Image 01 Image 03

Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Trial Day 11 – Don’t let them eat Gibson’s cake

Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Trial Day 11 – Don’t let them eat Gibson’s cake

“Meredith [Raimondo] had decided the food would not be eaten [by the protesting students],” Krislov said. “The question we had to think about is why would you buy food that people wouldn’t eat.”

Today was Day 11 of witness testimony in Gibson Bros. v. Oberlin College. The events giving rise to the lawsuit have been said to represent “the worst of identity politics.”  You can read about some of the background on this case here.

Dean of Students and Defendant Meredith Raimondo

Oberlin College Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo finished her testimony under cross-examination with little more to add to the discussion. She did, however, take one more shot to explain to why she called the editor of the Oberlin News Tribune a “liar.”

Jason Hawk, editor for the Oberlin News Tribune, had testified that he had attended the Nov. 10 protest and that Meredith Raimondo gave him a flyer when he identified himself as a reporter for the local paper and asked what the protest was about. He wrote in his initial story that the flyer was “literature provided by the Oberlin College Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo, who stood with the crowd.”

The school didn’t like that description of the event in the local newspaper, and Oberlin College’s director of media relations, Scott Wargo, sent Hawk an email to retract what they had written and replace it with “that literature was provided by the organizers and not Meredith Raimondo.”

Hawk insisted he was not wrong: “Sorry, Scott, but that’s simply not true. Meredith Raimondo handed me the literature.” When emailed by Wargo what Hawk had said, Raimondo emailed back, “He is a liar.”

She has testified in court that she had handed out a flyer to Hawk.

So why the “liar” accusation?

First, she said today “he made it sound like I was running and organizing the protest. I thought that would have a negative effect on the community.”

Secondly, the “the newspaper put it on the internet” that she was doing the handing out of flyers.

And third, “I didn’t know he is was reporter on that first day, and when I read that story, I thought I had never met Mr. Hawk.”

Hawk had testified that he had introduced himself to her, and that she then asked him if he wanted information on the protest, and pulled out a flyer and handed it to him. Thus, the “liar” allegation by Raimondo is somewhat tough to comprehend.

Former President Marvin Krislov

On the first day of testimony of the Gibson Bros. v. Oberlin College case, Ferdinand Protzman, the chief of staff for the school administration and a 1975 graduate of Oberlin College, testified how the students at the school were pretty much spoiled brats. Protzman told the jury that the primary reason the school cut ties initially with Gibson’s for their food products was that the students might have thrown a “tantrum” on campus.

How the students’ protest over serious racial issues in their minds had turned into wanting to throw bagels on the floor of the cafeteria and stomp on them. With or without cream cheese.

It led to this famous exchange in Lorain County Court in Ohio on May 10.

“The concern was that the students were angry?” Gibson lawyer Lee Plakas asked. “The fear was that angry students would throw food [made by Gibson’s] on the floor [of the cafeteria] and stomp on it?”

“Yes, that was one of the concerns,” Protzman answered.

“Doesn’t that sound more like a nursery school than a college?” Plakas continued.

“Nursery school students do throw food on the floor, yes,” Protzman said.

That exchange was re-done today in some regards, as the former president of Oberlin College, Marvin Krislov, was on the witness stand in the case. He was testifying to his role in various parts of the protest that condemned Gibson’s as racist and how they allegedly lost most of their business over that designation.

Krislov, who now is President of Pace University, presided over Oberlin College during many tumultuous events prior to the Gibson’s protests, including these covered by Legal Insurrection:

Plakas asked Krislov, who made more than $500,000 a year as school president and had a historic mansion to live in, why he thought the school had discontinued Gibson’s products from their $500-per-week cafeteria food drop-offs they had been doing for the school for decades.

“Meredith [Raimondo] had decided the food would not be eaten [by the protesting students],” Krislov said. “The question we had to think about is why would you buy food that people wouldn’t eat.”

It was once again one of those head scratching moments in this case. Here was the president of this acclaimed liberal arts school, who had been serving in that capacity for about ten years, a man responsible for the higher education of nearly 3,000 students a year, making decisions on a case that involved serious allegations of racism by determining how not to offend some students who were threatening to throw a fit.

It may be one of those one of those moments for the jury, as well, because as this case now moves into its third week of testimony, the distance between the mindset of Oberlin College administrators, their faculty, and students is getting further and further from the very common-man reality.

Not the real world? In some ways, their own world.

Krislov seemed to have little realization that a statement by the school that Gibson’s was not racist would help the business greatly in recovering from such a setback. Instead Krislov put their school’s goal this way: “We wanted to work to repair the relationship with the school and help Mr. Gibson restore his relationship with his primary customers, the students” adding that “We wanted to make this as close to a win-win as possible.”

He didn’t seem to realize that being called racist can put you out of business in very short order in a college town, and that it wasn’t in the win-win realm of determination. Gibson’s was trying to keep their 130-year-old business alive and trying to keep people employed and working.

Krislov repeated this unknowing manta over and over again. He said “path forward” numerous times as the school’s primary role with Gibson’s problem with “their customers,” even though the business had little problems with “their customers” before the protests started.

Krislov even took it a bit further. During one email exchange with deans and administration staff, Krislov was worried about how the students might perceive the school coming out to much in favor of Gibson’s with its students. “[I] worry that mentioning shoplifting will trigger a [bad reaction] … How about softening. What about reference to tense times?”

The jury was also shown emails by Krislov sent to a member of the Oberlin College Student Senate seeking the students’ advice on how to deal with the problems. One Nov. 10, 2016, when the protests had just started, Krislov sent this to a student senate member: “Meredith [Raimondo] and I were just talking and I wanted to seek your guidance about what I (and the College) might say or, do about the Gibson’s situation.”

He also told the jury that one of the solutions to the “Gibson’s situation” was that “We were trying to get students to realize that shoplifting was harmful.”

Plakas also took Krislov to the legal woodshed by asking him if the school had ever considered issuing a statement at any point during the year between the protests and the time the lawsuit was filed that Gibson’s had no history of being racists. Or that it never considered that at any point in time. One or the other.

Krislov hemmed and hawed a bit, and then ran down the middle by saying “I wouldn’t characterize it that way.”

Plakas then put forward a deposition of Protzman from early this year – who was chosen by the school to be their official spokesman for this deposition. Protzman answered officially “no” as to whether the school had ever considered that Gibson’s business or the family members were not racists. He even said the school never even considered saying “no” that Gibson’s’ was part of white supremacy.

Krislov said he was worried that “people with guns might come to Oberlin to defend Gibson’s,” that people who thought Gibson’s were racists “were coming out of the woodwork,” and spent time discussing with one another in the Oberlin College administration “what an appropriate response would be.”

“We had heard the concerns of different parties and were trying to chart a path forward,” he said to the jury.

Three witnesses are expected tomorrow, including an officer with the Oberlin Police Department.

[Featured image: Then President Marvin Krislow (2013) via YouTube]

Daniel McGraw is a freelance writer and author in Lakewood, Ohio. Follow him on Twitter @danmcgraw1


WAJ NOTE: Our trial coverage is a project of the Legal Insurrection Foundation. Your support helps make this type of coverage possible.

Donate Now!


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Thus, the “liar” allegation by Raimondo is somewhat tough to comprehend.

It’s not tough to comprehend if you understand that Meredith Raimondo is herself a corrupt, narcissistic, unrepentant liar who is trying save her own corrupt, lying ass in this lawsuit.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Observer. | May 29, 2019 at 9:51 pm

    Many times it is hard to tell who is a liar, at least in the short term. In Oberlin’s case the truth is pretty transparent.

    There needs to be a hit on Oberlin’s reputation, with a clear understanding that those problems could continue if they do not immediately start treating Gibson’s honorably.

    I’m not inclined to use hyperbole. I am, however, inclined to view her reasons as being primarily, “Because it will make us, or more specifically me, look bad.” That is a very human reason. I can understand this lie.

    What I cannot do is sympathize with it in any way.

      legacyrepublican in reply to JBourque. | May 30, 2019 at 1:39 am

      I think you are missing the point.

      Raimondo was concerned about HER appearance as a liar in the press and showed no remorse about Gibson’s Bakery being labelled as racist.

      Her priority wasn’t if there was any truth in the flyer, it was how the truth was affecting her career and standing with the college once the press announced she was handing out the flyer.

      So, of course she had to lie herself and justify herself to the college.

      I believe that is how this jury will see her testimony. A testimony in and of itself that epitomizes the hypocrisy of a college more concerned with how its own business is perceived, a business that ought to be the teaching of truth before all else, than the reality of their being so willing to sacrifice Gibson Bakery’s reputation on the alter of student opinion.

      It is blatantly obvious they did this to Gibson in order to appease these spoiled brats and keep them from turning on Oberlin.

        I was being brief. But thank you for your elaboration. I agree with you, and hope her testimony is taken in exactly that manner. The original poster presented this as a lie that was difficult to understand. I politely asserted it’s easy to understand. It’s very difficult to sympathize with it in any way. So, you and I are not really apart, I think.

    Andy in reply to Observer. | May 30, 2019 at 12:42 pm

    One of those people who makes the “truth” be whatever is convenient or expedient on that day. The next day it will be something completely different. God help you if ever have to work for such a person.

      rabidfox in reply to Andy. | May 30, 2019 at 7:47 pm

      That sort of person makes up the majority of the House and a significant chunk of the Senate as well.

SeekingRationalThought | May 29, 2019 at 9:04 pm

Someone thought Krislov was competent to run a college? And Pace still does? He couldn’t run a lemonade stand. I’ve had 24-25 year olds working for me who would have made better decisions. Of course, they were holding down productive, real world jobs at the time. Perhaps they had “productivity privilege?”

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to SeekingRationalThought. | May 30, 2019 at 7:43 am

    That, or relevance privilege. They had “real” jobs, they were not drones filling one or another position in a bureaucracy where the size could be reduced buy 75% and no one but the payroll department would notice.

Brave Sir Robbin | May 29, 2019 at 9:08 pm

So far, the defense’s case does not comport well with the email evidence and testimony of people who witnessed the protests. At best, even absent the earlier testimony and evidence presented by the plaintiff’s attorney, the school looks afraid of its students who are, in essence, an unruly mob.


These are supposed to be DEFENSE witnesses. It’s actually ridiculous how badly they’re being shredded.

He just admitted outright that the school never even CONSIDERED admitting they weren’t racists.

Are these clowns trying to establish an appeal on the grounds the Oberlin lawyers were incompetent?

    Geologist in reply to Olinser. | May 29, 2019 at 9:20 pm

    Incompetency of counsel is a ground for appeal in a criminal matter. I have never heard of it as a ground for appeal in a civil lawsuit.

      SeekingRationalThought in reply to Geologist. | May 29, 2019 at 9:40 pm

      Bad clients can make even the best attorney look bad. These people at Oberlin are jokes who may be destroying their attorney’s reputations if not careers.

        The Friendly Grizzly in reply to SeekingRationalThought. | May 30, 2019 at 7:46 am

        I know virtually nothing about the goings-on behind the scenes of trials. But, it seems to me that the attorneys may indeed BE incompetent. Isn’t there something called preparing your witnesses?

          One can work to prepare witnesses – I know lawyers who are very good at it – but the one thing no one can do is turn an idiot into a genius, and Krislov looks to be a complete and utter fool. Raimondo appears to be venal and manipulative, but I think she has some awareness of what she’s going. Krislov acts like Forrest Gump without the accent, he seems not to have had a single clue as to what was going on around him.

          Some cases, all an attorney can do is to make sure he’s paid in advance, and then walk away when the client goes down in flames.

      denizen in reply to Geologist. | May 30, 2019 at 12:57 am

      I would have agreed, but some district judges have effectively ruled that incompetence of civil counsel justifies Rule 60(b) relief. I had a case like this and briefed it in a circuit court, but we settled without generating any precedent.

        Tom Servo in reply to denizen. | May 30, 2019 at 9:08 am

        The problem for Oberlin here isn’t what their attorney’s are doing, it’s what their witnesses are saying.

          Terence G. Gain in reply to Tom Servo. | May 30, 2019 at 9:39 am

          There are other problems.

          Raimondo should not have participated in a protest based on false accusations. She should have quelled the mob response by telling the students to let the law determine guilt or innocence.

          Secondly, after the students pled guilty in August 2017 to theft and absolved Gibson’s of racism Oberlin College should have set the record straight about the false racism charge. They could have educated the students that making false accusations of racism is wrong (just like shoplifting). Given Raimondo’s participation in the mob action, she should have been dismissed.

          I found the following excerpt from the Oberlin Review on February 9, 2018 to be of assistance.


          The students pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of attempted theft and aggravated trespassing in the Lorain County Common Pleas Court last August. In exchange for the plea deal, the students paid a small restitution and absolved the Gibsons of any claims of racism.

    MajorWood in reply to Olinser. | May 29, 2019 at 10:44 pm

    My thoughts about the witnesses that Oberlin called as well. I think the weakness of true believers is that they simply cannot function outside of the pod. My guess is that Oberlin instructed their lawyers as to how the case was to be run and the lawyers said “OK,” and under their breath said “it’s your money.” I don’t fully understand the ways and means of the legal system, but I see no benefit to Oberlin to have Krislov on the stand or even in town. In fact, up until reading this, I suspected that he was the one person who saw the writing on the wall and figured out that anywhere other than Oberlin was the best option down the road. If they put someone on the list, does that mean that they have to call them? And if they don’t call them, can the plaintiff’s call them. Seriously, my understanding of the legal system is limited to having seen every single Perry Mason, twice. Keep in mind that the BLM forces somehow got the President of U. Missouri removed at around this time and I bet a lot of college presidents were looking for a quiet place to retire at that point, and to not stir up the students. But maybe he was a true believer too.

      It may be that Oberlin is confident (to the point of cockiness) that they will win no matter what, and so are just going through the motions. Maybe it is different in the courtroom, but from reading the reports in LI, one gets the feeling that the administrators at Oberlin are seething with fury that they have to be there in the first place, answering questions posed by those whom they feel are inferior to them.

      The “Have you no decency?” shtick in Raimondo’s testimony is one example of Oberlin’s arrogance. Krislov’s testimony – a mixture of condesention and obfuscation – is another, along with his paranoid reference to “people with guns” coming to campus, indicating clearly what he thought about those who believe Gibson’s was the victim here.

The worst of… Diversity breeds adversity.

I found today’s write-up difficult to understand. There appear to be lots of double negatives, disjointed sentences and complex questions – that seem ambiguous. For example:

“Plakas also took Krislov to the legal woodshed by asking him if the school had ever considered issuing a statement at any point during the year between the ,protests and the time the lawsuit was filed that Gibson’s had no history of being racists. Or that it never considered that at any point in time. One or the other.

“Krislov hemmed and hawed a bit, and then ran down the middle by saying “I wouldn’t characterize it that way.”

“Plakas then put forward a deposition of Protzman from early this year – who was chosen by the school to be their official spokesman for this deposition. Protzman answered officially “no” as to whether the school had ever considered that Gibson’s business or the family members were not racists. He even said the school never even considered saying “no” that Gibson’s’ was part of white supremacy.”

Previous posts have been much clearer.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to bernie49. | May 29, 2019 at 10:34 pm

    I disagree Bernie. In the “woodshed” question the attorney was asking if Oberlin had considered that maybe they should state that Gibson’s was NOT racist, and fine tuned it by asking “at any time” as the first offering of the question had the time-frame of between the protest and the filing of the suit.

    Getting a non answer, the attorney then went to the deposition where the witness had unequivocally answered “no” to this question.

    The witness changed his answer when there was a jury listening. The closing arguments are going to be golden.

    artichoke in reply to bernie49. | May 30, 2019 at 2:25 pm

    If we’re critiquing the writing, I have to say those sentences were not difficult to read and understand and I didn’t notice anything special about them.

I was re-reading this and I picked on something.

“We wanted to work to repair the relationship with the school and help Mr. Gibson restore his relationship with his primary customers, the students”

This is something that has become pretty pervasive among the extreme leftists in the past few years.

Namely, the implication that it is GIBSON’S responsibility to restore his relationship. It is GIBSON’S responsibility to PROVE to their satisfaction that he and his store aren’t racists.

It’s not the students fault for lying about them. It’s not Oberlin’s fault for refusing to refute their lies. It’s not their responsibility for the students to repair the damage done by their lies and temper tantrums. It’s GIBSON’S fault for not prostrating before them and begging their forgiveness.

He refused to bend the knee and beg their forgiveness. Thus, he must be destroyed.

Tribes. This is about tribes. The administration, staff and students at Oberlin College are a separate tribe from the residents of the town of Oberlin. The President felt a far greater connection to the students, who are essentially customers who are paying the college for an education, than he does with the community in which the college has existed for 150 years.

Krislov hammered another nail in the coffin of Oberlin College when he made it very clear that he was supportive of the student’s actions and position whether that position was accurate or not. And, he showed himself to be totally unwilling to maintain order on the campus. I am sure that throwing food on the floor of the cafeteria, snack bar or student union and stopping on it, is grounds for administrative action, up to and including expulsion. Gibson’s was not causing any problems on campus, in the Town of Oberlin or even inside their own store. The jury walked away with the clear idea that Oberlin College, in the person of its President did not care a whit about the town which has willingly housed it for the last century and a half.

Tribes. which tribe does the jury belong to?

    Liberty Bell in reply to Mac45. | May 30, 2019 at 7:45 am

    Do you actually expect the school to discipline paying customers</b< comporting to leftist dialectic? Not with these comrades.

      Mac45 in reply to Liberty Bell. | May 30, 2019 at 12:46 pm

      It happens all the time. People get disciplined, including expulsion, from private and public businesses all of the time, for being disruptive. Whether the administration of these businesses has the gumption and good sense to do so, is another story. Let Mommy and Daddy tell the college that little Cindy, Marcus or Latetia is not going to be back next semester, because the little darling can’t study or eat in the cafeteria because of unruly students and see just how quickly the miscreants are gone and enrolling Cannabis Community College.

      The excuse that students would destroy food from Gibson’s, served on campus, was only an attempt to justify the College ending Gibson’s contract in an effort to pressure Gibson’s into capitulating. I’m sure the jury recognizes that fact.

“[I] worry that mentioning shoplifting will trigger a [bad reaction] … How about softening. What about reference to tense times?”

He also told the jury that one of the solutions to the “Gibson’s situation” was that “We were trying to get students to realize that shoplifting was harmful.”


How about telling them they’ll be suspended for a week if convicted? Having a risk of flunking out should “get students to realize that shoplifting was harmful.”

    rabidfox in reply to RedEchos. | May 30, 2019 at 7:55 pm

    ‘Harmful’?! Shoplifting is a crime. And a conviction for shoplifting will follow someone for the rest of their lives.

“We were trying to get students to realize that shoplifting was harmful.”

Uh, what? How did they get into college and adulthood without already knowing shoplifting was harmful? Other schools deal with student shoplifters without much of a problem. They kick them out of school. The 5 service academies, VMI, The Citadel, and a host of others that aren’t military oriented but have honor codes.

    MajorWood in reply to gospace. | May 30, 2019 at 1:19 am

    My generation of classmates were from fathers who fought in WW II. The current students are from fathers who protested the war from graduate school. They were just redistributing wealth, that’s all.

    slither in reply to gospace. | May 30, 2019 at 5:15 am

    And they brag about activism, and “changing the world “ and being “woke”, yet don’t know that shoplifting is wrong. What a wonderful world they want to create!

    rdm in reply to gospace. | May 30, 2019 at 6:36 am

    If they were accumulating enough students that ‘didn’t realize shoplifting was harmful’ as a class well before they reached college, to need to be addressed then their admissions department was pretty much too incompetent for words.

      artichoke in reply to rdm. | May 30, 2019 at 2:20 pm

      More likely, the admissions dept. was ideological. I don’t know how we would test that, but admissions has been driving ideology on campus. It works best when the campus is very selective, so they have plenty of good-enough students and can choose by ideology.

      But if they’re too obvious about it, they risk ruining the selectivity, as seems to be happening to Oberlin and will now accelerate.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to gospace. | May 30, 2019 at 10:37 am

    What ever happened to “Thou shalt not steal”?

I suppose I’m lucky. I had a father who remains a hero to me.

Toward the end of his life he tried to kick the (blank) out of me. And I was like, “Dad, it’s me.” And he would kind of wake up and look at me something like embarrassed.

I regret that I may have shared too much information.

She looks sweet. As sweet as pie. How much do you want to bet you don’t cross her.

It’s obvious to me that the school failed to take charge of the situation and allowed in effect the hanging of a local business to the extent the school even had their hands on the rope. Strong statements citing Gibson’s lack of past racism, urging students to allow the legal system to run it’s course, and avoiding the administrations active support of the small number of student demonstrators were the appropriate actions. As for student food tantrums, isn’t a verbal “trip to the woodshed”, suspension, or expulsion an appropriate response? Are Oberlin students being encouraged to exhibit conduct they would not do at home? Are activist students running the college?

Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?

they cannot tolerate
– getting caught and someone fighting back
– the libs think we are too stupid and racist
– the cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming

In reading this you can see the despicable trend/strategy used by the Left to justify everything they do. A situation is created that clearly hurts others and then, when confronted, they make up all sorts of over-the-top scenarios of what might happen if they had not behaved the way they did to allow the bad behavior. In this case “the students might have thrown the food on the floor”, etc. If the students want to pay for the food and then throw it on the floor, then that is their own stupidity and they can go hungry. Should they do this, then the school surely has rules and consequences for this behavior. In other words, this consideration never would have occurred in a real world university with a real world viewpoint. In this Leftist fantasy land called Oberlin, they created these bizarre scenarios and (allegedly) ran scared from them as though the school was the victim who has no control (instead as a willing participant), and then try to make this sound as though it is a credible argument. The worst part is how they have no clue as to how the rest of the real world is hearing these arguments and shaking their heads in disbelief and disgust. Who could trust a school this poorly led with this level of inept thinking to educate their child?

I just look at the leftists and how they never back down from their boycotts of any business they feel does not bow down to their bigoted demands. They tolerate what they want, yet are the most inflexible group of people I have ever seen.
Don’t support Gay Marriage? Kill their business.
Don’t support Trans in any bathrooms they chose? Kill their reputation.
Don’t support National Socialism? Paint them as racists.
The list goes on. And once labeled, no matter how much of a lie it is, that is forever. Unless they are D liberals, then any of those acts were just temporary blips.
This is a microcosm case of how liberals truly are hatefilled bullies, and they feel justified in their actions because those around them are the same exact copy of themselves when it comes to their brand of fascism.

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | May 30, 2019 at 7:35 am

Good morning. Longtime reader of LI, first time commenter. I appreciate the depth of commentary from the people on this site. My law school daughter and I talk about LI articles all the time. I share them with her to keep her conservative mind focused while attending a liberal law school full of burgeoning SJW lawyers.

RE the Gibson case, my fear for them is that while they are likely to succeed in this case, under no circumstances will Oberlin or its students return to the days before this tragic event. Oberlin nor their students can be forced to purchase from Gibson’s. Unfortunately, the best that Gibson’s can hope for is monetary damages, and then seek to maintain their business with the few remaining customers they can (and their online sales). The damage has already been done.

    I suspect it was the realization that things would never go back to where they were that drove Gibsons to file suit.

    True it is unlikely that Gibson’s can ever be made whole again. And, Oberlin College is a major contributor to the Town of Oberlin, economically. What is happening here goes far beyond simple redress of wrongs. It is all about community.

    For over 150 years, Oberlin College has been a part of the Town of Oberlin. Historically the Town and the College share many values. But, over the last few years, the College has withdrawn from the community. They became the castle on the hill and the residents of the college took on special significance, in their own minds. In the Gibson case, the college tribe attacked the community. It expected the community to fold and then the college tribe would return to its castle on the hill with the scalps of its victims. This did not happen. The community fought back.

    If the college loses this suit and significant monetary damages are assessed, the college will have to reevaluate its relationship with the Town of Oberlin. Will it reenter the greater community? Will it continue with its separate tribal identity? Will it leave the community altogether and move some where else?

    This is what tribalism looks like. This the result of the creation of tribalism which the liberal Progressives have been engaged in for 50 years. This is America in the near future. Pretty scary stuff. this is not a simple damage case. far from it.

LeftWingLock | May 30, 2019 at 9:20 am

I think if Gibson’s would just admit they behaved in a racially discriminatory manner (they don’t have to admit they are racists), apologize to Oberlin and the entire student community and pay reparations to the students they had arrested, this whole bitter episode could be put to bed.

As far as the college is concerned, it was always about the money ie students and their money.

Oberlin’s dilemma is a direct result of their stubborn adherence to modern tenets of Intersectionality, Marxism and Post Modernism. They are unable to state Gibson’s has no history of racism because their devotion to these Leftist ideologies demands that all white people are racist. Pretty sure you will find lots and lots of courses in their catalogue based on this tenet. You will also find courses that decry the rich wealth holders of a Capitalist economy which describe the owners of Gibson’s Bakery. In our legal system much decisions are based on truth. But the philosophy followed by Oberlin and her students has little to do with truth but rather has more to do with each person’s “truth” which of course has nothing to do with truth. These are just a few examples of the many poisonous philosophies held by today’s academics, educators, entertainers, church leaders, librarians, et al. As a society we are only just beginning to discover how the two philosophies contradict one another. That they do also explains why we, as a nation are so divided.

“he made it sound like I was running and organizing the protest. I thought that would have a negative effect on the community.”

Yeah, telling students where to stand, use the bathroom, make copies, safe space to rest, and hand out/distribute flyers are what most people would call “running and organizing a protest”.

    burkepeaches in reply to Gunstar1. | May 30, 2019 at 2:19 pm

    As well as providing pizza and mittens! Being woke and outraged is time consuming and exhausting.

Put these statements in context with the earlier OFFICIAL statement by the school that they would investigate the claims of racism… which they did not investigate.

They said they would investigate and find out the truth… yet did not investigate, and then cut business ties with them based on allegations they said they would investigate as though they were true. I’m not sure if that puts the school in a position of calling them racist, but as a jurist, that sequence of events would not sit well with me in making my decision.

    artichoke in reply to Andy. | May 30, 2019 at 2:10 pm

    Maybe “reckless endangerment”.

      Andy in reply to artichoke. | May 30, 2019 at 4:13 pm

      So the admins promised in writing to the students they would find the truth…and then conducted business as though they had found the students were correct in their accusations of racism. So weren’t they communicating their findings by cutting ties? Do you cut ties with someone you are investigating for bad behavior when you find nothing. I think there is a “there” there.

Oberlin’s accreditation should be reviewed.

burkepeaches | May 30, 2019 at 2:18 pm

My child attends Oberlin and I visited Gibson’s when I went to pick her up at the end of the year. It seems very few of the current incoming students know anything about the specifics but all have been encouraged to boycott the store. A very Orwellian situation I am afraid…

While on campus I did have a meeting with the administration regarding the shameful behavior of both the college and the students. Admin cower in fear at the rage of the wokes. Throwing food on the floor is the least of it but exactly how the spoiled brats would know it was from Gibsons is the million dollar question.

I’m surprised the students haven’t burnt down Oberlin by now, they appear to be so out of control–pandering to them has gotten us to this place. The administration should have told them to pound sand when the mob made their demands, and instead, we have Raimondo out there coordinating, and yes, supporting the mob.

As a trial attorney, I’m shocked by the defense–no trial attorney puts on witnesses if they don’t know what they’ll say; and no trial attorney asks a question if they don’t know what the answer will be. So I have to assume that the testimony of Raimondo and the president were introduced for a reason, although I can’t figure out why. They’ve done nothing, in my opinion, but underscore and support Gibsons’ position.

Richard Aubrey | May 30, 2019 at 4:46 pm

Minneapolis is smarter than Oberlin–low bar, I know–in this kind of thing.
They were sued by the family of Justine Damond over the wrongful death, shot by a cop, for $50 million. They settled for $20 million. Their rainy day fund was supposedly $27 million, so they’ll have to figure something else to tax.
This way, there’s no discovery which might find out that Officer Noor was a diversity hire who biffed a couple of psych evals so that they could have a Somali cop. Whether the reports about the psych is true or not, there were other indications of short cuts to get a Somali cop to parade around.
Settling was smart.

Now, to Oberlin. These clowns were so arrogant they refused to settle under the presumption that discovery (“discovery” what’s that?) wouldn’t find anything useful for the plaintiff, all the while knowing exactly what they did and why. Perhaps they thought they were so holy that it didn’t matter what they did, they’re OBERLIN, after all.

I learned to respect every member of the armed forces.

From the Army types in Korea to the Air Force types who flew me home to Travis AFB. And I got to lift my nephews and nieces in my arms.

And then go back out on patrol.

The valdez fly in is coming up soon.

Actually it passed.