Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Trial Day 3 – To “unleash the students” or not, that was the question

Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Trial Day 3 – To “unleash the students” or not, that was the question

African-American bakery employee testified he saw Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo “standing directly in front of the store with a megaphone, orchestrating some of the activities of the students.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw2Sk_JTaXA

Today was Day 3 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.

Oberlin College Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo completed her testimony, which started yesterday. She is a defendant in the case, and the plaintiffs had called her as an “adverse witness.”

What the attorneys for Gibson’s Bakery & Market wanted to establish was that Raimondo and other school administrators not only supported students saying that Gibson’s is racist and overseeing the November 2016 protests that passed out flyers saying such, they also wanted to explore whether Raimondo and other administrators had any “conscience” in how they made their decisions.

Not conscience in the sense that the school administration might have been feeling bad and felt sorry for Gibson’s, but more along the line that Oberlin College let being mean and nasty be a big part of the equation.

In other words, did bad personal feelings – an ill will toward the bakery/convenience store that had been doing business in the city since 1885 – come into play at all when the college decided to cut off ties with the small business as a bagel, donut and pizza dough food provider for the school cafeterias for the 2,800 students?

The plaintiffs’ lawyers had plenty of examples of what they told the jury was “personal beliefs overshadowing professional responsibility.” In one email, Ben Jones, the vice president of communications for the school wrote to his co-executives in the school administration that, “I love how these Gibson supporters accuse us of making rash assumption decisions, but are totally blind to their own assumptions … all these idiots complain about the college.”

He closed with, “Fuck-em … they’ve made their own bed now.”

When Roger Copeland, an Oberlin College professor of theater and dance (he is “emeritus” status now) wrote a letter to the campus newspaper soon after the protests ended, and criticized how the school was treating Gibson’s in the letter, Jones sent a text message in caps saying, “FUCK ROGER COPELAND.”

“Fuck him,” Raimondo responded in a message. “I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”

Raimondo was given these examples and others and then asked a very simple question. “When personal beliefs get involved in decision making, does that have an effect on trying to maintain professional responsibility?” asked plaintiffs’ attorney Lee Plakas. She was asked specifically about herself and the higher-ups in the Oberlin College administration.

Her answer was quite surprising.

“Their position is to not have a position,” she said.

Several of the jurors shook their heads in surprise when they heard that from her.

She was then asked similar questions again in various others ways. Her answers were equally vague, and quite hard to figure out in basic, common sense terms.

Asked if she thought dropping “F-Bombs” connected with school policy decisions was bad professional behavior for an administrator for a prestigious higher education school, and did she consider responding and saying it isn’t appropriate, she said, “I wouldn’t have considered that an appropriate response.”

When asked if she thought that personal feelings should not interfere with professional responsibility, she responded that “I’m not sure what you mean by interfere.” Lastly, she was asked if people should always separate personal opinions from their job. Raimondo said, “I do not agree.”

The reason this testimony is important in the case is that Gibson’s is claiming they suffered greatly —  economically and from a damaged reputation — from student-led protests that occurred on Nov. 10-11, 2016 that claimed they were racist. In trying to prove libel and defamation, the plaintiffs are arguing that not only did the school do harm by helping the student in their protests, they were more than just acting as administrative overseers in their actions, showing a malice with intent that helped make the damage worse.

Lee Plakas asked Raimondo if the action by the school was at all related to the school’s problems they were having with minority students’ perception of the school. A 14-page list of demands was released by the Black Student Union in December of 2015 saying the school “include(s) Black and other students of color in the institution and mark them with the words ‘equity, inclusion and diversity,’ when in fact this institution functions on the premises of imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy. “

“You did these things to appease the students, for the school to be thought of as treating minority students better, right?” Plakas asked.

“That statement is absolutely false,” Raimondo answered.

Clarence “Trey” James and other witnesses

There were other witnesses called by Gibson’s side that are very relevant in this overall argument of “active” participation by the school in causing damage to the business.

Clarence “Trey” James, an African-American who had worked at the store since 2013, first denied that any racism existed in either the store’s treatment of its customers, or how he has been treated. “Never, not even a hint,” James said. “Zero reason to believe, zero evidence of that.”

James said he had moved to Oberlin from Cleveland to have a better family life for his young daughter. He is a single-father of a teenager, and he said that he and his daughter were invited over Dave Gibson’s house for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner.

James said he was working at the store during the protests and could see Raimondo directly outside the front door, as he was working the cash register near the front windows and store entrance. Raimondo has claimed she was merely at the protest because it was her administrative duty to oversee the safety of the students and to keep the event “lawful.” She has repeatedly said she was not an “active participant.”

But James said he saw Raimondo “standing directly in front of the store with a megaphone, orchestrating some of the activities of the students. It appeared she was the voice of authority. She was telling the kids what to do, where to go. Where to get water, use the restrooms, where to make copies.”

The copy making was needed to get more flyers for the students to pass out. These flyers said Gibson’s had a long history of racial profiling, had assaulted the shoplifting students, encouraged a boycott of Gibson’s, and gave a list of other stores to shop with.

James said Raimondo was taking part in the distribution of these flyers. “She had a stack of them,” James testified, “and while she was talking on the bullhorn, she handed out half of them to a student who then went and passed them out.”

The level of “participation” in the protest grew to higher levels with the last two witnesses. Two employees who worked in the school’s music conservancy offices (just down the street from the Gibson’s store) said students were allowed to use the conference room in their offices, make copies of the flyers that said Gibson’s was racist, use the restrooms of these offices, and were brought in pizza and beverages by the music conservancy administrators that had been ordered by the school.

The school has denied they participated in the protest in any way beyond trying to “deescalate” the tension.

The civil trial resumes tomorrow and is expect to last until the end of the month.

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

WAJ adds: Based on Dan’s reporting of the testimony, today appeared to be quite devastating for the defendants. As mentioned in one of my prior notes, a tried and true tactic is to start your case by destroying the defense before you call your own witnesses. The Gibsons (father and son) have not yet testified, but when they do, the ground will have been prepared to provide them with credibility and to portray the attacks on them as hollow and meanspirited. Of course, we’re only in the second or third inning of this ballgame, and things could change as the college gets to present its case. But at this early point, it appears that the college is going to have to win this case on legal technicalities governing defamation and damages, not on the facts.)

————

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

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The elite college’s theories on intersectionality and privilege are colliding with reality, and reality is winning.

Blanket lying even when caught on camera is a trademark of the
left, particularly Democrats. It comes from the immunity conferred on aberrant left wing behavior by the mainstream media.

Even if Gibson’s wins some sort of suit/settlement from Oberlin College for their damages . . . What could the amount of those damages be, and how much of this (negative) publicity has been exacerbated by the suit that Gibson’s is promulgating? How many $$’s of 2016, 2017, 2018, future (DiscPV) of sales has Gibson’s really lost, and what is their profit margin on those sales? $200k, $300k (that’s a lot of bagels and muffins!)?

As I have written previously, a brand new generation of Oberlin college students will occupy those dorms in 3+ years. In fact, the current generation probably hardly remembers/cares that there was a 3-month “boycott” 3 years ago. If it wasn’t for Gibson’s not being willing to settle for some kind of damages, none of us would know either, yes?

I would take the under on $200k damages (trebled = $600k) And my sense is that Gibson’s couldn’t care less . . . they just want to be “right” and show Oberlin College that they were “wrong” (which they probably were).

Anyone want to bet me that Oberlin will pay MORE than $500k in damages? I say less.
Side bet on how many more years Meredith Raimondo is employed at Oberlin College?

    MajorWood in reply to Yuckster. | May 14, 2019 at 9:29 pm

    My SWAG is that the suggested damages are going to be off by an order of magnitude and the future employment will be measured “in hours” after the verdict. The only reason she is still there, IMHO, is that firing her would really help the Gibsons. My guess is that she has already been relieved of her duties.

    The reasonable settlement needed to happen by 12/1/2016. I for one am still a bit surprised that this came to trial. Not because it lacked merit, but because to me it seemed to have too much disparity in wealth and influence.

    And a settlement at this point with an NDA would allow the college to whitewash their actions. Looking forward to the book and the movie, hint hint.

    pst314 in reply to Yuckster. | May 14, 2019 at 9:29 pm

    Don’t forget that there individuals are being sued as well, and the testimony presented so far seem sufficient to justify damages in amounts likely to cause devastating financial harm to a college professor or administrator. Thugs suffering real harm should send a useful message to other Bien Pensant academics.

      dystopia in reply to pst314. | May 15, 2019 at 7:23 am

      Since Oberlin contends the individuals were acting outside the scope of their employment it would be a gross abuse Oberlin to use college funds to pay any money judgment against individual defendants. Likely actionable in fact.

      If these “Administrators” and “faculty” had any savvy they would realize they are being hung out to dry. They will be on the hook.

        BrutalEthyl in reply to dystopia. | May 15, 2019 at 7:51 pm

        I obtained a 2 year associates degree in nursing in the 80’s. It served me well until about 8-10 years ago when employers began to insinuate that people without a 4 year degree are lacking in critical thinking skills and “encouraging” nurses to go back to school to get that degree.

        Now I see a shit load of degreed idiots getting their asses handed to them for being such incredible dullards that they were unable to notice the tidal wave of litigation headed their way.

        I’ll keep my pathetic little 2 year degree thank you very much. And I’ll ponder my decision as I watch this ship of fools sink into insolvency.

      sequester in reply to pst314. | May 15, 2019 at 7:28 am

      If Oberlin is paying the legal tab, it would be interesting to put opposing counsel on the stand to get that in the record. The question would be, “why is Oberlin using college funds to pay for the defense of employees acting outside the scope of employment”?

      If insurance is involved there likely was a determination by the insurance company that the defendants were withing their scope of employment.

        MajorWood in reply to sequester. | May 15, 2019 at 7:07 pm

        The whole show became murky almost from the start. Do not hold me to this as it has been 2-1/2 yrs since those events, but IIRC, there was an issue of someone, possibly a trustee, paying for a lawyer for Aladin and the use of a college car to transport him about 120 miles down to Columbus. From early on the college was way too involved in this incident in trying to steer the outcome.

    Terence G. Gain in reply to Yuckster. | May 15, 2019 at 8:11 am

    “probably wrong” ? Seriously? This case is as black and white as could be. Pun intended.

    PostLiberal in reply to Yuckster. | May 15, 2019 at 11:54 am

    If it wasn’t for Gibson’s not being willing to settle for some kind of damages, none of us would know either, yes?

    Did Oberlin make a settlement offer? My recollection- which could be wrong- is that Oberlin didn’t make a settlement offer.

    slither in reply to Yuckster. | May 15, 2019 at 3:45 pm

    Actually, the current group of students very much cares about Gibson’s. For example, take a look at this article in their student newspaper written just before the trial started: https://oberlinreview.org/18683/news/gibsons-lawsuit-will-go-to-trial/ And the paper has been actively censoring comments on this article as well.

    It is surprising how long these sorts of things can last at a college like Oberlin. On campus tours students tell prospective students about Gibson’s. At the start of the school year the student newspaper told the frosh that going to Gibson’s will be very bad for their social life. The fact is that new students come to college probably knowing nobody and therefore react very strongly to social messages like “avoid this place because it is racist.”

There can also be punitive damages, and the legal costs of a long trial can be substantial, especially to individual defendants, and particularly if the defendants cases are as weak as they now appear to be.
The purpose of the trial, however, is not so much to inflict harm on the defendants, nor to recoup losses incurred by the plaintiffs. It is to discourage such behavior by Oberlin and similar institutions, by putting a significant cost to them.
The Oberlin administration appears to have attempted to appease a group of ignorant and childish students by joining them in picking on a small store, claiming it is guilty of capitalism. I believe it deserves this suit.

counsel4pay | May 14, 2019 at 9:53 pm

Another good day for Gibsons. Raimondo’s credibility, previously hanging by a thread, has crashed and burned by the first person testimony of Trey James. [Additional witnesses would be ideal; but are not indispensable.] A prima facie case, sufficient to compel rejection of a “directed verdict” for the defense, has been made. [Expect the motion, nevertheless–remember, the court system is part theater.]

Raimondo’s testimony, directly repudiated by James, now justifies the “false in part, false in whole” jury instruction–a potential KILLER. [I’ve won more than one civil trial in LA using that rule.] Wikipedia frames it this way: “At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter.”

Plaintiff’s attorney is “climbing the ladder of authority” with the goal of getting to the highest possible decision maker at the college who was guilty of misconduct. The higher up he gets, the more money he makes.

F-bombs are decidedly outside the “dispassionate uninvolvement” of Oberlin authorities.

BTW: Under $500k damages–hah! I’LL TAKE THAT BET ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. The comment about higher by “orders of magnitude” was spot on.

Sell tickets and print programs. This is going to be a h#ll of a ride!

    artichoke in reply to counsel4pay. | May 14, 2019 at 11:17 pm

    Do you think Raimondo could face criminal charges? Even for terrorism?

    iconotastic in reply to counsel4pay. | May 15, 2019 at 12:37 am

    Raimondo would seem to have perjured herself. Any consequences for that?

      Observer in reply to iconotastic. | May 15, 2019 at 9:28 am

      If you mean criminal liability, probably not. A prosecutor would have to be willing to charge her, which rarely happens. The more damaging consequences to Raimondo will likely be that the civil jury realizes that she is an unrepentant liar and punishes her for it in the civil judgment (she is one of the named defendants) by assessing a large damages award against her.

    Yuckster in reply to counsel4pay. | May 15, 2019 at 8:43 am

    So I get the vitriol, passion and potential in this case for punishing an institution that improperly “let loose the SJ’s of War” on someone/thing that could be labeled racist against black youth . . . Which is the worst circle of hell in today’s world . . . where there are no consequences for improper accusations and shutting down the opposition via righteous indignation is typical.

    And I get that Oberlin college admin’s threw gasoline, not restraint , onto the circumstances. IMO, Dean Raimondo needs a bit of “reeducation” on her responsibilities to the broader college community.

    But really, what financial damage was there? The profit margin on a few months of bagel sales? How much have Gibsons’ sales really dropped between the events through today, and what would have been the marginal profit on those sales?

    I am usually pretty moderate when it comes to these issues, and yes, I LOVE when the puffed-up self-righteous are deflated.

    But nothing about this history or case influences me one way or the other about
    a) sending my kid to Oberlin (a terrific school that has the exact same problems wrto ridiculous “progressivism” as the other fancy colleges/universities); or
    b) shopping at Gibson’s or dis/encouraging my son to shop there if/when the selection, price and convenience is favorable.

    Not defending Oberlin College’s actions by any means, but this case goes way beyond financial damages . . . for Gibson’s, yes, and seemingly for many of you all as well.

      MajorWood in reply to Yuckster. | May 15, 2019 at 3:09 pm

      Well, think of it in terms of littering. You toss a can out the window, and poof you get a $3,000 fine. Did you cause $3,000 in damages with your act, probably not? But that fine sends a message to the other 2,999 people not to toss a can out the window. The Gibsons case isn’t just about a loss of sales, it is about all of the cases that came before which never went to trial, and all the cases after, which won’t occur because people now know there are consequences for their actions.

      Also keep in mind that it isn’t just the actual $$ damages. It is about future damages as the brand is damaged, and about lost revenue from other businesses (properties) owned by the family, and the very real possibility that they boycott could have persisted for a long time which could have closed the doors.

      And finally, we also have to look at what Oberlin might have gained by their actions, which is more students paying full tuition. The boycott, to the college, was basically free publicity about how “edgy” they were. But I think they are going to learn the truth about nothing being more expensive than free.

      I am also looking forward to hearing what the “voices of reason” within the college community said about the boycott, apologizing and settling early, and how to deal with the suit. I can’t believe that everyone went “full retard,” to borrow a phrase.

      MajorWood in reply to Yuckster. | May 15, 2019 at 3:21 pm

      Well, think of it in terms of littering. You toss a can out the window, and poof you get a $3,000 fine. Did you cause $3,000 in damages with your act, probably not? But that fine sends a message to the other 2,999 people not to toss a can out the window. The Gibsons case isn’t just about a loss of sales, it is about all of the cases that came before which never went to trial, and all the cases after, which won’t occur because people now know there are consequences for their actions.

      Also keep in mind that it isn’t just the actual $$ damages. It is about future damages as the brand is damaged, and about lost revenue from other businesses (properties) owned by the family, and the very real possibility that they boycott could have persisted for a long time which could have closed the doors.

      And finally, we also have to look at what Oberlin might have gained by their actions, which is more students paying full tuition. The boycott, to the college, was basically free publicity about how “edgy” they were. But I think they are going to learn the truth about nothing being more expensive than free.

      I am also looking forward to hearing what the “voices of reason” within the college community said about the boycott, apologizing and settling early, and how to deal with the suit. I can’t believe that everyone went “full retard,” to borrow a phrase.

      Oh, and on other fronts:

      https://mobile.twitter.com/miniAOCofficial/status/1127917024842108929

      counsel4pay in reply to Yuckster. | May 15, 2019 at 8:43 pm

      1. Let’s ask Shakespeare about this issue of “damages”.

      Othello Act 3 Scene 3:

      “Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls.

      Who steals my purse steals trash. ‘Tis something, nothing:
      ‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands.
      But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed.”

      [A jury gave my client big bucks when I used that in closing argument–and I didn’t even ask for a dollar amount I thought fair!]

      2. Expert witnesses plus the owners’ testimony will push compensatory damages much higher than some bagels–watch and see. This will be EPIC.

        HarvardPhD in reply to counsel4pay. | May 15, 2019 at 9:24 pm

        That would be an excellent quotation, were it not for the context: Iago is using it to inflame Othello’s jealous rage. It may be a famous statement, often quoted, but as used, it was pure hypocrisy. Opposing counsel should have had sufficient wit to have pointed that out.

      artichoke in reply to Yuckster. | May 17, 2019 at 12:57 am

      There’s certainly no way my kid was going to apply to Oberlin this year, after we heard about the Gibson’s business a year or two ago. Not that he would have anyway for other reasons. But they did send us cool artsy brochures.

I have no hard evidence but i believe most protests at all colleges have faculty backing and direction.

    pst314 in reply to dunce1239. | May 14, 2019 at 10:15 pm

    I believe you are correct–and the more violent and disruptive the “protest” is, the more backing from the faculty and administration.

    oldgoat36 in reply to dunce1239. | May 14, 2019 at 10:18 pm

    I don’t think all, but I would venture that most are either backed or supported by faculty. I doubt they would support those protests that directly go against the President or Chancellor of the schools, for instance. Though the genesis of the protest might have had the support and lacked giving direction so it blew back on them.
    I tend to think they push activism as much as possible, as that helps cement the leftist ideals in the student’s minds, but inciting groups to action is not always easy to control. It can become like herding cats.

JusticeDelivered | May 14, 2019 at 10:43 pm

Exposure of tactics and attitudes we have seen at Oberlin is just the tip of the iceberg of a much bigger problem. Again and again we have seen PR hacks kraft lies surrounding so called social justice issues. It is a year or more before the truth comes out.

These POS are still harassing George Zimmerman. They need to be prosecuted to send a message about acceptable behavior.

Ableist, cissexist, heteropatriarchy, It’s amusing when these rich privileged kids talk this way. They think they know it all and really they sound like idiots. They should move the voting age up to 30.

    alaskabob in reply to Jackie. | May 15, 2019 at 12:21 am

    Require passing the same test immigrants seeking citizenship must answer.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to alaskabob. | May 15, 2019 at 7:11 am

      I’d tke it further: make that a requirement for ALL those who seek the franchise. ALL. Not just college kids and immigrants.

      Needless to mention – but I will anyway – the snivel rights reverends would scream their heads off, but if I were in charge, my reply would be one word: “tough!”

      Jackie in reply to alaskabob. | May 15, 2019 at 7:57 am

      That would eliminate 90% of the population. I would bet the vast majority of people on the street don’t know who the VP is or Speaker of the House.

        Terence G. Gain in reply to Jackie. | May 15, 2019 at 8:20 am

        Should those people be voting? Good governance requires the participation of good citizens. I think good citizenship requires responsibilities as well as rights. Passing a basic civics test is warranted as a condition of being given a ballot.

          Occasional Thinker in reply to Terence G. Gain. | May 15, 2019 at 9:03 am

          I am of the belief we should tie voting directly to gun purchases and ownership. 21 to buy a firearm? 21 to vote. Training class to carry a firearm? Training class to vote. Background check and photo identification with your current residential address required to purchase a firearm? Ditto for voting. And on down the line. Either democrats would lose their zeal for gun laws or elections would be less open to fraud.

          No, but that is why a Crook like DiBlasio gets elected. I read he is worth 145 million. How is a lifetime of elected jobs amass such a fortune?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Jackie. | May 16, 2019 at 6:07 pm

    There is always an arrogance of youth. That is tempered over time, one setback at a time.

    Milhouse in reply to Jackie. | May 16, 2019 at 6:33 pm

    Congress made a major mistake in banning literacy tests. That they were often being enforced in a blatantly racist manner was indeed a problem, but the proper solution was to make sure they were enforced fairly. This should be fixed.

    Or take Heinlein’s suggestion, and require each voter to solve a randomly generated quadratic equation before voting. I will admit that I do not know how to do this, but if it were a condition of voting I would learn. Civil rights groups could hold classes teaching people how to do it. Heinlein’s point is that everyone of reasonable intelligence can learn how to do this, and it can’t be manipulated politically or racially or in any other way.

Raimondo should face criminal charges personally.

    Olinser in reply to artichoke. | May 15, 2019 at 1:42 am

    She’s being personally sued in a civil suit by Gibsons, apart from this suit.

    And after her disastrous performance on the stand, her lawyer should be on their hands and knees BEGGING to settle.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Olinser. | May 15, 2019 at 7:13 am

      For someone alleged to be so intelligent, she strikes me as being incredibly arrogant, or incredibly stupid.

      Years ago, I learned the difference between being intelligent and being smart. Attend a few Mensa chapter meetings, and you will understand.

        Been there, done that. I quickly decided these were people who lived surrounded by dumb people, unable to have an intelligent conversation, so they were desperately happy to meet people they could talk to. Since I didn’t have this problem I got bored with the meetings and stopped attending. I kept up my membership for the magazine, until I stopped qualifying for the student rate. I decided the magazine wasn’t worth the full membership rate to me, so I let it lapse.

John Casteel | May 15, 2019 at 7:17 am

Meredith Raimondo and Ben Jones as the face of an alleged place of learning is all by itself devastating. Win or lose at trial, the school has taken an enormous hit in public perception.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to John Casteel. | May 16, 2019 at 6:36 pm

    Maybe there should be an organized educational campaign about the nature of the college?

    Many years ago I became involved in a case where a university was working over an undergrad. I found a way to capture their whole 30,000 email list, and then broadcasted a solicitation to the whole group for information about the case.

    It was like stomping on an ant hill. Anyway, we uncovered that top brass had covered of a rapist, and took scalps.

    Sometimes karma needs a little help.

“Unleash the students” … “F–k ’em”: I am astonished that college officials would write such things in discoverable communications. If I were on the Oberlin legal team or a Trustee of the institution, I would be livid.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to John M. | May 15, 2019 at 9:47 am

    I feel confident in suggesting that there were (and maybe are)some loud and profane discussions at meetings that attorney-client privilege will keep from the rest of us. In he forthcoming movie (to bad he’s dead) use R. Lee Ermy could play one of the Oberlin defense attorneys, just for these scenes alone.

Terence G. Gain | May 15, 2019 at 8:07 am

I would have asked Ms Raimondo why she made no efforts to determine what actually happened before she accused Gibson’s of racism and engaged in mob action.

I think that all of this is a legacy of Barack Obama. In the cases of Trayyvon Martin and Michael Brown, he ignored what actually happened and instead spread a false narrative of racism and victimization. We would be in a much better place if his demagoguery had been challenged or if he had not, ironically, decided to use his Presidency to make race relations worse.

I think the truth was exposed in this statement:

“I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”!

I had been assuming that the college was at the mercy of the students when in fact the are complicit with them and more than happy to use them as a weapon against anyone who differs from their opinion.

I wouldn’t have considered that an appropriate response.

Third person (a past version of self) passive case: a leading indicator of willful concealment. Not always, but true far more often than not.

It’s not a win for Gibson’s nor for America unless the damages awarded are punitive and land mark large.

It MUST not come to pass that the cost of destroying a person, family or business is small potatoes else the left will simply have been shown that for 20-50k and some lawyer time, they can do whatever they want to whomever they want.

ScottTheEngineer | May 15, 2019 at 12:49 pm

The college wanted the charges dropped to resume business? From what I understand the students were charged with shoplifting. When the cop showed up all 3 of them were beating the employee while he was on the ground. Trayvon got legally shot for the same thing. Isn’t that attempted murder? And they have the sack to complain. F’ing amazing.

    Trayvon got legally shot for the same thing

    Congratulations to Trayvon Martin on 7 years without an arrest.

      pst314 in reply to pst314. | May 15, 2019 at 8:41 pm

      I denounce myself for Wrong Think. Please send me to Siberia, comrade.

        pst314 in reply to pst314. | May 15, 2019 at 8:44 pm

        Even back in the sixties it was common for black criminals to cry “racism!” when they were caught and punished for their crimes…and there were plenty of others to support them, so much so that our school had a few riots.

    Milhouse in reply to ScottTheEngineer. | May 16, 2019 at 6:40 pm

    No, beating someone while he’s on the ground is not attempted murder. Repeatedly slamming his head into the pavement is.

Richard Aubrey | May 15, 2019 at 2:01 pm

Settle or discovery. Pick one. Oops. The arrogance which led these clowns to think they could beat discovery….
Back in the day, Oberlin undergrads–all guys, toxic masculinity and stuff–duked it out with slave catchers and their federal buddies. They won. It was well done of them.

But that’s been Oberlin’s Thing ever since. Dining out on the story for more than a hundred and fifty years. Maybe they thought they had some kind of supernatural armor…?

Sounds like things are going in the right direction. Hammer Oberlin at every opportunity.

Brave Sir Robbin | May 15, 2019 at 7:35 pm

“a) sending my kid to Oberlin (a terrific school that has the exact same problems wrto ridiculous “progressivism” as the other fancy colleges/universities)”

Of course this is a subjective assessment, but I am not sure Oberlin can be classified as a terrific school. It is solid in some areas, but generally, not a good value, that is, you can get an as good as or better education at a large number of schools at lower costs.

The problem with Oberlin is that it may have, indeed has been accused of, not simply tolerating ignorant and potentially destructive and dangerous mob rule, which is all too common across the land, but is actively engaged in promoting it, which is a new and disconcerting development.

I would not pay for my child to enter such and environment.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend