A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ordered billionaire Leslie (Les) Wexner to give a deposition in litigation brought by former Ohio State University students who say they were sexually abused by the university’s former doctor, Richard Strauss. The court denied Wexner’s lawyers’ motion to quash a subpoena and directed that Wexner sit for a deposition within 60 days.

Plaintiffs say Wexner’s long service on the Ohio State Board of Trustees — including roles as trustee, vice chairman and chairman and membership on the personnel committee from 1988 through 1997 — makes his knowledge of what the university knew about Strauss and when they knew it relevant to their claims. The court said evidence that either the board or Wexner knew of allegations, or that they had no knowledge, could bear on whether the university acted with deliberate indifference.

The litigation stems from an Ohio State investigation that found at least 177 male students were sexually abused by Strauss, who served as the campus physician from September 1978 to March 1998 and died by suicide in 2005; Strauss was never criminally charged. Two hundred thirty-six men are currently suing Ohio State for damages related to Strauss’s conduct, according to the complaints.

Wexner has not been accused of wrongdoing in the Strauss litigation. Plaintiffs and some former athletes publicly pressed for Wexner’s testimony, and protesters — including former wrestlers who accuse Strauss — called for removal of Wexner’s name from a campus football facility. Victims and their attorney described the court’s decision as affirming that wealthy individuals cannot avoid accountability and said survivors deserve transparency.

Wexner’s name also appears in documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein; plaintiffs’ counsel and Wexner’s attorneys have disputed whether deposition questions would focus on Epstein. Separately, Wexner was ordered to testify before the House Oversight Committee about his ties to Epstein. Wexner’s legal team objected to service of the subpoena and complained about a publicity campaign; an earlier attempt by the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office to serve Wexner at his residence was unsuccessful, and the court issued an alternative service order and a January 13 subpoena to ensure the deposition would proceed. A Wexner spokesperson declined to comment on the court ruling, and a Wexner legal representative reiterated past statements that he cooperated with investigators and was not considered a co‑conspirator.

Ohio State declined a request from victims to remove Wexner’s name from the Woody Hayes Athletic Center. The litigation and related proceedings remain ongoing.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (ohio) (investigators) (deposition) (subpoena) (protesters) (suicide) (lawsuit) (damages) (transparency) (accountability) (survivors) (entitlement) (privilege) (scandal)

Does the article give actionable help? No. The piece is a news report about a judge ordering Leslie Wexner to sit for a deposition in litigation tied to alleged sexual abuse at Ohio State. It describes court rulings, the number of plaintiffs, protests, and Wexner’s connections to other controversies. It does not provide clear steps, choices, instructions, or tools a reader can use right away. There is no guidance on how to file a claim, contact authorities, get support, or otherwise act. When it mentions resources implicitly (investigations, lawsuits, congressional testimony), those are descriptive rather than practical — the article does not tell readers how to access or use them.

Educational depth The article reports facts about the litigation and related events but stays at a surface level. It does not explain how civil deposition procedures work, what standards govern subpoenas or motions to quash, how plaintiffs establish institutional liability, or how investigations into historical abuse are usually conducted. The numbers given (investigators found at least 177 victims; 236 men are suing) are stated without context about how those findings were reached, what evidence standards were applied, or how claims translate into legal outcomes. Thus it does not teach the systems, reasoning, or underlying causes that would help an interested reader understand the legal or institutional mechanics behind the story.

Personal relevance For most readers the article is informational about a high‑profile legal development; it does not directly affect most people’s safety, finances, or daily responsibilities. It may be personally relevant to plaintiffs, alumni, or community members tied to Ohio State, or to people following accountability for wealthy individuals. For the general public the relevance is limited: it is about a particular case and personalities rather than broad, actionable guidance.

Public service function The article does not provide warnings, safety guidance, or emergency information. It recounts a legal dispute and associated protests but does not offer context that would help the public act responsibly (for example, it does not explain how survivors can report abuse, how institutions are supposed to respond, or where to seek help). In that sense it functions mainly as news rather than public service.

Practical advice There is no practical advice an ordinary reader can follow. The story does not give steps for survivors seeking help, potential plaintiffs considering a lawsuit, or community members wanting to advocate for institutional change. Any implied routes (joining a suit, contacting investigators) are not explained in usable detail and would require further research.

Long-term impact The article documents an event that could have long-term consequences in this litigation and in public accountability discussions, but it does not offer information that helps readers plan ahead, improve personal safety, or adopt better practices. It is focused on an immediate legal ruling without translating that into broader lessons or preventative measures.

Emotional and psychological impact The subject matter is distressing: it centers on sexual abuse of students and a high-profile figure being compelled to testify. The article reports these facts but does not provide supportive context for survivors, resources for dealing with trauma, or constructive ways for readers to respond. That can leave readers feeling concerned or upset without clear ways to channel those emotions constructively.

Clickbait or sensationalism The piece highlights dramatic elements — a billionaire ordered to testify, protests, ties to Jeffrey Epstein — but it appears to report these items factually rather than relying on exaggerated language. It does leverage attention-grabbing names and controversies, however, which can create sensational interest even though information provided remains limited.

Missed chances to teach or guide There are several clear missed opportunities. The article could have explained how depositions and subpoenas work in civil litigation, what it means for a non-defendant witness to be compelled to testify, how institutional investigations into abuse are conducted and verified, and what options survivors have for reporting and support. It could also have provided contact points for survivor resources or basic guidance on how to evaluate institutional responses. Instead, it restricts itself to reporting the court order and surrounding public reaction.

Concrete, practical guidance the article omitted If you are a survivor of abuse or someone worried about institutional response, start by prioritizing safety and support. Seek medical care if needed and reach out to trusted individuals; emotional support can include friends, family, a counselor, or a victim‑advocate at a local hospital or community center. Document what you remember in writing, with dates and details as best you can; contemporaneous notes and copies of messages or records can be important later. Learn the basic distinction between criminal and civil routes: criminal complaints go to police or prosecutors and aim for conviction, while civil lawsuits seek compensation and may allow discovery (like depositions) that can uncover evidence. If considering legal action, consult an attorney experienced with abuse cases; many offer free initial consultations and some survivor organizations can help connect you to pro bono counsel. For students or community members concerned about institutional accountability, engage established channels first: review the institution’s reporting and grievance procedures, use campus ombudspersons or Title IX offices where applicable, keep records of communications, and consider coordinating with others who share concerns to amplify requests for transparency. When evaluating news about such cases, compare multiple reputable sources, watch for direct citations of court filings or official reports, and be cautious about narratives based on rumor or unnamed sources.

Simple ways to assess risk or act responsibly in similar situations When evaluating an institution’s response to allegations, look for evidence of transparent procedures: are complaints logged and acknowledged; are independent investigations used; are findings and policy changes publicly reported; are support services offered to survivors. If you must interact with investigators or prosecutors, prepare by organizing your documentation and, if possible, bring a trusted support person; understand that processes can be slow and that you can ask questions about confidentiality and next steps. For community advocacy, focus on specific, achievable requests—such as asking for release of investigative summaries, establishment of survivor support services, or independent review panels—because targeted asks are easier to evaluate and push for than broad demands.

Bottom line The article informs readers about a notable legal development but offers no actionable steps, practical guidance, or deeper explanation of legal or support processes. For readers affected by similar issues, the most useful next actions are to seek immediate support, document what happened, and consult experienced legal or advocacy resources to understand options and pathways for accountability.

"Wexner has not been accused of wrongdoing in the Strauss litigation." This sentence frames Wexner as innocent and limits suspicion. It helps protect Wexner's reputation by stating no accusation, which downplays why he is being subpoenaed. The wording shifts focus away from why plaintiffs want his testimony. It cushions the sense of accountability by stressing absence of accusation.

"Plaintiffs argued that Wexner, a former OSU trustee, might know what the university knew about Strauss and when they knew it." The word "might" softens the plaintiffs' claim and presents it as speculative. That lowers the apparent strength of their argument and helps Wexner by making the link seem less certain. The phrasing privileges doubt rather than the investigators' findings mentioned elsewhere.

"Wexner’s legal team had complained about a publicity campaign and resisted efforts to serve the subpoena..." Calling publicity a "campaign" suggests coordinated media pressure and implies unfair targeting. This choice favors Wexner by portraying the plaintiffs and protesters as orchestrating public pressure. It shifts some blame from the behavior alleged to the reaction to it.

"Protesters, including former wrestlers who accuse Strauss, publicly pressed for Wexner’s testimony and called for removal of his name..." Labeling them "protesters" and noting they "pressed" emphasizes activism and pressure rather than grievance. That word choice can make the protesters seem forceful instead of victims seeking justice. It frames their actions as public agitation.

"Investigators for Ohio State previously found that at least 177 male students were sexually abused by Strauss..." The phrase "male students" states the victims' sex but nothing more; it accurately identifies the group. However, attaching the large number early creates a strong emotional impact that supports the plaintiffs' case. The placement gives weight to abuse claims before noting Wexner’s non-accused status, influencing reader sympathy.

"Wexner’s name appears in documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein, and he has been ordered to testify before the House Oversight Committee about his ties to Epstein." This links Wexner to Epstein through "appears in documents" and "told to testify," which hints at wrongdoing without stating it. The wording leverages association to raise suspicion. It helps readers infer guilt by connection even though no direct accusation is asserted here.

"A Wexner legal representative reiterated past statements that he cooperated with investigators and was not considered a co-conspirator." This uses reassuring terms like "cooperated" and "not considered a co-conspirator" to shape perception of innocence. It repeats a defense and so balances the previous harmful associations, which can create a sense of fairness but also serves to protect Wexner's image.

"Former students who brought the suit said the court’s decision affirms that wealthy individuals cannot avoid accountability and that survivors deserve transparency." This quote contains virtue signaling: "survivors deserve transparency" appeals to shared moral values. It also frames the ruling as a win against wealth-based impunity. That language rallies sympathy and frames the court order as moral progress rather than purely legal procedure.

"The ruling denied Wexner’s lawyers’ motion to quash a subpoena and required him to testify within 60 days." This sentence is straightforward but uses passive construction "denied... motion" and "required him" without naming the judge as actor in the second clause. The passive voice hides the decision-maker’s active role in ordering the testimony, which slightly distances the court's authority from the action described.

The text conveys a range of emotions through word choices and described actions. Foremost is anger and indignation, which appears in phrases about protesters pressing for Wexner’s testimony, calls for removal of his name from a campus facility, and plaintiffs’ arguments that wealthy individuals cannot avoid accountability. The strength of this anger is moderate to strong: protesters and former wrestlers are described as publicly pressing, which suggests active, persistent outrage rather than quiet disappointment. This anger serves to align readers with the survivors and plaintiffs, signaling moral urgency and dissatisfaction with perceived injustice. Next is pain and sorrow connected to the victims, implied by references to sexual abuse, the large number of men harmed, and that Strauss died by suicide without facing criminal charges. The emotional weight here is heavy; numbers like “at least 177” and “two hundred thirty-six men are currently suing” amplify the scale of suffering. This sorrow fosters sympathy and concern, guiding readers to see the situation as a serious harm that demands redress and transparency. Fear and unease appear more subtly in mentions of secrecy and possible institutional failure—phrases about what the university knew and when, and plaintiffs seeking transparency, suggest worry about concealed wrongdoing. The strength of this unease is moderate and functions to make readers question institutional trustworthiness and to support calls for investigation. There is also a tone of defiance and determination from the plaintiffs and the court’s action: the judge’s order that Wexner must testify within 60 days and the denial of the motion to quash show resolve. This determination is firm in tone and serves to reassure readers that the legal process can compel powerful figures to answer questions, thereby inspiring a sense of accountability. A milder sense of defensiveness appears in how Wexner’s camp is described: legal complaints about a publicity campaign, resistance to service, a spokesperson declining comment, and a representative reiterating cooperation. The defensiveness is moderate and functions to signal that Wexner denies wrongdoing and seeks to protect reputation, which may temper readers’ rush to judgment for some. Finally, there is a sense of vindication or moral affirmation expressed by plaintiffs’ statements that the decision “affirms” that the wealthy cannot avoid accountability and that survivors deserve transparency. This feeling is optimistic and moderately strong, intended to validate the plaintiffs’ struggle and encourage readers to view the ruling as a moral victory.

These emotions guide the reader’s reaction by structuring sympathy toward survivors, skepticism toward institutions and powerful figures, and a sense that legal accountability is meaningful. Sorrow and outrage draw moral attention to the victims’ plight, while unease and calls for transparency prime the reader to support scrutiny. The judge’s firmness and the plaintiffs’ vindication steer readers toward believing that action can be taken and that justice is being pursued.

The writer uses specific word choices and narrative framing to heighten emotional effect rather than remain purely neutral. Repetition of large numbers—“at least 177,” “two hundred thirty-six men”—magnifies the scale of harm and makes the reader feel the breadth of the crisis. Active verbs—“ordered,” “denied,” “pressed,” “resisted,” “declined”—create a sense of movement and conflict, which intensifies feelings of confrontation and urgency. Placing Wexner’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein in the same paragraph as the lawsuit introduces associative pressure, encouraging readers to link reputational concerns and moral suspicion without asserting direct wrongdoing; this juxtaposition leverages implication to provoke doubt. Mentioning public protests and calls to remove a name from a campus building adds visible, communal action to the narrative, turning private harm into a public-scene conflict and increasing emotional salience. Finally, contrast between the court’s action and Wexner’s resistance (the judge compels testimony despite attempts to quash and to avoid service) frames a David-versus-Goliath dynamic that bolsters the emotional payoff of accountability. All of these tools—numeric emphasis, active conflict language, associative juxtaposition, and public protest imagery—raise emotional intensity and guide the reader toward concern, moral judgment, and support for transparency and accountability.