Patrick Witt: Yale Drops Ball with Accusations Against Starting QB

Sexual assault accusations against former Yale quarterback Patrick Witt have raised questions about how the university dealt with the situation. 

As we were led to believe, Witt was given a choice last fall.  He could either go to an interview required to earn a Rhodes Scholarship, or play against arch rival Harvard. 

As Richard Perez-Pena of the New York Times detailed, it wasn't a decision. 

"

Several days earlier, according to people involved on both sides of the process, the Rhodes Trust had learned through unofficial channels that a fellow student had accused Witt of sexual assault.  The Rhodes Trust informed Yale and Witt that his candidacy was suspended unless the university decided to re-endorse it.

"

So, the endorsement for his Rhodes Scholarship candidacy was taken off the board due to a possible sexual assault, but nobody saw any problem in letting him play in the game?

That's a rather troubling and confusing course of action. 

Yes, I know this is just an accusation.  According to Pena, the victim in this case has still not gone to the police. 

But if you're going to take a course of action on an accusation, then you need to be consistent. 

If you're going to sit back and wait for the legal system to take its course, then you need to be consistent. 

It was Yale that stopped endorsing his candidacy, which effectively ended any hope that Witt had of getting the scholarship. 

This is the same group that, if they chose to, could have come out and suspended Witt for the Harvard game, or for as many games as were on the schedule when the allegations came out.

But that didn't happen.

The fact of the matter is that when you decide to take action before the legal system, then you need to be consistent. 

A Rhodes scholarship is a privilege, not a right.  The same could be said about playing on a university's football team. 

This isn't a matter of putting Witt behind bars before proving him guilty.  Until the accuser has at least filed a complaint, it's way too early to make any of those judgments. 

No, the problem here is one university looking at one case.  They decided to take one course of action for one event, and a completely different one for another.

That is the definition of hypocrisy, and it was so easily avoidable.  More importantly, there was no reason to be inconsistent.

If they had pulled the endorsement for the Rhodes Scholarship and kept him out of action, things would be fine.  If they had maintained their endorsement and let him play, things would be OK.

But it looks like Yale decided that the alleged crime was bad enough for one punishment and not bad enough for the other.  That's simply not true.  

Follow @mdixon1985