It depends on what market segment that they are trying to attract. If they have decided that full pay SJW’s is where they want to be, perhaps their position of woe-is-me serves as a strong market signal.
If students didn’t like Gibson’s, they didn’t have to shop there. There were other stores in town and the college had full meal service. The student arrested was shoplifting and trying to use a false ID. I don’t think there was any evidence that white students were allowed to use false IDs and shoplift.
The students didn’t have to shop there if they’d witnessed discrimination or mistreatment of minority students while in the store.
Again, is it realistic to expect white students to come forward and say they got away with using fake ID and shoplifting? The absence of that happening really doesn’t prove anything.
The college should’ve been able to produce one or more witnesses who could testify under oath that they went into Gibson’s and something happened (before the incident in question) that shows profiling or discrimination. Not just an intuitive feeling but an action. Examples: (1) an employee refused to wait on me but waited on a white person, or (2) the staff asked me to leave for no reason. Or I personally witnessed this happen to someone else. Instead, as far as I can tell, after the fact people started saying they had gone in Gibson’s in the past and felt uncomfortable. Is there any evidence that the people saying that told anyone else about it before the protest? The flyer said Gibon’s had a “history” of profiling and discrimination. Who wrote the flyer and what did they base the claim of “history” on?
“Who calls the police when they’re being followed around a store and they feel it’s because they’re black?”
- The issue is whether your judgement there is enough to justify harm to an establishment. Big actions require big reasons with backup. As an extreme example, if a white woman shoots a black man because she "felt" unsafe (and maybe confused his apt. for hers) she can end up convicted of murder.
Oberlin students were within their rights to decide “gee, I don’t like the vibe of that store so I’ll avoid it.” In this country the laws generally support freedom of association (or disassociation), except when civil rights laws are being violated. But if you are planning to stage a public boycott with intent to compromise business in order to “bring awareness”, you’ve got to have your facts straight. False information on the flyer subjects the entire group to defamation charges. That makes Oberlin a sitting duck because it’s obvious they were underwriting the entire thing, regardless of what they claim.
“BBB complaints? Do most kids even know what the BBB is? Are they still relevant at all? Witnesses and cross examination? These are college kids and if there have been feelings about the bakery, wouldn’t many/most of the “witnesses” have already graduated?”
- uh, look, @OHMomof2 - had there been BBB complaints, it would have been from other locals in the town and Oberlin's attorneys would have been on that like two years ago. Thats the point. There WERE no such complaints. Same, btw, with video footage. There simply wasn't any.
And yeah, if you are being sued for defamation, your defense is that “we are not defaming because this actually happened” and you provide evidence to that effect. So if you published flyers saying that the Gibsons were racist, you need to provide incidents supporting that. Students didn’t do it. Oberlin didn’t do it. Ambar on the Koppel interview couldn’t even do it!
As to “witnesses” who graduated - those are called “not witnesses” LOL.
“Evidence to prove a negative? “We were never racist, we never made anyone feel like we were”? How did they prove that?”
- With evidence and testimony. Under oath. The townspeople, including POC, were more than happy to testify and be cross examined on this issue. Same with the police department which testified that no complaints had ever been filed against the Gibsons. Eye witnesses recounted stories of the Gibsons treating those in the store with respect. Employees of color testified for the Gibsons treatment of everyone in the store. Read the transcript. Of course, one of the big pieces of evidence was the admission of guilt by the three thugs who were trying to steal from the Gibsons. Part of their statement was that they were stopped for theft and NOT because of racist actions by the Gibsons and that they hadn't ever experienced racism by the Gibsons.
“If they have decided that full pay SJW’s is where they want to be, perhaps their position of woe-is-me serves as a strong market signal.”
- True and it wouldn't be a bad idea from a marketing viewpoint. It's their niche. However, Oberlin has also prided itself on attracting strong students who can maintain the challenging workload. The niche SJW market isn't always known for excelling in rigorous courses with lots of critical thought and debate. If the type of student they attract going forward is of poor quality, that won't help with stuff like freshman retention, grad rates, career or grad school placement. So will attract even worse quality students as a result and so on goes the spiral downward . . . a classic "lemon" problem.
@JBStillFlying Don’t call the students who were arrested thugs. They weren’t committing armed robbery. Shoplifting is a minor and common offense. Gibson’s was justified in stopping shoplifting but it’s still a minor property crime and ultimately the students took responsibility for it.
To me, this case cries out to be settled. I do fear that Oberlin is waiting for David Gibson and his father to die and hoping to re-try the case without David’s moving testimony. (I say moving based on the interview with the juror.)
As for the flyer and the claim of historical profiling, I am reminded of a certain press secretary who had to retract her claim that countless FBI agents had contacted the White House to complain about the former director. People embellish or outright make up facts to suit a narrative, not expecting to be called upon to prove those facts.
Maybe there are some who didn’t get away with it, who did get charged for using a fake ID or shoplifting? I really doubt this was the first incident of anyone being arrested or even detained. Get out the records.
But really, the college argued that it didn’t support the students getting away with the activities (although there was evidence that the school had at some point asked the Gibsons to go easy on students for shoplifting and petty crimes), that shoplifting is wrong and so is using a fake ID. The school argued it didn’t interfere or support the protests. Seems a little disingenuous to argue the school did not support the protests but they would have been right to do so because of all that discrimination that was happening, and boy,they were sure of that because there was so much talk of it. But really they didn’t support the student protests.
The students didn’t have to go to Gibsons. The school didn’t have to contract with the third party that uses Gibson’s as a supplier. But the students did continue going there. I guess they liked the ice cream.
“Don’t call the students who were arrested thugs. They weren’t committing armed robbery. Shoplifting is a minor and common offense. Gibson’s was justified in stopping shoplifting but it’s still a minor property crime and ultimately the students took responsibility for it.”
Definition of “thug”: A violent person, especially a criminal.
- Sorry, "thug" might be too strong, even despite the assault the three committed (and I believe were initially charged with). Perp makes more sense. Charges of shoplifting and assault were plead down to one count of shoplifting and a statement maintaining that the Gibsons weren't racist. So officially, the perp isn't (or is no longer) a thug.
The fact that “shoplifting is a minor property crime” along with the “culture of theft” at Oberlin as described by their own student periodical should be an “ah ha” moment as to why the Gibsons might possibly be keeping an extra eye on the students. One needn’t be a racist to want to protect their own property.
“People embellish or outright make up facts to suit a narrative, not expecting to be called upon to prove those facts.”
- And when called upon in court it raises the bar even further. Judgements made on the basis of rumor or hearsay is more in keeping with a "regime" than a system of laws.
“But really, the college argued that it didn’t support the students getting away with the activities (although there was evidence that the school had at some point asked the Gibsons to go easy on students for shoplifting and petty crimes), that shoplifting is wrong and so is using a fake ID.”
- Even on this one Oberlin's "narrative" doesn't fit the facts. Oberlin tried to strong-arm the Gibsons into reporting all future "first time offenders" to Oberlin and not the police. So they clearly DID support shoplifting and fake ID's. Too bad Koppel didn't call Ambar on that one (or if he did they cut that out of the segment). It's in the court transcript.
If Gibson’s had a history of racism, Oberlin should have been able to find someone to testify. As far as I know, they haven’t.
On the other hand, Gibson’s had the testimony of Clarence Trey James, who worked at Gibson’s. Legal insurrection reported that:
Does that sound like a racist owner to you?
I think Gibson’s would have let it be a minor shoplifting crime (and the charged students probably would have liked that too) but the students and then the school made a big deal of it. Maybe it was all about to boil over and this was just the last event needed to make it explode.
It wasn’t Gibson’s telling any college kids to stay out, even after the incident. The cops came in and said the guy would be charged.
^ new to me (and to others) was David Gibson’s comment from the Koppel Interview:
“They’re going to be trashing us.”
Clearly they’d had trouble with Oberlin students and possibly admin for awhile before the shoplifting incident.
“Maybe it was all about to boil over and this was just the last event needed to make it explode.”
Remember that the event was immediately after the 2016 Presidential election when there was considerable angst about the results amongst liberals, and which I assume would have been even more intense in a state which was closely contested and had voted Republican. I expect some of these students felt they were surrounded by “deplorables”.
“To me, this case cries out to be settled. I do fear that Oberlin is waiting for David Gibson and his father to die and hoping to re-try the case without David’s moving testimony. (I say moving based on the interview with the juror.)”
- This would be a very, very unlikely event. There would have to be extraordinary malfeasance or really dumb mistakes on the part of the original judge for an appellate court to overturn a unanimous verdict, let alone toss out the case. As it turns out, the judge gave plenty of leeway both to Oberlin and to the Gibsons. Regardless of what happens to David or Allyn Gibson, their testimony has been recorded.
“But moreover, supports dozens of clubs with that sort of food/equipment reimbursement on an ongoing basis. I’ve visited that campus just once a year or so and had free pizza every time, sponsored by one school group or another, and funded ultimately by the college. Tons of things, big and small, are funded by that college. . . I wonder if the protests at Oberlin came under the auspices of a student club of some kind and funding came that way. This article makes it seem so.”
- The protest and defamatory flyer were voted on by the student senate and the College may, indeed, provide some funding there because it's an approved organization. However, this is a different situation from one where the College gives out budgetary funds at the beginning of the year for each student organization and then takes a hands-off approach thereafter. That might still be enough to prove "participation" but it seems more removed from what actually happened. The reimbursements here were specific to the event; it was obvious that the students had the Dean on board with their activities even to the point of helping out. That indicates that they were acting on behalf of the college, or that at least the college was encouraging enough to provide funding specifically for the protest and the defamatory statements. Had Raimondo paid for the gloves and pizza personally, that would be another story I suppose, but she seemed to have taken care of these expenses within the context of her role as Dean of Students at Oberlin. This is a far cry from having pizza on campus because you are a guest of the College.
I only got it because I attended an event where students were getting free pizza - it wasn’t for me specifically.
My kid’s college will respond to funding requests from student orgs through the year, including for specific events as they arise. Oberlin may have a similar policy.
“My kid’s college will respond to funding requests from student orgs through the year, including for specific events as they arise. Oberlin may have a similar policy.”
- Totally makes sense, and this might well have been a "facts and circumstances" issue. Also, it would make sense for the jury not to examine the evidence in a vacuum, given how quickly the protest was being organized.
This is one of the things that Ambar had a chance to address during the Koppel interview. She chose to debate another point about those gloves (the College wasn’t “handing them out”).
The e-mail is pretty clear that the college was - financially and otherwise - assisting with the protest. But I’m sure Raimondo was free to enter other e-mails into evidence that showed how she always had this chatty “thank you for helping” communication style whenever a funding request is made for normal student business. Instead, she chose to be a hostile witness. So what’s the jury left to think, exactly?
Did the college support the protest more than they supported any other student activities it may or may not, as an institution, agree with?
This is what is not clear to me from what I have read.
Yes, they did, as was well documented in the evidence presented at trial.
Can you share the documentation?
I’m recalling from the court documents here but IIRC evidence at trial showed Oberlin staff, mainly Raimondo, were engaged in:
- Printing defamatory fliers and distributing them to students at at least one demonstration
- Taking a bullhorn to the demonstration and directing student activity there with amplified voice commands
- Sending multiple emails and text messages in which Raimondo and other Oberlin administrators express malicious intent to direct student activity at, or otherwise actively intervene to cause harm to, the Gibsons-- e.g. Raimondo's notorious "unleash the students" email, and Raimondo's subordinate's urging her bosses to "rain fire and brimstone" on the Gibsons.
Again, all of the above is evidence that was admitted at trial. There’s more but this is what I recall from the court Exhibits.