Image 01 Image 03

Gibson’s Bakery: “there is serious concern about [Oberlin College’s] ability to pay this sizeable judgment three years from now”

Gibson’s Bakery: “there is serious concern about [Oberlin College’s] ability to pay this sizeable judgment three years from now”

With interest running at over $4k per day, Oberlin College seeks stay of execution of Gibson’s Bakery $32 million judgment, but doesn’t want to post a bond.

The $25 million damages judgment plus the over $6.5 million attorney’s fees and expenses award, puts Oberlin College almost $32 million in debt to Gibson’s Bakery and its owners.

Post-judgment interest in Ohio is 5%, which if my math is correct, on $32 million equals $1.6 million a year just in interest, or $4,384 per day. So that $32 million is going to keep growing as the inevitable appeal winds its way through the courts.

Interest aside, Oberlin College doesn’t want Gibson’s Bakery to start collecting the judgment by seizing bank accounts, college equipment, and anything else they can get their hands on.

Not surprisingly, Oberlin College has filed a Motion for a Stay of Execution of Judgment (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post). The motion also requests that Oberlin College not be required to post a bond to secure the judgment while the trial court rules on post-trial motions Oberlin College says it will be filing.

Here is Oberlin College’s key argument:

Defendants intend to file motions under Civ.R. 50, 59, and/or 60. And per the express provisions of Civ.R. 62(A), a stay of execution may be issued at any time after a judgment is issued and before the time for filing motions pursuant to Civ.R. 50, 59, and 60 and while such motions are pending.

Defendants further respectfully request that they not be required to post a bond in the amount of the Judgment at this time. In the event that Defendants’ post-trial motions are not successful and require Defendants to appeal, Defendants will then file a supersedeas bond as required by Civ.R. 62(B) at the time Defendants file their notice of appeal. This supersedeas bond, if necessary, will be in the amount of the Judgment, plus any additional amount that may potentially be awarded by the Court in attorneys’ fees.

Gibson’s Bakery has filed an Opposition to the Motion (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post) which opposes the stay and also argued that if a stay of execution is granted, that a bond be required.

After noting that post-judgment interest at 5% is pretty much automatic, Gibson’s Bakery pointed out the math:

The judgment interest rate in 2019 is 5%. Therefore, if appeals of this case last just three years, the total amount of post-judgment interest that Defendants will have to pay is $4,742,179.77 –which is $1,580,726.59 per year or $4,330.76 per day.

Three years appears likely for the appeals process, according to Gibson’s Bakery:

Since the jury’s verdict, Oberlin College has given every indication that they are digging in for a long battle. For instance, Oberlin College President Carmen Twillie Ambar has broadcasted plans for an upcoming “lengthy and complex legal process” in her public statements…

Defendants have already expressed that they will not accept the verdict of the Lorain County jury. They have also suggested that they will not accept any adverse decision by the Ninth District Court of Appeals and, instead, will ultimately proceed to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Ohio’s 2018 Statistical Summar/ shows that the time from filing a jurisdictional appeal to the Supreme Court until a full merit review by that Court averages 496 days.5 As such, a three-year period of appeals (through the Ninth District and Ohio Supreme Court) is a conservative timeframe for purposes of setting the appropriate post-judgment interest amount to be included in the bond requirement.

Perhaps expecting that a stay will be granted, Gibson’s Bakery devotes much of its opposition to arguing for a bond:

A stay of judgment execution is not automatic under Ohio law for private litigants. Defendants do not have some absolute right to a stay of execution. Should the Court decide, in its discretion under Civ. R. 62(A), that Defendants are entitled to bond off the execution of the judgment, then Plaintiffs request that the bond be set at $36,356,711.56….

The need for such bond is made clear by the College’s own statements about its dire fmancial straits. If the College is to be believed, there is serious concern about its ability to pay this sizeable judgment three years from now. At trial, and in its recent filing, the College represented that there was only $59.1 million of unrestricted endowment funds available to pay any dollar judgment and that $10 million of those funds had already been committed to pay down the College’s existing debt. [Trial Tr., June 12, 2019 at 95:13-21] There remains $190 million of existing debt on the College’s books. [Id.] The College has also testified that it has a significant operating deficit and that its deficit situation is not sustainable…. [Trial Tr., June 12, 2019 atpp. 86:1-6, 88:1-9]

The College also testified at trial that they have experienced a “significant” and “steady” decline of enrollment from 2014 to 2018. [Trial Tr., June 12, 2019 at 79:4-17] In describing their economic position, the College offered Exhibit N-33 at trial, which is its May 10, 2019 report entitled “One Oberlin: The Academic & Administrative Program Review Final Report.” [Trial Tr., June 12, 2019 at pp. 99-100] In that Report, the College describes its alleged financial hardships and warns about how many other private colleges have had to close due to financial difficulties …[Ex. N-33, pp. 4-5].

Thus, we know that Oberlin College could attempt to continue using its available funds to pay down its other debts between now and the filing of a notice of appeal, thereby leaving less available to pay the judgment in this case.

Will Oberlin College be able to secure a bond? Probably, but it might not be as easy as you would think. At a minimum Oberlin College would have to pledge substantial liquid collateral, perhaps even 100% of the total judgments plus enough to cover interest. The insurance companies writing these appeal bonds want to take zero risk. It’s possible that Oberlin College could get another financial institution to guarantee payment to the insurance company, but Oberlin College’s credit rating already is under pressure.

[Featured Image: Oberlin town police body cam video on day of shoplifting’


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

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Defense Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


What would form the basis of an appeal? Thay Gobsons is in fact great big stinky stinkers??

    The basis would be to try and hunt for a corrupt obama-appointed judge.


      “there is serious concern about [Oberlin College’s] ability to pay this sizeable judgment three years from now…”

      Is it just me, or has anyone else pointed out that THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THE DAMAGES WERE AWARDED – TO PUNISH AND DETER Oberlin’s harmful behavior?

      This is akin to someone murdering a victim, then complaining they don’t have the time to serve the 50 years they get.

        Something like the California brothers who had a legal team argument which included that the poor orphans didn’t deserve to be found guilty of murdering their parents.

      majorlagg in reply to | July 23, 2019 at 11:45 pm

      Not bloody likely. This case will be in Ohio state courts until the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to mailman. | July 21, 2019 at 3:47 pm

    How about Gibsons seizing that $150 million dollar statue, followed by a short term fire action. Apply any proceeds to Oberlin’s debt, where hopefully it would bring low ball offers, say $25 million. Then move to seize additional assets.

    I have mentioned before that my career involved many enforcement actions against large corporate entities, one of the things I did was drive other big ticket calamities. Even if I never received reasonable compensation, I drew blood a decade of two after the fact.

    So I think that if Oberlin does not cough up the cash, liquidating stuff far below market value, much like happens in bankruptcies, has the potential to greatly increase Oberlin College’s pain.

Where do the insurance companies that provided liability policies to Oberlin fit in this scenario?

    they have stated for the record that because the college was guilty of misconduct they have no responsibility for any payment.

      Better yet: imagine if there was a clause in their policy that stated: “In the event of a lawsuit against Oberlin, the policy coverage will be the amount Oberlin claims Oblerin actually owes, in defense of the lawsuit against them.”

      Here’s your 35k check. Don’t spend it all in one place.

    MajorWood in reply to SHV. | July 20, 2019 at 12:25 am

    I imagine that they fit in at a rate about 4-fold higher than what was previously charged. Most of us here think that Oberlin is likely to do this whole racist branding again, and it would be a shock if the insurance companies weren’t thinking the same way.

    And whoever supplies bagels to the cafeteria this Fall will likely want to be paid on a COD basis. Oberlin is now the bully standing there with a bloody nose, still a bit stunned, and not fully realizing that EVERYTHING has changed. They are doing everything that they can so that they can still hang out with the in-crowd, but the more desperate they act, the more likely that they will be ghosted in the end.

      I think this whole article and talk of “COD” is vastly overstated. For example, it has been reported elsewhere that they have one piece of art that could be worth $150 million. I would not rule out being able to raise a lot of money from alumni, with the right leadership and actions. In my opinion, Oberlin’s lawyers talked poor to try to gain an edge on a judgment. Gibson’s lawyers are using that claim to stick it to Oberlin now and, as someone else noted, Oberlin’s response might be entertaining. On the alumni phonecast June 27, Board Chairman Canavan could not have been plainer that they had no problem in being able to pay the judgment, if it came to that. That said, one of the reasons that I have publicly advocated for paying the judgment ASAP and putting this matter behind them is that, if an Oberlin degree’s value came to be even more in doubt than the bad press of recent years and related to this trial may already have caused, their problems might multiply quickly. “Pleading poor” by their lawyers hardly makes for good public relations to attract students.

        In my opinion, Oberlin’s lawyers talked poor to try to gain an edge on a judgment.”

        That is very obvious already and I would expect what you pointed out will probably be argued in the opening round. The question is why would the court sympathize with any argument about how harmful it would be to Oberlin to sell a $150 million statue i.e.? Whoever buys would likely be a better custodian and more deserving of owning it.

        Is protection of wealth a higher priority in law to restitution for damages caused by criminal behavior? So what if they go out of business? They deserve it. Students would be voting with their feet and money will be seeking a safer home to better promote whatever social objective the funds were restricted to focus on.

        MajorWood in reply to jb4. | July 20, 2019 at 12:23 pm

        My COD suggestion is not that they don’t have money, but in reference to a suggestion that Oberlin might simply take their “free funds” in the endowment and use them to pay down other obligations. Then, three years down the road, should the appeals fail, they can say “well yeah, we had the money in 2019, but it has been spent since then, sorry.” Given that Oberlin has exhibited nothing that I would term as “honor” in this whole process, were I doing business with them at the moment, I’d want to see the money up front lest I get shafted down the road.

        When I was a kid, my dad was supplying materials for a very large construction project in town. My brother had a summer job there as a laborer, and a few weeks in his paycheck bounced. My dad immediately filed a lien against the building, and was thus first in line to collect when the project failed due to malfeasance on the part of the general contractor, who had been using the funds on this project to pay off previous obligations. That was my first lesson in life to not accept situations on their surface appearance. That whole construction debacle took years to sort out, but the simple fact that my brother’s check bounced saved my dad from taking a major financial hit.

        If I were Gibsons, I would be at their front door on the 30th day with a moving truck (figuratively). On second thought, perhaps literally too. The second that your opponent moves into “delay mode,” the time to act is yesterday. Yeah, I have watched far too many episodes of “Airplane Repo.” 😉

        “Once you lose your integrity, the rest is simple.” JR Ewing

          The more legal commentary I read here, the more I am convinced that Oberlin will fail in their attempts to be relieved of securing a bond and their request for stay of execution will also fail. Being unable to find a willing bond issuer after they refuse to pledge assets doesn’t inspire confidence that they will pay an even greater sum later. So this supports the Gibsons’ arguments that payment of the judgment better happen now.

          I just can’t grasp what the complexities could be that would force this out to three years. That is Oberlin’s estimate. What if the judge cuts right through the BS on the lack of merit/common sense of Oberlin’s basic argument of poverty? Game over!

          RandomCrank in reply to MajorWood. | July 20, 2019 at 4:18 pm

          Fine and dandy. Then attach the collection of racist Western art.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to jb4. | July 21, 2019 at 4:04 pm

        Oberlin does not have the right leadership, and after this they will be hard pressed to recruit any.

          As to not being able to recruit new leadership, it depends. If the institution is willing to change course, I think they could – but not just to manage a potential decline into irrelevance. I see the possibility of a Board of Trustees fight over a possible appeal of the judgment. In my opinion, that may be where the “rubber meets the road” on the future of the College. The next milestone would be actual attendance in the Fall, followed by applications for Fall 2020.

No bond, no stay. they can still appeal, of course.

Get your prog benefactors to bail you out, you SJW morons. Lena Dunham could flash her nasty ass on Youtube… if she gets paid by the pound you’ll be flush in no time.

    walls in reply to Paul. | July 20, 2019 at 1:14 pm

    Damn – I just spewed coffee all over my keyboard!

    alaskabob in reply to Paul. | July 21, 2019 at 1:37 pm

    By the way….now that you mention it…where are all the videos of Oberlin grads defending the college on youtube, twitter, etc? Why isn’t Hollywood up in arms. Have the grad-rats abandoned the ship? Is Oberlin road kill?

The arrogance of Oberlin’s administrators throughout this entire process is simply astounding.

And, to think that these idiots could have settled the entire matter, pre-trial, with a sincerely stated, official statement that proclaimed that the College didn’t view Gibson’s Bakery and its owners and staff as racists.

    RandomCrank in reply to guyjones. | July 19, 2019 at 8:01 pm

    You know, I can forgive being wrong. Who among us hasn’t been wrong? But I cannot forgive a college’s outright stupidity.

    This kind of attitude starts at the top.

    Remember: we’re still coming off the interia of 8 years of a corrupt traitor holding the highest office in our land.

    PostLiberal in reply to guyjones. | July 20, 2019 at 1:09 pm

    In addition, Aladin, who had attempted to shoplift the wine, made a written statement to the court that racism was not involved in his arrest. If Alandin made that statement, why would it have been so difficult for Oberlin to have made a similar statement?

      My view is to look at Oberlin’s actions through the lens of “David vs Goliath”. They were going to “bury” that pipsqueak bakery.

        AlexanderYpsilantis in reply to jb4. | July 20, 2019 at 3:24 pm

        Oberlin, like many, assumed Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election. Had she done so, the whole complexion of cases like this might have been changed. With Trump in the White House the PEOPLE have signaled the tolerance for PC and SJW is gone. That matters.

        RandomCrank in reply to jb4. | July 20, 2019 at 4:20 pm

        Yes, they were going to bury that pipsqueak bakery, and said so in their internal e-mails. Oops.

      OldSchool in reply to PostLiberal. | July 21, 2019 at 1:22 pm

      The Oberlin Review, a student publication, characterized the alleged shoplifter statements in open court as “compelled”. The site is down = no link available.
      Sorta sours the milk.
      I don’t doubt that the administration views differ from the student view.
      Compelled??? What a crock!

        OldSchool in reply to OldSchool. | July 21, 2019 at 1:26 pm

        “I don’t doubt that the administration views differ from the student view.”
        SHOULD BE
        “I doubt that the administration views differ from the student view.”
        Why are these never obvious in preview, but are glaring after submitting???

          Barry in reply to OldSchool. | July 21, 2019 at 3:35 pm

          I have the same problem. My theory, when you look at preview you’ve just written. For comments you write like you speak where certain grammar and spelling is less important. So you preview and it looks just like you “said” it. A few moments later you re-read (not speaking, reading) and voila, the errors are glowing red hot…

          Without an editor it’s best to just understand we’re not writing English school quality in the comment section and only correct errors in a follow up when it is makes a difference.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to OldSchool. | July 21, 2019 at 4:41 pm

        Those students assaulted Gibson, and they were not prosecuted for assault, perhaps they received that concession as a result of admitting that there was no racism.

        Personally, while I don’t believe shoplifting merits death, assault in many cases does. Considering that in this case there the victim was on the ground with three people assaulting him, there would have been merit in putting those students down. Such an event would have sent students and Oberlin College a clear message.

2025: Gibson’s classical western civ college opens in Oberlin OH after getting the entire campus…

Post bond and get your stay or pay up and appeal, you arrogant liberal bastards. Big college picking on the little guy. Maybe put the college into receivership, force pay cuts on the professors and admin

    rabidfox in reply to stl. | July 19, 2019 at 8:49 pm

    They have an endowment fund that could cover the judgement without even noticing the loss. What a bunch of wankers.

    jb4 in reply to stl. | July 19, 2019 at 9:49 pm

    I think of it less vindictively, no matter how bad most think the college’s conduct has been. Anything remotely like “receivership” would hammer at least the following constituencies – recent graduates and students whose degrees would be materially devalued; employees of all kinds who would lose their jobs; the whole town of Oberlin would become a wasteland, with only the Gibson’s escaping – a lot of innocent parties.

      Another Voice in reply to jb4. | July 20, 2019 at 12:18 pm

      There are times that you need to stop doing what isn’t working and come at with an entire different mindset. The timing for Oberlin if they go down the tubes now, the community and the county at large would find a perfect time to reinvent themselves. The economic opportunities are at an acme and after 135 years in the community, I would like to believe that the Gibson family would be the first to be part of those changes.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to stl. | July 20, 2019 at 9:30 am

    At this point admin pay should be a large negative number.

Please follow the money. My guess is they are attempting to move money allowing then to file chapter 13. .and never pay the judgement. Seize all assets now ! Make them beg.

    Paul in reply to grumpet007. | July 19, 2019 at 7:53 pm

    That’d be a riot. The Gibsons would end up owning the whole campus and could turn it into a trade school.

    RandomCrank in reply to grumpet007. | July 19, 2019 at 7:58 pm

    The legal eagles around here can correct me if I am wrong (unlike the worthies of Oberlin, I’m fine with being corrected by people who know more than I do), but aren’t legal judgments non-dischargeable in bankruptcy? Maybe someone’s wages could be garnished.

      rabidfox in reply to RandomCrank. | July 19, 2019 at 8:50 pm

      Can that endowment be attached?

      John Sullivan in reply to RandomCrank. | July 19, 2019 at 10:15 pm

      Ordinarily, money judgments are dischargeable in bankruptcy, unless the judgement arises from a claim for fraud.

        RandomCrank in reply to John Sullivan. | July 20, 2019 at 4:22 pm

        Would a bankruptcy court closely examine any post-verdict maneuvering to hide assets?

          Subotai Bahadur in reply to RandomCrank. | July 20, 2019 at 5:41 pm

          Like any issue before any American court, this depends less and less on the law and precedent and more and more on the ideology of the judge(s) involved in the process.

          Sad, but true.

          Subotai Bahadur

      PostLiberal in reply to RandomCrank. | July 20, 2019 at 1:14 pm

      but aren’t legal judgments non-dischargeable in bankruptcy? Maybe someone’s wages could be garnished.

      Not being a legal eagle, but having seen someone attempt to use bankruptcy to get out of a legal judgment, you are correct that legal judgments are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. After finding out that legal judgments are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. the person involved concluded that bankruptcy was not the way to go.

    randian in reply to grumpet007. | July 19, 2019 at 9:20 pm

    I don’t think they can do that. In bankruptcy, debtors who give preferential treatment to some creditors and snub others, especially when they’re within 90 days of the bankruptcy filing, can have the preferential payments voided and clawed back by order of bankruptcy trustee. The trustee can also claw back transfers of property intended to make the debtor insolvent, hide assets, or delay and hinder recovery by the creditors.

      rdmdawg in reply to randian. | July 20, 2019 at 2:36 am

      So, not knowing anything about anything, if the public gets a single wiff that Oberlin is lining up bankruptcy proceedings, there would be the most amazing stampede out the front door from both students and creditors. They would be crawling over each other to get away from that sinking ship.

    35 million dollars. Why, that probably weighs more than a maintainence-hole cover in Berkley!

    Is that the “complicated” appeals process? Those restricted funds will be difficult to seize. See my comment further below. Certain foundations should get involved to head this off.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 21, 2019 at 8:48 pm

      Will art be hard to seize, what about real estate? Quickly held actions, designed for low turnout and bargain basement sales.

    The property can be clawed-back by the BK trustee. Hear that, would-be buyers at oberlin’s garage sale?

RandomCrank | July 19, 2019 at 7:55 pm

Sell that expletive deleted $150 million statue. After all, it’s Western racist art.

Their endowment is $887 million as of June 30, 2018, an increase of $67 million from the prior year. They have generous alumni.

    RandomCrank in reply to Bill West. | July 19, 2019 at 7:59 pm

    More likely, it has benefitted from That B*stard’s stock market boom.

      MajorWood in reply to RandomCrank. | July 19, 2019 at 11:58 pm

      The Oregonian just had a front page article on how State employees are going to get a 2 yr, 15% pay raise due to the economy. How that slipped by the editors is a miracle. Similarly, Oberlin’s settlement number is only 1/2 of the increase the endowment has enjoyed under Trump. That is irony laid down with a 12″ power roller.

    Endowment donations often have limits on the time they are spent, and on the purpose they are spent on. Oberlins’ endowment might not be liquid enough to pay the judgment.

    This is great.

As a so-called layman, I was under the impression that everyone who appeals a judgment like this has to take out a bond, that it is basically an ironclad rule of the judicial system. If they won’t post a bond, why shouldn’t the Gibsons start seizing assets? Rather, my point is simply, is there any legitimate basis for Oberlin to halt asset seizure “and” not have to post a bond? I ask the question in good faith: I literally haven’t heard of another case where such relief was granted.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to JBourque. | July 20, 2019 at 2:47 am

    If it isn’t Ironclad law it should be.

      Not necessarily. If it’s an outgrowth of common law and judges apply it virtually 100% of the time then it doesn’t “need” to be…

      All I see in Oberlin’s argument is that its post-trial motions are not really actually “appeals” so it shouldn’t have to go through the bond for “appeals” unless those motions fail and “appeals” become necessary. …If post-trial motions can make “appeals” unnecessary then they must be very important, and in my mind (and obviously that of the opposing counsel team) that’s “appealing” more than enough to count.

      Besides, if Oberlin’s version held sway then everyone would be getting this kind of relief, and that doesn’t make much sense.

        This argues once again for the crucial importance of aggressive and accurate reporting in achieving justice. Otherwise, the process will proceed behind closed doors in the darkness where cockroaches live. It’s not the law that protects such people but the absence of sunlight. Keep going Professor! Someone needs to start focusing on those restricted funds and whether foundations could sue to have the money returned. Make THAT a national issue and see what happens.

Maybe Oberlin can eliminate part of its operating deficit by reducing the number of SJW administrators that caused and prolonged this debacle. How about going back to core competencies with respected educators instead of being top-heavy with diversity Vice Presidents?

Richard Aubrey | July 19, 2019 at 8:35 pm

If I read that article correctly, north of 90% of the endowment is restricted. Paying off the settlement right now will pull out half of the available liquid assets.
Among other things ,it tells you that the donors didn’t want the school to have much discretion with the donor’s money and goals.

    stevewhitemd in reply to Richard Aubrey. | July 19, 2019 at 8:51 pm

    That’s true at most colleges and universities. Donations are generally restricted, and the larger the donation, the more substantial the restrictions. I’m not surprised that most of Oberlin’s endowment is restricted from use to pay off the legal judgment, and I bet an audit of most small colleges would show the same problem.

    That’s why all the other small colleges should be following this story carefully.

      Exactly! Merely triggering a national debate about this issue would move the pieces on the board in the right direction. The court process is too slow, ponderous and expensive. Putting pressure on donors, especially institutional donors, to get into the debate could be the cure we are looking for. The implied threat of suing to get their money back could defund the SJW takeover of academia while leaving them more exposed legally.

        MajorWood in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 20, 2019 at 1:23 pm

        Oberlin is doing the unthinkable here by drawing attention to what has been going on. Most of what they have been doing is common practice at other undergrad institutions, and each of these places feeds off of the antics of the others. But, as pointed out by a local person, the time finally came for the community to say “enough is enough.” And now the light shining on Oberlin is starting to shine on these other colleges, and the longer that Oberlin drags it out, the more that light will expose. Oberlin got greedy just pushed it too far, to where there was push-back in the form of the lawsuit. And that made them push as hard as they did, $5M of legal billings of push, to try and make it go away quietly, either with a victory (unlikely) or by steamrolling the Gibsons legal options by bankrupting Gibsons and their lawyers. Surrender was never an option for these people. And even then, they failed. How frustrating it must be to have dropped a nuke on your enemy, only to see them standing in a field flipping you off, as new allies come out of the woods in their support. Don’t know why, but I keep seeing images of a certain battle in Braveheart. David Gibson and his lawyers need to make their next appearance wearing blue facepaint. THAT would make the front page of the NYT.

        Oberlin is dead, and they seem to be the only ones who don’t know it. I don’t know if it is dedication to the cause, or just mental illness, because at a certain level it is hard to separate them, but a Downfall parody here is just writing itself. Instead of moving forward in the grief process, they appear to be regressing to the denial stage having been unable to transition “bargaining” successfully. I would have thought that Starr’s contribution in the WSJ would have woken them up, yet they persist. Perhaps they have realized that it is now too late to bail. We talk here about how a recent Oberlin degree on a resume is more a liability than an asset, but I think the same has to be true with positions on the faculty and in the administration. Sure, other colleges and institutions are similarly toxic to a degree, but does anyone really want someone on their staff who carries the taint of having been at Oberlin during this time? Like the college apologizing early on and accepting a small punishment, the faculty too had the option of speaking up and perhaps enduring some sort of academic censure. That might have been a small price to pay in light of where the college might be heading. And if evidence of a faculty exodus appears, that will only accelerate the death spiral. For an educated bunch of people, no one seems to have remembered the message conveyed in Moby Dick. And in the grand scheme of things, this has been more a battle over a white perch than a white whale.

          jb4 in reply to MajorWood. | July 20, 2019 at 1:43 pm

          Great post. However, in my opinion, Oberlin is “dead” only if you assume that it is impossible for them to clean house and go back to being the Oberlin of 1960 – providing a first class education in basic subjects, teaching critical thinking, tolerance, obeying the law and serving the community. Maybe it is impossible, but I suspect enough of the country is sick of SJW, snowflake, intolerant places that a highly public reformation of Oberlin might work, starting with a public apology and payment to Gibson’s. Unfortunately, chances of this happening are probably poor.

          walls in reply to MajorWood. | July 20, 2019 at 3:13 pm

          They are undoubtedly getting emails/letters from alumni – basically two opinions:

          1. Fight and appeal.
          2. Settle, pay up and apologize.

          Would love to know the % of each.

          jb4 in reply to MajorWood. | July 20, 2019 at 3:35 pm

          walls, I agree with your assessment. However, “fight and appeal” makes no sense. How could anyone not conclude that their “brand” (the value of a diploma) has already been damaged. An appeal dragging this out much longer would not be good. What family paying a ton of money or saddling their child with a lot of debt for college would consider one whose diploma might be an impediment to getting a job? Despite having tons of money and valuable artwork, I wish they would stop this mess ASAP (as in the famous J&J Tylenol poisoning case decades ago) and take steps to improve their image.

          j-comment in reply to MajorWood. | July 20, 2019 at 5:38 pm

          I’m with both jb4 and walls. I’m an alum, from before the days when it all started getting so nuts. My emails to them have been emphatically in the “apologise and change course” bucket. Based on other comments I’ve seen from alums, I believe we’re in the majority.

          I don’t expect that to change their mind any time soon. The administration clearly knows they’re right, and is not about to abandon their narrative as long as they think they have any way to stick with it. I see more pain coming for the college before they finally change. If they ever do.

          “I don’t know if it is dedication to the cause, or just mental illness…”

          Maybe it’s a cry for help. “Someone please stop us before we kill ourselves!!!” Institutional suicide.

          artichoke in reply to MajorWood. | July 21, 2019 at 1:42 pm

          I’ve read a couple things saying that Oberlin is looking overseas more, for full-pay foreign students. Do you think students in China or India might be fooled by Oberlin’s reputation as of a few years ago and not learn of this case?

    rabidfox in reply to Richard Aubrey. | July 19, 2019 at 8:53 pm

    Too bad, so sad. NOT! I’d like to see Oberlin squirm a bit over their past insanity. As for the donors putting strings on the endowment 1) it shows that the donors have a clue about the trustworthiness of the Oberlin administrators and 2) are protected endowments shielded from attachment claims?

    Publius_2020 in reply to Richard Aubrey. | July 19, 2019 at 10:18 pm

    The Oberlin Financial Statements make it clear that the college has $300 million in unrestricted endowment assets. (See June 2018 Statement, p.23)

    The college played games with the question of liquidity during the trial in order to try to depress the punitives award. But the reality is that there is a lot of liquidity in that $300 million. In addition to the “cash” assets, you have to look at the portion of the unrestricted investment assets that turn over on a monthly or quarterly basis. And the Financial statements make clear that this is a large sum (>$100 million).

    Now, how the college is going to respond to the Gibson’s filing without admitting to the judge that they were fibbing in the punitive damage presentation is a bit unclear to me, but that will be an interesting item to watch.

    Oberlin finds themselves in a BIG hole. As a poster said on a previous post, they need a BIGGER shovel now.

    Read their 2018 financial report –

    Footnote 2 on page 25 lists $301,056 in unrestricted endowments, $309,581 in temporarily restricted endowments and $276,330 in permanently restricted endowments. Total endowment funds were $886,967. Add three zeros to the numbers since the totals are in thousands.

    Footnote 1 on page 18 states

    “Unrestricted net assets – Unrestricted net assets are not subject to donor-imposed stipulations. Unrestricted funds designated by the Board of Trustees for long-term investment are classified as Board-designated endowment funds. Unrestricted net assets also include the cumulative earnings and gains of donor-restricted funds that do not have a corpus restriction, both realized and unrealized. ”

    In other words, they have the money, they just don’t want to use it for a court ordered judgment.

Diversity has consequences. False allegations of diversity are akin to a blood libel. Social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere. #HateLovesAbortion

Hey, I just woke up from a coma: what happened to $35,000?

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | July 19, 2019 at 9:59 pm

It will be interesting to see what happens to student application and matriculation rates, as well as alumni donations as a result of this fiasco.

    Publius_2020 in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | July 19, 2019 at 10:20 pm

    The college caught a break on the timing of the trial verdict with respect to college admissions. Had the verdict come down two months earlier (in the first week of April), it would have hammered the admission acceptance rate. As it is, the acceptances were already inked, and Oberlin has 6-8 months to work on its PR campaign for next year.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | July 20, 2019 at 8:44 am

    How many of their real teachers in the real departments are sendng out résumés?

Dissipation of assets by Oberlin would be the true “scorched earth” response to the whole matter while appeals are pending. It would be thoroughly vindictive even though the college was clearly in the wrong. Pop some popcorn, get a couple suitable beverages, and let us see how badly the college intends to inflict damage upon itself so as to avoid paying judgment.

Oberlin seems to have one consistent argument throughout all of this: We are the victim. Please disregard what we do, what we say, and what we have.

They live SJW irrationality and dishonesty: By any means necessary. The ends justify the means.

SJW evil is stunning to witness (LI reader) and experience (Gibsons).

So their argument is that the judgment would force them to drain their unrestricted endowment funds which they expect to need due to their decreasing enrollments? So they pile on even more attorneys fees at a rate exceeding that of the trial itself?

Their enrollments are in decline largely because they have destroyed their reputation. So isn’t their appeal proof of their pathologically irrational nature? They stating that most of their endowment funds are off limits and so because of their limited unrestricted funds, they are being squeezed out of business. So who gets those restricted funds should Oberlin fail? WTF?????

Whoever donated that those restricted should now be looking to getting their money back, at least if there is someone still around who has legal standing. That money is restricted to limit how it will be spent. I am guessing that the law assumes that both parties involved are rational, sane and responsible.

Much of that money certainly came from institutions and foundations that are still in business. Shouldn’t we be asking them why they would leave their investment with a college whose administration is determined to go out of business? Is this money now at risk to a SJW money grab?

Is this why the appeals process is going to be complicated? Because they are pathologically insane people who intend to test the legal legal definition of sanity?

    Professor, the preview function is screwed up. Edits don’t necessarily stick.

    creeper in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 20, 2019 at 10:15 am

    What I find striking here is the absolute inability of anyone in a position of power at Oberlin to say, “Stop!”

      TX-rifraph in reply to creeper. | July 20, 2019 at 11:05 am

      Is it inability or is Oberlin going to be sacrificed as a martyr for the cause? Thus, it would have permanent “victim” status because of the evil white privilege or whatever. Soros has a leader present and Soros could write the check in a minute.

      I think Oberlin is targeted by the left to go down “for the struggle.” They will try to take Gibsons with them, however. Time is now the enemy of the Gibsons.

        Silvertree in reply to TX-rifraph. | July 20, 2019 at 8:11 pm

        I have been wondering about this. One local person commented that “word in town is” Oberlin wants to take this all the way to SCOTUS. Who knows if there’s any truth in that? But it makes me wonder. Could this all be part of the Soros agenda to continue fanning the flames of race warfare and pitting Americans against one another?

          The next thing to watch for is whether they appeal. If they do, then do you see some Board members resigning over the issue? I would be surprised if they can hold 100% of their Board together for an appeal. The rubber hits the road when they see the level of applications for Fall 2020, but they may get a hint if a material percentage do not follow through on commitments for Fall 2019.

          Tom Servo in reply to Silvertree. | July 21, 2019 at 9:11 am

          They may want to take it to SCOTUS, but this is a State Court case under State Tort Law. Which means the Ohio State Supreme Court is as high as they can go, if they can even get that far.

          Silvertree in reply to Silvertree. | July 22, 2019 at 9:42 am

          Glad to hear that.

      AlexanderYpsilantis in reply to creeper. | July 20, 2019 at 3:33 pm

      They are fighting for their jobs at Oberlin. When they settle-out, most likely Ambar and a few others will be GONE soon after. When you fear for your continued livelihood you react emotionally and not logically.

        But then, if the Trustees have a brain, they’ll prevent such self-protective behavior by their hired management.

        Or maybe, as we’ve heard, the Trustees are on board with this and have big financial resources to deploy. Who really paid Oberlin’s attorneys, and the attorney for the accused students?

    amatuerwrangler in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 20, 2019 at 1:17 pm

    This spawns a question: Since the attorney fees and court costs have been assigned, does the opening of this second front (post-trial motions and/or appeals) which the plaintiff attorneys will certainly be logging hours in defending the verdicts, mean that they will eventually have to go through another round of motions to be compensated? This sounds like some kind of endless loop.

    Note: The preview function has been giving a “preview error” notice since yesterday. Still is.

      The preview is not behaving properly for me also and has not for days. This bug might be browser or OS-specific, but I suspect not. I post with Firefox under both Windows 10 and Linux with identical results. As of a few days ago, the WordPress admin for LI had not installed the latest WordPress security updates. Not good. Lax site maintenance might explain this problem.

      On another topic, Ambar allegedly has a JD from Columbia. If only half of the allegations made in the various posts on LI are true, are there credible grounds for Ambar’s disbarment? It seems that her belief that fighting on in the belief as an administrator that libel and slander are protected freedom of speech is pretty wild. Did she learn this in Columbia Law School? It seems to me that this is just as much malpractice as would be a surgeon operating on a patient with filthy hands.

      In any event, she now has the plausible deniability to say Nobody has asked this question.

      /s/ JD Nobody, OC ’61

    artichoke in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 20, 2019 at 11:18 pm

    If the enrollment is declining, sell some land or buildings (thus easily obtaining the money needed for a bond), and cut variable costs. Right-size your scale. This is obvious.

    Is Oberlin above being asked to do such an obvious thing?

LOL. GFY, Oberlin. I really want to hear the college squeal.

The hubris and racism of this college is astounding.

    RandomCrank in reply to PapaGuns. | July 20, 2019 at 11:52 am

    You know what? In the end, that’s what amazes me the most. I can understand everything that happened in the heat of passion, when even smart people can do really dumb things. What I cannot quite fathom is Oberlin’s intransigence after the shouting died down.

    I think back to a speeding ticket I got 9 years ago. The cop outright lied and wrote me for 70 in a 60 when in fact I was going 66. I knew because that’s how I had set the cruise control. By writing me for 70, the fine was significantly higher.

    I was pretty angry at the time, and planned to contest it in court. I thought about it and decided not to, partly because even if I’d managed to get the fine reduced, I’d have had a moving violation on my record. My state allows for one ticket every few years to be suspended for an extra fee.

    Even though the whole thing was b.s. to me, I paid the ticket and the extra fee because no matter how unpleasant it made sense to do it that way. I will always be baffled that Oberlin didn’t issue the statement that Gibson’s requested.

    Yeah, I know they thought they were somehow in the right, but where on God’s green earth did they put their realism? And this college is in the Midwest, the home of realism. I shake my head and snicker at the stubborn children of Oberlin College. And it’s not the students I’m talking about.

      Tom Servo in reply to RandomCrank. | July 21, 2019 at 9:15 am

      You give a good example – you did what any rational person would do, weigh cost and benefit and realize that Pride wasn’t worth the cost, even though you were right.

      Now imagine what you would have done if you were someone with a personality disorder who had hated all cops since you could remember, and also were a trust fund baby who’d been handed millions for doing nothing while being told you could do anything you want without any repercussions. What would that person do?

      And there’s the Oberlin answer. Rotten people make rotten decisions.

Maybe they’re in effect wanting to put Gibson’s at the end of the creditor list for an upcoming bankruptcy, by paying off others out of existing assets first.

Who has claims on a judgment bond after bankruptcy?

    RandomCrank in reply to rhhardin. | July 20, 2019 at 11:37 am

    Oberlin has a huge and highly valuable art collection that can be sold. One way or another, they’ll pay.

    walls in reply to rhhardin. | July 20, 2019 at 1:59 pm

    There is NO WAY that Oberlin will go bankrupt, or is even contemplating bankruptcy. They are simply gambling that this strategy will minimize their losses.

I don’t suppose a bake sale would raise enough to pay off Gibson’s.

Get this: I was banned by the Oberlin discussion group on Reddit. And Steve Volk, the ex-Oberlin professor who bleats about “free speech” on his blog that defends Oberlin’s violent thieves, deleted all but one of my posts. It seems that Oberlin’s hypocrites love free speech, except when it’s effective. LOL

    RandomCrank in reply to SHV. | July 20, 2019 at 11:31 am

    LI’s coverage ought to get a Pulitzer, but it’ll be a cold day in hell before that ever happens. LOL

      Another Voice in reply to RandomCrank. | July 20, 2019 at 1:39 pm

      Prof. J / LI as is James O’Keefe / Project Veritas are wonderful examples for which Andrew Breitbart was proclaiming would turn the MSM on it’s ears. The Oberlin Case covered extensively and up until recently, exclusively here at LI. They are both a testament to how far we have come in getting an honest and real accounting. Kudo’s to the Professor!!

      The pulizter has been corupted, like the nobel peace prize.

      Barry getting the nobel prize for nothing was the final nail in the nobel’s coffin.

As a long-retired lawyer, I find this whole thing instructive. I am learning new things about the law that I never suspected. Like a dollar judgment is not always to be protected. That a bond is somewhat discriminatory when required of an institution of “higher” learning. That SJW types cannot be held responsible because their motives are pure.
I am settled back for more instruction.

How are the ongoing legal fees for the Gibson’s legal team moving forward calculated? I would assume that the award the judge granted were the fees up to a specific point in the actions since he applied an hourly rate to a specific number of hours and expenses.
Does the hourly rate that the Judge applied in the award apply to the any further action or could a different rate be used since the scope of the work is now different?
This assumes that the judges award of legal fees applies to items attached to the appeal process.

    RandomCrank in reply to buck61. | July 20, 2019 at 11:54 am

    My guess would be that if there’s more legal work connected to an appeal, there will be a second hearing after Oberlin loses.

I think I’m going to live through this. As in, I think I will still be in a relationship when this storm passes over. When I was younger I wouldn’t have nearly been so confident. Man, she hates me right now. Like a viper she looks at me.

I don’t even know what I did. It’s like she has an on/off switch, and now it’s time to be furious at Arminious.

Sorry. Is this too much like telling tales out of school? I don’t mean to rat on her, I like her too much. It’s the only reason I stick around.

They got 99 problems and a cake ain’t one…..

The surgeon general has determined that social justice mongering, and rabid diversity specifically, are first-order forcings of adversity. Oberlin, or perhaps just the administrators, should pay in perpetuity for their wicked, fascist behavior…

I would love to know if the college is current on the payments for work done by their legal team. We all have focused on the Gibson’s side getting paid but there is also another entity racking up huge accounts payable as well and where is this money coming from.

I am pretty sure that Oberlin has been paying them every month on the 10th. Their lawyers took on a stupid case, but they are likely not stupid themselves.

    maxmillion in reply to MajorWood. | July 21, 2019 at 12:00 am

    I do wonder about the advice they’ve been or not been giving, and the degree to which they themselves were complicit in the stubborn wrong-headed offensive defense.

      RandomCrank in reply to maxmillion. | July 21, 2019 at 10:18 am

      I’d love to be a fly on the wall in the lawyers’ office. I bet Oberlin is the client from hell.

        Valerie in reply to RandomCrank. | July 21, 2019 at 2:26 pm

        I’ve seen law firms assume the position for clients, before. They generally require a hefty retainer and regular replenishment.

Given the public statements of Oberlin’s president and in-house counsel, bond should be required immediately.

The court heard Ambar say that this won’t be the final outcome. Will it let the public believe that such statements are proper?

And if the cash isn’t forthcoming, collect a building or some artwork, send in the sheriff. Normal procedure.

I the current head of Board of Trustes term ends sometime in 2020, let’s see if he chooses to stick around or if he is re-elected. I believe the term expires no later than July.1

I read Oberlin’s very short request to avoid paying the judgment or posting a bond now. There is no reasoning behind it. All the stuff said before about whether they’re poor, or rich for that matter, is absent from their filing. Therefore they are not relying on it.

Gibson’s filing contains the single point that they poor-mouthed and therefore payment should be accelerated before scarce resources are used to pay other bills.

Since this is uncontested as far as I know, I suppose the ruling is obvious: Oberlin has to pay now, because they might be out of money later by their own statements.

I think it complicates things to bring in Oberlin’s out of court assurances to alumni that it will have no problem paying, or to bring in separate accounting of their assets that’s not in evidence. Oberlin chose not to put these things into evidence, and therefore the court need not consider them, and also it’s my understanding that they could not introduce that new evidence on appeal.

The victory by Gibson’s has more punitive value than merely the money judgment: would YOU pay to go to Oberlin?

    With no one willing to go into debt to attend the dump, the school will likely use its endowment for affirmative-action scholarships, and it will become an ever more productive mill for the indoctrination of dumbasses. Which is actually very useful to the left.

Oberlin: “We’ll lose this case when pigs fly. Or police turn purple.”

As a graduate who got a terrific education a very long time ago, that is my primary concern. Contrary to their legal posturing and much comment here, I think they can pay the judgment out of pocket change. Board Chairman Canavan basically told alumni that on June 27. However, with the massive negative national press, what parent would pay a lot of money or stick his child with a lot of debt for a possibly devalued degree that makes it harder to get a job. I fear that the folks responsible for governance here may make decisions that end up with the College (not necessarily the Conservatory) drifting into irrelevance, with little chance to get back to what I experienced.

    JD Nobody concurs completely your sentiments. It appears that OCs decision-makers cannot see beyond the noses at the ends of their faces.

    In addition to your points, looking several years down the road it is almost certain that both the stock and bond portions of the endowment will take massive hits when the bubble breaks. Waiting to settle the litigation is a foolish option for this reason alone. The day of reckoning for today’s massive share buybacks, for junk bonds, and for subprime auto and student loans could well match the financial chaos of 1929-1932. As happened then, the infection will spread deeply into things that normally would be safe. BTW, most share buybacks are collateralized by the very stock prices which the buybacks are inflating. In the old days, this was called a Ponzi scheme. The loans financing the Ponzi schemes will not be rolled over indefinitely.

    Indeed, in light of likely future events, the long term financial damage to the college is bigger than it now looks. This leads to another question: who might have legal standing to bring a well-deserved breach of fiduciary duty action against the trustees of the college?

    Should any this come to pass, the cocky fools in the leadership of the college can say in all slippery honesty Nobody told us that it could happen.

    /s/ JD Nobody, OC ’61.

      RE: “It appears that OCs decision-makers cannot see beyond the noses at the ends of their faces.” ….. What I find odd is that Board Chairman Canavan on the June 27 alumni call made mention of thinking decades ahead, as he should be doing. At the time, I found that reassuring. But, how could he think the current direction is positive? Perhaps, as a Soros associate, his perspective of “success” is different. As to financial armaggeddon, I do not completely agree. While the stock market may eventually decline significantly, I think that interest rates on investment grade debt will decline and the prices of quality bonds will rise. However, the basic point that investment returns on their endowment funds will eventually decline is almost certainly correct, squeezing their budget.

      Silvertree in reply to J.D.Nobody. | July 23, 2019 at 9:34 pm

      Oberlin College refunds to rein in debt structure risk:

      “Ohio-based Oberlin College is pricing $82 million of taxable bonds to replace direct placement bonds sold in 2009 and 2014 as it looks to right its financial ship with lackluster enrollment continuing to pressure its finances.

      Oberlin, which has been battling tuition revenue declines as a result of a drop in students attending the college, said the bonds will be structured as fixed-rate bonds that will eliminate exposure to bank risk, covenant risk, put/remarketing risk and tax risk.”

    Another Ed in reply to jb4. | July 23, 2019 at 1:57 pm

    It may have been a good education, but Oberlin College is ranked 9th in the list of colleges that pay off the least:

    “9. Oberlin College
    > Median graduate earnings 10 yrs, after entry: $40,800
    > Avg, annual cost of attendance: $55,052
    > Location: Oberlin, OH
    > Undergraduate enrollment: 2,827”

    To be fair, here is the list of colleges that pay off the most:

I may have missed it but I haven’t seen it mentioned on LI that Rolling Stone has an article on the Gibson case which was published 3 days ago. It comes, of course, from the left and is written by a 2011 alumnus.

    artichoke in reply to nomadic100. | July 21, 2019 at 8:41 pm

    It starts off dissing Gibson’s and minimizing the theft:

    “Although Ohio’s liquor laws preclude it from selling hard alcohol, Gibson’s also has a small selection of beer and wine — mostly the type of low-budget spirits only the least discriminating of college students would likely imbibe.

    It is the alleged theft of two such bottles almost three years ago …”

    It goes on to a new quote from Ambar putting a cultural spin on the result:

    “If nothing else, the level of schadenfreude permeating from coverage of the case highlights the extent of right-wing antipathy toward not just the left, but higher education in general, says Oberlin’s Ambar. “What I think this really has done for us, frankly, is expose a perspective we knew was always there,” she tells Rolling Stone.“For some in the media, it is an example of what they [already] think higher education looks like.” ”

    According to Ambar, this is more about us than about Oberlin. But we haven’t been found liable for many millions of dollars in damages.

      Silvertree in reply to artichoke. | July 22, 2019 at 10:04 am

      I guess trying to destroy a 130 year-old family bakery by cutting contracts and slandering it as racist doesn’t have anything to do with the right-wing antipathy, President Ambar?

        artichoke in reply to Silvertree. | July 23, 2019 at 6:21 pm

        She’s never lost a race related showdown until now. It’s been winning for her over and over.

        Honestly, one cannot be sure she won’t win again. But she shouldn’t.

At this point I think Ambar is just jockeying to keep her current paycheck and appearing super dedicated to the cause to try and get a decent payout at her next gig. Someone please point out to me how any of her recent actions benefit the college. I cannot see any.

BTW, I am right wing and in no way, shape, or form against higher education. I do have issues, though, with someone trying to pass off political indoctrination as higher education. Is it just me or does this woman have a knack for always arguing a point that is completely irrelevant to the actual conversation at hand? Yes, the first amendment is important, but seriously, WTF does it have to do with a slander and libel case?

    jb4 in reply to MajorWood. | July 22, 2019 at 8:52 am

    Aside from “her next gig”, her remarks appear to serve two purposes. So long as the legal case is ongoing, she probably is not allowed to deviate from the “party line” one inch and may think that amplifying it as a liberal/conservative issue looks good (biased jury). Also, if the college is going to appeal, with major extra costs, which looks better to their mostly liberal family applicant pool they need to keep applying and enrolling – “free speech” or “we were found to have libeled the bakery and we are appealing because we think the amount was ridiculous”? The former is “taking one for the cause”; the latter is a not very “romantic” weighing of how much is too much.

The comment as to the liability of the trustees I believe is a factor that Anbar and council
are keenly aware of. There delays may be the attempt to line up the ducks to avoid the many
lawsuits that are sure to follow. Hold the cash and hope. My thoughts are ((1)force the posting of the bond. (2) file liens for the total judgment. Gibsons is the winner and need to protect there position with authority. Be the elephant

Just in:

Oberlin College to sell refunding bonds to lower debt structure risk
Bond Buyer

“Ohio-based Oberlin College is pricing $82 million of taxable bonds to replace direct placement bonds sold in 2009 and 2014 as it looks to right its financial ship with lackluster enrollment continuing to pressure its finances.

Oberlin, which has been battling tuition revenue declines as a result of a drop in students attending the college, said the bonds will be structured as fixed-rate bonds that will eliminate exposure to bank risk, covenant risk, put/remarketing risk and tax risk…….”

    My God. I wonder what kind of a coupon the bonds will carry? Will S&P give these bonds a decent rating in light of all the points brought out on this blog? Has there been a complete disclosure of all the financial lunacy leading up to this bond issue?

    Nationally, we are already at the cusp of a massive subprime bond and subprime student loan collapse.

    /s/ JD Nobody,OC ’61

I am certain that Oberlin could fire plenty of administrators and function better than it does today, and use the savings to pay the interest.

But aw, gee, that we might lose Oberlin, which is an obviously racist university, would be a good thing. Bad behavior should be punished.