<p>"NEW HAVEN On Nov. 13, Patrick J. Witt, Yale Universitys star quarterback, announced that he had withdrawn his Rhodes scholarship application and would instead play against Harvard six days later, at the very time of the required Rhodes interview. His apparent choice of team fealty over individual honor capped weeks of admiring national attention on this accomplished student and his quandary."NYT</p>
<p>Apparently there is a sexual assault complaint against Witt.</p>
<p>The article goes on to say that Yale's football coach had lied on his resume about receiving a Rhodes Scholar and discusses his role in Witt's case.</p>
<p>Yale refuses to confirm or deny the existence of the complaint against Witt.</p>
<p>Wow! I saw the glowing NBC news story back in the fall. Quite a different impression after reading this article. I do find the sexual harassment complaint confusing, however. Why would the young woman not go to the police? Why handle it - whatever it was - as an informal complaint?</p>
<p>What I found esp. interesting was that his parents moved him to four high schools, until they found one that would let him start!</p>
<p>^^^I think the article covers that in its pretty detailed description of Yale’s past history with improprieties re to fraternity, and Witt was a member of the one particular fraternity.</p>
<p>Didn’t see the NBC story or hear of this prior to the NYT report.</p>
<p>Perhaps because she knows that, as a general rule, there is not enough evidence to support a prosecution - and at many schools, the best way for a female student to get ostracized is to accuse a popular football player of sexual improprieties. Also perhaps because the university administration at many schools go out of their way to discourage police reports.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps because the accused is a popular football player.</p>
<p>“The Rhodes Trust informed Yale and Witt that his candidacy was suspended unless the university decided to re-endorse it.”</p>
<p>So it could be that Witt simply withdrew his candidacy when Yale was informed by Rhodes that his candidacy WOULD BE suspended unless the university decided to re-indorse it. No suspension may have ever occurred. Everyone comes out smelling like a rose. Problem off Rhodes’ hands. Yale looks good, and Witt looks even better.</p>
<p>Just change the word “was” to “would be”, and it all pretty much fits to everyone’s satisfaction. (and that’s what the syntax of the sentence suggests).</p>
<p>(And who is Magazu, and why does Witt have a “spokeswoman” and why is she having conversations with “Yale officials”. Witt may indeed not have known about Magazu’s discussions with Yale officials, but what does that have to do with the price of milk? Witt could have had communications with both Yale and Rhodes prior to Magazu’s discussions. Nothing in either article seems to deny that.)</p>
<p>Huh, it’s permissible to willy-nilly change words and alter the meaning of published articles? Mini, are you a politician in disguise?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re losing me. Where does it state Witt had no knowledge of Magazu’s discussions with Yale?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pure conjecture. Mini, you know better. And there’s nothing in the article to suggest Witt did have discussions with Yale or Rhodes before Magazu became involved.</p>
<p>Witt hired a handler and he is trying to spin it so that he doesn’t look like the fraud he appears to be. I thought this line in the NYTimes was interesting:</p>
<p>“The quarterback did not tie the two sentences, but journalists did, reporting that he had given up on the scholarship so that he could play. Neither Witt nor Yale corrected the misimpression.”</p>
<p>It appears that in subsequent media reports, Witt went with the assumption that the two points were tied together, and he expanded on the notion that he gave up the scholarship to play in the game, at great personal sacrifice.</p>
<p>“Magazu said Witt did not learn about her informal discussions with Yale officials until /after/ he had already been quoted in the New Haven Register, saying he would play in the storied rivalry even if the Rhodes Trust could not allow him to interview on a different day.”</p>
<p>You’re absolutely right. The Times articles says that “the Rhodes Trust informed Yale and Witt that his candidacy was suspended unless the university decided to re-endorse it.” Nothing in Magazu’s statement (which seems like a deliberate attempt at obfuscation) contradicts the Times article on the intentions of Rhodes. I mean it’s wonderful that SHE hadn’t had discussions with Yale yet, but why should I (or you) care?</p>
<p>Sounds like the Times is sticking by its original story:</p>
<p>“But in early November, the Rhodes Trust informed Yale administrators that it had learned of the allegation against Witt, according to people with knowledge of the episode who were granted anonymity to discuss confidential matters. Rhodes officials informed Yale that Witt’s candidacy had been suspended, and Yale would have to decide whether to re-endorse Witt if it wanted his candidacy to remain viable, the people said.”</p>
<p>(To parse, what is missing from this restatement is that the Rhodes Trust had so informed Witt. But it sounds like the Yale faculty member had done so as well.)</p>
<p>Don’t you love our sophisticated society who knows how to deal with controvercy? Unlike JoePa who went down with something he didn’t even commit?</p>