The $11 Million Libel Verdict Against Oberlin College Is A Threat To Colleges Nationwide

AR10ShooterinNC

AR10ShooterinNC

Happy to be here
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
13,467
Location
High Point
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evange...a-threat-to-colleges-nationwide/#182c2ba2534b


An Ohio jury has awarded Gibson’s Bakery $11 million in damages in its libel suit against Oberlin College. This week, that same jury could award punitive damages that would increase the total amount of damages to more than $30 million. This all stems from an incident in November 2016 when three African American Oberlin students entered Gibson’s and were suspected of trying to steal liquor. A physical altercation resulted. Although the students all eventually pled guilty, many Oberlin students believed that Gibson’s racially profiled those students and used excessive force against one of the students.

Things got heated quickly. The Oberlin Student Senate passed a resolution stating: "Gibson's has a history of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment of students and residents alike." Students protested outside of the store. As described by Inside Higher Education: “students . . . organized a protest in which more than 100 people demonstrated outside the bakery. Students carried signs accusing the bakery owners of white supremacy or simply saying ‘F-ck Gibson's.’ Protesters chanted ‘Gibson's is racist’ and handed out pamphlets urging customers not to buy from the bakery and accused the bakery of a history of racism.”
 
Gibson’s attorneys made numerous attempts to show that statements by students and professors somehow represent statements by Oberlin itself. None of these arguments are convincing. The student senate is not controlled by the college and allowing the senate to post its resolution on college property is not tantamount to an official endorsement of that resolution. To hold otherwise would force colleges to proactively censor student governments.

Nope. You censor speakers from speaking on campus in the name of not representing the culture and ideals of the college.

Therefore you have decreed (by not allowing them) that allowing opinions on your property is endorsing them. You can’t have it both ways.
 
Following quote from the article explains the risk.

“The college should not be held legally responsible for statements made by students or faculty who are not speaking for the college as a whole. It is extremely dangerous to expect a college to censor its students, staff or faculty, especially about an important issue such as racism. Punishing the college with huge economic sanctions for a student protest or a student senate resolution does exactly that. This verdict, if it isn’t reversed by an appellate court, provides a powerful incentive for universities to punish and restrict controversial speech.”

If it turns out that the college did not make libelous statements, that the students and some student organizations did, then the college should likely not be found responsible. I presume that the jury was aware of this, carefully considered the facts, and attributed the statements to the college based on something.
 
The writer admits he is a past graduate of Oberlin. I found the article to be a bit biased.

Gibson’s attorneys also made much of the fact that some Oberlin administrators attended the protests. But, of course, Oberlin would want to have a presence at the protests to ensure both student safety and that students were respecting the law. This verdict tells colleges that if they send administrators to watch out for student safety they can be sued for millions of dollars. That is not in anybody’s best interests.

Sounds a little self justifying to me.


In fact, Oberlin did issue what could be described as an official statement about the incident. Then-President Marvin Krislov signed a public letter shortly after the incident stating: “Regarding the incident at Gibson's, we are deeply troubled because we have heard from students that there is more to the story than what has been generally reported. We will commit every resource to determining the full and true narrative, including exploring whether this is a pattern and not an isolated incident. We are dedicated to a campus and community that treats all faculty, staff and students fairly and without discrimination. We expect that our community businesses and friends share the same values and commitments.”

So, they're going to investigate, Basically, saying there may be some basis and that they may take some future action against the store. That says, they were condoning the protest.

Also, various Oberlin administrators demonstrated a lack of maturity and judgment in how they discussed the situation. For example, an email from Oberlin College Vice President of Communications Ben Jones read: “All these idiots complaining about the college hurting a ‘small local business’ are conveniently leaving out their massive (relative to the town) conglomerate and price gouging on rents and parking and the predatory behavior towards most other local business. (Expletive) ’em.” Meredith Raimondo, The Oberlin Vice President and Dean of students, texted other administrators about a faculty member who was critical of how the college handled the situation, writing, “(Expletive) him, I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”


Ultimately, silence is consent. That the college didn't come out against the protest, because the students DO in fact represent the university, maybe not legally, but on it's face, I take as consent.

Just as I see it, based on the limited facts.
 
Last edited:
EVERY SGA organization, actually any and every student organization, has a faculty advisor. The SGA advisor should be required to attend every meeting and advise every committee. So there would have been a college representative at the SGA meeting to guide the organization. What they did, or didn't, do would be crucial to this. IMO, it sounds like the advisor allowed this to go on.

From their Constitution

Section 3: Responsibilities of Student Senate



The Senate will:


A. Represent the student body in College governance and pursue the adoption of policies that are beneficial to the student body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
JimB said:
Following quote from the article explains the risk.

“The college should not be held legally responsible for statements made by students or faculty who are not speaking for the college as a whole. It is extremely dangerous to expect a college to censor its students, staff or faculty, especially about an important issue such as racism. Punishing the college with huge economic sanctions for a student protest or a student senate resolution does exactly that. This verdict, if it isn’t reversed by an appellate court, provides a powerful incentive for universities to punish and restrict controversial speech.”

If it turns out that the college did not make libelous statements, that the students and some student organizations did, then the college should likely not be found responsible. I presume that the jury was aware of this, carefully considered the facts, and attributed the statements to the college based on something.
Click to expand...
Disagree.

The kids are students at the college and on "college time" representing it. The college should give half-a-damn about its reputation and perception in the surrounding community and instill punishment on students that act like idiots--up to and including expulsion.
 
BatteryOaksBilly said:
They caught 3 thieves. Thieves and their pals made it racist. You catch me stealing...you are a racist. Uh Huh. Right.
Click to expand...

Brother, I see this "VICTIM STATUS" nonsense almost daily at my job.

One day I heard two girls talking on a bench outside my door, a few cursewords were dropped, I said, "Guys, stop with the language, youre at school, Jesus Christ..."
And one of them is like, "How dare you!? How dare you use HIS name like that!!!"
I responded something like, "So your girl can drop a handful of curse words, that's a o k, but I say 'Jesus Christ' and youre offended? Go tell the principal about this whole thing if youre so offended"

Similar when I told the same group to shut up when they were YELLING down the hallway (and, again, they curse more than others), they were offended I'd use such bad language.
Ok, let's go to the office, file your complaint... they declined.
 
HMP said:
Brother, I see this "VICTIM STATUS" nonsense almost daily at my job.

One day I heard two girls talking on a bench outside my door, a few cursewords were dropped, I said, "Guys, stop with the language, youre at school, Jesus Christ..."
And one of them is like, "How dare you!? How dare you use HIS name like that!!!"
I responded something like, "So your girl can drop a handful of curse words, that's a o k, but I say 'Jesus Christ' and youre offended? Go tell the principal about this whole thing if youre so offended"

Similar when I told the same group to shut up when they were YELLING down the hallway (and, again, they curse more than others), they were offended I'd use such bad language.
Ok, let's go to the office, file your complaint... they declined.
Click to expand...

Victimhood is the new currency of self-worth and status in Western societies in which the overwhelming majority of the people living within it suffer not and want for nothing. So as a society, we begin to invent problems and stressors and offenses to justify our ridiculous sense of entitlement.

It's kind of like way back when the Matrix released, and the machines say when they first enslaved humanity, the world they created was perfection, with every need and want accounted for.

Humans couldn't deal with it, so they created a flawed world and humanity thrived in their enslavement.

That's kind of where we are in the West, only we're enthusiastically doing it to ourselves.
 
Last edited:
JimB said:
Following quote from the article explains the risk.

“The college should not be held legally responsible for statements made by students or faculty who are not speaking for the college as a whole. It is extremely dangerous to expect a college to censor its students, staff or faculty, especially about an important issue such as racism. Punishing the college with huge economic sanctions for a student protest or a student senate resolution does exactly that. This verdict, if it isn’t reversed by an appellate court, provides a powerful incentive for universities to punish and restrict controversial speech.”

If it turns out that the college did not make libelous statements, that the students and some student organizations did, then the college should likely not be found responsible. I presume that the jury was aware of this, carefully considered the facts, and attributed the statements to the college based on something.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, their VP and Dean of Students helped organize the protests and handed out fliers to it, and other administrators helped shape the protests. Then used their influence to try to get them to drop battery charges, and not report crimes.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/oberlin-pays-for-smearing-the-town-grocer-11560294176
On Nov. 9, 2016, an African-American male Oberlin student attempted to buy wine from Gibson’s Food Mart and Bakery using a fake ID. Allyn D. Gibson, a grandson of the shop’s owner, refused to sell the underage customer alcohol, then noticed the student had two bottles of wine concealed under his shirt.

As Mr. Gibson called the police the student fled, dropping the bottles on the floor. A scuffle ensued when Mr. Gibson pursued him. Two African-American female Oberlin students, apparently accomplices of the suspect, joined in the physical confrontation. When police arrived on the scene, the three were beating Mr. Gibson on the ground.
Click to expand...
Oberlin administrators agreed to boycott Gibson’s, which had long held catering contracts with the college’s dining service, and they allowed students to skip class to participate in protests. The Gibsons alleged that the administrators guided student-government leaders in promoting a resolution to condemn the bakery and Gibson family. Oberlin’s dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, handed out a flier accusing Gibson’s of having a “long account of racial profiling and discrimination.”

The Gibson family claims administrators told them they’d reinstate the catering contract if they dropped charges against the three shoplifting students and promised to contact the school, not police, if other students stole from their store in the future.
Click to expand...

I'd say they bear responsibility.
 
Last edited:
pinkbunny said:
From what I understand, their VP and Dean of Students helped organize the protests and handed out fliers to it, and other administrators helped shape the protests. Then used their influence to try to get them to drop battery charges, and not report crimes.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/oberlin-pays-for-smearing-the-town-grocer-11560294176



I'd say they bear responsibility.
Click to expand...

I agree that their hands are not clean. As above, I tend to trust the jury. While jurors may not be the brightest bulbs, they do get to hear all of the evidence while we are very limited in that regard.
 
Update, the total has increased to $44 mil.



"A jury has awarded $33.2 million in punitive damages to Gibson’s Bakery, whose owners claimed Ohio’s Oberlin College and an administrator hurt their business and libeled them during a dispute over a shoplifting episode that triggered protests and allegations of racism.

The Chronicle-Telegram reported the same jury awarded Gibson’s business and family members more than $11 million in actual or compensatory damages, bringing the total award to more than $44 million."


https://www.foxnews.com/us/oberlin-...sive-sum-of-more-than-44m-over-racism-dispute

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom