I found it ironic that the Oberlin Review has this cautionary language for those wishing to comment on its article - “The Review does not allow comments containing profanity, foul language, personal attacks, hate speech, or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous”
Oberlin tried the arguments laid out in the articles listed above-that this is a free speech case; that Ramando was just at the protest to “protect” the students, that none of the emails mattered, that Gibson’s must be racist, etc. They had several lawyers and more than a month of court time to persuade a jury that their version of events was so. They failed, miserably. Continuing to make the same argument in the larger culture seems a bit misguided to me.
@#240
Well spotted.
I’ve noted earlier that they don’t seem to receive many comments. I wonder why that is. Is there a forum or venue where students regularly express their selves? Is there a staff pulpit? For an institution that prides its self in expression they appear relatively silent - particularly so of recent. Are they self censoring? Are they being muted? Is there any diversity of thought on the campus with regard to this matter. The lone dissenting instructor was the object of scorn in at least one communication. Do those affected now lack the chutzpah to speak?
@ivycover, Wilson tries to argue that Oberlin was within its rights to stop doing business with Gibson’s since a company can decide to end a business relationship if they wish to do so, but he ignores the fact that what Oberlin in fact did was to interfere with Gibson’s contract with Bon Appetit. Oberlin would have been within their legal rights to cancel the Bon Appetit contract (although Bon Appetit may have sued them if the couldn’t show cause for the cancellation) but they were not legally allowed to interfere with Gibson’s relationship with Bon Appetit.
Not misguided at all. If you tell a lie long enough, people are going to believe you and have public’s opinions sway towards the college.
@#243
Has the food service company been named in any action by the bakery? If they indeed acquiesced to the defendant’s demand did their termination of their arrangement with the bakery create some type of breach? I’m curious if any such arrangement was reduced to writing, what its terms might have been and if it was introduced into evidence at trial. This matter has many layers.
And lastly paying homage to “the grassy knoll” adherents:
What about the 4th assailant?
Yes, I’m curious as to why the 4th assailant, who according to reports was kicking Allyn Gibson when he was on the ground, has never been identified. Perhaps the Oberlin police and Gibson’s didn’t want to open a whole 'nother can of worms if Allyn wasn’t confident he could identify the 4th student.
For a little levity I always like to turn to the Onion. 
Interesting article in Salon on Oberlin SJWs
https://www.salon.com/2019/06/18/why-do-conservatives-hate-oberlin-so-much/
The contract between Bon Appetit and Oberlin was presented to the court, although I do not know if it was provided to the jury. The issue in regards to the tortuous interference claim is that while the contract for baked goods was between Bon Appetit and Gibson’s, the contract between Bon Appetit and Oberlin stated that Bon Appetit was an agent of the college, and did not have discretion to make contracting decisions. The college therefore argued that under agency principles, they could not tortuously interfere with a contract to which they were effectively a party (through their agent). Under that theory, the college could only be held to answer for damages under a theory of breach of contract, which would basically limit the damages to a straight calculation of lost sales. Judge Miraldi rejected that theory. It should also be stated that it is likely a case can be made that the college’s actions (as found by the jury) in defaming the school and supporting the protests tortiously interfered with prospective business the college does with others (sales to the general public), so how important the Bon Appetit/Oberlin contract is in the final analysis is unclear.
Also, @ivycover, are you seeing somewhere that the 4th person identified by David Gibson in the body cam video is being actively sought by the police? I don’t think you should assume that because a forth person was mentioned at the time of the arrest but only three people were charged means that there is still an open issue. It would take a bit more than simply identifying someone to support a charging decision.
Has this been posted? It contains video of the protests at Gibson’s:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-struggle-continues-oberlin-college-may-not-be-done-with-gibsons-bakery-just-yet/
“Yes, I’m curious as to why the 4th assailant, who according to reports was kicking Allyn Gibson when he was on the ground, has never been identified. Perhaps the Oberlin police and Gibson’s didn’t want to open a whole 'nother can of worms if Allyn wasn’t confident he could identify the 4th student”
Concur.
This is why I previously mentioned identification via crowd sourcing and social media. A suspect in a Berkley assault, aka “bike lock guy”, was reportedly identified by this process.
It’s a stretch but I’m curious if the code of conduct requires assistance from students or staff in this matter. As small as the community is and with the number of people present it is almost a certainty that his identity is known by more than a few.
If not acting in concert with the trio his participation takes on another character and is much less nuanced.
This is strictly rhetorical:
Would it be entirely too much to ask that someone “step up” and now identify this individual?
@#248
" . . . . I don’t think you should assume that because a forth person was mentioned at the time of the arrest but only three people were charged means that there is still an open issue. . . . "
I assume little other than the veracity and accuracy of the witness.
Could you venture the applicable term of the statute of limitations for the criminal aspect of this matter? Would the filing period for a civil action not toll if the contemplated defendant eluded apprehension and identification? Thanks in advance for your considered opinion.
The civil action wouldn’t toll any criminal statute of limitations. The Ohio statute of limitations on a felony is six years, and on a regular misdemeanor, two years. Conceivably, the person mentioned by Gibson on the body cam video could be charged with felony battery, so the felony statute would still be “live”. But that isn’t the point I am making.
My point is that there needs to be a pretty high level of evidence before the prosecutor will charge someone. The three individuals who were charged here were all observed by police beating up another individual and were detained at the scene. There was a contemporaneous positive identification of one of them who had attempted to steal from the store. None of those things can be said about the fourth person. Hypothetically, it is possible that after the altercation, one of the students who was arrested or interviewed identified an individual who is believed to be this fourth person, but the police and the prosecutor’s office did not feel there was sufficient grounds to charge that person because neither of the Gibson’s could positively ID the person and he (or she) was not detained at the scene. Without at least one of those two things, proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would be very hard. Make sense?
@#252
Thank you for responding. ic
“The civil action wouldn’t toll any criminal statute of limitations. The Ohio statute of limitations on a felony is six years, and on a regular misdemeanor, two years. Conceivably, the person mentioned by Gibson on the body cam video could be charged with felony battery, so the felony statute would still be “live”. But that isn’t the point I am making.”
As a civil matter against the “mythical 4th kicker” - It may survive any limitation of filing period as he purportedly removed himself from scene with what could effectively be argued as a goal of concealing his identity.
“My point is that there needs to be a pretty high level of evidence before the prosecutor will charge someone. The three individuals who were charged here were all observed by police beating up another individual and were detained at the scene. There was a contemporaneous positive identification of one of them who had attempted to steal from the store. None of those things can be said about the fourth person. Hypothetically, it is possible that after the altercation, one of the students who was arrested or interviewed identified an individual who is believed to be this fourth person, but the police and the prosecutor’s office did not feel there was sufficient grounds to charge that person because neither of the Gibson’s could positively ID the person and he (or she) was not detained at the scene. Without at least one of those two things, proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would be very hard. Make sense?”
Your point certainly makes sense.
Without the existence of conclusive digital imagery it may be a bar too high. And this is why the saga of “bike lock guy” and a second Berkley suspect (in another case) are so compelling.
Both were caught on video in commission of their respective crimes. Both fled. Both were reportedly later identified with the assistance of social media networking.
No creativity - I agree with your sentiments- bu I think it misleading to refer to the hard left contingent at Oberlin as liberal. I would hazard that many at Oberlin are liberal, with respect for individual rights and that facts matter to questions of justice. In other words, good neighbors. This does not apply to the hard left contingent, a group that is narrow minded, intolerant and entitled. I find the Salon article humorous. I don’t think the relevant issue is what Conservatives think. Rather what matters is that Oberlin has a shaky and fragile business model at prices and offerings which in many cases cause negative socioeconomic mobility. The last thing the school administrators should have done is adopt an inaccurate identity politics narrative, refuse to relent thereafter. And the facts as they dribble out make things worse. The kid who shoplifted the wine it turns out is a graduate of Phillips Andover, one of the most privileged places on earth. This is the guy who the students went on their snowflake rage for? This insanity all for the list price of 72 thousand a year? Matriculation numbers will be down. Flawed models can work for a time, until they don’t.
Ohiodad51 - Don’t try to teach your kids how to research.
I agree with @willowglen. A lot of liberal college students, myself included, would prefer to not be lumped in with whatever’s happening at Oberlin. Advocating for social justice (which I totally sympathize with) does NOT have to entail libeling and defaming business owners who did nothing wrong in this instance. It only serves to distract from real, concrete social issues.
The sources for some of the information presented here is almost comical. I’ll comment on Oberlin’s role and their blame which is significant later but some facts:
My son’s class of 2020 had an acceptance rate of 28%, last year it was higher but they also enrolled more students then they had as a goal because of a slightly lower yield the year before. The point someone made that “we’ll see if they stay at 33%” Completely missed the point of the earlier writer. Of course they may have to up it, but the point was that they have to room to do so. It’s not like they are accepting 75% now. They could up it to 45% and still be pretty selective. And they are not down 170 students. They actually had a larger class last year. Some folks need to look at actual stats not websites that no one has ever heard of.
@bluebayou and how is that different than most other schools. My son was accepted at Hamilton. They don’t do merit aid yet about 50% receive massive financial aid.
@Sue22 - And Oberlin is no different than any other school in the NCAC. Due to shifting demographics, much few students in the midwest due to population drain they all offer significant merit aid to many students.