@gratefulalum it’s a defamation and libel lawsuit. Free speech doesn’t protect lies. I hope it isn’t reversed because it’s important to send a message that it’s not ok to falsely accuse and label people and businesses just because it’s “in vogue” to do so.
I agree that the damages were excessive. That business wasn’t worth $35K, but it also wasn’t worth the $11M in actual damages. However, the jury was obviously fed up with Oberlin’s behavior and was sending a message. If Oberlin returns to its senses, it will settle for a lot less than the $33M.
@gratefulalum several years back you posted “Oberlin’ s galvanized small voice will join a sea of others in opposition to the possible ruin of this country, just as it did in opposition to slavery. Other student bodies will be galvanized to get drunk for the football weekend. It’s a matter of values.”.
Hard to walk back the potential impact of a “galvanized Oberlin” after such a statement. Given your view of Oberlin as a standard bearer for social change wouldn’t you agree that they are capable of destroying a business and running it out of town and into bankruptcy? In 30 years they will still be out of business.
Similarly in malpractice wrongful death cases they calculate the entirety of future income. Oberlin killed Gibson and wrongfully labeled the family name as racist. They used their instution to coordinate the effort, threatened to “unleash” the students on those that objected and to this day don’t acknowledge wrongdoing.
When you say “it’s a matter of values”, do Oberlin’s values include setting back race relations as now any person of color who accurately and truthfully claims they are being profiled could have the Oberlin case thrown back at them to discredit their story?
If the initial narrative had been accurate more power to Oberlin for advocating for the students. It wasn’t however, and Oberlin was supposed to act like the adult in the room. At a minimum they now have a moral obligation to admit they were wrong but instead we hear crickets, and assertions the award is just to big. Where are their values?
Don’t forget that the BoT is comprised of like-minded people. (A Trustee even paid for one of the shoplifter’s go home to obtain legal counsel.) Not much diversity of thought in a group-think situation. However, that big figure HAS to give them pause (for something).
Although I have little sympathy for Oberlin’s administration because I think they did the wrong thing, I do think they were stuck between a rock and a hard place, that is, between Gibson’s and a very activist student body. My guess is that if they had not thrown their unconditional support behind students who had been, in the (mis)understanding of much of the student body, victims of racial profiling, there would likely have been widespread campus protests and calls for their heads on a platter. Perhaps they wanted to ignore the whole issue and sweep it under the rug and they thought this was an appropriate way to do it. As they’re now learning it was not.
Some voices in this controversy have expressed a concern about the rise of a virulent sjw ethos. Extremists of all bents are to be found in academia and the student throng. I find the anarchists and their ideology some of the most entertaining. The left and right and single issue blocs are passe in a multigenerational context.
What continues to be disturbing is the current degree of tribalism present in all these various persuasions. In what has previously been (in the west) a highly individualistic society rooted in self there is now an almost en masse surrender to the group and its mantra. One of the most cathartic aspects of post wwii America is that virtually every institution was questioned right down to and including its foundation. Individuality and self sufficiency were the highest virtues.
The lack of inquiry and personal accountability coupled with their drone like nature makes today’s protester a mere caricature of those of the '60’s. Education is making great strides in indoctrination.
Did the president, board of trustees, or any official pronouncement of the college, ever call Gibson’s racist? Some students did, some faculty members online did, and Raimondo(after the fact). They are not the same as the college. This could be a dangerous precedent, that employees and students who express their own opinions could subject their schools and employers to liability. I agree that those people who committed untrue defamation could be sued and subjected to damages. As I said before, some people in town thought Gibsons engaged in profiling, and witnesses should have been presented by the defense at trial. Truth is a defense.
The bottom line is that liability of the college was dubious, but possible. The jury went wild on the damages.
Dangerous indeed - for libelers.
Sorry, but “thought(s)” (aka opinions) are not fact, and not “truth”. No judge is gonna allow a parade of witnesses who only have their ‘thoughts’ that Gibson is a profiler. Hearesay is not fact, not truth. And not admissible.
If the defense would have had any townspeople (or students, for that matter) with actual evidence of profiling I have no doubt that they would have brought it up. The fact that they could not find anyone is extremely telling, IMO.
@gratefulalum please read my post #65 which includes the actual testimony. The school was an active participant in furthering the false narrative. Raimondo is still there and the school has neither admitted any fault or done anything to mitigate the harm they inflicted.
As for damages the Gibson name is forever tarnished and their business is gone. Wouldn’t justice prescribe Oberlins name be tarnished and their business impacted?
As a progressive I strongly view schools such as Oberlin as having the potential and to a certain degree obligation to positively influence social change. With this capacity comes great responsibility to not act recklessly and do harm to the credibility of these just causes. I fear Oberlin had forever now taken themselves out of any meaningful discussions by not acting responsibly initially, not acknowledging fault, and apparently not punishing those accountable.
If this drags on for years and stays in the news, which I am sure it will because the Gibsons will make sure it does if not settled, this could have a far more catastrophic effect on Oberlin then 40 million dollars.
I realize they are a long ways away from Hampshire’s situation, but they were also running a deficit before this happened. This is going to hurt their applications, and it’s going to require more scholarship money to get the same caliber of students. Best case scenario they pay up some negotiated amount and this hurts them for one or two cycles. If they decide to drag this on for years in litigation it is going to continue to weigh on them.
I don’t see a scenario that involves protracted litigation and keeping the administration in place but does not also involve substantial financial problems and a substantial and permanent prestige and ranking drop for Oberlin starting in a few years. Even with their large endowment, if they continue down this path they may have to make substantial changes to the college if they expect it to still exist in any form 20 years from now.
@dadof4kids " I am sure it will because the Gibsons will make sure it does if not settled:"
The Gibsons have a huge incentive to settle, because getting $10M in a settlement is better for them than maybe getting $33M, but maybe getting $500K or nothing.
I am pretty sure this case wasn’t settled before trial because Oberlin didn’t want to admit to anything.
Most law firms have investigators, and the defense law firm should have investigated the allegations of racist behavior by Gibsons. The administrators and faculty members who made the comments which were introduced as evidence, are academics, and are trained to believe in the truth. They would not have developed their attitudes about Gibsons, unless they had either witnessed something, or had reliable sources.
At one time, Gibsons was a beloved store in the two-block downtown area of Oberlin, a small town of about 8500 residents. When we were students, we used to get drinks, candy, and doughnuts there. It is just a few doors from the Oberlin Conservatory, and a large part of its business is from people associated from the college… People are saying that the college destroyed Gibsons. There would not have been a Gibsons where it is, without patronage from people at the college.
Over the years, some incidents must have happened to cause the comments by the faculty, students, and administrators. Good investigators would have found eyewitnesses to the incidents, and the defense lawyers should have put them on the stand. There must have been a decision not to do so, and rely on a defense that what the students did was separate from the college itself.
In response to #169, Raimondo and any other administrator could not have stopped the students from demonstrating, posting signs or leaflets, or otherwise control them, except for discipline for violating college rules. She tried saying this at the trial. She was an adviser, and she is not a lawyer. The people who run the college are the president and the board. Did former president Krislov or president Ambar make any comments about Gibsons being racist, or were they aware of any conspiracy to destroy the store? They testified in the case. Absolutely not.
The college stopped buying from Gibson’s for a short period after the incident, until the facts became known. Then, it started buying their products again, and the relationship was being restored to where it was before. This wasn’t good enough for the Gibsons, so they retained a lawyer and started a lawsuit. Then, their business fell off of a cliff, because the college, its students, and its supporters in the public did not want to patronize a business which was suing their employer or beloved college. If the Gibsons had lost, the store probably would have closed. Now, it may still close, and the Gibsons can live off of their damages.
@gratefulalum so your conclusion is Oberlin’s lawyers and investigators acted poorly, Gibson’s acted poorly based on undocumented or nonrevealed “events” that led faculty members to develop their negative “attitudes” about the business and the jury acted poorly in their weighing of the evidence. I can’t seem to find you pointing to any responsibility on the part of Oberlin?
You go on to state “There would not have been a Gibsons where it is, without patronage from people at the college.”
Seemingly suggesting that Oberlin made Gibsons so they are entitled to destroy it. I suspect the people who founded Gibson took risks by investing capital and labor for years upon years while serving the needs of the schools students. Pretty obscene for anyone to diminish their entrepreneurial spirt and success in the manner you suggest.
You also ask if the President ever called Gibson’s racist…no instead he choose to stay quiet and let Miss Raimondo act as the de facto spoke person for the school. He never stepped in and said let’s get the facts and then respond in a measured fashion. The President of an institution should not get credit for abdicating their responsibilities and prevent the student body under his care from being used as a weapon by his subordinates.
So a question what should Oberlin have done differently or is the school now just a victim?
The protests were all about holding Gibson’s accountable for alleged actions…How and which actions should Oberlin be accountable to?
1 Like
@gratefulalum
Or maybe some of the animus comes from the fact that 3 Oberlin students beat up a member of the Gibson family and then claimed he was racist and the College’s response was to help pay for the students’ defense. A trustee is a representative of the College.
@Nocreativity1 wrote:
^This.
Plus, the act of pulling their business from Gibson’s could easily be seen as a means of signaling that Oberlin’s administration gave credence to the allegations of racism. After all, this would lead one to ask, if the bakery was not at fault why would Oberlin explicitly discontinue their business relationship?
And in case anyone missed this…
@#173.
Interesting that you self identify as progressive.
[I’ve been described in some circles as a little to the right of Attila the Hun.]
I’ve reviewed three of your posts in detail (quite interesting) and found no indication of political orientation other than your proclamation.
You reaffirm my faith in the future of discourse.
There was no “racial” incidents. None, zero, nada.
What happen to cause the faculty and administrators to make the claim? Think back to what was happening at Oberlin around this time. The school already had problems with minority students’ perception of the school. A 14-page list of demands was released by the Black Student Union in December of 2015.
During the trail, Gibson lawyers made the case that Raimondo and others did these things to Gibson to appease the students, for the school to be thought of as treating minority students better. Raimondo and the others denied this, but it makes sense to me (and the jury, it seems).
When reading the following, keep in mind that several witnesses had already testified that Raimondo appeared to be leading the students, directing them with a bullhorn, handing out flyers, etc.
Do you have any facts or data sources to show that the defense firm did not investigate the allegations?
In response, I would have handled the case differently if I had been legal counsel for Oberlin.
I find it hard to believe that Gibsons never did anything wrong to receive the animosity from students, faculty, and administrators that it did. There must have been incidents giving rise to this.
I think the Oberlin students were wrong to demonstrate when they did, and pass out the leaflets labeling the store racist, I think the student council was wrong is adopting its resolutions.
If Raimondo and others called the store racist, and this was untrue, then they can be held liable. The college never authorized this. Apparently, she passed out some leaflets, and the college never authorized that.The college probably should have disciplined her by demotion. She probably has tenure, and could not be fired. But, Kirslov ended his presidency in June, 2017, and the transition I assume stopped any discipline of anyone.
The college was correct in temporarily stopping business with Gibsons, restoring the relationship, and then stopping it after the lawsuit was filed.
No, I don’t think the college should be held liable for the actions of the students and Raimondo.
I never said that because Gibsons was supported by people associated with the college for decades, the college was free to destroy it. Gibsons itself destroyed the relationship when it started its lawsuit.
President Krislov is a wonderful man, was a hands-on administrator, and thoroughly examined the facts of the case. He did not abdicate anything. I think he said at trial, that he reached out to Gibsons to work something out. He was not there when the lawsuit was filed.
I would agree with you if it was only the students acting on their own volition, but strongly disagree that Obi is not responsible for Raimondo’s actions.
She is one of the top officers of the College and she has a legal responsibility to be aware that her actions reflect on the College. Moreover, she has to know that if she is acting in her capacity of an Officer of the College (Dean of Students) and working with the Students to foment libel/defamation, then the College is definitely responsible for her actions. The President could have asked her to tone it down but he did not. The PR/Comm officer could have asked her to tone it down, and if she did not, the PR/Comm officer should have gone to the Prez and asked him to order her to tone it down. Ditto the GC.
So, no question, the College is responsible. They put her in a position of power/authority and if she breaks the law while doing her job, her employer is just as responsible as she.
This is no different than a senior exec of a corporation.
Then he HAD to know that what she was doing was wrong. If he failed to ask his GC for legal advice, shame on him. If he received bad advice from teh GC, well, he hired/is responsible for the GC being in that position, so the buck still stops with him.