Image 01 Image 03

Oberlin College issues FAQs on Gibson’s Bakery Verdict: “Did the College defame or libel the Gibsons? No”

Oberlin College issues FAQs on Gibson’s Bakery Verdict: “Did the College defame or libel the Gibsons? No”

Blast email from college president repeats false claim that the college was “held liable for the speech and actions of its students

Oberlin College has taken a public relations beating in the wake of the massive verdicts against it and its Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo in the Gibson’s Bakery case. The verdicts totaled $44 million, but those will be reduced under Ohio’s tort reform law — how much they are reduced will be the subject of court litigation, but there will be a substantial reduction (perhaps more than half) in all likelihood.

The stories are too numerous to list, but there has been widespread criticism of Oberlin College’s conduct.

What Oberlin College wants to do is now (in addition to winning an appeal) is not to become the next Mizzou or Evergreen State, where unsavory social justice warfare by faculty and staff, egging on students, cause enrollments to collapse. Oberlin College, already suffering from weak enrollment numbers, faces that real possibility.

Oberlin College has been trying to reframe the issue as one of student free speech, but we previously examined why that was not the issue. The jury held Oberlin College responsible for its own actions, through senior administrators, not vicariously liable for students:

Oberlin College and Raimondo were not “held liable for the independent actions of their students.” Rather, the defendants were held liable for their own conduct in aiding and abetting the publication of libelous documents, interference with business, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Let me repeat, it was the college’s and Raimondo’s own conduct that was at issue before the jury.

Now Oberlin College is rolling out a more formal public relations campaign, launched today in a blast email by its President, Carmen Twillie Ambar. The email and FAQs continue the claim that the college was held responsible for the conduct and speech of students, dispute Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo’s role, and dispute other testimony offered by the Gibsons as to Oberlin College’s request that the bakery call the college, not police, for student shoplifting. (Remember, student shoplifting was part of what a student journalist called Oberlin’s “Culture of Theft”)

Here is the full email (emphasis added):

Dear Members of the Oberlin Community,

As the public discourse around the lawsuit from Gibson’s Bakery continues, many of you may have questions. It is important, as we engage in these discussions both internally and externally, that we have a shared set of facts. Oberlin has been scrupulous over the last two and a half years in its efforts to honor the legal process. As part of that deference, we have avoided any public comments that could be seen as an attempt to prejudice the legal process or litigate our case through the media.

Now that a jury has rendered its verdict and the legal process has entered a new stage, it is both more appropriate and important that we be as transparent as we can about the events at the heart of this lawsuit, the suit itself, the path that lies ahead, and the values at stake—for Oberlin and for higher education more broadly. In that spirit, we would like to offer a Frequently Asked Questions document that begins to address some of your concerns and brings to the fore the facts. I would encourage you to read them thoroughly.

We will have much more to say as this process moves forward, and we will continue to listen closely to your questions, addressing them as best we can. More information will follow as we provide you with an opportunity in the coming days to ask questions in real time through our Phonecast technology.

While the below link to the FAQs gives you more details, cutting through the noise, this matter is about an incident that occurred at Gibson’s Bakery which resulted in students choosing to protest. The students may have been right or they may have been wrong about the details surrounding the incident, but demonstrating is their constitutional right. As always, the College insisted that the demonstrations be supervised, to protect all sides and the entire community from violence and property damage. While we deeply value the jury’s work, we do not believe that case law supports the jury’s determination that Oberlin should be held liable for the speech and actions of its students. To do so is to erode a fundamental constitutional right.

Despite this belief, we also know that there are lessons to be learned from this verdict and areas where the College can improve. This lawsuit has been hard on Oberlin College and Conservatory, the Gibsons, our students, faculty, and staff, our town, and all who care about us. We will take this moment in our history to absorb the valuable lessons it imparts. We also recognize that we have a great deal of work to do to heal these scars and build trust throughout our extended community. We approach that imperative with humility. We approach it, too, with optimism that we will emerge from this episode stronger—stronger as an institution, stronger in our relationship with our neighbors, and stronger in our service to the region, the nation, and the world.


Carmen Twillie Ambar

The Frequently Asked Questions are contentious, and provide Raimondo’s side of the story as to her participation in the protest. The jury heard Raimondo’s side of the story. The jury also heard contrary evidence from other witnesses that Raimondo was an active participant in orchestrating the protest and distributing the defamatory flyers, and it’s pretty obvious who the jury believed. The FAQs attempt to reargue the case, and provide, in part:

Did Dean Raimondo pass out protest fliers created by the student protesters? Did she use a bullhorn?

No. Jason Hawk, editor of the Oberlin News Tribune, said in his testimony at the Gibson’s trial that he approached the Dean of Students and asked what was happening. The Dean asked a student to provide her with a flyer and she handed it to him. Mr. Hawk testified that the Dean provided him with the flyer to accommodate his request and that he did not see her handing out flyers.

Yes. The Dean spoke for only two minutes using a bullhorn. In these two minutes she identified herself to all present and explained her presence and role at the protest.

Why didn’t administrators prevent students from protesting?

It would violate College policy to attempt to prevent students from exercising their right to free speech and their right of assembly under the First Amendment. The Court ruled that the protests were a constitutionally protected exercise of the right to expression and assembly that cannot be the basis of any civil liability.

Did senior administrators participate in the protest, as some media outlets are claiming?

No. No member of the College’s senior leadership participated in the protest. There was some testimony at the trial that a handful of faculty and staff were present at the protest. Any Oberlin faculty or staff at the protest participated in their personal capacity and not as a representative of Oberlin.

* * *

Did the College defame or libel the Gibsons?

No. The College did not create, endorse or condone the student senate resolution or the protest flyer that were the subject of this lawsuit.

* * *

Did Oberlin College officials ever ask the Gibsons or other local merchants to turn students
accused of shoplifting over to College staff members rather than the police?

No. Oberlin College officials never made such a request.

* * *

Did some senior administrators and faculty use unprofessional language in a few emails and personal text messages some months following the protest?

Yes. Some senior administrators and faculty did use unprofessional language in a few text messages and emails well after the protest. Appropriate disciplinary action was taken in response to this behavior.

Why did the College refuse to issue the apology that the Gibsons requested, stating they were not racist?

The College worked with the Gibsons to issue a joint statement, but the Gibsons refused this offer. The College has never at any time suggested that the Gibsons were racist. An apology from the College would have been misleading, implying that the College had taken a position it never had. The appropriate role for the College was to help rebuild trust between the students and the community, and it made efforts to do so, both publicly and behind the scenes. These efforts included a series of meetings with the Gibsons, President Marvin Krislov, and various staff.

* * *

Why did the trial end up with such a large verdict against Oberlin?

The jury has spoken, and we have listened. While we respect the jury’s service and we believe there are things to learn from the verdict, we do not believe that the jury applied past legal precedent with respect to the legal claims in this case. All of those factors will be part of our consideration as we determine the best path forward, and part of any next steps in the legal process.

* * *

Will the damages awarded by the jury be paid by donations?

The College mitigates against these types of risk. We cannot predict the exact path the legal process will follow; the important thing is that Oberlin will do everything in its power to ensure that any costs it incurs will not put an additional burden on students or donors.

It’s interesting that the tone and substance of the presidential blast email closely mirrors the position taken by the student editors of The Oberlin Review just yesterday, portraying Oberlin College and its students as the victims, Media Coverage of Gibson’s Verdict Misses the Mark:

The core question of the trial was whether Oberlin College and its dean of students are on the hook for statements made by their students. The chilling answer from the jury was a resounding yes. That decision should broadly concern everybody who believes in freedom of speech and student autonomy.

Throughout the trial, the Gibsons maintained that the College should have stepped in on the bakery’s behalf; the College’s argument was that administrators could only try to maintain the safety of all parties involved, and that any attempt to dictate student speech would be blatantly outside the scope of responsible leadership.

The jury sided with the Gibsons — a decision with profoundly disturbing implications for free speech at Oberlin and on college campuses across an increasingly authoritarian country. Conservative commentators often talk about a supposed crisis of free speech on campuses, wherein students wield the sword of political correctness to silence dissenting opinions. To the contrary, this verdict is a real warning shot against free speech. The fact that those same commentators have widely lauded the verdict reveals their hypocrisy and lays their thinly-veiled agenda bare.

Michelle Malkin notes that the college still doesn’t get it, I’m an Oberlin Graduate. They Had It Coming.

As a right-wing alumna of far-left Oberlin College, I have four words for the administration in response to last week’s ground-breaking $11 million jury verdict in the defaming of humble Gibson’s Bakery:

You had it coming.

I have five more words for Oberlin as arrogant college officials continue their obstinate war on the Gibson family even after the much-deserved courtroom defeat:

You still don’t get it.

Expect a more intensified public relations campaign in coming weeks and months trying to portray the people the jury found to be the victims to be the perpetrators, and the people the jury found to be the perpetrators to be the victims.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I see that “The First Law of Holes” is nowhere on the curriculum at Oberlin.

caseoftheblues | June 19, 2019 at 6:04 pm

Oberlins AA college president is in over her head…making things worse by the day….

    Carmen Twillie Ambar, Oberlin’s head AA hire, coming through with the predicted incompetence and arrogance.

      artichoke in reply to pfg. | June 19, 2019 at 7:37 pm

      Probably under pressure for her job, trustees must be considering replacing her even if they don’t say anything.

      So it’s defensive by Ambar. I don’t see why it should work, but she seems to feel that any admission of error would put her job further at risk (which may be true), so she acts to the detriment of the university.

        Tom Servo in reply to artichoke. | June 19, 2019 at 10:15 pm

        I wonder if she realizes how different things could have been if she had even paid 1/10 as much attention to this case 2 years ago as she is now. But she’s a day late and a dollar short.

          AlexanderYpsilantis in reply to Tom Servo. | June 19, 2019 at 10:19 pm

          She probably felt in the afterglow of the Obama Administration that being AA made you beyond reproach and beyond the law. I feel sad for her, she’s clearly unqualified for that position, especially at this delicate time.

          AlexanderYpsilantis in reply to Tom Servo. | June 19, 2019 at 10:19 pm

          She probably felt in the afterglow of the Obama Administration that being AA made you beyond reproach and beyond the law. I feel sad for her, she’s clearly unqualified for that position, especially at this delicate time.

      snopercod in reply to pfg. | June 19, 2019 at 8:07 pm

      WTH kind of name is “Twillie”, anyway? Is it pronounced T-Willy?

      She read michelle obama’s book.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to caseoftheblues. | June 19, 2019 at 9:11 pm

    A classical Affirmative Action graduate, far too often what emerges is style without substance. This woman is a royal screw up, and I suspect she is behind many if not most of the wrong decisions which put Oberlin in this situation.

      I haven’t seen confirmation that she WAS an AA candidate. Is this confirmed? All minorities are not AA candidates, but all AA candidates are minorities.

        Tom Servo in reply to walls. | June 19, 2019 at 10:19 pm

        The central problem with AA in general is that it very quickly becomes automatic for everyone to assume that any minority applicant must be an AA candidate. The existence of the program has demeaned everyone who could reasonably have been part of it. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it’s simple human nature.

        And the more that government uses brute force to try to force people not to think that, the more firmly everyone will believe it.

        AlexanderYpsilantis in reply to walls. | June 19, 2019 at 10:22 pm

        She is.

        tom_swift in reply to walls. | June 20, 2019 at 12:10 am

        but all AA candidates are minorities.

        Women aren’t a minority.

    AlexanderYpsilantis in reply to caseoftheblues. | June 19, 2019 at 10:17 pm

    She is in WAY over her head. When will the Trustees step in and terminate her contract?

    slither in reply to caseoftheblues. | June 20, 2019 at 10:02 pm

    To be fair to her, she may have no choice. Remember that when all this started, the Dean of Students asked the Board of Trustees whether Oberlin could pay the shoplifting students’ legal bills. The result was that an “anonymous” person did so.

    As a result, I think it is highly likely that the Trustees want this fight to continue, and don’t want to settle. Even though she is Oberlin’s president, she might have been told that she has no choice but to double-down.

      artichoke in reply to slither. | June 21, 2019 at 4:00 pm

      Trustees are often normal people in the real world, business people. And normal people don’t do things like this. So I think that at least some of the trustees are aghast at the situation they’re in and would never let things get this far in affairs they control.

caseoftheblues | June 19, 2019 at 6:04 pm

Oberlins AA college president is in over her head…making things worse by the day….

Colonel Travis | June 19, 2019 at 6:08 pm

This college cannot go to hell fast enough.

healthguyfsu | June 19, 2019 at 6:28 pm

For so long, they have convinced those inside of their tiny bubble that what they speak is 100% truth that they no longer know the difference between Oberlin fiction and real world truth.

This story has finally been picked up here in the UK by the left wing libertarian website Spiked which has been crusading against “wokeness” for some time

“Sometimes it is a lawyer’s duty to tell his client to just quit.” Apparently Oberlin either does not have competent counsel, or is not paying attention to prudent advice.

    pfg in reply to Valerie. | June 19, 2019 at 6:48 pm

    Oberlin’s in-house “legal counsel” [cough] is yet another AA hire; she too with the incompetence and the arrogance.

    Donica Thomas Varner, as is the wont of AA hires, has an exaggerated opinion of her abilities.

      AlexanderYpsilantis in reply to pfg. | June 19, 2019 at 10:24 pm

      If she is telling Ambar to fight this she is clearly incompetent. The Judge and Jury can always issue INCREASED damages if they feel Oberlin College hasn’t learned their lesson.

      AlexanderYpsilantis in reply to pfg. | June 19, 2019 at 10:24 pm

      If she is telling Ambar to fight this she is clearly incompetent. The Judge and Jury can always issue INCREASED damages if they feel Oberlin College hasn’t learned their lesson.

    Anacleto Mitraglia in reply to Valerie. | June 19, 2019 at 7:13 pm

    Next time:

    Yes, that was very much my opinion. If I were counsel, at each step along the way, I would have advised against this action. They could have been out of this case easily and early, with a simple payment of $100-250K settlement, a gag agreement, and a mea culpa and a public and correct elucidation of facts. This was apparent early on. Frankly, this is pretty damn close to legal malpractice. Advising them to double down once they knew these kids did steal and could have been charged with felony robbery. This was close to insane legal advice (depending on what they actually advised behind closed doors). Then the blast at the jury after the verdict and BEFORE a decision on punitive damages! What law school did these people graduate from. Appalling legal judgment.

    jimB in reply to Valerie. | June 20, 2019 at 2:29 pm

    It looks like Oberlin has decided that a compromise would necessarily involve an admission of guilt…and that is anethema, even if it would save ten or twenty million dollars. I would think that a good lawyer at this stage would be preparing the client for minimizing losses. There is, youknow, a judgment against your client… who continues to make matters worse.

So Oberlin is now lying to its own students about what that case was about. This doesn’t inspire confidence for the future of this institution.

It looks like we’ll have to take a look at Oberlin’s Board of Trustees and start holding their feet to the fire. They are the only ones who can put a stop to Ambar. Even it they intend to appeal the judgment, getting rid of her is the first action they can cite to convince the judge that they at least understand the verdict and can be trusted to abide by it. Otherwise, what does their claim at the judgment hearing that they have learned their lesson really mean?

Maybe getting the Trustees involved in this discussion will motivate some of them. Letters, phone calls, whatever… Get their names and faces out their. Why are they allowing this to continue? Are they still supporting her? Is there anything in writing clarifying their position? Do they even HAVE an official position on this? Maybe just knowing who they are will explain their lack of involvement. Tacit approval.

A list of their big donors wouldn’t be a bad idea either. Let’s help them spread the taint and stink and see who complains.

    rhhardin in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 19, 2019 at 6:38 pm

    I’d imagine the donors already know how crazy-lefty the Oberlin administration is. Not so much by being attracted but by natural selection – all the other donors left long ago.

      Fine. Let’s make them come out and say so. It took forever to flush out the Koch brothers and now the masks have dropped and they do their own talking. It helps to know who we are fighting.

      Thinking more on this, it seems to me that the alumni, especially high visibility alumni, would be more effective at lighting a fire under the Board of Trustees. I can’t believe that there aren’t many alumni out there are appalled at the behavior of the college administration.

      A letter of concern voicing dismay at the escalating crisis and particularly, the irrational behavior of the president and signed by several important alumni would serve as an important wake up call. Especially if it was made public. Nothing nasty. Just genuine concern by people who care and are now ashamed of their alma mater. Is this how Hampshire College and Evergreen found their way to oblivion?

        MajorWood in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 19, 2019 at 11:52 pm

        The high visibility alumni are those who have been in lock-step with the college throughout the decline. I have a feeling that those with significant checkbooks likely read the Professor’s WSJ piece with interest, and have now been trying to rtionalize it with the blst emails from the college. It won’t add up. Oberlin simply cannot pad it enough to hold up. Further investigation will of course reveal that not of the puff pieces that exonerate the college have little to do with the actual trial and issues at hand. Someone pointed out that Oberlin should take a cue from Jake Blues and it appears that they have. But the deception can only last so long. With politicians, they try to deny until it leaves the news cycle. But in this case, it is Oberlin who needs to keep it alive to deal with the current judgements, and everyday it is alive they look worse. If they don’t have a copy of “Stick and Rudder” in the library, they need to buy a copy soon.

        theduchessofkitty in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 20, 2019 at 4:03 am

        “Thinking more on this, it seems to me that the alumni, especially high visibility alumni, would be more effective at lighting a fire under the Board of Trustees.”

        I have two words for you. Two words.

        Lena. Dunham.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to rhhardin. | June 19, 2019 at 9:25 pm

      Knowing they are crazy left is not the same thing as being crazy enough to incur liabilities in terms of tens of millions.

    Here are the Trustees:

    A bit skimpy about their backgrounds but it’s a start. I am sure they want to stay out of the news. Nobody likes to be affiliated with a growing scandal. Maybe they will put out the fire to avoid having to be seen slithering away or being cornered into explaining what exactly they don’t understand about the verdict? Do they think their big donors will have second thoughts should Ambar continue to pour gasoline on the fire? Just start asking specific questions to specific people and keep them coming.

    At some point, maybe Branco can come up with a cartoon of empty chairs or something? He’s on a roll.

      LeftWingLock in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 20, 2019 at 9:26 am

      Phil — Almost all of the Board of chosen by — the current Board. (A few members are voted in by alumni.) The Board is self-perpetuating and isn’t going to change their outlook easily.

        So you are invoking the Homer Simpson rule?

        “Trying is the first step towards failure.”


        “If it isn’t easy, don’t even try.”

        BTW, that is the nature of these boards. If the president is there long enough and is a high-profile person, he/she eventually controls the board. It’s a great honor to be elected to a college trustee and it usually carries little to no risk. None of them want to be a member of a board that idly stood by like cowards while the administration they are there to oversee destroyed the college.

        In that case, the make-up of the board and how they got there doesn’t matter. If they support what is going on, get it on record so donors are also punished when their donations (and personal prestige/legacies) evaporate into endless litigation. If they don’t support what is going on, say so and either act or resign in protest.

        We can’t assume anything about the board. It’s complicated. But being part of a national scandal is not a small matter to any of them. They will be forced to reconsider their personal priorities.

    artichoke in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 19, 2019 at 7:40 pm

    I am sure the Trustees are thinking about this, and at least privately they must be weighing whether a change in the President’s office is needed.

    I would suggest that it is. But Ambar will do everything she can to hold onto her job, and she seems to think that admitting no fault is the best thing.

    Surprisingly, I believe President Ambar has a JD from Columbia.

      Carl in reply to artichoke. | June 20, 2019 at 6:48 pm

      There are many fine law schools and Columbia is one of them, but having a JD from one does not give you judgment or experience. Or, may I add, character.

    AlexanderYpsilantis in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 19, 2019 at 10:25 pm

    Have you seen the Trustees? I doesn’t impart a lot of confidence there are some astute, thinking people there. Looks like a President Ambar echo chamber to me, but I could be wrong. We’ll see.

    rdmdawg in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 20, 2019 at 1:35 am

    ever hear of ‘suicide-by-Virtue-Signalling’? No, Oberlin will go out of business before they fire Ambar.

      Maybe some of our lawyers here can opine about the personal liability of the trustees for allowing the endowment to evaporate in a cloud of pointless and irresponsible litigation. After all, they are entrusted to act as fiduciaries and custodians. Seems to me there is criminal liability there somewhere.

Did Oberlin College officials ever ask the Gibsons or other local merchants to turn students
accused of shoplifting over to College staff members rather than the police?

No. Oberlin College officials never made such a request.

THIS seems to go against testimony that I’ve read about it on legalinsurrection.

    healthguyfsu in reply to PDQ2. | June 19, 2019 at 6:56 pm

    Good point. I would love to see the best evidence from trial that counters this “question”

    LeftWingLock in reply to PDQ2. | June 19, 2019 at 7:35 pm

    I think this is a classic case of left-wing wordsmithing. It is very possible that Oberlin merely asked Gibsons to inform then when students shoplifted for later action rather than to turn them over to a staff member.

      School control of what gets reported to police is the key element differentiating the Parkland and other cases. The Obama policy of suppressing minority crime statistics was mostly about campus incidents where the school had the most influence.

      In contrast, the Gibson shoplifting statistics were available from the local police because that is where the Gibsons filed their complaints. Intimidating local merchants is the way Oberlin chose to suppress the statistics. The Obama policy promoted to this day by Arne Duncan could not be enforced and Oberlin lost control. I wish someone would pick up on this. Michelle Malkin used to cover this subject extensively.

“we do not believe that the jury applied past legal precedent with respect to the legal claims in this case”

Isn’t she supposed to have a law degree? If so, then she should know that the jury is the finder of fact, and the judge — not the jury — determines what legal precedents apply.

The jury in this case found that the facts supported the Gibsons’ claims, and there is plenty of evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdicts, as the appeals courts will no doubt confirm.

    artichoke in reply to Observer. | June 19, 2019 at 7:41 pm

    Indeed, it’s not a good look for Columbia Law School, her legal alma mater.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to artichoke. | June 19, 2019 at 10:04 pm

      “Isn’t she supposed to have a law degree?”

      There was a time when a degree was a better indicator of a person’s likely performance than has been the case since academia started dumbing them down to make quotas.

healthguyfsu | June 19, 2019 at 6:55 pm

These arguments fall apart when you weigh the info and evidence more carefully (a rather weak attempt at oversimplification not unlike the “Zimmerman had no business following Trayvon” argument from that trial)

If the college did not feel qualified to weigh in (as the real adults in the room), why did they bother conducting an investigation into whether or not Gibson’s racially profiled shoplifters? Why did it meet with the Gibson’s to discuss ways to “rebuild” and act as a mediator. If this came straight from the President, she understands less than I do about liability/culpability, and I’m not even a lawyer! I am in higher ed though, and I don’t go around like an idiot playing the feels of my students, especially at the expense of others!

The FAQ includes a mild admission to conceal a greater problem. It states that “unprofessional language” was used in emails and personal texts. What it fails to state is the second part of that communication. “…I’d say unleash the students if we weren’t trying to put this behind us.” This is a high ranking administrator caught red-handed admitting that students can be mobilized and weaponized on a whim to carry out the very acts that were carried out.

Oberlin admits that faculty and staff participated and says this was in a personal capacity. Any personal engagement/interaction between faculty with students is culpability for the university. This is why universities are so strict on faculty/student relationships (even of a Platonic variety).

    Grundoon in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 20, 2019 at 2:16 pm

    I see another clue that the college was active in the demonstrations. The fourth paragraph of the letter states:

    “As always, the College insisted that the demonstrations be supervised, to protect all sides and the entire community from violence and property damage.”

    So…the college was supervising the demonstrations to control the outcome?

healthguyfsu | June 19, 2019 at 7:00 pm

In some respects, these buffoons are somewhat lucky more damning evidence isn’t out there. Any faculty that cared enough to participate (an admission by Oberlin in this document) would have certainly discussed this in class, particularly in the grievance studies offshoots of Communications where most activists find their roots.

Once this becomes class material, Oberlin is 100% responsible for the information disseminated in that classroom. Unless a professor defended the Gibson’s (unlikely), there were likely liabilities galore. I imagine the lawyers took the bounty they harvested and stuck with that since it was such a slam dunk in trial proceedings.

I bet some professors’ twitter accounts got scrubbed long before this ever even became a thing on LI.

I find myself wondering, is the direct misrepresentation of the trial results actionable?

It would be one thing to proclaim one’s innocence of charges convicted, but here, they seem to be, loudly, asserting that a different verdict than the actual ruling. That seems to fly in the face of the entire purpose of sueing someone for libel…

Here is ONE Link there are more that repeat this testimony !

oberlin college administration is morally corrupt !

Doubling down …. it’s what SJW’s do.

1. SJWs always lie.

2. SJWs always project.

3. SJWs always double down.

BrokeGopher | June 19, 2019 at 7:50 pm

Maybe it’s better if Oberlin and other colleges really think they’re liable for their students actions. Maybe they’ll finally take steps to rein them in.

Either the Oberlin administration actually believes what they put out, which would be delusional, or they are lying to make themselves look less responsible.

I always loved their rational that they provided direction and material support to the students, were falsely accusing Gibson’s of being racist, in order to protect them. This is like claiming that you gave a rope to a burglar and held it for him so he wouldn’t fall and get hurt while committing his crime, knowing exactly what he was going to do.

stuck on stupid is no way to go through life…

This guy is going to be SOL if Oberlin goes out of business before he gets out of prison. He’d be a perfect fit as professor of ethics in their poli sci department.

“‘Self-Righteous’: Dem Staffer Headed To Prison As Prosecutors Look To Make Example Of Him For Politically-Motivated Crimes

A former aide to Sen. Maggie Hassan and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is headed to prison Wednesday for what prosecutors said was the largest known data theft in Senate history.

…The former aide, Jackson Cosko, pleaded guilty in April to crimes related to an unparalleled effort to ransack a Senate office, extorting a Democratic senator, illegally harming Republicans for their political views, and blackmailing a witness.

…Prosecutors said Cosko had ‘self-righteous entitlement’ and a ‘belief that he could violate the sanctity of the United States Senate at will and threaten individual Senators as he pleased.'”

LukeHandCool | June 19, 2019 at 9:11 pm

Oberlin FAQ

Q: Dear Oberlin FAQ, when I drink alcohol, I feel like my driving skills are not very good. I’ve always considered myself to be an excellent driver. Is there a reason for this?

A: You’re not drinking enough.

Oberlin needs to lose their PC ideology and Pro-Choice quasi-religion (“ethics”).

One FAQ states:
Why did the College refuse to issue the apology that the Gibsons requested, stating they were not racist?

This is highly nuanced! I’ve read that Gibson’s did NOT ask for an apology, but they did ask for a statement from Oberlin that they are not racist [which Oberlin refused].

LukeHandCool | June 19, 2019 at 9:48 pm

Oberlin FAQ

Q: Dear Oberlin FAQ, if I stare at a picture of the sun, will my eyes be damaged?

A: They should be fine. Just as long as you always remember to apply plenty of sun block to them first before attempting this.

    Silvertree in reply to LukeHandCool. | June 20, 2019 at 3:23 am

    Dear Oberlin FAQ: I can’t stop laughing at the jokes of LukeHandCool! I’m way too happy, what should I do?

    A: Just read the Oberlin FAQ

If Oberlin College didn’t take sides and was just protecting the students’ right to protest, whether right or wrong, why did Oberlin cancel its contracts with Gibson’s contract with Oberlin as a supplier to the college? Oberlin did take sides, with the most powerful tool it had: money. It put its money where its big mouth is.

CORRECTED VERSION: If Oberlin College didn’t take sides and was just protecting the students’ right to protest, whether right or wrong, why did Oberlin cancel its contracts with Gibson’s as a supplier to the college? Oberlin did take sides, with the most powerful tool it had: money. It put its money where its big mouth is

Oberlin College is rolling out a more formal public relations campaign, launched today in a blast email by its President, Carmen Twillie Ambar.

Follows Carmen Twillie Ambar’s blast video:

If Oberlin successfully blames its problems on its student’s behavior rather than its own, that doesn’t help. This case is still a disaster for all Progressive Indoctrination Centers in the country.

Who is responsible for the composition of the student body? Oberlin’s Admissions Dept. . . and nobody else. If the school population is loaded up with shoplifters and racist SJWs, it’s still Oberlin’s fault, because every single one of the little darlings was admitted to the school. A conscious and deliberate act is required to admit a student; they’re not just randoms who happen to be passing through. If, as per the Oberlin Spin, a school is going to be held responsible for the “free speech” of its students, then the school is going to have be more careful in admissions.

So Oberlin is in the toilet either way; the court decision that the administration’s actions are the problem, or Oberlin’s claim that rowdy students are to blame.

    Arminius in reply to tom_swift. | June 19, 2019 at 11:01 pm

    “If Oberlin successfully blames its problems on its student’s behavior rather than its own, that doesn’t help. This case is still a disaster for all Progressive Indoctrination Centers in the country.”

    I hope they try this defense.

    “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury or whatever your preferred pronoun, Oberlin college professors and administrators were not the SJW a-holes who slandered the Gibsons as racists.

    It was the student body we train to be SJW a-holes who slandered them.”

When I got out of college and joined the Navy I used to pray, “Lord, bless me with stupid enemies.” When I retired after twenty years I continued to say the same pray.

We as a nation, and the Gibson’s in particular in this case, are truly blessed.

I almost feel sorry for the attorneys that acted as Oberlin college’s legal counsel. They had to ride herd on this crowd?

Like I said, almost.

    creeper in reply to Arminius. | June 20, 2019 at 9:50 am

    I understand Oberlin’s were in-house attorneys. Evidently they are every bit as competent as the rest of the administrators.

First, I once again would like to request that people refrain from off-color and/or personal comments about the Oberlin administration. Their actions are what is under scrutiny here and we don’t need to either turn off LI visitors or distract from the facts. They have done enough, so no need to overcharge, so to speak.

Second, while shopping at a local outdoors store in PDX today, another customer asked if my Gibsons T-shirt had anything to do with the story he read in the paper. Had a good chat with him, and surprisingly he was in agreement that the whole deal made the college look bad. So the news has made it 2500 miles to the west. And regular looking people aren’t buying it.

Third, in the Blast Email Ambar states that they have been constrained by the legal process for 2-1/2 years. Actually, they could have mentioned it to the alumni at any time right up until they were served papers. They seem to have chosen to remain silent for the entire first year, which surprises me. Unless, perhaps, they recognized that they had done some bad things and were just hoping a praying that it would go away. I for one am still curious about some aspects of Oberlin’s legal tactics here. First, when did they seek or retain outside counsel? If they were getting outside counsel before the suit was filed, then that to me shows that they knew they were in the wrong. Second, how many firms did they visit before retaining counsel? I suspect that it was more than one, and that the first firms that they visited were firms who told them to settle. It was only when they found a firm that was willing to represent them as they wanted that they plopped down some money. Like many here I am simply aghast at Oberlin’s beliefs and tactics and therefore find it hard to believe that the first firm that they contacted was OK to use it as “the plan.”

Finally, we have no evidence of where the culpability lies with regard to making bad decisions. What I do strongly suspect is that there is a culture of fear present which could rival Chernobyl. No one wants to be the first person to say anything that is off script. The only two faculty who have spoken out are emeritus. Given how out of whack everything is at the moment, I bet it is only a matter of time before individuals or factions break ranks with the administration. We all see a big power void at the top in the near future, so I am pretty sure that some department heads are starting to look seriously at options depending on how the chips fall. I almost wonder if we will see the same behavior within the board. There is no way that this has gone on for all this time without some blessing from them. We of course do not know if that was an informed or an ignorant blessing. Still, people in power still bear the responsibility of knowing when they are being lied to. We are going to see much buck passing until it either finally gets to someone who says “no,” or, someone at the head of the line wises up and decides to change their story. Then it will truly be popcorn time.

Oberlin seems to be one trial behind. As they struggle to correct the one that just took place, they are already in the process of losing the one with the public and the alumni since I see them using the same failed tactics. The jury didn’t believe them, neither is anyone else.

Blaise MacLean | June 19, 2019 at 11:01 pm

I think that if I were an Oberlin city councillor I would try to have a motion passed changing the name of the city to Gibson, Ohio.

A collective bunch of clowns. What a travesty.

Oberlin Q&A:

Q: What is 100 years old, but smells great, and is worth $44 million?

A: Gibson’s Bakery.

So what I see here is a decision by Oberlin college administrators to fundraise their way out of this hole. So for every 1$ they get fined by the judge, they plan on raising $2 from liberal groups who will rally around them and pour out the cash, bathing the college in a wave of money faster than their lawyers and their professors can splurge it.

Good luck. Libs are notable for cutting off Good Intentioned Nitwits who make the Narrative look bad. They’re going to flail around, sincere in their Leftist Privilege as attendance drops, ‘good’ professors take jobs at other schools, and donors find other places to send their money. Then when one day the cash runs out and hundreds of Post-Consumer Content students find themselves out their degree progression for Lesbian Dance Theory, the children will catch it in the shorts.

    MajorWood in reply to georgfelis. | June 20, 2019 at 10:38 am

    Well, if you pile the dirt around the edge of the hole, it gets deeper faster in relation to the surface. So for every dollar they lose in the courtroom, it is matched by one less dollar from newly disgusted alumni.

    I think the next significant change will be a resignation of one or more members from the board of trustees. This has suddenly become an unpaid job for them and not a free weekend to hang out four times a year.

    MajorWood in reply to georgfelis. | June 21, 2019 at 2:19 am

    George Will in WaPo today had a pretty scathing piece on Oberlin. So they are either cutting Oberlin loose from the chosen clique, or perhaps beginning to reposition themselves in preparation for their own legal orchiectomy.

    So yesterday I was wearing my Gibsons T-shirt and at a local outdoors store in PDX another customer asked me if that was the place which just won the big lawsuit. SCORE! We discussed it a bit, but I didn’t get his source of information. He did think that the college was wrong to defend thieves.

I fear not much sanity will come from the Oberlin Board of Trustees as the current Chair appears to be the Director of Global Policy Development at SOROS Fund Management, LLC.
Think this might explain the College’s predicament as well as its current course of action? ; )

Dear Oberlin FAQ: Where do these “shared facts” lead us?
A: They lead us happily together into a let’s-put-this-to-rest goodnight fairytale called:
“Gibson’s Racist Wine Seller”.

Q: Why?
A: Because we have chosen Gibson’s wine cellar as our personal gateway to hell.

Q: Because why?
A: Because it all started with wine.

Q: With whining?
A: Yes.

Q: Why?
A: Because Trump.

Q: Because too much winning?
A: Yes.

Q: Because too much whining?
A: Yes.

Q: 45 won you 44?
A: Yes, 44 million.

Q: Is that a make-believe story, or real?
A: It is make-believe.

Q: Because why?
A: Because tort reform.

Q: Why?
A: Sacher Torte and Wine….

Q: Can you please tell me another story?
A: Yes. Once upon a time there was a pretty little College that loved all races except for one……

Q: Which one?
A: The white one.

Q: Oh.
A: No, Oberlin.

Q: Does the story have a happy ending?
A: Yes, the end goes like this:
The most beautiful cake in the world was baked, and the honest bakers brought forth this fine fair cake to the castle; and to the wonder of all, the cruel heart of the Queen softened like melted butter. And she and all her retinue cried out with one voice: “Let Them Eat Cake!” And so the honest bakers ate to their hearts’ content of the fruits of their labors, and were made rich by the gifts of Queen Oberlin, and the joy of the Queen returned, and all her realm prospered. And they all lived happily ever after in that place, full of cake and contentment till the end of their days.

smalltownoklahoman | June 20, 2019 at 8:00 am

Double down on stupid? Triple down? Nah bruh, we’z gonna quintuple down!!!

Guess we’ll see if this latest refusal to accept reality bites them hard as well.

Is anyone following the “re-opened” Oberlin twitter threads? As much as I enjoy a good train wreck, I simply cannot engage via facebook or twitter.

The popcorn potential here was epic.

I always look at things from a practical commonsense approach. If it was as simple as the University representatives and their FAQ answers make it out to be, the case wouldn’t have taken three years to develop and the trial a month to decide. Also:
1. If the school was a little wrong, the settlement would have been maybe a million or two all in.
2. If the school was a lot wrong, they might have been dinged for a few million in compensatory damages but nothing more.
3. If the school really messed up, they might have been hit with damages of a few million plus another few million for punitive damages.
4. If the school’s misdeeds were totally proven out by the Gibsons’ legal team and so egregious, they will be hit with $33,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.
5. Now, if the school is so clueless and so self-righteous that they pissed off the jury who are totally convinced that the University is a piece of Schifft and needs to be totally spanked for making 12 people (or however many in this case) give up a month of their lives to listen to their lawyers further denigrate a mainstay of the community for the last 136 years, they will award attorney fees of another $11,000,000 just to turn the knife further.
Bottom line, for the school to claim that it was all about free speech and the students after all of this, is beyond understanding.

    Silvertree in reply to DanJ1. | June 21, 2019 at 11:08 am

    One practical aspect that seems to have been mostly lost in discussion is the very large parking lot behind Gibson’s, which adjoins the very small parking lot of the Oberlin College Conservatory of Music. The College apparently has an interest in more parking space:

    “Gibson’s Bakery has filed a lawsuit against Oberlin College, prompting the college to once again sever business ties with the downtown bakery.

    The lawsuit lays out a narrative in which Oberlin College — trying to recover its image of being supportive of the African-American community after firing a professor who is black, and with business interests in wanting to buy the Gibson property and adjacent parking lot — latched on to a shoplifting incident to promote Gibson’s as a racist establishment to bolster its own image and interests.”

    Gibson’s sues Oberlin College – Chronicle-Telegram


    “The college may have had a more sinister motive for fueling the outrage, withholding their business and condoning the protests. Oberlin college may be motivated by their desire to control a parking lot next to the bakery. David Gibson holds controlling interest in the company which owns the lot. If the family bakery failed, this asset may have come up for grabs to the delight of Oberlin College.”

    Bakery Unleashes Lawsuit On Students As Liberals Scream Racism, Crucial Detail Revealed – Conservative Daily Post

      MajorWood in reply to Silvertree. | June 22, 2019 at 12:14 am

      I sort of wondered why there weren’t criminal RICO charges as well. Long before antifa, the animal rights people in PDX put a furrier out of business while the po-po just stood by. Maybe someone wanted that building cheap.

Whatever wishful hopes Oberlin may have, it will be extremely unlikely that the appellate court will overturn the finds of facts. Accordingly, the judges application of the law seems correct, so all they have is an attempt to reduce damages which they will prevail on. Why this Dean of Students and that counsel are still employed is beyond me. That is just a flat out bad decision from a risk management point of view. The judgment of the decision makers is also open to question, they really don’t get how accurate these facts are and what it means for this school.

I can’t believe that any attorney would send this out–she can’t truly believe what she is writing in this. Is this a violation of the Code of Conduct for attorneys in Ohio? It seems to me that this crosses over from PR into an attempt to deliberately mislead the alumni and the public.

Comanche Voter | June 20, 2019 at 5:18 pm

Those folks in the administration at Oberlin aren’t all that smart. They are suffering from the Obama disease–characterized by his sometime statement “Sometimes I even believe my own BS”.

well this lesson is gonna smart just a bit.

Paul In Sweden | June 20, 2019 at 5:39 pm

After careful reading of the Oberlin College Presidential email it seems clear that Oberlin College, its buildings and land should be considered for re-purposing as a poultry farm or meat processing plant.

LukeHandCool | June 20, 2019 at 5:46 pm

Oberlin FAQ

Q: Dear Oberlin FAQ, how do I ask a question on Oberlin FAQ? I seem to be having trouble doing it.

A: You could be experiencing some kind of technical problem. Our team is currently thinking of possible causes. In the meantime, do you have any other questions we can answer?

Q: Thank you. Yes, I’m pregnant.

A: Our team is currently thinking of possible causes. In the meantime, are you able to post questions to us at Oberlin FAQ, or are you still having access problems?

Q: I’m still having access problems. While your team is working on that, may I ask one more question?

A: Only if you are able to access Oberlin FAQ.

Q: If I have sex with my boyfriend while I’m pregnant, and the baby is a girl, can she become pregnant, too?

A: Your question assumes only girls can become pregnant.

Q: I’m sorry. Could he or she become pregnant, too?

A: It’s doubtful. The fetus is not human and is only a clump of cells. Are you still encountering access problems?

Q: Yes, I’m still unable to ask Oberlin FAQ a question.

A: Our team is still working to resolve this issue. In the meantime, have we answered all your questions?

Q: Well, … no. If the fetus is not human, I don’t want it inside me any longer. I feel like I’m in some scene from “Alien.”

A: You mean, “Undocumented.”

Q: Whatever! If I squat and sneeze at the same time, will that push it out?

A: Our team is currently working on an answer to this question. Until they come up with the answer, you may want to consider having an abortion.

Q: If I have an abortion, will that make me a virgin again?

A: Yes. But only if the clump of cells has not become pregnant and given birth to another clump of cells in the meantime. We need to verify that you said you were having sex with your boyfriend while you were pregnant, but unfortunately our team has not yet resolved your access issues.

Q: I really need answers to these questions as soon as possible!

A: Our team continues to work to resolve your access problems. Please visit our site at a later time so we may provide answers to these questions.

You’re missing the main point. The senior people at Oberlin who are running this circus are four women, three of whom are persons of color. That is the central point. They, themselves, are the victims, because they told us so.

Give the Oberlin administrators a break – they are just sharing “their truth.”

Would anyone be able to take this FAQ and refute it, point by point?

Important information about the disturbing way the two latest presidents and their administrations at Oberlin College have handled issues when students or alumni come to them with a grievance:

The Tragic Transformation of Oberlin College | Melissa Landa

    NGDGU in reply to Silvertree. | June 21, 2019 at 2:14 pm

    She is spot on with, “Oberlin is now a place where ideology has replaced civility and where arrogance has smothered all expressions of humility and grace.”

      Silvertree in reply to NGDGU. | June 21, 2019 at 3:45 pm

      Yes, that phrase is so beautifully written and captures everything in just a few words. Thank you for pulling it out.