Front Page  »  

Rape accusation against Whitman’s son kept quiet

October 23, 2010

The son of Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman was accused of sexually assaulting a female classmate while a student at Princeton University–a school that lists Whitman as one of its most generous donors. [Gawker]

Critics contend that the incident has been downplayed by university officials, unwilling to embarrass the former e-Bay CEO who has donated more than $30 million to the Ivy League school.

Griffith Rutherford Harsh V was never arrested or charged with a crime in connection with the 2006 incident. Princeton dealt with it quietly and internally, ultimately allowing Harsh to continue his education. He graduated with the class of 2009, three years after his rape accusation—and two years after the inauguration of Whitman College, the residential living complex his billionaire mother donated $30 million to help build.

A young woman, a classmate of Harsh, told university officials that she awoke one morning with a black eye, bruised and bloodied face, and no memories from the previous night. Harsh admitted to having sex with the woman, but insisted it was consensual, and that her injuries had come from falling down.

The woman consulted her friends, some of whom worried about the “social repercussions” of accusing such a high-profile student of rape. She was “terrified,” according to her friend. “She didn’t want to press charges because it’s Meg Whitman’s son. She didn’t want to go through that. She didn’t go to the police. She didn’t get a rape kit.”

The university disciplinary panel concluded that it did not have enough evidence to discipline Harsh. He took a leave of absence for a year before finally graduating in 2009.

His legal troubles didn’t stop there.  Shortly after the Princeton rape incident, Harsh was back home in California when he was arrested for breaking a woman’s ankle during a brawl at a bar. He was released after his mother posted $25,000 in bail and the charges were eventually dismissed.

Whitman’s other son, Will Harsh, also enjoyed a rather controversial time at Princeton.


Loading...
Subjects:
Related:


62 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

In 2007 Meg herself shouted an explicative and shoved an EBay employee during a heated argument. She paid out a 6 figure sum to keep it mum. While the sins of our children cannot be wholly attributed to parenting, it does seem like anger and condescending behavior to others with less social power run in the Whitman family.


If the son did commit this awful sin, it’s his. However, is she bought him out of it, that sin is hers.


What bothers me more is that Whitman laid off or shipped 40% of EBay jobs overseas. Now she wants to attack pensions and retirements of average workers.


I agree that retirements shouldn’t be lucrative (and clearly most aren’t), but its absurd that the middle class and poor are doing just what the rich want us to. We are kept occupied quarreling amongst ourselves, while they better control us & increase their relative wealth by paying us less and offering fewer benefits. And ironically, we are the ones demanding it of each other through finger pointing & petty squabbling over pennies, while they buy million dollar elections to pass on more policies reducing the quality of our lives right under our very noses.


0

Thank you, Trekin. Thank you very much!


0

Just the title of this article bothers me…No wonder its author didn’t post a name. I was truly hoping that this site was a news reporting site, but I see now it is not much more than a scandal sheet.


“Critics contend that the incident has been downplayed…….” OK? Who are the “critics?” You left that part out.


Oh well, you have readers that opine, so you make money and keep a job. Even provocateurs can make dough, eh?


0

“Critics contend that the incident has been downplayed…….” OK? Who are the “critics?” You left that part out.


Sooooooo…..


What’s your name? You left that part out.


Don’t take this website’s word for it. Do your own research. The behavior of both the

Whitman-Harsh boys has been downplayed -as has Mama’s actual impact on

EBay.


0

My first thought in reading the headline was that 1) someone is desperately digging up mud, and 2) problem kids don’t disqualify one for public office. However, upon reading the article and following up on the other incidents involving both kids, I find myself concerned. Not because of what the kids may or may not have done, but about how the parents appear to have thrown their weight around and applied undue pressure the clean things up for the kids. The number of reported incidents, and the fact that there have been no real repercussions to the kids, concerns me. It is bad parenting, and although I will grant we are all guilty of bad parenting at times, it makes me question her judgment. Even more, I am concerned with her predilection to solve problems by throwing money at them, and by her apparent unspoken assumption that no one in her family needs to be held accountable for their actions. If the kids get thrown out of school, no problem, we’ll just buy them a new one. It worries me even more that the family is so known for their power and their willingness to use it that the alleged victim was afraid to seek justice. We’ve seen this pattern before, and it doesn’t bode well.


0

The story indicates that the young lady was injured to the point of a black eye along with a bruised and bloody face and yet according to Whitman’s son she engaged in consensual sex. Give me a break !!!!


A. I don’t believe him

B. Even if his unlikely story were true, with the injuries the young lady had, why wouldn’t he have called someone to render aid and get her back to her dorm or apt? Why not be a gentleman, a good human being and skip the sex while she was in such shape?


It sure appears that hes a liar and Mom (with her cash caow) came to the rescue.


Sorry Meg. After all the dishonesty and poor judgements you have come to represent you have lost my vote.


0

Let me answer your question, Danika.


First off, when confronted with an uncomfortable fact, once again we see Meg Whitman being LESS than honest with her response. This just reinforces the growing notion that Meg Whitman is an unrepentant liar. Second, she used to stress “family values” in her campaign, and there’s something about this situation that hints at hypocrisy. Finally, Whitman herself has garnered a reputation as being a spoiled, bratty rich girl who is nasty to people she feels superior to. And so her son’s behavior echoes this notion, suggesting it is a family trait.


Perhaps if Meg Whitman had built up a reputation as a capable politician (as the Kennedy’s had), or had a reputation for fairness and honesty, the “sins” of her sons might be easier to ignore.


0

We all learned what the Kennedy’s are capable of and their reputation to protect self interest. I did not find anything in this situation that “hints at hypocrisy” as I don’t blame a parent for the actions of their ADULT children. If Whitman is “nasty”, Brown is downright rude to people. Allowing any member of his campaign call any woman a whore is transparency at it’s finest, IMO. Our system of justice doesn’t serve on “suggestions” but facts. This probably works in your favor as well, I imagine.


If you cannot bring yourself to vote for Meg Whitman, no problem. There are plenty of us who will.


0

Please don’t take this personally Danika, but please read over your reply and realize it doesn’t make sense.


And please understand, in common, albeit crude, business vernacular, the word “whore” has a nuanced meaning that some may not appreciate or understand. I apologize if my use of the word offended you.


And once again, let me emphasize that it is Meg Whitman’s expensive effort to cover-up her two son’s transgressions and her unwillingness to speak honestly when questioned about them is the reason that this is a serious campaign issue that discredits Whitman among those who want our leaders to act with courage and honesty.


Meg Whitman may not be responsible for her sons’ dishonorable actions, but her public reaction so far suggests she condones them more than she condemns them. That bothers some people. That bothers me and gives me more encouragement to actively campaign against her, even though, I admit, it would be better to spend the time extolling the leadership capabilities and accomplishments of Jerry Brown, who, if there is any justice, will be California’s next Governor and will help make California groovy again. It should be very interesting!


Fortunately,


0

I accept your apology and offer this…it is never appropriate to call a woman, any woman a whore. Period.


Please understand your opinions are no more or less valid than mine, though YOU think yours are the only ones worthy of consideration. Typical.


I refuse to vote for for Jerry Brown. Meg Whitman is my other choice. Therefore she has my vote.


0

Danika, I tried to explain trolling to you previously, You are not dealing with Garden variety angry here. This particular troll is much more invested in the “Winning by trolling game” then in the content of his political position. (Which I happen to agree with BTW). One of the specialties of this troll is 5-6 masked alter ego’s. and New identities will continue to appear.

Exercise your right to freely vote for the wrong candidate, it will not be a waste of your time and thank you for participating.

Apologies? I suggest you do not waste your time. This individual has no life.


0

Who is this supposedly “angry” person you are talking about, “Alon”? Would you please list these “5-6 masked alter ego’s” you’re trying to convince people about?


Personally, I think you are making some wild assumptions and misleading the readers here. I realize you mean well, but that doesn’t mean you have a grasp on what you are talking about. Nor do I see the value in you pushing your campaign to convince others to not “waste” their time having discourse with particular individuals who you happen to want to shove aside in this on-line community.


Personally, I consider your comments offensive, (though they do not anger me in the least,)


0

Jerry Brown is NOT a Kennedy and has never said or implied he was. But if you insist on trying to equate the two, then I’ll humor you, by pointing out that Brown should be considered like a “Kennedy 2.0, new and improved, with many more good traits and far less of the bad, a “Kennedy” for the 21st Century! He’ll make California Bitchin Again!”


0

I never said Jerry Brown was a Kennedy. Had I meant this, I would have clearly stated it. You like implication and it shows. Nice try. Now go put on your big boy undies and play nicely with the other children…


0

What exactly are “big boy undies” and why should anyone on this forum care what kind of “undies” I’m wearing? But, for sake of argument, the ones I wear were bought in the men’s section at K-mart. Does that count, danika?


0

I’m sure that many might call Jerry Brown a whore of unions, just as many might call Meg Whitman a whore for corporations (and be correct on either account, to some measure), if they felt that the conversation was private, which it was intended to be. I don’t understand what the big deal is. Danika, do you sincerely believe that politicians and their campaign staff are little angels who only say nicey-nice about their opposition?


0

Wiseguy: I’m actually suprised that you are not defending Mr. Harsh. According to your own logic, people who do teerible things like Mr. Harsh did, often do so because they are feeling insecure, unloved and rejected by society. They don’t know how to deal with thier emothions in a healthy manner, and often channel those emotions and energy into hurting themselves or others. Apparently no charges were filed against Mr. Harsh, and nobody is dead by his hand.


The only facts we have, are what the media has provided. Don’t you think that the statements made here are just meaningless and mean? Don’t you think that this is just an example of a community that doesn’t know how to deal with it’s emotions in a healthy manner? Or does wealth and politics affect your ability to show compassion?


0

I don’t grasp what your point is, SLOChild. Do you believe the points your are making or are you trying for sarcasm?


As for Mr. Harsh, I do not hate him, I do not want him executed. I wish for him to get the help he needs to live a healthy life that does not threaten the well-being of others. And I certainly do not want him convicted of any crimes he did not commit.


As for Meg Whitman, I clearly don’t know enough to judge her parenting skills. But I DO feel I know enough about her to firmly believe she would be a horrible governor of California. I’ve watched how she does business and in fact have done business with her to the extent that I was a stockholder in eBay fairly early on and I’ve utilized her company’s services considerably more than the average Californian. I don’t buy the “Meg” myth. I believe that as CEO of eBay Whitman made choices that benefited her personally and selfishly in the short term, but clearly hurt eBay in the long run (which the company continues to suffer greatly from).


But don’t imagine I’m some bitter stock holder. I saw what Whitman was doing and thus shifted equity from eBay to Apple


Bottom line, I know enough about Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown to want to actively campaign AGAINST Meg Whitman, and actively SUPPORT JERRY BROWN.


JERRY BROWN IS GOING TO HELP US MAKE CALIFORNIA BITCHIN AGAIN!


CALIFORNIA UBBER ALLES!


0

BOY!! You sure dodged her question. She is referring to your posting and harrasing others on the kid who hit the pedestrians, post a week ago about compasion etc. Now she throws it back to you and BIG dodge. What a hypocrite.


Say, “I don’t grasp your point,” and then try redirect. Can’t wait till you say that I am just sour grapes or something else to make yourself TRY and look better than you really are.


0

Help me then, Beenthere. What IS the question?


0

The hippies won’t come back you say

Mellow out or you will pay …



Jello Biafra and the Guantanamo School of Medecine “California uber alles” from Marie XXme on Vimeo.


0

Well you always tell people to go back and read your posts. May I suggest the same. My answer to your question of what the posters question was, is in my post. The kid who hit the pedestrians in Pismo? I thought that was pretty clear.


0

I still don’t get it BeenThere. What is this “question” you keep referring to? Do you mind simply stating it clearly so I can grasp what you are talking about or in what way you are trying to criticize me?


If you can’t state the question clearly and simply, perhaps there is something YOU don’t grasp or that you are over-reaching in your effort to attack me for having disagreed with some of the more objectionable views you have posted on this forum.


So, once again, simply stated: What is the question?


0

The best I can tell, Beenthere, is that you are trying to imply that I’ve been inconsistent in my statements promoting compassion, pointing out the problems with state-sanctioned executions, and decrying a “lynch-mob” mentality toward people accused of crimes to the point that some people have written about wanting to kill personally kill people who have done LESS than committing a capital crime.


I don’t see that I’m being inconsistent or hypocritical, even in the case of Whitman’s sons. And Meg Whitman is campaigning to win an election, so I don’t feel it is inconsistent to campaign against her. That’s the way politics works in the United States.


0

Ring the bells, throw the confetti, and drop the baloons. BeenThereDoneThat has won today’s “I get it” award! BTW: I support Jerry Brown too.


0

Congratulations BeenThereDoneThat, you get it. BTW: I am support Jerry Brown too.


0

SLO while I did get your point I wish I could share your enthusiasm about Brown. Unforunately I remember Brown the first time around. That said I am also no more excited about Meg either. I am afraid she will be just as wishy washy as Arnold.


The really sad reality to me is that I think no matter who gets in, that in four years we will all be four years older but with no real changes in the state of California. These two canditates are not the answer and no I don’t have the answer either. Wish I could see SOMETHING here and in Washington to give me some confidence. I just don’t see much on either side.


0

I don’t think Whitman will be “wishy washy.” I think she would follow a clear mandate to use her position as governor to help her, her friends and business associates, at the expense of the average citizen.


I also don’t share your pessimism. I believe that Jerry Brown is in the best position to help turn things around. Notice I says “help” turn things around. It’s the people, not the politicians, who bear the burden of doing what they can to curtail greed, violence and dishonesty.


We can’t continually expect politicians to “fix” our lives. But I do believe electing Brown will be a step toward “real changes in the state of California”.


I remember Brown as governor, as a mayor, and as an attorney general. I think he is as honest and straight-forward a politician as one will find in that sordid profession. Brown is also a very hard worker. He loves politics because he’s good at it and has a vision that is broader, more inclusive and more realistic than most politicians. He will be good for California and the nation, I feel certain.


0

BeenThereDoneThat: No enthusiasm whatsoever! I’m actually not 100% sure I’ll vote for Brown, but I can’t vote for Meg because I know she’ll just be another Arnold. I might just write-in Snoopy or something like that. All the Democratic and Republican parties seem to do anymore in California is put thier worst candidate forward.


WiseGuy: No need to ask me to repeat the question, as you have already answered it.


0

So why aren’t you reporting on the arrest of jerry brown back in the early 70’s for soliciting .This occurred in Alameda Park, downtown Santa Barbara. He was detained by undercover officers from the SBPD. When it was determined who he was, the watch commander ordered him released and sent on his way with nothing to be said about it if you valued your job. I’m just sayin’


0

No Jeremy, you’re NOT “just sayin'”. You’re making a wild accusation, suggesting that Brown was guilty of something for which there is no evidence, let alone any determination of guilt. You’re also slandering a local police organization.


But if what you are saying is true, then that just goes to show that the Brown organization may indeed have the experience and expertise required when they determined that Meg Whitman is the worst kind of political “whore” . (“I’m just sayin'”).


0

Wiseguy, your last statement made no sense. It’s clear intent was to create opportunity to call Meg Whitman a whore.


So don’t vote for her.


Go ahead and vote for the guy who sought the nomination for President three times and senate once. All failures for a good reason. He is a dog and pony show. You talk about liars? Brown himself stated in his 1992 announcement to run for Presidency that he ” he would only be accepting campaign contributions from individuals and that he would accept no contribution over $100 dollars.” Okay, okay. Inflation and all, perhaps he is justified in accepting the MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions for his present election. But I doubt it… Sounds like hypocrisy to me…


0

Please don’t take this personally Danika, but please read over your reply and realize it doesn’t make sense.


For one thing, I don’t have to “create opportunity to call Meg Whitman a whore.” That opportunity remains constant whether I make a statement or not. If anything, I would say that it is Whitman herself that is building that opportunity, or at least helping it ring true.


And please understand, in common, albeit crude, business vernacular, the word “whore” has a nuanced meaning that some may not appreciate or understand. I apologize if my use of the word offended you.


Furthermore, if I’m not mistaken, Jerry Brown KEPT THAT PROMISE regarding campaign contributions toward his run for President. It’s too bad that he didn’t win that election, because if he had, campaigns these days wouldn’t cost so much and lobbyists would find it harder to buy votes and subvert the will of the electorate. Brown was simply ahead of his time in his efforts to help the average tax-paying American citizen.


And without a doubt our entire world would be in a better situation if Brown had been elected President. If we’re lucky, maybe Obama will tap Brown to replace Biden in 2012.


0

Wise Guy , Sorry I stepped on your toes but, I’m slandering no one. It’s first hand knowledge of a fact. To slander that department would be to slander myself. I realize that the truth is often painful but you need to just suck it up and realize that your hero is a pervert. BTW, in those days, it was still a common practice to give rides home to dignitaries when they were caught drunk driving and cutting a high ranking politician loose was also an expected action if you wanted to keep your job.


0

What do you mean by “pervert”? Why don’t you spell it out for us in detail based on your “first hand knowledge”? And then explain how that relates to Mr. Brown serving as Governor in the 21st Century. Please, rather than innuendo and vague rumors, please spell out what exactly are you accusing Jerry Brown of. And feel free to lay down any evidence to prove your point. And why do you imagine Meg Whitman is ignoring this? I’m not calling you a liar, but when you make such potentially slanderous or libelous comments, you should be willing to point us to solid evidence of some kind and not hearsay. Step up, please, Mr. “Fisher.”


0

I DO recall Jerry Brown opponents long ago trying to drum Brown out of politics for the “crime” of supposedly being “gay”. Does this have anything to do with that? And if I’m not mistaken, I do recall something about Santa Barbara undercover officers engaged in entrapment practices and offering sex to entice people into committing crimes. Am I correct on that, Mr. Fisher?


Please, I mean no animosity. Let’s hash this out right here. Make it your best shot, lay down all the convincing evidence (and why we should even care) and let people question you and let the readers decide what is valid and relevant and how it may affect how they vote.


Go for it! This shoud be good.


0

I neither slandered (spoken) nor libeled anyone. I just reported the facts as I saw them, first hand. There is no other evidence. Your anger is clouding your ability to understand a simple narrative. He was lawfully detained for investigation upon him being observed while involved in the crime of 647(a) California Penal Code, ‘Lewd Conduct in Public’. When his identity was ascertained,a Watch commander was called and he was subsequently released with no further action. The end. The only point here being that if people want to use the exploits of the children of a candidate as a litmus test of her suitability for office, then why not use the exploits of another candidate, himself, as factors in determining his suitability for the same office? Good day!


0

Jeremy, what is it that you “saw”? Did you “see” the cover-up, or did you witness the “lewd conduct.” And if we’re talking the latter, what did you see? And what about the history of entrapment practices?


By the way, I’m not angry. W hat makes you think otherwise?


0

Bottom line Jeremy, you’re publicly accusing the California Attorney General of sex crimes and the Santa Barbara Police of a cover-up. Theyou explain it all away as “I”m just sayin'”


0

And so….???? What does this have to do with Meg Whittman? The sins of the son, even if it is true, is not held to the parent. If politicians were judged on the actions of their family members, the Kennedys would have massive problems along with countless others…


0

See my replies above for a detailed explanation of exactly what these so-called “sins of the son” VERY MUCH “have to do with Meg Whitman.” In short, they gave her a chance to demonstrate how poorly she deals with uncomfortable facts being made public.


0

danika


You would be perhaps better served if you did a bit of research on the Whitman boys. There are numerous accounts on the Net of their boorish behavior. Not just at Princeton.


It’s also highly unlikely that a student was given a year off at Princeton for any reason other than they believed he was likely guilty of assaulting the young lady. Nothing in his

character cries “Innocent!”.


0

A name such as “Griffith Rutherford Harsh V” could doom someone to a life of excess, or to being stranded on an island with the Skipper & MaryAnn.


0

Politians

Anybody and I mean anyone with the funds can run for office, walk the walk, talk the talk, most are unqualifed in many aspects, they are just political serial hoars or prostitues in sheep clothing.

Her son is probably no different, power absent of strong sincere virtue corrupts.


0
1 2 3