St. Lawrence Reaps What It Sows: The Doe Case

Here we are, SLU. 

In 2021, the student body organized a protest, petition, and open forum to tackle the administration’s repeatedly reprehensible handling of sexual assault cases, specifically within the Title IX office. After months of both on-and-off-campus Title IX cases being managed in a deeply upsetting manner, the anger within students had bubbled hot enough to boil over the top. For nearly a month straight, the campus was solely focused on changing the culture at the University and within the student body. Important conversations were had. Forums were held. And for a second, it felt like some progress had been made. 

Of course, burnout can feel inevitable at the tailend of a passionate movement – especially that which took place here in Canton.  

As students, we were assured both verbally – and through emails – that we could have faith in our administration to handle these sorts of issues. A “task force” – who we, as a collective, heard pretty little about – was created to manage said issues. A Title IX Coordinator/Sexual Wellness Educator was hired. Sure, the real student body requests – like a resource center for sexual assault victims, or actual punishments for perpetrators – were never fulfilled. Nevertheless, the baby steps felt like a small victory. Who would have thought that all but six months later, the University would sweep serious accusations of a violent sexual assault under the rug? 

On April 5, 2023, a complaint from Wigdor Law was released regarding a civil case: “JANE DOE (Plaintiff) v. ST. LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY, and ERNESTO MORALEZ, in his Individual and Professional Capacity (Defendant).”  

The complaint alleges a harrowing story: on April 12, 2022, a female professor attended a one-on-one meeting with Ernesto Moralez, the Co-Chair of Public Health at St. Lawrence University. What initially was intended to be an innocuous meeting to discuss course planning, evolved into a nightmare, as Jane Doe was soon after incapacitated (date rape drugs are mentioned, here), and was raped orally, vaginally, and anally. The allegations, when read in their entirety, are haunting: Doe was abused “like a ragdoll” whilst her face was caught in paralysis; clothes, including her sweater, and the crotch of her jeans, were ripped open… and, most sickeningly, Moralez allegedly described the experience later on simply as “carnal sex.”  

Moralez told investigators that Doe had said she was in an “open marriage,” and had earlier expressed “marriage problems;” despite this, the investigation could not produce a single witness able to corroborate this suggestion. In fact, Doe found the statement offensive, having been married for 18 years with two children.  

The allegations posited by Ms. Doe were already sickening by themselves – and as awful as the prospect of such a violent crime occurring in Canton is, it could have ended there. The University could have handled her complaints responsibly – but no. Not only was there a direct negligence in the hiring of Moralez (who had been accused of sexual harassment before in New Mexico – at both his previous university and at a high school, where he worked closely with students) to begin with, but even after St. Lawrence had been made aware of Jane Doe’s case, he was continuously allowed to teach classes online and meet with undergraduates. 

Even worse, St. Lawrence’s administration failed to seize his SLU-owned devices – something they were legally permitted to do. They could have subjected these to forensic review, and perhaps explored his search history for date rape drug purchases – or anything else worth flagging. To top off this brainlessness, the University falsely told Doe she was “prohibited from retaining her own legal counsel.” Despite a no-contact order, she and Moralez were still on the same email threads. And then… well, we’ll allow you to read the complaint yourself: 

“Outrageously and unlawfully, on May 9, 2022, knowing that it had told Ms. Doe that she was not entitled to her own lawyer, SLU further confirmed that it was preparing a defense for the school rather than truly investigating Ms. Doe’s complaints.” 

When students hailed down remonstrance over a year ago regarding the University’s handling of sexual assault, this was the type of abusive irresponsibility they were pointing to. This information – if it is true – paints a heartbreaking image of our University intentionally underplaying and mishandling a serious, serious allegation. Regardless of whether they felt it had merit to it or not, administrators continued allowing a man with a police report filed against him (and prior accusations of sexual misconduct) to continue teaching classes and holding office hours with students.  

In October 2021, students cried out for help until their throats burned, begging the University to divest serious attention and care to these types of issues. How, if this information is true, should they ever expect the University to care about them and their wellbeing?  

St. Lawrence University’s administration is constantly pushing a narrative that they care about sexual wellness and safety, but it’s a facade. The sexual education required of students prior to going in, the kitschy events to promote sexual safety, the infrequent emails and surveys – it’s all nothing more than a feeble, superficial show to put off solving deeper issues. At its core, it’s an excuse for the University to pat themselves on the back for temporarily neutralizing an atomic bomb.  

What needs to happen now, and what has needed to happen for the last handful of years, is the enactment of real consequences. The students and faculty who receive assault and misconduct allegations have all been well-versed in the education of what is and isn’t consent. As a culture, we must stop treating rape as some kind of “blurred line” wherein simple miscommunications occur and people don’t realize what they’re doing – that is seldom the case.  

St. Lawrence University’s behavior in relation to this case is negligent at best, and malicious at worst. Any student can agree that, whether or not the allegations in Doe v. St. Lawrence University turn out to be true, no school should ever risk the prospect of a rapist (accused many times over) holding office hours with a student. It’s careless, and at the end of the day, the only real thing this complaint shows is that University administrators were prepared to risk the safety of their students and the integrity of their supposed “values” for sheer convenience.  

President Kate Morris’ callous email is a seal on the coffin of indifference. There was no apology to students for possibly sending them blindfolded into a lion’s den. There was no forum offered to answer student questions. There was not a drop of empathy for victims or prospect of further conversation. Instead, we were told that, as a collective, “[we] should not anticipate hearing more from [President Morris] about this matter.”  

All we can say is this: as students, we devoted a massive amount of time and energy into making sure our administrators took this issue seriously. We were told they had it handled, and somehow, we were foolish enough to believe in them. Left to their own devices, it would appear that St. Lawrence might have dropped the ball in a colossal manner. To that, we will leave you with this: 

To the St. Lawrence administrators, you will reap what you sow.  

As for Jane Doe: the court complaint may say Doe v. St. Lawrence, but know that, on behalf of our student body’s community, this side of SLU has your back.