Hours after the NYT published an article in which it claimed that the former Rhodes Scholarship candidate was accused of sexual misconduct which led to his being removed from the Rhodes process, Patrick Witt released a statement flatly denying those charges and calling into question the veracity of the NYT story and coverage.
On January 27, 2012, The New York Times published a story regarding Patrick Witt, senior quarterback for Yale University, referencing Patrick’s decision to forego his pursuit of the Rhodes Scholarship in order to compete against Harvard in his final college football game.
This was a difficult decision for Patrick, as his candidacy for the Rhodes Scholarship represented a high honor and an opportunity to explore his personal academic interests in international affairs at Oxford.
Patrick respects the academic traditions of both Yale and the Rhodes Trust, and he remains grateful for the opportunities each has afforded him.
The New York Times story incorrectly connects Patrick’s decision to forego the Rhodes Scholarship with an informal complaint process that had concluded on campus weeks prior to his withdrawal – a process that yielded no disciplinary measures, formal reports, or referrals to higher authorities.
To be clear, Patrick’s Rhodes candidacy was never “suspended”, as the article suggests, and his official record at Yale contains no disciplinary issues.
Patrick formally withdrew his candidacy for the Rhodes Scholarship on Sunday, November 13, in an email to both the Regional Secretary and the American Secretary of the Rhodes Trust. He withdrew after being informed in an email from the Regional Secretary on November 8 that the Rhodes Committee would not reschedule Patrick’s final interview, which would overlap Yale’s football game versus Harvard on November 19. Though disappointed, Patrick understood the fairness of this decision and accepted it as conclusive.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad freeAs this decision process unfolded, Patrick became aware that an anonymous source had contacted the Rhodes Trust with false information purporting to reference an informal – and confidential – complaint within the University. In light of this, and given the short period of time between this occurrence and the potential final interview, the Rhodes Trust asked for an additional letter of reference for Patrick from Yale.
By that time, however, Patrick had already informed Athletic Department officials that he intended to withdraw his candidacy due to the inability to reschedule his final interview, and that he would issue a statement to this effect following the Princeton game on November 12.
Patrick’s inclination to forego the Rhodes Scholarship in the event of an irreparable scheduling conflict is a longstanding matter of public record. For example, The New Haven Register article entitled “Patrick Witt Places ‘The Game’ Over Rhodes Interview” was published before Patrick was notified of the initiation of any informal complaint process. That article quotes Patrick as follows: “The commitment I made to this team I believe would come first and I would want to honor that. It wouldn’t feel right letting them down for not being there for the Harvard/Yale game.”
Regarding the informal complaint referenced in the New York Times article, Yale offers students both informal and formal avenues to address certain issues. An “informal” complaint is heard by a committee of university community members, but no fact-finding process occurs and there is no burden of proof required for filing a complaint. In Patrick’s case, no formal complaint was filed, no written statement was taken from anyone involved, and his request to the Chairman of the committee for a formal inquiry was denied because, he was told, there was nothing to defend against since no formal complaint was ever filed.
Further, while the committee can refer an informal complaint into a formal process if more substantial disciplinary action may be warranted, it did not do so in Patrick’s case. At that time, all parties, including the University and Patrick, considered the matter ended.Regarding the information contained in the informal complaint, neither Patrick nor the other parties are permitted by confidentiality rules to discuss details of the matter, though it is important to note that the committee took no further action after hearing the informal complaint. Patrick is aware that the informal complaint was filed by a person he had known for many months prior and with whom he had engaged in an on-again, off-again relationship beginning in the Spring of 2011 and ending about two months before the informal complaint was filed.
Finally, as to Patrick’s academic standing at Yale, he has completed all necessary coursework and will graduate upon submission of his senior essay this spring, as is standard for all students in his major.
Image Business Insider
On Instapundit is a link to the guru of all Duke laxness, K.C. Johnson. It has even more delicious updates.
Apparently, the informal complaint process can be triggered by a “worry”. So you can ruin somebody and claim you didn’t say anything but that you were “worried” and what’s so wrong about being “worried”.
Is that what it was,an unsubstantiated rape charge?
The article above made no mention of it.
But it’s not surprising given the current climate and his STATUS.
Just because he’s doing well is good cause to “take him down a peg?”
Richard, great point. That cracked me up. But, I maintain my position: either he tries to control the story, or he allows the story to control him.
Had he emailed the reporter with a response, he’d now have a document he could share with the world, proving the NYT’s bias and/or shady reporting.
Instead, he’s releasing statements after the story has been cemented.
It’s been my observation that the New York Times never lets the facts get in the way of publishing a story in such a way to fit their political agenda (America is bad, men are all potential rapist until proven innocent) apperentally, they didn’t learn anything from their”coverage” of the Duke Rape Case. Their ideaology long ago corrupted any sembelance of impartiality in their news coverage.
Bravo
Jamie.
I can imagine the NYT’s story. “Yale quarterback denies rape charge; voice sounds shaky and defensive.”
Sounds like the QB should’ve answered one of the NYT’s repeated attempts to contact him. Maybe the radio signal in his helmet was out.
I wonder if this episode will inspire Garry Trudeau to back bring D.B. for a series on the Rhodes process…
Dan.
If you are correct, the NYT had nothing to report, nothing of use. To report uncorroborated rumors of bad behavior, with no evidence, no official actions, nothing but something floating around in the atmosphere is not news. Thus, there needs to be something else.
Witt was addressing the NYT’s point that he bailed because of his alleged behavior.
I’m not exactly sure what needs correcting. The NYT got all the details right except perhaps some rather muddy chronology, on which sources seem to disagree. Witt is neither confirming nor denying the charges, and the NYT has neither confirmed nor denied them.
I’m sure the NYT will hop right on this. While there is no way to formally defend oneself against a rumor, once it reaches some official body the structure ought to provide at least some avenue for defense. It would be interesting to know the reasons no further action was taken; the complaint didn’t pass the laugh test, corroboration or additional evidence were necessary but not forthcoming, other information contradicted it (ex. “He was beating UConn that afternoon, Miss. You need to redate your complaint.”) Besides selling tires, the tire ads offer a great spot for papers like the NYT… Read more »