Social Rules and Sexual Misconduct – What Cornell Carries into the World:

I was working at the Excel in London when I took out my phone, checking my manager group chat. Eyes glued to my screen, I went deaf, ignoring my colleague asking if everything was alright. Forcing detachment, I gazed at the buzzy event before me. Men wandering around laughing, looking, learning, but all I could perceive was claustrophobia and testosterone.

The sea of working men around me inspired my angle. I kept thinking about how Cornell University, prestigious and hierarchical, is one of the ubiquitous institutional hubs for professional workplaces to recruit from. Matthew Ingalls, Jonathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar. 7 men boasting about rape on a 57-member group chat. The case bridges into the wider world, and the consequences of sexual misconduct don’t begin and end at court. The story across the sea is live. I wanted to understand why social rules of silence seem perpetual.

Research into workplace sexual harassment suggests that bystanders are rarely simply defined as those who speak up and those who don’t. Intervention can be delayed, partial or ineffective, shaped by the social cost of challenging someone above you in the status quo. If these dynamics are created in male-dominated social settings like fraternities, what happens when they trickle into the workplace? Status, networks, loyalty and competition carry consequence far beyond social standing, affecting reputation and career.

There’s institutional evidence which makes this culture worth writing about. In its 2024 Sexism in the City inquiry, the UK Treasury Committee reported on an “alpha-male” culture within financial services and heard testimony about sexual harassment. The report, however, didn’t frame the solution solely around women-reporting-perpetrators. Instead, it argues sexual harassment should be treated as “a problem for everyone to solve”, calling for men to act as allies and role models if misconduct needed to be challenged. That shifts the focus from perpetrator and victim to the people around them, crucially, to the role of the bystander.

Jennifer A. Scarduzio’s research complicates the idea of the workplace bystander. Her study of survivors’ relationships with colleagues found that coworkers can become “complex champions”, “contradictory confidants” and“complicit conspirators”, depending on how people responded to harassment and to the person experiencing it. The bystander becomes not necessarily neutral. Reactions like speaking up, offering support or doing nothing determine whether misconduct can be challenged. Often, this unspoken attitude is quietly absorbed into workplace culture.

I return to Cornell because the allegations involve more than a single alleged perpetrator or victim. A 101-page civil lawsuit prompted the reopening of a criminal investigation on Monday 28th September 2026, two years after the initial allegations emerged. The reporting linked here provides important context to the case and its continuing developments. The original investigation by Senior Editor of The Cornell Daily Sun, Cereese Qusba, reported on the case over several months. Her reporting, including the decision to name the men accused, brought important scrutiny to the university’s handling of the allegations and questions around transparency. Maggie Young for The Vanderbilt Hustler wrote that Cornell’s handling reflects an old problem, that “Institutions built within patriarchal societies have historically given men greater authority to define, control and respond to violence against women”.When men control the culture surrounding speaking up, Young’s work points to workplace settings.

Workplace misconduct, I found, is shaped by the social rules surrounding it. Who? – Who holds status, who is protected and who speaks up. I wanted to make this idea of professional elitism tangible for the everyday employee, rather than leaving it as an abstract concept. I reduced it to four forces that can be observed and tested: Status, Network, Loyalty, Competition – “SNLC”. I want the similar initialism to SNL (Saturday Night Live) to help you reader, remember it. The framework begs a simple question: when workplace interests collide, which social rules determine who stays silent and why people get protected.

I began testing SNLC against the question at the heart of bystander behaviour: what makes someone feel able to intervene?

Under Status, who is safe to challenge – the FCA’s data offers a revealing starting point. Its 2024 findings show that firms didn’t respond uniformly to reported misconduct, whilst the regulator warned against cultures in which harassment and bullying were overlooked. This raised concerns about firms turning a blind eye when this involved commercially viable “star” individuals. The implication is uncomfortable. If someone’s economic value changes the consequence of challenging, then status is a barrier to intervention. Perhaps popularity culture doesn’t die after graduation; it acquires a salary and a job title.

Networks show why formal reporting systems are only part of the story. The FCA data tells us firms identify misconduct not only through formal grievance, but through whistleblowing and casual HR. What happens within informal networks is just as important as the official process. Sexism in the City also weighed in on this, noting concerns over the effectiveness of whistleblowing arrangements in financial services. The Cornell case offers a striking contrast. Though allegations can become lost within formal structures, information can also travel through informal networks of trust and solidarity. Qusbar represents the “sisterhood”, illustrating how these networks can bring allegations into public view when institutional channels are insufficient. Unfair but realistic, accountability is often dependent on the person experiencing misconduct and those closest to them to find another route through the system. Women take on yet another social role – inventor. For employers, the challenge is making clear who employees can turn to. We often hear “talk to HR”, but who is HR! Confidentiality must be protected by making speaking up socially safe.

Silence can look like professional health when it may instead reflect professional fear. Loyalty creates tension between the individual, their team, firm, and the person experiencing misconduct. The FCA makes an important distinction I must draw in; a high number of reports doesn’t indicate a worse culture; it suggests employees actually feel confident speaking up. This tension, as seen with Cornell, is commonly fostered in education. Returning to the UK, arecent University of Bath investigation was launched after concerns about analleged plot to spike female freshers was raised. As part of the Rugby Society initiation, this offers a glimpse of how loyalty operates within student communities. “Initiations” that involve excessive drinking and humiliation are prohibited, yet people inevitably find new ways around restrictions. Anyone at or that’s been to university knows of this open secret – widely discussed, rarely challenged. Environments which champion loyalty, developing their own rules over tolerance isn’t born in the workplace, but maintained there.

Competition brings the cost of speaking up into focus. If an employee thinks challenging a colleague will damage relationships and career, policy isn’t enough. The EHRC’s 2026 evidence review offers an institutional response; standardised, one-off training is unlikely to sustain meaningful change. Evidence is stronger for training that’s repeated, tailored to realistic scenarios and delivered interactively. If employees are given face-to-face practice conducted by a team leader, then senior staff, makeshift frat-boy presidents, can model the behaviour expected. People respond to people, not just policies.

The law is moving the same way. From 30th October 2026, employers will be required to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment, strengthening the existing duty to just take “reasonable steps”. This shifts the emphasis towards prevention as the reforms introduce a new duty relating to harassment by third parties.

Listening to Natasha Devon on LBC on Saturday Evening, I was struck by how the Cornell case has moved beyond the university and into wide cultural conversation across social media and reportedly, within families. That reach matters. When even the alleged perpetrators’ treatment is being debated by neutral legislators, including Donald Trump’s comment that they “won’t get afair shake”, Qusba becomes a reminder of what can happen when information is pursued with bravery.

This is a chance to change culture. Can the silent majority remain silent once it’s recognised as being part of perpetration? I ask you, reader, to remember SNLC. Four concepts to ask yourself, the men in your life and the future men of the world. Is prevention possible without changing the social cost of speaking up? An accessible question with a four-letter question.