Witt Releases Statement, Incriminates Himself Once Again

By EMILY VILLANO

January 27, 2012

In a statement released Friday by a representative from an image consulting firm, Patrick Witt ’12 denied allegations instigated by a Thursday New York Times article which asserted that it was an informal complaint accusing Witt of sexual assault, not the Harvard-Yale game, that kept Witt from interviewing for the Rhodes. In doing so, Witt managed to fundamentally disrespect the woman who filed the complaint against him and flout the very rules of confidentiality he himself cites—all within the space of two sentences.

The statement reads: “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.” Yet it continues, in the following sentence, no less, to explain that Witt was previously acquainted with the woman who filed the complaint, that they engaged in a relationship, and even goes so far as to mark out precisely when the relationship ended.

These are clearly identifying features from which acquaintances of either Witt or the complainant could conceivably sort out who the complainant is. In providing this information, Witt violates rules of confidentiality crucial in sensitive cases such as these. At college campuses nationwide, cases of rape, particularly rape among acquaintances, go notoriously underreported. The fear of social stigmatization surrounding being identified as an ‘accuser,’ to the friends of one’s assaulter or to one’s own, contributes in large part to this crippling silence. By potentially ‘outing’ his accuser, Witt has acted, in the very least, incredibly irresponsible.

Which brings up a second point: why was this information included in the first place? The relationship between Witt and the complainant has no bearing on the claims published in the Times. Its inclusion seems, then, much like the rest of the article, to serve the sole purpose of undermining the legitimacy of the informal complaint. To spell out the implied argument: Witt couldn’t have sexually assaulted his accuser, because she had consented to him in the past.

Whether or not Witt committed the sexual assault he is accused of, this insinuation alone stands to demonstrate a fundamental lack of respect for women and their sexual autonomy. Just because a woman has engaged in certain sexual acts–whether kissing or intercourse–in the past, does not mean she cannot refuse these same intimacies in the present. Just because a woman has consented to you in the past, doesn’t mean a sexual encounter doesn’t require consent in the present. Regardless of sexual history, or interpersonal relations—yes means yes and no means no. Or perhaps Witt fails to understand that distinction.

If the Times article called into question Witt’s character, Witt’s own self-defense confirms their suspicions. The media will likely focus on Witt’s apparently slimy self-aggrandizement. But it is this utter lack of respect and sensitivity to victims of sexual assault that constitutes his greater failure.

Emily Villano is a junior in Yale College.  She is an associate editor for Broad Recognition.