One thing that I think stands out to those of us who find the actions of the college and its supporters tone deaf is the continued reliance on Oberlin’s version of the facts, and no seeming acknowledgement that those facts were disputed at the trial, or that others could find different witnesses believable/credible. At the end of the day, the jury got to hear both sides and made their findings as to who was right. There may be some legal issues to get sorted out on appeal, but the way the system is designed, the jury finds the facts and absent some huge error that is not apparent to me, the record is going to be that Oberlin did, in fact, condone and even participate in the protests. Further, it is highly unlikely that the jury viewed the e mail in the way that you frame it. Those are simply the facts as they are right now.
As an example of what I am talking about, the Cleveland NPR affiliate had a piece this morning on the verdict involving a local reporter and a lawyer from each side. The lawyer for Oberlin refused to engage in any questions of where the college goes from here, what the verdict means in actuality, etc. She just continual repeated the same points the college has raised throughout - it did nothing to condone or assist the protesters, they didn’t by pizza/gloves, Riamondo was not on a bull horn repeatedly, this is an assault on the first amendment, etc. Even the reporter who covered the trial said he didn’t see the case as a first amendment case, and didn’t understand why the lawyer kept re arguing the facts. He also related that his paper employed several Oberlin students as interns, and that the students have remained convinced that the Gibsons are racist and that this incident was an example of racial profiling. It was really surreal.
All that being said, I agree with you that it is unfair to paint all Oberlin students with the same “crazy SJW” brush. Oberlin has been an institution of consequence for well over a century and you should be proud that you earned the opportunity to study there. At the end of the day, this situation should not change that.
Link:
https://www.ideastream.org/programs/sound-of-ideas/impact-of-gibsons-bakery-vs-oberlin-college-case
I do agree that there might be a problem with the store having employees not in uniform as security guards tackling shoplifters. The girls may not have realized why Gibson was attacking the shoplifter when he started kicking him.
However, it is really bizarre the way Oberlin, the Oberlin Review etc. presented the whole thing. It is also obvious to most people that racism accusations have gotten out of hand, and only true liberal / radical Oberlinites would take that sort of thing at face value.
And the jury did not agree with you. The jury found the school DID condone (and participate) in the protests and interfered with the contract between Gibson’s and the caterer.
What should the college have done? Nothing. Not sent representatives to the protest. I just don’t buy that it was for the safety of the students. What could an administrator have done if the crowd had started throwing rocks? What business does the college have at a protest off campus? The college could have NOT provided coffee and gloves and pizza, just like they would NOT have provided that for a non-protest event off campus. The college could have NOT tried to negotiate favorable treatment for shoplifting students with Gibson’s. The college could have just stayed out of it. It didn’t. It participated and that’s what the jury found. You, @statecollegekid, can disagree but that won’t change the verdict.
I don’t think Oberlin was in a difficult position at all. There was no need for the school to get involved in the protests. There wasn’t even a need for Oberlin to get involved in the shoplifting incident. It was off campus, between a private citizen and a private business.
What should the college (its deans and lawyers and administrators) do now? Shut up. The statements made by the president about First Amendment issues are just plain wrong. This wasn’t a First Amendment case and her calling it one doesn’t make it so.
Yep, 5% of the students can make a big problem for the other 95% of the students, especially when backed by the administrations. It happens when fraternity boys act out even they are only 3% of the student body, it happens when an athletic director breaks the law and is fired, it happens when a murder happens on campus.
People make judgments about the school and the qualifications of its students all the time even only 5% of the students participate in the activities, good or bad. Only a tiny percentage of Oberlin students are earning jobs at Google or Fulbrights, but you want that to reflect on all Oberlin students. You get the good and the bad when you are part of a group.
Yes. The posting of emails violates ToS. If the email appears on their website, one can link/summarize.quote a few lines, but not copy and paste the entire note.
@twoinanddone @Ohiodad51 I appreciate your thoughtful opinions. At the end of the day I am arguing that this unfortunate transgression does not represent all of Oberlin, and its student body, as many people are quick to assert. I also genuinely do not think that the facts of the case were necessarily honored as the jury was selected from loraine county a highly conservative area, with little connection to the town of Oberlin and it’s dynamics, outside of skepticism of its progressiveness. Additionally, I wanted to make public my perspective as a centrist student, and a supporter of Gibsons, who experienced the whole event first hand.
" . . . . . People make judgments . . . good or bad. Only a tiny percentage of Oberlin students are earning jobs at Google or . . . . . You get the good and the bad . . . . "
" . . . . the media seems to always be looking for the bad things. . . . . I believe 5 students this year going to Google for software engineering. . . . "
In the context of ‘good and bad’ working for alphabet should be quite a thought provoking proposition for Oberlin grads.
On the left many could view that as advancing the efforts of one who is collaborating with and enabling the activities of an authoritarian regime.
From the center it could be viewed as sustaining or even expanding an existing violation of antitrust law.
The right might view it as participation in censorship and attempting to influence elections.
This is going to get walked back on appeal. According to the OP, the college was cleared of charges of “interference of business relationships”. Without that, I don’t see how you get to $11,000,000 in emotional harm.
For your own edification you may wish to wish to review the actual findings of the court.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
In case there was any misconception that compliance with my “request” to not debate was voluntary - it’s not. Let’s move it along please.
Statecollegekid asserts that the behavior we’ve witnessed in this matter “does not represent all of Oberlin, and its student body,” including self-described “centrist students” such as SCK.
What is disturbing about the facts of this matter - facts admitted as evidence at trial, ie which are no longer in dispute - is the sense that the bullying, nasty and mendacious behavior of Oberlin’s leadership makes it difficult for a thoughtful, fair-minded, sensible student to stand up against the mob.
What would be the response to a student who, in the midst of hysteria about alleged crimes of racial profiling, race-based assault, etc, stood up and argued for one or more of these foundational principles of our society?
- … devotion to the presumption of innocence;
- … a bias toward facts and evidence, ie drawing conclusions only AFTER the facts are carefully gathered and agreed upon;
- … a reluctance to judge one’s neighbors for fear of bearing false witness;
- … respect above all for due process, including and going beyond the above.
Statecollegekid - did you or anyone you know present at Oberlin in November 2016 and the months following speak out publicly in defense of any of these principles? If so, what was the reaction from others at Oberlin - students, admins, faculty?
From evidence admitted at trial, we know how Ms. Raimondo, Mr. Jones and others in the administration responded to a faculty member (Copeland, IIRC) who defended these principles.
SCK: are there any positive examples you can share?
Thank you.
That’s how the legal system works. When you are on the jury (selected from residents of the judicial district which can be a city, county, or state) you get to decide. If you are not on the jury, you get to have an opinion but it doesn’t change the verdict. If you want your opinion to matter, you have to be on the jury.
I worked in the courts in Boulder county Colorado. Liberal campus, even a liberal county (judicial district is slightly larger than Boulder county), but those who show up to jury duty? Not so liberal. Lots of engineers from IBM and small business owners. Still, I really think jurors get it right most of the time. They follow the jury instructions, they follow the evidence, they assess the witnesses and decide who they believe. This jury didn’t believe Oberlin’s witnesses.
You, as a student, don’t have to shop there. You never did. Protest with your feet.
Oberlin will not admit doing anything wrong so they will pay with both cash and reputation. Some will think the school is great and right to stand its ground and paying the money is worth it to be right, and others will think the school is too liberal and not want to pay for this judgment or a future one. Both sides will think they are right. My daughter, who was recruited by Oberlin, wouldn’t like it and wouldn’t want to pay. Other daughter might have been part of the demonstration and never has any money to pay.
@thibault
Many of us spoke up about our thoughts on the matter. There was no pressure from the school against arguing for any of the principles you mentioned. Those of us who did not participate in the protest did so, for belief in the principles listed. Ultimately the protest was run by a group of motivated and mislead students. However, it was very difficult to convince students involved of their wrongdoing. It was a crazy time, and very few people knew what the facts of the case were. Many of the protestors took on the mentality: “If we don’t know the all of facts then it is best for us to choose the side against potential racism.” Honestly, I am a bit appalled by Ms Raimondo, I have met her and she seemed to be a kind hearted lady. It surprises me that she said such unthoughtful remarks during this sensitive time. Not to justify anything, but everyone was reeling after Trumps election, many people were looking for a tangible way to oppose everything he represents. Gibsons unfortunately became this outlet, as white male run business that had control over much of the real-estate of the town. Gibson rightfully coming after an African American theft did not go over well, during this hyper-sensitive time.
There was always a big community of people opposed to this protest, and I believe Krislov and most of his administration shared this sentiment. Most of the faculty disregarded or actively opposed the protest, I know the chair of the computer science department had a support Gibsons sign in his lawn.
I’m not sure how well this answered your question.
@statecollegekid
, if you think Lorain County is a “highly conservative” county, it is unlikely you are anywhere near the center of the US’ political spectrum. Lorain County has been reliably Democratic my entire life, and there is only one Republican holding county office.
And quite honestly, saying this happened because a bunch of kids threw a temper tantrum after not getting their way in a presidential election kinda makes the opposite point of the one you are asserting
A jury trial doesn’t end with “findings”. That’s why we’re having such a protracted discussion. It’s anyone’s guess what the jury was thinking when they attached an $11,000,000 sum to “emotional suffering.”
The $11M wasn’t for ‘emotional suffering.’ They didn’t breakout all of the award, but the value of lost business over 30 years was $5.5M (that was the testimony), some for physical injury, etc. The $33M in punitives is based in part on the testimony of the accountant from Oberlin, that the college has an endowment of over $800M and then some value to the physical assets of the college.
“The $11M wasn’t for ‘emotional suffering.’ They didn’t breakout all of the award, but the value of lost business over 30 years was $5.5M (that was the testimony), some for physical injury, etc.”
The plaintiffs’ brief linked in post #382 gives a breakdown of the award. It also indicates that certain portions will be subject to legal caps, though the actual impact of those is still disputed.
The jury interrogatives paint an explicit picture.
This is from a blog on Oberlin’s official website. Are they continuing to libel the bakery?