Editor’s note: This open letter was sent by a group of 26 Latin American women alums coordinated by María Paola Villamizar Londoño (A.M. ’25) to University President Paul Alivisatos, Harris School of Public Policy Dean Ethan Bueno de Mesquita, and other UChicago administrators on October 21. It appears here in its original form.

Dear President Alivisatos and Dean Bueno de Mesquita,

We write as Latin American women and alumnae of the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, deeply concerned by the reported sexual assault that took place during a party at the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity house on October 11, 2026. We come from a region where violence against women remains a profound challenge and where feminist movements have long called attention to the social and institutional conditions that enable it. The recognition of femicide as a distinct crime in many Latin American countries reflects decades of struggle to confront its most extreme manifestations. Yet violence against women exists along a continuum that includes psychological, physical, sexual, and economic abuse, often sustained by unequal power relations, social norms, peer cultures that excuse harmful behavior, and silences that protect those responsible.

Addressing violence against women requires looking beyond individual perpetrators to examine the collective behaviors and institutional conditions that may enable abuse, discourage intervention, or undermine accountability. The accounts emerging from October 11 raise troubling questions about these dynamics. We therefore urge the University of Chicago, including the Harris School of Public Policy, to respond rigorously to the reported assault and the conduct of those who may have enabled it, while strengthening institutional policies, support systems, and prevention efforts through evidence-informed action, clear responsibilities, and measurable commitments. Our call for action rests on the following considerations:

1. First and foremost, we stand in solidarity with the woman who reported this assault.

We believe survivors. Their voices deserve to be heard, their experiences taken seriously, and their dignity protected. No person who comes forward with an account of sexual violence should face intimidation, retaliation, public humiliation, or the burden of having to defend their credibility before receiving support.

We also recognize the courage of the women who reportedly intervened to protect her. According to media reports citing police records, the women said that men outside the bathroom falsely told them their friend was not inside, allegedly impeded their access, and that one man grabbed a friend by the hair. Some men reportedly cheered or encouraged what was happening inside. If corroborated, these accounts raise profoundly disturbing questions not only about the conduct of an alleged perpetrator, but also about the possible participation, encouragement, and complicity of others.

2. We are deeply concerned by the reported group dynamics surrounding this incident.

What makes it possible for a group of men, confronted with a woman who may be incapacitated and at risk, to respond not with concern or intervention, but with apparent encouragement, amusement, or obstruction of those trying to help her?

Who the men outside the bathroom were has not, to our knowledge, been publicly established. AEPi’s chapter has stated that designated sober monitors were alerted by a friend of the woman and provided assistance. The fraternity’s national organization has stated that no AEPi members were aware of the assault while it was happening or were part of the group that cheered. The University’s public notices do not address the reported conduct of the group outside the bathroom, and, to our knowledge, the University has published no further information since its October 13 update. It is troubling that much of the publicly available information has come from media reporting rather than from the University itself. While we recognize the need to protect the survivor’s privacy and the integrity of ongoing investigations, these considerations should not preclude timely, meaningful institutional communication. As of October 19, the Chicago Police Department reported that no one had been charged and that its investigation is ongoing. Everyone involved is entitled to a fair process. But the open questions are precisely why a rigorous inquiry is needed.

These concerns extend beyond individual conduct. If corroborated, the reported behavior would reveal not only individual failures to intervene, but also troubling group dynamics that may enable sexual violence. It is therefore essential to examine the social norms that can turn male loyalty into complicity, normalize sexual entitlement, and make protecting a peer seem more important than protecting a woman from harm.

Further, the timing of this case is particularly troubling. It comes amid renewed national attention to allegations of sexual violence at Cornell University, stemming from an incident reported to have occurred in 2024. The recent public outcry has prompted Cornell to suspend Interfraternity Council social events through May 2027 and initiate a broader review of fraternity life. Against this backdrop, the emergence of another account of alleged sexual violence in a fraternity setting, accompanied by reports of men encouraging the conduct or obstructing intervention, underscores the urgency of examining the collective behaviors and institutional conditions that may enable such violence.

Recent reporting has also brought attention to a separate civil lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court against Alpha Delta Phi and its Chicago chapter, concerning an alleged sexual assault at a fraternity party near the University of Chicago in February 2026. Importantly, the lawsuit goes beyond the alleged assault itself: it claims that the fraternity had faced previous reports of sexual misconduct dating back to 2009, that its national organization had been aware of some of these reports, and that adequate safety, supervision, and alcohol-related policies had not been effectively enforced. The lawsuit also raises concerns about the adequacy of supervision and intervention during the February event. Although these allegations remain unproven, they raise questions about whether warning signs were adequately addressed and whether existing prevention and accountability mechanisms are sufficient. These concerns reinforce the need for a comprehensive, evidence-based institutional review rather than a response limited to a single incident.

These cases involve distinct allegations and circumstances, each requiring an independent and rigorous examination. Taken together, however, they raise broader questions about peer cultures, organizational oversight, and institutional responses to sexual violence. Public outrage, institutional statements, and mandatory training cannot be considered sufficient if the underlying attitudes and behaviors that enable sexual violence remain unchanged.

We must ask not only whether universities are teaching students what consent means, but whether they are effectively challenging the social norms that allow men to disregard it, excuse violations by their peers, or remain silent when confronted with abuse.

3. The reported circumstances raise fundamental questions about respect for consent and the conditions that may undermine it.

Consent must be freely given, informed, conscious, and ongoing. A person who is incapacitated by alcohol or other substances cannot consent to sexual activity. Silence, passivity, the absence of resistance, or a person’s previous willingness to engage in sexual activity cannot substitute for consent.

These principles are reflected in the University of Chicago’s own Policy on Harassment, Discrimination, and Sexual Misconduct. Yet the circumstances described in recent reports raise the question of whether they are being meaningfully understood, internalized, and upheld within the social environments surrounding the University.

4. We are also deeply concerned by the University’s relationship with fraternities.

We understand that the University of Chicago does not formally recognize fraternities as student organizations and acknowledge that the University has already stated that students who belong to fraternities remain subject to its policies and disciplinary procedures. The question, therefore, is not simply whether the University has authority, but how effectively it exercises that authority, what preventive responsibilities it assumes, and whether its current approach leaves foreseeable risks insufficiently addressed. The absence of formal recognition should not become an excuse for the absence of meaningful institutional action.

5. We acknowledge the steps already taken by the University.

According to the University’s statement, a person of interest has been identified, is reportedly not affiliated with the University, and has been barred from campus. The University has also indicated that it shared camera footage and license plate information with the Chicago Police Department. Separately from the police investigation, the University has said it will determine whether violations of its policy occurred and will initiate disciplinary action as warranted.

Additionally, according to its public statements, campus police arranged for the woman to be transported to the University of Chicago Medical Center, where she received medical care, and University personnel have been working to support her. While we acknowledge these important steps, the University’s public statements do not specify what ongoing medical, psychological, or trauma-informed support has been made available to her.

We therefore call on the University of Chicago to:

1. Ensure survivor-centered, trauma-informed support and protection. Although we understand that the survivor is not a University of Chicago student, we urge the University to provide her, to the fullest extent possible, appropriate medical care, psychological counseling, trauma-informed support, and assistance in navigating reporting and legal processes. Where direct access to University services is not possible, the University should actively facilitate, with her consent, access to appropriate medical providers and community-based services. The University should also extend appropriate support and protection to witnesses and individuals who intervened, regardless of their affiliation with the University. Pay particular attention to preventing intimidation, online harassment, and retaliation against individuals who reported the incident, intervened, or may provide testimony. Access to available support should not depend on the progress or outcome of criminal or institutional investigations.
2. Ensure thorough investigations and accountability for all relevant conduct. Continue cooperating fully with the Chicago Police Department’s investigation, including efforts to establish the identities and conduct of individuals who may have encouraged, facilitated, concealed, or obstructed intervention in the alleged assault. The University has said that, separately from the police investigation, it will determine whether violations of its policies occurred. We ask it to publicly state whether that review covers allegations that any enrolled students may have encouraged the alleged assault or obstructed intervention; to investigate, under its applicable procedures, any credible allegations that enrolled students participated in such conduct; and to impose appropriate disciplinary measures where responsibility is established. Communicate publicly, to a lawful extent and with the survivor’s privacy under consideration, what steps the University is taking and how it is applying its own policies and procedures. As alumnae, we need to know how these cases are being handled and what measures the University is taking to ensure accountability.
3. Establish the facts surrounding the event and preserve relevant evidence. Clarify who organized and supervised the event, when those responsible became aware of the reported incident, what actions they took, and whether any organizers or fraternity members were involved in the alleged obstruction or other misconduct. Acknowledge the chapter’s denial of member involvement and the measures the chapter and its national organization reportedly took, while seeking clarification on their implementation and any further action. Ensure the timely preservation and appropriate examination of available surveillance footage, witness accounts, digital communications, and other relevant records, in coordination with the competent authorities and with due regard for privacy and legal protections.
4. Establish concrete safety and accountability measures for fraternity-related activities. Clarify the obligations of University students who organize, host, or participate in fraternity events, notwithstanding the fraternities’ lack of formal University recognition. Define and communicate minimum expectations regarding event safety, prevention of sexual violence, intervention and reporting procedures, and cooperation with investigations. Assess, within the University’s legal and institutional authority, whether additional safeguards, conditions, restrictions, or disciplinary measures are warranted, and establish mechanisms to monitor compliance. This review should also examine how prior reports of misconduct, known safety concerns, and potential failures to enforce existing safeguards are identified, documented, and addressed, including the respective responsibilities of fraternity chapters, national organizations, and relevant University offices. Engage fraternity chapters and national organizations where appropriate, without allowing their organizational independence to substitute for accountability.
5. Develop and implement a comprehensive, evidence-based prevention strategy addressing the collective dynamics that enable sexual violence. We urge the University to establish an interdisciplinary working group, with the participation of the Harris School of Public Policy, relevant University offices, students, and experts in sexual violence prevention, to design and evaluate institutional reforms. Harris’s Gender and Policy Specialization provides a particularly relevant academic foundation for contributing to this effort. We urge the School to draw on this expertise and translate its commitment to gender-related policy into concrete institutional action to prevent sexual violence and strengthen accountability within the University community. This effort should move beyond conventional consent training to address incapacitation, safe bystander intervention, peer accountability, masculine social norms, and the ways in which group loyalty, encouragement, silence, or obstruction can facilitate abuse. The working group should assess the incentives, organizational practices, and institutional conditions that may discourage reporting or intervention, and recommend concrete measures to address them. The strategy should identify responsible offices, implementation timelines, and measurable indicators of effectiveness, focusing on changes in attitudes, reporting confidence, intervention practices, and institutional responses rather than training attendance alone.
6. Present a public, time-bound institutional action plan. Within 30 calendar days of receiving this letter, the University should publish a substantive plan that integrates the measures outlined above and distinguishes immediate protective actions from medium and long-term institutional reforms. The plan should identify responsible offices, specific commitments, implementation timelines, and measurable indicators of progress. It should also establish a process for reviewing existing policies and oversight mechanisms concerning fraternities and other unaffiliated student social organizations, identifying gaps in prevention and accountability, and translating the findings into concrete reforms. The University should provide periodic public updates on implementation and outstanding commitments, while safeguarding the survivor’s privacy, respecting due process, and protecting the integrity of ongoing investigations. The publication of this plan should not delay immediate protective measures, cooperation with ongoing investigations, or the preservation of relevant evidence. We also request a written response acknowledging receipt of this letter and identifying the University office responsible for coordinating follow-up on these commitments.

As alumnae of the Harris School of Public Policy, we have been trained to understand that complex social problems require more than isolated responses or symbolic commitments. They demand evidence, prevention, institutional coordination, and accountability. We expect the same rigor from our University.

We recognize that supporting survivors and respecting due process are not mutually exclusive. A credible institutional response must take reports of sexual violence seriously, protect those who come forward, investigate allegations thoroughly, and ensure fair procedures for everyone involved.

Our concern extends beyond this particular case. Universities have a responsibility not only to respond to individual incidents but also to confront the environments and collective behaviors that may enable sexual violence. This responsibility requires meaningful prevention, effective oversight, and measurable institutional change.

A university cannot claim to be committed to gender equality while failing to examine the environments in which violence against women may be enabled, encouraged, or excused. Nor can it measure its response solely by the disciplinary or criminal consequences faced by an individual perpetrator. Meaningful accountability requires confronting the collective behaviors and institutional conditions that enable such violence.

We stand with the survivor and with those who intervened. We call on the University of Chicago to demonstrate, through concrete, transparent, and accountable action, that the safety, autonomy, and dignity of women are nonnegotiable.

Sincerely,

Twenty-six Latin American women alumnae of the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago

Signed in our individual capacities, without representing the official position of the Harris School of Public Policy or the University of Chicago.