Oberlin College to pay $36M to bakery owners who were falsely accused of racism
cnn.com
cnn.com
I'll preface by saying that no one in this story comes out looking good – certainly not the shoplifters, who expected get out of jail free cards despite being thieves; nor the college, whose greatest fear is offending its fragile student body, with predictable results like this.
What you're not going to read in this article or others like it is that the Gibsons aren't heroes either. There are two important details I'd bring to your attention:
1. Allyn Gibson, the man who tackled the shoplifters, really is a confirmed racist. I know this both first hand (we are peers), and from his many social media posts in which he casually rags on immigrants and black people (expect he identifies them using the n-word). The judge in this case declared that evidence inadmissible, for some reason.
2. The Gibsons are not a put-down, working class family who were nearly bankrupted by this protest. They're one of the wealthiest families in town, and were millionaires before this all happened. Gibson's Bakery is a hobby business; they turn a modest profit selling some baked goods and beer. Their actual livelihood comes from rent – they're the second largest landowners after the college, and own most of the commercial and residential rental property in town. The idea that they were impacted by this protest in any consequential way is frankly laughable to anyone who knows anything about them and their business. Once again, the judge declared evidence of their wealth to be inadmissible in court.
This doesn't absolve the college of blame. But this isn't the black-and-white, "David vs Goliath" story the media is making it out to be. Unfortunately this story just fits too neatly into a national narrative about "woke" politics going too far, so you're not going to see any nuance from the media.
Regardless, this is new information for me; thanks for posting it.
Of course people who have been libeled have bad reputations. That's the definition.
Realistically any opinion based comment could be taken offence to and then whether it is defamatory or not depends on the evidence that individual has for having said opinion.
As for #1, I'd need to the proof before removing skepticism.
Thanks for the input all the same!
Parting with coffers to the tune of $36M would bankrupt many similar institutions.
Of course in this case oberlin leadership just acted very poorly and there is no excuse.
My point is different: that exaggerating racism harms non-white people. I know other Asians who say stuff like "oh, I wouldn't want to go to the south because people are racist." And they're missing out on good food, warm weather, and friendly people. Trump won my precinct (which weirdly encompasses just my subdivision) 58-34 in 2016 when I moved there. It's a lovely place to live with lots of kids and friendly neighbors. A minority who is told by authority figures that the local bakery in Oberlin Ohio is a hotbed of racism might be too scared to come where I live. And that's not good for anybody.
Interestingly, it was southern states that elected the first two governors of Indian descent: Bobby Jindal in Louisiana (2008-2016)[1] and Nikki Haley in South Carolina (2011-2017)[2].
Red state desis represent a small share of the overall south Asian immigrant population—they mostly come from an earlier wave of migration that has since been vastly outnumbered by post-H1B immigrants to coastal hubs—but have seen outsized success in appointed and elected positions.
Of course it does, but you phrased it in a way that implies that the racist aggressors are always white.
Exaggerating racism & racism itself hurts _everyone_. There are people that are racist to white people, there are non-white people that are racist other non-white people.
It's racism itself, in a general sense that we're fighting. I think especially in a non-white context, as it's so ignored - I've had non-white friends be incredibly racist to other cultures and it's oddly just a weirdly accepted thing. Like before recent events in Hong Kong, a friend of mine from there talking about "mainlanders" and how trashy/uncultured/animals they are.
It turns out that in a world that rewards virtue signaling financially, you can literally major in it!
One of the previous threads here had a link to a pdf somewhere in the comments, that looked like it had excerpts from the court filings. It had quite a few emails saying variants on "my experience with them says these accusations aren't true at all".
So no, I don't think one student pushing back would have helped.
When you gather that many social justice warriors together in a location where there is no actual injustice to prosecute, they will creatively invent some so that they can do the thing they enjoy doing.
You see a similar pattern with firefighters. When there haven't been many recent fires to put out, you start seeing more firefighters getting arrested for arson.
See here:
"It is important to know that most of the fire stations/departments do not pay for the services of a volunteer firefighter. However, they may get reimbursed for attending training and meetings, responding to fires and emergencies, and time spent on shifts. The amount of reimbursement is generally at the discretion of the fire department."
https://www.firesciencedegreeschools.com/how-to-become-a-vol....
This is exactly the kind of cancel culture that Oberlin demonstrated toward the bakery. "They did something unforgivable! Eliminate them!"
Organizations have problems. People are imperfect. Society needs justice. But cancel culture is a mob mentality that goes far beyond justice and is harmful to society.
They claimed it falsely and without evidence though. The same is not true for any action that would be taking against the college.
When someone claims that a random person committed a crime, kidnaps and imprisons them, we call that kidnapping and false imprisonment. But we won't shy away from taking the perpetrator off the street and in turn locking them up so they don't do it again.
https://firstamendmentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/S...
"This is a RACIST establishment ...": That's a statement of opinion, not actionable.
"... with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.": That's a statement of fact, and it was therefore actionable and cost Oberlin's insuror millions.
That seems like a reasonable way to split the difference between free speech and libel.
In this case, the two definitions and their purposes would be:
Definition 1. "One not actively working to create equal outcomes for non-white groups (even simply being neutral/disinterested is racist in this definition)". This is the definition of racist in the popular How to Be an Antiracist. This would be used to attach the word to the target.
Definition 2. "One directly and intentionally harming people of non-white races out of conscious and deliberate hatred". Basically the KKK definition. This is the implication that's attached to the target, after definition 1 is used to "stick" the word onto the target.
It's an amazing "stick and stab" tactic that, somehow, we haven't yet developed cultural antibodies against.
But what annoys me is that class is now equated with race. There are millions of poor whites in America who are not nor ever will be privileged.
Nice. I have heard the term motte and bailey used to describe that tactic.
I would be surprised if this reframing is accepted by enough of the population for a court to accept it.
The entire premise is ludicrous but it’s shocking how many just adopt that line of thinking without any critical thought.
“If you’re not actively fighting against illegal rhino poaching, you are a literally a poacher. It’s not enough to simply “not poach”. You must actively go around physically stopping other poachers.”
Point being you can’t just pick one pet issue and proclaim that anyone who isn’t actively involved in irradiating that issue is necessarily complicit in the issue. There are just too many causes one might be interested in.
Some states have them, some don’t, and the US Constitution’s First Amendment puts limits on the laws that do exist.
One problem is they are very civilly focused. How much money did you lose? A corporate execute might be out millions, while the guy at MacDonalds might be out a few thousand.
>Dear Obies,
>Today, Oberlin College and Conservatory initiated payment in full of the $36.59 million judgment in the Gibson’s Bakery case, an amount that represents the awarded damages and interest owed. Please see the college’s public statement below.
>While this outcome is a disappointment, our financial plans for this possibility, which included insurance coverage, mean that this payment will not impact or diminish our academic or student life experience, or require us to draw down Oberlin’s endowment.
>Like me, the majority of the campus was not here at the beginning of this matter in 2016. But it is also true that this case has been difficult for all of us who love this institution and its hometown. I am looking forward to all that is ahead, and remain focused on Oberlin’s core mission of providing a truly excellent liberal arts and musical education. Carmen Ambar Signature Carmen Twillie Ambar
So they're basically just claiming insurance will cover it
Oberlin's insurer is going to get them back in the next renewal period considering they were blatantly in the wrong. And all other insurers know; the history is open.
I wish I had an insurance company that was so lax with its payouts.
I suppose I should have given that more thought as I'm well aware of the high litigation factor in the US. Where I am it's significantly less.
The trouble with litigation taken to extremes and outrageously high payouts is that it puts a high overhead on everyone who does business. In some ways I'm surprised there hasn't been a significant backlash against this.
All the sums are pretty small, so people just see it as the cost of doing business. In a sense it's true. People love the UK "loser pays" system but it really discourages your average person from filing a lawsuit they don't feel 95% to win.
The American legal system allows for plaintiffs to abuse the system, but the upside is that filing lawsuits for recompense is easier for your average person.
Everything has tradeoffs. Not saying it's perfect here, but my mind was at least shifted slightly when the above was explained to me.
What wouldn't be? They wish the truth would be erased?
Very slippery wording. Their insurance premiums will now presumably be much larger, in which case they'd indeed have to lower spending on other things to cover it. Or possibly they will become un-insurable.
This is a dynamic not enough people appreciate: universities are not generally permanent communities.
This fact is lost again and again in public debate.
For example, there’s debate about how allegations of rape should be handled by a university.
However the university handles possible rapes, they have to take into account the fact that everyone involved: victim, accuser, and witnesses, might drop out or graduate a week into the investigation.
Now they're installing far more cameras, telling students to report on one another about everything, and giving campus mall cops free reign to harass students into giving false information and unreasonable search and seizures.
Wish I was making that up, but that's what happens when we value "safety" more than rights.
Acknowledging the institution was wrong would be the first step to changing the culture.
Acknowledging wrongs is most meaningful when all the stakeholders participate. When you are constantly getting new stakeholders, and losing old ones, it’s hard to meaningful buy in.
They shouldn't be handling those allegations in the first place. That's not their role.
We have institutions like police departments and court systems specifically intended to handle such allegations. Now one can certainly argue that the police and courts have many problems (and, I agree: they absolutely do), but those problems are unlikely to be handled any better by amateurs (such as the typical university administrator).
But they still benefit from the inherited privilege born of these systemic injustices that the bakery case exemplifies.
It's the school's problem to go after the students to recover some of the money, if they are so inclined.
(1) individually succeed in causing countable damage to Gibson's, and
(2) do so by circulating false statements of fact --- for instance, you cannot sue someone for defamation simply for pointing out something somebody else said: "I read in this flyer that Gibson's assaulted a student" is not defamation, even if the flyer is.
People have a lot of weird ideas about what happened here. The court filings are on the Internet; you can just go read them.
I think we can agree that yes it will be hard, but justice has not been fully served
Second, "society and justice" can't do anything. To sue someone for defamation, you have to have standing: you have to be able to demonstrate harm to yourself.
Third, it won't be "hard"; it will be impossible. Most of what the students said isn't defamatory (contrary to widely held opinion on these threads, calling the Gibson family "racist" is not defamatory, as it is a statement of opinion), and what defamatory things were said probably didn't cause any actual damage on a student-by-student basis.
Later
I updated this comment to change "very probably not defamatory" to simply "not defamatory" after doing some reading and learning that, lol-no, you cannot sue someone for calling you racist; courts do in fact hold that to be a statement of opinion.
November 2016: Oberlin professors and deans defamed bakery
August 2017: lawsuit
September 2022: Oberlin agrees to pay 36 million to plaintiff
so yes, justice was served, but it took six years. I feel bad for the bakery people. I have filed suit in federal court before. I think my case only lasted a few months, but it was stress I would not wish on anyone. Who knows what these people have been through.
The owner passed away because of pancreatic cancer after the first trial.
How on earth could the school think it reasonable to even suggest that? This place sounds more like a thief guild than a college.
Seems like a farce. The students were never charged with or convicted of assault or anything close to it.
Not defending Oberlin, but Bari Weiss is shameful for letting that line stay in.
Also, from Salon
> Gibson Jr. then took out his phone to take a picture of Aladin, who slapped the phone from his hand and caused the device to strike Gibson Jr.'s face
> Before their sentencing, each student read a statement acknowledging that Gibson's was justified in trying to restrain Aladin
> David was afraid the incident would blow up, since the students claimed to the police that my son had assaulted them—not the other way around.
giving the reader testimony of all parties involved. But by your logic, the media could report only on court decisions.
Cost 2x more with approximately the same rated programs, and much worse STEM like programs.
If I recall a big part of it was kids who couldn't get in anywhere else can took massive loans for a small college experience. And had equally small outcomes.
This college is very much a scam that provides an income for its staff at the expense of its student body.
At least with private ivy league schools like Cornell you have ranking advantage, but with Oberlin they are tricking kids into paying top-tier tuition for bottom-tier ranking.
There is a metagame with getting employment or opportunity within grievance studies.
is it common for other students to attempt to buy alcohol with fake IDs and these students were the ones stopped for it?
what I read - my first time reading about this - is that the shop owner correctly identified something sketchy was going on, and this escalated into an altercation with 3 underage patrons that the police got involved in as all 3 were arrested. The initial observation of "assuming theft" is supplanted by "trying to purchase with a fake ID", something common in a college town. How were these two things conflated? This isn't answered.
All three people plead guilty to different things unrelated to an assumption of theft, but pleading guilty doesn't reveal anything when understanding just how many people can't defend themselves in court.
The college shouldn't have gotten involved at all, regardless. This trend of "using your platform" needs to have counter-deterrents and consequences.
The people that actually boycotted and did slander-like things, shouldn't have acted without being more discerning.
But there's still something else in between that I can't garner from this. Anybody local have more personal accounts?
Answers your question.
- An attempt to illegally purchase alcohol is made
- During the attempt, it became apparent the guy was concealing two other bottles of wine inside his jacket.
- The clerk remarked something to the extent of calling the police and pulls out his phone to take a picture.
- Underage guy slaps phone out of clerk's hand, hitting clerk in the process, and runs out the store.
- Clerk tries to detain the guy when two of the guy's friends show up and join in on beating the clerk until the police show up.
Outside of that incident are there other grievances against that shop and owner in that town, to lend any weight to the optional actions everyone chose to take?
“You can’t be a part of the students - if they get drunk or do drugs or anything like that, you can’t be part of it. You’re either the grown up in the room or you leave.”
> Oberlin is a small liberal arts college with a reputation for turning out students who are strong in the arts and humanities and for its progressive politics... Tuition at Oberlin is more than $61,000 a year, and the overall cost of attendance tops $80,000 a year.
This is why student loan forgiveness is such an important issue.
I understand loan forgiveness in certain situations, even as proposed by the US current administration [1]. But choosing to attend a small liberal arts college and agreeing to pay more than 80k a year I don’t think is one of those situations.
[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
“I wasn’t racist ever … but this ** and the way people treat me now because I am “white” is racist and is making me racist,” Allyn Jr. wrote. “I don’t owe a damn person a damn thing. If these lazy *** want to start working then they could earn their own money. That’s what my family does for money… work.”
///
So yes, he is a racist, and the family could well be. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Is another case of: "if all is racism, then nobody is racist". The term has been abused to defend thievery, so now is devoid of any real meaning. This is a big problem in itself.
You'd be surprised.
She is a teacher who meant a great deal to myself and many other students.
That's begging the question. What intrinsic quality, apart from tuition costs, makes it "elite"?
Now everyone on one entire side of the political spectrum is gloating at what that ideology has lead them into.
Gloaters gonna gloat. An "entire side of the political spectrum" would have gloated if the bakery had lost on appeal. Does that matter?
Indeed. Reading the comments on the New York Times article linked to the other recent HN discussion of the case, there are—among many forthright condemnations of the Oberlin administrators and students that caused this catastrophe for the college—more than a few comments lamenting how the worst outcome of this is that "Trumpists" will gloat. Not that a bakery faced six years of litigation (in the legal and public spheres) against the college with the billion-dollar endowment that is the closest thing to "The Man" in their small town, but that the commenters' own ideological enemies might be pleased by the court case's outcome.
Maybe you meant it harmlessly, but this phrase sets off my BS detector. It's invariably used to excuse bad behavior by people who knew better but pretended otherwise for political gain. It conflates when you personally learned the facts with when the involved parties learned the facts.
See also: "no one knew Kyle Rittenhouse didn't murder a bunch of black people in a crowd until these facts came to light in the trial!" or "we didn't know that the Biden laptop was real until these facts came to light in 2022!" or "we didn't know the lab leak was a real possibility until new facts came to light!" In each case, the facts were already there for everyone to see, they were just ignored for political reasons until it was too late.
Plea-bargains are a mockery of justice as is cops being allowed to lie to get confessions.