Tulane University tells its students it stands with survivors of sexual violence. The university funds awareness campaigns; Title IX offices and prevention programs stress support, safety and accountability. But those community values collapse the moment a potential football win enters the picture. By taking in Jake Retzlaff, a quarterback who was accused of rape less than a year ago, Tulane sends a painful message to survivors.
On May 21, 2025, an unnamed woman filed a civil lawsuit against Retzlaff in Salt Lake City, alleging he raped, strangled and bit her after meeting through social media. Retzlaff has admitted to meeting with the woman but claims all relations were consensual.
A few days after their meeting, the woman underwent a forensic exam where the hospital took photos of her injuries. The woman chose not to file criminal charges and police said evidence “revealed no actionable investigative leads.”
The woman proceeded with a civil case. On June 30, the case was dismissed with prejudice “upon the merits of the Plaintiff’s complaint against the Defendant,” according to the joint motion. Each side paid its own fees, and the resolution was sealed. Legally, that ended the case.
But “with prejudice” does not mean exoneration. It only means the lawsuit cannot be refiled. As a result, we will never see the evidence argued under oath.
Brigham Young University responded by suspending Retzlaff for seven games not for the alleged rape, but for admitting to performing premarital sex. The school’s honor code explicitly prohibits premarital sex, yet there is no explicit mention of sexual assault as a category of violation in the school’s code.
Weeks later, the Green Wave accepted him as a walk-on after more than a weeklong background review that included its Title IX office, according to reporting from ESPN. It is unclear what constituted this review.
What makes this decision worse is the contrast. The Green Wave recently pulled out of pursuing five-star quarterback Nico Iamaleava, potentially because of his steep name, image and likeness demands, as well as rumored attitude and commitment concerns. That means Tulane weighs personality and price tag in its recruiting process. Yet, when faced with a player accused of rape in court, Tulane decided he was worth the tradeoff.

The Green Wave’s head coach, Jon Sumrall, markets the football team as a program built on “men of character.” But the record shows that “character” is flexible, bending wide enough to allow men with allegations of violence against women.
That hypocrisy matters because it tells survivors something no awareness campaign can erase: Your comfort is negotiable. Your experiences can be minimized if they threaten to interfere with the scoreboard.
Universities love to frame athletics as community-building. But communities fracture when survivors realize that the same community supposed to protect them was willing to risk their comfort for a sports game. That trade-off reverberates in classrooms, dorms and daily life, where survivors are left questioning whether their pain carries weight on this campus.
As someone who believes Tulane should embody the advocacy it promotes, decisions like this drown out those promises and leave me questioning what that advocacy is really worth. Recruiting a player with such a heavy case attached to his name sends a message that cuts against what I thought Tulane stood for.
To me, it feels like a choice that undermines the university’s stated values and risks triggering survivors in our community. Survivors deserve to know that their well-being comes before athletics, and this decision makes me question whether that promise is being kept.
To every survivor reading this, your voice matters, and it deserves to be heard. Speak up. Reach out. Work toward a community where your safety and dignity are never up for debate. This university should be accountable to you — but it will only change if we demand it. Survivors deserve a community that refuses to look away.
And to the people who may not carry these experiences themselves but see the weight of them on others: your silence still shapes this campus. Use your voice. Stand alongside survivors. Refuse to let comfort and convenience excuse indifference. Change will only come when all of us, together, insist on building a safe, dignified and trustworthy community.
Brandon Smith • Sep 15, 2025 at 5:39 pm
I think you got part of the story wrong; from what I read, of the case, the police didn’t file charges because there was no evidence of a sexual assault. So, the woman took it to a civil case, which she ended up dropping once Retzlaf admitted there was a meetup and things sexually did happen, but it was consensual.
Timothy Malone • Sep 5, 2025 at 10:52 am
Ms. Ceatero, do me a quick little favor and google “Duke Lacrosse Case”. Thanks.
I mean who let this be published? So if I accuse Ms. Cestero of assault, and no criminal charges are brought, the civil case is then dismissed, should Tulane then kick Ms Cestero out of school? That is the argument she is making here. The paper and author should be embarrassed.
Football Fan • Sep 5, 2025 at 10:29 am
Does a real court of law matter less than the free-for-all court of public opinion? A court of law dismissed the claim with prejudice. I shutter to think that an accusation that has been determined to be unfounded could be used to irreparably harm another human being. Of course, it should go without saying that all such accusations should be treated with the utmost seriousness and investigated to the maximum extent permitted under the law. However, when a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the claim is without legal merit, the accused is entitled to “rest” just like any other non-accused citizen. To act otherwise would grant undue power to the subjective, uninvestigated determination of persons who choose the use the legal system to levy their allegations.
L pastor • Sep 4, 2025 at 4:44 pm
Let’s see, there was no criminal case. The civil case was dismissed. Apparently there is nothing at all that would ever exonerate this individual in your biased opinions. The entire concept of American jurisprudence is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, in case you did not know.
Goldberg • Sep 4, 2025 at 4:40 pm
Guilty until proven innocent!
Erik D Toups • Sep 4, 2025 at 4:09 pm
Until someone is convicted in an actual court and not just the court of public opinion, like this article is irresponsibly doing, we need to remember that accusations don’t always equal guilt. This is not about victim blaming, shaming, or silencing voices. Survivors absolutely deserve to be heard. The accuser was heard, and when a case has been dismissed or the evidence shows the accusation was false, that matters too. If something were still pending or unclear, then yes, there would be reason for pause, AND THEN the hypocrisy would be clear. There isn’t hypocrisy because the only thing that has been proven and admitted to is premarital sex. This isn’t hypothetical. Even in just college football alone, there are multiple examples:
Brian Banks – falsely accused in 2002, spent 6 years in prison before the accuser admitted she fabricated the story. Conviction overturned in 2012, but his NFL chances were gone.
Erik Williams – Cowboys lineman. Accused of sexual assault in 1995 (acquitted). In 1997, another accuser filed a false report; charges were dismissed.
A.J. Johnson – University of Tennessee linebacker indicted in 2015 for aggravated rape. Acquitted in 2018.
Willie McGinest – accused at USC in 1990 with two teammates. Acquitted in 1991.
Gareon Conley – accused of rape in 2017, right before the NFL Draft. Prosecutors declined to file charges; the allegation was deemed unfounded.
Matt Araiza – drafted by the Bills in 2022, accused in a civil lawsuit of gang rape at SDSU. Prosecutors found he wasn’t present at the time. No charges filed. Civil suit dropped in 2023.
And these are just college football players. There are many more examples across other sports, both at the collegiate and professional levels.
False accusations are not the norm, but they do happen, and when they do, the damage is devastating. That nuance deserves to be part of the conversation.
BRUCE FEINGERTS • Sep 4, 2025 at 3:40 pm
An article written like this by an author who has obviously no understanding at all of the legal
process of guilty and innocence is highly irresponsible. You do not write an article that can be so damaging to a person’s reputation unless you understand that people can make false or misleading allegations to authorities and in court. And unproven allegations should then not be used to harm a person’s personal reputation.
The conclusion improperly reached in the Hullabaloo article that there was “no exoneration” of the rape allegation is certainly false. Not only was the rape allegation absolutely denied by Jake Retzlaff, but after being investigated by authorities, there were not even criminal charges filed, much less proven in court. Only a civil damages case was pursued by the woman that was “dismissed with prejudice” because the allegations of consensual sex were believed over any proof shown of non-consensual sex. That is the “equivalent of an exoneration” since the woman did not prove her case. There was no criminal charge of rape and no civil proof of even non-consensual sex. So why is Jake being chastised by the author publicly for unproven allegations?
As a highly respected leader of the BYU football tesm, Jake was very reluctantly suspended from the team for 7 games only because he admittedly had violated the very strict BYU Student Conduct Code of “no premarital sex”. Jake was voted by his teammates as a Captain of the team and had a sterling reputation.
How many Tulane students have violated that Mormon BYU Conduct Code rule that many might consider extreme? How about the author of the article?
Jake may have violated the BYU Mormon behavior culture under its Conduct Code, but there was never any proven allegations of non-consensual sex that would justify an article defaming him based on merely unproven and denied allegations.
Tulane fully investigated these matters and found Jake Retzlaff’s background reputation superb and academic credentials in order. Tulane is so fortunate to have had the opportunity of an outstanding student athlete and leader like Jake to join our team.
Anybody who is familiar with the type of players Coach Jon Sumrall recruits knows that he only recruits and signs high character student athletes. That is the family culture he has built at Tulane very successfully. Jake Retzlaff is leader of this team in that high character mold.
Hana Thomas • Sep 4, 2025 at 2:37 pm
Thank you for bringing attention to this. Tulane’s decision is a slap in the face to survivors on campus.
Zoe Burnett • Sep 4, 2025 at 2:13 pm
Beautifully written article about the complex signals Tulane sends to survivors of sexual violence. Thank you for drawing awareness to this.
Vedika Mahadevan • Sep 4, 2025 at 1:47 pm
“The Green Wave’s head coach, Jon Sumrall, markets the football team as a program built on “men of character.” But the record shows that “character” is flexible, bending wide enough to allow men with allegations of violence against women.”
This. 100%. Thank you so much for sharing this. I fully agree with everything you have said and this was so well worded. I cannot thank you enough.
Craig Roper • Sep 4, 2025 at 1:23 pm
Wow pick and choose the facts of the case. Then publishing an article with half truths is crazy. The charges were dismissed with prejudice. This newspaper gets more ridiculous every time I read it.
Tulane fan • Sep 4, 2025 at 1:06 pm
According to this article, the government’s investigation found no evidence to prosecute a criminal case and the civil suit was dismissed with prejudice. In other words, play ball.
Terry Durnin • Sep 4, 2025 at 11:59 am
Have you performed any research into him as a person? Student? Did you interview CJS, School President or anyone else who knows more of this case than you?
Erik D Toups • Sep 4, 2025 at 4:10 pm
That would be journalism. We don’t do that anymore.
Hugh Kaplan • Sep 4, 2025 at 11:35 am
The author states that the quarterback was not “exonerated.” I disagree.
We would say someone was “exonerated” in a criminal case when the factfinder (usually the jury, or the judge if the accused didn’t want a jury) found that the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed a crime. The prosecutor may have been able to prove that the accused “more likely than not” did the crime, but we still say that person was “exonerated.”
The woman who accused the quarterback was not able to prove to the factfinder (here, the judge in the civil case) that the quarterback “more likely than not” raped her. To me, this is the same as the judge finding on the merits of the woman’s evidence that the quarterback “more likely than not” did not rape the woman. I would call that an “exoneration.”
It may still make Tulane look bad, but that is only because of articles like this one.