But Witt was no longer a contender for the Rhodes, a rare honor reserved for those who excel in academics, activities and character. 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.
This is one subject with which I am entirely acquainted, with over three years of membership in Williams's student-led Rape And Sexual Assault Network (RASAN) and four years on Williams's Honor and Discipline committees. I know enough about Yale, as well, to claim some familiarity with its campus culture, which resembled Williams in many ways.Witt’s accuser has not gone to the police, nor filed what Yale considers a formal complaint. The New York Times has not spoken with her and does not know her name.
I have nothing but condemnation for whoever leaked that story to the Times.
Sexual assault is an incredibly fraught subject at colleges - alcohol and hormones often lead to decisions that one or both parties regret. In some of these cases, explicit consent is never given, and while legal line is clear (no consent = rape), the moral line is much less so, especially when memories are blurred and intentions are misunderstood. Yet while this is true, it is also true that many, many sexual assaults on college campuses (and beyond them, in the real world) are never reported - the perpetrator is generally someone well known to the victim, unlike "stranger rape" scenarios of dark alleys, self-defense classes, and pepper spray.
But such accusations are violent to the social fabric of a campus, and for this reason often remain only as rumor, hearsay, or unproven allegations. And even if brought up: what proof can be found to differentiate between a sexual act with consent and a sexual act without it, save physical bruises? Anyone who reacts by "playing dead" in the situation has no recourse, and is faced with a variety of obstacles in the form of "friends" who would never believe that anyone would do something so horrible.
This is a recipe for all kinds of problems, because in this environment, survivors are silenced even as the forces that seek to aid them can cause miscarriages of justice in the other direction. But in my experience, the former is much more true than the latter.
We don't know what happened with Patrick Witt and the unnamed female - alcohol could make both of them unsure. But now, because of the rush to raise him up as the best example of us, the media will tear him down via an allegation that Yale MUST keep private. I have been on the inside of these sorts of discussions and conversation; what is known publicly can often vary radically from the truth - students who say they want to "take time off" but are actually suspended, for example.
All we know is that the accusation made its way to the Rhodes folks, and that they wanted a re-endorsement. We know also that Witt withdrew his application. That's all.
I can make bets, based on my own experience, about what actually happened. But that's irresponsible in a public forum. Instead, I just hope that Yale's internal processes provided justice to both parties, whatever that was in this case, and that this incident does not dissuade other survivors from coming forward.
