I’d like to start by saying I’m marginally pleased to see that the University of Utah took the bare minimum amount of responsibility for their failures. That being said, I am absolutely appalled that the University of Utah can say they have found fault with Dr. Hill’s complete lack of action but have no real consequences for his repeated failure as Athletic Director. They should feel ashamed, the state of Utah should be ashamed and any alum of the University should be ashamed. The lack of consequences for Dr. Hill only furthers the University’s reputation as an institution that will protect its staff at all costs while neglecting the students that they are supposed to be protecting.
The NCAA must act to stop the cycle of institutional negligence when it comes to their athletes. The University of Utah has currently not made any indication that they will help those student-athletes who were affected by Winslow’s wrath and Dr. Hill’s incompetence. It is clear now they had knowledge of what was going on and did nothing substantial to stop it. They allowed Winslow to remain as coach and in contact with high school age recruits who were visiting the school.
What the University has done to this point about the situation has not been enough. They must take drastic measures to regain some of their integrity.
“An Incomplete Whitewash”
The whitewash disguised as a report of “independent” investigators has some glaring spots that were missed. The University tries to pin the blame on Peter Oliszczak and leave Chris Hill with only enough fault so as to appear remorseful but not guilty. However, what the investigators fail to include in their report is that I personally spoke with Dr. Hill in April of 2012 and advised him of Winslow’s continued alcohol and anger issues. He asked me if I would be willing to document that in writing which I refused to do as I feared retribution on my son Austin.
Hill may deny the call or not recollect it, but he can not deny the written correspondence including similar allegations beginning in November, 2012. He chose to ignore those claims but focus the OEO investigation on the sexual allegations (which were never made by me) and the racial allegations. Then they dismissed Winslow in March of 2013, but not for alcohol or anger; for him not disclosing the Arizona investigation? Now they say he should have been fired for alcohol issues but since Hill didn’t pay attention to Oliszczak’s reports (he trusted an employee who was dismissed for misconduct?) they kept him and Hill is excused for the error?
Who are they kidding? In the real world, Chris Hill loses his job and the University is liable to dozens of students who were victimized by Winslow’s actions and Hill’s inactions.