institution I have sued over sexual abuse says some version of the same thing when the lawsuit lands: We take this extremely seriously. Then I get the file. And too often, what I find looks nothing like the statement the public receives. There is often a prior complaint, a documented warning, conduct someone had already flagged, and an investigation that checked every procedural box without asking the hard questions. The decisions often make more sense as protecting the institution than protecting the person who came forward.
这就是为什么康奈尔大学正在发生的案件应当让人感到不安。2024年，一名康奈尔学生向校园警察报告称，她在Chi Phi兄弟会住所度过的一晚涉及该会七名成员。地方检察官决定不提起诉讼。他的理由是：她向校园警察提交的宣誓书面陈述中未指控自己被下药或未同意发生的性行为。但他也承认，其办公室在作出该决定前从未收到她与校园警察访谈的记录，且检察官未进行独立调查。
That is why the case unfolding at Cornell University should make people uncomfortable. In 2024, a Cornell student went to campus police about a night at the Chi Phi fraternity house involving seven of its members. The district attorney declined to bring charges. His reason: Her sworn written statement to campus police did not allege that she had been drugged or did not consent to the sexual activity that took place. But he has also acknowledged that his office never received the transcript of her interview with campus police before making that decision, and that prosecutors did not independently investigate.
不提起诉讼的决定是基于康奈尔警察进行的调查以及提交给其办公室的记录。因此，是否对所谓的群体性强奸提起诉讼，取决于由大学自身警察部门进行的调查。伊萨卡警察表示，该案从未向他们报告。我并不是说康奈尔有人故意掩埋此事。我是在说，任何机构都不应成为仅由其自身掌握其危机档案的唯一一方。而近两年来，情况一直如此。
The decision not to bring charges was based on the investigation conducted by Cornell Police and the record provided to his office. So the decision about whether to prosecute an alleged gang rape depended on an investigation conducted by the university's own police department. Ithaca police say the case was never reported to them. I'm not saying anyone at Cornell set out to bury the incident. I am saying no institution should be the only one holding the file on its own crisis. And for nearly two years, that was where the matter stood.
直到该学生提起诉讼。几天内，地方检察官重新开启了刑事调查，并表示将把此案提交大陪审团。在纽约州长凯西·霍楚尔（民主党）呼吁外部审查后，康奈尔同意进行独立审查。
Then the student sued. Within days, the district attorney reopened the criminal investigation and said he would take the case to a grand jury. Cornell agreed to an independent review after New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) called for outside scrutiny.
几天之后，霍楚尔进一步行动，任命司法部长莱蒂西亚·詹姆斯（民主党）为该案的特别检察官。被告应享有正当程序。是否能够成立指控，由大陪审团和法院决定。但时间线提出了一个更棘手的问题：为什么要等到提起诉讼，大家才重新审视此事？康奈尔大学并非个例。当严重指控浮出水面时，大学、医院、教堂和公司都有东西可能失去：声誉、信任、捐助者、患者、申请者或股东。
Days later, Hochul went further, appointing Attorney General Letitia James (D) as special prosecutor in the case. The accused deserve due process. It is up to a grand jury and the courts to decide what can be proven. But the timeline raises a harder question: Why did it take a lawsuit for everyone to look again? Cornell isn't unique. Universities, hospitals, churches and companies all have something to lose when serious allegations surface: reputation, trust, donors, patients, applicants or shareholders.
而有时，要想查明真相，就必须面对机构内部是否有人错过了警告、忽视了投诉或未能采取行动。无需有人为自保而策划掩盖，也能影响后续发展。投诉会被处理。律师会介入。有人会受到纪律处分、被调动或被撤职。一份声明称此事被认真对待。档案被结案，机构继续前行。但受害者无法同样继续前行。我所代表的一些人如今连进医生办公室、坐进教室或信任权威人物都做不到。
And sometimes getting to the truth means confronting whether someone inside missed a warning, ignored a complaint or failed to act. No one has to plot a cover-up for self-preservation to shape what happens next. A complaint gets processed. Lawyers get involved. Someone is disciplined, transferred or removed. A statement says the matter was taken seriously. The file is closed, and the institution moves on. But the person who was harmed doesn't get to move on. Some of the people I represent can't walk into a doctor's office anymore, sit in a classroom or trust anyone in authority.
这种创伤不会随着档案结案而结束。勇敢站出来的幸存者无法将案件交给系统后就回家疗愈。他们必须向警方、行政人员和调查员重述自己一生中最黑暗的那晚。然后他们等待决定。而当档案再次返回显示已结案时，他们被期望接受这一结果。如果他们不接受，就得寻找律师、提起诉讼，并再次讲述自己的故事。这一次，是在公众面前进行的，而陌生人会质疑他们的动机、他们的记忆，甚至质疑事件是否真的发生过。
That doesn't close when the file does. A survivor who comes forward doesn't get to hand their case to the system and go home to heal. They retell the worst night of their life to police, administrators and investigators. Then they wait for a decision. And when the file comes back closed, they're expected to accept it. If they don't, they have to find a lawyer, file a lawsuit and tell the story all over again. This time, it is in public, while strangers question their motives, their memory and whether it happened at all.
迟早会有人称这是敛财。我曾代表过幸存者。我知道这种指控忽略了什么：治疗、医疗护理、失去的工作、被打乱的教育或职业生涯。这种伤害可能伴随人的一生。和解金不是你因他人造成的伤害而独自承担代价时的“发薪日”。这些诉讼不仅仅是关于金钱的。
Sooner or later, someone calls it a cash grab. I have represented survivors. I know what that accusation ignores: Therapy, medical care, lost work, an education or career derailed. The harm can follow people for the rest of their lives. A settlement isn't a payday when you're the one left paying for harm someone else caused. These lawsuits aren't just about money.
这关乎问责。我做审判律师的时间足够长，知道接下来会发生什么。机构说它进行了调查。我要求提供调查记录。它说遵循了政策。我要求提供政策文件以及有人确实遵循政策的证据。它说没人能预知。我追问之前谁投诉过，他们做了什么处理。接着我要求提供邮件、短信、纪律处分记录、内部沟通记录。我让决策者宣誓作证，提出那些可能从未被问过的问题。
They're about accountability. I have been a trial lawyer long enough to know what happens next. The institution says it investigated. I ask for the investigation. It says it followed policy. I ask for the policy and the evidence that anyone followed it. It says nobody could have known. I ask who complained before and what they did about it. Then I ask for the emails. The texts. The disciplinary records. The internal communications. I put decision-makers under oath and ask the questions that may never have been asked before.
这就是提起诉讼的作用。它把“我们极其重视此事”从一句声明变成了机构必须证明的东西。这就是这些案件超越任何和解或赔偿金额而重要的原因。机构可以聘请律师，发表措辞严谨的声明，坚称遵循了程序。但如果同样的失败在关起门来之后继续发生，究竟有什么真正改变了？如果机构能保住名声、结案翻篇，而不必直面哪里出了错，什么能阻止它下一次重蹈覆辙？
That's what filing a lawsuit does. It turns "We took this extremely seriously" from a statement into something an institution has to prove. That's why these cases matter beyond any settlement or dollar amount. An institution can hire lawyers, issue carefully worded statements and insist it followed procedure. But if the same failures continue behind closed doors, what has actually changed? If an institution can protect its reputation, close the file and move on without confronting what went wrong, what stops it from doing the same thing the next time?
这就是机构失职如何演变成模式的过程。并非一定有人下令掩盖真相，而是因为保护机构可能比揭露内部出了什么问题更容易。机构和指控可能会变，但根本问题不会：从调查揭露的真相中损失最大的人，也可能正是进行调查的人。康奈尔大学展示了这会导向何方。当一所大学的校警去调查可能暴露该大学失职的指控时，他们的工作就成了检察官决定后续处理所依赖的材料之一。
That's how institutional failures become patterns. Not because someone necessarily ordered a cover-up, but because protecting the institution can become easier than exposing what went wrong inside it. The institutions and allegations may change, but the fundamental problem doesn't: The people with the most to lose from what an investigation uncovers can also be the ones conducting it. Cornell shows where that can lead. When a university's own police investigate allegations that could expose failures within that university, their work becomes part of what prosecutors rely on to decide what happens next.
记录了什么很重要。移交了什么很重要。而从未送达决策者手中的东西同样重要。幸存者理应得到的，不止是一句说“我们非常重视”的声明。
What gets documented matters. What gets handed over matters. And what never reaches the people making those decisions matters too. Survivors are owed more than a statement saying they were taken seriously.
他们理应得到的不仅仅是“相信我们”。他们理应得到一个程序，在这个程序中，有所损失的机构不是控制真相大白与否的一方。Elliott Jung 是 HHJ Trial Attorneys 在圣地亚哥的合伙人，他代理人身伤害案件的原告，包括性侵幸存者和机构性虐待幸存者。
They're owed more than "trust us." They're owed a process where the institution with something to lose isn't the one controlling what comes to light. Elliott Jung is a partner at HHJ Trial Attorneys in San Diego, where he represents plaintiffs in personal injury cases, including survivors of sexual assault and institutional abuse.