Raimondo had the right to go to the protest on her own, pay for the gloves with her own money, provide pizza with her own funds. Once she said she was there representing the school (she said she did it to ensure students didn’t do anything illegal, although I’m not sure how she would have responded if they had started rioting), then she was ‘the school’ and her office gave her the authority to act as ‘the school.’
This was not a first amendment case, so her first amendment rights were not suppressed. I don’t think she argued that they were.
If she would have provided coffee and pizza at the school, maybe that would have been okay as she could have explained it as a large number of students being absent from the school and missing a meal. This was off campus.
I’ve not heard of a school providing gloves and supplies for other protests or off campus activities. Most students pay for their own off campus activities, peaceful or otherwise. Why would students in Ohio, in November, not realize they’d need gloves for participating in an outdoor protest? Why would ANY school provide those? Why couldn’t the students with cold hands just go back to their dorm rooms and get gloves?
“If I felt a store was treating me badly, I would (and have) gone right to review sites to post my experience. Did so last week, in fact.”
Which is why those review sites exist.
“I would not call the police - having a store owner be rude to me is not a crime, even if I think it’s because of my race or anything else. Who would call the police for that, honestly?”
Well, you see, it certainly can be, if service was refused due to racial profiling. That would be a violation of the Civil Rights Act and you can bet that no student at Oberlin would have let that stand, nor would the College. The stuff the students were "complaining" about on Yelp, facebook and word of mouth was based on rumors and anyway, Yelp doesn't qualify as a anything close to a Civil Rights complaint.
Incidentally, as a college student I wouldn’t have hesitated to lodge a complaint for shoddy customer service. It’s called Adulting.
If the Gibson’s were guilty of anything, it was being suspicious of theft by college kids - and with good reason! “Obie-profiling” is simply not a civil rights violation. If the students didn’t like it, they could either work to change the culture of theft on campus or vote with their feet and take their business elsewhere. Trying to shut down the store with false and defamatory statements wasn’t the solution. And Oberlin’s participation rightly subjected the college to a lawsuit and huge judgement. It was a very expensive mistake to make.
^ So, it’s quite possible that Oberlin’s handbook tempts administrators toward unlawful participation in and support of defamation. That’s something for Oberlin to review internally going forward. Explaining why she was supposed to be there doesn’t get her - or the College - off the hook for participating in defamation. The trial centered around what happened there, not whether Meredith Raimondo violated or carried out internal policy.
Plaintiff’s version of events were corroborated by outside witnesses and unanimously accepted by the jury. Remember, proving defamation is a high hurdle - the burden was on the Gibson’s, not the college. Oberlin is absolutely free to cherry-pick through the evidence and testimony as part of its “response” to the judgement. Anyone wondering about the two sides to THIS story should go read the trial transcript.
Well sure, if all she’d done was approve gloves for some students, no problem. It was the flyers, the food, the megaphone off campus, the actual participation and taking over on behalf of the college an off campus event.
Everyone has “rights” to do things. Doesn’t mean we should. She’s the VP at a university. Right or wrong she represents the university’s image 24/7. Simply by showing up she was condoning the protest whether intended to or not. Perception is reality and all. Also, as soon as she or the school paid for any supplies it was sending the message that the school condones the actions.
You’ve never heard of paid protesters? If a school has the money for a $25 million settlement and continues to pay lawyers fees instead of settling out of court they must have a few dollars for other expenses.
You’re also dealing with 18 year old kids. They don’t always show the best judgement. Especially if they’re from other states and haven’t experienced cold weather.
^^ Or here, as long as people are posting statements, is the Gibson’s response to the Oberlin statement, some of which @OHMomof2 posted upthread. It addresses every point and question brought forth on this thread about free speech, what Meredith Raimondo did or didn’t do, and so forth:
Edit to add: I believe this is the updated version which addresses specific motions brought up post-trial, as well as nuanced arguments that Oberlin has made in the past few months as part of its PR campaign.
On the idea that the flyer constitutes defamation…I just read the flyer. It reads like obvious opinion to me. Is saying someone is racist against the law? How is that assertion objectively evaluated?
I also read Oberlin wasn’t allowed to present witnesses that did validate those students’ opinions, but Gibson’s was allowed to present witnesses to say they did not experience racism at Gibson’s. Why was that?
I would love to see the handbook. Especially before the protests. So every Dean has to attend every campus protest or demonstration to keep the peace? In the corporate world your senior executives are supposed to be aware but distance themselves from these types of situations. Plausible deniability if it goes south which it did in this case. Sounds like spinning the story for damage control.
“I wonder why the bakery never sued the students who created the flyer and led the protests?”
Hmm. Why indeed. Perhaps because:
The evidence led to the college spurring on and ‘unleashing’ the students;
Meredith Raimondo was acting on behalf of the college in keeping them warm and well fed;
She was passing out their work like a proud mom showing off her kids’ artwork;’
It was the college which insisted that the Gibson’s deal with THEM - and not the police - the next time a student shoplifts.
In other words, the college was basically saying “hey, we are subsidizing, supporting, nurturing and protecting our students. You want to deal with them - ya gotta deal with US first.”
OK.
When little Johnny steals the Halloween candy off your front porch or shoplifts from your store, sometimes it’s just better to take it up with his parents.
I’m not seeing that characterization of the college’s actions from what I’ve read so far.
Well I might look to the parents to punish Johnny (make him give the candy back? In this example Johnny and his friends were arrested), but I’m not going to punish Johnny’s parents. Even though Johnny is presumably a child and these college students were adults.
“On the idea that the flyer constitutes defamation…I just read the flyer. It reads like obvious opinion to me. Is saying someone is racist against the law? How is that assertion objectively evaluated?”
As repeated SEVERAL times on this thread, the flyer made a factual statement that was found to be false. Hence, defamation. It's not an "opinion" to claim that an establishing has a "LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION." That's verifiable.
“I also read Oberlin wasn’t allowed to present witnesses that did validate those students’ opinions, but Gibson’s was allowed to present witnesses to say they did not experience racism at Gibson’s. Why was that?”
"Validate" is a sloppy word, @OHmomof2. You must mean "verify." They weren't allowed to present any witnesses who could not verify that the Gibson's committed racist acts. So, for example, witnesses testifying to "well, I heard . . . " weren't allowed, nor were witnesses who claimed "I felt uncomfortable" because those feelings or rumors weren't concrete. The judge was clear on this. The trial wasn't about perceptions of "racism" - it was about whether the Gibson's could prove their claim that Oberlin defamed them.
Legally they’re adults but at 18 or 19 but how many are really mature enough to understand all the issues and nuances? Very few if any I would venture. The Gibson’s probably could’ve forgiven that. It’s when the “so called adults” got involved that the Gibson’s sued.