How Firm Thy Friendship? THE Ohio State University’s Silence in the Face of Abuse

Patong Beach, Phuket, Thailand— I was laid out under an umbrella, nursing the righteous hangover from the night before. The sun was already waging war against sobriety, and as my companions and I drank Coronas and debated college football superiority, a Texan among us declared with pride that nothing compared to Longhorn lore. Championships, legends, alumni—he laid it all out like gospel.

I let him finish his sermon. Then, with a slow pull from my beer, I turned toward the sea and bellowed: "O-H!" And from down the shoreline, like a pack of wolves answering the call, came the echo: "I-O!" Rippling across the sand in waves of scarlet and gray loyalty—not just once, but in the expected trio: "OH-IO! OH-IO!"

I took another sip and smiled. "That," I said, "is global recognition. Nine thousand miles from Columbus, and still they answer."

But if I had known then what I know now about the silence, the betrayals, the thousands of lives fractured behind that same scarlet and gray, I’d have let the Texan have his win. And kept my mouth shut.

Quantifying the Crisis

Ohio State University, a beacon of collegiate athletic prestige, renowned for its passionate fan base and national championships, harbors a profoundly troubling legacy beneath its victorious façade. The university now holds an ignominious distinction: the preeminent example of institutional sexual abuse, neglect, and systemic cover-up in American higher education.

The stark figures presented by the independent Perkins Coie investigation (2019) revealed 177 confirmed male student-athlete victims across 16 varsity sports from 1978–1998. However, these findings scarcely represent the full magnitude of the crisis. Institutional records from Ohio State itself document over 2,800 allegations of sexual misconduct, including at least 170 rapes and approximately 1,500 incidents of fondling attributed to Dr. Richard Strauss, spanning far beyond athletics to the general student population.

This expansive victim count—exceeding 3,000 individuals—far surpasses other notorious cases, such as Michigan State’s Larry Nassar scandal (500+ victims) and Penn State’s Jerry Sandusky scandal (approximately 35 victims). By sheer volume and scope, Ohio State’s negligence eclipses its institutional peers by a substantial margin. We are truly number one.

Financial Implications and Institutional Priorities

Financial settlements to date underscore Ohio State’s problematic priorities. While Michigan State's settlements exceed $1.1 billion, and Penn State's settlements approach $60 million, Ohio State’s total settlements remain comparatively negligible, amounting to around $60 million. The university's average payout of approximately $250,000 per victim appears strategically calculated, aiming less at restitution and more at minimizing financial exposure.

Furthermore, the broader potential liabilities remain staggering:

• Career disruption claims could plausibly range between $500,000 and $2 million per victim.

• Wrongful death claims stemming from suicide could result in settlements between $1.5 million and $5 million per incident.

• Emotional distress claims filed by affected family members typically fall within the $200,000 to $1 million range.

Collectively, these liabilities indicate that Ohio State’s potential financial exposure might realistically escalate into the hundreds of millions.

Institutional Strategy: Denial and Deflection

Ohio State’s reaction has been textbook institutional deflection: limited financial restitution, stringent non-disclosure agreements, and aggressive legal tactics. These actions are economically motivated; a full acknowledgment of liability would provoke catastrophic financial consequences, compromise lucrative athletic revenue streams, threaten sovereign immunity protections, and complicate future Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) financial agreements given athletes’ evolving quasi-employee legal status.

Such deliberate institutional inertia represents not ignorance but strategic suppression, accurately termed by advocates as systemic institutional betrayal.

Congressional Complicity: What Should Have Been the End of Jim Jordan’s Career

A central figure in this saga, Congressman Jim Jordan, who served as assistant wrestling coach during Strauss’s tenure, faces compelling allegations from multiple wrestlers, including Mike DiSabato, Mark Coleman, and Dunyasha Yetts. These individuals consistently assert Jordan was directly informed of Strauss’s misconduct. Moreover, a referee testified to witnessing Jordan’s dismissive response to inappropriate actions: "It's Strauss. You know what he does." Upon public exposure of these allegations, Jordan reportedly resorted to desperate personal appeals, with former wrestlers describing his outreach as "crying, begging, pleading" for retractions (The Guardian, 2025; NBC News, 2018).

While such behavior strongly suggests acute awareness and intentional avoidance of accountability, it also raises the question of whether Jordan himself may have been a victim of Strauss. Though no direct evidence has been presented to confirm this, the intensity of Jordan’s emotional responses combined with his refusal to engage substantively with survivor claims could be interpreted as a manifestation of unresolved trauma or internalized shame. If so, it would not absolve his silence, but might help explain its deeper psychological roots.

Cognitive Dissonance within Coaching Staff

Coach Russ Hellickson exemplifies institutional cognitive dissonance, initially asserting ignorance by stating, "I didn’t know anything about that, I would’ve stopped it," only to subsequently concede, "Well, you know, that's just Strauss. He was always in the showers" (NBC News, 2018; The Guardian, 2025). This contradiction between denial and admission is further compounded by Hellickson’s post-scandal behavior: rather than support the athletes who came forward, he reportedly pressured them to retract their statements and expressed concern more for the institution’s reputation than for the welfare of survivors (Vanity Fair, 2025; Surviving Ohio State, HBO, 2025). His conduct reflects the broader cultural and administrative failure embedded within Ohio State’s leadership.

Institutional Abuse: A Comparison to the Catholic Church

Ohio State's scandal parallels the systemic abuses and cover-ups historically associated with the Catholic Church. Both institutions exhibit prolonged periods of documented abuse, extensive knowledge among leadership, and systematic efforts to suppress and minimize accountability. The breadth and institutional nature of Ohio State’s abuses resonate disturbingly with the Catholic Church’s notorious history of strategic suppression.

Legal Precedents and Consequences

Ohio State faces extensive legal liabilities, the full extent of which may be realized only if the institution formally admits responsibility. Such an admission would act as a legal accelerant, triggering a cascade of civil actions previously deferred or dismissed. The potential claims include, but are not limited to:

• Negligent Retention and Supervision: OSU could be held liable for knowingly retaining Dr. Strauss despite documented complaints dating back to 1979. An admission of this fact establishes direct negligence, removing any defense rooted in plausible deniability.

• Wrongful Death Claims: Although there are no publicly confirmed suicides directly attributed to Strauss's abuse, institutional admission could substantiate allegations that psychological trauma led to fatal outcomes. Courts have historically recognized this causal chain, awarding settlements between $1.5 million and $5 million in similar cases involving the Catholic Church and Michigan State (Nassar/MSU Settlement Data, 2018).

• Constructive Dismissal and Retaliation: Any acknowledgement that athletes were penalized, ignored, or pressured into silence would expose OSU to claims of retaliatory dismissal. This is particularly relevant in light of survivor testimony alleging they were pushed out of programs or lost scholarships after speaking up.

• Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Family members of victims—especially those whose lives were derailed due to institutional inaction—could pursue significant compensatory claims. Courts have historically awarded between $200,000 and $1 million per plaintiff depending on the demonstrated extent of trauma.

• Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Title IX Violations: A formal admission would obliterate OSU’s defense in future Title IX proceedings and open the door to massive federal scrutiny. Such exposure invites class action suits under both federal civil rights and educational equity statutes.

Of particular concern is Strauss’s pioneering role in the introduction of anabolic steroid use within Ohio State athletics—a practice reportedly encouraged under the guise of performance optimization during the 1980s and early 1990s. Former athletes have described systematic access to performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) provided directly or indirectly through Strauss’s medical authority (Surviving Ohio State, 2025). While the university has never admitted institutional endorsement of steroid programs, the correlation between Strauss’s medical domain and the surge in athletic performance and injuries raises legitimate legal questions regarding coerced enhancement, long-term health consequences, and the university’s ethical obligations. Admission of this dynamic would expand Ohio State’s liability beyond sexual misconduct, introducing the potential for toxic exposure claims, informed consent violations, and permanent physiological damage cases.

If OSU were to admit fault across these categories, the institution would likely face a volume of litigation sufficient to rival or exceed the settlements reached by Michigan State ($1.1 billion). Coupled with public pressure to waive NDAs, OSU could find itself vulnerable to reopened cases and new claims. In theory, the cumulative liability could exceed several hundred million dollars, posing a genuine threat to its operational liquidity, bond ratings, and even long-term solvency if endowment protections were challenged.

In legal terms, admission of responsibility is not merely a moral threshold — it is a liability accelerant, converting latent risk into actionable claims with an exponentially higher damage profile. Thus, OSU’s current defensive posture is not just a PR tactic but a financial triage strategy aimed at forestalling institutional catastrophe.

The Sobering Reality: Institutional Betrayal Personified

In summary, Ohio State University holds a profoundly troubling distinction — not merely excelling athletically but becoming an exemplar of systemic institutional failure and betrayal. The persistent silence, systemic gaslighting, and insufficient compensation starkly illustrate the institution's prioritization of self-preservation over accountability. Ohio State has not merely matched its notorious institutional counterparts; it has decisively surpassed them.

The banner to unfurl, therefore, is bleak yet fitting:

"Ohio State: Leading the Nation in Institutional Betrayal."

For at OSU, it appears the pursuit of victory justifies any cost especially when borne by others.

Sources:

• Perkins Coie Report, 2019

• OSU Crime Logs & Annual Security Reports

• NBC News, ESPN, Axios, The Guardian, Vanity Fair (Surviving Ohio State, HBO, 2025)

• Michigan State & Penn State settlements

• Catholic Church abuse settlement data