Image 01 Image 03

Student journalist: Shoplifting at Gibson’s Bakery was part of Oberlin College’s “Culture of Theft”

Student journalist: Shoplifting at Gibson’s Bakery was part of Oberlin College’s “Culture of Theft”

“[W]e uncovered a sad truth: That the majority of shoplifting in Oberlin is carried out by students…. [because] students just felt like it” — Puts in context testimony that the college wanted a special procedure for student shoplifters and feared backing the bakery would “trigger” a negative student reaction.

We have covered Oberlin College at least since 2013, when we wrote extensively about The Great Oberlin College Racism Hoax of 2013.

Classes were cancelled in favor of campus-wide forums to address white supremacy and systemic racism after racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic flyers were posted around campus. The campus almost melted down when a student spotted someone walking at night in a Ku Klux Klan robe. It turned out not to be the Klan, but likely a student walking at night wrapped in a blanket for warmth.

Even the flyers turned out not to be what they seemed – it turned out they were placed around campus by a white liberal student who sought to start a conversation on campus. The entire 2013 racial meltdown was the result of a hoax, and those details were known by the college administration. But rather than address that reality, the administration used the controversy to agree to student demands for increased social justice indoctrination, including during freshman orientation.

The campus atmosphere turned Oberlin College “social justice” activism into self-parody. The black student union protested that the Africana House dining hall did not regularly serve fried chicken (seriously). Other students protested dining hall “cultural appropriation” of Asian food, noting as to the dining-hall version of General Tso’s Chicken, “[i]nstead of deep-fried chicken with ginger-garlic soy sauce, the chicken was steamed with a substitute sauce.” Once again, the administration sought to placate the activists, with the Director of Dining Services confessing that “we recently fell short in the execution of several dishes in a manner that was culturally insensitive.”

In December 2014, students led by the black student union issued a 14-point set of demands seeking to “deconstruct imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy” and to divest from Israel. The demands including hiring and promotion of faculty based on race. The inclusion of divesting from Israel was no happenstance, Oberlin had a particularly toxic form of “intersectional” activism, in which Israel was so relentlessly demonized as the center of intersecting systems of oppression that a coalition of alumni signed a statement demanding administration action. Though the administration did not heed the demands for (illegal) hiring and promotion based on race, little action was taken to change the campus climate.

So when the Gibson’s Bakery fiasco happened, it was not entirely surprising. What was surprising were some of the details that came out during the case that cast an even darker shadow on activism at Oberlin College.

There was something we covered during the trial, but which just jumped out at me as I was preparing a long Twitter thread excerpting our trial coverage:

Among our coverage was Daniel McGraw’s reporting on the Oberlin Police Department historical records on shoplifting arrests at Gibson’s Bakery. Those statistics shows that there was no disproportionate arrest of blacks:

But Dan pointed out something that was not part of the evidence at trial, but put the statistics in context. A 2017 article in the Oberlin Grape student publication about Oberlin College’s “Culture of Theft.”

Dan also reported how this theft culture influenced the decision making at the college with regard to Gibson’s, as related in the trial. College officials were concerned that backing Gibson’s over shoplifting could “trigger” a negative reaction from students, since the college was “trying to get students to realize that shoplifting was harmful.”

It’s truly astounding that a college would be afraid to support a local store that was the victim of shoplifting. It is deeply depressing that students did not already know that “shoplifting was harmful.”

The article referenced about Oberlin College’s Culture of Theft was written by an Oberlin College student, and was published in the Oberlin Grape on December 1, 2017, about a year after the Gibson’s Bakery incident and just after Gibson’s Bakery filed suit.

Here are some excerpts from The Culture of Theft:

… How Gibson would have reacted if the students were white or trans or not students at all is an important question, but ultimately a question we will never know the answer to. Something that we can understand a little better, however, is how big of an issue shoplifting is for business owners in Oberlin, and how it can impact town-gown relations….

The Grape set out to understand the nature and extent of this shoplifting issue …. To start, we uncovered a sad truth: That the majority of shoplifting in Oberlin is carried out by students….

To get a better idea about students’ role in shoplifting, The Grape anonymously interviewed students on the first floor of Mudd. We collected responses to the question ‘have you ever taken anything from a store downtown without paying for it?’. [After giving some examples or responses] This is a testament that came up a lot in these conversations: that students just felt like it.

[After giving more examples] The majority of students who admitted to shoplifting explained that the items stolen were mostly minor ones like candy, and most commonly, pens…. While these stories are anecdotal and don’t paint the full picture of shoplifting, one that may include theft-out-of-necessity, most of the thefts were out of convenience.

To these students, these are small items that couldn’t possibly make that much of a difference to a normal business. That is the justification we heard repeated — that shoplifting is just a normal cost of having a business….”

This culture of shoplifting puts in context the reaction of the Oberlin College administration that it was still trying to get students to understand that “shoplifting was harmful.”

But quivering in fear of student reaction was not the answer. Nor was trying to pressure Gibson’s Bakery to establish a special procedure for students caught shoplifting (the college denied this pressure, which David Gibson testified to):

Someone who saw my thread commented:

Thread. Chilling details on how broken the student body has become at Oberlin College. How on earth did students get this way?

That’s a good question. Unfortunately, it does not appear the Oberlin College administration is ready to confront its own role.

[Featured Image: David Gibson explaining shoplifting incident][via police body cam video]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Richard Aubrey | June 16, 2019 at 10:08 pm

Is there an exponential version of “entitled”?

“… How Gibson would have reacted if the students were white or trans or not students at all is an important question, but ultimately a question we will never know the answer to.”

That’s cute. By the police statistics, we can answer the first part, yes? If they were white, Gibsons would detain them while calling the cops to haul them off to be booked for shoplifting.

The lack of character and morality among these young idiots is stunning. Never seen anything like it.

    I am old enough to remember Honor Codes.
    Oberlin should have nicked this problem in the bud and kicked out any thieves.
    Bet most of these students cheat as well.
    The student editor, admitting his thefts, should be hanging his head in shame. I surely hope he’s paid back any store he’s stolen from.
    I think this is what happens when kids are never told “no” by their parents.

      Mark Michael in reply to lc. | June 18, 2019 at 1:07 am

      Good grief. When I went to college in 1962, the school had the principle of in loco parentis. They were the students’ substitute parents away from home. It was more stringent for freshmen, a little more relaxed for sophomores. By your junior and senior years, you were 20 – 22 years old and expected to behave as adults.

      Tests were given on an honor code. The teacher handed out the tests and left the room. If any students cheated, other students in the class reported them to the student honor council. They could get an F in the course. If they had multiple infractions they could be expelled (as I recall).

      The idea of students stealing things from a store in town – well, I’m not aware of it happening. But I’m guessing the university would expel them. Perhaps notify their parents; show them the police report – so they’d understand why Johnny or Suzy was coming home early! (There were both university police in their distinctive green cars and town police in more traditional-looking black and white police cars – as I recall.)

        xenonman in reply to Mark Michael. | June 18, 2019 at 12:04 pm

        Those days are, unfortunately, long gone, I’m afraid.

        CaptTee in reply to Mark Michael. | June 18, 2019 at 2:44 pm

        That went away when we allowed 18 year olds to vote and we declared 18 year olds to be adults and no longer minors, without requiring adult behavior.

        Another example of unintended consequences!

    They subscribe to a code of ethics or relativism (e.g. Pro-Choice).

    JusticeDelivered in reply to | June 17, 2019 at 5:44 pm

    Their mentality is similar to that of inner city underprivileged.

Cf. Lord of the Flies

At War With HOA | June 16, 2019 at 11:04 pm

The company I work for no longer considers Oberlin College applicants.

Chilling details on how broken the student body has become at Oberlin College. How on earth did students get this way?

Via their Oberlin College Puddingmeisters, that’s how.

Chilled, baked, or elsewise.

    Silvertree in reply to guinspen. | June 17, 2019 at 3:06 am

    Get woken, get broken?

    Speaking of which, someone broke into the Oberlin College Wikipedia page on Friday evening and shoplifted their motto. But whoever it was kindly left a new one behind. The new motto read: “Get woke, go broke.”

    It didn’t last long, but you can have the joy of seeing it here, as Leonard French discovers it during his live-stream. Screen-shot, anyone?

    LIVE: Oberlin College hit with $44 Million in Damages by Jury in Gibson’s Bakery Case
    2:06:36 “Learning and Labor” comes to an end

Not to mention either:

a) lack of parental guidance.

b) parental encouragement.

Or maybe even:

c) “Nuke the entire Academy from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.”

Hit it, Ripley.

    Andy in reply to guinspen. | June 17, 2019 at 1:31 am

    I was thinking of Pacino in Scent of a Woman… “If I was half the man I was 20 years ago, I’d take a flamethrower to this place.”

There’s an aspect to this that has puzzled me since the beginning. I assume from all I’ve read that Gibon’s is off campus, nearby in the community. What business did Raimondo have being at the protest at all, with a bullhorn no less? Seems to me her authority and responsibility would stop at the campus property line. Her participation in the protests in an official capacity just seems wrong on its face.

    cucha in reply to Daiwa. | June 17, 2019 at 7:53 am

    No need go assume anything. Any mapping website is your friend. The Gibson store is about half a block east of the Oberlin conservayoty

    In effect, the bakery is located on campus geographically speaking, but not on campus property. Raimondo had no official business being there.

    cucha in reply to Daiwa. | June 17, 2019 at 7:53 am

    No need go assume anything. Any mapping website is your friend. The Gibson store is about half a block east of the Oberlin conservayoty

    In effect, the bakery is located on campus geographically speaking, but not on campus property. Raimondo had no official business being there..

    Publius_2020 in reply to Daiwa. | June 17, 2019 at 7:06 pm

    “Her participation in the protests in an official capacity just seems wrong on its face.”

    $44 million worth of wrong, in fact. The juxtaposition of her actions next to Oberlin’s repeated statements that the college had “no responsibility” for anything is amazing. Oberlin’s Dean of Students is in front of the store WITH A BULLHORN and a pile of defamatory flyers in her hand, but the college thinks it is not participating in any way?

My vision is getting worse. Obviously meant Gibson’s. Sorry for the typo.

SpaceInvader | June 17, 2019 at 12:25 am

I’m ok with special treatment for student shop lifters. How about a hundred lashes with a cane?

The actions of the students and the Oberlin admin.are entirely understandable. The students have been taught from kindergarten on that whites are all evil racists, and that businesses are vile thieves. Black students are handed goodies with no effort on their parts. Of course they feel entitled to steal from evil racists.

To me this sounds a lot like the diversion program pushed by Obama/Holder and so successful with Trayvon Martin and the Florida school shooter. Since the school admin would be big in Obama programs, this diversion to decrease apparent school age crime stats would be viewed favorably. I expect the school admin didn’t know The racial percentages which did not show more Blacks shoplifting. So when it goes down with three Black students, the racial knee jerk went off. Just when a real “zero tolerance” to crime would be great move by OC, they want to dilute down responsibility and accountability . Now they want to do the same themselves now caught up in the legal system.

    tom_swift in reply to alaskabob. | June 17, 2019 at 3:33 am

    I expect the school admin didn’t know The racial percentages which did not show more Blacks shoplifting.

    Conceivably those racial percentages are similarly perverted. Gamed stats didn’t begin with Obama.

    pst314 in reply to alaskabob. | June 17, 2019 at 8:22 pm

    I expect the school admin didn’t know The racial percentages which did not show more Blacks shoplifting.

    I suspect it is often the case that such schools do not know.
    But the fundamental reason is that they do not care about facts: Other Oberlin-Gibsons reports on this blog have shown that they believe that it’s racist to to stop blacks from stealing, and especially racist to arrest them.

Watch how the actual fact of Mr. Aladin’s shoplifting, and the two wine bottles hidden under his coat that sparked off this whole entire mess, are cleverly “disappeared” in this story from The Atlantic:

“On November 9, 2016, three black students at Oberlin College made a late-afternoon trip to Gibson’s Bakery, a small, family-owned business near campus that has been serving the community at its present location since 1905. Like countless undergraduates of all races, classes, genders, and generations, they hoped to leave with alcohol but weren’t yet of age to purchase it legally.

A fake ID was produced and rejected.

In the moments that followed, Allyn Gibson, the owner’s son, would try to keep the fake ID, pursue the male student who had used it as he fled to the back of the store, chase him into the street yelling “Shoplifter!,” and detain him, even as the other students, who were women, attempted to intervene on behalf of their friend. Soon, Oberlin police arrived and arrested the three undergraduates. A police report accused them of trying to shoplift two bottles of wine. Many classmates jumped to the conclusion that they’d been mistreated and launched protests almost immediately.


Later, when the male student was charged with felony robbery rather than shoplifting, even as his fake ID suggested at the very least that his initial intent had been to make a purchase, many at Oberlin perceived a miscarriage of justice and wondered whether race had played a role in the charging decision. That, too, is easy to understand.”


excerpts from a longer opinion piece (the author eventually sides with Gibson’s)

Verdict Against Oberlin College and Public Shaming – The Atlantic

    walls in reply to Silvertree. | June 17, 2019 at 7:09 am

    Of course shoplifting is a crime. But so is having a fake ID IF the fake ID represents a state-issued driver license or identification card. I’ve never seen mentioned if the perp was also arrested for the fake ID charge.

    paracelsus in reply to Silvertree. | June 17, 2019 at 3:10 pm

    for factual reporting I’d as soon read the NY Times as The Atlantic.
    You’ll get a strongly biased version in both cases.

    Honu in reply to Silvertree. | June 17, 2019 at 5:56 pm

    All the MSM picked selective aspects to publish, and then chose language intentionally to support the race-baiting narrative. According to the NYT, Allyn Gibson put the shoplifter in a “chokehold” but the two accomplices merely “intervened” instead of what was noted by the police – all 3 students were punching and kicking Gibson, who was on the ground.

There’s something about David Gibson’s testimony I hadn’t noticed before. He said “They kept answering me by saying ‘We have to put this behind us'”

Where else did we see that phrasing? In Raimondo’s infamous “unleash the students” email.


    griffeydog in reply to CorkyAgain. | June 17, 2019 at 7:07 pm

    It’s a common Liberal/Leftist/SJW refrain whenever they get caught doing something unconscionable or illegal. “We have to put this all behind us and come together as a community”. Is the line. Very similar to the Clintonian approach of declaring any scandal or illegality “old news” after they have stonewalled the investigators for years. Any time a modern leftist wants to “put things behind them” start looking for the felony crime. Because it’s there someplace.

      henrybowman in reply to griffeydog. | June 17, 2019 at 10:03 pm

      Let’s make sure people never forget the origin of the Democrat pressure group “Move On,” and particularly what they wanted us to move on FROM.

      CorkyAgain in reply to griffeydog. | June 18, 2019 at 12:16 am

      What struck me was that in both examples there was clearly an “or else” attached to the statement.

      “We have to put this behind us … but if you don’t do what we want, there are going to be consequences you won’t like.”

    artichoke in reply to CorkyAgain. | June 18, 2019 at 10:52 am

    Kyle Kashuv was certainly not allowed to “put behind him” comments he had made in a Google private document that got leaked.

It’s all just a cruel joke. They’re all in the Twilight Zone being forced to play characters in an Ayn Rand novel.

Transcripts from the police body-cam film right after the Gibson’s incident:

“You know, this whole thing is just gettin’—there’s so much theft going through our store right now with the students, I just, I cannot believe it; I just don’t know how to get control of it, really. I mean it’s just non-stop!”

David Gibson, speaking to an officer

Oberlin Police body cam video (Gibson’s Bakery)


“This is going to be difficult, but I d—so I mean, they’ve been pushing it all day.”

Allyn Gibson, speaking to an officer about Oberlin students

Oberlin Police body camera video (Gibson’s continued)

    artichoke in reply to Silvertree. | June 17, 2019 at 10:40 pm

    And the students conspiring to lie to police about what had happened, also on the bodycam video.

    I guess that’s consistent with Oberlin’s mission and values, too.

LukeHandCool | June 17, 2019 at 2:27 am

One of my earliest memories is coming back from grocery shopping with my mother. I was probably three or four years old at the time.

I took some candy without thinking by the checkout stand. I didn’t really know I was doing something wrong. My mother finally noticed when she saw me starting to eat it after we’d gone back home.

She drove me back to the store, took me inside and made me apologize, and paid for the candy.

By the time I was an undergrad at UCLA I’d been aware that shoplifting was harmful for quite a few years.

For LA Westsiders who know the Brentwood Country Mart, when I was in elementary school in the 1960s, there was a tiny candy shop run by an elderly Jewish couple way back then. My friends and I would go there at least once a week. Whenever one of us was a bit short of money when the husband or wife rang up our bill, they’d let us take the candy so long as we promised to pay the difference the next time we were there.

Every time you told them that you owed 25 cents or such from the previous time and wanted to pay off the debt, they would rub the top of your head and praise you for being an honest boy.

Those little lessons stick with a kid.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to LukeHandCool. | June 17, 2019 at 10:40 am

    Some people do a really good job parenting, overall that is the case for higher IQ people, not so much for lower IQ people. This is one of the huge advantages Jewish, Asian and caucasian children have. Obviously not every child in these groups, but on a per capita basis many more than in other groups.

    What is sad is that children are naturally sponges sopping up knowledge, and when their opportunity is squandered by poor parents, they are unlikely to ever catch up, to ever achieve their potential. That is sad.

    Times sure have changed. In 1952 my (white) parents had a small grocery store on the near-North side of Milwaukee and the neighborhood was changing from white to black. I was 16 at the time and helping to stock shelves when I saw a black kid walk off with a box of stuff without paying. I ran outside and tackled him and a couple of black passers-by stopped to help me recover the loot. No cops called, loot recovered, thief ran away but was recognized and, as I understand it, got what he deserved when he got home.

    Times have changed, to be sure.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Carl. | June 17, 2019 at 10:11 pm

      My father was a teacher, schools in the city were top notch throughout the fifties, in the sixties our neighborhood had a large influx of white trash. Then busing started, greatly degrading schools.

      What saved my education was that bad elements ended up in general ed., while I was college prep., and the fact that I had run of a top flight engineering college from 7th grade on.

      The truth is that busing came at the expense of untold numbers of children, and it did not fix a general disinterest in education of those being bused.

      When that failed, the system was dumbed down to create the illusion of success.

      It is a tough problem, with no easy solutions.

    mtngirl in reply to LukeHandCool. | June 17, 2019 at 7:42 pm

    I had the same story as a child, with the same results. Then as a Front End manager for a Target-like store (anyone remember Venture?), I was on the other side when parents brought their child in to learn the lesson about shoplifting. It sure seems like those values are in short supply these days.

caseoftheblues | June 17, 2019 at 3:34 am

The entitlement mentality and moral relativism either taught or already present and magnified in students who attend what amounts to no more than Social Justice Warrior Camps is astonding….future employers beware!…they will steal from you too…money, property and time. Plus they really really seem like dirt stupid worthless people

The honor code at my alma mater, UVA, states that UVA students will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. A violation of the honor code would and did result in the liar, cheater, or thief being expelled.
This sort of thing was no joke. Several times each year, a short notice would appear in the student newspaper stating that a student had been expelled from the University for a violation of the honor code.
So I really can’t understand the position of the administration of Oberlin College. They don’t even have the cojones to tell the students that stealing is “harmful”. How about telling them that STEALING IS WRONG? How about telling them that the college doesn’t want or need thieves among the student body?

    healthguyfsu in reply to Jim Morris. | June 17, 2019 at 8:13 am

    Although it has its own issues, UVA’s honor code is upheld pretty well. W&M is also pretty serious about the honor code…don’t know about the rest around here.

    I should have read further down the thread before comenting on this same thing. Honor codes immediately popped into my head, too.

    mochajava76 in reply to Jim Morris. | June 17, 2019 at 10:16 am

    We were all brought up with a code of ethics (whether it is a sin/guilt culture or an honor/shame one) that teaches this. This is the underlying principle of the honor code system.

    What struck me in the student newspaper article was this line:
    “His choice was motivated by his own racial biases (as all interpersonal choices are) . . . “

    One cannot assume what motivates an action. One would have to be omniscient to know this.
    (e.g. I have no certainty of whether a baseball pitcher intentionally tried to hit a batter or if he lost control of the pitch).

    But the students are indoctrinated with the idea that *everything* is a racial judgment, which drives a motivated action, whether consciously or unconsciously.

    I think this is why the university kept asking Gibsons to put this behind them. The university itself has already capitulated to the students and recognizes they have no foundation to challenge them, even on how food is cooked.

    How do you teach young adults with no foundation of objective truths that some things (actions and ideas) are inherently right or wrong (if one does not accept the Western tradition).

    [I’m not saying there is no right and wrong in a non-Western tradition, just that these students are not a blank slate]

      JusticeDelivered in reply to mochajava76. | June 17, 2019 at 12:41 pm

      It does not matter if Oberlin University is spineless, or if they are siding with the students because they agree with them. The college’s conduct with Gibson’s is completely unacceptable.

        Silvertree in reply to JusticeDelivered. | June 17, 2019 at 2:38 pm

        It certainly is unacceptable. Some of us here today are puzzling over how such a thing could even have happened, and trying to learn how we might understand this behavior and prevent these things going forward, because what happened to the Gibsons seems so preposterous, even dangerous.

        “We were wrong. We’re sorry. We’ll do our best to make it up to you and restore your reputation in our community.”

        Is that so hard for the College president to say? Anyone with common sense can see that they were in the wrong. What is Oberlin doing? This has reached absurd levels at this point. As Major Wood commented yesterday, things seem to have reached a point where one must start asking about mentai illness.

          Honu in reply to Silvertree. | June 17, 2019 at 6:11 pm

          All of the testimony and public statements related to every single Oberlin administrator, from the former president, to the current president, to all the deans, especially the one named in the suit have been very consistent and paint an overwhelming picture of bias, entitlement and hubris. I initially wondered how they could act that way and put such comments in emails and texts (“F—- him …unleash the students”) but I have come to understand the pervasiveness of the Oberlin mentality. They absolutely believe that they are right and will never concede anything. SJWs to the end.

      paracelsus in reply to mochajava76. | June 17, 2019 at 3:17 pm

      “We were all brought up with a code of ethics…”
      I don’t know who this “We” is.
      Some of us knew it was wrong to steal before we got to kindergarten; others need a strong object lesson.

The real issue being missed in most coverage of this mess by other news agencies as well as what is being missed in so much coverage concerning this entitled generation is how these colleges, parents, and others, are not doing a poor job raising these children, but instead they are doing a great job of raising children into bigger, less capable children. Instead of doing the difficult job of teaching consequence, the virtues of honesty, how stealing affects businesses whose owners are just trying to eek out a living, etc., these people and organizations in roles of authority are enabling this horrible behavior by creating one justification after another with their absurd excuses and lies. Likely the worst lies being told are by these parents, colleges, and such, as they seek to justify their own bad behavior in their effort to protect these children from the consequences they dearly need to face. These parents and organizations are not raising children, rather they are raising emotional and social cripples whose chief claim to fame will be their own serial failures without ever knowing why or learning from them.

    MajorWood in reply to Cleetus. | June 17, 2019 at 10:10 am

    A parent is never so hard on a child as by being so soft.

    Silvertree in reply to Cleetus. | June 17, 2019 at 10:57 am

    With children nowadays usually being in very structured communal environments from a young age, away from their parents, I suspect the idea of morality is just being reduced to a sweet set of rules written on the wall, enforced at times, but not really having any deeper meaning. So if you can get away with it when the teacher’s back is turned, why not?

    It’s in those first seven years that the deepest moral lessons sink in. And if Mom and Dad are not with their kids much (often there is no dad around at all), then these deeper lessons are likely getting lost.

    Another factor: In these very structured communal environments: daycares, preschools, etc,, where even tiny infants lie there together in a room, do kids really ever learn much personal self-control? Yes, they have to be careful to obey the rules, or at least not get caught; they have to become very clever and restrained (either that or be labeled as defective and drugged, especially the strongest, most creative adventurous wonderful boys, which is an absolute tragedy). But do these kids ever internalize the importance of the values behind the rules? Do the rules ever become part of any personal moral code? Aren’t the children always being watched and regulated, so they never get a chance to really learn to handle personal freedom?

    I often wonder whether all this safe space/trigger warning stuff comes because so many kids are just not used to handling personal freedom, and being in an unregulated environment without strong authority—and frankly are terrified by it and by their own lack of personal self control in such a free situation.

    Somehow their hyper-sensitivity and cowardice has even been turned into a virtue, in their eyes. So important are their feelings, their triggers, their traumas, their tantrums, etc. It seems like they are like young children trapped in the bodies of young adults.

    I say “they” in all of this, but certainly there are many students who are much healthier. Wish some of them would come onto this site and tell us more about what is going on at Oberlin.

Either clean house, or shut it down. It is a destructive, dysfunctional institution.

During the Q/A segment of an abortion debate at an Ivy League university, I asked the pro-abortion-rights debater (a full professor) whether he believed there was such a thing as objective truth. He said “no”, and many of the students present cheered.

I then asked him whether he would be able to say that what Hitler did to the Jews was objectively wrong. He said “no”. Oddly, the students didn’t cheer that one.

Moral relativism – In addition to being disgusting, it’s self-refuting!

    Silvertree in reply to gibbie. | June 17, 2019 at 3:19 pm

    True. If you say, “All moral values are relative; nothing can be absolutely true” then the statement you just made is also relative, and cannot be absolutely true.

    These ideas lead into an endless shifting labyrinth, with no ground to stand upon.

    Yet people assert these ideas of “moral relativism” and “no absolute truth” as though they were the most absolute truths in the world! Nothing else can even be considered.

    Total hypocrisy.

What moronic parents would send their kid to this nuthouse of a school?

Culture of theft? Answer: arrest and incarcerate. Thefts will decline.

This was published after the guilty verdicts. Just how long can “allegedly” be used?

I have 10 years experience as an economist for education finance. It is clear to me that the rampant spread of “Bolshevism” across institutions (which used to be limited to certain flagships like Berkeley) is due, yes, to basic economic principles of supply and demand. It’s a long outline, but essentially it starts with the fact that there are not enough good white collar jobs out there for all the limpwrist millennials and gen-z-ers who refuse to clean a toilet, and they’re hoppin’ mad about it. Desperation drives them all to go to college and take useless, but easy, liberal arts course to build a resume (well, and, of course, desperation foments their advocacy for socialism like it’s some sort of lottery ticket with better odds). But as with any subset of people, 75% are mediocre to lousy relative to the other 25%. Those 75% go into huge debt and get even more hoppin’ mad when they can only find jobs as phone reps for Verizon. This demand for a resume caused huge investment in capacity (faculty and construction) for about 20 years, but enrollment has been flatlining numerically (and declining against economic indexes) for the last 2-5 years. This means not enough money to maintain the bloated course catalogs or even repay bonds. Hundreds of institutions are on the verge of bankruptcy. Ergo, they kow-tow to the hoppin’ mad students…simply so they don’t drop out and stop paying tuition. Sure, most liberal arts faculty are delusional commies, but they’ve been that way for more than 50 years and we never sensed a whiff of the crisis we have today. In my opinion, it’s less conspiratorial than it is mere desperation, on both sides of supply and demand.

    ObieWanKanObie in reply to SteChatte. | June 17, 2019 at 10:59 am

    If the forces of supply and demand were at work in higher education, tuition would have been dropping for at least a decade. Supply now exceeds demand. Information is ubiquitous and almost free these days, thanks to the internet. Higher degrees mean less and less. Colleges and universities offer more and more (usually worthless) majors.

    Instead, tuition keeps rising. Why? Because the education market is not a free market.

    It is an artificial market, propped up by readily-available, plentiful, and cheap government money in the form of student loans, government grants, etc. Student loans are particularly pernicious, as the school assumes zero risk by accepting the money–the risk is assumed entirely by the students, and it cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. (Not to mention that it makes students unmarriageable.)

    Schools gradually raised tuition enough to collect as much risk-free student loan money as possible, and they used this money to hire administrators and build buildings they could not otherwise afford.

    It is wrong to exploit students in this way. Unfortunately, very few institutions view this as a moral hazard. I suspect that very few professors are even aware of just how bad the problem has become.

    It would be nice if college professors and administrators required their students to behave like adults and not steal, as was expected in decades past. But I don’t think they’ve given that very much thought, and they certainly do not have their own houses in order.

      OnTheLeftCoast in reply to ObieWanKanObie. | June 17, 2019 at 12:25 pm

      It is, as you say, an artificial market. That doesn’t mean that within that constrained and distorted system the laws of supply and demand don’t operate in a constrained and distorted manner, which is what SteChatte is describing. The critical turn to the abyss was the explosion of student loans and the social justice movement. The latter created much of the demand for a massive administrative expansion, and the former made it possible.

      The Oberlin case demonstrates other things. The racial breakdown of shoplifters accompanied by the massive overrepresentation of OC students among those arrested for shoplifting tells us that it’s not that Oberlin College admits a bunch of hood rats who commit all the crimes.

      If OC has a “culture of theft,” that suggests that OC admits young people with poor character and sketchy morality and encourages them to behave like made members of the mob who are entitled to take merchandise from local merchants.

      You can’t even say “tacitly encourages.” OC asserted in the course of this trial that the local police should not handle the shoplifting cases, the College should. I guess because that works out so well for charges of rape. Talk about being privileged!

      In medieval English law, a person charged with a crime who belonged to the clergy (or claimed to) could claim “Benefit of Clergy” which would exempt them from trial by the civil authorities. They were then subject to justice under Church law. The aristocracy was likewise exempt from penalty for many offenses committed against commoners. So much for equal justice under the law. Oberlin College is for more equal animals.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to OnTheLeftCoast. | June 17, 2019 at 5:33 pm

        I would amend your remarks to say Oberlin RECRUITS, MOLDS, SHAPES and LEADS students of questionable character. The product is manufactured and delivered as intended.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to ObieWanKanObie. | June 17, 2019 at 5:30 pm

      If I were king of America, and gladly I am not for I am sure, due to my level of competence, that I would soon be hauled off my throne and swiftly beheaded, I would decree that only colleges and universities could extend loans to their students. In this way, the interests of the college and the student would directly align in the transaction. I do understand that far fewer college loans would be granted. However, in my day, it was common for people to take five or six years to finish their degree as they, like I, had to work through college to acquire the necessary funds. In my dad’s day, finishing a four year degree was considered a luxury for the idle rich, and my father became a medical doctor. In fact, the only degree he ever completed was his medical degree. He never even finished high school. To get into medical school, which he did at age 18, all he had to do was complete some basic science courses in a college and pass a demanding entrance exam to get into medical school.

        artichoke in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | June 23, 2019 at 9:28 pm

        Oh no I think lots of loans would be made, and retention would skyrocket as standards were totally eliminated.

        Colleges can sell a degree for money, and if there are enough degree holders out there it’s necessary to have one. But the academic standards are increasingly pushed out, as colleges admit for closer and closer to absolute economic optimization.

        The new College Board “Adversity Score” will make this easier for colleges, as they can identify the rich and admit them ahead of the middle class. I think this is the main reason colleges want it. There are also a tiny handful of super-elites who want those diamonds-in-the-rough from the ghetto or other preferred classes of people, but that’s a tiny subset of colleges and people.

“Chilling details on how broken the student body has become at Oberlin College. How on earth did students get this way?”

By official Obama administration policy. The students were probably advised by faculty who were guided by the policy of suppressing minority statistics relating to crime. This policy was administered by Arne Duncan who continues to advocate for this and was a fundamental reason why the Parkland shooting occurred even though Cruz had been identified as a threat and had a long history with the police.

This should presented as a main point when explaining why the Oberlin case was so important. It’s how we fight against the organized SJW mob in getting our courts to enforce the laws. Going forward, we need to stress that all high schools, colleges and universities are guilty because of this policy. Abolish the DOE!

And BTW, how does anyone rationalize violence to protest “white supremacy, imperialism and cultural usurpation” supposedly inherent in cafeteria menus that don’t stick to General Tso’s menu? How creepy is that? Back in the days when humor was still legal, it would have featured in a Monty Python movie scene or as part of the “Animal House” nonsense.

I need to point something out, as it’s a pet peeve of mine.

“Oberlin College (unsuccessfully) tried to keep out police records showing no racial profiling at Gibson’s Bakery: 40 arrested, 32 were white (80%), six were African-American (15%), and two were Asian (5%), pretty much matched city’s racial makeup.”

Even if a certain racial group is arrested and convicted for crimes way out of proportion of their demographic percentage that is NOT evidence of racial profiling.

Here’s a video that went viral; a black woman accusing a white cop of being racist for giving her a speeding ticket. She immediately went on facebook live and basically accused the cop of wanting to lynch her.

The whole thing is BS of course. He clocked her going 70mph in a 55mph zone. She basically demands a warning and he says, “No maam, no warnings today.” Then he politely explains her options; she can either prepay either online or by phone or she can show up for her court date (he tells her the date and time she needs to show up). Then he asks her to sign the ticket, telling her it’s not an admission of guilt but she’s just promising she’ll take care of that ticket.

She of course refuses to sign, saying “I don’t have to sign that ticket.” So he explains what will happen if she doesn’t. He’s going to get her out of the car, put her in his police car, he’ll have her car towed, and she’ll see a majistrate that day.

She signs the ticket, he tells her to “have a safe day,” and they go their separate ways.

She goes on facebook live and lies. So the sheriff releases the bodycam video proving that she lied.

She says she “remembered it differently” and that the deputy should have been more deferential to her by asking her to “step out of the car.” Basically, screw her. He could have asked her that and she still would have lied about it to paint him as a racist.

Back to my original point, there is no such thing as being arrested for “driving while black.” During the Clinton presidency the New Jersey State Troopers were accused of “racially profiling” black drivers. So the DoJ and the New Jersey attorney general’s office investigated. It turns out that while blacks may only comprise 13% of the U.S. population they commit traffic offenses out of proportion to their demographic representation. In fact, the DoJ confirmed that they represent 25% of traffic offenders.

It turned out the New Jersey State Troopers were actually citing blacks at slightly LESS than the rate they commit traffic offences. Chinese-Americans comprise only 1.5% of the U.S. population as of 2017. They are remarkably law abiding. But there is one crime they commit way out of proportion to their percentage of the population. Illegal gambling; either running an illegal gambling operation or patronizing them.

As an aside, cops don’t really hate cameras (either dash or body cams).

You can some this one up as “Black woman tries to beat DUI charge by accusing white Texas State Trooper of raping her.”

She hired or reported the charge of rape to a “famed” TX civil rights attorney, and he publicly repeated the charge as if it were a fact.

He later issued a public statement of apology for amplifying the obviously false charge after the TX Dept. of Public Safety released the entire, unedited 2 hour video where nothing she accused the Trooper of committing happened.

I know a lot of cops, and one thing they like body or dashcams for is because before they came along it was almost impossible to beat a $20 complaint. The arrestee would accuse the cop of stealing a $20 and of course the cop would have a $20 in their wallet or pocket because that’s generally what ATMs spit out. And how do you prove a guy you arrested didn’t have $100 instead of $80?

So the cops I know would make sure to count out the money the arrestee had in their pockets on the hood of the patrol vehicle in front of the dashcam.

So, Oberlin is a hotbed of rabid diversity, and it is not beneath the integrity of the administrative staff to extort concessions from select members of the community in order to polish a tarnished public perception. Another #MeToo moment for liberal education.

To these students, these are small items that couldn’t possibly make that much of a difference to a normal business.

Each individual little theft that “couldn’t possibly make any difference” adds up in the same direction to the business’ bottom line. They don’t average over a period of time; it isn’t as though other students are leaving books or pens or bottles of wine behind for the store to sell – no, it’s all negative.

These are fundamentally stupid kids. That Oberlin wants to try brushing this aside makes Oberlin a fundamentally stupid college.

Why do you think that so many young people embrace socialism? The vast majority of college students simply can not earn the $40,000 – $100,000 a year that it costs to attend college. Most 18-25 year olds do not make nearly enough money, with a full-time job, to cover that expense. in fact, that is as much or more than most middle income families earn a year. So, someone else is paying for their schooling, and often their room and board. It is no wonder that this entitlement mindset slops over into their interactions with commercial establishments. But, it gets worse.

In the Gibson’s case, none of the arrestees were old enough to legally purchase alcoholic beverages. First they tried presenting a false ID. when that did not work they simply stole the product. More entitlement mentality at work. Laws do not apply to the entitled. Heck, walk through almost any college dormitory and you can get a good contact high from all the marijuana smoke in the building. Professors are lighting up in their offices. And, it has been that way for the last 50 years. Theft on campus, cheating on tests, buying term papers, plagiarism and on and on. The entitled do not have to follow the rules. They are above the rules and the law. And, college populations are some of the most entitled groups in the country. So, what is the big deal about stealing a bottle of wine which you are not old enough to legally purchase?

    Silvertree in reply to Mac45. | June 17, 2019 at 4:07 pm

    The student was going to try to buy one bottle of wine, but he already had two others stashed under his coat. The storekeeper Allyn Gibson had seen him hide the two bottles, so when the student got up to the counter to pay with his fake ID, Allyn refused to sell him the one bottle, and told him he was calling the police. Then he tried to get a picture of the student with his phone, but the student slapped the phone back into Allyn’s face and ran to the back of the store, where Allyn chased him down and managed to take hold of him, yelling, “Give me my stuff!!”

    The student threw down the two bottles of wine he had hidden and escaped out to the street. Things got more ugly from there, as multiple black students started beating Allyn. He had come running out and grabbed the student again, and they had fallen to the ground. The student then escaped again, and was caught by Allyn again and they were on the ground a second time. Despite the beatings Allyn held on tenaciously to the student; he has martial arts training and so used a hold on the student. The only punching and kicking and scratching came from the black students.

    The other kids around, however, had no knowledge of the two hidden bottles of wine Mr. Aladin was attempting to steal under his coat. So to them it looked like Mr. Gibson went absolutely nuts and sprang upon this innocent student aggressively for no real reason. One young woman even called 911, because she was so afraid for the student! The young white women there were shocked and some were crying; they did not have any understanding for the reason all this was happening. So apparently they made up a reason: they decided it was a racist attack. And that was the story that spread.

    Just wanted to repeat this all again here, as so many news stories have gotten this wrong. You can find it all described on the body-cam footage on YouTube. It’s well worth watching.

    Oberlin Police body cam video (Gibson’s Bakery)

    Oberlin Police body camera video (Gibson’s continued)

      Silvertree in reply to Silvertree. | June 18, 2019 at 4:48 am

      If you read the Grape article, several random students in the library admit to having stolen “$100 bottles of wine” from Gibson’s. So Mr. Gibson is supposed to just let this go?

        Silvertree in reply to Silvertree. | June 18, 2019 at 4:50 am

        By the way, the student was given several chances in the store to stop and wait quietly for the police. But he chose to turn the situation into something entirely different. The so-called “altercation” was instigated completely by the student and his friends.

        Most of all, he was planning to steal those 2 bottles of wine he had hidden under his jacket, whether his fake ID worked or not!

Albigensian | June 17, 2019 at 3:20 pm

“The majority of students who admitted to shoplifting explained that the items stolen were mostly minor ones like candy, and most commonly, pens…. While these stories are anecdotal and don’t paint the full picture of shoplifting, one that may include theft-out-of-necessity, most of the thefts were out of convenience.”

Well, yes, there might have been “theft-out-of-necessity.” Perhaps an Oberlin student was starving as well as moneyless, and just had to acquire some Gibson’s Bakery food, like, right now?

But there’s no evidence of any such “theft-out-of-necessity” having ever taken place and, is it not implausible that any recent Oberlin student has ever been so needy and impoverished as to be able to honestly offer this defense?

Nor do I entirely understand what a “theft out of convenience” is: does that mean it was just too much trouble to wait in line to offer payment for something?

Nonetheless, I think anyone should be able to understand that shoplifting deprives the merchant not only of any potential profit that might have been earned from the sale but also the cost of acquiring the item in the first place. And, further, that dealing with a “culture of shoplifting” incurs additional expenses for vigilance and deterrence if the business is not to incur ruinous losses.

And, although I suspect there may be few adult Americans who could honestly say they never ever shoplifted anything (even when they were children), even Oberlin students should be capable of understanding that something is very deeply wrong if, in fact, a “culture of shoplifting” exists at Oberlin.

And, maybe, even if you can’t save the world from all possible real or imagined evils, you could choose not to steal?

NavyMustang | June 17, 2019 at 4:37 pm

“It is deeply depressing that students did not already know that “shoplifting was harmful.””


I remember the time my father found out that I was stealing. He vigorously made me realize that “shoplifting” is “harmful.”

My mother was no different. Every time she got her wallet, she would call me over and count her money in front of me. Much more peaceful reaction than my father, but I got the message loud and clear.

Anacleto Mitraglia | June 17, 2019 at 4:54 pm

Not that it’s game over, I have a question for the lawyers here. Is there a ranking for US lawyers, like ATP for tennis players or the other for golfers? Or maybe a Legal Tripadvisor? Because I’m curious of seeing the ratings for Oberlin attorneys. Did they study there.
Tip for the top brass at the academy, for next time you’re in trouble:

blacksburger | June 17, 2019 at 5:55 pm

I remember the foreign students’ protests about the food some years ago. What disturbed me was that they did not approach the head of food services politely and describe the problem. I’m sure the problems they described would have been addressed. They preferred to stage a noisy protest.

What I found funny was that the Oberlin students had been protesting General Tso’s chicken as some kind of cultural appropriation because it used the wrong sauce or something. I understand that General Tso’s chicken isn’t authentically Chinese but something cooked up (forgive the bad pun) here in America. If I’m right, then they don’t even get the subject of their SJW protests correct.

    walls in reply to rochf. | June 17, 2019 at 6:43 pm

    Where in the world do they come up with this crap? Cultural appropriation my ass! I see their black female president has “straightened” hair, and not “natural” hair. Can I say she has culturally appropriated white woman’s hair? How far do we want to take this nonsense?

    guinspen in reply to rochf. | June 17, 2019 at 7:53 pm

    Other students protested dining hall “cultural appropriation” of Asian food, noting as to the dining-hall version of General Tso’s Chicken, “[i]nstead of deep-fried chicken with ginger-garlic soy sauce, the chicken was steamed with a substitute sauce.”

    “Steamed,” instead of “deep-fried” is a protest point?


    Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Gen’ral Steamed has got to go!!!

“the college was “trying to get students to realize that shoplifting was harmful.””

They don’t care if it’s harmful to the businesses, they will only care if it harms them. Punish the ones that get caught.

great unknown | June 17, 2019 at 7:41 pm

Isn’t “Culture of Theft” just another way of saying “Socialism”?

MnemonicMike | June 17, 2019 at 11:20 pm

Oberlin is a “college” teaching useless liberal arts programs. Shut it down. Put Oberlin out of business. Let the losers find somewhere else to get a phony “degree”.

At War With HOA | June 18, 2019 at 12:27 am

Degenerate ‘educational’ institution that has been declining for a long time.

This truly is the generation Reagan warned us about.

    artichoke in reply to bigjack711. | June 18, 2019 at 3:06 pm

    Reagan helped us get here, by being the first to create impossible situations and contradictions here. He sent our industry to Japan and those that remained were bought out and drained of strength by LBO’s under his watch.

    He also did the last amnesty of illegal aliens.

    Don’t watch the actor’s voice. Keep an eye on the hands especially the one that he’s not waving in front of you.

University culture is so ridiculously retarded these days that you can’t even satirize it. Kind of the same way with the entire left side of the aisle.

I must be pretty old.I thought the object of attending school was to learn.

Createcompassion | June 18, 2019 at 10:49 am

Doesn’t seem quite fair. Not one black person on that jury.

    artichoke in reply to Createcompassion. | June 18, 2019 at 2:55 pm

    Meredith Raimondo and President-at-the-time Krislov aren’t black either. This didn’t seem to bother the defense attorneys during jury selection.

Ever have a well-to-do friend steal from a store ‘because’ he said ‘they owe me. I spent a lot in here.’ That incident with my friend happened over 40 years ago. It was an elitist smart ass attitude that grew out of the sixties. Mark Rudd was never properly taken out of influence.