Image 01 Image 03

Court enters $25 million Judgment against Oberlin College in Gibson’s Bakery case

Court enters $25 million Judgment against Oberlin College in Gibson’s Bakery case

The total amount (inclusive of compensatory and punitive damages) after applying tort reform caps is: David R. Gibson $14,000,000; Allyn W. Gibson $6,500,000; Gibson Bros. Inc. $4,549,000. The total is $25,049,000.

In the Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College case, the Court has entered a Judgment (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post) calculating the damages owed by the defendants after applying the statutory tort reform caps.

The total amount (inclusive of compensatory and punitive damages) is: David R. Gibson $14,000,000; Allyn W. Gibson $6,500,000; Gibson Bros. Inc. $4,549,000. The total is $25,049,000.

A hearing on awarding plaintiffs attorney’s fees is set for July 10.

The jury originally returned a total compensatory verdict of $11 million and punitive verdict of $33 million. In these posts we detailed the arguments of the parties as to how to Ohio’s tort reform caps applied to the calculation:

The key disputes as to how to apply Ohio tort reform caps on noneconomic compensatory damages centered on whether each claim for each plaintiff was separately subject to the cap, or did the cap apply to all claims of each plaintiff. The court appears to have ruled, as plaintiffs argued, that the cap was per claim.

More significantly, the tort reform law limits punitive damages to 2X compensatory, but the issue was whether that applied to pre-cap compensatory damages or post-cap compensatory damages. That was about a $10 million swing. The court appears to have agreed with the plaintiffs argument that under the plain reading of the statute, the 2X cap applied to pre-cap compensatory damages.

Although not directly addressed, the court appears to have denied the argument that the statutory cap on punitive damages was unconstitutional.

Here are the relevant portions of the Court’s Judgment:

David R. Gibson

Judgment is hereby rendered against Defendants and in favor of David R. Gibson for compensatory damages for economic loss in the amount of $1,800,000.00.

Judgment is hereby rendered against Defendants m favor of David R. Gibson for compensatory damages for noneconomic loss in the amount of $600,000.00. ($350,000.00 on the libel claim and $250,000.00 on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim)

Judgment is hereby rendered against Defendants and in favor of David R. Gibson for punitive damages in the amount of $11,600,000.00 (two times the amount the jury awarded to the plaintiff for compensatory damages in accordance with Ohio Revised Code Section 2315.21 ).


Allyn W. Gibson

Judgment is hereby rendered against Defendants and in favor of Allyn W. Gibson for compensatory damages for noneconomic loss in the amount of $500,000.00. ($250,000.00 on the libel claim and $250,000.00 on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim)

Judgment is hereby rendered against Defendants and in favor of Allyn W. Gibson for punitive damages in the amount of $6,000,000.00 (two times the amount the jury awarded to the plaintiff for compensatory damages in accordance with Ohio Revised Code Section 2315.21).


Gibson Bros. Inc.

Judgment is rendered against Defendants and in favor of Gibson Bros., Inc. for compensatory damages for economic loss in the amount of $2,274,500.00. ($1,137,250.00 on each claim: libel and intentional interference with business relations).

Judgment is rendered against Defendants and in favor of Gibson Bros., Inc. for punitive damages in the amount of $2,274,500.00 (two times the amount the jury awarded to the plaintiff for compensatory damages in accordance with Ohio Revised Code Section 2315.21).


As indicated in the Judgment, there is no Judgment against Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo, because:

On June 6, 2019, the parties stipulated and agreed that Oberlin College would be vicariously, jointly, and severally liable for any verdict or judgment rendered against Meredith Raimondo, regardless of whether a separate verdict or judgment was entered against Oberlin College.

[Featured Image: David Gibson hugs grandson after punitive damages verdict][Photo credit Bob Perkoski for Legal Insurrection Foundation]


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

Donate Now!


Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Court Order on Damages and Judgment by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


caseoftheblues | June 28, 2019 at 9:47 am

Can a legal type explain if this also covers their legal costs which I thought I understood​ they were awarded? …or was there just the possibility they would get?

    Ironman in reply to caseoftheblues. | June 28, 2019 at 9:50 am

    There will be a hearing on July 10 to discuss legal fees. So this judgement is independent of legal fees.

      Andy in reply to Ironman. | June 28, 2019 at 12:43 pm

      That’ll be a good one to see. I don’t think insurance will cover that portion- so the school will feel that pain.

      Still likely not enough pain to get it through their sick skulls that what they did was wrong.

        iconotastic in reply to Andy. | June 28, 2019 at 1:32 pm

        The college seems stuck now denying responsibility and refusing to make any kind of meaningful steps to apologizing and rectifying the situation. Their brand is now at risk with their ‘customers’—woke high school graduates and their parents. If the college backs down then it risks all sorts of questions the school doesn’t want asked, like ‘what kind of stupid deans lead a mob of students?’

        As for being bailed out, I wonder if the Soros-affiliated board member might be wondering if the school has more value as a martyr than as another propaganda center.

        The insurance company has already given notice that they are not responsible for payment as the college acted illegally.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Andy. | June 28, 2019 at 10:58 pm

        It is highly unlikely Oberlin will collect any proceeds from its liability insurers in this instance. Such policies generically only cover errors and omissions, not willful acts of malice, and very often, not gross negligence.

        Oberlin’s actions here were found to be willful and malicious.

        Ohio Code Section 3937.182 plainly states that no insurance policy shall provide coverage for judgments or claims against an insured for punitive or exemplary damages. R.C. 3937.182(B).

        Case law backs this up. Insurance for directly assessed punitive damages is clearly disfavored in Ohio. See:
        (A) State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blevins, 551 N.E.2d 955 (Ohio 1990) (purpose of punitive damages would be frustrated by permitting insurance to indemnify the wrongdoer);
        (B) Wedge Products, Inc. v. Hartford Equity Sales, 509 N.E.2d 74 (Ohio 1987) (public policy is contrary to insurance against intentional torts).
        (C) National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Shane & Shane Co., 605 N.E.2d 1325 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992);
        (D) Casey v. Calhoun, 531 N.E.2d 1348 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987) (it is against public policy to obtain insurance coverage for punitive damages awarded in a defamation action).

        However, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that insurance against punitive damages may be allowed where the contract is specific as to the undertaking of such an obligation, and the award of punitive damages is not based on willful acts, i.e., malice, but rather in cases of gross negligence or otherwise vicarious circumstances, that is not willful or malicious, for example. See Blevins, 551 N.E.2d at 959.

With attorneys’ fees to be added later.

Man, I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning.

caseoftheblues | June 28, 2019 at 10:13 am

Thanks Ironman…

Does anyone think Oberlin will settle this case now and move on?

    Observer in reply to countrylaw. | June 28, 2019 at 10:22 am

    Not based on what we’ve seen from them so far. They seem determined to double-down on stupid.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Observer. | June 28, 2019 at 4:26 pm

      Now interest and legal fees will become a huge factor. Oberlin College will be crying. They are going to be paying both their and Gibson’s legal bills, past and future.

        Reality has set in. I’d wager OC is going to cut their losses, pay the $25M, and not appeal. I won’t predict the future of Twillie and Raimondo, but I suspect their employment is safe.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to walls. | June 28, 2019 at 10:07 pm

          “I won’t predict the future of Twillie and Raimondo, but I suspect their employment is safe.”

          They will no doubt continue the same conduct, and get sued again. They know in their hearts that they are just as entitled as their student thieves.

          RandomCrank in reply to walls. | June 28, 2019 at 10:14 pm

          $25 million + legal fees, i.e. $33 million. I hope LI will tell us whether it will hold up on appeal.

          AlexanderYpsilantis in reply to walls. | June 30, 2019 at 3:10 pm

          Raimondo is toast, as is the Communications Director. Possibly the President as well. $ 25 Million and no terminations? You have to be kidding me!?

    Ironman in reply to countrylaw. | June 28, 2019 at 10:45 am

    If I was Gibson’s I wouldn’t settle for anything short of full judgement. They just won a judgement of $25 million and also won’t have to pay their lawyers. They have a solid hand. If Oberlin wants to appeal they still need to come up with $25 million + legal fees + interest for supersedeas bond. Appeal or cave, for Oberlin that money has to come out of pocket now. 4% interest on the $25M is a $1M per year. If the appeal takes 5 years and they lose, Oberlin ends up paying $30 million + legal fees.

    TX-rifraph in reply to countrylaw. | June 28, 2019 at 11:28 am

    Perhaps the Gibson’s could agree to settle. They could reduce the award from $25,049,000 to $25,035,000.

    For the moment – no. There don’t seem to be any adults in charge at Oberlin.

This is a great result and achievement, any way one slices it. Kudos to the Gibsons’ legal team, for their tenacity and skilful advocacy on behalf of their clients, and, to the Gibsons, for hanging tough throughout this insane ordeal, and, for not giving in to the jackbooted, totalitarian antics of the Leftist student-goons and their chaperone-enablers in the Oberlin administration and faculty.

    Tom Servo in reply to guyjones. | June 28, 2019 at 12:10 pm

    Agreed! And by reducing it to what it clearly appears that Ohio Laws call for, the Judge just took away one more avenue to appeal. Oh, Oberlin can try, but their grounds are very, very weak.

    As far as the reduced award – this is still an entire order of magnitude greater than the Gibson’s could ever have dreamed they would have been awarded, so this is a total victory for them!

There’s no Freude like Schadenfreude – no Freude I know!

Oberlin should have hung Raimondo out to dry, I bet they are regretting that decision now.

If they have any sense (hey don’t laugh) they will suck it up write the check and try to pretend it didn’t happen. They should also pray that the trend of these uber left wing universities doesn’t happen to them. It will be interesting to see their enrollment numbers for next year.

    Joe Fabeets in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 28, 2019 at 11:52 am

    I saw here that when called by the Plaintiffs as on cross during the case in chief, she denied that the reporter she handed the flyer to identified himself as such until much later.

    To me, she buried whatever hope Oberlin had of disassociating itself from the defamatory communications. I think she did that because she was overall pissed off at the reporter for the way he covered the protest and reported their initial interaction.

    I am convinced that she handed it to him as background for his story, not as an advocate for the protest (even though she undoubtedly supported it privately). But the way he reported that exchange was vague enough to be interpreted as her “handing them out.” So she felt the need to contradict the reporter, not realizing the damage she’d done.

    She seems to have walked that back on direct during the defense phase, but it was too late. The jury now has credible testimony from Oberlin’s agent that, if believed, supports a finding that the University was an active participant in distributing defamatory writings.

      RandomCrank in reply to Joe Fabeets. | June 29, 2019 at 1:48 am

      She was seen with a stack of flyers, handing them to students, and she was on a bullhorn. Raimondo was in the thick of it.

    From early on I think Oberlin’s strategy has been to get a Federal judge to toss any unfavorable jury verdict (on the grounds of “fairness” or some other rot). IMHO that is probably the best strategy, since the massive egos of many of Oberlin’s faculty, students and administration precluded a settlement that in any way admitted guilt. Plus, the Federal judiciary is an open sewer of lefty bias, so Oberlin has a chance of getting a Federal judge to do its bidding.

    Oberlin has deep pockets, and the US has a regrettable surplus of millionaire commies. Some are bound to help out Oberlin if needed. Most importantly, many in the Oberlin college community are convinced that the Gibsons are racist scum and are enraged that college was found guilt by the equally racist jury. How dare we judge our moral and intellectual betters! Death before dishonor at the hands of the Deplorables!

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | June 28, 2019 at 5:11 pm

      I had a colleague who had nearly a $100 million judgement against a large corporate entity. They bought a judge, and the case became an example used by a very prominent law professor who was also a friend used in his classes.

      I looked. This case has never been in Federal court. I have no clue what you’re talking about6. The only way this will make it to a federal court is an appeal from the Ohio supreme court to the US Supreme Court.

    walls in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 28, 2019 at 1:04 pm

    Most colleges send out offer letters in March and all by April 1. The student MUST make a decision [accept or not] by May 1. Since the trial started May 10 – and I’m not sure how much prospective students were aware of the facts before the trial – I doubt there will be much of an impact for this school year.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 28, 2019 at 4:30 pm

    I bet that Raimondo is arrogant enough to continue to defame the Gibsons, hopefully we we see her personally sued in the future.

    I would love to see pictures of her, much skinner, standing on a street corner with a work for food sign.

I wonder if there is any way to require Oberlin to pay any part of this judgment, or attorney fees before appeal is finalized?
My concern is that Oberlin has so clearly shown the same kind of bad faith as on exhibit in the McDonald’s case.
In the McDonald’s case, the attorneys deliberately delayed trial, in hopes that the aged plaintiff would die. (I would just love to know how that got into the record.)

    The trial is over, and there is a judgment. Even if every one of the plaintiffs died, the judgment would be enforcable by their heirs who inherit the estate of the decedents – unless, of course, if the judgment is overturned on appeal.

Now I suspect (or hope) President Carmen Twillie Ambar will be called upon to do a whole lot of ‘splaining before the Board of Trustees about the matter. Surely at least some members of the board (somewhere between 29 to 37 members) are sane and have their eyes on the good of the realm. Their site says the board officially meets only 4 times a year, so it may take some time.

    Tom Servo in reply to maxmillion. | June 28, 2019 at 12:12 pm

    Didn’t you see that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees is one of George Soros’ henchmen? Ambar has always done exactly what George Soros has been paying her to do, nothing more, nothing less. The Board won’t say squat to her.

    Silvertree in reply to maxmillion. | June 28, 2019 at 1:27 pm

    Last night at the phone-in for alumni, board chair Chris Canavan said that the entire group of trustees has not yet been able to meet in person to discuss these matters.

      I liked the alumni phonecast, in that I saw some interest in changing the institution for the better, that it maybe could become a model for being both liberal and tolerant. However, if they were just trying to paper over a bad situation and have no intention of changing, the institution’s long term future might be bleak. (They cited some present recruiting disadvantages, which the deservedly bad press will surely aggravate.)

    JusticeDelivered in reply to maxmillion. | June 28, 2019 at 4:33 pm

    If anyone has any sense, they will be calling a special meeting, and cleaning house.

What would they base the appeal on? That the amount was to much even though it was reduced down to 25mil?? Or that they just don’t like the result?

    Tom Servo in reply to mailman. | June 28, 2019 at 12:15 pm

    For State level appeals, an appellant generally has to show that the Trial Judge made an Error of Law during the trial, and that is very difficult to do. I’ve seen some of Oberlin’s apologists claim that it was an “error” not to allow Oberlin to say that the Gibson’s really WERE racists, but somehow I just don’t think that is going to fly.

      ObieWanKanObie in reply to Tom Servo. | June 28, 2019 at 1:23 pm

      I don’t understand why the judge didn’t allow this. If Oberlin didn’t have the opportunity to show that Gibson’s has “a long account of racism” etc., then doesn’t that undercut one of the main ways to defend against libel?

      Of course, Gibson’s is in no way racist, everyone in town knows it, and arguing along these lines would have made Oberlin look far worse and completely destroyed any remaining good will they have with the town.

      And if Oberlin appeals, won’t they have to make this argument anyway?

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to ObieWanKanObie. | June 28, 2019 at 11:06 pm

        It is likely Oberlin did not produce any credible evidence of racism by Plaintiff pretrial, so the judge was not going to allow Defendant to slander Plaintiff anew in his court.

      Humble Pie in reply to Tom Servo. | June 28, 2019 at 3:21 pm

      Yes, could someone please explain this? Why was this so-called evidence not allowed? If there is evidence of a long history of racism or racial profiling, then the flyers could be seen not as defamatory but as true!

      That is what is so insidious about this whole thing. It all remains in the realm of malicious rumor. At the phone-in for alumni last night, that was one of the first questions asked (by a lawyer alum): Why was this racism evidence not presented? The president of the College answered him that they had witnesses lined up to show racism and racial profiling but this evidence was not allowed by the judge.

      I am glad the Gibsons won and I certainly want no appeal, but just on a personal level I would rather this all had a thorough airing.

      And why does the College not present this evidence to us anyway, in their mailings, student newspaper, etc? Could it be that they might be sued for lying? Why aren’t the students telling their perspective? What are their reasons for continuing to hold on to these ugly beliefs about the Gibsons, even to this day? I cannot find anything substantial anywhere. Where are the people who want to state their experiences publicly?

      I have dug around myself on the internet looking for evidence. I would rather hear all the evidence and come to my own conclusions. Everything I have found just convinces me more that the Gibsons are innocent victims here of SJWs who have forgotten the J. Well, now they’ve had some justice.

      Here’s all I could find: the proportion of juvenile shoplifters apprehended at Gibsons in that five-year period covered by the police report were overwhelmingly black. That means nothing because the adult offenders apprehended during that same time were overwhelmingly white, and overwhelmingly Oberlin students, I might add.

      Also, the black population of Oberlin, at least when I was growing up there in a town nearby, was known for being economically poor in general (despite the “woke” college that employees a large number of black people in that town…. another question to think about)—so I suspect that poor kids may be more likely to shoplift than kids who can buy what they want. Furthermore, and I know I am opening a can of worms here, it would seem that poorer black communities generally look upon stealing as a justified way of getting back what they believe has been unfairly denied black people in our country? A kind of reparations? So perhaps there was a culture of theft among young black Oberlin residents? That’s what those statistics show me: a culture of theft among Oberlin students and black town kids.

      Also in that report there was apparently also a nine-year old black child who was taken to the police station for stealing gum… apparently he was a repeat shoplifting offender and that was the decision made. I don’t know how you can fault the Gibsons for a decision that must have been made by the police. Perhaps Gibson’s is being faulted for making an issue of it.

      And the last things I found are that a few years ago two black people were asked not to sit out on Gibson’s sidewalk patio because they had not bought anything. That’s the rule for everyone at most such establishments. (More on that point below.) And there are rumors of a Facebook post by Allyn Gibson that apparently has been construed as racist, but I have no idea what it said. What did it say, does anyone know? Perhaps he was frustrated by the myriads of black juvenile shoplifters in his store and said so?

      Even last night, the president of the College was still talking about people’s “lived experience” of racism at Gibson’s. But no sign from her of what that is. What does it mean on the students’ protest signs, “This runs deeper”? Why will NO ONE come out and tell us what this is all about? I have repeatedly asked for this information from the College and the student newspaper. Just spell it out already! Don’t leave the Gibsons with this horrible cloud over their heads. Stop smearing them! Let us see the facts, if you have any, and we will judge for ourselves. The Gibsons can’t defend against these mysterious innuendos and rumors, and that’s what makes this all so cruel and insidious. Even after all this mess, last night the president of the College was still talking about people’s “lived experience” of racism at Gibson’s!

      To me this deafening, cowardly silence shows that there is nothing there. It’s all just vague feelings and projection.

      Do you know what I also found when digging? An article that talks about how Gibson’s allowed black people to shop and eat in their store back in the era of Jim Crow. That was a central part of their values, explained carefully to the Gibson children. All people deserved to be treated as equals in their eyes. Such a thing was by no means a given, even in a northern state and an abolitionist town like Oberlin, and had to be carefully explained to the children.

      In closing I will post here again something that someone posted at LI a few days ago. It’s a comment from below an article in the Oberlin Review, the student newspaper. The comment was posted there in November 2016, so very soon after the student protests. If anyone should know about racism at Gibsons, it is this man.

      As a black male who was born in Oberlin and has known the Gibsons all my life, I think I can say quite clearly that the store owned by said family is not a bastion of white supremacy and racist fervor. I actually consider Allyn to be a friend, and during my last few years in Oberlin before I moved away, he showed nothing but kindness to me. Whether it was offering me a lift if he saw me walking out in the cold, or simply just to say hello and ask how I was doing.
      When my father died years ago, it was the Gibsons who kindly brought several trays of food to our house during my families grieving. When you suddenly lose your father and your trying to process this, get everything in order with the funeral and the estate, etc., to have a local business owner just show up to your door with food to show support – that’s not racist, that’s kindness.
      It was also at Gibsons, that I was to have my first job in highschool. I had to get up at 5 am, or so, to go and help make donuts on Saturday mornings, so, that didn’t last too long. But, there was no animosity about my departure, and I don’t think white supremacists hire black kids to work in their shops. I have rented an apartment from them on more than one occasion, and they were always very fair. It is my belief that if an individual dislikes blacks, they will do all that they can from renting a place to them – I’ve experienced it before – but the Gibsons were, on the contrary, very welcoming.
      I would also like to make it known that I am aware of another instance in which a WHITE male was attempting to steal cash from the Gibsons store and Allyn physically detained him until the police arrived. If someone is taking from you, this is what I would do, myself. I don’t care if the person is purple, red, pink or rainbow colored. And as the above article mentions, the OPD says that this is within the law.
      As someone who was born in Oberlin and actually worked for the college for over 10 years, I eventually resigned to move away and travel. A small part of this was because I was beginning to question what was going on within the school. While there are many parts of Oberlin I love, I have to say that this suffocating and overwhelming need to label everyone as something and put everyone into their own box as different and against you, is something that I do not miss. And it makes me livid to see my friend being labeled very harshly in front of the world, by individuals who want to hide behind a veil of anonymity.
      I will continue shopping at Gibsons, whenever I return to Oberlin to visit. And I will continue to do my best to see humans as humans.
      Brandon Gilbert

      comment below the article:
      Students Call for Gibson’s Bakery Boycott – The Oberlin Review

        Silvertree in reply to Humble Pie. | June 28, 2019 at 4:38 pm

        Actually I was the one who posted that. What was so weird to me last night was also how Ms. Ambar wouldn’t let the racism thing go—she talked about the importance of honoring the experience of people who say they have experienced racism at Gibsons—yet at the end of the night in response to one guy’s question about how students might need more guidance in these situations, she totally threw the student protestors under the bus! She made it sound like they used very poor judgement in these events, and really made it sound like she thought they were very much in the wrong!

        And yes, she said Oberlin will be working on the guidance thing. They have actually already have been trying out some workshops (seminars or some sort of sensitivity training I guess), to teach students how to listen to others who disagree with them and how to try to come into a conversation. Apparently some students have found it to be very useful and are actually using things they have learned there in situations on campus. Going forward she says also wants to help students think about the harm that their speech and protests might cause people. She actually sounded very calm and sensible when she talked about all the things the College is trying to do to keep things like this from happening again. She spoke about how protesting has come to be a kind of “first resort” at Oberlin and says she wants to change that. Amen to that!

        Also for those who don’t know, Oberlin has instituted a mandatory “One Oberlin” introduction for first-year students, to learn how to be good citizens of the town. The topics Ms. Ambar mentioned that they address at this training are shoplifting, riding bikes on the sidewalks, and noise restrictions. (There may be other topics as well.) It’s kind of a welcome from the town too, I guess; the students sit in a lecture-hall format and get to meet and listen to the Oberlin City Manager, the Oberlin Chief of Police, and one owner of a small Oberlin business. (Maybe others too, I don’t know.) The College does seem to be making some good efforts in the “education of kids who should know better” department. However, they will not be getting any donations from me any time soon, I can tell you that.

        Ms. Ambar said she thinks a lot of students just shoplift for something fun to do or a joke, and don’t realize how all those little things they are taking add up for a small business. She did seem to understand the plight these businesses are in; she seemed very genuine in her tone when she talked about that. However, she gave the example of shoplifting pens, conveniently failing to mention the $100 bottles of wine from Gibson’s that Obies have nonchalantly admitted to stealing, right in the student newspaper! (The Grape, “Culture of Theft” December 2017).

        If my math serves me, each of those two bottles of wine Mr. Aladin snuck under his jacket to celebrate Trump’s big win (lol) have now cost the College at least $12,500 + legal fees. Help me out on this. All told, he tried to steal two $20,000 bottles of wine?

          artichoke in reply to Silvertree. | June 28, 2019 at 6:09 pm

          I’ve seen Ambar now in a few different situations, and she’s always composed, always convincing, and can say totally opposite things and not betray any nervousness about the contradiction. She’s a sociopath.

          She is only reducing the pressure because that’s what seems most convenient at the time. It’s a win, because if Gibson’s could be made to take the blame, she’d do it (or let the students do it) in a heartbeat.

          Silvertree in reply to Silvertree. | June 28, 2019 at 8:22 pm

          Sorry, the new course for freshmen is called Community 101, not One Oberlin.

          walls in reply to Silvertree. | June 28, 2019 at 9:59 pm

          For Community 101 … I hope they include Commandment #8 “THOU SHALL NOT STEAL”.
          That’s what started this mess.

          MajorWood in reply to Silvertree. | June 29, 2019 at 1:08 am

          Perhaps also include that thing about bearing false witness.

          Silvertree in reply to Silvertree. | June 29, 2019 at 3:11 pm

          And how about a new course? Changing the World 101: Loving Your Neighbor as Yourself.

          AlexanderYpsilantis in reply to Silvertree. | June 30, 2019 at 9:35 pm

          If Ambar and Raimondo are not fired, something gravely is wrong with the Oberlin College Board of Trustees. $ 25 million due to their poor judgement? Utterly appalling.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to Humble Pie. | June 28, 2019 at 4:57 pm

        Regardless of race, some people are honorable, and some are not. Quite often, scum rises to the top, as evidenced by the nature of those running Oberlin College.

        My experience is mostly engineering, followed by being upper management. I have seen many corporations corrupted by a bad apple at the top. I see no reason to not believe the same is true for a college.

        Looking at how Oberlin College president Carmen Twillie Ambar has handled the case, I think that she is one of those bad apples. Yesterday, she was on CBS spewing the lies.
        Oberlin College president Carmen Twillie Ambar on the $44 million ruling against the school

        It sure looks to me like she is doubling down and continuing to defame Gibson’s. She could have fixed this after taking over, she did not, and that makes this verdict her fault.

          Humble Pie in reply to JusticeDelivered. | June 28, 2019 at 7:07 pm

          Why do the bad apples succeed so well? Are they very adept at fooling others, or is it because they are more ruthless? Do they drive themselves harder? What is their big secret?

        freddy33 in reply to Humble Pie. | June 28, 2019 at 5:10 pm

        There are a lot of reasons why the “evidence” wasn’t admissible. There are rules of evidence which have been developed over many years which govern what is admissible and perhaps it ran afoul of those rules. Hearsay first comes to mind. Who is going to testify to the fact? Did they actually witness it or is it just second or third hand?

        Remember this was not a lawsuit against the students but against the university and senior officials. So that is going to limit what is admitting at trial. However the current president wants to present the narrative that the university is being held liable for the free speech of the students. No, it is the actions of the staff and senior administrators.

        The evidence as to arrest that I have read is that the shoplifting arrests are similar to the demographics of the town, ie. mostly white, about 15% black and about 5% asian.

        One thing I find disturbing about the coverage is that many want to dismiss what the students did (not an issue in the lawsuit) as “well they’re kids”. Wait, they are adults. Adults are responsible for their actions. If one of the young men fathers a child are we going to say he shouldn’t pay child support for his infant? If one of the young women get drunk and drive a car into someone killing them are we not going to prosecute them? NO. Just because you’re a college student doesn’t give you a pass to misbehave.

          Humble Pie in reply to freddy33. | June 28, 2019 at 7:01 pm

          Thank you, this is very interesting about evidence.

          Your comments about the “adult” students are also very interesting. Perhaps these days people are not growing up as fast as they should. I wonder if in earlier centuries there was this phenomenon of adults of this age acting like children?

          Silvertree in reply to freddy33. | June 28, 2019 at 7:26 pm

          There was an interesting statement by an alum at the phone-in last night… she said young people these days have not learned to identify and deal with their own basic emotions, like fear, anger, etc., so they tend to lash out in inappropriate ways. She thought the College needed to work on teaching students some basic emotional understanding and how to handle their own reactions.

          Perhaps that is part of what what we are seeing play out these days. Students certainly do seem to be on the edge emotionally, and they are so hyper-sensitive to slights. In my day it would have been embarrassing to say that you needed a safe space, or that you didn’t want to read certain literature because it was “triggering”. It would have been considered cowardly and weak! Is this a generational phenomenon, or just among the leftists?

        RandomCrank in reply to Humble Pie. | June 28, 2019 at 11:21 pm

        In fact, at the trial, the question of whether or not Gibson’s had any record of racism was front and center. Numerous people testified on the bakery’s behalf, including black people.

        Oberlin’s Dean of Students, Meredith Raimondo, who handed out a flyer accusing the bakery of racial profiling, was asked whether she agreed with the charges in the flyer. She replied, more than once in the various form that question was asked, that she didn’t know.

        So: The issue WAS in fact fully explored at trial. Oberlin in fact DID have the opportunity to argue that Gibson’s had a racist track record and reputation. That said, I can understand why they didn’t make that claim, because the obvious followup question would have been: “Oh, really? So how long had you believed this, and what steps did you take to rectify the situation before the shoplifting incident?”

        Still, the bottom line is that the issue was NEVER ignored at the trial. Quite to the contrary: It was at the very center of the trial.

          Silvertree in reply to RandomCrank. | June 28, 2019 at 11:52 pm

          For some reason the judge allowed Gibson’s to present evidence about racism, but Oberlin College was not allowed to present its evidence about racism. Brave Sir Robin talks about that in his post above.

          RandomCrank in reply to RandomCrank. | June 29, 2019 at 1:11 am

          @Silvertree, that’s simply not true. Oberlin decided on its own not to put any students on the stand. It’s impossible to say why, but I suspect that it’s because Oberlin had no evidence to offer. In the trial, several administrators were questioned, and every single one of them testified that there had never been any hint that the bakery had engaged in any racist behavior before the mini-riot.

          I think what really happened is that a) some rich, spoiled brats got caught shoplifting — apparently quite the habit among Oberlin students — and were angry, embarrassed, or both; b) the poor snowflakes were already mad because the wrong candidate had just been elected president, so c) they decided to take out their immature frustration on the store.

          The charges of racism were wholly bogus, and Oberlin didn’t tell its side of the story because there was no side to tell.

          Silvertree in reply to RandomCrank. | June 29, 2019 at 2:12 pm

          Yes, Oberlin was allowed to call the witnesses, but any evidence of racism on the part of the Gibsons was inadmissible.

          “Oberlin College had multiple students they planned on calling but used none of them. Reason? The students would have likely kept insisting from the witness stand that Gibson’s is racist (I know that from my conversations on campus with students that is still how most feel), but the judge would not have allowed that. So, what would the students have had to say?”

          “Oberlin College got a whiff of that denial of opinion from the witness stand when Chris Jenkins, an associate dean for academic support and equity testified last week. He was on the stand to testify on his role in possibly helping students to copy a flyer that said Gibson’s was racist (he said he didn’t), but then started in a cultural diatribe of sorts. He said he counseled students on ‘allegations of discrimination and harassment”’ against them, and then jumped in with, ‘I personally have had moments in the [Gibson’s] store where I didn’t feel comfortable…’ At that the judge cut him off and told the jury to disregard. Jenkins was soon off the stand after that.”

          “[The judge] did not want to students or administrators to use the witness stand to debate if Gibson’s was racist or not.”

          Silvertree in reply to RandomCrank. | June 29, 2019 at 2:44 pm

          However, you are right: if the witnesses had had evidence to give about Gibson’s having a racist reputation in the community, that would apparently have been allowed. —Just not evidence of specific racism on the part of one of the Gibsons, as far as I understand it.

          “…..the judge was very clear in his view of how this case will proceed: evidence of an individual’s ‘character’ traits will not be allowed for the most part. Evidence of overall ‘reputation’ in the community will be allowed.

          ‘There are character issues at play in every person, but character evidence has to go to a specific trait,’ Judge Miraldi said. ‘Reputation is central to this case, and character traits [that are] unrelated to the issues are not. It is the community’s perception of a business and school that are important, not traits of an individual that are unrelated to the events that happened.’”

          Silvertree in reply to RandomCrank. | June 29, 2019 at 2:56 pm

          Another germane issue:

          The judge decided the Gibsons were not public figures, though the College wanted to make that case.
          If the Gibsons were considered to be public figures, then the standard for defamation would be much more difficult. In that case it is likely that the specific so-called facts written on the flyer and in the student senate resolution would need to be proven false, in order to show wrongdoing by the College.

          But for a private figure, it was only necessary to show negligence on the part of the College, a reckless disregard for whether these “facts” were true or not. So to get in the weeds about whether the Gibsons were actually racist or racially profiling was not essential to prove defamation in this case.

          Another important point was made by a lawyer in a comment further below: the witness stand might be used to further defame the Gibsons, so there are certain checks written in to the law to prevent wanton character assassination from the stand.

A small step, a first step, toward harmony and justice, away from diversity and social justice.

Dear Oberlin Alumni,
Twillie here. I’ve got some bad news for you ….

Dear Oberlin Alumni,
Twillie here.Math are hard. ….

    MajorWood in reply to Buffalobob. | June 28, 2019 at 6:05 pm

    One of the great socio-political satire columns was “Mrs. Agnew’s Diary” in National Lampoon. Were humor still possible (permitted) in this country, I think a new column called “Twillie here” could fill the void.

Oberlin should just pay up and apologize. They have over a billion dollar endowment. If they appeal and stay in the news they will lose a lot more than 25 million. Contributions and enrollments will dry up.

    RandomCrank in reply to Jackie. | June 28, 2019 at 11:24 pm

    I wonder about that billion dollar endowment. My hunch is that it far from some big, undifferentiated slush fund that can be doled out at will, on whatever strikes someone’s fancy, including a court’s. I think Oberlin will feel a whole lot more pain than $25 million divided by $1 billion would imply.

I’m thrilled at the outcome. I too like the smell of schadenfreude in the morning!

We’ll see what happens, but I’d wager heads are going to roll sooner rather than later at Oberlin. Both Ambar and Raimondo are now $25 million dollar liabilities. Neither woman may get officially fired, but they’re now toxic so I wouldn’t be surprised if both are paid to just go the f*** away to “spend more time with their families”.

    MajorWood in reply to MarkJ. | June 28, 2019 at 6:52 pm

    I don’t think we are even close to sorting out who is behind this. We will have a better idea down the road, as they will be one or two levels above the highest person to get fired or resign.

    In terms of administration, I’d say that Krislov is way more responsible than Ambar. Everything leading up to the suit took place on his watch, and if it weren’t for him announcing his resignation in September, 2017, a couple of months before the suit was filed, I’d say that his departure was the literal act of leaving town. Perhaps he has a Spidey sense about these things?

    Ambar likely could have brought things to an end, but my guess is that she was instructed the ride it out, perhaps by people who thought that the liability risk was a couple of million, max. She will more than likely be let go in the near future, the remainder of her contract bought out in return for silence on the matter. She will be the official martyr. I can hear the chant now: “Orange man bad, Amber woman good.” All of her recent appearances are consistent with her keeping the college’s version of events alive. Her presence at the college will end when it finally becomes obvious to them that no one is buying it. In keeping with the spirit of Obama though, perhaps she will have continued value where any criticisms of the college or her performance will be met with accusations of racism, not that they might have learned at some point that it was that exact behavior which got them there in the first place.

    My guess is that Raimondo has been un-officially out of the picture for some time. Show up at 9AM, STFU, and leave at 5PM. I doubt that she has had any involvement in the legal strategy (why is it hard for me to type that word?). In my world she would be 100% toxic liability, so who is to say though that in their world she might be remembered as a saint.

    Canavan (head of trustees) is an interesting case. Obviously, being connected to Soros may or may not be a good thing, especially if Soros decides that he doesn’t want any connection to Oberlin. The statement (reported here) that the board has yet to meet in full and discuss this is just really really hard to believe. That statement says a lot, and of course, none of it is good. If the board isn’t on top of it 24/7, why not? Did the board not take it seriously? Well, that questions the fitness of the board. Was the story mis-represented to the board? Lord knows that the version the administrators are trying to sell to the alumni bears little resemblance to what took place in the courtroom. So that means we either have a situation where the board was deceived by ommission or commission, in which case the board could act in the best interests of the college and not just the board. At a minimum, I see Canavan stepping down as head, and probably 50/50 leaving the board entirely.

    As I mentioned before, we should flag their houses on Zillow and then place bets on which one will be the first on the market.

      Silvertree in reply to MajorWood. | June 28, 2019 at 7:40 pm

      Check out the new FAQ put out by the Gibsons’ lawyers! Very revealing on the inner workings of the administration and makes for a great read.

      You keep trying to find a way for someone to satirize this and I hope someone takes you up on it. I thought your Twillie columns could be called ‘Ambar Alerts’ but then thought again.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Silvertree. | June 29, 2019 at 12:10 am

        Thank you for posting that link. Anyone interested in this case should read its contents. It is of course from the Plaintiff’s counsel and should be seen in that light, but it makes a strong and compelling argument against Defendant.

        RandomCrank in reply to Silvertree. | June 29, 2019 at 1:15 am

        Yes, thanks for that link. It is absolutely devastating for Oberlin. I hope it’s distributed far and wide among alumni and other potential donors. Only a complete fool would ever give Oberlin another penny after reading what’s at that link.

      I think your comment about departures (and hirings) is exactly the right yardstick to look at, given that many names have had mention in this matter. Through what we see, if anything, we will be able to tell if the institution is serious about making any substantive changes, as indicated might occur on the alumni phonecast. If there are none, perhaps they should study the Evergreen State College experience.

Perhaps the racism evidence was disallowed because it was irrelevant. The case was about a particular incident.

    Humble Pie in reply to Petrushka. | June 28, 2019 at 4:50 pm

    But isn’t the main incident here that the College defamed Gibson’s by helping the students create and spread a pamphlet that said something untrue about them to cause them harm? Wouldn’t it be necessary to show that the pamphlet was untrue?

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Humble Pie. | June 28, 2019 at 5:05 pm

      No, it would be necessary to prove that it was true. And, even if it was true, that does not justify tortious interference. It also does not justify Oberlin College demands that student criminals be given a free pass.

      Clearly, Oberlin College has some administrators with very fat heads.

      Publius_2020 in reply to Humble Pie. | June 28, 2019 at 6:14 pm

      There is a difference between (A) “I think that Person X is racist,” and (B) Person X engaged in racial profiling in his public business establishment. The first is often regarded as ‘mere opinion’ or ‘namecalling.’ The second is an accusation of unlawful conduct. (42 USC 2000a – “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”)

      Here, the key accusation against the Gibsons was of type B. In general, the rules of evidence would not allow you to try to prove that Person X was ‘bad’ by introducing prior bad acts in order to convince the jury that Person X acted in a similar manner in this case. That’s a very old rule of evidence that essentially holds that the “probative value” of the prior bad act evidence is small, and the “improper prejudicial effect” of that evidence is high, so it is excluded. It’s a close call in racial discrimination cases, so you’d have to know exactly what type of evidence was proposed by the School and what exactly the Court ruled.

      In general, I assume that the accuracy level of non-lawyer views on “what happened” in a legal case is low, so I would take the whole complaint by third-party observers with 2-3 doses of salt.

        Humble Pie in reply to Publius_2020. | June 28, 2019 at 6:27 pm

        Thank you, this is what I was looking for.

        ObieWanKanObie in reply to Publius_2020. | June 28, 2019 at 7:09 pm

        How would you classify what was printed on the pamphlet? Would that be A or B? I’m assuming B, because the pamphlet was admitted as evidence.

        But if the school were planning to back up what was printed in the pamphlet with testimony of student describing their “lived experience” (a term Ambar has been using a lot lately), I’m assuming that that is A, correct?

    MajorWood in reply to Petrushka. | June 29, 2019 at 10:39 am

    Racism now seems to be on a continuum. Since Gibsons isn’t as woke as Oberlin, they are racist. Sort of like the Dems right now, where if you aren’t to the left of Bernie, you are a deplorable.

Now the real entertainment begins . . . postjudgment work on a big judgment against a solvent but clueless defendant can be all sorts of fun.

I’m not conversant with the nuances of Ohio postjudgment practice, but if it is like most jurisdictions the Gibsons can start execution on the judgment either immediately or in the very near future — the fact that defendants want to appeal or file motions for reconsideration, new trial, etc., ordinarily do not stay execution unless they have posted a supersedeas bond (more on that in a minute).

If I was representing the Gibsons, I’d consider getting a writ of execution issued ASAP and show up with the sheriff at Raimondo’s residence and office to start collecting all her nonexempt chattels (with news cameras rolling, of course) — the fact that Oberlin has stipulated that it is jointly and severally liable for the judgment against her doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a judgment against her, nor does it prevent the plaintiffs from choosing to try and collect as much as possible from her first.

Now, of course, Oberlin could bond the appeal and moot all this. But unless Oberlin has >$30 million in ready cash that it can just deposit with the Court, it’s going to have to purchase a supersedeas bond from an approved surety, which will typically cost them 15-25% of the face amount of the bond (nonrefundable), and of course will also require them to pledge assets to the surety of far more than the face amount of the bond. Cue more wailing and gnashing of teeth from Oberlin administrators in 3..2..1….

The logical thing for Oberlin to do would be to quit digging and settle this fiasco. But needless to say, “logical” and “Oberlin” seem to be mutually exclusive when it comes to this case.

    walls in reply to LKB. | June 28, 2019 at 5:53 pm

    Agreed – bonding costs, interest costs, paying both attorneys, and a low probability of being successful would seem to indicate it’s time to take your lumps and move on. Then again … there is that SJW mentality of doubling down …

      artichoke in reply to walls. | June 29, 2019 at 10:22 pm

      Ambar said “this is not the final outcome.” The Columbia JD has blocked herself into a corner. She can’t give in now, but if she doesn’t, some visible stuff is going to start happening.

      I think the Gibsons have the connections and assets needed to enforce this judgment, and they could end up with title to some nice buildings and park-like real estate if Oberlin College doesn’t submit to the rule of law.

    Publius_2020 in reply to LKB. | June 28, 2019 at 6:22 pm

    Oberlin’s $900 million endowment has a 6.8% cash target (over $50 million), and their liquidity targets show $180 million available as liquid assets within any monthly period. [Oberlin 2018 Financial Statement, p. 3] So they won’t have any trouble bonding it. Their financial statement shows $300 million in total unrestricted endowment funds.

    Which doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be wise to try to settle this. Only that they have the ability to take the appeal if they so choose.

      RandomCrank in reply to Publius_2020. | June 29, 2019 at 1:20 am

      Excuse me, but can someone explain why the Gibsons have any incentive to “settle” this. They won. If Oberlin tries to “settle” it, I hope they reply that it can be settled with a check for the full amount of the damages, or else.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to LKB. | June 29, 2019 at 1:26 am

    Ohio law is fun. The court could deny Oberlin College the opportunity for supersedes bond.

    “2505.11 Substitute for supersedeas bond.
    A conveyance of property may be ordered by a court instead of a supersedeas bond in connection with an appeal, and, if a conveyance of property is so ordered, the conveyance may be executed and deposited with the clerk of the court in which the final order, judgment, or decree was rendered, or, in the case of an administrative-related appeal, with the clerk of the court to which the appeal is taken, to abide the judgment of the reviewing court.”

    Oberlin College Counsel: “Your honor, we shall appeal this abdominal ruling you have so unjustly decreed!”
    Trial Judge: “OK, so be it. Please instruct your client to scratch out a check for $38 million dollars made out to the clerk of this court on your way out the door. Have a nice day.”
    Oberlin College Counsel: “Your honor, this is outrageous! My client shall not pay!”
    Trail Judge: “OK, Bailiff, remand defendant into custody to grant him time to reconsider his position and until such time as he shall pay. Please have a pen handy to assist Defendant and expedite the conclusion of his deliberations on this matter.”

Since we may currently be on this final path, I thought that Elisabeth Kübler-Ross could weigh in on the proceedings.

Denial: check
Anger: check
Bargaining: pending
Depression: N/A
Acceptance: N/A

In addition to the Oberlin trial, the above can also be applied to the election of Trump as president

    artichoke in reply to MajorWood. | June 29, 2019 at 10:28 pm

    They started anger phase around election day and it’s still in effect. It can be bad for their health to be angry so long.

    Bad for their legal and financial health too.

Has anyone considered whether Oberlin’s and its president’s statements that the jury held it liable for not suppressing its students’ free speech, when in fact the jury held it liable for defamation, themselves give rise to a new defamation suit that any of the jurors may file?

The next shoe to drop is determination of legal fees to be paid by Oberlin College? I assume that the legal team working with Gibson’s Bakery agreed to a contingency fee relationship (33% ?). I would doubt that the judge would award legal fees of $8 million but some number based on usual fees and hours worked, for sake of argument $1 million. Are the Gibson’s still bound by the original agreement or does the judge determine the final fee structure?

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to SHV. | June 29, 2019 at 12:48 am

    The Gibson’s are bound by their agreement with their attorneys and relevant state law which may shape or govern such agreements. There is no standard cost and fee arrangements with attorneys despite what you may believe. All arrangements are negotiable between the client and counsel. Having said that, unless you are a highly sought after client, you usually have very limited negotiating leverage over an attorney whose services you actually want and need.


As long as we’re settling accounts, Godfather II type, lets pull the Iowa class battleships out of moth balls. We may need to dig deep and reach down for the Massachusetts. Museum ships, all. But I would give an entire male organ to sail on that cruise.

When you have one of something, you have none of something. And I want one of something to sail into the Strait of Hormuz. Sorry. Not Sorry. 1979.

I want a rooster tail they will talk about in Mesopotamia for the nest thousand years.

SJW care not about the institution. Neither the faculty nor the students care at all about Oberlin, the college. They will gladly bankrupt the college and just move on to the next to destroy.
This college was built on old white man money. When it is depleted….it is simply another victory for the SJW.
They do not think like you. Or I. Or anyone one you ever grew up with.
They were trained by the schools and colleges they went to that destruction of all American institutions were the only virtuous goal.

    artichoke in reply to puhiawa. | June 29, 2019 at 10:31 pm

    Well then they are stupid and mediocre. Without institutions they won’t survive long. Oberlin is a top quality golden leftist asset, and if they’re willing to ruin it in their tantrum, hey that’s cool. There are plenty of other colleges and we don’t need that one so much owned by the left.

I look ridiculous now with the head lamp strapped to my head. But, son, a couple of thousand miles from an ocean I am ready for anything. Swiss army knife and Case Rancher and all. And then there’s the K Bar.

Belt and suspenders, all that.

I am a tug boat Sailor and you can’t sink me.

My Dad’s ride. One of my dad’s rides.

I have more Cherokee in me than any Democrat.

With Oberlin College being found guilty, with the huge verdict that could all have been avoided had Oberlin simply posted a statement about the bakery not being racist, and now the college’s refusal to accept reality by their constant claims of this being a freedom of speech issue for these students and how the college was not involved, now raises another series of questions. They include what effect this adventure will have upon future enrollments, the effect upon donations from alumni and others, and who will be fired from the school. Certainly the new school president is on thin ice and one can only assume that Raimondo and others shown to be involved are going to be history in the very near future. It will all be interesting to watch as this plays out. additionally, it will be interesting if this spurs other lawsuits where the universities elsewhere are sued for similar actions. Perhaps this is just the price one must pay for being wok.

    jb4 in reply to Cleetus. | June 29, 2019 at 10:31 am

    If the College provides an opportunity to listen to the phonecast to alumni on June 27, one should take it. It lasted 75 minutes – a half hour presentation and 45 minutes of Q&A, the latter being why I tuned in. While the presentation continued the legal posturing of elsewhere, keep in mind that until the case is all done, they have to follow their lawyers and probably have little choice – so I discounted that part of the phonecast. I rated the call a success because the Q&A showed a recognition that they have to change and an interest in doing so – including admitting different students, recruiting in other communities (the South), having new programs, working with the town, etc. They are in a bad situation and, in my opinion, know it.

    Time will tell if their Board of Trustees demands corrective action and makes sure it happens. Incidentally, based on that call, I will predict that Oberlin will not appeal the $25 million, plus legal fees to be determined July 10, although may briefly attempt settling for a lower amount, which Gibson’s should rebuff. Some people leaving “to pursue other opportunities” would then be a good start, which likely can’t happen until the case is done. In my opinion, if they appeal the judgment, the school is “done”, although their large endowment will last quite a long time.

    MajorWood in reply to Cleetus. | July 1, 2019 at 12:37 pm

    One aspect of this case which is being overlooked is that BOTH the students and the college were liable. Gibsons only chose to go after the college with their suit, for a number of reasons, mostly logistical. As such, I am guessing that no students, at either Oberlin or at other schools have learned a lesson here. They believe that they are immune from consequences of their actions. This is evident by the one woman who keeps spouting off on twitter(?) that Gibsons was “racist as F#%&” while she was there. I am wondering if she will be getting a visit from a process server once the Oberlin case is settled. Her main gripe seems to be that because she is black, she isn’t as famous as Lena Dunham. I am guessing that when she does become famous that she will wish that she wasn’t.

I love the Czeks. I hope I have made up for selling then out to the Germams.

I wonder if he will make the 10th reunion? “So, what have you been up to?” could prove quite uncomfortable.