For what it’s worth on the David/Goliath narrative, the newspaper for the Socialist Workers Party sides with the Gibsons. "Showing its disdain for working people in the area, Oberlin College claimed it couldn’t get a fair trial because media coverage of the dispute ‘would necessarily poison any Lorain County jury pool.’ ” https://themilitant.com/2019/09/14/gibsons-bakery-scores-another-victory-against-oberlin-attacks/
It’s worth pointing out that this thread was launched in response to the extraordinary spectacle of a former university president - not Marvin Krislov but Fred Starr - writing a signed editorial in the national press in which he said his college needs an “intervention.”
The former president lays out a careful, judicious and fact-based case as to why his college must apologize for its atrocious behavior, pay what they owe to the victims of that behavior, and reflect on how their foolish and reckless decisions created this debacle.
Oberlin faculty have also stated their disgust at the college’s behavior – as any decent and fair-minded person would. Those faculty include the former Head of Jewish Studies, Abraham Socher, and former Theatre Professor Roger Copeland.
Finally, even the students whose violent and foolish behavior created this mess have apologized, pled guilty to their crimes, and stated for the record that the smears against the Gibsons are completely without foundation.
And yet the adults who run the college have refused to do what just about everyone else - including the young perpetrators themselves, the townies and low-level Oberlin administrators of all races, former president Starr, leading faculty, and Oberlin alumni - what everyone recognizes needs to be done now: accept responsibility for your conduct, apologize, pay up, and stop smearing and defaming and bullying your neighbors.
Can you not see why this unbelievably nasty behavior is such a serious concern for prospective Oberlin applicants and their parents?
My own answer to that would be no, I do not see that, given that it is not of relevance to my current Obie and doesn’t affect the quality of life or academics for students at the school.
The only difference it seems to make is that some students have chosen not to shop at Gibson’s. I think it’s a shame this has all transpired this way, but it isn’t like it is seriously limiting students’ available food supply.
I have nieces and nephews at other schools where the issues being raised in these topics are much more directly relevant to their daily lives – schools cutting departments or majors, or dictating aspects of students’ social lives (think Harvard and its ban on same-gender social clubs).
I would hardly say that the only problem with Oberlin is this particular lawsuit. Every college has multiple problems. But if this is the only problem being discussed avidly concerning Oberlin, I’d be inclined to say that’s a very good sign indeed!
^ A lot depends on the outcome of the judgement. @oberlin_dad - should they need to pay up, do you think that Oberlin will be exempt from cutting departments or majors? Or do you think this is a non-issue as far as an appellate court is concerned?
I don’t think this is a money issue, but a “we’re right, and you can’t tell us we’re wrong” stance by the college. They’ve said the judgment amount will hurt but not too much. If they wanted it to go away, they’d just pay they judgment and move on. They LIKE the fight. They LIKE the publicity. They hope it will attract more students who agree with the college.
I’d never consider a college like Oberlin - or Reed, or Colorado College - for myself or my kids. I don’t want to be in a space where there is so much conflict, so much anger. Other people find it exciting and challenging and would hate the kind of colleges I like.
If I had been interest in these types of schools, this incident wouldn’t have discouraged me from picking Oberlin and in fact may have been a plus. If they can find enough like-minded students (and parents) to keep applying to Oberlin, good for them.
Even if there were no monetary judgment, the matter would still be appalling–for the reasons that Pres. Starr and Profs. Socher and Copeland have outlined.
In short, Oberlin is destroying empathy and substituting a particularly nasty and hypocritical form of political activism for the respect for law and moral principles that ought to be at the heart of a liberal education.
Longer version–here’s Prof. Socher’s take on why this matters:
"There is a kind of modified Pareto principle working at schools like Oberlin in which the radicalized 5 or 10 percent of the population establishes the tone for the entire institution. Of course, this is true of all organizations, but it seems to me that colleges are especially susceptible to this phenomenon precisely because liberal-arts education calls out for a unifying principle or goal, something that holds together this four-year experience of 130 credit hours in the history of this and the structure of that. Oberlin, like Cardinal Newman, used to have a theological answer to that question, one that underwrote one of the most principled stands on racial equality in the 19th century.
"Over the last century, politics replaced theology. ‘Think one person can change the world? So do we,’ has been Oberlin’s official motto for quite some time. It’s just advertising … But the attitude expresses the self-image of many liberal arts colleges, and many more professors, and since only radicals “know” how to change the world, it cedes them the high ground. The upshot, at least here, has been the furthest thing from idealism possible. Instead of unleashing the potential of students, students were unleashed on an innocent family and business. …
"…A university ought to remember that it is not merely a self-interested corporation but a community of scholars, concerned with truth and convinced that its pursuit is a genuine public good.
"Public-spirited utopianism hasn’t been much in evidence in Oberlin’s spinning and messaging in the wake of the Gibson’s verdict. …In interviews, President Ambar has [tried to claim that the Gibsons are racists by using] a bit of bad philosophy: ‘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.”
Oberlin College women’s studies got a shout out on Tucker Carlson last night, I heard today.
He went to prep school at St. George’s which is in my neighborhood and we track his show a bit around here.
Good lord. Oberlin’s doubling down.
https://www.oberlin.edu/news/oberlin-appeals-verdict-sets-troubling-free-speech-precedent
Looks like Chris Canavan & Co. have decided to roll the dice - here’s the key admission in his press release: "“The decision is grounded in the board’s fiduciary responsibility to the College’s long-term financial health,” said Board Chairman Chris Canavan.
It’s not about the college’s “values,” or “mission” or commitment to liberal education. It’s about a muleheaded and grudging insistence on not paying the Gibsons the money they’re owed.
Double down is right - the attorneys’ fees alone may cost them $31M!
For those who are interested in more than a one-sided view of the matter, today’s Forbes article seems to have the most measured, even-handed view of the case. I appreciate their concluding paragraph and how, if listened to, it might help heal the community:
“The College has assembled a strong team of lawyers and they have solid grounds for appeal. Hopefully, Gibson’s attorneys will level with their clients that the verdict might well be overruled and that it would be wise to settle the case for a more moderate sum and begin the process of reconciliation with the college, which is, after all, very important to their business. The College should recognize that they could have done a lot better and offer a reasonable amount of compensation to the Gibson’s.”
The whole article is online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/10/08/oberlin-college-will-appeal-libel-verdict-in-gibsons-case/
The Forbes opinion writer’s coverage has not been “even-handed.”
He claims that it’s “time to restore sanity” to the case, while failing to mention that the insanity – in terms of defamation, tortious interference in the Gibsons’ business, bullying tactics and absurd demands – that all of this “insanity” has been on the side of the college.
The Gibsons are entirely blameless here. To say otherwise is dishonest.
As a lawyer by training, he should know that it’s intellectually dishonest to ignore, as he has repeatedly in his summaries of what happened, that:
- the shoplifter and his accomplices violently attacked Allyn Gibson and that the college tried to pressure the Gibsons into not pressing charges for this theft and the related assault (Gerstmann merely says, "Three African American students were caught attempting a petty crime at Gibson’s and pled guilty");
- it has been established beyond a doubt, with solid evidence, that Dean Raimondo was indeed egging on the demonstrators;
- Oberlin repeatedly insulted the Gibsons by dismissing the damage caused by Oberlin's tortious interference in their business through, among other shabby tactics, trotting out an "expert" witness who ludicrously testified that the Gibson's business was worth all of $35,000.
- as the court records now reveal, Oberlin had multiple opportunities to settle for a reasonable sum, and passed on every one of them. The only time Oberlin put forth an offer that's even close to what any reasonable person - including Gerstmann himself - would consider fair was at 10:47am on June 13, 2019, in the middle of Gibson's lawyer's closing argument to the jury about punitive damages! Talk about insanity: How would any plaintiff accept such an obviously desperate and insulting offer?
I could go on, but please stop presenting this matter as if both sides are to blame.
That’s simply false, and it does Oberlin - and those of us who wish Oberlin would do the right thing and act in the best interests of the college and its supporters - no good to pretend otherwise.
Insanity, continued: For less money than Oberlin has wasted and will waste on legal fees alone, Oberlin could have settled quickly with the Gibsons and put this matter to rest OVER TWO YEARS AGO.
They would have been spared years of embarrassing publicity, negative impact on admissions yield and financial viability, and internal turmoil.
Any competent corporate executive would have chosen the path of a public apology, a reasonable settlement and a meaningful pledge to reform the practices that caused this egregious behavior.
Doing otherwise - and now doubling down and spending MILLIONS more, in addition to all the millions that Oberlin has already wasted, on yet more legal wrangling and bad publicity - is truly insane.
If you google “Gibson’s” on the Oberlin website you’ll find a blog titled “Post-Election Strife + Campus Protests in Response to Gibson’s Anti-Black Violence” with the following trigger warning:
It starts,
This is a pretty unbalanced reframing of what actually happened, yet Oberlin still has this blog entry on their website. Oberlin may want to call it a free speech issue, but sometimes you need to have an adult in the room, someone who’s willing to say, “No, that’s not okay.”
@SamBeaver - You do realize that this Forbes “article” is actually an opinion piece, right? Gerstmann has declared the Oberlin verdict to be a “threat to colleges nationwide,” so he, too, is “one-sided” on this issue. It’s called having a different opinion.
From what I’ve observed of this case, not understanding the basic difference between an opinion and a set of facts has confused a whole lot of those in the “Oberlin camp.” In this case, opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own, as that little “information” mark will let you know once you click on it. Maybe Forbes should make that more explicit.
EDIT to add: Gerstmann is an Oberlin alum. He should have disclosed that fact in the Oct. piece (it’s disclosed in the link in this post).
This is what happens when a defendant (or a defendant’s insurance company) thinks it is a worthless case and goes to trial rather than settle. They take their chances and, as in this case, can lose big.
Personally, I think the award is much too big and some issues were outside the control of the college, like Grandfather Gibson being hurt falling down the stairs; I don’t think the school had anything to do with that or could have controlled the students off campus. BUT, that was the chance Oberlin took going to trial. It was a count in the pleading and they had to get it dismissed or deal with it at trial. The trial team screwed up.
I also think Oberlin made a huge mistake by not moving this to federal court. They are now saying it is a First Amendment case, and those belong in federal court. Oberlin made this a huge, drawn out case and that’s going to run up the legal fees on both sides.
Gibson’s is winning - why would they settle now? I don’t know what the offer of settle is now, but if it isn’t at least $20M (plus attorney fees which I believe are in the millions), why would they settle? Oberlin is going to be out at least $20M in damages, plus another $30k in attorney’s fees on both sides.
The board of Trustees is not playing with their own (personal) money. Sure, fight on for the principle if it’s not coming out of your pocket but out of the endowment. I said on the other thread right when the judgment came out that this would settle for $20M and I still think it will.
“I also think Oberlin made a huge mistake by not moving this to federal court. They are now saying it is a First Amendment case, and those belong in federal court. Oberlin made this a huge, drawn out case and that’s going to run up the legal fees on both sides.”
- Not sure how it could have been moved to federal court. The judge would have needed to determine that the state didn't have jurisdiction. Did Oberlin even file such a motion at any time? (they filed to be given a new trial etc. - which was rejected - but that's a pretty standard motion in the wake of a verdict).
Oberlin will have to show that it has standing in order to get a federal court to take up its case. That typically means that the standards used to render a judgement on Oberlin somehow might be in violation of some civil or federal statute, or blatantly unconstitutional. Unfortunately for their case, libel is a recognized harm at all levels of the judiciary, state and federal. It’s not like the Constitution prohibits a finding of libel or defamation. So it’s an uphill battle for them on the constitutional issue. Their best hope might be on procedural grounds.
While I haven’t gone back to check the case filings – my understanding is the Gibsons filed state law claims for libel and defamation in Ohio state court. A defendant can only remove a case filed in state court to federal court if there is a proper basis for federal jurisdiction in the federal court. As both Gibsons and Oberlin are Ohio “residents” – there is no diversity of citizenship basis for that case to be removed from state to federal court. So there would have had to have been a “federal question” as the basis for removal. Again, while it’s been a while since I’ve had to think hard about those issues, if the plaintiff’s claims are based in state law – libel, defamation – there is no federal question. If the Gibsons had brought a civil rights violation or other federal question, then Oberlin could have removed it. But from the broad parameters of the suit, it doesn’t sound like Oberlin could have removed it to federal court. Perhaps there is an argument that when a defendant’s defense rests in federal law, that provides a basis for removal, but I do not recall that being the case (again, a long time since I’ve had to think hard about those issues).
As a former commercial litigator, my perspective is, there was a huge risk here to the defendant and most outside lawyers would have advised that was not a case you take to trial. A good settlement offer on the eve of trial makes it all ancient history. But Oberlin’s trial counsel rolled the dice.
There’s no real logic behind Oberlin’s strategy.
It appears to be driven by an obsession, with the Gibsons playing the role of Captain Ahab’s White Whale.
Oberlin’s (former Pres) Fred Starr is an embarrassment and – simply put – wrong. “The Wall Street Journal” refused to print my direct response to Starr. I will not to be silenced.
“Friendly Fire" is never Friendly
S. Frederick Starr’s Wall Street Journal “Opinion” reminded me why I, a proud alumna of Oberlin College, distanced myself from Oberlin in the 80s and into the 90s. Fred Starr was President from 1983 to 1994. My personal experience of him aside, he’s reminded me how destructive reductionism is. The Manicheans’ world view – eternal war between evil and good – bulges corporate mass media profits. “Thus there exist two different Oberlins”? Balderdash.
Starr’s just wrong about “Two Oberlins”. There are as many “Oberlins” as there are Oberlinians – town and gown – and have been since 1833. It’s one of our core strengths: generations past, present and future, striving to be open-minded, critical thinkers individually and in community. That’s also how democracies should work. Bad things happen when E Pluribus Unum gets undermined. Look around.
Pursuing truthfulness rather than polemics is key to grasping why Oberlin is now and has always been celebrated for its relevance to the larger world, starting with our gloriously fiery Abolitionist founders. It’s never shirked the arduous work of America’s democratic experiment. In today’s ongoing legal dispute, nuance and complexity are the first victims of the 24/7 news cycle, no matter who grabs a byline.
Starr denies readers a reality-check on Oberlin College being sued by a local business, while missing an opportunity to advance the quest for justice or to generate hopes for a livable future. Facts get the short shrift beneath headlines mischaracterizing this complex situation. No dragons, no crusade. He falls for the “David and Goliath” trope: small town business (Bakery) v dominant local employer (College). Nope. As they say in movies, “It’s complicated,” a point the Manicheans routinely miss. Sad.
Readers would have been far better served by an exploration of individual rights, responsibilities, of freedom of speech, of how cultures as well as people mature. Instead, Starr dumbs down reality to fuel fires championing the primacy of money, individual property rights and brute force. Sad.
I also find Mr. Starr’s characterizations of Oberlin’s origin sully ideals as revolutionary in 1833 as they are today. Why should we believe someone who reduces reality to caricatures and insults the institution which supported him, long after many of us felt his “use by” date had long expired?
Starr’s verbiage may ring rhetorically. It assuredly keeps his name in front of his clientele. But in fact, it’s as worthy of ridicule as it is likely to be embraced by true believers of the WSJ’s editorial page, famously distinct from the paper’s often excellent reporting.
From its inception, Oberlin has been in the cross-hairs of The Establishment. Today, it’s conservative pundits. At our inception, pragmatic Protestant Christian Abolitionists, preachers and laypeople were scorned for challenging their own profoundly unjust status quo.
We’d all do well to emulate these stalwart souls. As chattel slavery flourished across America in 1833 – and despite rampant opposition – they pried open the creaky doors to higher education for Black men. While women had virtually no legal rights, 1837 when Seneca Falls was known only as a Finger Lakes village, Oberlin invented co-education. Mighty tap roots from which many more grew. And hardly work of or for the faint of heart. Did they have differences? Were they human? Did times change? As sea levels rise are they reading “Opinion” pieces?
Starr’s implication is obvious: “in his day” the universe was orderly. Nonsense. The absurdity of Starr’s “two Oberlins” reflects my own experience of him, an infuriating reminder of a similarly unctuous tone evident the years he nominally led my College…when he wasn’t distracted by what he really cared about. Himself?
If this sound personal, it is. At our 25th college reunion, the Class of 1968 invited President Starr to be our guest speaker for our celebratory banquet. We knew he liked jazz, played the saxophone, had degrees. We did not yet fully appreciate how much we would rue the primacy of his academic interest in Eastern Europe and Russia. Who knew that while drawing a Presidential salary from Oberlin, he was in service to two consecutive right-wing American Administrations? We certainly didn’t.
Once given the microphone, Starr brazenly insulted our Class specifically and Oberlin in general. His version of our active participation in both the Civil Rights Movement and against the War in Vietnam was … nonexistent. Quite a surprise! Hoping I had misunderstood, I approached him privately after dinner. Starr’s dismissive responses – which I knew first hand were demonstrably incorrect – reiterated his view, adding that his college was everything Oberlin failed to be throughout the balance of its history. Recovering my composure, I asked the departing suit what kind of alumni support – financial or otherwise – he expected to generate with this approach? Silence.
Twenty-five years on, I remain appalled by Starr’s implicit and explicit castigation of genuine, authentic leaders, effectively and soberly grappling with society’s – and Oberlin’s – real challenges, which includes bullies. Starr’s own time would be better spent taking notes, though his capacity to learn seems long past. Tossing hand grenades into the culture wars should be beneath him … and The Wall Street Journal.
848 words
UPDATE November 1, 2019: Oberlin College’s Board of Trustees AND Administration both are proceeding EXACTLY as they should. Once again, I am PROUD that Oberlin is at the forefront in doing the right thing both for Academic Freedom AND First Amendment/free speech rights.
^ So, Proud Oberlinian: If this is a First Amendment case, how do you suppose it ended up getting litigated as a defamation case instead?