Image 01 Image 03

Oberlin College Professor after Gibson’s Bakery verdict: “how idiotic can the college be always?”

Oberlin College Professor after Gibson’s Bakery verdict: “how idiotic can the college be always?”

Former Oberlin College professor Abraham Socher offers fresh insight into the case, including the headline quote from his former colleague.

Despite over 100 posts at Legal Insurrection on the Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College conflict and lawsuit, I just read a fresh perspective on what happened.

The perspective is that of Abraham Socher, currently Editor of the Jewish Review of Books.

Pertinent to this discussion, Socher is a former Oberlin College Associate Professor of Religion and Director of Jewish Studies, where he taught for 18 years. In March 2016, when still at the college, Socher wrote in the student-run Oberlin Review about Joy Karega, whose anti-Semitic conspiracy rants on Facebook were another in an long line of Oberlin College scandals, Karega-Mason’s Facebook Posts Anti-Semitic.

In a lengthy article at Commentary, O Oberlin, My Oberlin (archive), Socher writes of his return to campus for the first time in a year:

I went back to Oberlin on a Friday in June for the first time in a year or so. Even retired professors like me have to return books to the library (eventually). Driving off the Ohio-10 freeway, down East Lorain Street, past the organic George Jones Farm—named for a beloved botany professor, not the great country-and-western singer—I saw the first of several yard signs supporting Gibson’s Bakery in its lawsuit against Oberlin College and its dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, who is also vice president of the college. The previous day, a Lorain County jury had awarded Gibson’s an astounding $33 million in punitive damages in addition to the $11.2 million it had already assigned to the family business for compensatory damages.

Socher gave us a nice shout out:

The Chronicle Telegram has followed the Gibson’s case from the outset, with detailed reporting from reporters Scott Mahoney, Dave O’Brien, and Jodi Weinberger. Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson has also discussed it from the beginning on his Legal Insurrection blog, along with local freelance reporter Daniel McGraw, who covered every day of the trial in great detail for Legal Insurrection. While following the case as a former Oberlin professor was depressing, reading all of these excellent, unpretentious journalists as they chronicled the conduct of local police officers, attorneys, and judges calmly ascertaining facts and administering justice was a bit restorative.

But this detail jumped out at me as a key to understanding the dynamic (emphasis added):

This wasn’t just a town-gown conflict, or even a racial conflict, it was a class conflict as much as anything.

Another description by Socher also jumped out at me, it confirms what I’ve seen suggested in court papers and also heard from others, that Gibson’s Bakery is struggling to survive (emphasis added):

I’ve also been coming to Gibson’s for years. When I interviewed for a job here two decades ago, one of my faculty hosts, who, like many professors, was himself an Oberlin graduate, took me by the store, rhapsodized about those whole-wheat donuts, and bought me one of the Gibson’s postcards they still have up by the cash register. It’s an undated picture of the storefront in the twilight after a light snow and looks as if it could have been taken anytime since the 1930s (in fact, the store was founded in 1885 and has been at its current location since 1905). Allyn W. Gibson, who must have been about 70 at the time, rung up the sale. Walking around the store now, I was struck by how sparsely the shelves were stocked, and wondered if it was a result of the student boycott. I bought three postcards, a Snapple, and a copy of the paper.

Read the whole thing. It offers a fresh perspective on what happened, including this perspective on decades of Oberlin College public relations disasters centered on protest culture (emphasis added):

How, after such public debacles costing millions of dollars in lost students, donors, and prestige, could Oberlin yet again condescend to its students, betray its finest traditions, and make itself a national laughingstock? Or as another Oberlin professor put it to me in a pithy email after the Gibson’s v. Oberlin verdict, “how idiotic can the college be always?”

This may be a class conflict, and a racial conflict, and everything else, but it also seems to be a uniquely Oberlin College conflict:

In the aftermath of the jury’s verdict, Krislov’s successor as president, Carmen Ambar, along with college proxies and sympathetic journalists, have implied that—guilty pleas, allocutions, and an exhaustive six-week civil trial notwithstanding—there really was, after all, something to the claim that Gibson’s had racially profiled Aladin and others. In interviews, Ambar has hit on a bit of bad philosophy to obfuscate this point. “You can have two different lived experiences, and both those things can be true,” she told the Wall Street Journal editorial board. One is tempted to say that the facile relativism of this—there is a Gibson truth and an Aladin truth; a townie truth and a college truth—reveals the sophistry behind Oberlin’s self-destructive approach, but actually it’s worse than that, if not philosophically at least morally. Nothing in the actions of Oberlin College or those of its dean and vice president suggests an understanding or empathy with the Gibson family’s experience.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It seems to me that this just reinforces what we’ve been seeing for months. The Oberlin admins are so bound and determined to stick to their narrative, that they just can’t comprehend what they’re doing.

I’m an ashamed alumnus. I sincerely hope that something will be a big enough shock to get the administration to change course, or to get the trustees to replace the administration. I don’t expect either one of those to happen.

    Pettifogger in reply to j-comment. | August 15, 2019 at 10:53 am

    In other words, Oberlin College is a microcosm of our society. The governing class can’t comprehend the concerns of the proles, assuming the proles must therefore be motivated by racism, white supremacy, sexism, patriarchy, Naziism, fascism, etc., etc., etc., by all things bad.

      artichoke in reply to Pettifogger. | August 15, 2019 at 7:08 pm

      The weird thing is, the Gibsons are wealthier than all but a few Oberlin students will ever be, they’ve raised generations of their children their own way, and they are now multi-millionaires from the judgment alone.

      How many of those arrogant social warriors will have no useful skill and be relying on taxpayers for their own damned maintenance?

        j-comment in reply to artichoke. | August 15, 2019 at 7:17 pm

        Yes . . . but that perspective is different the SJWs. By succeeded at running a business for 5 generations, and especially by making money at it, the Gibsons demonstrate to the SJWs just how awful they are. Wealth is a sign that you’ve been oppressing someone, after all. The only good wealthy person is the one who’s using their wealth to support SJW causes.

        I’m parodying, but not kidding. Too many people take the success of others as a de-facto demonstration of wrongdoing. The very concept that someone could succeed on their own merits and hard work, especially compared to someone who isn’t so successful, is anathema to them.

          CincyJan in reply to j-comment. | August 19, 2019 at 6:22 pm

          So who is payiing the little SJW’s tuitions and how did they get the money to do so?

          Gerald86 in reply to j-comment. | August 19, 2019 at 7:07 pm

          Worse, who is paying the administrators salaries? Probably the taxpayers. Radical universities are partially funded by taxpayers. The Deep State continues to subsidize radical social policy through federal research grants. Turn off the spigot. Stop all federal grants to Oberlin because of its civil rights violations. Send in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.

DouglasJBender | August 14, 2019 at 10:03 pm

Those Leftist academic intellectual floofballs can really be so arrogantly and cluelessly insulated in their ivory towers that they can become dangerous.

    Gerald86 in reply to DouglasJBender. | August 19, 2019 at 7:43 pm

    Here’s an insight into their motivation. They intimidate others through shaming and virtue signaling. How else could they earn six-figure salaries guaranteed-for-life. They control college admissions, curriculum, faculty tenure and credentialing of students as ‘professionals’.
    Do you remember the wife in Die Hard confronting the terrorists who claimed to be champions of a higher cause? As they emptied the safe of bonds, Holly Gennero McClane said: “After all this, you’re just a common thief.”
    Hans Gruber: “I am an exceptional thief, Mrs.McClane!”

“You can have two different lived experiences, and both those things can be true”

Is that really supposed to justify the harm done to the Gibsons? Is telling lies about decent upstanding members of the community just another “lived experience” like any other?

It must take a powerful lot of education and money to be that dishonest. I don’t think people come by it naturally.

    Daiwa in reply to irv. | August 14, 2019 at 10:33 pm

    I’d give this 10 thumbs up it I could. Spot on.

    jb4 in reply to irv. | August 14, 2019 at 11:21 pm

    Well, it looks like a large number of alumni and others in the general Oberlin community are having a different “lived experience” than Raimondo and Ambar with respect to the college’s behavior – a “livid experience” might be more apt.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to jb4. | August 15, 2019 at 12:41 am

      One day soon there could be two very different “lived” experiences between Oberlin and the Gibson family concerning the same event – the first of Oberlin writing a $40 million dollar check to the Gibson’s, and the second of the Gibson’s receiving that $40 million dollar check.

      Same central event – two very different “lived” experiences.

      Livid is right.

    artichoke in reply to irv. | August 15, 2019 at 6:21 pm

    Even so, a crime or tort is defined by its effect on others.

    So unless Aladin or Raimondo or somebody can countersue for Gibson’s effect on them (they can’t, because Gibson’s is quite innocent, so maybe there is an objective truth after all?) they are just fully responsible for their acts and the damages they caused the Gibsons — however they experienced it.


I’ve written it before here, and will write it again. I’m far from uninformed or naive, or so I think, but I continue to be baffled and saddened by the ongoing arrogance and heartlessness of the worthies of Oberlin.

This is one of those “small” cases where the facts are readily ascertainable, lending the dispute to ready analysis. Not many disagreements line up in a single direction, but this sure seems to be one of them.

Below follows video of Carmen Twillie Ambar lamenting her college’s current circumstances.

Edited for coherency: Things Have Gone To Pieces

I think this explains why Oberlin chose the course of action that ultimately led to their lopsided court loss: pure, unabashed, naked arrogance. Obviously the Oberlin administration was thinking: How dare these … these … DEPLORABLES oppose their moral and intellectual betters?!?!

The truth in this trial is in complete disagreement with the leftist world. The trial has been loosening and rattling that cornerstone at the base of their entire political agenda. To settle is to lose, therefore they cannot settle, because that cornerstone of “everything is racist” will go poof, and it is why they expended $5M in lawfare against Gibsons hoping to crush them. The only success that I can see, from this entire debacle, is in Oberlin never once failing to disappoint. They are consistently at 100% there.

In my last posting I came up with a final cost to Oberlin, in three years, of $67M. That will be the direct dollar cost paid out to the Gibsons, lawyers, bonding agents, and the court system. But in the overall scheme of things, I see it paling in comparison to the loss of image, students, and alumni support.

The bad thing about the death spiral, besides death, of course, is that one is usually pretty far into it before one fully accepts what is happening. In three years, after the appeals process has been exhausted, Oberlin will be well past the point of no return.

    rdmdawg in reply to MajorWood. | August 14, 2019 at 11:06 pm

    And to think that way back before the trial even started, Gibsons begged the college to do the right thing, and announce publicly that the Gibsons were not racists.

    It seems that at every point a decision was to be made by Oberlin, it made exactly the wrong decision.

      j-comment in reply to rdmdawg. | August 15, 2019 at 7:40 am

      From your and my POV, they made the wrong decision. From their POV, it was totally right.

      They’ve built themselves an edifice of justification to explain why they’re right and everybody who opposes them is wrong, despite anything like evidence.

      This brand of fascism has been around for ages, and shows no sign of going away any time soon. Another poster referenced Robert Neal’s “History of Germany since 1914” course. That was far and away my favorite history course. Dr Neal laid out just what happened in German society which led them to the horrors they committed. The parallels with what’s happening today at Oberlin are striking. I really wish Dr Neal were still around, and someone could get his comments on current events there.

    But Mr. Gibson will likely be dead from cancer and perhaps his father from old age; and the store may be out of business. In the college administrators’ minds that may still be considered a victory over “deplorables”, no matter how much it costs – putting an allegedly “racist” bakery out of business. Perhaps the press may see it differently.

    However, given the health disclosure and struggling business, I think the Gibsons want to settle.

      artichoke in reply to jb4. | August 15, 2019 at 6:26 pm

      If they need some living expenses to get thru the appeals period, a GoFundMe would probably yield plenty. I hope they don’t have to bend because of being cash poor, to collect the judgment they have already won.

      4fun in reply to jb4. | August 15, 2019 at 8:49 pm


    MajorWood, the trustees and the administration are navigating life with a completely uncalibrated moral compass which always points to nowhere.

    /s/ JD Nobody,OC ’61

Watch Prager U on what is truth. Oberlin is living in their “truth” which defies the facts. Immersed in this can there be any hope if lifting certain minorities out of their mess when their “truth” reinforces their beliefs?

ugottabekiddinme | August 14, 2019 at 11:22 pm

Just like Biden says, the left chooses “truth” over facts.

Comanche Voter | August 15, 2019 at 12:28 am

Well in the long run the college may get to buy that parking lot for song if they can string the appeal out long enough.

I’ve followed the reporting on Legal Insurrection–and read the Oberlin emeritus professor’s story in Commentary.

It really is ad. I can recall my long ago (early 60’s) undergraduate days at one of the California State colleges. I was active in student government and had a lot of interaction with the Dean of Students and his Assistant Dean–along with many of the other college administrators. They were warm and decent people–and were very easy for me to admire. The college had 10,000 students when I enrolled–and four years later had 20,000 students. These days it’s up around 30,000 + enrollment.

And times–and the administration–have changed. The Dean of the School of Business has just departed for another college–leaving behind work to be done pursuant to a $35 million donation to the School of Business. The current college president–a Latina–demanded a sort of loyalty oath to leftist politics, and when one declines the oath, one is shown the door.

That’s the kind of person my pet buffalo would not micturate on if she were on fire.

Colonel Travis | August 15, 2019 at 12:37 am

Dean Raimondo went to Brown and Emory, President Krislov had been a Rhodes scholar, Jonathan Aladin had come to Oberlin from Phillips Andover.

As is the case all over what was once normal America, leftists go in and tear it up.

Kind of reminds one of a older person bemoaning: “Kids today…”

When you put a schmuck like Carmen Ambar as a president of a college, you get the same result as when you put a schmuck like obama in as president of a country.

Colleges and countries are not hot dog stands. Appointing presidents who couldn’t run one is…

What Oberlin has done to the Gibsons is remarkedly the same thing the Dems and the msm have done to Trump. Even though evidence in both cases is evident and disproves both theories, the idiots keep on trying to win the argument. This can only be ascribed to one of two things, arrogance or blinding stupidity. On the Dems side, it is both at the same time. Oberlin seems to have two main people who see themselves as SJW’s and no amount of evidence is going to deny them a victory. Just like the slappable Elizabeth Warren, she is now demanding that Mike Brown was gunned down by a rogue cop. The evidence is overwhelming that Brown was attacking the cop but her SJW arrogance will not allow her to admit the truth. WTF is going on with these people?

The Oberlin admins and the Leftist are doing the same thing that Lenin did to Russia, with the same results. Death.

“there is a Gibson truth and an Aladin truth; a townie truth and a college truth”

Why does the Left and these so called academics always manage to confuse “truth” with “perspective”?

    j-comment in reply to Cleetus. | August 15, 2019 at 9:48 am

    One component of the sense of entitlement currently making the rounds is the idea that everyone’s experience is equally valid, and is the truth for them. While that’s useful from the POV of feeling good about oneself, it becomes problematic when it leaves the realm of “me”, and starts to impact everyone around “me”.

    I recommend a book called “The Coddling of the American Mind”. It does a good job of articulating how well-meaning ideas have morphed into toxic ideologies and policies. It’s dead on in describing the situation at Oberlin.

    Pettifogger in reply to Cleetus. | August 15, 2019 at 10:55 am

    Well put.

    MajorWood in reply to Cleetus. | August 15, 2019 at 10:56 am

    They confuse truth and perspective the same way that they confuse explanation for excuse and culture for race. It serves their purpose. As I have said many times in the past, “well, those events certainly explain your behavior, but in no way, shape, or form do they excuse it. Pay up!” We all know that Trump’s victory explains why the left has become totally whack. Now we just need to get it across to them that it doesn’t excuse their behavior. The Gibson trial was a good start to this task.

“Nothing in the actions of Oberlin College or those of its dean and vice president suggests an understanding or empathy with the Gibson family’s experience.”

Of course, they don’t understand, I suspect the President has made it through life based on Affirmative Action, she was never told no, and has “lived that experience”—-this is just another experience to her. She quite literally cannot accept that she/Oberlin is wrong, because she was never told she was wrong about anything.

As Leftism is a mental disease,stupid doesn’t play as large a roll as the mental defect.

“but it also seems to be a uniquely Oberlin College conflict”

With all respect, Professor Jacobson, you need to get out much more. This same sort of thing could (and with some variation has and will) occur in Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Ithaca and many other college towns.

They play to a different audience. The question will be which audience the donors are. Probably it will stay the same. Oberlin’s huge leftward lurch has been apparent for decades.

The saddest part of this affair? There was a time early on, prior to litigation, that this all could be avoided with a written apology from the college to the bakery at the cost of a single first class stamp.

casualobserver | August 15, 2019 at 10:07 am

Just my lived experience, but the more progressive people I meet have been, the more obsessed with power, power structure, and who they see as haves and not-haves in that context. It’s the primary driving force behind creating so many ways to group “victims” of power imbalances lately.

So I’m willing to bet that if you could psychoanalyze the Oberlin leadership that just won’t give it up, you will find that their core irritant is that the lil ol’ Gibson family has power the “betters” don’t want to allow them. The winning of the verdict is the worst possible display of power imbalance to them. Both the owners and the judicial system have defied the elites’ view of how power should be meted and to whom. Had the family been generational townies with other “group status” assigned to them, this….resistance?…to the lawsuit and outcome may have been different. Imagine, for example, if the family hadn’t been traditional (father passing business to son and then to son, all with wives, perhaps 2.5 children, homogeneous and of a certain race, etc.) and had been active participants in supporting certain political agendas. They would have been automatically granted the benefit of the doubt in the original circumstance that provided the spark to this entire episode.

    The Gibsons represent the “deplorables”, who beat Hillary and must not be allowed to win another victory.

    Leftism: the haunting fear that somewhere, someone is free.

    I’m not so sure about that anymore.

    5 years ago, I would have agreed with you immediately. But nowadays, there seems to be a win-at-all-costs attitude, combined with take-no-prisoners, that has the left eating their own just as often as others. It seems like there are no adults, or anyone left with an adult perspective, to say “Hey, we’re both on the same side, here.”

    Psychoanalysis: The board of trustees and administration are projecting their abused shadows – that is, everything which they hate in themselves – onto the Gibsons.

A second shamed alumna here.

Oberlin is fast becoming a place I do not like.

    MajorWood in reply to bookwoman. | August 15, 2019 at 2:12 pm

    You are far far from the second alumna here. 😉 OC ’79

      Time for us to turn activist. We got upset over sheriff Bull Connor in the 60s. Now its time to turn activist against Dean Raimondo’s bullcrap bullhorn.

      /s/ JD Nobody, OC ’61

    puhiawa in reply to bookwoman. | August 15, 2019 at 2:40 pm

    I was so appalled at Oberlin attitude for the host town, I quickly researched Claremont, California to see how the colleges and town are getting along. I was pleasantly surprised that the relationship appears as healthy as it was when I was a student. One difference is that a notable number of professors actually retire in Claremont itself, and a notable number of students chose to live there or around there as well, both while in and after college.They then become part of the economic and social fabric of the town. Oberlin really messed up in not admitting qualified townies and not having some of the faculty houses with the town.

“Nothing in the actions of Oberlin College or those of its dean and vice president suggests an understanding or empathy with the Gibson family’s experience.“
Perhaps the administration should sign up for one of their courses on the subject of empathy. But learning doesn’t seem to be part of their mission statement!

Oberlin administrators seem to think that they can behave in ways that others cannot. Perhaps they need to check their privilege.

“You can have two different lived experiences, and both those things can be true”

How unfortunate that a classically educated person can be aware of this truism but remain blind to any “truth” but their own.

It’s the Politics of Personal Destruction that the Left specializes in. It is the reason why dialog is almost impossible with a Leftist, the argument almost immediately veers from rational discussion to screaming invective.

The correct link to Socher’s article, O Oberlin, My Oberlin, is The full article is a long read but contains more detail than the excerpts at the top of this post. The full article is worth a look. It is excellent therapy for low blood pressure.

At your option, you can read it and say in all honesty that Nobody told me.

/a/ JD Nobody, OC ’61

    There is one factual error in Socher’s article which could be quite significant since many accounts have explicitly or implicitly made the same error. The error: The defaming protest was held on Tappan Square just across the street from Gibson’s Bakery. Tappan Square is Oberlin College property and is part of the campus. Therefore, the defamation du jour occurred under the control of the college since the college has control of its campus. The college chose to exercise no control over its own property.

    Similarly, Aladin was tackled by Allyn Gibson on Tappan Square. Although Tappan Square is open space in the center of the town, The police arrested Aladin on college property.

    Surely, among all the great legal minds posting to this blog someone can find a way to show that the college supported the defamation by allowing Aladin to take sanctuary on college property. Moreover, it could be legally significant that Dean Raimondo chose to blast her bullcrap bullhorn on college property and allowed the distribution of defamatory flyers there that were printed on college copiers.

    Now you can say Noboby told you.

    /s/ JD Nobody, OC ’61

      Daniel McGraw in reply to J.D.Nobody. | August 16, 2019 at 2:16 pm

      J.D., you have this on Tappan Sq. partially wrong. Yes, the school does own the Tappan Sq. property. However, both the shoplifter tussle and the protest took place on BOTH the school-owned square and the public sidewalk in front of Gibson’s. Meredith Raimondo was on her bullhorn on the sidewalk, according to testimony at the trial. The defamation at issue here did not occur exclusively on campus property. So, when you say “it could be legally significant that Dean Raimondo chose to blast her bullcrap bullhorn on college property” is not applicable, due to that she chose to do that on public property as well.

        Thanks for your correction.

        Doesn’t the fact that some of the misbehavior happened on college property carry some weight? It sounds like you are saying that if I stood on your lawn for a week defaming you and then moved to the sidewalk for a few final words the sidewalk would get me off the hook.

It seems to me that Ambar’s many creative excursions into the wonderful world of alternative facts could be considered a sufficient violation of legal ethics that there is a case for her disbarment or at least a suspension. Her logic is an embarrassment to the many decent lawyers in the profession.

In Ambar’s brave new world of conflating facts and opinions, it seems that she is impugning the evidence that was presented to the court. If I were the court I would be rather upset by her assertion that the court was just picking on an innocent college for the deeds of its students.

I hope that things have gotten to the point where the legal profession will stand up and say enough is enough because Ambar is generating bad PR which is probably tarring the legal profession in the minds of average people.

And while we are at it, let’s not forget the feckless trustees whose dereliction of duty allowed this entire mess to snowball for years.

/s/ JD Nobody

A word of heartfelt thanks to all of you on this blog who have helped in calling out Oberlin College’s unrelenting attacks on the Gibsons. All of you are making a difference by helping to expose this injustice.

I have made an effort to contact Prof. Socher’s office to inform him of one possibly significant error in his outstanding commentary (described in a post above). All of Prof. Socher’s mailboxes are full, which I interpret as meaning he is getting an overwhelming deluge of supportive emails.

Thanks again, and keep up the good work!

/s/ JD Nobody, OC ’61.

Daniel McGraw | August 17, 2019 at 1:12 am

I think you are missing a major point. It is not who owns the property that is at stake, it is the public nature of that property. Tappan Square does not have a moat around it and knights templar keeping the public out. The flyers were passed out there and on the public sidewalk and both were public spaces. The students resolution calling Gibson’s racist was posted in the student union and left it up for a year. That too is a public space. I’ve walked in it myself and I am not a student or professor or have anything to do with the school. So again, people are bringing in too much personal ideology into interpreting this case. The school was guilty of libel and defamation because they publicly supported and promoted and aided and abetted a known falsehood to the public. Very simple. Problem is that many people from their differing sides (and the school, too) are trying to make it more complicated than it is. Private and public property designation had little to do with it.

    Thanks for your clarifications. The core issue is indeed simple. My central point all along has been that the board of trustees and the college have accountability for what is allowed on college property as well as some control over it. The students seem to have had a blanket authorization to shove words into the college’s mouth – all in the name of free speech.

    /s/ JD Nobody

      i think Daniel’s point is that college officials were acting in their official capacity (improperly, per the jury) wherever they were. Who own’s it is immaterial so long as it is a public place. That is why Raimondo’s actions were defended by the college and the judgment, if it is upheld on appeal, paid by the college. Had she merely been at the protest as a private citizen and the college demonstrably had no official presence, I believe that she might only have been personally at risk with her job for reflecting poorly on the college with her private behavior (and the college would have had no exposure).

Does Ambar’s belief in multiple realities mean that there will be no more young men kicked out of school over phony rape charges? Or different truths only count for the right people? Aaargh. I sent an email to the College’s annual fund office and I described OC as having a$$clowns all the way down. The response I got was an Ambar press release. Does the college think that alumni are really that stupid?

    SNAB, yes they do think we are that stupid. That’s why they are throwing so much good money after bad to correct our stupidity with an expensive and sleazy PR campaign. Remember, the elitist soviet aristocracy named their primary propaganda organ Pravda, which means truth in Russian.

    With a little discernment, you should be able to see that Oberlin’s Cromwellian, self-appointed protectors of the truth must block and intellectually decontaminate the incorrect thinking in “Honest Abe” Socher’s recent article on Oberlin.

    And while we are at it, let’s make sure we don’t let “Backwards Bill” Jacobson off the hook for his tragically obsolete idea that facts and opinions are two different things. Intellectually decontaminating the alumni must be done immediately, before “Backwards Bill’s” contagious fallacies paralyze the entire alumni body.

    /s/ JD Nobody OC ’61

Oberlin, like Biden, said “We choose truth over facts.”
Make that “We choose our own truth over facts.”

Now that the August 19 deadline for filing post-trial motions has come and gone, does anyone know how or if Oberlin has responded?

(I tried to post this earlier – sorry if it shows up twice.)

This was posted today on the court docket. Note the filing date was last week. I imagine we’ll see the full analysis soon.