Image 01 Image 03

Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Bakery Files Cross-Appeal Brief to Restore Full $33 Million Punitive Damages

Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Bakery Files Cross-Appeal Brief to Restore Full $33 Million Punitive Damages

Argues that Ohio punitive damages caps, which reduced the punitive damage award by over $13 million, are unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case.

Last Friday, Oberlin College and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo filed their Appeal Brief, seeking to overturn the trial verdict. The NAACP also filed a ridiculous Amicus Brief supporting the college. According to the docket, at least one more Amicus Brief will be filed for a coalition of ‘anti-censorship’ groups.

Today, Gibson’s Bakery filed its Cross-Appeal Brief (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post). Wait, what is a cross-appeal?

You may recall that there actually are two appeals here. The first is by the defendants trying to overturn the verdict, or at least reduce further the amount of the damages. But the second appeal is by the Gibsons, who are contesting the reduction of punitive damages by the trial court which reduced the ultimate verdict from $44 million to $25 million.

I discussed that cross-appeal last October, Gibson’s Bakery files cross-appeal to restore full $44 million verdict against Oberlin College:

Two weeks ago, Oberlin College and its Dean of Students, Meredith Raimondo filed their appeal from the two jury verdicts in favor of Gibson’s Bakery and its owners : $11 million compensatory damages rendered on June 7, 2019, and $33 million in punitive damages rendered on June 13, 2019, after a separate punitive damages trial.

The combined $44 million was reduced by the Court under Ohio’s tort caps to just over $25 million. The Court also awarded over $6.5 million in legal fees and costs against defendants on top of the damages. Defendants were required to post a $36 million bond to secure the judgment pending appeal.

Oberlin College has lawyered-up to fight the appeal, Oberlin College hires high-powered D.C. lawyers to appeal Gibson’s Bakery verdict.

Gibson’s Bakery has just filed its cross appeal, and as previously predicted, Gibson’s has filed a cross appeal to restore the full $44 million verdicts, which added to the attorney’s fee award, would [bring] the total to over $50 million if Gibson’s is successful on appeal. The cross appeal is “conditional” because it’s only a reaction to the appeal; had there been no appeal, there would have been no cross appeal.

The total reduction of punitive damages was 13,125,500.

Here are the issues raised:


ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1: The Trial Court Erred when it Applied the Punitive Damages Cap Contained in O.R.C. § 2315.21 to the Facts of this Case.


ISSUE NO. 1: Whether the application of a mathematical formula for punitive damages cap is arbitrary or unreasonable as applied to the facts of this case under the due course of law/due process clauses under the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the application of a mathematical formula for punitive damages under the facts of this case unconstitutionally infringed on the Gibsons’ right to trial by jury under the Ohio Constitution.

Here’s the Summary of Argument:

A Lorain County jury unanimously determined Defendants Oberlin College (“Oberlin College” or the “College”)) and Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo (“Dean Raimondo”) acted with reckless disregard, hatred, animus, and ill will in damaging the Gibsons2 through their libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury awarded the Gibsons compensatory damages in the total amount of $11,074,500 and punitive damages in the total amount of $33,223,500. The jury determined that a punitive damages award constituting less than 3% of Oberlin College’s more than $1 Billion of assets appropriately responded to the dual purpose of punitive damages: to appropriately punish and sufficiently deter.

The punitive damages cap in R.C. 2315.21(D) is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case, because application here would:

• Violate the due course of law/due process clause of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, as the cap does not bear a real and substantial relation to the general welfare of the public and provides no rational connection between the amount of punitive damages and Oberlin College and Dean Raimondo’s wrongful conduct; and

• Violate Ohio’s constitutional right to trial by jury.Therefore, the Gibsons are entitled to the total punitive damage amounts awarded by the jury, without any application of the statutory punitive cap. A mere mechanical application of the punitive cap does not appropriately and reasonably serve the purposes of punitive damages—to punish Oberlin College and Dean Raimondo and also deter them from future tortious conduct.

To rigidly rely upon a simple mathematical formula when setting punitive damages violates due course and due process of law under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio and also violates the constitutional right to trial by jury. As a result, the trial court erred when it applied R.C. 2315.21’s punitive damages cap to the Gibsons’ punitive damages award under the circumstances of this case.

The Cross-Appeal Brief is a very interesting evidentiary read. It’s a reminder of the hostility the college showed towards the bakery and family. Read the whole thing about the evidence at trial supporting punitive damages.

[Featured Image: The late David Gibson hugs his grandson after punitive damages verdict][Photo credit Bob Perkoski for Legal Insurrection Foundation]


Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Appeal – Gibson’s Cross-Appeal Brief by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


JusticeDelivered | June 8, 2020 at 9:38 pm

I love this, how does that affect interest charges if Gibson’s prevail? Also, what is the chance of Oberlin being sued again of their ongoing defamation?

Oberlin is a College without students. It has Social Just Warriors paying tuition for a curriculum of revolutionary studies. But this fall they will all be able to gain credit by fighting int he streets. The un-woke might call them an unwashed mob.

    Ulysses in reply to dystopia. | June 8, 2020 at 10:13 pm

    Where do I sign up for the Rioting 101 Class?

    sidebar in reply to dystopia. | June 8, 2020 at 10:15 pm

    Will Oberlin enrollees be able to get Independent Study credit for looting?

      n.n in reply to sidebar. | June 8, 2020 at 10:26 pm

      Looting is so old-fashioned. The politically congruent (“=”) terminology is “redistributive change”. Let the semantic games progress. Also, a reproductive rite can be Planned at a convenient neighborhood essential service provider, because … Lives Matter, or something.

      henrybowman in reply to sidebar. | June 9, 2020 at 11:10 pm

      No it’s considered internship income.

Brave Sir Robbin | June 8, 2020 at 10:14 pm

A good defense is a strong offense. However, I doubt they will be successful. The law is fairly clear, and there is contrary precedent.

    Ken in Camarillo in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | June 9, 2020 at 2:21 pm

    I thought as you do at first, but the Bakery brief points out that the US Supreme Court has stated that it will not and cannot define a bright line on where a punitive damage award is excessive. The brief also refers to the Ohio Supreme Court allowing punitive damages in one case that were 6,250 times the actual damages.

    The winner in the brief is pointing out that an arbitrary limit on punitive damages can restrict them to the point that a defendant of large financial resources simply considers them as a cost of business (thus defeating the deterrent purpose of punitive damages). Turns out that someone at Oberlin was actually basing their thinking on that very concept; unfortunately a memo to that effect was discovered.

    This counter-appeal is a nice gloved fist strategy: never allow your adversary to carry on against you under a “nothing to lose” arrangement. If possible make their continued attack cost them even greater exposure than the exposure you have from their attack.

Blaise MacLean | June 8, 2020 at 10:29 pm

Dear Sirs:

Though I don’t know the Ohio law regarding the constitutionality of capping punitive damages I have a couple or three questions/observations.

1. On page 10, there is an email in which the university considers as a strategy “unleashing the students”.
(a) I wonder what it means to “unleash” the students?
(b) Who controls the leash?

2. As I was reading the facts, and recalling specifically the emails in which Oberlin (especially Raimondo) ignored the facts of non-racist behaviour by the Gibsons, I realized (not for the first time) that these were bullies determined to get what they wanted regardless of right or wrong. I could not help but think that Raimondo and MPD Officer Chauvin have the same mindset…she had her knee on the Gibson’s neck and would (and will) keep it there until they either capitulate or die.

3. What is the general opinion on whether Oberlin has been following legal advice? Are they? Or are their lawyers trying to salvage a mess that their client is determined to create?

4. Raimondo is a malignant, vindictive presence throughout (though she is not alone). The university has agreed to indemnify her in the event she is found personally liable in this case. If the university ends up paying millions, much of the fault will be because of her conduct. And this is obvious from the proceedings. Are Oberlin’s Board, authorities, alumni, donors etc happy/content about this?

5. Has this case and its notoriety had any effect on enrollment? Donors?

It is a fascinating case.



    Tom Servo in reply to Blaise MacLean. | June 9, 2020 at 9:26 am

    Much has been said in previous posts on this topic as to how the Gibson’s rather unassuming attorney’s have beat the legal pants off the High Dollar legal team that Oberlin hired. Oberlin’s legal efforts have been ceaselessly arrogant and dismissive of the idea that any lowly peons could dare to challenge their Greatness. We can only surmise that the legal team reflects Oberlin’s attitude towards this case perfectly, which is why they’re still handling it.

    Raimondo is everything you say, and more; again, from the evidence we have, we must conclude that everything that she has said and done represents the thoughts and beliefs of the Board and the University Administration perfectly. So, no wonder they have found no fault with her actions.

    To Oberlin, this is all just a Racist Persecution by a stupid pack of hicks.

    Several points:

    The anger of the demonstrations is not surprising, considering that they happened the day after Trump was elected. Not a coincidence by a country mile. The demonstrators numbered about 8% of the student body.

    The college’s vice president and general counsel, who went to law school, took no known steps before, during, or after the slanderous behavior to counsel, warn, or restrain Raimondo. I have personally interviewed Raimondo about the Gibson matter, and she is not a stupid person. She would have at least considered some competent legal counsel that might be given to her.

    The freedom of speech issue here is clear. The students can say anything they want as long as they don’t drag the college into it. The college has made no effort to distance itself from liability for words the students (and Raimondo) have shoved into the college’s mouth. Stupid.

    Oberlin College’s high opacity Board of Trustees apparently contains a cabal determined to fight stupid crusades. These Cromwellian, neo-puritans are guided only by a moral compass, calibrated against nothing outside of their own heads. Like the original puritans, they are focused on destroying any bad people that their uncalibrated moral compasses point to.

    The chair of the Trustees served for 13 years near the top of Goldman Sachs and was subsequently aligned closely with George Soros. No one could pull that off without tenacious convictions and the skills needed to neutralize the snakes in the snake pit before they neutralize you.
    I have discussed the Gibson mess, with plenty of overkill, in many posts to the blog

    /s/ JD Nobody, OC ’61.

      BTW, I forgot to mention that the chair of the BOT never went to law school, and it really shows.

      MajorWood in reply to J.D.Nobody. | June 10, 2020 at 1:10 am

      I don’t know why Twillie keeps calling this a first amendment issue. The students who participated in the protest were all guilty of slander. The only reason that Gibsons didn’t go after them is that it would have involved multiple suits and the likelyhood of collecting anything against the effort would have been difficult. What the college did was a separate matter, and was something that the Gibsons could hold them accountable for in a court. The college chose to get involved even though they seem to think of themselves as just innocent bystanders. As far as I can see, the students are not off the hook for their actions. They didn’t just say “don’t shop at Gibsons,” but added “because they are racists or something similar” and it is the second part which got the bunch of them in trouble. I have listened to what some of them said during the protests, and it would not surprise me if they haven’t slept well since the big judgement was handed down. They might still find themselves in a court defending their actions that week. As my dad used to say, “buy the ticket, take the ride.” I wonder how some of those conversations will go at the 5 year reunion. “So xxxxxx, what have you been up to since your stupidity nearly destroyed the college back in 2016?”

    MajorWood in reply to Blaise MacLean. | June 10, 2020 at 12:47 am

    >> 3. What is the general opinion on whether Oberlin has been following legal advice? Are they? Or are their lawyers trying to salvage a mess that their client is determined to create? <<

    This is probably the most discussed point in the long series of posts and comments. I think we have taken it through every possibility, mostly because so many of us are trying to sort out how things got out of hand to such a degree ($100K settlement offer rejected to $44M judgement delivered), and to really trying to sort out who is calling the shots and why? What seems to be consistent is no appearance of a logical pattern. As for the legal representation, we have speculated about the possibility that Oberlin approached a number of law firms who looked at the case and said "settle" but chose to keep looking for a firm who was willing to take on the case. Keep in mind, this is now a big case, and the consequences of losing could be disastrous to a small firm, whereas a large firm could just toss the results into the lost bin with no fear of harming their reputation all the while billing to a deep pocketed client. I had a lawyer that I had hired for a family matter tell me that 1 in 19 people are mentally ill, and that one person is responsible for 90% of civil litigation. I have also learned that bad situations are a combination of stupidity, malice, and/or mental illness. At this point I am no longer sure where they balance out in the case of Oberlin. The only thing we are pretty certain of is that the trial did not end anywhere close to where Oberlin expected it would. I am not sure that any legal team could have pulled out a win for them given the evidence uncovered in discovery. And neither am I sure that Oberlin would have listened to anyone strongly suggesting a settlement, preferably an early one, as the best course of action. I think it is fair to say that all of us following this for the last 3-1/2 years were somewhat amazed each time that Oberlin chose to double down. Seriously, hands-up, how many thought that Oberlin would try to make things good when the shoplifting trial ended with the plea statement of "no- racism involved in arrest?" Talk about completely ignoring the input from whomever is in charge of risk assessment. I knew from my time there, and from college communications over the course of 40 years, that they were some seriously arrogant prats, but even so the inability to display even a hint of humility in this matter is somewhat alarming. I have 6-month sober sponsees who would have handled it better. A little 10th step work and, poof, it's gone. But somehow the Basil Fawlty gene was activated and here we are.

    Part of me hopes that they are truly confused how it ended up this way, because if it was actually part of a well thought out plan, well, that is just scary that these people are out there and in a position to warp impressionable minds with that level of malice, all the while telling others, and possibly themselves, that THEY are the victims here.

That is what is called a ‘boss” move. Now Oberlin’s new DC high dollar law firm has to brush up on a bunch of Ohio statutes, keep racking up the billable hours.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to buck61. | June 9, 2020 at 7:45 pm

    That’s a nice point. I do not know what the DC firm actually brings to the table in this case, other than inflated fees.

filiusdextris | June 8, 2020 at 10:57 pm

Each of the first two paragraphs has an “it’s” that’s supposed to be an “its.” :/ Sorry. Thanks for keeping us informed on this important story.

Why bother looting and rioting? Law degree, lose multimillion dollar judgments, appeal them with endless drivil. Collect hundreds of dollars per hour in fees. Sounds like a racket to me.

So the Trustees are going for broke and risking the survival of Oberlin in their quest for social “justice”. Aren’t they charged with overseeing the best interests of the institution and protection of donors’ money? Where is the alumni/donor outcry? How do you remove the incompetent Trustees? How do donors get their money back?

I really hope Gibson’s wins the maximum amount of damages sought on appeal. It would be justice for the callous, mendacious, infantile and vindictive Dhimmi-crat jackboots residing in the Oberlin Administration.

    With all of the appeals and foot-dragging, I hope the new legal costs (+interest) more than double the original jury settlement amount. I need proof these days that there is a God.

Something doesn’t pass the smell test here. In almost every civil litigation, the parties somehow come to an agreement and settle … for something. Usually, this is in the interest of Attorney’s as well.

If I am a small business owner with a family to pay, and perhaps a mortgage or taxes, I would much, much rather take $25mm (or even $12mm) and walk away with perhaps an apology, than continue this ad infinitum. After paying for employee time, supplies from vendors, utilities, etc. I can’t see how that store clears $1mm a year. A multi-$$$mm’s “settlement” would be a victory.

Does Oberlin refuse to settle at all? Who cares whether one gets $24mm or $35mm? Seriously.

Or is there some reason that Gibson’s wants to keep this going to prove something beyond $$$$’s?

    GWB in reply to Yuckster. | June 9, 2020 at 9:08 am

    Does Oberlin refuse to settle at all?
    Yes. They are determined to crush the bakery.
    Please go and find the massive number of posts on this trial across the site. (Try clicking the “Gibson’s Bakery” tag at the bottom of the post.)

    (BTW, Mr Jacobson, you forgot to post a “catch-up” link/set of links on this one. Betting some folks don’t know about the tags.)

    Tom Servo in reply to Yuckster. | June 9, 2020 at 9:34 am

    As another poster has said, Oberlin has always refused any settlement offer. Those of us who have been following this case for years remember that early on, before the trial, the Gibson’s offered to settle all their complaints against Oberlin for $100,000 and an apology. Oberlin told them to stuff it, they would get NOTHING and like it!

    So Oberlin forced this long, ridiculous process – they made their bet and they lost.

    Ken in Camarillo in reply to Yuckster. | June 9, 2020 at 2:30 pm

    The Bakery was satisfied to accept the reduced punitive damages, but Oberlin insisted on attacking the damages award on appeal, making it necessary for the Bakery to defend the judgement. While having to do that, why not piggyback their own appeal on the reduction of the punitive damages, given that there IS a good legal argument for such an appeal.

    It is very likely that Oberlin is going to lose again on both, and be worse off than if they had just accepted the original beating and walked away.

    Always good to let your adversary know that they are not operating in a “nothing to lose” environment.

      Ken in Camarillo in reply to Ken in Camarillo. | June 9, 2020 at 2:35 pm

      Thinking a bit more about this, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were an out of court settlement by which both appeals are withdrawn.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Ken in Camarillo. | June 9, 2020 at 7:57 pm

        You presume sanity and reason reigns in Oberlin. If this presumption is incorrect, it is highly unlikely Oberlin will settle. You must remember, the assets at risk do not belong to the college’s administrators or the members of its board. So do they care much if it is burned in legal fees and legal frivolity? It seems to me Oberlin is quite engaged in all manner of frivolity to include its exercise of its core mission. If they were fixed on settlement, they would have settled very long ago. They have dug themselves such a deep hole, maybe, in their eyes, the solution is to indeed keep digging and try to emerge on the other side of the earth which is surely closer to the opening of the pit they have made.

    MajorWood in reply to Yuckster. | June 9, 2020 at 9:38 pm

    Your smell test is that this is not about money. On the Gibson’s side, it is about principle and reputation. On the Oberlin side, it is about the practice of being able to call someone a racist as a means to win an argument (IMHO).

    Oberlin has been a day late and sometimes up to $30M short in terms of settlements. I believe their last offer was delivered during the initial jury deliberation and amounted to about $4-5M, which is about what the Gibsons had accrued in lawyers fees (were it calculated on an hourly basis). Oberlin also wanted Raimondo removed from all mention in the trial (I guess someone saw the Title Icks stuff coming down the road).

    Somewhere in the past I believe that I documented about 6-8 times where Oberlin should have settled, but instead doubled-down. Not appreciating the nature of the counter-appeal will of course be another double-down, and will boost the final cost to my predicted $70M total out of pocket cost in a few years. In answer to another question here, my guess is that a successful counter-appeal to the original judgement would also be reflected in a higher re-calculated interest rate per day, and I believe a jump from the current $4300 to potentially $6500 was discussed at one point. That $36M bond may prove insufficient, and Seeley G. Mudd might in fact become David M. Gibson. 😉
    Oberlin can’t give in, because the Left is essentially defenseless without the race card. I mean, look at how far they are overplaying it now. You’d think Floyd was the child of Steven Biko and Mother Teresa the way he is being treated by the press, when in fact he was just a drug-impaired garden-variety thug who managed to get himself killed on camera. Under different circumstances, 99.9% of the white people parading about these days would have crossed the street to avoid him a few months ago, and I say a few months ago because now you can cross the street to avoid someone without it automatically being racist (and I guess he was covid-19 positive).

    At this point, my gut feeling is that after the suit was filed in November 2017, there was a handshake deal with an unknown player (3 guesses and two don’t count) that Oberlin’s legal expenses would be covered in return for the college steam-rollering the Gibsons out of existence to make an example. Run up the legal expenses until Lee Plakas says “screw it, I’m out of here.” But what wasn’t calculated into that agreement was the absolutely damning evidence uncovered during discovery, which may have been overlooked since Twillie wasn’t on board until about the time of the shoplifting trial, and she may have not gotten a complete behind the scenes picture. So Oberlin dove in, only to discover it was quicksand and not water, and way deeper than they counted on. So this could conceivably put them in a new quandry, because they entered into it probably thinking of only legal expenses which were covered, and never in their wildest dreams did they think double digit compensatory AND punitive judgements would end up on their doorstep. I don’t think Varner’s alumni email was pure incompetence. I think that she was simply shaken to the core by the $11M tsunami that just arrived from the North (second wave was $33M). I honestly think that they were still living in Obama-world and could not conceive of something like this happening, much like the Turks in Lawrence of Arabia. Rather than approaching acceptance, they could still be rooted in denial. And sadly for Oberlin, they seem stuck with Twillie and Raimondo and the rest of the crew because firing them right now would be the worst optics possible. The irony of getting burned over your principals, while at the same time appearing to have no principals. I am so looking forward to the movie version of this, especially if it opens with “this is a true story, seriously, we know that you will be going “no way” and “du-Uh” a lot, but it did go down this way despite the original players thinking that they are WAY smarter than the rest of us deplorables.”

Yuckster, Oberlin continues to fight the judgement, and it seems that its economic and propaganda war upon Gibson’s will continue albeit more covertly and deniably. Are your sympathies with the college?

    rscalzo in reply to pst314. | June 9, 2020 at 8:43 am

    No. I think they are valid points.

      pst314 in reply to rscalzo. | June 9, 2020 at 11:41 am

      I don’t recall any willingness on the part of the college to settle, so it seems as if any questions about why the case has dragged on so long are on the college not the bakery.

I wish all the best to the Gibsons, they really deserve it.

Also, reading the student newspaper, I think the college is in worse financial straits than we think.

Some background: Oberlin has two parts, the arts and sciences portion, and the music conservatory, the latter of which is apparently highly regarded. The students pay the same tuition no matter whether they are a music student or not.

Now, for many years Oberlin had been raising its costs every year (currently it stands at about $76k/year). It is not clear where that money went to. How did it get students to pay this? Simple! By letting in stupid but rich kids, of course! With all its talk of social justice, one would think they’d do admissions the ethical way: need-blind. One admits the best students, and then give financial aid to the poor ones. Oberlin stopped doing this a while ago. Instead, wealth is a factor in admissions: after admitting some good but poor students, they’d fill their class in with rich dumb kids.

But this wasn’t enough. For financial reasons, they decided to reduce the number of music students they admit. But, wait, I hear you ask, I thought the music students paid the same tuition! Well, yes, they do. But those pesky music professors insist on doing auditions — they don’t want to have kids who can’t play in their classes, no matter how rich they are. And so the music students were poorer than the arts and sciences students, and thus got more financial aid. And apparently wealth was such an important factor in admissions that this difference was significant. So, they cut down the size of the conservatory.

And now comes Covid.

At first Oberlin refused to refund students’ room and board fees, saying that they’d already been “allocated”. They quietly relented, probably because other colleges had already been sued for not refunding enough such fees. But they haven’t refunded any tuition.

And, of course, being remote does impact education! Maybe the Africana studies students can do everything in Zoom. But most students don’t have lathes at home. There are only so many chemicals that students can take home with them (“Here’s some sulfuric acid! Put it in your carry-on luggage, TSA won’t mind! Put a sticker on it so your four-year-old sister won’t touch it!”)

And, of course, hardest of all is probably the music students. If you are studying violin, you might have a reasonable practice instrument at home. Good luck if you are taking the organ. And if you are an apartment, will your neighbors like you playing six hours a day? Or other family members who might also be working or studying from home? And can your professors correct your posture, etc, via Zoom? Zoom’s audio quality is certainly not up to musical standards. And performing in groups is a learned skill, but Zoom has noticeable delay even in voice chat. It must be awful.

And, remember how I started this note talking about the student newspaper? Well, even though the students claim that they are independent of the college and certainly not its mouthpiece, it is clear that they are: they only complain about certain small things that the university does, never the large things. And they have conveniently-timed articles, like the one about the Gibsons just when the alumni were coming into town.

And the student newspaper has been amazingly upbeat. At the very start of the situation they had one article from a student whining that she’d have help out which childcare if she had to go home. Since then, they’ve been glowingly happy. Yes, the music students might be worrying that they can’t meet their graduation requirements, but some professors have come up with nifty covid-related new classes! Yes, students are studying insects in their backyards instead of the ones in their biology labs — what great fun!

The happy-happy-joy-joy vibe is so over-done that I can only imagine that there is a lot of administration panic.

    Tom Servo in reply to slither. | June 9, 2020 at 9:39 am

    wow, that’s quite an account! And a good analysis. I’d known that their Music Program was their Jewel in the Crown; I didn’t realize that they had been killing it bit by bit, and now with Covid – they may have already cut their own throat.

    and as you say, the student paper sounds like it’s being written by Baghdad Bob.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to slither. | June 9, 2020 at 12:52 pm

    Sounds like administrative embezzlement.

    They better fraud audit Oberon.

    MajorWood in reply to slither. | June 12, 2020 at 8:31 pm

    I think Oberlin is bored with Gibsons and they moved their excavator in order to dig a new hole, and this one I will call enrollment death.

    To summarize, Twillie just sent out an email detailing how Oberlin plans to handle covid for the Fall. Currently, Oberlin does what is known as a 4-1-4 year where one usually takes 4 courses in the Fall and Spring and then there is a Winter Term where students can do bizarre things for a month for credit either on or off campus. The new plan is 4-4-4, where instead of 2 semesters of 3000 students, they are going to 3 semesters of 2000 students in order to decrease the density on campus (yeah, I know, that one was too easy). Through some weird formula, they worked out which students are assigned to the various semesters. I was chatting with a fellow alum about this today, and both agreed that a whole slew of students might just decide to take the year off until things settle down, or if assigned to Fall and Summer semesters, just decide to do Fall and then do a Spring semester somewhere else. I am sure other colleges will be able to find spots for them up until the last second. Yeah, Oberlin in the summer in un-AC’d dorms. Happy Happy Joy Joy. As he and I had that white privilege thing going, you know, where our dads wrote 8 checks to pay for our college, we would likely take our $$ and go somewhere else for the entire year if say, we were assigned the Spring and Summer semesters. Those on a hefty financial aid package will have to take what the college offers them, but those who aren’t can just walk with their $$, and the last thing Oberlin can afford is any exodus of those who actually bring $$ to campus. I remember someone from the college saying that students only pay for 50% of their education, but when I divided the annual budget by the value of the checks my father wrote, it always came to exactly 100% If Oberlin thought that there enrollment was going to dip 5% just because the other factors going on, I bet this adds another 10 or 15% from students who decide to vote in the matter with their feet.

    But, to me, the best part is this Gem:

    Educational, career and mentoring opportunities for students who are not on campus. Students who are not on campus for a particular term will have career- and skill-building opportunities to develop new competencies and hone existing skills through internships, alumni mentoring, research, off-cycle group Winter Term projects and other experiences.

    Third-year students will be able to enroll and engage remotely in the Junior Practicum program and participate in a Career Readiness Summit in September for Winter Term credit. When registering for the program, students will select a complicated problem (like police brutality, immigration issues, income disparity, or public health) and career community they would like to explore.

    I am surprised that she showed restraint and didn’t just list all 10 BLM demands..

    Wow! Forget that summer job, well, at least 2000 of you. But we have a plan where we can guide you into the social justice camp of your choosing in the Fall and Spring. Why do I suspect that 1000 of them who aren’t in school this Fall will somehow get letters offering a temp position with some leftist cause or another variation of electioneering.

    Oh, and masks will be required, I am guessing whenever you are outside of your room. But hey, that should take care of the oral sex issues, right?

smalltownoklahoman | June 9, 2020 at 9:29 am

I wish the Gibson’s well in their effort to win cross appeal. They deserve every last cent they can wring out of that college after what it tried to do to them.

Let’s take today’s headlines into account. It is fair to assume the most Oberlin students and Raimondo would be supporting the de-fund police movement. Most colleges have at minimum a security department (like Oberlin) or a actual sworn police force (Most public schools). Those security personnel report to people like Raimondo. So now they want to defund the very security force they control (think Minneapolis).

Outside a few special circumstances private police forces have largely gone by the wayside in the US. The most notable are campus, railroad and nuclear facilities. The later two are more concerned about their physical facilities. Campus cops? Often enforcing the SJW agenda.

Gibson’s statement of facts is in plain English and flows very well.

It is clear that Oberlin’s staff and its attorneys were not acting as a team.

At almost the same time, their attorneys told the jury Oberlin got the message from the liablity verdict, while Oberlin sent a mass email out saying the jury was wrong and failed to understand.

It was great that the jury found out about Oberlin’s sincerity.

SeekingRationalThought | June 9, 2020 at 6:33 pm

For Gibson’s sake, I hope those fancy DC lawyers are as good and successful as General Flynn’s fancy DC lawyers (Convington & Burling I believe but may be wrong). Perhaps they can overlook a conflict of interest with their client as well? A college this stupid deserves the same quality representation as General Flynn and the death penalty at the end. A truly disgusting and pointless educational institution.

Bankrupt the woke bastards.