David Daniels faces the sack

David Daniels faces the sack


norman lebrecht

July 19, 2019

The University of Michigan has initiated a process to dismiss Professor David Daniels, the countetenor who has been arrested in Texas for alleged rape.

He has been on paid leave for 11 months since he was accused by a former student of raping a Rice University student together with William A. Scott Walters, who is Daniels’s husband.

Latest report here.



  • Older Person says:

    Roce University?

  • JasonK says:

    Part of this headline is incorrect. Daniels was placed on paid leave after one of his former students at the U. of Michigan accused him of
    a continued pattern of sexual harassment.
    The Houston case was not directly connected to the Michigan case.

  • Reynaldo says:

    The University of Michigan has a lot of explaining to do in this matter. The current story reveals that several students complained about David Daniels’ sexually harassing behavior months before he was granted tenure, and apparently the University did nothing. What on earth were they thinking?????? Ridiculous!!!!!

  • Cantantelirico says:

    The question is: why did they wait so long? Professor???
    Ask for a refund.

  • Pat Tatum says:

    I believe it is Rice University.

  • Nightowl says:

    Sack O fries, already faced, based on the picture to the left…

  • V. Lind says:

    I assume that’s Rice University.

  • AlooneyTune says:

    RICE* University… not ROCE… Shake. My. Head.

  • Opera singer says:


  • Doug says:

    Retired attorney here.

    This is a nothing sandwich.

    University of Michigan is in PR damage control mode. Realistically, they are going to have to buy him out – tenure is greatly misunderstood by those commenting.

    Buying someone out is a long process and it requires extensive negotiating, as it is not a “termination”.

    With regard to Houston and Sam Schultz:

    It would behoove many of you to read the Constitution. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Daniels has yet to be indicted in Houston, much less convicted.

    Without an indictment, there will be no trial and the Schultz case will be dropped. So, let’s see what the grand-jury (yet to be convened) has to say about whether or not there is enough evidence to bring this case to trial – in my opinion, there’s not. We shall see.

    In the event the Schultz case goes to trial, the state has the burden of proof, not Daniels. The allegations will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove. Schultz waited too long.

    PS – get an editor – the typos in this article are embarrassing.

    • Guest says:

      I imagine it took some time for Schultz to summon the courage needed to take action. It’s even more difficult for men to report sexual misconduct than it is for women.

      • Paul Brownsey says:

        “It’s even more difficult for men to report sexual misconduct than it is for women.”

        I wonder why it’s difficult in either case. There seems to be no such problem in calling the police if you’ve been robbed.

        • Guest says:

          Victims of sexual misconduct often fear retaliation if they go to police, not just by the perpetrator but by society at large.

          In fact, 80% of victims don’t report such crimes. Here are some of the reasons:

          They lose their privacy.
          They think no one will believe them.
          Their names will be dragged through the mud.
          Their motives are questioned.
          They fear professional consequences.
          They blame themselves.

          When people are robbed, they’re not generally blamed for their assault.

          • Amanda says:

            What if Schultz is lying? Will you all stand up and advocate for Daniels? Schultz better have proof of his “robbery,” otherwise he’s destroyed two peoples lives for attention. Doesn’t anyone find it curious he got managment and elected to AGMA after this — nothing to gain he said. Let’s see the facts instead of believing one or the other. The click-bait of this whole thing is embarrassing.

        • Stuart Burns says:

          Mr Brownsey, Sir: This has got to be one of the most ignorant tone-deaf comments concerning the subject of sexual assault I have ever heard. (Setting aside the the monumental consideration of innocence or guilt of the accused parties for a moment)…
          The very fact that you would equate RAPE with a robbery just shows that the complexities surrounding the traumatic experience of sexual assault are not even a blip on your life’s radar screen. Mr. Brownsey, in the future you should think twice before posting about a topic concerning something with which you are obviously so grossly ignorant & ill-informed.

    • Saxon Broken says:

      Doug: you are wrong in law. It is a civil case so the university just has to show there are “reasonable grounds” and the case is judged on the “balance-of-probabilities” using the university’s disciplinary procedures. It would be very difficult to overturn it in the civil courts.

      Of course, they might want to pay Daniels some money to go quietly; but if several people go “on the record” in making an accusation, he stands little chance of winning his case.

    • Dbrel says:

      The indictment in TX occurred a few days ago. The case is going to trial. They have both medical records and therapist’s records from 2010 when the incident occurred. A jury in TX is going to side with the victim. FYI: I’ve known David since he was 12 yo. His father was part of the faculty at a summer music program in NC. David was always around, and even sang a few boy soprano roles during that time.

  • Crytkeeper says:

    I hope he gets a long tenure in jail.

  • The View from America says:

    Maybe this saga can result in a great new opera — with Daniels playing his own part. Art imitating life …

  • GriegEdward says:

    While Daniels might seem extremely guilty, this will likely not be an easy Verdict to deliver in a court of law. There is no hard evidence indicating which version of the night’s events are the whole and absolute truth and PROVE with even half certainty that Daniels is lying or Schultz is 100% correct about how the night went. This will be ugly and lacking in true evidence regardless the verdict. This is all so sad really.