Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a weekly newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back—and keeps you posted on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team.

Much of the country has been shocked this past week as details of the case of the “Cornell Seven” have come to public light. I am an associate professor of government at Cornell University, where my research through the Gender and Security Sector Lab examines how police and justice institutions can become more gender-responsive and trauma-informed. The “Cornell Seven” case brings questions I usually study around the world painfully close to home.

Much of the public discussion has understandably focused on Cornell’s disciplinary proceedings following the horrific events described by Jane Doe, as well as on why the district attorney’s office is only now reopening the case—and what it means if international media attention is required to prompt renewed scrutiny. My research leads me to ask another question: When Jane Doe first reported what happened to her, was the response consistent with the basic principles of trauma-informed and gender-responsive policing?

There has already been confusion over institutional responsibility. Cornell has stated that the Cornell University Police Department, rather than the Ithaca Police Department, had jurisdiction to investigate the case. But the larger question extends beyond which agency had jurisdiction. Every law-enforcement and justice institution serving the Cornell and Ithaca communities should ask whether its personnel are adequately trained in gender-responsive and trauma-informed approaches.

Gender-responsive policing recognizes that people of different genders can experience crime, victimization, and interactions with law enforcement differently. Trauma-informed policing recognizes........

© Slate