Seven current and former Cornell students have been accused in a civil lawsuit of a serious offense. Their names are circulating online under one label: “The Cornell Seven.” People are calling for them to be charged, fired, and punished before a criminal court has determined what each person did. Some are calling for violence. The allegation deserves a thorough investigation: It does not make a public verdict an equal.

A person has a right to their name and reputation. Those things can be damaged in days and may never be restored. The court of public opinion moves faster than an investigation. It can turn seven people into one story, even though the lawsuit’s detailed account describes different alleged actions by different men. Each allegation must be examined under the scrutiny of evidence.

We should also be honest about what is known. Many posts say Cornell let all seven men off with nothing more than essays. The lawsuit says they were offered an opportunity to submit essays to mitigate their conduct. Cornell says essays were not anyone’s sole consequence. It says it held a hearing where both sides could present evidence, and that sanctions included suspensions and expulsions. Cornell has not publicly identified each person’s outcome. “They all just wrote essays” is not an established account of what happened.

There is a dispute about the original criminal investigation, too. Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says the woman’s 2024 statement to Cornell police described her drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary and consensual. Her attorney disputes that characterization and says investigators failed to follow up on important evidence. The investigation has now been reopened. These conflicting accounts should be examined, rather than used to declare either side dishonest.

The consequences are no longer confined to comments online. TMZ reports that Diego Sarabia lost his job at Wells Fargo after prosecutors announced they were reconsidering the case. Wells Fargo has not publicly explained its decision, and no criminal court has reached a verdict. An unresolved allegation can change a person’s life before the facts are settled.

History gives us a reason to pause. The five teenagers once labeled the “Central Park Five” were convicted amid intense public outrage. In 2002, the five were exonerated after another man confessed and DNA evidence supported his account. Their case does not tell us what happened at Cornell. It shows what can happen when a group label outruns the truth.

Online outrage can also become content. Angry posts and new photographs can bring attention and money to the people sharing them. Anyone discussing right and wrong should care whether their own methods are fair. Threats, harassment, and treating allegations as proven facts do nothing to establish the truth.

A report of sexual assault should be taken seriously. That does not mean automatic guilt. Nor should concern about a false allegation become a reason to dismiss every woman who reports an assault. Both extremes replace evidence with an assumption.

Hear the woman’s account. Investigate the messages, testimony, and other evidence. Hold each person responsible for conduct that is proven. Reject threats and harassment against anyone involved. Until the facts are established, speak about allegations as allegations.

Sign if you believe that even in the most disturbing cases, every person deserves to be judged on evidence, rather than a mob.