By

Recent news of an altercation involving three University of Louisville football players has taken many by surprise, mostly due to the fact that the assault took place in October of 2010. Twin brothers Isaac and Jacob Geffrad – players who were redshirting their freshman year – allegedly assaulted junior linebacker Patrick Grant in the Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium locker room. As a result of the attack, Grant received a fractured eye socket and a broken nose, while the Geffrad brothers were dismissed from the football team and U of L.

While scuffles among athletes are not uncommon, there is something a bit unsettling about the recent news of the assault. The question among many who have heard the news is obvious: Why did we just find out about this?

The October incident remained mostly unknown until late January.

“We treated this just like we’d treat any other investigation,” said Lt. Col. Kenny Brown, assistant chief of police for the University Police. “Records of incidents like this that happen on campus are readily available online.”

Brown brings up an interesting point. How the university chooses to publicly acknowledge events of a criminal nature is solely on the shoulders of the officials involved. It was a good idea to silence the news of a team scuffle toward the end of the Cardinal football season. Football head coach Charlie Strong handled the situation with the well being of the team and the public perception of U of L in mind. The news could have damaged the image of the football team, especially because the team’s record under the leadership of Strong was substantially better than in years past. Publicly acknowledging news of a criminal assault among teammates would not only lessen the perception of the Cardinals’ 2010 season, but cause unnecessary tension among the organization.

While the well being of the organization answers the question from the good side of things, the feeling that the university was hiding something lurks among the bad. Should we have been informed of an occurrence that could potentially damage the university’s reputation?

Sure. However, let’s consider the unfortunately-public fiasco involving U of L head basketball coach Rick Pitino and Karen Sypher. This scandal was publicly reported because of the celebrity nature of Pitino and the public knowledge of the case brought forth by Sypher. Major knowledge of the case was uncovered due to freedom of information. The same could potentially be said about the assault between the Geffrad brothers and Grant. The information about the alleged assault was hidden in plain sight among the university crime logs.

Pitino is a newsworthy name to drop. Isaac and Jacob Geffrad are not so newsworthy. This assists the university’s ability to veil a potentially damaging story. To highlight the crime report would only damage the reputation of U of L’s football program, albeit in a minor way, and provide unnecessary attention to the criminal assault. Should students have known about the incident? That’s up to U of L officials to decide. In any case, the offending parties were dismissed from the roster and the reputation of U of L athletics is undamaged.

The fact that the public was left in the dark about the alleged assault of Grant is mostly inconsequential. U of L’s reputation remains intact and discretion among the Athletic Department remains within the best interest of students and faculty. The image of the university is what remains of utmost importance within this situation. However, goings-on within U of L should be pursued by students and faculty, within their rights. Such information can be redeemed by freedom of information, and should be pursued by inquiring students seeking information regarding programs involving their university.