What did the Perkins Coie report say about staff awareness of Richard Strauss at Ohio State?
Executive summary
The Perkins Coie independent investigation concluded that Dr. Richard Strauss sexually abused at least 177 male students and that university personnel had “knowledge of complaints and concerns” about his conduct as early as 1979 but repeatedly failed to investigate or act meaningfully [1] [2]. The report also recorded important caveats: much of the finding relied on survivor testimony and contemporaneous records that were available, and investigators did not find documentary evidence that coaching staff broadly received formal complaints—creating a distinction between perceived awareness and documentary proof [3] [4].
1. What Perkins Coie said, in plain terms
Perkins Coie concluded that Strauss committed acts of sexual abuse against at least 177 students during his employment and that university employees “had knowledge of complaints and concerns about Strauss’ conduct as early as 1979” yet failed to meaningfully investigate or stop him [1] [2]. The university released the 182‑page Perkins Coie report in May 2019 and thousands of pages of related records; the firm conducted hundreds of interviews and reviewed tens of thousands of documents in reaching that conclusion [5] [4].
2. Where “awareness” was specifically placed
The investigators located evidence that knowledge of rumors, complaints and concerns existed within parts of the university—especially Student Health Services and some athletics personnel—rather than a single, well‑documented, campus‑wide reporting chain [6] [4]. Perkins Coie reported that many survivors believed Strauss’s behavior was an “open secret” and that they had told coaches, trainers or other staff, but the report also noted a lack of contemporaneous documentary proof showing those staff formally received complaints [3] [7].
3. The survivor testimony vs. contemporaneous documentary evidence tension
A central tension in the report is method: investigators relied heavily on survivor accounts corroborated “as best they could” with existing contemporaneous records and staff interviews, but those records were incomplete and some files were confidential or redacted, limiting corroboration [3] [8]. Perkins Coie therefore framed findings based on patterns—multiple survivor statements and available records pointing to longstanding awareness—while acknowledging that documentary evidence directly placing complaints in coaches’ hands was limited [4] [3].
4. Redactions, unsealed testimony, and later disclosures that complicated the picture
Portions of the investigative record remained redacted because of state medical‑board confidentiality, and later releases—such as unsealed court testimony and subsequent ordered disclosures of interview notes—added context that suggested administrators and some staff may have known more than earlier public summaries showed [2] [9] [10]. Survivors’ groups and later court rulings pushed for fuller access to Perkins Coie’s interview materials to clarify the breadth of staff awareness and the university’s response [10] [11].
5. What Perkins Coie did not, or could not, definitively prove
Perkins Coie stated it did not identify contemporaneous documentary evidence proving that all members of coaching staff or certain administrators received formal complaints, which opponents of some public characterizations seized on to contest particular accusations [3]. At the same time, the firm explicitly found that employees “were aware” of complaints and concerns as early as 1979 and that the university did not meaningfully act or report Strauss to law enforcement at the time—an institutional failing the report attributed to multiple layers of the university [6] [2].
6. How to reconcile the report’s conclusions and its limits
The Perkins Coie report combines a finding of institutional knowledge and failure with methodological restraint: it documents patterns of survivor testimony and some staff acknowledgment that point to awareness, while noting gaps in contemporaneous paperwork and redactions that limit direct documentary proof for some specific staff members or coaches [4] [3]. Subsequent unsealing of testimony and court orders for more materials have since been used by survivors’ attorneys to argue that the full record will show broader staff awareness than the redacted, public summary could demonstrate [9] [10].