A federal judge has approved a motion allowing Ohio State University abuse victims to serve a subpoena to billionaire Les Wexner through alternative means, such as email or via his lawyer and bodyguards. This decision comes amid ongoing lawsuits against OSU related to former physician Richard Strauss, who is accused of sexually abusing students during his tenure at the university. Wexner, who was on the OSU board of trustees during Strauss's time, is being asked to testify about what university leadership knew regarding the abuse.

The plaintiffs' motion was granted by U.S. District Judge Michael H. Watson after they reported difficulties in delivering the subpoena directly to Wexner due to interference from his security and legal team. The ruling is seen as a significant step toward accountability for those involved in enabling Strauss's actions.

Wexner also faces scrutiny from Congress regarding his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, although he has not been accused of wrongdoing in relation to Strauss. The ongoing legal battles have resulted in OSU paying out $60 million in settlements to nearly 300 victims since allegations first surfaced publicly in 2018. Survivors continue their efforts for justice and transparency surrounding the events that occurred under Strauss’s care at Ohio State University.

Original article (congress) (accountability) (lawsuits) (settlements) (survivors) (justice) (transparency) (entitlement) (feminism)

The article discusses a legal development involving Ohio State University (OSU) and the abuse victims of former physician Richard Strauss, particularly focusing on billionaire Les Wexner's involvement. Here’s an evaluation based on the specified criteria:

Actionable Information: The article does not provide clear steps or choices for readers to take. While it mentions a legal ruling that allows plaintiffs to serve a subpoena through alternative means, it does not offer practical guidance for individuals outside of this specific case. Therefore, there is no actionable information that a normal person can use.

Educational Depth: The article touches on significant issues such as sexual abuse in institutions and accountability but lacks depth in explaining the broader context or implications of these events. It mentions settlements paid by OSU but does not delve into how these settlements were determined or their impact on victims' lives. Thus, it fails to provide substantial educational value beyond surface-level facts.

Personal Relevance: The topic may resonate with individuals concerned about institutional accountability or those who have experienced similar abuses; however, its relevance is limited to a specific group involved in this case. For most readers, especially those without direct ties to OSU or the Strauss case, the information may feel distant and less impactful.

Public Service Function: The article recounts ongoing legal issues without offering warnings or guidance that could help the public act responsibly regarding similar situations. It primarily serves as an update rather than providing context that would empower readers to engage with these issues meaningfully.

Practical Advice: There are no practical steps offered in the article for ordinary readers to follow. It discusses legal proceedings but does not suggest how individuals might navigate similar situations themselves or advocate for change within institutions.

Long-Term Impact: The focus is primarily on current events without addressing long-term implications for survivors of abuse or institutional reform efforts. Readers are left without insights into how they might prevent similar occurrences in their own environments.

Emotional and Psychological Impact: While the subject matter is serious and can evoke strong emotions related to trauma and injustice, the article does not provide constructive resources or support mechanisms for those affected by such issues. It risks leaving readers feeling helpless rather than empowered.

Clickbait Language: The language used is straightforward and factual; however, it lacks depth that would engage readers meaningfully beyond mere reporting of events.

Overall, while the article provides important updates regarding ongoing lawsuits related to sexual abuse at OSU and highlights significant figures like Wexner involved in these discussions, it ultimately offers little actionable advice or deeper understanding for general readers.

To add real value that was missing from this article, individuals should consider educating themselves about advocacy groups focused on survivors of sexual abuse within institutions. Learning about local resources can help one understand available support systems if faced with similar situations. Engaging with community organizations dedicated to promoting transparency and accountability can also empower individuals seeking justice against systemic failures in various contexts. Additionally, fostering open discussions about consent and institutional responsibility can contribute positively toward preventing future abuses within educational settings.

The text uses strong language that pushes feelings when it describes the actions of Richard Strauss. Words like "abuse" and "sexual abusing students" create a strong emotional response. This choice of words helps to paint Strauss in a very negative light, which is appropriate given the context, but it also emphasizes the severity of his actions without providing detailed evidence or context for each claim. This can lead readers to feel outrage without fully understanding all aspects of the situation.

The phrase "ongoing lawsuits against OSU related to former physician Richard Strauss" suggests that Ohio State University is being held accountable for its past actions. However, the text does not provide details about OSU's defense or any counterarguments they might have. By focusing solely on the lawsuits and not mentioning any potential justifications from OSU, it creates a one-sided view that may unfairly damage the university's reputation.

When discussing Les Wexner, the text states he is being asked to testify about what university leadership knew regarding the abuse. The wording implies that there was knowledge or complicity among university leaders without presenting evidence for this claim. This can mislead readers into believing there was wrongdoing by Wexner and others when it has not been proven.

The sentence stating "Wexner also faces scrutiny from Congress regarding his ties to Jeffrey Epstein" introduces an unrelated issue that may influence how readers perceive Wexner in this case. By linking him with Epstein, who has a notorious reputation, it casts doubt on Wexner's character without direct evidence connecting him to any wrongdoing related to Strauss’s abuse. This could lead readers to form negative opinions based on association rather than facts.

The phrase "significant step toward accountability" suggests progress in addressing past abuses but does not clarify what accountability means in this context or how it will be achieved. It implies positive action while leaving out specifics about what changes might occur as a result of these legal proceedings. This vagueness can create an impression of progress while lacking substance behind those claims.

The text mentions that OSU has paid out "$60 million in settlements to nearly 300 victims." While this fact highlights financial compensation for victims, it does not discuss whether these settlements imply guilt or if they were made as part of risk management strategies by OSU. By omitting this nuance, readers may interpret these payments solely as an acknowledgment of wrongdoing rather than considering other motivations behind them.

When referring to survivors continuing their efforts for justice and transparency surrounding events at Ohio State University under Strauss’s care, there is an implication that justice has yet to be fully served. The use of “justice” suggests moral righteousness but does not explain what specific outcomes survivors are seeking or how they define transparency in this case. This can evoke sympathy for survivors while leaving important questions unanswered about their goals and expectations moving forward.

The text conveys several meaningful emotions that shape the reader's understanding of the ongoing legal situation surrounding Ohio State University (OSU) and the abuse victims. One prominent emotion is a sense of anger, which arises from the description of the abuse perpetrated by former physician Richard Strauss. The phrase "accused of sexually abusing students" evokes outrage at such violations, particularly in an educational setting meant to protect and nurture students. This anger is directed not only at Strauss but also at those who may have enabled his actions, including members of OSU leadership like Les Wexner.

Another significant emotion is sadness, stemming from the mention of nearly 300 victims who have suffered due to Strauss's alleged actions. The reference to OSU paying out $60 million in settlements since 2018 highlights the extensive harm caused and underscores a deep sense of loss and injustice experienced by these survivors. This sadness serves to elicit sympathy from readers, encouraging them to empathize with those affected by these traumatic events.

Fear also permeates the narrative, particularly regarding Wexner’s connections with Jeffrey Epstein and his reluctance to testify about what he knew during Strauss's tenure. The mention of "interference from his security and legal team" suggests a powerful figure attempting to evade accountability, which can provoke anxiety about whether justice will be served for the victims.

The emotional weight carried by these sentiments guides readers toward feelings of sympathy for the survivors while simultaneously fostering concern over potential injustices being overlooked. The text aims to inspire action by emphasizing accountability through legal means, as seen in Judge Michael H. Watson’s ruling allowing alternative methods for serving subpoenas.

The writer employs various rhetorical strategies that enhance emotional impact throughout this narrative. For instance, using phrases like "significant step toward accountability" reinforces hope amidst despair, suggesting progress in a long-fought battle for justice. Additionally, words such as "scrutiny," "interference," and "enabling" are charged with negative connotations that paint Wexner's actions in an unfavorable light while heightening tension around his involvement.

By focusing on specific details—like financial settlements or direct quotes from court rulings—the writer creates a vivid picture that amplifies emotions rather than presenting neutral facts alone. This choice encourages readers not just to understand but also feel compelled towards advocacy for transparency and justice within institutions like OSU.

Overall, through careful word selection and evocative phrasing, this text successfully stirs emotions that guide reader reactions towards sympathy for victims while fostering urgency around holding powerful figures accountable for their roles in enabling abuse.