Beyond Fight or Flight: What the Cornell Case Asks Us to Understand About Survival
Content note: This article discusses sexual assault and trauma, without graphic detail.
The allegations surrounding Cornell University’s Chi Phi fraternity have reopened a painful conversation about sexual violence, institutional responsibility and the expectations placed on survivors.
A former student, identified as Jane Doe, alleges that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by seven fraternity members in October 2024. The criminal investigation was reopened in September 2026. Some defendants deny the allegations; the proceedings remain ongoing. “Cornell 57” has also circulated online, referring to the fraternity’s reported 57 active members. That number may actually be higher. [1,2]
Alongside the demand for accountability is a question we need to examine carefully: Why do we still expect survival to look like fighting back?
Survival can look quieter than we expect
Many of us learned that danger produces two responses: fight or flight. That picture is incomplete.
In a 2017 study of 298 women who attended a specialist clinic after sexual assault, 70% reported significant tonic immobility and 48% reported extreme tonic immobility during the assault. This is an involuntary inhibition of movement, sometimes accompanied by an inability to speak. The findings describe this particular clinical sample, rather than all survivors. [3]
A person may know that something is wrong and still be unable to move or call for help.
The absence of resistance does not establish willingness.
When keeping someone calm becomes a way to survive
Other responses can be harder for observers to recognize. A person may soften their voice, agree outwardly, offer reassurance or try to avoid provoking someone they fear.
The Department of Justice Canada’s report on sexual-assault trauma discusses appeasement and habitual responses under threat. These behaviours can occur when someone feels afraid, overwhelmed or unable to escape. [4]
In everyday language, we might describe this as “stroking his ego” or “not aggravating him.” A more compassionate interpretation is that the person may be trying to reduce the danger.
That is an interpretation of what such behaviour can mean, not a diagnosis of a particular survivor or proof of what happened in a specific case.
“Fawning” is often used in trauma discussions to describe appeasing another person to maintain safety. It is useful descriptive language, but should not be presented as a distinct, universally established biological response with the same research foundation as tonic immobility.
Nor does every act of accommodation indicate trauma. Context matters: fear, power, dependency and whether someone feels free to refuse.
The UCLA research: “tend and befriend”
In 2000, UCLA psychologist Shelley E. Taylor and colleagues proposed a broader account of responses to stress in females: tend and befriend.
“Tending” describes care that protects oneself and offspring. “Befriending” describes building and maintaining supportive social connections. The researchers proposed that attachment and caregiving systems, including possible roles for oxytocin and reproductive hormones, help explain these behaviours. [5]
Their evolutionary argument considered the risks of fighting or fleeing while caring for dependent young. Pregnancy or having an infant can make escape and confrontation more complicated; protection may also involve caregiving and drawing others close.
This is a theoretical explanation, not a rule that pregnant women or mothers respond in one predictable way. Women can fight or flee, and these social responses are not an exclusive female script.
Importantly, seeking support from safe people and placating a threatening person are different behaviours. Taylor’s research does not establish that flattering an aggressor is “tend and befriend.”
Both topics widen our understanding of survival, but they should not be collapsed into one explanation.
Understanding survival without taking away dignity
A survivor may later wonder: Why did I stay quiet? Why did I try to keep things normal? Why didn’t I respond differently?
These questions deserve care rather than retrospective judgment. Under threat, the choices available to someone can be profoundly constrained.
Recognizing that constraint can preserve dignity. It makes room to understand a response without turning it into a character flaw, a failure of courage or responsibility for another person’s behaviour.
We also need to resist explaining every detail of a survivor’s account through neuroscience. Research helps us understand possible responses; it cannot determine the facts of an individual allegation.
What a more informed response asks of us
A helpful response begins with listening, avoiding questions that imply blame, and respecting the person’s choices about support and disclosure.
We can ask: What do you need to feel safer now? Who would you like beside you? What would help you regain a sense of choice?
For institutions, compassion must be accompanied by careful investigation, accessible support and accountability. The burden of preventing sexual violence belongs with those responsible for safety and those who cause harm.
Survivors deserve care whether they fought, froze, fled, appeased someone or cannot neatly name what happened inside them.
References
Associated Press. (2026, September). Prosecutor reopens probe into Cornell gang rape allegations after accuser files lawsuit. https://apnews.com/article/16f59e89ce97e3a40a8e672f7b3f374b
New York Post. (2026, September 29). Sickening new texts in ‘Cornell 7’ group chat revealed: ‘Shop still open?’https://nypost.com/2026/09/29/us-news/sickening-new-texts-in-cornell-7-group-chat-revealed-shop-still-open/
Möller, A., Söndergaard, H. P., & Helström, L. (2017). Tonic immobility during sexual assault—a common reaction predicting post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 96(8), 932–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13174
Department of Justice Canada. The impact of trauma on adult sexual assault victims: Part II—The neurobiological impact of trauma on the brain. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/trauma/p3.html
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.411