In the 1980s, Syracuse University was grappling with a surge in sexual violence on and around its campus. Recent investigations have revealed that the university may have taken steps to suppress news coverage of these assaults. Now, the institution finds itself in a legal battle as a survivor seeks access to old police records to support her lawsuit against the university.
The survivor, referred to as Jane Doe in legal filings, was attacked on campus in 1987. Her legal team has been seeking police records from the period to demonstrate that the university should have enhanced security measures in response to escalating crime. However, the university has intervened, arguing that the subpoena for these records is overly broad and burdensome.
University’s Legal Interventions Raise Concerns
In, a New York state court judge ruled in favor of Syracuse University, significantly limiting the records that Jane Doe could obtain. Her attorneys have since appealed this decision, sending the matter to a state appellate court. Andrew Stengel, a former Manhattan prosecutor representing Doe, has accused the university of retraumatizing his client by downplaying the prevalence of sexual assault on campus and in the surrounding area.
The university has maintained that it has a robust structure in place to support survivors of sexual and relationship violence. However, critics argue that the institution’s recent actions in this lawsuit appear to contradict this commitment.
The Broader Context of Sexual Violence at Syracuse University
The case against Syracuse University is part of a broader saga of sexual violence that unfolded in and around the campus throughout the 1980s. The scourge of assaults became so pervasive that it eventually inspired student protests, drew national press attention, and contributed to the passage of federal legislation requiring universities to publicly report crime statistics.
ProPublica’s earlier examination of the issue revealed that more than a dozen women, many of them students, reported being raped or attacked by strangers in a half-square-mile area near the campus over four years. Some of the police reports from this time period were marked ‘NO PRESS,’ suggesting that the university may have used its influence to limit media coverage of these crimes.
The Fight for Access to Police Records
In August 2026, Stengel requested police records tied to a variety of crimes from 1982 to 1987 within the ZIP code that contains the university, Thornden Park, various businesses, and a mix of student and nonstudent housing. Initially, the Syracuse Police Department agreed to provide these records. However, the university later intervened, seeking to block access to many of the records.
The university argued that the subpoena was overly broad and would create unnecessary work for the police department. The police department eventually joined the university’s motion, estimating that it would take 845 hours and $50,000 in staff time to provide the requested documents. In, the judge ruled that the police would only have to disclose reports of crimes that took place on the campus itself, excluding those that occurred in Thornden Park or in the student apartments near it.
The Appeal and the University’s Legal Tactics
Doe’s legal team has filed an appellate brief arguing that the court’s decision to limit the disclosure to university buildings is hard to justify, given that the campus is interwoven with the city. The brief also takes issue with the decision to allow university personnel to act as gatekeepers, reviewing the police files and deciding which meet the judge’s criteria. Doe’s team argues that this presents a conflict of interest that would give the defendant the power to control the evidence it will have to contest at trial.
The university has also sought to reduce its liability by raising the name of a onetime suspect in the case, Michael McKinney. McKinney was on parole at the time of Doe’s rape and was later convicted of another violent crime. However, he was never prosecuted in Doe’s case. The university has filed a civil complaint against McKinney, arguing that if it is held liable, McKinney should contribute to any award in an amount equal to his equitable share.
As the legal battle continues, the case raises important questions about the responsibility of institutions to address and prevent sexual violence, as well as the challenges that survivors face in seeking justice.
