Oberlin ex-Pres. "Oberlin needs an intervention. STOP. Pay up, apologize to the Gibsons, reflect.."

Colleges & Universities Oberlin College
241

“The Gibson’s probably could’ve forgiven that. It’s when the “so called adults” got involved that the Gibson’s sued.”

  • Agreed. Had Oberlin distanced itself from the protest it probably would have come to nothing. It was Oberlin's own boycott that tipped the store into financial hardship.

Little Johnny and Suzy were lying. But Little Johnny’s and Suzy’s permissive college-cum-parental-figure claimed its own moral outrage (probably because “Our children whoops we mean our students would never lie to us”), underwrote the lie, participated in it, and damaged the Gibson’s as a result. That’s why the college-cum-parental-figure was sued.

242

If the students are asserting that there has been racism on the part of the bakery, then “I felt uncomfortable” seems entirely legit to me. It is, like the flyer, an opinion.

I still don’t get how that’s reasonably verifiable, especially when people who experienced “profiling and discrimination” there weren’t allowed to say so during the trial, but those who didn’t experience racism were allowed to say they didn’t?

“A Long Account” - What is that? Weeks? Years? Decades? One person per month? 3 a century?

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/oberlin-gibson-bakery-protest-defamation-suit-controversy-culture-war-850404/

243

“If the students are asserting that there has been racism on the part of the bakery, then “I felt uncomfortable” seems entirely legit to me. It is, like the flyer, an opinion.”

  • Yes, but basing your actions on wrong opinion is possible defamation if the action turns out to be harmful. The proper defense in a defamation suit is to show that yeah, they did do what you are saying they did. That's why the Gibsons were careful to show that there was no genuine basis for the statement that they had a "long account of racism." Such an account didn't exist, and "opinion" isn't a proper account.

“I still don’t get how that’s reasonably verifiable, especially when people who experienced “profiling and discrimination” there weren’t allowed to say so during the trial, but those who didn’t experience racism were allowed to say they didn’t?”

  • Because their statements was based on personal feelings, not fact. They had no one who could testify to a factual incidence of "racial profiling." Feeling you are discriminated against isn't evidence. This "different lived experiences" stuff has no evidentiary basis in court. Not everything needs to be litigated, including feeling that someone looks at you funny :wink:
244

Wouldn’t that also be true of the people who testified that they didn’t feel the Gibsons were racist?

Then Oberlin was not allowed to put on “a proper defense”, it seems. An appeal issue there?

245

Oberlin, with almost a $1 Billion endowment and I’m assuming an army of lawyers wasn’t “allowed” to put on a proper defense. Really? From the articles it sounded like they put up a defense. They just chose the wrong strategy.

246

OHMom2, are you serious? Or are you just gainsaying?

When you write, “Wouldn’t [defending people based on mere bias or sentiment] also be true of the people who testified that they didn’t feel the Gibsons were racist?”-- OHMom2, do you realize that you’re painting yourself into a corner?

Let’s apply your logic to yourself, in the role of the accused. Someone claims that “I just feel like OHMom2 must be paying Rick Singer to pretend to be OHMom2’s daughter and take the SAT for her.”

Never mind why this individual “just feels like” you’re a fraud and a criminal; they have made assertions, as if facts, that you are a fraud and a criminal and that, were your daughter to gain admission to a top college, that college should immediately expel her.

That’s not “free speech”; that’s defamation, and you can sue the defamer and, maybe, thanks in part to this extraordinary case, win back what’s left of your reputation and savings.

247

Oberlin was prevented from putting up witnesses who experienced racism at Gibsons. That’s what I’m referring to.

248

Not sure about my proficiency with paint and angles but yes I’m serious. If one side can present witnesses who say they didn’t experience racism at Giboson’s , but the other side cannot present witnesses who say they did, that seems off to me.

“I just feel like” makes that allegation an opinion, not a fact. No? Feels different to me than someone saying “I know OHMom2 paid Rick Singer to pretend to be OHMom2’s daughter and take the SAT for her”.

249

““A Long Account” - What is that? Weeks? Years? Decades? One person per month? 3 a century?”

“Wouldn’t that also be true of the people who testified that they didn’t feel the Gibsons were racist?”

“Then Oberlin was not allowed to put on “a proper defense”, it seems. An appeal issue there?”

There seems to be some confusion as to what actually rises to the level of relevant evidence for the court case. @OHMomof2 - does it help you to know that the Gibson’s were also not allowed just to testify their feelings or opinion that Oberlin was trying to shut them down? They actually had to prove that claim using facts and testimony that pointed to a pattern of specific behavior.

250

“Oberlin was prevented from putting up witnesses who experienced racism at Gibsons. That’s what I’m referring to.”

This stuff was flushed out in Discovery and amounted to accusatory feelings regarding the Gibsons. Pretty much all of it was opinionated and a LOT was 2nd or 3rd hand. NONE of it was ever documented (other than FB LOL) and - frankly - about 99% of it sounds like a customer relations issue requiring better education for all concerned. That might have been a much better solution than trying to shut down the business by crying “racism.”

251

“Oberlin was prevented from putting up witnesses”

Huh? “Prevented”… by what? Whom? What on earth are you talking about?

252

@OHMom

Do you understand that Oberlin’s witnesses’ testimony did not meet the standards of evidence that JB has, with the patience of a saint, repeatedly and clearly explained to you?

Again, “I feel” / “I felt” does not pass the test when it comes to alleging something as serious as racial profiling. “I heard so-and-so say” doesn’t cut it.

If you accuse your neighbor of committing a crime, you’d better have specific, concrete, verifiable evidence for that claim. That’s how our fact-based society works.

Please stop this gainsaying. It’s verging on trollery.

253

Legal Insurrection actually has a great explanation of what happened regarding witnesses and testimony. Snippets are below; can’t post the link, unfortunately, but it’s from Monday June 3, 2019 for those wishing to do a google search.

The TLDR: ". . . the judge did not want to open the door even a smidgen to allow this case to get off on a political track. He did not want the students or administrators to use the witness stand to debate if Gibson’s was racist or not. He did not want the school to bring up an expert who might testify that that reason the students were up in arms over racism because of the political climate of November of 2016, and therefore that was the excuse for protesting.

Or allowing the plaintiffs to introduce evidence or testimony that political ideology wasn’t the excuse for, but the cause of, the protests and racial accusations."

In short, Judge Miraldi is keeping this case as simple as he can. Namely, did Oberlin College support and help students defame a business in a way that was against the law? And if so, how much do they owe the business and the individuals allegedly defamed?"

Neither side was actually prevented from calling witnesses. However, once the judge made it clear that the case was going to be stick to the central issue and not go off course debating who was motivated by racism vs. raced-based political ideology, a lot of those witnesses and testimony melted away. Examples:

  • Numerous students were lined up to testify for Defense but were never called. Not clear why. Possible explanations are that the Oberlin attorneys feared the students would insist on calling the Gibson's "racist" from the witness stand, or that they would inadvertently corroborate Plaintiff's claim that Oberlin helped defame them.
  • Associate Dean Chris Jenkins, when called by Plaintiff to testify regarding his involvement about the flyer, started to volunteer how he as a person of color felt "uncomfortable" at Gibson's but was stopped by the judge, who told the jury to "disregard." Note: Oberlin could have put him back on the stand; however, any testimony regarding personal "feelings" wouldn't be allowed.
  • Judge would not allow young Allyn D Gibson's FB posts from 2012, allegedly including some comments with "racial overtones," to be entered as evidence. It's possible that Allyn could have been asked about those posts had he been called as a witness, but neither side did so.

Oberlin’s appeal definitely includes issues of evidence, but it’s within the context of requesting a new trial should their other points of appeal (including the free-speech strategy) fail:

“4. Whether, in the alternative, Defendants are entitled to a new trial where the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of conflicting information Defendants receivedabout the underlying incident and Plaintiffs’ reputation within the community, erroneously admitted other evidence, failed to give jurors proper instructions, wrongly allowed Plaintiffs to attempt to prove actual malice twice, and the jury awarded excessive compensatory and punitive damages”

On this particular point, I can’t see how neglecting to call key witnesses entitles you to a re-trial, but who really knows.

254

Thanks, JB. This statement from Oberlin’s motion to appeal is puzzling:

“evidence of conflicting information Defendants received about the underlying incident and Plaintiffs’ reputation within the community…”

It seems obvious to any normal person that, prior to making incendiary accusations against one’s neighbors, the officers of an entity as large and powerful as Oberlin would have a duty to perform their own due diligence and determine facts.

Which they actually began to do, when Raimondo (and Krislov, IIUC) asked their asked their colleague to canvas her local/townie POC friends and contacts regarding whether the Gibsons were viewed as racists. Her strongly worded report, via email, was that there was absolutely no such perception at all and that the College - her employer, remember - was making a huge mistake by pursuing this. Raimondo et al. simply ignored their colleague’s report and her warning, and sallied forth to defame and bully the Gibsons.

Damning as it was, this Oberlin colleague’s email report was introduced at trial (I forget which exhibit #, sorry) as evidence of IIRC the reckless nature of Oberlin’s conduct regarding ascertaining the facts of the situation before defaming the Gibsons.

255

Many parents here will remember a show from the 70s called the The Six Million Dollar Man with Steve Austin as a cyborg superhero.

I think a sequel/parody is in order, with Dean Raimondo as the The Sixty Million Dollar Woman, an estimate of how much she is going to cost Oberlin when this is all over.

256

Dean Raimondo doesn’t have that kind of money. She’s just the mouthpiece for whatever agenda is being pushed. I even doubt Oberlin the school itself will take the hit and payout.

In the real world the Board of Directors, Trustees, or Regents would have settled out of court and censured or fired the Dean. No way would they risk a big payout which is exactly what happened. Deans aren’t allowed to risk millions of dollars on lawsuits. Someone higher up at Oberlin (powerful donor(s) or endowment fund manager) approved all this.

257

Of course she doesn’t have that kind of money, but Oberlin does.

And as for someone higher than the former President calling the shots, don’t be too sure. No educational institution worthy of the name wants to cede decision making authority to someone on the board.

No, I think that Oberlin’s President and underlings were simply too incompetent to understand that a company doesn’t get to engage in this kind of behavior. And the sad thing is that this incompetence is continuing with the new President.

258

So who ultimately writes the $25+ million check? And you don’t think they’ll mind? You’ll think they’ll tell the Dean “that’s OK, I don’t mind writing multi-million $ checks every time you screw up, carry-on”? They may not “want” to cede decision making authority but when it comes to writing huge checks I really doubt they get to make that call.

I agree the Dean and President and whoever are incompetent…or maybe they are competent…they just don’t care because the person writing the checks has their back.

259

I think I answered my question. Look at the bios of the trustees. Wow. Who’s who of SJW. $25 million is pocket change to these people.

https://www.oberlin.edu/general-counsel-and-secretary/trustees

260

Oberlin has made plenty of recent statements, including some of the stuff in Ambar’s interview with Ted Koppel, clarfying that they don’t accept the plea deal for the shoplifter and his accomplices, they don’t accept the Gibson’s good standing in the community, and they don’t accept the fact pattern as it unfolded at trial. They certainly don’t accept the verdict. They will do whatever it takes to overturn those somehow (even if just in the court of public opinion).

However, a new trial with new evidence is Plan C. Plans A and B are to overturn both portions of the judgement because “Free Speech.” Their wording: “Whether Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ libel claim where the student speech at issue is constitutionally protected and Defendants did not publish that speech, much less do so with the constitutionally required degree of fault” - seems to indicate the position that their activities didn’t meet some minimum bar you have to clear in order to make it libel as opposed to free speech. I wonder what they think that bar is, exactly, or where in the actual first amendment such bar appears. You don’t have to be an Originalist to dismiss this notion as creative but not relevant.

I also wonder whether, as part of Plan C, they are going to argue that context is important and that, by eschewing the political debate, the judge eliminated critical evidence to provide a contextual explanation of everything. What could go wrong with that line of reasoning? LOL. But I can see why Plan C has to be a new trial because Oberlin was the one who opted not to put a bunch of witnesses on the stand. As much as they disagree with the judge’s attempt to keep the trial “simple”, they made that decision to eliminate some witnesses and decline to question others; it can’t be undone unless they get a complete “do over.”