nbcnews.com
Jordan Deposition in Ohio State Sexual Abuse Lawsuits
Rep. Jim Jordan, former Ohio State wrestling coach, is being deposed Friday in lawsuits alleging he ignored sexual abuse by team doctor Richard Strauss; hundreds of former students are suing Ohio State, and Jordan's testimony could impact ongoing litigation.
- What specific evidence, if any, will emerge from Rep. Jordan's deposition regarding his knowledge of the Strauss abuse at Ohio State?
- Rep. Jim Jordan, former Ohio State wrestling coach, is being deposed on Friday regarding allegations he failed to protect wrestlers from sexual abuse by team doctor Richard Strauss. Lawyers representing hundreds of former Ohio State students are questioning Jordan under oath, though he's not a defendant in the lawsuits. Jordan has consistently denied knowledge of the abuse, despite multiple testimonies to the contrary.
- How did the 2019 Perkins Coie report implicate Ohio State coaches and administrators, and what role did the redaction of names play in the public's understanding of the scandal?
- This deposition is a key development in lawsuits against Ohio State University for its handling of the Strauss abuse scandal. The Perkins Coie investigation in 2019 concluded that coaches and athletic administrators knew about the abuse for decades, failing to act. Jordan's testimony may reveal additional knowledge or inaction concerning the widespread sexual abuse.
- What are the potential long-term consequences for Ohio State University and Rep. Jim Jordan if the deposition reveals evidence of their prior knowledge of, and inaction regarding, the abuse committed by Dr. Strauss?
- The outcome of Jordan's deposition could significantly impact the ongoing lawsuits against Ohio State. If evidence emerges that Jordan knew about the abuse and failed to report it, it could bolster the plaintiffs' claims and potentially lead to further legal repercussions for both Jordan and the university. This case highlights systemic failures in addressing sexual abuse within athletic institutions.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's headline and introduction immediately frame Rep. Jim Jordan as a central figure in the story, highlighting his upcoming deposition. This emphasis, while newsworthy, could inadvertently lead readers to assume his role is more significant than other potential contributors to the abuse. The sequencing, beginning with the deposition announcement and then presenting accuser testimonies, further emphasizes Jordan's involvement. The frequent mention of his powerful political position also may influence the readers' perception of the case.
Language Bias
The article generally maintains a neutral tone, using direct quotes from involved parties. However, the repeated use of phrases like "sexual predator," "molested," and "abuse" creates a strong emotional impact. While accurate, these terms could be considered loaded language. Consider replacing some instances with "alleged sexual misconduct" or "alleged abuse" to maintain a more neutral tone without minimizing the severity of the accusations. The description of Jordan as a "combative" questioner implies a negative judgment that might subtly influence readers' perceptions of him.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the allegations against Rep. Jim Jordan and the statements from his spokesperson and accusers. While it mentions the Perkins Coie report and the university's involvement, the depth of detail regarding the university's response and other potential enablers beyond Jordan is limited. The article doesn't delve into the specifics of the university's internal investigations or the timeline of their responses to the allegations. Omitting this broader context could lead readers to focus disproportionately on Jordan's role, potentially overlooking systemic failures within the university.
False Dichotomy
The narrative presents a somewhat simplistic 'he said, they said' framing, contrasting Jordan's denials with the accusations of his former wrestlers. The complexity of the situation, including the potential for unclear communication, delayed reporting, or other contributing factors beyond intentional misconduct, is not fully explored. This binary framing might oversimplify the issue and prevent readers from considering alternative interpretations.
Gender Bias
The article primarily focuses on male victims and perpetrators. While the article mentions that the lawsuits include both male and female students, the overwhelming focus remains on the experiences of male athletes and their allegations against Jordan, a male figure. This could inadvertently minimize the experiences of female victims, or suggest that such abuse was primarily perpetrated against male students. A more balanced approach would include voices and experiences of female survivors, if they exist.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights allegations of inaction by Rep. Jim Jordan, potentially hindering justice for victims of sexual abuse. This inaction undermines the principles of accountability and protection enshrined in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The failure to address the abuse effectively and hold perpetrators accountable creates a climate of impunity and prevents victims from seeking justice.