Oberlin given maximum punitive damages for wokeness stupidity. Total bill: $11.2 million + $33 million = $44.2 million

Four days ago I reported that a jury in Lorain County, Ohio found Oberlin College guilty of defaming,libeling, and slandering Gibson’s bakery, a local business where three Oberlin students had been arrested for shoplifting (and pleaded guilty). The college, although the students admitted guilt, then engaged in a pattern of retaliatory actions towards the bakery (including severing financial ties with it) to placate their woke students, who were outraged at the arrests (the three students were African-Americans). If you want to see how the College itself engaged in this retaliation, read the complaint, particularly from sections 40-74.

Bad move—really bad move. And Oberlin should have expected this, since Gibson’s lost considerable business after Oberlin’s shenanigans. A week ago, the jury awarded Gibson’s $11.2 million in compensatory damages, a huge sum.

But there was more to come. Ohio law allows punitive damages on top of compensatory ones—up to twice the amount of the latter. And that’s what happened, as reported by this article at the conservative site Legal Insurrection (LI), which has been covering the case for a long time (click on screenshot to read):

Actually, as the site reports, the jury awarded $33 million on top of the $11.2 million dollars, but Ohio law usually (but not always) caps punitive damages at twice the compensatory damage amount, so the college will probably have to pay about $33 million total. There are also attorneys’ fees, which will be leveled later by the judge, but they’re estimated to be another $10 million. It looks, then, like Oberlin will have to dig down to the tune of $43 million.  There will of course be appeals, but if Oberlin loses those appeals, which seems likely, then they’ll have to pay addition attorneys’ fees.

That’s a lot of dosh. Since the college’s tuition is $55,052 annually, and there are 2827 undergraduates, $33 million is about a third of the total year’s tuition of the entire undergraduate body, or more than the tuition levied on a single class. It’s a substantial hit on the college budget, and especially on Oberlin’s national reputation, which has been fairly high.

The jury was clearly trying to make a point, which comes down to “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more.” I suspect that the jurors, none of whom went to Oberlin, saw an elite college acting high-handedly against a small business, a violation of fairness that can naturally irk people. As LI reports:

The Gibson family was visibly shocked by the amount, as most in the courtroom were thinking the jury’s final punitive damages verdict in the case might top out at maybe $10 million. The fact that it was triple that amount means in many ways that perhaps the jury understood that the whole country was watching.

“We never wanted any of this to go to court and have to spend all this time in litigation,” David Gibson said exclusively to the Legal Insurrection. David Gibson is the lead plaintiff in the case and is the principal owner of the business.

“People have no idea on how much stress this has had on our family and business for almost three years. But from the beginning, we just didn’t understand why they were punishing us for something we had nothing to do with.”

“We appreciate that the jury understood what we had gone through, and I think they were saying to the entire country that we can’t allow this to happen to hard-working, small business people whose lives are defined by their business, their family, and their community,” he said.” What the college was doing was trying to take away all those things from us, and we fought hard against that.”

The final tally on punitive damages that Oberlin College has been ordered to pay for by the jury is thus: $17,500,000 million for David Gibson, $8,750,000 for Allyn W. “Grandpa” Gibson, and $6,973,500 for the bakery business.

Allyn W. Gibson, age 90 and the patriarch of the business that has been in Oberlin since 1885, wanted to make sure people understood the Gibson family and business were not against students at Oberlin College in any way.

“I have been here my whole life and I love the students and the energy they bring to our community, and people who know me know I always love being with them,” he said. “Students can be great people or they can be bad, just like all of us can be, but they need guidance at that age, and they weren’t getting it when this all started.”

And it’s not like the bakery didn’t try to negotiate beforehand with the College, either, as they did:

Some of the defenders of Oberlin College have claimed that the Gibsons’ were just in it for punishment on this case, and never tried to settle. That could not be further from the truth. According to Lee Plakas, lead attorney for the Gibsons’, a letter was sent before the case was filed in Nov. of 2017 asking for at least some talks on settlement and no answer was sent back (this reporter has seen it).

In early 2018, according to Plakas, two days of talks with a mediator were done, but nothing close to a settlement was achieved. In fact, the talks were initiated by the Gibson’s and “We were ready, willing and able to not have this case go to trial, but Oberlin College and their insurance company seemed to have no interest in settling this case,” Plakas said.

“As they have done throughout this case, they thought that they were above everyone else, and that the rules and working to settle such an egregious case of defaming a good family like the Gibsons’ was beneath them,” he added.

Am I a bad person for feeling happy about this, a bit of Schadenfreude? I don’t think so, for it will make colleges think twice about using their power to unjustly punish people to placate the woke (are you listening, Williams College?).

Here’s the happy Gibson family and their attorneys, as well as the now-wealthy Grandpa Gibson getting congratulated by the family attorney Lee Plakas (photos courtesy of the Legal Insurrection Foundation).

Bravo to the Gibsons for fighting back!

81 Comments

  1. Randall Schenck
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Great result but the final question would be, did the school learn anything from this? I mean if dollars is all that is lost, and it’s not money out of any student’s pocket did they learn anything from this. I’ll bet not.

    • Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:14 am | Permalink

      I think they did. That’s a lot of dough, and they made a stupid decision. If they don’t learn, they’re simply crazy.

      • DW
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:01 am | Permalink

        After the verdict, the faculty sent out an e-mail to all students proclaiming that they did nothing wrong. So I don’t think they actually learned anything.

        The Gibson’s tried to have that e-mail submitted as evidence in the punitive phase, but was denied.

        • Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:32 am | Permalink

          Is there a link to that email?

          • DW
            Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:58 am | Permalink

            https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/oberlin-college-mass-email-criticizing-jurors-could-influence-punitive-damages-hearing-in-gibsons-bakery-case/

            Dear Members of the Oberlin Community:

            I am writing to update you on the lawsuit that Gibson Bros., Inc. filed against Oberlin College and Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas in November 2017.

            Following a trial that spanned almost a full month, the jury found for the plaintiffs earlier today.

            We are disappointed with the verdict and regret that the jury did not agree with the clear evidence our team presented.

            Neither Oberlin College nor Dean Meredith Raimondo defamed a local business or its owners, and they never endorsed statements made by others. Rather, the College and Dr. Raimondo worked to ensure that students’ freedom of speech was protected and that the student demonstrations were safe and lawful, and they attempted to help the plaintiffs repair any harm caused by the student protests.

            As we have stated, colleges cannot be held liable for the independent actions of their students. Institutions of higher education are obligated to protect freedom of speech on their campuses and respect their students’ decision to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights. Oberlin College acted in accordance with these obligations.

            While we are disappointed with the outcome, Oberlin College wishes to thank the members of the jury for their attention and dedication during this lengthy trial. They contributed a great deal of time and effort to this case, and we appreciate their commitment.

            Our team will review the jury’s verdict and determine how to move forward.

            Donica Thomas Varner
            Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

            • Draken
              Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:09 am | Permalink

              Wait, they actually suggest they’re the heralds of free speech? They must have balls the size of a brioche.

            • RPGNo1
              Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

              No sign of remorse? No apology? Not even the slightest hint that the college and its members have recognized their misconduct?

              Instead, the faculty still think that they, and not the Gibsons, were wronged.

              What a bunch of unpleasant people!

              • Nicholas K.
                Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

                No apology is not unusual — they will appeal the verdict. An apology would be an admission that they did something wrong, which would not be helpful for appeal.

            • Desnes Diev
              Posted June 14, 2019 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

              “As we have stated, colleges cannot be held liable for the independent actions of their students. Institutions of higher education are obligated to protect freedom of speech on their campuses and respect their students’ decision to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights”

              Don’t they bullied Gibson’s bakery because an illegal “independent action of their students” (i.e., shop-lifting) frustrated part of their campus?

              They should ponder Allyn W. Gibson’s wise words:
              “Students can be great people or they can be bad, just like all of us can be, but they need guidance at that age, and they weren’t getting it when this all started.”
              Because they’re still not setting an example.

    • Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:15 am | Permalink

      I doubt it will teach the students anything, but it is not the students against which these damages have been levied – at least not directly.

      It was the actual college that was taken to court, not the student body and it was taken to court for actions that were done to placate the students (as PCC(E) puts it). Hopefully, the college will learn something and it might get transmitted through to the students.

    • Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:47 am | Permalink

      I hope the real punishment will come in the form of a sharp drop in applications. Oberlin will certainly learn from that.

  2. Diana MacPherson
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    This school sure didn’t help change the idea that they are full of elites picking on the regular folk.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:38 am | Permalink

      When it costs $70 grand a year to go to school at Oberlin, I wonder what would help to change that elite finding.

      By the way, the general counsel for Oberlin said she was very disappointed with the verdict and denied the college had defamed the bakery or it’s owners. She also said the college worked to ensure the student’s freedom of speech was protected. This only tells me that Oberlin had a bad attorney.

      • BJ
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:51 am | Permalink

        Isn’t their general counsel also their VP? That’s already stupid. And then it was stupider when she was constantly making statements and sending letters during the trial to make the school look even worse.

  3. Charles Sawicki
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    Am I a bad person for feeling happy about this, a bit of Schadenfreude? No, the woke administrators needed to be held accountable.
    After the students admit being thieves, Oberlin took a ridiculously stupid and self involved course of action. Hopefully, this verdict serves as an example for other far left administrators who believe students need not obey the law (particularly nonwhite students).

    • Historian
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:05 am | Permalink

      Not obeying the law is very bipartisan. Isn’t that wonderful?😃 Perhaps the students can learn to be more proficient lawbreakers by emulating Trump, the master lawbreaker, who has broken the law many times and rarely punished. Only two days ago he said that he will have no trouble breaking the law in the future should representatives of foreign countries approach him with information on his political opponent. He said he would accept the information and probably not advise the FBI. This would be a clear violation of the campaign finance laws.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:39 am | Permalink

        Yes, so shocking to hear him confess now to what he did and was investigated for doing the past 2.5 years. The really sick act going on now is what some of these republicans are doing to justify this madness. I heard one of them this morning, I call the Trump whores, say he was only talking hypothetical?

  4. BJ
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    I can’t remember where (and I just woke up so I don’t feel like searching for the link), but I read that at least one of the kids kicked and punched the bakery owner, but pleaded down the charge. So this was no simple shoplifting (even though that still deserves to be prosecuted). Also, it was the day after the election of Trump, so it feels like taking their anger out on some white people and then everyone at Oberlin getting angry when the law isn’t suspended for them to act out their frustrations.

    • BJ
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:24 am | Permalink

      It was this AP article that said the three students “were arrested after punching and kicking” the owner.

    • BJ
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:24 am | Permalink

      Sorry, forgot link: https://www.apnews.com/b5d75cf4772d4912b8c9ca56762aa343

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:44 am | Permalink

      “Just woke up”? What’s happened to the American working class?

      Why, in my day, we marched five miles, uphill, in the snow, in our bare feet, before dawn, just to work 16 hours in the mines. And we felt loooky to do it!

      • norm walsh
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:03 am | Permalink

        And five miles uphill back too.

        • harrync
          Posted June 14, 2019 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

          Uphill both ways? You wouldn’t happen to be a member of the Escher family, would you?

      • BJ
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:11 am | Permalink

        Hahaha I knew someone would catch me on that. It’s one of the perks of working from home 😀

  5. BJ
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    “…but if Oberlin loses those appeals, which seems likely…”

    I’d like to see a legal analysis of this case and the likelihood of at least some of those damages being overturned on appeal. I would bet the punitive damages get reduced significantly, if nothing else. Has anyone seen a good analysis by a lawyer in this field?

    “Am I a bad person for feeling happy about this, a bit of Schadenfreude?”

    Pardon my language, but fuck no! I’m happy as a clam over here. We can’t have people going around egregiously breaking the law and then having elite, well-endowed (ahem) institutions protecting them and destroying the regular people who pressed charges. Places like Oberlin are constantly talking about equality, but they want them and their students to be above the law that the working-class schlubs around them have to follow.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:03 am | Permalink

      Wouldn’t surprise me to see this case settle pending appeal, probably for a big fat check of, say, a cool $15 or $20 mil.

      For Oberlin to see the appellate process through, it will have to post an appellate bond for the full amount of the awarded damages. Plus, it will incur post-judgment interest (if it loses) and significant additional attorneys’ fees and costs (win or lose). For their part, the Gibson family is still a long way from seeing any money should the case wend its way through the entire appellate process — starting with the mid-level appeals court, then the Ohio Supreme Court, and eventually ending with at least a petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court (if not a full-blown decision on the merits by SCOTUS). Then, if Oberlin has prevailed on any of its claims of error, back to the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.

      If Grandpa Gibson wants to see some of his hard-litigated dosh, they’ll take the money and scoot.

  6. DW
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    When a retired Professor from Oberlin wrote an op-ed criticizing the college’s behavior, Dean Raimondo responded: “Fuck him, I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.” This psychopath sees the students as her own personal weapon.

    I really hope other colleges are paying attention to this.

    • Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:34 am | Permalink

      I found that hard to believe, but, sure enough, you’re right. LI reports here.

      This Ohio jury has read and heard a multitude of exchanges between Oberlin College administrators. The jurors heard how Oberlin College’s Dean of Students and a co-defendant in the case, Meredith Raimondo, texted to a colleague, “Fuck him, I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us” when commenting on how to treat Gibson’s Bakery and others who oppose them. That was in response to her colleague texting her that “all these idiots complain about the college … Fuck-em, they’ve made their own bed now.”

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:10 am | Permalink

        Damn, sounds like a Praetorian Guard — or like the dogs trained from birth to serve as bodyguards for the pig Napoleon in Animal Farm.

        • BJ
          Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:19 am | Permalink

          Would this be considered admissible on appeal? Does it actually help prove intent to defame in this particular case? Would it be admissible simply as a matter of establishing the character of the plaintiff?

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

            You can’t introduce new evidence on appeal; appellate courts work from the cold record established in the trial court.

            A party can seek to reopen the trial court record to introduce evidence of subsequent events, but the probative value of such later events for establishing a previously existing state of mind is pretty tenuous (though I wouldn’t discount the creativity of my civil brethren in making legal arguments when there’s a cool $33 million hanging in the balance). 🙂

            • BJ
              Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

              “You can’t introduce new evidence on appeal; appellate courts work from the cold record established in the trial court.”

              I know. I meant might the appellate court consider allowing yhis and similar evidence a mistake?

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

                If the statements occurred during the relevant time period, they would be admissible to show “actual malice” for the purposes of punitive damages.

                If the statements occurred after-the-fact, they might still be admissible, but I should think the defendants would argue on appeal that their introduction was error.

              • BJ
                Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

                Thanks, Ken. Don’t know what we’d do without you here.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted June 14, 2019 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

                What you’d do without me? Probably avoid needless confusion. 🙂

        • Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

          Release the Woken

          • Posted June 14, 2019 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

            “Fly my pretties! Fly!”

    • rickflick
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 12:10 am | Permalink

      Wow. I’ll bet those emails probably cost Oberlin half the award.

  7. Marou
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    I’m no Einstein but how did this not look like a slam-dunk for the Gibsons right from the start? Did Oberlin think a defeat in court (they can’t have reckoned on the size of the damages) was a price worth paying to stay down with the kids? Am I missing something?

    • Keith
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:33 am | Permalink

      I agree it is strange that an issue like this ever went to a jury trial. It demonstrates such profoundly bad judgment on the part of the college, and reveals much about the power of group think, ideology, or institutional obtuseness. It’s just like the Emperor’s New Clothes fairy tale, where no one dared point out to college administrators (or woke students) that they were being nakedly foolish.

      • Posted June 14, 2019 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

        Winner of the best comment on the thread! 🙂

      • A C Harper
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

        “It’s just like the Emperor’s New Clothes fairy tale, where no one dared point out to college administrators (or woke students) that they were being nakedly foolish.”

        (Reworded from a comment on Quillette)

        It’s no longer enough to believe in the Emperors’ New Clothes… you have to be prepared to take them away for cleaning and bring them back for a good pressing. That is if you wish to be regarded as fully woke.

  8. Malgorzata
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    sub.

  9. Debbie Coplan
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    I am very happy to see the family and especially the 90 year old grandpa being compensated for the 3 years of horrible stress on their business. I imagine it was really frightening, not knowing if they would survive financially after being so supportive of the community for so long and then demonized. It’s so hard for small businesses to survive now, especially bakeries, let alone being bullied. I’m glad they took on Oberlin College.

  10. Nicholas K.
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    I’m not so sure Oberlin will lose on appeal.

    See opinion here: http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/a-trial-between-oberlin-college-and-local-bakery-tackles-first-amendment-questions

    “On the contrary, however, the Supreme Court also has ruled that private defamation plaintiffs can’t recover punitive damages unless they do show evidence of actual malice.”

    Still, a successful appeal means only that the school won’t be on the hook for the money. But, the publicity and attention is damning. This should lock their attention and some administrators must be held accountable.

  11. Ken Kukec
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    I’m happy to see the Gibson family made whole. But I suspect there may be some constitutional infirmity under the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause regarding a punitive damages award of this magnitude in a libel and slander suit, under the benchmark decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Such an award might well have a “chilling effect” on people’s future willingness to engage in constitutionally protected speech.

    He would need be a bold man indeed, for example, who would next take up a picket sign to march outside a business that had in fact engaged in invidious discrimination.

    • BJ
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:22 am | Permalink

      Considering Oberlin employees at the highest level were involved, and seemed to be acting so (or think to be acting so) as part of their jobs as employees of Oberlin, might not respondeat superior apply in some way to this case?

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

        Sure, I assume that’s the theory on which Oberlin itself (as opposed to just its students and faculty who committed the operative acts) was held liable. An incorporeal organization such as a university can act only through its agents and employees.

        (Damn, first chance I’ve had to flash “incorporeal” since law school. Thx. 🙂 )

        • BJ
          Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

          So, what are the chances of that theory holding up on appeal? I know we don’t have all the evidence yet, but, based on what we’ve seen, particularly the letters/statements from the VP and President.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted June 14, 2019 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

            I think that theory will hold up just fine on appeal. It’s the size of the award of punitive damages that I think might be infirm under the First Amendment is all.

            • BJ
              Posted June 14, 2019 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

              You’re right, we would have avoided needles confusion! That was my initial opinion. Well, at least I learned some things.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted June 14, 2019 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

          Sounds haunting.

  12. Blue
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    W H O A ! a truly good thing … …
    this verdict.

    I know of some other elitists, some “leaders,”
    some celebrities, some preachers, some universities, some other entities which, based upon the injustices that they seem always to get clean, slick away with ( cuz they ‘re glossed over due to their gender or race or their bank ccounts or whatevah th”ell ) who outta be brought … … low.
    They ought to be taken down … … The Same.

    Blue

  13. tr jackson
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Typo Attention: “they’ll have to pay addition attorneys’ fees.”

    Full concurrence here with BJ’s (#5) presumption that the award will be (drastically) reduced upon appeal.

    Once again (#8), a poster weighs in with the single word “sub” by way of comment, and once again I ask if somebody will please enlighten me as to wtf that is supposed to mean.

    • Malgorzata
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:43 am | Permalink

      sub. – a short from subscription. The only way to follow the discussion without writing own comment.

      • Filippo
        Posted June 15, 2019 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

        For the record, I hereby subscribe to this PCC(E) posting.

  14. gravelinspector-Aidan
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Oberlin College and their insurance company seemed to have no interest in settling this case

    Seems a strange sort of insurance to have. What is the title of the policy? “Insurance against insured person/ corporation being stupid”?

    Regardless, that policy won’t be getting renewed at the next expiry, nor even a estimate for renewal being submitted. Which will make it practically impossible for them to get similar insurance from any other supplier in this market. (Do insurance quotation forms in the US include the standard “have you ever had insurance refused, or special conditions imposed” question?)

    • Nicholas K.
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:59 am | Permalink

      The school has a blanket policy that covers various potential liabilities from lawsuits. Like a doctor having malpractice insurance.

      University of Chicago certainly has such a policy. I heard long ago 9from a Dean) that University of Illinois was one rare school that did not have such coverage. They have a sufficient amount of funds that they felt they could cover any judgement of liability, if indeed they lost a case.

      Since they are the one who would end up paying, the Insurance Company lawyers seem quite confident that they would not lose (always risky with a jury), or that they will be successful on appeal.

      • jpetts
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:41 am | Permalink

        I can’t find the link now, but IIRC the insurers believe they will not have to pay, because the policy doesn’t cover malicious and/or defamatory behavior. Check the Legal Insurrection site – it’s there somewhere.

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

        And the other point – that having exhibited such arrant stupidity, the management of the college will find it very difficult to get such insurance in the future.
        If Jerry’s figures are accurate, a judgement costing 60% of the annual income of the college is a serious threat to the organization.
        Following the same thread – don’t the officers of the corporation/ college/ company have a legal duty of care to the corporation/ college/ company. So potentially they are personally liable for the fines? We’ve had similar cases in Britain with local government officers being personally “sequestered” for non-criminal foul-ups of the finances.

  15. Curtis
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately, all universities will start paying more for insurance because of this case. It likely will not hurt Oberlin much directly because the insurance company will pay most (all) of the money.

    I hope the insurance companies charge different rates for university that promote freedom (e.g. Chicago) vs. SJW universities such as Oberlin and Evergreen.

    • BJ
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      “I hope the insurance companies charge different rates for university that promote freedom (e.g. Chicago) vs. SJW universities such as Oberlin and Evergreen.”

      I would guess previous history and lawsuits would certainly go into the formula to calculate the rate for any school applying for insurance.

    • A C Harper
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

      It would be an unexpected consequence of increased insurance rates were they the cause of universities reviewing the potential costs of surrendering to the political spasms of the woke.

  16. Posted June 14, 2019 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    I do wonder what will happen to the existing students who had nothing to do with this unfortunate behaviour. Being forced to pick up shop, apply to other universities mid-stream, etc. is going to be nasty – and to punish them for the behaviour of others seems to engage in guilt by association.

  17. DrBrydon
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Good.

  18. Jon Gallant
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    It is worth noting that Meredith Raimondo is another professional diversicrat. Before becoming Dean of Students, she was an Associate Dean and Special Assistant to the President for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. According to Oberlin’s website: “Raimondo joined the Oberlin community in 2003, as one of the professors in the newly formed Department of Comparative American Studies. CAS focuses on the comparative,” Raimondo said in 2003, how diversity affects Americans at home and abroad, and what this means when we look at the role of the United States in a global context. She has taught courses spanning the themes of gender and sexuality, race and ethnicity studies, social justice, and HIV/AIDS.”

    Oberlin’s faculty used also to include a professor of Rhetoric named Joy Karega, whose deep scholarship uncovered that Israel and the Jews were behind ISIS, the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the downing of Malaysian Flight 17 over Ukraine, and probably the 9/11 attack. This was a little extreme even for Oberlin, and she was dismissed (although she had much student support). Professor Karega’s position on bakeries has not been revealed.

    In Comparative American Studies, the Gibson case will no doubt be presented in the light of American bakeries’ deplorable lack of diversity. Not only does a shop like Gibson’s call the police against shoplifters who come from marginalized communities of the oppressed, such as Oberlin students, but it undoubtedly flaunts white privilege by baking pastries with white flour.

    • BJ
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

      Ah, yes, Joy Karega, the professor so regularly, reprehensibly, and publicly antisemitic that even Oberlin had to fire her, though it took them well over a year while they tried not to and she had tons of support from students and faculty.

    • Steve Pollard
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

      Not for the first time, I am tempted to conclude that most if not all university courses with ‘studies’ in the title are likely to be completely bogus.

      • Nicolaas Stempels
        Posted June 15, 2019 at 12:18 am | Permalink

        You beat me to it. I’m still waiting for being shown otherwise (after all there might be), but nothing useful or of intellectual value has emanated from any ‘xyz-studies’ department..

        • Nicolaas Stempels
          Posted June 15, 2019 at 12:26 am | Permalink

          Edit: the ‘italics’ were supposed to be closed after ‘might’.

  19. Roger Lambert
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    I guessing the punitive damages are just icing on the cake.

  20. Mike Anderson
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    So much for free speech on campus.

  21. Jon Gallant
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    The Oberlin department of “Comparative American Studies” explains itself as follows on the college website: “Comparative American studies (CAS) examines the range and diversity of experiences, identities, and communities within the United States. Through interdisciplinary study, students will study and explore social, political, economic, and cultural processes relating to the ways power and inequality are created and contested, and consider the United States locally, nationally, and within a global context. By placing the United States in a transnational and comparative framework, the program invites students to consider the relationship of different communities to the nation-state, ranging from issues of colonialism and empire building to social justice movements.
    CAS courses investigate power, inequality, and agency through the analysis of intersecting structures of race, gender, class, sexuality, ability, and citizenship. Central to these studies are examinations of the relationship of theory and practice within the scope of historical and contemporary contexts.”

    Thus, the department is a beachhead of applied postmodernism/grievance studies agitprop. As such, it might not inflict any more damage than, say, an Archaeology professor’s obsession with Hittite potshards. But Professor Meredith Raimondo shows how departments of this kind have wider influence. After a few years in the department, she became an Associate Dean and then Special Assistant to the President for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. From this position, she moved smoothly up to become Dean of Students. It is likely that exactly this trajectory from postmodernism/grievance studies into top administration, by means of the holy trinity of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, has been followed at other academic institutions, maybe quite a few of them.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted June 14, 2019 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

      In other words, do NOT ever promote the lunatics to run the asylum.

      cr

  22. Michael Waterhouse
    Posted June 14, 2019 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    A good outcome.
    Except, I always wonder when hearing about the huge legal fees.
    What do they actually do to warrant such huge amounts?

    • Filippo
      Posted June 15, 2019 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps the same could be said of investors and sports team owners (just what do they do or own?), among others.

  23. Posted June 14, 2019 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    Nice to see that wokeness has a value as it seemed nothing was forthcoming,

  24. DavidB
    Posted June 15, 2019 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    All the more glad my son isn’t going there (although we visited). We got the impression that they were more interested in being woke than being educated.

    One wonders how many alums will stop donating to their alma mater, or how the college’s alumni magazine will treat this…? I’ll have to ask my colleague who graduated from there about a decade ago.


%d bloggers like this: