Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“It is particularly frustrating to watch people parrot whatever opinion they’ve read on Legal Insurrection that day”

“It is particularly frustrating to watch people parrot whatever opinion they’ve read on Legal Insurrection that day”

Oberlin College needs an intervention. Someone who truly cares about the college needs to tell the administration and its defenders to stop.

https://youtu.be/Jw51yY9_RR0

The next phase in the Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College case is the award of attorney’s fees to the Gibsons. A hearing is scheduled for July 10. Dan McGraw will be at the hearing for us, and we will preview the issues once motion papers are filed and available.

In the meantime, I noticed something interesting.

In late June, after the massive $11 million compensatory and $33 million punitive damage verdicts (later reduced to $25 million under Ohio tort reform caps), a reader wrote to me about something taking place at Reddit:

In an interesting maneuver that I haven’t see before, an Oberlin-affiliated individual who has been jousting about the Gibson’s case on the Oberlin subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/oberlin/) today managed to get herself appointed as the “moderator.” She promptly announced that she was going to delete everyone’s Gibson’s related posts, only allow posts on one thread, and she would personally delete and/or ban what she didn’t like.

The reader believed he had identified this moderator by name as a 2008 Oberlin College grad. I don’t think I clicked over because I don’t spend any time on Reddit. That might be my mistake, since it’s obviously a big thing, often in the news for the action in its various groups and online events. Reddit can drive news cycles.

But then a second reader called this situation to my attention.

In a comment to the post Gibson’s Bakery disputes Oberlin College public relations campaign claiming it was “held liable for the speech of its students”, reader Artichoke wrote:

When she took over a couple years ago, Ambar held a meeting and then issued an internal letter basically saying Oberlin was in trouble already. (Nice move to lessen her own responsibility to fix it, but then she’s a sociopath.)

Reddit’s group for Oberlin College has created a thread, which they’re censoring pretty heavily but the new legal FAQ from Gibson’s lawyers is still up there.

https://www.reddit.com/r/oberlin/comments/c52dxf/gibsons_mega_thread/

Okay, two readers thought this was something. This time I clicked over:

https://www.reddit.com/r/oberlin/comments/c52dxf/gibsons_mega_thread/

Not far down, I saw a reference to Legal Insurrection:

“It is particularly frustrating to watch people parrot whatever opinion they’ve read on Legal Insurrection that day”

https://www.reddit.com/r/oberlin/comments/c52dxf/gibsons_mega_thread/es0xum3/

That’s an interesting concept. But I doubt people were “parrot[ing] whatever opinion” they read here. To the contrary, it’s more likely that people were reading our reporting of court papers, testimony, and evidence, and drawing opinions the author of that Reddit post didn’t like.

We frequently presented Oberlin College’s side of the story, but that side of the story was incredibly weak on the facts. That weakness on the facts was compounded by an offensively tone-deaf and demeaning defense. It came back to bite them not because of our opinions, but because the jury apparently saw what we saw. If Oberlin College wins an appeal, it’s going to be on a legal issue, not on the facts.

Oberlin College should be ashamed of its conduct, but it’s not. It’s emboldened, if anything, as witnessed by the post-verdict crisis management public relations campaign to spin Oberlin College as having been held liable for student speech. It’s just not true.

Oberlin College needs an intervention. Someone who truly cares about the college needs to tell the administration and its defenders to stop. That’s just my opinion, please don’t parrot it, particularly not on Reddit.

For those who are new here, here’s a listing of most (but not all) of our posts related to the protests and the case.

Legal Insurrection Prior Coverage

Pre-Trial Posts:

Trial Posts:

Post-Compensatory Verdict Posts

Punitive Damages Hearing Posts

Post- Punitive Damages Verdict Posts

[FEATURED IMAGE: Via YouTube]

—————–

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

Donate Now!

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Heh,heh. Another plug.

All I can say is: “Keep up the good work! Keep up the good work!” SQUAWK!

    OnTheLeftCoast in reply to Wisewerds. | July 1, 2019 at 9:27 pm

    Let’s see… Daniel McGraw’s coverage was comprehensive and his and Prof. Jacobson’s analyses and discussions were excellent. Nobody reading LI regularly was blindsided by the verdict.

    The nomenklatura’s media… not so much.

    Back in the Ferguson riots and the aftermath, Andrew Branca’s coverage and analysis was excellent and and Prof. Jacobson’s and the LI team’s analyses and discussions were as well. Nobody regularly reading LI was blindsided that Wilson was cleared.

    The nomenklatura’s media… not so much.

    Back in the George Zimmerman trial days, Andrew Branca’s coverage was comprehensive and his and Prof. Jacobson’s analyses and discussions were excellent. Nobody regularly reading LI was blindsided by the verdict.

    The nomenklatura’s media… not so much.

    SQUAWK!

If you asking a SJW to exhibit self awareness, it’s a waste of time. The admin of this college seems to be infested with SJWs. When one thinks they are morally in the right, nothing is going to dissuade them otherwise. Not even the insolvency of the college. That’s the true power of religious conviction and don’t make the mistake in thinking that these people don’t hold their belief system with religious fervor.

    pst314 in reply to technerd. | July 1, 2019 at 8:56 pm

    “If you asking a SJW to exhibit self awareness, it’s a waste of time.”

    Indeed. And past age 30 vanishingly few leftists ever come to their senses.

    healthguyfsu in reply to technerd. | July 2, 2019 at 12:24 am

    We’ve past on to the extreme high ends of the spectrum of fervor known as zealotry.

Would love to be a fly in their main conference room where strategy is being hashed. They simply have to put this behind them and move on. My educated guess is they’ll settle and won’t appeal. All this posturing for the media is simply an attempt at self-exoneration.

“It is particularly frustrating to watch people parrot whatever opinion they’ve read on Legal Insurrection that day, knowing that they have no investment in this community

I am old enough to remember when racists in the Deep South would say things like that about “outsiders” who denounced racist violence and deprivation of civil rights.

“…and no understanding of the circumstances that allowed this situation to develop, much of which the Gibsons themselves fostered.

And those racists would blame uppity blacks for the violence.

    RNJD in reply to pst314. | July 1, 2019 at 9:22 pm

    Dear lord, these SJWs have absolutely no sense of decency! Blaming the Gibsons for fostering “this situation” by trying to prevent shoplifting in their store? Do they even comprehend what they say?

    I’ve come to the conclusion that nothing short of closing Oberlin College can remedy “this situation”.
    Maybe Hillsdale can buy the buildings and open an Ohio campus.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to pst314. | July 2, 2019 at 8:48 am

    “they have no investment in this community…”

    But many have empathy for the community, a community being held hostage by some really slimy characters from Oberlin College, characters incapable of empathy.

    MajorWood in reply to pst314. | July 2, 2019 at 10:40 am

    I am confused. If I write something on LI, and then go and write the same thing on reddit, am I parroting, or just double publishing?

    The only thing that will fix Oberlin is some “tough love” by the alumni in the form of massively reduced donations. And experience has taught me that when tough love is mentioned as an option, it becomes the only option. But one must also keep in mind that following tough love, one is never sure whether they are sober, or just between drinks.

    The problem isn’t just limited to Oberlin. If a faculty member there questions the motives and actions of the administration, then they have effectively tainted themselves at Oberlin and every other institution that they would want to move on to. The only two faculty at Oberlin who have spoken up are emeriti.

“When she took over a couple years ago, Ambar held a meeting and then issued an internal letter basically saying Oberlin was in trouble already.”

No doubt this is reference to the financials. I wonder how much trouble is ‘trouble already?’

In a day and age where private colleges are going under (Jane Sanders and Burlington College anyone?), I have no doubt that pre-Gibson, Oberlin was already flirting with disaster.

And if the $25 million judgment survives appeal, bye-bye Oberlin.

The only questionnafter that is ‘Will sane and responsible trustees then raise Oberlin from its own attempted suicide?’

    Nobody who is sane and responsible is in a position of authority at Oberlin College.

    I believe the prohibition on that is in their bylaws.

    They’ve got a billion bucks of endowment. They can pay 25 or 35 million cash and continue operations.

    But they’ve been bleeding a little every year. I think they do it willingly because they have adopted a mission of access for poor people. So they admit some poor kids and charge them very little, and cover costs by bringing in full-payers. They’re currently looking to increase foreigners, presumably full-pay foreigners.

    They also give something like full scholarships to most of the music students, because they are not expected to be able to make much even after graduation. It’s all in Ambar’s letter.

    So there are ways that Oberlin could tighten up the financials, with some cost to their discretionary mission-based choices. This case is a black mark that will not be forgotten in their history, but they still have a significant reputation and can live off it if they do so smartly, in my opinion.

    Or they can continue to admit moral reprobates to their”culture of shoplifting” and destroy themselves permanently.

    As a net owner of assets, they benefit from high interest rates. Fed easing will make their situation worse (less income from endowment), but it could make it easier for students to borrow to pay them.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to artichoke. | July 2, 2019 at 9:19 am

      I bet that those three thieving assaulting students were some of those poor people.

      Many times in my businesses I bent over backward to help poor people improve themselves. I spent a great deal of money training/educating them. Quite often there was a facade of improvement.

      Yet, in every case they eventually screwed up bad enough that they were terminated.

      My experience is that you can take people out of the ghetto, but you cannot take the ghetto out of them. They are damaged, and will carry that for life. It seems that they cannot help themselves.

        paracelsus in reply to JusticeDelivered. | July 2, 2019 at 10:49 am

        not only are you 100% incorrect; but you didn’t have to bend over backwards; you only had to choose correctly and provide those with just a tiny bit of loving care.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to paracelsus. | July 2, 2019 at 2:54 pm

          I tried with scores of people over 50 years, each was improved to some degree, each was still too flawed to keep. My reward was theft of time for which I paid them and of goods. Every one of them represented a significant financial loss.

          Perhaps some can be saved, but that was not my experience, and on balance it was a huge waste of resources and time.

          rdmdawg in reply to paracelsus. | July 2, 2019 at 4:39 pm

          We have created a glorious land of opportunity that people can take advantage of by taking the smallest step themselves to claim the rewards. We can’t take that step for them, they have to take it for themselves.

        C. Lashown in reply to JusticeDelivered. | July 2, 2019 at 11:30 am

        It’s easier to change the course of a planet than to change the trajectory of another persons life. Even to change ourselves is close to impossible at times, just look at the leadership at Oberlin or some of American leaders like Hillary.

        “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”

          JusticeDelivered in reply to C. Lashown. | July 2, 2019 at 2:59 pm

          It is important to note that it is not the skin which needs to be changed, it is the mind which makes of breaks people. While many of Oberlin College’s scheming racists are black, there are plenty of people with different skin tones who are just as bad. A huge part of blacks condition is related to a piss poor culture, Oberlin College’s culture is just as bad.

      Silvertree in reply to artichoke. | July 2, 2019 at 12:11 pm

      Interesting letter on Oberlin’s finances, from fall 2017:

      Financial Update From Chris Canavan ’84, Chair-elect, Board of Trustees
      The Oberlin Review
      https://oberlinreview.org/14027/opinions/financial-update-from-chris-canavan-84-chair-elect-board-of-trustees/

It looks like a perfectly normal delusion to me. It will persist even through writing the check to Gibson’s and beyond.

It’s their campus and they’re going to keep it that way.

    Arminius in reply to rhhardin. | July 1, 2019 at 10:41 pm

    I seriously doubt anything much will persist at Oberlin college after they cut the checks to the Gibsons, the attorneys for the Gibsons, and their own lawyers.

      rhhardin in reply to Arminius. | July 2, 2019 at 7:09 am

      If reality changed SJWs they wouldn’t be SJWs in the first place. They self-select for obliviousness.

Their attorney’s have to be advising them to settle. Their PR firm should be saying the same thing. What Oberlin is doing must be making the Gibson’s a lot less agreeable.

    Silvertree in reply to Bill West. | July 2, 2019 at 12:20 am

    Einstein the Texan Parrot
    shows Oberlin how it’s done.
    https://youtu.be/aDAJFm0TUoQ

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Silvertree. | July 2, 2019 at 9:22 am

      Cute, and Oberlin is like that parrot, they cannot understand why or how to actually be sorry.

        Silvertree in reply to JusticeDelivered. | July 2, 2019 at 10:38 am

        Yes, isn’t he the cutest? Love the Texas drawl! He did a great job of saying sorry!!

        These parrots are highly sensitive and intelligent, and are actually able to say sorry in the right context (when they have done wrong), if taught. Which is more than I can say for Oberlin College……

    The aftermath of the trial itself is becoming a bigger and more interesting story than the trial and verdict. Oberlin has now managed to create another legal liability for the school. By targeting LI as their main enemy to be slandered and libeled in their continuing false narrative, LI has been added as a central player in this along with the Gibsons. What a PR nightmare this must be for their PR firm.

    Hopefully, others on “our side” will pick up on this and start piling on. Could there be another even bigger and more important lawsuit developing? Tells you how important the fight against SJW fascism truly is and why it needs to be reported.

    MajorWood in reply to Bill West. | July 2, 2019 at 10:52 am

    The attorney of record on the document which contained the most recent $25M settlement is a 2012 Oberlin graduate. I wonder if they had to find a firm with an alumnus as a member in order to have their case taken.

    As I have pondered before, I would like to know the track record of Oberlin seeking counsel in this matter. Did they consult with a firm before Gibsons filed just at a matter of course to see where their risk was? I suspect that they didn’t because that would require them even considering that they might be in the wrong. But once it was filed, was there a mad scramble to get outside counsel, and if so, did they reject a whole bunch of firms who strongly suggested that they settle and be done with it? A big firm with a long track record could weather a big defeat like this without any loss of reputation. I have noticed that Oberlin’s attorneys aren’t going out of their way to keep their name in the press. They seem fine to let Ambar do the PR stuff.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to MajorWood. | July 2, 2019 at 3:47 pm

      I am not an attorney, but even I know better that to state something as a fact when I can get my point across as opinion.

      Oberlin College made a staggering number of mistakes, leaving a paper trail all over the place was amazing. Continuing to push the envelope after being hammered is another. They simply cannot understand when is is time to shut up.

Diversity breeds adversity. Oberlin though they could tape rabid color judgments in their midst and instead forced another #MeToo moment. Here’s to progress.

I imagine it was horribly frustrating to be unable to control the narrative. It must have been even more frustrating to have that lack of control be due exclusively to facts.

Fact 1: Gibson’s was innocent of the charges of racism.
Fact 2: Members of the administration and faculty of Oberlin college actively assisted the students in their libelous and slanderous attack upon the Gibsons.
Fact 3: Oberlin College made no good faith attempt to correct the slanderous and libelous claims made against Gibson’s.
Fact 4: Oberlin’s own witnesses admitted, under oath, to facts 1, 2, and 3.

If Oberlin College could have proven even one of these facts inaccurate they might have stood some chance of being vindicated. But they could not. So, all that they were left with is the Big Lie, the mainstay of the SJW. Now, as heinous as it is for Oberlin representatives to lie about their participation in the slander and libel, what is even more reprehensible is to see them stand there and throw the students under the bus while claiming that they were only trying to “protect” them. Such moral and intellectual insincerity is mind boggling.

    iconotastic in reply to Mac45. | July 1, 2019 at 10:28 pm

    I do believe that determination of #1 wasn’t allowed in court.

      That’s interesting. Was it that it wasn’t allowed as a point to be argued for lack of evidence? Or that Oberlin’s actions themselves to put the Gibsons out of business were enough to warrant the guilty verdict? That was the whole point of Gibson’s case, they were directly involved in slandering them as racists to justify their campaign to put them out of business.

      The jury may not have been directed to consider the point but no one can walk away from this without believing that the Gibsons have been cleared of the slanderous and libelous accusation.

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 2, 2019 at 12:45 pm

        I am certainly not a lawyer and I’m just throwing this out here but I believe the Judge on the case didn’t allow Oberlin to field “witnesses” to state that, “The Gibson family is racist. Really, really they are.” because that would simply be repeating the alleged slander that they were getting sued for.

        But I could be wrong about that.

        Silvertree in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 2, 2019 at 1:06 pm

        This question has come up a lot in these threads. There are subtle legal issues at play, but you can find out more in LI’s early reports on this case, and in the other comments here.

        As I understand it, evidence about the character of individuals was not allowed by the judge (I.e. whether a particular individual was racist). However, evidence about the overall reputation of the bakery was allowed. —That’s why people could get up on the stand and say, “Gibson’s has no reputation of racism in the community, they have always been known for treating everyone equally.” But no one was allowed to get up and present evidence of an individual at the bakery treating them in a “racist” manner, unless it related directly to the shoplifting incident. The students involved had already nixed that possibility in their sworn statements exonerating Mr. A. Gibson of racial motivations in his actions towards them.

        There are apparently certain protections written into the law also, so that the witness stand cannot be used to further defame an innocent party.

        I suppose Oberlin could have brought witnesses to the stand to say, “Gibson’s Bakery has a reputation among OC students for behaving in a racist manner towards black people.” But apparently they chose not to do so?

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

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

        from

        Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College trial motions – Judge finds Gibson’s “reputation is central to this case”

        https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/04/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-motions-judge-finds-gibsons-reputation-is-central-to-this-case/

          I can see how allowing more slander could have derailed the proceedings. If a witness appeared, say someone witht the initials AOC, who without any evidence testified about an incident of racism, it might have fallen on the Gibsons to prove AOC wrong. Guard the gates. The jury could probably piece it together themselves as witnesses were testifying to related points that allowed/I> to be introduced. No one watching this trial could have missed that racism was central to Oberlin’s case.

      Mac45 in reply to iconotastic. | July 2, 2019 at 10:55 am

      The subject of Gibson’s racism was limited to the incident being adjudicated. While the defense was not allowed to bring in extraneous exhibits or alleged “racist” sentiments. In fact, testimony was introduced to show that there was no racial motivation for the arrest of the shoplifters and to show that blacks were not overly represented among those charged with shoplifting at Gibson’s.

      MajorWood in reply to iconotastic. | July 2, 2019 at 11:02 am

      My impression of them not allowing #1 is that the quality of evidence that Gibsons were racist was on the level of 100 different people saying that they felt weird when they shopped there. The only example that had any substance was two black women (girls) saying that one of the Gibsons asked them to not sit at a table in fron meant for customers, and they were not. I guess they were trying to establish a Philadelphia Fourbux level of racism storyline there. If anything, perhaps Miraldi was acting to prevent Oberlin from digging themselves deeper by making the trial all about a whole bunch of people casting aspersions with no basis in fact. We have evidence of that possibly taking place in the form of Ambar and her campaign of hearsay in the form of “lived experiences of racism.” It will be interesting if and when she needs to provide the names of those people when we have Gibsons Defamation, part deux.

I don’t so much parrot as I summarize and paraphrase, though admittedly I do love a tasty cracker. Triscuits with rosemary and olive oil are WONderFUL!

“I imagine it was horribly frustrating to be unable to control the narrative.”

Yes, it’s especially frustrating when you’re trying to lie, and someone keeps pointing to chapter and verse in the record. But that is why we have courts, court reporters, rules of evidence, and jury instructions.

    tom_swift in reply to TheFineReport.com. | July 1, 2019 at 10:54 pm

    HOLY S—-! Those RedState idiots seem to think muriatic acid is some kind of minor annoyance.

    BLP reported that Muriatic acid by itself isn’t that big of a deal

    Hogwash! Muriatic acid is HYDROCHLORIC ACID! That’s HYDRO-F’ING-CHLORIC ACID! Why it’s named “muriatic” is a long and not terribly relevant story, but it’s used today under that name, and it’s easy to get. It’s used to eat away concrete, intended to clean stray mortar off brickwork, and can be bought in convenient detergent-sized bottles for that purpose. It’s also used for balancing pH in swimming pools—it’s strong stuff and a little bit goes a long way. The point is, any fool can buy it.

    Thrown onto human skin it will cause permanently disfiguring scarring and PERMANENT BLINDNESS.

    I hope someone with a RedState account (which I don’t have) will post this information there. People have to take this threat seriously.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to tom_swift. | July 2, 2019 at 9:28 am

      About 30% concentration, and it is dangerous. That is a good reason to blow someone’s head off. Antifa members need a dose of reality, one bullet at a time.

      murkyv in reply to tom_swift. | July 2, 2019 at 8:16 pm

      A semi carrying hydrochloric acid was recently rear-ended by a FedEx semi on the highway near me

      They evacuated the houses downwind for several hours and kept both northbound lanes closed for 24 hours while crews cleaned up.

      They had to repave both lanes for about 150 feet because it ate up the blacktop

      Fortunately, nobody died in the crash or from the fumes

You’re no patriot until the left has to lie about you.

The nice thing about living in Northeast Ohio is being able to say that, yes, I am invested in Lorain County doing well. I am invested in Oberlin doing well. I’m far more invested in Plum Brook Station to its west doing well but, then again, my main concern lately is getting back to the moon and the fiddly bits thereof instead of people bleating about privilege. It truly is too bad that the space power test reactor is shut down there.

As for this circling of the wagons frankly no good will come of it. I do hope an appropriate somebody considers filing a complaint with Oberlin’s regional accreditation body because an institution like this should lose access to Title IV student financial aid dollars that you and I pay for as taxpayers. The regional accreditor describes their complaints process here: https://www.hlcommission.org/Student-Resources/complaints.html

“It is particularly frustrating to watch people parrot whatever opinion they’ve read on Legal Insurrection that day”

I found this comment riotously funny. As if Oberlin hadn’t made itself famous as a stinking cesspool of PC years ago.

https://www.popehat.com/2015/04/27/tumult-at-oberlin-in-wake-of-emotional-support-animal-companion-initiative/

Thereby P.O.ing half the country before they defamed an honest family of bakers and tried to put them out of business, and then refused to make things right by them and lying through their teeth.

Then Oberlin gave us Lena Dunham. The first person who produced an HBO miniseries that showcased anilingus.

“‘Her blithe willingness to disrobe without shame caused an outburst of censure from viewers,’ observed The New Yorker’s Rebecca Mead.”

Have you ever noticed that the people willing to strip naked in public are exactly the people who should never be naked in public? Something tells me that there is no science department at Oberlin. There sure as hell isn’t a law school associated with the place. So it’s going to have to be up to M.I.T. to invent eye bleach.

Then in her autobiography (she actually thinks she is significant enough that the world needs her autobiography) she writes about sexually molesting her infant sister and falsely accused a member of the Oberlin College Republicans of rape.

I was stunned. There are Republicans at Oberlin college? And they went public and made themselves targets by forming an association?

Mr. J could save a lot of time by simply titling every Oberlin action post “Oberlin Doubles Down.” Because that appears to be their sole approach to this entire farrago.

I’m glad your getting your due Professor!

Ambar said they wouldn’t have acted out against any other town business — as a vague way of blaming Gibson’s. Something to do with “lived experience”.

So what did Gibson’s do that was so much worse than other town businesses. We have enough people saying they weren’t racist, that that’s pretty clear.

I think they were the only town business that reported shoplifters to the police. That was the sticking point.

It means other town businesses have been bullied by Oberlin and its students into tolerating some “shrinkage”, some shoplifting, and not reporting it to the police. That’s why that is what Oberlin demanded of Gibson’s.

Well now I hope they say “enough of this” and all start reporting all shoplifting incidents to the police. Show support for Gibson’s, by joining them in demanding the rule of law in town.

Being bullied for years can really affect your personality and instinctual reactions. A lot of these people really might have to force themselves to use law enforcement. But it’s the right thing to do, and the right test for Oberlin to face this fall.

    n.n in reply to artichoke. | July 2, 2019 at 2:12 am

    Oberlin is progressing through a #MeToo moment steeped in diversity. Gibson refused to kneel and pay Oberlin the protection money. A positive development and precedent.

    paracelsus in reply to artichoke. | July 2, 2019 at 10:59 am

    Hmmm!
    Businesses being bullied – 1930s Germany anyone?

Gremlin1974 | July 1, 2019 at 11:45 pm

When the left is this pissy with you, then you know you are doing something right.

OwenKellogg-Engineer | July 1, 2019 at 11:56 pm

I ran across a contribution to Forbes.com from an Oberlin alum. The tone-deafness runs deep:

“…first and foremost, this case was about race…”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/06/17/race-the-jury-and-the-harsh-verdict-against-oberlin-college/#429604c25828

“As many people know, an Ohio jury hit Oberlin College with an astonishing $44 million verdict stemming from student protests accusing Gibson’s Bakery of racism.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/06/26/its-time-for-the-court-to-restore-sanity-in-the-oberlin-case/#39b61c7e2994

” The Gibsons may not be racists, but if some students believe they are it is not really malice for the college to support its students.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/07/01/judge-slashes-the-verdict-against-oberlin-college-an-appellate-court-might-reduce-it-further/#249626fb650d

I am surprised that Forbes has let this continue with only one other commentary, but one with clarity:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2019/06/24/tale-of-two-worlds-the-real-world-and-the-ivory-tower-oberlin-college/#49660fe1633a

I forwarded a post or two from LI to Forbes via a social media platform. My response was less than expected. The replied with an article for me to read about “Poo-pouri” I guess I know where the Forbes social media team stands….

    SOP for SJWs. This tactic of the big lie has worked well. It has turned street thugs and dysfunctional teens into patron saints.

    Kudos for LI again. Wasn’t it Churchill that said one is measured by the enemies one makes?

    TX-rifraph in reply to OwenKellogg-Engineer. | July 2, 2019 at 6:12 am

    An SJW college provides a diploma not an education.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to TX-rifraph. | July 2, 2019 at 9:30 am

      Yes. Bringing about a term I like to use: some college graduates are educated. Most are credentialed.

    Basically he can’t dispute the jury’s findings in any way, but since there weren’t blacks on the jury and the ruling went against Oberlin (which isn’t a HBCU and is full of white students and faculty, but whatever) we should “worry” about racism.

    No, Mr. Gerstmann. I’m not a law professor and not a lawyer, but even I know that to do law right, you want to have the clearest possible view not the most confused.

    PostLiberal in reply to OwenKellogg-Engineer. | July 2, 2019 at 3:32 pm

    I ran across a contribution to Forbes.com from an Oberlin alum. The tone-deafness runs deep:“…first and foremost, this case was about race…”

    From the link, the good professor informs us there were no black jurors used in the trial.

    Something that appears to have gone uncommented upon so far, is that there was not a single African American person on the jury that treated Oberlin so harshly…According to a source familiar with the trial, the judge, who is also white, kept three African Americans off of the jury “for cause,” meaning that the judge believed there was a reason to question their impartiality. ….. It would have served the interests of justice to have at least one African American juror in the room who understood the students’ narrative.

    The FAQs on the Gibson-Oberlin case informs us that,on the contrary , there was a black juror. (pages 40-41)

    The jury contained five females and three males. There was one Black or African-American juror, one Hispanic or Latino juror, and six White jurors. The racial demographics of the jury closely aligned with the general demographics of Lorain County according to the U.S. Census Bureau, where 8.9% are Black or African-American, 10% are Hispanic or Latino, and 78.3% are White alone
    There have also been suggestions that Black or African American jurors were struck on account of their race or because of an implicit bias against the Gibsons. These suggestions are false. Indeed, at least one Black or African American juror was struck because he was biased in favor of the Gibsons. During the jury selection process, Prospective Juror No. 10, who is Black or African American, disclosed to the Court that he favored the Gibsons.

    [May 8, 2019 Trial Transcript, p. 55].
    Prospective Juror: I’m kind of biased because of the fact I know the Gibsons. I’ve been in the business, I shop with them. I don’t condone the shoplifting.
    The Court: So, in your eyes, your opinion is favoring the Gibsons?
    Prospective Juror: Favoring the Gibsons, yes.

    Because of this explicit bias in favor of the Gibsons, the Court struck Prospective Juror No. 10 for cause.

    Who is correct?I am inclined to believe the FAQs. Could Dan McGraw edify us?

I’m surprised you haven’t heard of this strategy. It’s LONG been a strategy of the intolerant left.

It equally applies to organizations, message boards, websites, and chat rooms.

Step 1) Become a member of the organization/board/chatroom/community

Step 2) Start whining that the current Human Resources group/Moderators are not doing their jobs properly and there is too much ‘hate’ and not enough ‘diversity’. Hate being defined as everybody not agreeing with everything they say, and diversity being any quality you can claim makes people on your side special

Step 3) Demand new moderators/HR representatives to control the ‘hate’ and increase the ‘diversity’

Step 4) Ensure that new moderator/HR rep is one of your SJW pals

Step 5) Begin purging everybody that disagrees with you under the guise of stopping ‘hate’.

Step 6) Demand that everybody remaining loudly and publicly agree with you on every issue that has nothing to do with the reason the organization exists in the first place

Step 7) Everybody that was actually dedicated to making the organization/community successful has left/been banned

Step 8) Organization/community dies/disbands because nobody new is coming in, and everybody actually interested in it has left

Step 9) Find a new organization/community and being the process anew.

This happens a LOT in things like Reddit. SJW moderators take control of areas and purge anybody and everything that might disagree with them.

Right now US liberal arts colleges are between steps 6-7.

    elle in reply to Olinser. | July 2, 2019 at 2:54 am

    Yes, I have seen it happen many times exactly as you have noted. I noticed my nextdoor neighborhood ap began the process this week in earnest. It’s so transparent that it would be funny if it wasn’t such a shame. It’s hard to build but easy to destroy.

      Valerie in reply to elle. | July 2, 2019 at 12:19 pm

      My nextdoor app gets this from time to time, too.
      Fortunately, the users are pretty good about shutting down political discussions.
      It doesn’t take much to say, “I thought this was supposed to be apolitical.”

    CorkyAgain in reply to Olinser. | July 2, 2019 at 12:57 pm

    Your step 6 puts its finger on the heart of the problem: organizations that forget or never really clearly understood the reason they exist. This leaves the way open for the SJW to substitute their own goal of “making the world a better place.”

      artichoke in reply to CorkyAgain. | July 2, 2019 at 2:32 pm

      Sometimes they say that just focusing on the original goal, and ignoring race, is racist.

      That’s sort of what Prof. Gerstman did in his Forbes article. He didn’t actually say the verdict was wrong, but he said maybe this is racist, maybe that is racist, there’s an aroma of racism about the whole thing.

      Which is quite un-falsifiable.

OwenKellogg-Engineer | July 2, 2019 at 12:06 am

Two other, older, pieces by the same contributor exhibit the same tone-deafness:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/06/12/the-11-million-dollar-libel-verdict-against-oberlin-college-is-a-threat-to-colleges-nationwide/#63464fd9534b

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/06/13/ohio-jury-hits-oberlin-college-with-ferocious-and-illegal-punitive-damages/#41365f9f2b9a

A five to one ratio of Oberlin sympathetic articles to a sober assessment; I don’t think i will be taking much financial advice from Forbes anytime soon.

healthguyfsu | July 2, 2019 at 12:29 am

Resident SJW just channeled the dude!

“That’s just like your (legal) opinion, man”

Are the people in charge at Oberlin seeking a second trial on a second charge of defaming the Gibsons? They seem to be repeating the claim that the Gibsons brought on the rioting by their own unseemly (that means racist) behavior.
Why are they doing this?

JusticeDelivered | July 2, 2019 at 1:16 am

I am wondering if a new lawsuit is in the works to address Oberlin College’s and their president’s continuing misrepresentation and libel defamation of Gibsons?

    LeftWingLock in reply to JusticeDelivered. | July 2, 2019 at 8:36 am

    Who would have standing to sue. At the risk of overgeneralizing, people have no obligation to speak the truth except in a few limited settings, e.g., to the police and when under oath in court are a couple of obvious ones.

    When people lie, the remedy we have is to not support them — don’t donate, don’t attend their movie, don’t buy their newspaper, etc.

      Tom Servo in reply to LeftWingLock. | July 2, 2019 at 8:55 am

      You are correct, and everyone should take a breath and remember that it is Oberlin which is trying to say this case was all about “defamation”. It wasn’t.

      This case was about the ongoing malicious actions of the Oberlin administration to try and force the Gibson’s out of business.

      As far as Oberlin continuing to proclaim their “innocence” – well, that’s like OJ continuing to claim he had nothing to do with that ugly little incident in LA.

      maxmillion in reply to LeftWingLock. | July 2, 2019 at 9:56 am

      “Who would have standing to sue”
      The Gibsons of course. Again. These are new publications and they are actionable. Again.

        Tom Servo in reply to maxmillion. | July 2, 2019 at 10:55 am

        Remember that Opinion is always protected, statements of fact are not protected.

        In this case, saying “I believe Gibson’s is racist” is an opinion, since the only “fact” in that sentence concerns the speakers own belief. That is protected speech.

        Saying “Gibson’s only prosecuted those 3 students for shoplifting because of their race” is an actionable Statement of Fact, not an opinion.

          Silvertree in reply to Tom Servo. | July 2, 2019 at 2:00 pm

          Just seems like there should be some kind of legal recourse for private individuals being falsely smeared as racists on the news, by a powerful institution. Is it OK for an institution to go after someone like that? It seems like even today they are still trying to destroy the Gibsons’ reputation.

          maxmillion in reply to Tom Servo. | July 2, 2019 at 7:28 pm

          While the law is an ass sometimes, it isn’t a stupid ass. These defamatory statements will be judged in the context of their previously found defamatory statements.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to LeftWingLock. | July 2, 2019 at 11:06 am

      When I called it libel-defamation, I meant the full spectrum of Oberlin College’s assault on Gibsons. While their current actions alone might not be cause to sue again, the fact that they are a toned down continuation of their previous conduct is pretty damning.

      Also, how about civil rights charges, the attack on Gibsons was motivated by race, attempts to force Gibsons to not prosecute those thieves was most certainly motivated by race. Criminal charges would most certainly send a clearer message to Oberlin College.

NavyMustang | July 2, 2019 at 7:56 am

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Professor for being one of the only sites, if not THE only to provide the unbiased ground truth on any controversial trials.

Since the Trayon Martin/Ferguson cases, I’ve made LI a mandatory daily visit.

The service you provide is invaluable.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to NavyMustang. | July 2, 2019 at 11:45 am

    I agree, I immediately noticed that the Thugvon case was being pushed by PR people, and quickly came to the conclusion that much of what was being peddled were outright lies. My initial research efforts led me to Jack Cashill and LI.

    Thugvon was followed by many similar cases, all of them promoted with bald faced lies.

    Blacks have squandered a great deal of public goodwill, Black Liars Matter, Democrats pushing those lies squandered much of their reputation, both promotion of illegals and Muslims squandered more, Benghazi and Iran, more damage. The list goes on.

LeftWingLock | July 2, 2019 at 8:32 am

The Marx Brothers did their comedies primarily in the 1930s and 1940s. It’s amazing to me how much of their comedy is still applicable today. In particular, I’m reminded of Groucho’s line, “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Talk about chutspa . . . .

As posted in that thread by “The_Old_Major,” one commentator on the thread has actually accused one of the Gibsons of “attempted murder” (for purportedly choking Aladin).

Who is this person who appears to be committing libel per se? Why, it’s the new self-appointed administrator /censor herself (“meskarune”)

    Silvertree in reply to LKB. | July 2, 2019 at 10:53 am

    That was one of the misconceptions (to put it mildly) that set this whole thing off. The rumors were spreading like wildfire and got many students riled up enough to protest. Some of the students who witnessed the events believed Mr. Aladin was in mortal danger by a crazed out-of-control racist white guy, and that was the story that spread. One of the students called 911, and Mr. Aladin himself suggested that Mr. Gibson was trying to kill him (watch the body-cam footage once Aladin has been put into the police car). Interestingly enough, it was Mr. Aladin who threatened to kill Mr. Gibson, during the scuffle.

    MajorWood in reply to LKB. | July 2, 2019 at 11:16 am

    I don’t know who meskarune is, but I have it on very good authority that the TheyTheirsThem individual is one sharp guy/gal/it. 🙂

    The problem with reddit is that I find that I am violating advice given to me by an internet sage a long time ago.

    “Arguing with someone on the internet is like running a race in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.”

    Sometimes you have to go Full Politically Incorrect to get a point across.

Isn’t interesting that the go to action of any from the left when they have lost or are losing an argument to go right to censoring those opinions?

What’s more revealing is that it happens with people from diverse origins, current situations and topics of controversy.

There is NO doubt that given time and the power that the Left will throttle all speech that it doesn’t approve of and that there seems to be no self limiting factor.

That’s scary and can be found going back decades both here and abroad.

What could be done to make Oberlin suffer the consequences of their behavior? How about advertising in publications targeting Oberlin students, parents and alumni.

    paracelsus in reply to ConradCA. | July 2, 2019 at 11:06 am

    Send a copy of LI reportage to all the high schools and private schools in the US

    Silvertree in reply to ConradCA. | July 2, 2019 at 2:09 pm

    Some folks could go full White Rose and leave copies of the Gibsons’ FAQ everywhere on campus, and keep doing so for months. Also the FAQ could be sent by email with a nice cover letter to college admissions counselors in all the major high schools across the country.

      nomadic100 in reply to Silvertree. | July 2, 2019 at 3:09 pm

      My guess is that high school college admission counselors are, themselves, fully committed leftists and SJW’s. They would likely toss the FAQ document into the round file.

      nomadic100 in reply to Silvertree. | July 2, 2019 at 3:13 pm

      There seems to be a glitch I have encountered in the processing of comments here. I have more than once composed a comment and hit the “submit” button only to encounter an automated reply which says “It looks as though you have already said that” indicating that the system believes I am attempting to submit multiples of the same comment – when I have not. Perhaps this could be fixed.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to nomadic100. | July 2, 2019 at 4:15 pm

        Reload the page, and you will see that your comment posted. Also, There is a brief time after you post where it can cause a double post. The issue is that the server has your post, but has not yet logged it. That window of time is very small.

Comanche Voter | July 2, 2019 at 11:00 am

At the end of the day the smart thing for the college would be to pay up (or maybe negotiate a 10% haircut on the judgment) and shut up. But the odds of the college doing the smart thing (much less the right thing) are slim and none and slim just left town.

    Silvertree in reply to Comanche Voter. | July 2, 2019 at 2:14 pm

    He should stay awhile and have some Gibson’s donuts, might just fatten him up a little and change his mind, remind him of what he loves about the town of Oberlin.

Someone who truly cares needs to make one change to Oberlin: Close, abolish and expunge it. There’s a point at which a broken institution cannot be fixed.

    Silvertree in reply to beagleEar. | July 2, 2019 at 2:32 pm

    How about a campaign stop this fall at Gibson’s by President Donald “Ich bin ein Oberliner” Trump? Oberlin College would completely melt down and destroy itself in a fit of pure rage. Think Sauron melting away into nothingness….

I know Portland, Oregon is a long ways away for you, but you might consider covering the Andy Ngo assault case. I expect that Ngo’s lawyer is going to sue the antifa folks she can identify. It seems like a clear cut case of assault to me. But I am not a lawyer.

Braaak Polly wants a doughnut.

The insurer’s position doesn’t seem to bear out Oberlin’s facts.

Meskarune on reddit just posted a message where she referred to it as “attempted shoplifting.” My boss on the crisis hotline advised us on the first day “to not engage the mentally ill when off the clock.” That makes more sense now.

    healthguyfsu in reply to MajorWood. | July 3, 2019 at 12:06 am

    She also called Gibson’s a “monopoly” that is “exploitative” of students with high prices.

    It’s just another ignorant communist that thinks those who trade money for goods must be evil and heartless. Nevermind that the owners haven’t taken a salary in several years, they must be getting their white hands on all that dirty money by some masterful white privilege scheme!

      MajorWood in reply to healthguyfsu. | July 6, 2019 at 12:29 am

      I just put a little substance behind the numbers awarded to the Gibsons, in terms of realized and speculative losses due to the libel and business interference. Arguments about “money for nothin” are best addressed with facts.

Wow, 56 LE articles about Gibson’s, if I counted on my fingers correctly.

In trying to come up with some explanation for the tone-deaf stupidity of the Oberlin administration it is important to remember:

—According to the doctrine of “Intersectionality”, anyone who is white, or is a business owner, and especially who is not part of other ‘recognized’ (i.e., by SJWs) socially disadvantaged groups, benefits from the racist patriarchy, and is ipso facto ‘racist.’

So in the mad little universe of Oberlin, of course Gibson’s is racist, since every white-owned business is racist, and every white business owner is racist. The Gibson family were in the wrong, because they refused to acknowledge their racism when Oberlin students decided to ‘educate’ them.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend