Concern is in the air again in the college football world as the situation at Yale University involving their quarterback Patrick Witt, a sexual assault claim and his withdrawal from the Rhode Scholar program continues to show layers. Not familiar with Witt? He’s the Yale quarterback who drew plenty of praise because he decided to give up his shot at a Rhodes Scholarship in order to be there for his team in the Game against Harvard.
Except, as the NY Times reported a day ago, there was a little more to his decision than the noble cause of being a good teammate. A sexual assault claim filed with the Yale in-house Sexual Assault Harassment and Response and Education Center in September was reportedly leaked to to the Rhodes Scholarship program. This same incident also allegedly cost Witt a post-grad job at the Boston Consulting group.
There is so much wrong in this issue as Alex Klein, last year’s Opinion Editor and a current News Editor for the Yale Daily News, points out in today’s revelations. Not only did the school know about the reported assault but the news staff at the paper also sat on the information.
In short what we have here is a reported sexual assault, a news outlet that sat on the information with respect to the report, a team and university that got to keep pushing their feel good story as the information remained out of sight, a new denial from Witt and his image consulting firm and a lot of questions.
The denial from the image consulting firm pushes the ideal that Witt chose to withdraw his consideration for the Rhodes Scholarship based solely upon the conflict with the Game. It is interesting to note that Yale offers both formal and informal avenues to report complaints and the victim, who was termed an on-again, off-again girlfriend, filed the informal variety. No fact finding was involved, no statement taken and the request for a formal inquiry, at Witt’s asking, was denied because the committee deemed there was no formal complaint. Essentially ending the matter for Yale and Witt.
No one is admitted to discuss the details due to confidentiality rules.
The obvious questions still go unanswered. What did happen in September? Why was there no further investigation after the committee heard the allegations? Who gets to decide which sexual assault claims are worthy of being heard? Why sit on the news of the report if the claim was dismissed as nothing to see? Who leaked the report to the Rhode Scholarship program?
A lot of questions with no answers and given the confidentiality clause it seems it will be more time before we know what to make of the story itself. Given the grossly under-reported nature of sexual assault, especially on college campuses, when a victim comes forward it serves all parties to investigate. Victim, accused and in this case the university as well.
We’ll see what happens as the layers are pulled back but for now what we’re left with is a heap of massive maybe with respect to the possible act and the possible minimizing of the transgression to protect the ball player and the institution.
