"Indiana University suspends football running back Morgan Ellison for sexual assault"
https://t.co/dudq3I2Oa4
https://t.co/dudq3I2Oa4
Morgan Ellison
- Thread starter limestonecowboy
- Start date
- Status
I don’t understand the article. No police charges but university decides guilty. Says can’t step foot on campus and out for 2 1/2 years yet is practicing. No word on appeal which might explain. If guilty, why no police involvement? If no police involvement why harsh penalty? I know what it sounds like but would get in trouble for comparing in this climate...
And I thought I was confused by the situation BEFORE this article. I feel like either this article could use some cleaning up or the writers are just as confused at the outcome as we are.
I have to assume its not just assumption of guilt without due course. If he did what he is being accused of, why just 2.5 years? Ban him forever. Seems like this is trying to take a weird middle ground area that doesn't even exist. This comes off as if both are getting the raw end of the deal.
I have to assume its not just assumption of guilt without due course. If he did what he is being accused of, why just 2.5 years? Ban him forever. Seems like this is trying to take a weird middle ground area that doesn't even exist. This comes off as if both are getting the raw end of the deal.
If there’s no criminal charges, Ellison should sue the university.
I didn’t read the article.
Did the victim report it to the police?
Or was this a deal where a school actor learned and had to report ala Title IX, so the school had to become the criminal justice system substitute?
That would be my guess. Case went through university judicial system, not criminal courts.
This is certainly within the University's right to do and it's also within the victims right to not pursue criminal charges. As a poster pointed out, those criminal charges and court cases can get really messy for the victim whether there is innocence or not. Whether the police ever get involved is not really the issue here. This is a matter of Student Code of Conduct violation through the Sexual Assault Board. It's the Board's opinion only at this point and just because they ruled something occurred in their opinion does not mean it did nor does it mean that anything criminal occurred. My belief is, in court of law, he would likely be found innocent if he could somehow prove it was consensual as he claims, but it would get messy for all parties.
Ellison is between a rock and a hard place. He claims it's consensual which means sex occurred. However unless he can somehow prove it was consensual, he can't file criminal charges of fabrication against her, nor can he sue the University in anyway. This will end his tenure as both a student and an athlete at IU.
Yep. More than likely his career here is over pending appeal, but the university (as in most cases) leaves the door open to returning as a student to finish a degree after a suspension is served. That's important for many students who go through the university judiciary process, but not so much for scholarship athletes.
Here is the relevant portion of the student code of conduct:
https://studentaffairs.indiana.edu/student-conduct/sexual-violence.shtml
https://studentaffairs.indiana.edu/student-conduct/sexual-violence.shtml
"when a person is incapable of giving consent due to use of drugs or alcohol"
By that standard, 99% of current male graduates would have been kicked out of school.
This is why rules like this only lead to more trouble rather than solving problems. I don’t know what happened so certainly can’t judge either party. But what is obvious it’s all a mess and innocent people will suffer and victims cause won’t get justice
Sexual assault can be exposing a body part to someone. If you have ever mooned anyone, you were at risk of sexual assault. 30 years ago that would have been ridiculous. That isn't the case today.
I have no idea what Ellison did. If it was a serious offense, the school should have passed it on to the local prosecutor for investigation. Could the suspension be the time the accuser will be expected to be on campus? If he physically attacked someone, why would IU ever allow him back in school?
I have a feeling his case is not one where he is a danger to anyone. Still, someone reported it so the school has to take action or be accused of special treatment. I hope he transfers and has a great college football experience and career.
I have no idea what Ellison did. If it was a serious offense, the school should have passed it on to the local prosecutor for investigation. Could the suspension be the time the accuser will be expected to be on campus? If he physically attacked someone, why would IU ever allow him back in school?
I have a feeling his case is not one where he is a danger to anyone. Still, someone reported it so the school has to take action or be accused of special treatment. I hope he transfers and has a great college football experience and career.
And that, right there, sounds like sanctuary city bullsh!t Nothing against you of course but after reading these posts it sounds eerily similar.
Actually, in Indiana, a victim has no "right to not pursue criminal charges." It's strictly up to the Monroe County Prosecutor whether charges are filed or not. There are many reasons why the prosecutor may not file charges, and we don't know what they are. The statute of limitations on an offense like the one alleged in the article is quite long...so it's certainly possible that the case still gets filed somewhere down the road. They may have already decided that they won't. We don't know.
He can't "file criminal charges of fabrication against her" either. If the prosecutor believed he could prove either case against either one beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor can file the charges. Ellison certainly can sue the university, if he believes the university violated one of his Constitutional Rights, including his right to Due Process. We don't know what process they used to resolve this allegation, but it's probably above board. Hard to say for sure though, without a transcript of the proceeding.
It's a horrible catch 22.
If he is guilty, I feel horrible for the victim. I think the victim has the right to justice and shouldn't be put on blast publicly only making matters even worse BUT....unfortunately, it's not really possible to accomplish both successfully.
At the same time, if he is innocent, you want to abide by the purpose of the judicial system and not assume guilt. For the sake of the victim, you also don't want to assume innocence on his part if she indeed was assaulted.
So here we sit. We have to rely on the judgement of the board to do the right thing. In this instance, they seemed to have found him guilty and provided him with a stiff penalty. The student is still unnamed and for all intents and purposes, Ellison does have a chance to come back in 2.5 years or start somewhere else with a clean slate. Right or wrong, this might be the "best" plausible outcome for this nightmare.
If he is guilty, I feel horrible for the victim. I think the victim has the right to justice and shouldn't be put on blast publicly only making matters even worse BUT....unfortunately, it's not really possible to accomplish both successfully.
At the same time, if he is innocent, you want to abide by the purpose of the judicial system and not assume guilt. For the sake of the victim, you also don't want to assume innocence on his part if she indeed was assaulted.
So here we sit. We have to rely on the judgement of the board to do the right thing. In this instance, they seemed to have found him guilty and provided him with a stiff penalty. The student is still unnamed and for all intents and purposes, Ellison does have a chance to come back in 2.5 years or start somewhere else with a clean slate. Right or wrong, this might be the "best" plausible outcome for this nightmare.
What a wonderful system we have, guilty till proven innocent,
seems a little medieval.
Rules like what? This isn't a case of IU applying some arbitrary standard. They're complying with Title IX and directives issued by the U.S. Department of Education. If an allegation of sexual violence is reported to a school's Title IX coordinator, they're required to investigate. Here, the investigation obviously led to some inculpatory findings. And, unlike criminal court proceedings, proof beyond a reasonable doubt isn't the standard.
A Title IX investigation isn't in lieu of a criminal proceeding. They're two separate things. If/when local law enforcement becomes involved, they conduct their own investigation which can be on very different timetable. And, because of prosecutorial discretion, they may or not pursue the matter for a whole host of reasons.
Finally, with respect to the definition of sexual violence (and consent) that someone cited in a link above, that again is consistent with federal guidelines. In the context of drugs and alcohol, it's really not that complicated. If someone's incapacitated, they can't give consent.
But again, by the sound of the article, it looks as if he was proven guilty by the panel. Now did he have due course or an attorney involved? Reality is he isn't getting punished, he is merely losing an additional privilege that IU was providing him. In the grand scheme of life, this is absolutely nothing in comparison to what it could've been or still could be.
Also, drinking/being drunk doesn't automatically equate to incapacitated either. By IU code of conduct, incapacitated refers to being unable to communicate and comprehend facts, which frequently can occur due to alcohol/drugs.
Well I agree, Turney, that having a drink doesn't necessarily render someone incapable of giving consent. But intoxication, as I understand it, is a very different story.
Moral of the story - - guys should seek sober, willing sex partners who are clearly in agreement with what they have in mind. Absent that, save your pennies, fly to Nevada and hire a prostitute. If that's not feasible, invest in a blow-up doll.
Indiana Daily Student had a multi part article about this topic, one part of which discussed Title Nine investigations from the guys perspective. Basically, from what I read, if you allow yourself to be put in the position that they are investigating you (the guy) you're usually going to end up losing.
I'm glad that we haven't gone the route of Michigan State and Penn State and gone full on cover up and/or protect the athlete & program at all costs... That's a Major positive.
I'm not at all thrilled with the approach of "guilty until proven innocent"... (that's a discussion for the Water Cooler however).
All that said, it sounds like an imperfect system worked as well as it could and protected those it was designed to protect from both the guy imposing themselves on the girl and potentially an entire portion of the University covering it up (see Michigan $tate).
The University is at least attempting to do the right thing. Hopefully, they did...
I'm glad that we haven't gone the route of Michigan State and Penn State and gone full on cover up and/or protect the athlete & program at all costs... That's a Major positive.
I'm not at all thrilled with the approach of "guilty until proven innocent"... (that's a discussion for the Water Cooler however).
All that said, it sounds like an imperfect system worked as well as it could and protected those it was designed to protect from both the guy imposing themselves on the girl and potentially an entire portion of the University covering it up (see Michigan $tate).
The University is at least attempting to do the right thing. Hopefully, they did...
Can’t argue with you there at all. Not sure how anyone can look at what has transpired and say “this was fair to any party”. Reflection of unintended consequences.
Last edited:
So the system that IU has in place established Ellison to be guilty enough to warrant an almost three year suspension from the university. Meanwhile, the actual court of law couldn't establish enough evidence to even pursue charges...boy, talk about a kangaroo court!!
I won't be one bit surprised if Morgan doesn't sue the pants off of Indiana University!!!!!!!!
Huge difference between “at least attempting to do the right thing” and covering up. Innocent until proven is tied extremely close. Covering up is an entirely different issue.
I agree with much of what you've said, 76. I feel compelled to weigh in, though, on this "guilty until proven innocent" phrase that I'm hearing a lot lately.
It's important to remember that proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for criminal convictions only. It's not the standard for an investigation in an academic setting, in a hiring and/or employment environment, or anywhere else. In the case we're talking about, IU conducted an investigation and obviously found evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps the evidence wouldn't be enough to sustain a finding of guilt by a jury in a criminal trial but, again, that's not necessary or required.
All I'm saying is that I'm glad Indiana has a system in place (and follows it) that doesn't allow the types of things that have gone on at Michigan State and Penn State to occur here (or, I should say, at minimum, makes it exponentially more difficult for such things to be covered up...).
Last edited:
But I believe that under Title IX the victim/alleged victim can decide whether or not to report the crime to the police, the school, and/or the US Department of Education.
This might explain why there was no police involvement or police report. Even if IU Campus police was involved there would be a police report that would be subject to Public Record Request(s).
But I have no idea if that's right or not.
You are correct technically, however the artificial standards and moving goal posts being implemented (like consent isn’t consent if drinking and similar) muddies the waters drastically making clear cut decisions difficult and assuring failure in many cases. Innocent until proven guilty is a clear cut moral standard whether law related or not.
That's always true...just like you have the right to call 911...or not. But once the police get ahold of a criminal allegation (even if it's through the media), the victim doesn't get to choose what happens criminally. They get chances to speak their mind about it, and those wishes are often honored, but the law doesn't require it.
You also can't assume there's no police involvement. They may still be investigating. They may have concluded their investigation and decided not to present it to the prosecutor. They may have presented it to the prosecutor, who declined to file charges. Campus police can avoid a public record request if the investigation is on-going. They may have wanted to wait and hear what Ellison said at the school proceeding--or wait to subpoena the records of that hearing. Who knows.
There are also "public release" and "non-public release" versions of the same police report. If the police wanted to keep the facts under wraps until the investigation was concluded, they can just write "Complainant #1 alleges crime by Suspect #1. Referred to Detectives for further investigation. End of report." So the lack of any reporting on a police report doesn't mean there's no police involvement.
I would feel better if local law enforcement investigated allegation if this was a serious assault. There is a juco in my hometown that swept rapes and other assaults under the rug so the public didn't see the mess the campus was in. My wife's uncle was the chief of the campus police and gave her the real statistics so she would not be anywhere near campus at night.
I remember kids getting beat up for their tennis shoes and one occasion of members of the basketball team getting caught stealing wheels off a Camaro in a dorm parking lot across the street from the police office. The cop made them put the wheels back on. No report or disciplinary measures were taken.
I'm not saying IU would hide or persuade people to not report a crime, but law enforcement is a better place to investigate crimes. If you feel it is important enough to report to school officials, I don't know why you wouldn't also report it to police. I would expect the university would refer the complaint to the proper legal authorities if it were a serious crime.
There's no hiding this stuff anymore. Under the Clery Act, colleges are required to maintain and disclose crime statistics and other security-related matters.
Even though this article is written by someone who obviously opposes the Trump administration, it points out how title IX needs to be fixed.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/title-ix-reforms-are-overdue/569215/
My comments were in relation to the law as it currently exists. I'll leave debate about any flaws and/or necessary fixes to others.
Excellent find - every holier-than-thou poster on here should read it.
And for those who say Ellison can't sue the school, think again, as there are many cases out there for just this situation. And they are successful.
“Whoever gets to the Title IX office first wins,” he said, “because the presumption is that any accusation is true.” He adds, “You have absurd claims being investigated that common sense would have rejected.”
How true.
Well, to say Ellison would have “no case” does not appear to be accurate.
http://helpsaveoursons.com/category/fighting-back/
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza
- Latest: NewGuyToTheBoard