clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Dean Done

Just when you were ready to never speak of the Jonny Flynn-Scoop Jardine-Rick Jackson sexual assault debacle again...

If you remember correctly, the whole thing was a dead issue until David Potter, associate dean of The College of Arts and Sciences, convinced the University to pursue the charges through their judicial affairs process. The case was ultimately dropped (kinda) and everyone moved on (kinda).

Now it seems that the move to keep this case alive was the impetus for Potter to leave the university sooner rather than later. But now it seems like he's leaving right now due to some tricky language in an agreement he was asked to sign that would have required his confidentiality:
The agreement would have reduced Potter's role on campus and begun to phase him out of the university. To Potter, it contained "provisions so deeply offensive and unacceptable that I could never agree to sign such a document," he said in an e-mail obtained by The Daily Orange sent by Potter to Chancellor Nancy Cantor, Vice Chancellor and Provost Eric Spina and other senior administrators.

The agreement was proposed by new Arts and Sciences Dean George Langford, but Potter said Sunday he believes it may have come from officials higher up in the university administration. Potter said he thought the proposed agreement was linked to his involvement in a Judicial Affairs case last fall stemming from the alleged sexual assault of a female student by three members of the Syracuse men's basketball team and another student.
"All of these things point in the direction someone other than Dean Langford was concerned," Potter said. "I do think there is a real possibility this may in fact be a response to my involvement when I stepped forward and represented the young woman when the university counsel was insisting the matter was concluded without an appropriate hearing."
Potter's petition to repoen the sexual assault case, which the alleged assailant never actually signed herself, was what caused the entire process to move forward.
"I knew immediately, I might get fired over it," Potter said of petitioning to reopen the case. "But I knew I had to do it."
It's tough to have any kind of opinion on the matter because who's to say what really happened, hence who's to to say Potter was wrong for what he did? If he truly believed what the woman was saying and really felt it to be true, then why wouldn't be fight to reopen the case? SU sports-fandom aside, I can certainly understand the desire for justice where it's perceived to be lacking.

Obviously the University denies that the clause has anything specific to do with the event. There may be more issues at play here so who knows. The question at this point is, will Potter not sign the agreement because of the principle of it or because he plans on speaking out or writing about the alleged sexual assault in the future? Or was this the impetus that ultimately will influence him to do so?