Less heat and more light in these posts please. Anger serves the search for truth and justice only if it ultimately melts and melds into the universal truth of every world religion, “Do unto others…”
Oberlin is facing a headwind in terms of staying relevant due to declining interest among potential students, and that was before the Gibson verdict:
http://www2.oberlin.edu/instres/irhome/admissions.pdf
Peak interest for the liberal arts college was in 2016 (i.e. the class graduating next spring) with 7257 students applying, 16% higher than the 6264 that applied in 2019. Acceptance rates have risen from 29% to 40% over 3 years.
It will be interesting to see what happens in terms of 2020 applications and admissions. Will fewer students apply because of the controversy? Or will all activist students flock to Oberlin, thinking they have found a “home”?
I also wonder what potential students to the conservatory think about this drama. Admissions to the conservatory has remained as selective as it was a few years ago. Do these students buy into the activism? Or do they tolerate it as the price of admission to a world-class conservatory?
I agree it will be interesting to see what happens with apps this year. This is also the first year that Oberlin intended to shift 100 student spots from the conservatory to the liberal arts side…this article has some details on that, as well as recent conservatory acceptance/enrollment numbers. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/04/18/amid-budget-deficits-and-unfavorable-demographics-oberlin-pushes-do-more-less
I think that shift is ill advised. I think Oberlin is going to need the conservatory ratings to help carry them a bit while this mess is still in the picture.
Mighty Penn State that rarely gave out merit money is still doling it out from the Sandusky scandal. Fall from Grace of Paterno and football hit the school hard Oberlin scandal not as bandied in the news but many who do look carefully into the colleges, often those who pay full freight will often scrutinize. Many not interested in this sort of thing taking up schools attention
Prior attempts to raise enrollment at the College of A&S had only a small positive impact on revenues, according to the Higher Ed article. The incremental addition apparently comes with either higher financial aid requirements or higher merit demands. They could, of course, open the gates to 100 full pays (adding 25 or so each year for the next four years), but they may have to be willing to drop their admission standards or change their culture in order to attract these students. With a significant enrollment cliff on the horizon for all colleges and universities (the Great Recession produced few children here in the US), now is the time to be thinking how to sustain revenues in the future. Those institutions struggling to maintain revenues currently may well find themselves in a real pickle in 8-10 years time. And that’s aside from the increased financial burden from an adverse judgement, extra litigation costs, and so forth.
Not sure that cannibalizing the Conservatory and opening it up to more regular college enrollees is the answer, but perhaps it buys them time. It’s possible that the outlook for conservatories in general is worse than for rural LAC’s! If so, only a very small number of very selective programs will survive. So it might make sense for Oberlin to trade some quantity for quality when it comes to the conservatory. Many top institutes are quite small and have simply outstanding faculty available to teach a very select group of musicians in training. Oberlin plans to diversity its repertoire, shore up the professional and entrepreneurial training, and increase the musical opportunities to the non-performance majors - all while shrinking the Conservatory. It’ll be interesting to see how they manage this.
Please check out the facts of the matter.
Remember who sued whom. Gibsons claimed one thing (defamation/libel). Oberlin RIGHTLY defended the charges because its students were practicing their right to Free Speech. Thankfully, our rightly esteemed institution is fiercely committed to Academic Freedom…of which there is NONE if Free Speech is stiffled.
It is ALSO noteworthy there are other extenuating circumstances in the trial itself. As our highly accomplished President said – this case is complicated and nuanced.
Neither nuance nor complications appear in Mass Media hit-jobs (sadly relied upon in too much of this stream,) as has been the case as Oberlin has consistently led the nation – morally, ethically and legally as well maintaining the highest possible standards of academic achievement/s – since 1833.
Thank you.
The Gibsons sued the college because of the behavior of the administrators, not the students. If the case had been based solely on the actions of students, then I might find the argument of Proud Oberlinian more convincing. Also if Oberlin is such a bastion of free speech, why hasn’t it adopted the Chicago Principles and why does it have a Yellow Light rating on the FIRE database?
Also note that the focus of the Chicago Principles is on the college NOT interfering with student’s expressions. The idea is that the administration should be mostly hands off. But it also specifically says that, as an exception to the usual “hands off” rule, the university may restrict expression that falsely defames a specific individual. https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf. Here Oberlin did the opposite of what the Chicago Principles encourage. Oberlin administrators chose to participate in and facilitate activity that a jury found to have defamed a specific individual. Student protestors are fond of saying that free speech has consequences. These are consequences rendered by a jury.
Trusting there is genuine interest in learning among those in this stream…
I strongly suggest going to Oberlin’s extensive wealth of information specifically addressing both questions and concerns, including succinct FAQs. Transparency at its BEST. https://www.oberlin.edu/news-and-events/bakery-litigation
Please note misconceptions specifically relating to Corinthian and JBStillFlying.
And thank you, Nan1479 for your plea for civility. It is part of Oberlin’s “core values” too.
Only a few years ago Oberlin was considering imposing a “trigger warning” mandate on its faculty. Not surprisingly, It was tabled due to strong faculty opposition - precisely because such a mandate would be controlling academic freedom and speech.
While Pres. Ambar is incorrect that a straightforward defamation case is “complicated and nuanced,” Oberlin’s own understanding of free speech seems to fit that description.
Proud Oberlinian doesn’t get that Oberlin wasn’t required - via the Handbook, the Constitution or any other internal or external rules, procedures or laws - to underwrite its students’ speech. In doing so, Obie crossed the line between “support” and ownership. The facts at trial supported this finding, and no amount of “hearsay” or other “extenuating circumstances” mitigated that ownership. It’s common sense. If you harm another party, and are found to have tried to harm another party, through your words and actions, you are subject to a defamation judgement. Every civil code available covers this particular infraction.
So it’s not about “Free Speech.” As Oberlin knows.
Also, let’s use our noggins here: suppose instead of students against racism, it was the Oberlin Student White Nationalists* who were planning some protest. Raise of hands: who believes that Oberlin would be passing out fliers and providing mittens and hot chocolate? Anyone? Oberlin officials will reserve the right to disagree with certain speech and refuse to take any action that might be construed as facilitating, advocating, or underwriting. They are within their rights - and their responsibilities - to do so. “Supporting free speech” simply means a college doesn’t interfere or prevent, as @Corinthian pointed out. It does NOT mean they are required to enable, encourage or lead.
- This is called a "hypothetical situation" just to avoid any confusion.
CBS Sunday Morning aired a story this morning:
Ted Koppel wasn’t buying what Carmen Ambar was selling. Oberlin can’t be happy about the timing of this interview - less than two weeks before ED applications are due.
Ouch. Koppel stuck to the facts. Good for him.
Ambar revealed her hand at the end: The court-determined price on reputation was excessive, in Oberlin’s view. Translation: Yeah, we damaged the Gibson’s but the jury is over-punishing us. So much for “Free Speech” LOL. Koppel stuck to concrete - and tough - questions, so Ambar really didn’t have any wiggle room to go off topic. She had no choice but to blurt out the truth at some point. And, BTW, that statement is consistent with Oberlin’s defense at trial. They didn’t blather on and on about free speech - their lawyers were too intelligent to run that fool’s errand.
This is a piece of information I hadn’t seen before (source = the Koppel interview),
^ Which makes Ambar look like a complete idiot. From the interview:
Koppel: “Well, let’s take each of the sort of individual charges that were made against the college. The purchasing and handing out of gloves?”
Ambar: “The college didn’t pass out gloves and didn’t hand out gloves”
Koppel: “Well, the college didn’t, but people representing the college did.”
Ambar: “The college disputes those facts, that it ‘handed out gloves.’”
Koppel: “Where did the gloves come from?”
Ambar: “Well, the college disputes handing out gloves.”
Koppel (narrating): Factually correct, but still misleading. A student bought the gloves, but only after sending an email, requesting reimbursement, to Meredith Raimondo, the Dean of Students.
See @Sue22’s post #122 for the rest.
And then there is this gem of an exchange in which Ambar is going on about some “series of things” that had happened at the store to set off the protests - the “core issue here” as she describes it - and then appears startled when Koppel asks for specifics. Check it out - she actually loses her composure for a fraction of a second at about Minute 9:55. And then - because she had just uttered a false statement - walks it back and resorts to vague hearsay:
Ambar: “Well, the students plead guilty to shoplifting. There has been some debate about whether it was shoplifting or false ID.”
Koppel: “Well, it was both.”
Ambar: “Right. Well, I think that one of the things that the college has always said is that the college has not, doesn’t condone shoplifting, doesn’t condone bad behavior by its students in any way, shape or form. But what led up to the protest, and I think that’s sort of, kind of the core issue here, was some series of things that happened before, some perspectives about people’s experiences in the store.”
Koppel: “Well, tell me about those, then, and be specific. What specific incidents are you referring to that happened before?”
Ambar: “Well, I think that the specific incidents would be the perception by faculty and students and staff and other people in the town that there had been disparate treatment with respect to people of color in the store. The way I would phrase it [is] kind of different ‘lived experiences.’”
Koppel (narrating): Dave O’Brien, who covered the trial for the local paper, the Chronicle Telegram, said, “This is all basically anecdotal evidence: People commenting on social media saying, ‘I felt uncomfortable in there. I felt like I was targeted because of the color of my skin.’”
And that’s the president of Oberlin College, folks. Guessing this wasn’t the way the interview was expected to go.
@sue22 as I read the pizza/gloves reimbursement i the article above, I thought immediately of my kids’ alma mater which also supported a student protest with food (a library sit-in the year that I’m thinking of).
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.
Seems reasonable to me. Feelings are by their nature anecdotal.
What kind of specific incidents is she supposed to name? Did students need to make undercover videos in the store and bring them to the college over the years so she could keep records and have them handy for him? What level of evidence would be expected here?
When I went to college, there were places that were not student friendly that most of us frequented for convenience sake. For the same reason , the school often used their goods in catered events. Mediocre, over priced but convenient. They got cut out of school functions due to a cluster of student complaints. It happens.
And I see no problem in providing support for protests that students choose subject to certain criteria . Though I do raise my eyebrows that they are reimbursing …gloves?
I also believe the amount of damages is way too high.
So, looking at the facts of a lot of this—and I’m no Fan of Oberlin, I can see the school’s point in their position. I even see some issues with the initial incident that triggered all of this.
But how Oberlin is handling this is horrible. They are their own worst enemy here. From the get go, it was a hot mess. A likely to become hotter and messier That interview did not go well for the school and the person they sent in there was terrible.
She’s the President of the college! ‘They’ didn’t send her in, SHE sent herself in. I do agree the juror gave a better interview than the president.
“What kind of specific incidents is she supposed to name? Did students need to make undercover videos in the store and bring them to the college over the years so she could keep records and have them handy for him? What level of evidence would be expected here?”
Possible suggestions:
- Security cameras or footage from someone’s IPhone
- Reports to the police
- Complaints to the Better Business Bureau
- Witnesses lining up willing not only to testify under oath to specific incidents but also willing to be cross examined
All this stuff was flushed out in Discovery. Oberlin didn’t have any of this - and the Gibson’s had a LOT of evidence and testimony to the contrary which were all presented in court.
“Whisper Down the Lane” has never met the standard for evidence - even if “documented” on FB with “your side of the story.” That should be a no brainer and it applies to both sides. For instance, Gibson’s couldn’t win a defamation complaint based on perceptions, feelings or rumors of a smear campaign. They had to use facts. Which apparently were in abundance.
Oberlin, on the other hand, was short of available facts. They based their actions on “Whisper Down the Lane” and it came back to bite them.
Something else happening currently and worth keeping an eye on:
Ambar, by continuing the drum-beat with her statements of incidents and “perceptions” of racism also risks another defamation suit, unless she can produce specific faculty and Oberlin administrators to back up her claim. Best guess is that Raimondo won’t be willing to help there 
However, very likely it won’t come to that, because it doesn’t need to. The Gibson’s attorneys filed a motion to reinstate the original $44 million damages, which apparently is possible under appeal. Their main argument is that Oberlin is ignoring the entire verdict, as evidenced by their very public statements about the Gibsons and “racism” in the wake of the verdict. Ambar’s recent statements to Ted Koppel just might become Exhibit A when the appellate court considers that motion.
I don’t think any of those are realistic options for college students.
Who calls the police when they’re being followed around a store and they feel it’s because they’re black? Maybe someone might have the presence of mind to pull out a phone if confronted, but I think it unlikely they would to record being followed or started at or whatever they are experiencing as problematic behavior on the part of the bakery owners. 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?
Evidence to prove a negative? “We were never racist, we never made anyone feel like we were”? How did they prove that?