TOLDYA SO!

  I am more than a little bit encouraged by the Department of Justice's reaction to that off-the-wall decision by the Florida judge.  

But my piece today is about a little bit of history and involves the muscle strain of figuring out how to pat myself on the back. There are two parts to this post. Bear with me. 

Part One:  Here is a blog I posted more than three years ago –June 28 2019 to be precise:

MOB RULE REDUX: THE OBERLIN COLLEGE SCANDAL

Once upon a time, Oberlin College was a proud institution. Its roots go back to when "Northwest Territories" referred not to the State of Washington, but the newly declared State of Ohio. Soon after its founding, Oberlin became a key station in the underground railroad, helping escaped Virginia slaves on their way to Canada. And since that time, it has promoted itself as a "liberal" school,  admitting women and black students long before other institutions did so.

But the bacteria that has infected the eastern universities has spread westward, and like the measles anti-vaxxers, Oberlin's leadership has shut doors and windows to the outside world. Notions of a liberal democracy that makes decisions on the basis of facts, reason, law, and morality, have given way to a simpler standard: "What does the mob want?"

The Facts:

The school's ultra-left student body is the epitome of what some see as a current wave of spoiled children. The students have made numerous demands on the administration, asserting, inter alia, they have suffered microaggressions in connection with the "cultural appropriation" offences of the school's cafeteria, by virtue of menus that included sushi and other Asian foods.  The Black Student Association "Demanded" their own "safe space" room where they could recover.  The Musical College students "Demanded" the promotion of their favored teacher, etc., etc. There were a total of 50 demands in a recent student petition. You get the picture.

Immediately adjacent to the college boundaries is a 100+ yr.-old general store, Gibson's, selling baked goods, groceries, including alcohol. Three black students (some 15% of Oberlin's 2,000 students are people of color) entered the store, and one of them offered counterfeit I.D. to prove he was old enough to buy a bottle of wine.  When the clerk not only rejected the document, but noticed two other bottles of wine tucked beneath student's coat, the shoplifter threw down the bottles and fled with his companions. The clerk (a Gibson grandson) pursued and tackled the offender. When the cops arrived, the young Gibson was on the ground being kicked and punched by the three students, who were arrested and charged with assault and theft. They later pleaded guilty.

Nevertheless, some 200 students demonstrated in front of and on the property of the Gibson's store. They accused the store of racial bias and abusing the civil rights of the thieves. The mob urged a boycott, and demanded the college abrogate its long-standing practice of purchasing foodstuffs from Gibson's.

How did the college respond to these demands?

The college:

i) via its Chief of Staff of the College Administration, and other employees, not only attended and participated in the demonstration, but handed out flyers falsely accusing the store of racial bias and a history of racial profiling,

ii) distributed gloves, mittens, and warm drinks to the demonstrators because "their hands were cold,''

iii) had a flyer accusing Gibson's of race bias posted in the Administration building,

  

iv) cut off its food purchases from the store, (emails revealed the administration feared students would "have a tantrum" if the school didn't do that),

v) publicly criticized Gibson’s for pressing charges against its students,

vi) announced it would not end its economic boycott of the store unless and until the store dropped the criminal charges against the students,

vii) persisted in the boycott even after the three shoplifters admitted their guilt and agreed their apprehension had nothing to do with race. (Fact; in recent years, Gibson’s had physically detained 40 shoplifters. Six were black, thirty four were white, about the same proportion of the local population.)  But the guilty pleas, said a school official, "doesn't change a damn thing." 

viii) demanded that instead of detaining the thieves, Gibson's should just have notified school personnel. (A student journalist wrote that shoplifting had become "a rite of passage" at Oberlin, and noted archly that the suggestion the store simply notify the college of thefts was simply the establishment of a "one free-shoplifting pass for each student.) A recent Oberlin graduate with a different view defended the student body by proclaiming how much good they were doing for the town merchants. Specifically he pointed to the students patronizing a local bar and  a new tattoo parlor.

The demonstrations, the baseless defamation, the school boycott, the trespasses,  all inflicted severe economic damage to Gibson's. Its revenues were halved, and it sued Oberlin for libel, interference with business relations, and host of other torts sanctioned by Ohio state law. The Gibson plaintiffs relied on an Ohio appellate court case that made it clear that a defendant who "participates in or aids and abets another to publish a defamation" is liable as well as the publisher of the libel.

The trial judge struggled for a month to settle the case. No soap. Ya can't make this stuff up; The school blamed Gibson's for the conflict, and actually issued this statement:

Gibson bakery’s archaic chase-and-detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests. The guilt or innocence of the students is irrelevant to both the root cause of the protests and this litigation.”

After a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Gibson’s for 11 million dollars. And that was just the first of two trials - - to determine if there was liability, and if so, to assess actual economic harm. At a subsequent two-day hearing to assess punitive damages, plaintiff's lawyer asked for an additional $22 million.  The jury deliberated three hours and came back with an award of $33 million! (Pursuant to Ohio law, the punitive damages will likely be reduced to $22 million, leaving a total of $33 million instead if $44 million.)

Did the First Amendment Fundamentalists scream? What, you missed the anguished cries about "double-barreled violations of the First Amendment?"  Doncha love the academic view of life?

Is this jury award vulnerable to appellate attack? Sure it is. Seventy percent of libel awards are overturned. Was this jury offended by the snotty, superior, anti-fact attitude of the college administration? Sure it was. Can you blame them?

Should Oberlin climb down off its high horse, eat some crow, (block that metaphor!) and settle this case? Of course it should.  Will it? I dunno. Oberlin's president issued this post-verdict statement to its alums:

 Let me be absolutely clear: This is not the final outcome. This is, in fact, just one step along the way of what may turn out to be a lengthy and complex legal process."

 Would you send your child to that school?

A bientot.

....................................

As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want a notice of each new posting, send me an email and I will add you to the notice list.  mlondon34@gmail.com

For more details on my personal experience in trying (and winning) a libel case, check out  my memoir, The Client Decides, available at Amazon and on Kindle.

.........................

Part Two of this post is a headline from the front page of today's New York Times: 

"Oberlin Will Pay $36 Million to Bakery Over Racism Claim"

Good to see the court system doing justice every now and then. 

Now I can't wait to see the Great Grifter get what's coming to him.

A bientôt!

.................................................

There is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you would like to receive a notice of each new posting, please fill out the form at <"http://eepurl.com/gf7fS9">.