Will I Ever See the $36 Million Oberlin College Owes Me?

The college's point about canceling the contract was that the student body would reject Gibson's products, as in literally tossing the stuff on the floor the sentiment was so corrosive amongst the student body.

Campus sentiment was so anti-Gibson's that stocking their goods was going to become a waste. Oberlin is like three thousand student body size. This was very concentrated unrest at a VERY volatile moment on college campuses. Whether the college then needs to honor the contract for fear of the store (at the expense of pissing off the student body) puts them between a rock and a hard place.

Allowing the kids to use campus printers, privileges which are included in their tuition, and feeding protesters (who's welfare is entrusted to them by students' parents) being framed essentially as supporting the students assertions of racism is a VERY slippery slope.

What's not been mentioned here is the students complaints of profiling at the store beyond this incident. Black students aren't the only ones with fake IDs on this campus (I'd wager a much smaller percentage of the kids with fakes on this campus are Black), nor are Black students the only or majority shoplifters.

But this kid was the one grabbed. The same way there were MANY more White pot smokers in my campus days (circa 2000) but way less White students were pulled over and asked for ID/vehicles searched.

There is NOTHING that says Gibson was OWED or had a RIGHT to this contract. In a free market, the college should have the right to do business with whomever it pleases (unless the store can prove ITS' civil rights were violated here, which... I fail to see how it possibly could.)

 

This is from a posting that seems Pro-Gibsons but in reading it I still find myself baffled by the judgement -

Oberlin College then cut business ties with Gibson’s. The business took a huge loss, and still does not have nearly the business it had before the 2016 protests.

The issue that was to be decided in the Lorain County court was not about the student protest, however. The school was being sued for its role in the dissemination of information that Gibson’s was racist. The school, the bakery, and the court agreed that there was no evidence it was racist in pre-trial hearings, though the court did give the school the opportunity to provide evidence or testimony. The school never presented any.

So, what was this case about if it wasn’t questioning the rights of free speech and student protest? What this case was about was what Oberlin College did or not did not do to limit the false messages of the protestors.

Plakas said the jury was deciding whether Oberlin College had “the intestinal fortitude to be the adult in the room,” according to media coverage at the time. That message seemed to resonate with the jury more than anything else.

---

You can read the whole thing here. It's quite informative

Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College: A case on being adults, not fighting discrimination - Ohio Capital Journal

 

Bari Weis sucks of course she sympathizes with those losers lol

 

How about the college explore the facts and defend the truth? That is the type of leadership they should show instead of advancing the misinformation and following the crowd. Instead the college admin taught their students that false outrage is not only okay, it is to be applauded.

 

False outrage is what we get from the Republicans every single day. I don’t know enough to pass judgement on this case, although I have some thoughts about certain aspects of it, but my guess is that the chance of the student outrage having been based on this single incident is probably zero. Also, for what is referred to as a mom and pop store, how in the world did a jury award $11 million of compensatory damages? The store didn’t go out of business. Supposedly, it’s profits are down somewhat, but was this store making a $ million profit each year? Was the store worth $11 million before the shoplifting incident and zero afterwards? This award looks like it was way too high, and then $22 million of punitive damages are tacked on top of it for egregious behavior by the college. In the worst case, it looks like what the college did was inappropriate, but that would make it responsible for only compensatory damages. That might have been an appropriate slap on the wrist so long as the compensatory damages were accurately determined. I could see a million dollars of compensatory damages and throw in legal fees, but that should be about it. As for Oberlin refusing to pay, that’s a crock. It is entitled to first exhaust its remedies.

 

Assuming the University was found liable for defamation. Might the University's decision to terminate the contract based on the same breach of duty be part of the damage award for the defamation? For example, let's say Gibson also had a contract with the community college down the street. Following the University's publishing the defamatory material, the community college cancels its contract with Gibson, resulting in lost business. The Jury finds that the University's breach was the proximate cause of the community college canceling its contract with Gibson. Gibson could recover from the University for damages related to lost business from the cancelled contract with the community college, correct?

If so, then the University's decision to cancel it's own contract with Gibson, if caused by the same breach of duty, may also result in damages that Gibson could recover for, even if the University was not in breach of contract.

I'm not sure if that is coherent or not. I'm just curious how the University's decision to suspend the contract relates to the defamation claim.

 

Going to try to answer in generalities off the top of my head as I have not read the opinion in a while. And again, I am relying upon the appellate opinion and limited media reading. That's never going to have all of the trial facts.

Legally, damages for causing their vendors to cancel the contracts were pursued in a separate count for tortious interference. However, in my read of 36 of the 51 pages of the appellate opinion, they did not break out the 12 million dollars in compensatory damages between defamation and tortious interference. I don't believe that any of the defamation damages were based upon the contract cancellation based upon my reading of the opinion. It could have been written more clearly but it did not seem so. As I summarized earlier, I've seen that most of the so-called wrongful acts which led the defamation had to do with the failure to correct the students.

Yes there were limited additional facts about whether an administrator had caused one of the flyers to be passed out, whether they had permitted the flyers to be printed, and whether they permitted a summary of the Senate resolution to remain posted in a hall. But primarily it was the failure to correct the students from their so-called mistaken beliefs.

I hope that explains a bit.

 

How do you know the outrage was false? How do you know that the college did not pursue the so-called truth?

 

For a different point of view could this be a decision based on townies vs elite college. I live in DeLand a beautiful little town with Stetson University almost in the center. The skydive industry is probably the number one economic engine in town but the University would be a close second. I think this ruling could be townies against the rich college and rich entitled college kids. Have this trial when school is out of session and the jury could be all townies. That makes the judgement and everything make a little more sense.

 

It does, thanks. You have been very patient. I'm going to give it a rest, too. I'm not motivated enough to try to look it up myself. From what I can tell, it was probably a thin case legally. I presume it was enough to create a question of fact for the Jury. The Jury sympathized with Gibson: they were incensed by how the University handled the situation. And that is that.

 

I used to think about the McDonald’s case as the poster child of frivolous cases until I actually looked into the merits of the case. It wasn’t as simple and she spilled some coffee on herself and whined her way into millions. The coffee was intentionally set to a ridiculously high temperature and she suffered some severe burns because of it. We can debate on the amount of the award all you want but the case itself was far from frivolous.

I don’t consider this case frivolous as well, this was a college actively trying to shut down a private business to be woke. Obeying should have stayed out of it entirely but allowed public opinion to get them to engage in a losing battle. They were wrong.

Im all for private citizens to boycott and protest whomever they wish (as long a it’s peaceful and within the law), this was a financial lynch mob with Oberlin leading the pack.

 

Somebody did a special on the McDonald’s coffee spill. All she wanted was them to cover her medical bills, McDonald’s offered her like 500 bucks if she signed a waiver. She hired a lawyer and the ten million was like one day profit from them selling scorching coffee. Apparently you get more cups of coffee per bean with near boiling water.

 

I don't. I only know what others that were presented with all of the information concluded.

 

I understand, and that would be fair, but from my reading of the opinion that's not really the question that was submitted to the jury

 

It also lead to a funny Seinfeld episode.

 

Looks like Oberlin is paying. Good on them. Hope the college understands the egregious error it made.

Oberlin College Says It Initiated $36 Million Payment To Gibson’s Bakery, Which The School Falsely Smeared As Racist | The Daily Wire

 

The egregious error seems to be that it built its campus in Oberlin, Ohio.

 

Yes that’s it.

 

Great listen on an economic boycott

One Year - 1986: A Boycott in Mississippi - Slate Daily Feed