• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Patrick Witt

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where I come from, "no" means "no". If some people would learn this simple lesson, the world would be just a tad bit better. Not a good sign a young lady made an "informal" complaint against him and with so few Rhode scholarships available, easy decision to knock him out. There are consequences to actions in some cases.
While I don't disagree with you, there is zero information of what specifically he did; it can be a whole range of things. Not saying he didn't deserve to be bounced out of the Rhodes competition... but does he deserve to be dragged through the nation press... especially the "Newspaper of Record"? Especially when it was a school discipline matter with no involvement from the police?

Yes, he has benefited from the "good scholar" image story: but so has Yale and the Ivys... that is why they push them... almost invariably these stories are too good to be true - folk/fairy tales for people who like to believe them...
 
Last edited:
If I was Witt and innocent, I'd be most upset with Yale for not "re-endorsing" me to the Rhodes people (with of course, animas towards the girl for her false accusations). The university seems to be where the wheels came off the car.
 
Last edited:
These type of incidents are usually about 50/50. Its usually a "he-said" "she-said" type of situation...and it cannot be assumed that the girl is always telling the whole truth. Not saying Witt is innocent, just saying the court of public opinion is usually way off base on these things.

It would also help if one was particular about the company they keep.

I am no expert on the Yale situation, but the article indicates they've been under scrutiny for not taking accusations like this seriously. This is not unusual. I'm a former school board member and pretty familar with how educational systems approach setting up policy. Setting up an "informal" way to report this sort of thing is another way for a victim to get something on record so the University is "aware" there might be a problem and hopefully take steps to nip it in the bud before something more serious takes place. Through researching why they don't know about some incidents, they probably found that some victims are afraid to come forward "formally" so charges are filed. That is very understandable! Again, teach your kids that "no" means "no" and some tips on reading body language. If the situation doesn't look or smell right, walk away. With Witt, there was a "situation" at UNL that didn't smell right either. Sounds like alcohol might have been involved too. With so few Rhodes scholarships available, two incidents like this don't help your chances.
 



I gotta say I really don't understand this one. An accusation gets him ousted from the Rhodes competition (because Yale wouldn't re-endorse him) but he still gets to play in the Harvard-Yale game held the same day?

And the accusation gets him kicked out of school (maybe? or he left voluntarily?) but not in trouble with the law? I don't get it.

Not good news for anyone, regardless.
None of these things are surprising as sexual assault on college campuses it very common. To the point that I thought everyone knew someone suspected of sexual assault that wasn't charge during there college years. I knew of 4 guys suspected (2 were players) and one had 3 victims come forward. None were ever charged (or missed a game) and in once case the victim was asked to move to another dorm room so she could be further away.

From the link to the series below, what you learn is what the victim did and what the school did is pretty normal even when they know the perpetrator did it. What is evident is Whitt did not pull his Rhodes application because of a football game. He allowed that lie to grow legs in the media and now he is paying for it.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124001493
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124052847



Reporters at the Center for Public Integrity obtained a database of about 130 colleges and universities that got federal grants because they wanted to do a better job dealing with sexual assault. Even when men at those schools were found responsible for sexual assault, only 10 to 25 percent were expelled.
 
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="http://pix04.revsci.net/H07707/b3/0/3/0806180/993381579.js?D=DM_LOC%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.huskermax.com%252Fvbbs%252Fshowthread.php%253F29188-Patrick-Witt%26DM_CAT%3DNYTimesglobal%2520%253E%2520General%26DM_EOM%3D1&C=H07707"></script>
None of these things are surprising as sexual assault on college campuses it very common. To the point that I thought everyone knew someone suspected of sexual assault that wasn't charge during there college years. I knew of 4 guys suspected (2 were players) and one had 3 victims come forward. None were ever charged (or missed a game) and in once case the victim was asked to move to another dorm room so she could be further away.

From the link to the series below, what you learn is what the victim did and what the school did is pretty normal even when they know the perpetrator did it. What is evident is Whitt did not pull his Rhodes application because of a football game. He allowed that lie to grow legs in the media and now he is paying for it.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124001493
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124052847



Reporters at the Center for Public Integrity obtained a database of about 130 colleges and universities that got federal grants because they wanted to do a better job dealing with sexual assault. Even when men at those schools were found responsible for sexual assault, only 10 to 25 percent were expelled.

In this excerpt taken from the article:

“I will be playing in the Yale-Harvard game this Saturday,” it said. “I have withdrawn my application for the Rhodes scholarship.” 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.

It appears Witt didn't create the lie. Why should he be responsible for correcting someone else assumption?
 
Where I come from, "no" means "no". If some people would learn this simple lesson, the world would be just a tad bit better. Not a good sign a young lady made an "informal" complaint against him and with so few Rhode scholarships available, easy decision to knock him out. There are consequences to actions in some cases.

No means no. But in the real world sometimes people are straight-up wrongfully accused. Some will be happy to float some b.s. just to hurt someone...especially if they never have to back up their accusations or even file a "formal" complaint. Doesn't mean he didn't do something wrong. But doesn't mean he did either.
 



So RedRum is right about sexual assaults and such things on college campuses. And Yale is being sued currently for mishandling (or not addressing at all) formal charges of this nature. And KTex's post is also dead on, since Yale is trying to investigate how deep and wide the issues are.

Also, the "informal" nature of the charges aren't really a degree of severity. It is as much a reflection of an institution that treats these types of charges incredulously, or just the difficulty in proving charges such as these. I wouldn't exonerate him just on the "informality". If the details I've been told are true, then it isn't particularly vague or innocent. The victim did not wish to endure the embarrassment of a long drawn out process. As often happens, the process was handled on a campus level and didn't result in anything of note. Yale simply wouldn't provide the additional reference that the Rhodes trust wanted after they learned of the charge. The whole thing stayed in a non-disciplinary process.

I can't say whether his decision to withdraw had to do with the fact that he knew he wouldn't get the scholarship without an additional reference from Yale or not. I would think it had something to do with it. The Rhodes folks have a lot of people who want their money and so they do their homework. They wanted to know what was going on. FWIW I don't think Witt really lied about what happened, just that he didn't provide details on his reasoning, which is his right. Certain media outlets wanted to make a statement about how he was valuing school pride and team over this opportunity which probably wasn't true. In fact, if a story smelled fishy it was the one where he wouldn't have skipped the game for the chance at a Rhodes scholarship. I mean, it's a rivalry game, but nobody in the past fifteen years has recounted the great "so-and-so" from the game. The event itself is more about witty stadium taunts between students and the leader's of tomorrow (or the children of the owners of the world today) getting piss drunk.

As far as him being off campus now, it really doesn't have anything to do with the charge. He went through a non-disciplinary process. There were no sanctions other than the fact that the institution couldn't offer a character reference to the Rhodes folks. It isn't common for Yale students in their final semester to not be enrolled in classes while they work on their thesis, but it does happen. Normally what happens is a student walks with the class and gets an unsigned diploma because they haven't completed it and have to finish it the next year. In his case it makes sense to me that he would want to work out and shoot for the NFL if he can.

As to his relationship to and with Nebraska, I will say that he showed up to a few Nebraska games at the watch site in Meriden (on days when he had an early game or no game at all). He was always pulling for the Huskers so I don't think he harbored any real ill will. He just had an opportunity for a more well recognized degree. It's tough to blame the kid for that. He was always laid back and never wanted attention.

Here's a link to the Yale Daily news article which is basically the Witt camp's response to all of this.
 
Last edited:



In that YDN article, Witt's reps make a couple of claims you think they'd only make if they could back them up. Namely: a) Witt's request for a formal inquiry into the complaint was denied, and b) Witt wasn't notified of the complaint until after he'd made his decision on the Rhodes Interview.

Both of those would kind of detonate the NYT story. Though, I admit I'm biased in favor of this being a case of a misinformed journalist rather than a sex-assaulting former Husker.
 
Last edited:
There was a day when a woman needed 15 bishops to corroborate her story. Today, she only needs to point a finger and the guy is guilty. Wish the pendulum would somehow stop in the middle. I too feel this is very thin to trash a guy's reputation and destroy some of his aspirations. Personally I thought Witt was a twerp.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top