The University of Michigan is currently fighting a lawsuit brought on by a former student who says school officials ignored his complaints when he reported being sexual abused by one of his professors. And they’re fighting dirty.
Andrew Lipian was a grad student at the School of Music, Theatre & Dance between fall 2016 and August 2018 when he claims professor and renowned opera singer David Daniels sexually harassed and assaulted him on numerous occasions.
As a general rule of thumb, an alleged victim’s sexual orientation and sexual history is not relevant in cases of sexual assault, and is supposed to be totally off-limits during legal proceedings, unless the questions are relevant to the accusations.
But lawyers for the university don’t seem to care about that. Because the Detroit Free Press reports that they just asked Lipian a series of invasive personal questions during his deposition in a slimy attempt to ferret out whether he’s a closeted gay or bisexual man.
Lawyers asked Lipian if he had ever had a “homosexual” experience, “kissed a man on the lips,” or had sex with anyone other than his wife. They also asked if he had ever discussed “sexual subjects” with the accused professor’s husband, among other things.
A list of the questions began making the rounds on social media this week.
Another @UMich-related bombshell from @reporterdavidj, this one from a case in which an accuser is suing the school. Deposition questions below.https://t.co/SI6u6NePwN pic.twitter.com/IPYnCXls9H
— KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) July 31, 2019
Daniels’ lawyer, Deborah Gordon, says the university is “blatantly playing on harmful stereotypes about the LGBTQ+ community equating same-sex relationships with indiscriminate promiscuity.”
She adds that the deposition questions show the school is “willing to ‘out’ any student who sues them.”
Meanwhile, the university says Lipian’s sexual history is fair game because his initial lawsuit claimed Daniels’ alleged conduct “could not possibly have been consensual” because the plaintiff “is heterosexual and married.”
Related: Renowned opera singer David Daniels accused of raping multiple men
IWantAFullBeard
If I was the attorney, I’d stop the deposition and ask the judge for a discovery referee.
TomG
What do you want to bet that this ex-student offered himself sexually to the professor to try and get a better grade.
Invader7
Bitch please. They’re protecting the HETERO predator professor ! The U of M’ s huge liability !!!
JaredMacBride
You don’t read well. The alleged predator is a man, married to a man. As for the university’s lawyers playing “dirty” lawsuits are a dirty business. The complaint claims the plaintiff is straight, a careless bit of drafting which makes his sexual orientation and past activities relevant. The questions weren’t improper.
Gilliflower
I think you’re confused a bit.
“Lipian’s sexual history is fair game because his initial lawsuit claimed Daniels’ alleged conduct “could not possibly have been consensual” because the plaintiff “is heterosexual and married.”
domen8r
Right. The plaintiff is Lipian. Daniels is the accused. Daniels is gay and married to a man.
Chris
I have to disagree with JaredMacBride….regardless of someone’s sexual orientation or history, no means no. Even if the answers we’re “yes“ to every single question does that mean the accusation of assault is invalid? No. If I, as a gay man, we’re assaulted by another gay man then that’s ok because we’re both gay? Or even if I were straight and assaulted by a gay man, but had a couple of sexual experiences with another man, would that invalidate my claim of being assaulted? Why don’t you ask a straight woman that question and see if she doesn’t slap your head right off of your shoulders.
jsmu
You don’t read or comprehend well AT ALL. The issue is nothing like ‘no means no.’ The issue is that the plaintiff’s STUPID lawyer opened the door to these lines of questioning by claiming the plaintiff was Mister Straight. The questions are COMPLETELY admissible. Ever occur to you that that assertion of breeder purity stinks of thinly veiled homophobia, you moron? Of course it didn’t.
Legal Expert
You are missing the point. The professor’s defense is that any contact was CONSENSUAL. Since the student is claiming that it “couldn’t have been consensual because he is straight,” the defense is entitled to challenge that assertion. This not at all about “no means no.” This is about whether the behaviors were consensual, another matter entirely.
My take? Student is a closeted gay man who is terrified of being exposed. Wait for the evidence, y’all.
botolani
I don’t know what law school the writer went to (I suspect none), but your “general rule of thumb” is total B.S.). His sexual orientation was made an issue in the case by the Plaintiff who was attempting to use his heterosexuality as “evidence of lack of consent.” You are allowed to attempt to impeach evidence presented by an accuser. In addition, this is a deposition, everything is on the table whether relevant or not, and can be excluded from presentation to the fact finder if it is LATER found to be irrelevant by a judge. The writer of this article clearly doesn’t know anything about how law suits work and is attacking a well respected public institution for having a lawyer who was doing his job and, quite frankly, would have been providing sanctionable ineffective assistance of counsel had he NOT asked these questions. Maybe in the future Queerty should hire writers who know what they are talking about rather than ones who are just trying to stir up outrage. Love always, a big homo lawyer
Michael007
Just wanted to compliment you on that well written response. Not only are you correct, but you are an excellent ‘word person’. I found your comments to be very interesting to read. So, as ‘judge’ in this case . . . . I find for . . . YOU! Ha.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
You are an actual Gay right! :-p
PoetDaddy
Are any of the people commenting on legalities here lawyers?
NateOcean
“Have you ever *lied* in a bed with…”
I’m stupid, but even I know that’s wrong.
Kangol2
You’re not stupid, and you’re correct! English is a rich and sometimes strange language.
To lie (lie down) –>
(present tense) I lie, (past simple tense) I lay, (past perfect tense) I have lain
To lay (to set something down) –>
(present tense) I lay, (past simple tense) I laid, (past perfect tense) I have laid
To lie (to tell a lie)–>
(present tense) I lie, (past simple tense) I lied, (past perfect tense) I have lied
jjose712
Dirty tricks? Sorry but this is in fact relevant, he claims their relationships couldn’t be consensual because he is straight, so if he is not really straight he is probably lying.
I don’t understand why is homophobic to ask about the accusers past when it seems more homophobic the implications of the accusations must be real because the accused is gay and the supposed victim is straight
darkanser
It’s nice to see a lively debate on an issue in Queerty!!!
notasjw
Good for the school ,when you make a serious accusation that can ruin a life and career be prepared for a fight!
Legal Expert
Amen.
Dwight
They shouldn’t be allowed to do it in any case but I wonder if they’re able to get away with it because it’s a civil case and not a criminal one.
toddfashion
100% they have something from another male he had sex with and are trying to catch him in a lie –
Brian
You read my mind.
mgconlan
I find this a disgusting story, not least because I’m a fan of David Daniels and this bothers me a lot on a personal level. But I think Andrew Lipian and his attorneys made a tactical mistake in their complaint by saying Lipian is “heterosexual and married.” Not only did this give the university an opportunity to put his own sexual history on trial, it suggests that it’s somehow more objectionable for a Gay man to rape a straight man than for a Gay man to rape a Gay man. B.S.! Rape is wrong, sexual assault is wrong, and sexual harassment is wrong regardless of the sexual orientation of either perpetrator or victim.
notasjw
What does rape have to do with this story?
TomG
What do you want to bet that this ex-student offered himself sexually to the professor to try and get a better grade.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
He said he said but because he may sleep with she what he said may not be what he said?
batesmotel
This says the University “tries” to out the student. Doesn’t sound like they were trying. It sounds like they succeeded. Now everybody knows all over social media since it’s being talked about by the media and social media hacks more than in the courtroom.
Silly Billy
From the original complaint filed by Gordan who is Lipian’s attorney, not Daniels’. (Do you at least read what you write once before you publish it?) Considering your inept writing skills, I have to wonder how you have a job? ANYWAY… It was the Plaintiff who made sexuality relevant to the complaint.
Filed in Fed Court: Case 2:18-cv-13321-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 10/24/18 PageID.5 Page 5 of 14
Item 17, and I quote “Plaintiff is heterosexual and married.”
Bitch, you can be questioned about it all day long cause you made it a thing…..
Is it conceivable that in fact the Plaintiff made some shit up, and in fact the LGBTQ people are pandering to heteronormativity because it’s easier to run with that mob? The more I’ve read about this story on other media sites the more I see Lipian trying to shake from the University of Michigan’s money tree.
– Free Thinker
Legal Expert
You are exactly right. He is also trying to shake money from the David Daniels money tree. Read your Shakespeare: the truth will out.
CJones01
Defendant could have been questioning or exploring his sexuality before discovering/realizing/deciding he was in fact straight.
Defendant could have be straight, but was engaging in gay sex acts for money or drugs.