Morgan Ellison
- Thread starter limestonecowboy
- Start date
- Status
No one said abolish the system, fix the flaws which , at least you, admit there are. Yes, there is no perfect system, but I would still argue the court system is still far better than some university panel.
Thank you to the few of you who don’t sound like this:
Also, these “guilty until proven innocent” comments don’t make any sense. Does the university process respect accusers? Yes, hopefully. Does the process try to account for implicit/systemic issues that make being an accuser a historically awful role? Yes, hopefully. But the “guilty until proven innocent” comments only makes sense if Ellison‘s suspension was ultimately determined without some kind of process to assess the situation. And if you want to say the process assumed his guilt from the beginning…how would you know that? You have no way of actually assessing the process, correct?
He’s not going to jail; his life isn’t over; Ellison is just losing privileges (yeah big privileges, but still, just privileges) thanks to a process that likely isn’t actively harmful and antagonistic towards accusers.
Do you all really want this to be a criminal process that makes this whole thing potentially harmful and antagonistic towards the accuser and puts incarceration on the line for the accused regardless of what this woman wants? Wild.
If you’re asking for a bulletproof guarantee of the accuseds’ guilt, in all cases, then you’ve decided that you are basically okay with a system that lets most victims fall by the wayside. Suck it up and be okay with, for the first time ever, a culture that doesn’t leave you wholly untrammeled (because that’s a priviledge that no one deserves).
It seems that a system that doesn’t let victims fall by the wayside would be a system that can afford to privilege the voice of accusers (ie acknowledging systemic stuff), and maybe that can’t be the criminal justice system. The process that potentially incarcerates someone is going to be different than the process that potentially strips someone of certain privileges. If I’m a victim I probably want the process that can afford to not be antagonistic towards me and won’t leave me feeling not believed.
If you call me sanctimonious or holier-than-thou then you’re not ready to be a part of this conversation.
(Also, I realize ‘accuser’ and ‘accused’ may be problematic language but for the purposes of this post I’m not really sure how else to word this.)
Also, these “guilty until proven innocent” comments don’t make any sense. Does the university process respect accusers? Yes, hopefully. Does the process try to account for implicit/systemic issues that make being an accuser a historically awful role? Yes, hopefully. But the “guilty until proven innocent” comments only makes sense if Ellison‘s suspension was ultimately determined without some kind of process to assess the situation. And if you want to say the process assumed his guilt from the beginning…how would you know that? You have no way of actually assessing the process, correct?
He’s not going to jail; his life isn’t over; Ellison is just losing privileges (yeah big privileges, but still, just privileges) thanks to a process that likely isn’t actively harmful and antagonistic towards accusers.
Do you all really want this to be a criminal process that makes this whole thing potentially harmful and antagonistic towards the accuser and puts incarceration on the line for the accused regardless of what this woman wants? Wild.
If you’re asking for a bulletproof guarantee of the accuseds’ guilt, in all cases, then you’ve decided that you are basically okay with a system that lets most victims fall by the wayside. Suck it up and be okay with, for the first time ever, a culture that doesn’t leave you wholly untrammeled (because that’s a priviledge that no one deserves).
It seems that a system that doesn’t let victims fall by the wayside would be a system that can afford to privilege the voice of accusers (ie acknowledging systemic stuff), and maybe that can’t be the criminal justice system. The process that potentially incarcerates someone is going to be different than the process that potentially strips someone of certain privileges. If I’m a victim I probably want the process that can afford to not be antagonistic towards me and won’t leave me feeling not believed.
If you call me sanctimonious or holier-than-thou then you’re not ready to be a part of this conversation.
(Also, I realize ‘accuser’ and ‘accused’ may be problematic language but for the purposes of this post I’m not really sure how else to word this.)
Do you really believe it is that easy ? Please read some of the cases I have linked in multiple articles . As I said above, I agree there is no perfect system, but I don’t want my life destroyed by some university panel made up of god knows who.
Sure it is. Don't put yourself in a position to be accused. It isn't hard at all.
I don't doubt that there are flaws and that men are accused falsely but the incidence of that is pretty rare. How do you know the men claiming they were railroaded are telling the truth?
Look, I get the angst. We're men. For eons, we've been able to get away with this stuff and laugh it off but the worm has turned. There are still people asking "why did she put herself in that position?" I'm just turning it back around. Men shouldn't put themselves in the position to be accused. It's their own fault if they do. Playing a pure numbers game, siding with the accuser every time will catch a thousand times more rapists than it will produce false accusations. As soon as men learn how to treat women properly, there won't be a problem.
Not yet. The topic isn't necessarily fun but the discussion is mostly reasonable. I'm sure it will go over the top eventually.
That tweet and photo you added are classic, Lime. Seems like that guy needs to have a long talk with his mom, and I suspect she's in for a big surprise.
I will say, this situation and the Kavanaugh situation have highlighted a pretty large gap in understanding regarding Constitutional due process.
People think it means you get a criminal burden of proof, confrontation rights, the rules of evidence apply, etc. It doesn't mean that all.
Basically, due process means you get to know what it is you've allegedly done wrong ahead of time. You can present evidence to refute it, if you have any. You get a neutral arbiter of the facts. That's pretty much it.
I'm interested to know if any of the folks bemoaning the result here think Ellison didn't get those things.
People think it means you get a criminal burden of proof, confrontation rights, the rules of evidence apply, etc. It doesn't mean that all.
Basically, due process means you get to know what it is you've allegedly done wrong ahead of time. You can present evidence to refute it, if you have any. You get a neutral arbiter of the facts. That's pretty much it.
I'm interested to know if any of the folks bemoaning the result here think Ellison didn't get those things.
That's exactly my point - exactly. I don't know what evidence was presented. You don't know what evidence was presented. The Troll doesn't know what evidence was presented.
Yet, so many are willing to trash the player based only on what we know - which is that it's he said/she said.
I've said all along, if there is evidence that comes out that he did it, fine. Let the chips fall where they may. But so many on here are acting like he did something wrong, and that certainly hasn't been proven, based on the facts we do know.
Not saying you, but I find there is an amazing lack of understanding of 'due process. Many on here may want to google it......
On the flip side suspension is better than jail and/or a criminal record. Let's see what happens with the appeal process. I find it hard to believe that, right or wrong, Ellison is going to be a better person and citizen by kicking him out of college for a few years.
Unless it's you or your son/brother/etc that's being falsely accused.
I'm betting questioning the system wouldn't seem so myopic then.
How would we know? No details are divulged. My God, that is the whole point of my argument.
How many here trashing Ellison's reputation know what actually happened?
Your definition of due process is very incomplete. A key tenant of due process is the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. That seems to have been lost in all this.
You haven't? I see a lot of "he had it coming" sentiments on here.
I'd say 2 1/2 years of suspension indicates a trashing of someone's reputation.
Many people seem unable to distinguish between an administrative hearing and a criminal court proceeding. They're two entirely separate things, with different procedural rules, standards, burdens of proof and penalties. In this case, IU wasn't adjudicating a criminal charge. The panel was making a determination, based on evidence presented to it, on whether the player violated a specific provision of the student code of conduct. By a preponderance of evidence (a less stringent standard than the criminal trial burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt), the panel concluded that the violation occurred.
Also, with the Kavanaugh thing, people need to remember that that was a job interview. You don’t need burden of proof to not hire a guy you have serious concerns about in a criminal sense. You don’t need presumption of innocence.
In and of itself, that's a fair question. Without considering the other side, it's not. To flip it around, how would you feel if you daughter/sister/wife were raped and the guy got to walk away? That happens with far, far, far more regularity than false accusations.
No, I haven't. I just went back and looked and still didn't see it.
What right do you have to that information? And for a guy whose whole point is that we don’t know what really happened with the panel, it seems pretty backwards to then go and say you know that he wasn’t pressumed innocent.
Absolutely. It's a lifetime appointment. It was incumbent upon Kavanaugh to demonstrate that he was fit for the job. Those hearings weren't at all about guilt or innocence and, in fact, there was no mechanism in place for making that kind of a determination.
"Playing a pure numbers game, siding with the accuser every time will catch a thousand times more rapists than it will produce false accusations."
That's from one of your posts. You don't think that's calling him a rapist? That's not trashing someone?
I'm shocked at your statement, frankly. Believing the accuser every time? I hate to tell you, but you don't have to put yourself in any 'situation' to be accused of anything. You can be at work, at your desk, and it wouldn't stop some people from accusing you of something.
From your post, you act like men used to just happily rape women and absolutely nothing was done about it. So, let's punish everyone accused?
God help us if that becomes the standard.
Learn to read a thread. I never said I had a right to the information. I just said it wasn't divulged.
I'm starting to see why people are losing faith in America.
It's tenet. (A tenant is a person who rents from a landlord).
Job interview thing is a political copout. While maybe technically true, innocent until proven guilty is derived from a moral standard that our law is based on. This man was put on a public trial of sorts that potentially has ruined his reputation - from a 37 year old accusation with 0, that’s ZERO collaboration or facts. That’s a little beyond a job interview don’t you think?
Posing a hypothetical that attempts to highlight the ratio of truthful sexual assault claims to false ones is not trashing Ellison.
The presumption of innocence is a legal standard, not a moral one. And it had nothing to do with the Kavanaugh hearings. It relates to criminal trials.
The hearings related to Kavanaugh and, in fact, any Supreme Court nominee, are intended to allow the Judiciary Committee an opportunity to gather additional information on the nominee so they (and, ultimately, the full Senate) can make a determination as to whether the nominee is qualified and suitable for the highest court in the country. It's a highly-compensated, powerful, lifetime appointment. Kavanaugh got the job, and he'll be there for probably the next 30+ years. Nobody will be talking about this in a couple of years (or less), similar to the way the Clarence Thomas issues faded away with time. I wouldn't shed too many tears in connection with Kavanaugh's reputation. I think he'll be just fine.
You really don’t think the presumption of innocence in our law was based upon moral principle? Surprised. I agree should fade like Thomas but in this climate, I have doubts. And again if it only takes an unsubstantiated claim (note not saying proven) to derail a life, that’s not a good trend for future.
It's simple enough -- guys need to stay away from drunk chicks.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with whether it’s a useful principle in a job interview.
Bottom line: Ellison has been basically told (for all intents and purposes) by the University proper: "We don't want you here any longer."
He's headed elsewhere.
We could debate the fairness of the decision literally forever.
For the group that believes he may have been treated unfairly "or" that the system in place to judge him is lacking here's an article link:
http://specials.idsnews.com/the-system-3/
To get a complete overview of things read the other parts of what I think is a 4 part investigative Special presented by the Indiana Daily Student.
I really like the idea that the Athletic Department is cut out of the decision making loop in these cases.
Could the system be tweaked to make it fairer to both sides. Probably. I don't have any good ideas as to how.
I'm with the group saying to single guys everywhere: "attempt to pick your partners very wisely and always operate under the assumption that if at any point the woman even insinuates that she's not sure about things, or wants to discontinue the activities, it's her call to do so".
Anything less could end up messing up two lives...
Operate under the assumption that you will end up just like Ellison, or worse, if you ((the guy)) decide you "know" what she "really" wants...
He's headed elsewhere.
We could debate the fairness of the decision literally forever.
For the group that believes he may have been treated unfairly "or" that the system in place to judge him is lacking here's an article link:
http://specials.idsnews.com/the-system-3/
To get a complete overview of things read the other parts of what I think is a 4 part investigative Special presented by the Indiana Daily Student.
I really like the idea that the Athletic Department is cut out of the decision making loop in these cases.
Could the system be tweaked to make it fairer to both sides. Probably. I don't have any good ideas as to how.
I'm with the group saying to single guys everywhere: "attempt to pick your partners very wisely and always operate under the assumption that if at any point the woman even insinuates that she's not sure about things, or wants to discontinue the activities, it's her call to do so".
Anything less could end up messing up two lives...
Operate under the assumption that you will end up just like Ellison, or worse, if you ((the guy)) decide you "know" what she "really" wants...
No. It was a statement about sexual assault and rape in general. I didn’t say a word about Ellison in particular. Nor did I say we SHOULD believe the accuser every time. I said IF we did, we catch a thousand rapists for ever truly false accusation. It’s called an illustration. False accusations are rare compared to actual assault. It’s not even debatable.
I think you’ve gotten yourself a little to wound up and are putting words in people’s mouths as a result.
It was still a job interview. And there is no crying in job interviews.
If you don't think these threads about Ellison are assaults on his character, then we will have to disagree.
I think any time that, based on evidence we know so far, the accused is guilty, that, by definition is an assassination of his character.
Call me 'wound up' if you want, but this has very far-reaching consequences. If you've studied any history at all, you would recognize this as similar to the French Revolution, where anyone could face the guillotine without trial, just based on accusations. We're not quite there yet, but we're not far from it.
Last edited:
This is truly frightening - - not what you're asserting, but the fact that you actually believe it.
I don't know where you get your information, but you might want to mix it up a little and try some new sources.
- Status
