14 ms·

Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

242 points by grellas 7y ago

Chazprime 7y ago
The merits of the case did not seem to bother Oberlin officials or student protesters. Dean of students Meredith Raimondo reportedly joined the massive protests and even handed out a flier denouncing the bakery as a racist business. Without knowing the details of the case, it's hard to determine who's truly at fault here. Even so, given that the dean herself apparently chastised a dissenting staffer who advocated for the bakery (“F* ROGER COPELAND”), it's a bit disconcerting to think that this is someone who is charged with the well-being of every student on campus. It's one thing to encourage student activism, but if these universities are teaching students to throw empathy, logic and reason to the wind, they are only doing them a disservice.
- surge 7y ago
  Short of it was that a student was confronted about shop lifting a bottle of wine, two other students with them assaulted the shop owner/employee when they were confronted about it. All the students admitted guilt for the shop lifting of a bottle of wine and the assault. The university still pressed and encouraged the protests saying they were only targeted because of their race. It should be worth mentioning that the bakery has been a family business for over 100 years and at that point a community feature, and the defense argued the multi employee bakery was a business worth only 35k and so therefore, no sizable damage to its reputation was done. The school, with an endowment of 887 million, sent a mass email to the campus and alumni out after the verdict but before the full damages could be determined basically saying the jury were idiots in so many words for ruling against the college and sticking to their guns.
  - ryanobjc 7y ago
    It's all mixed up but when I hear that it was a 100 year family owned business the likely hood it is racist goes way up to me. I can't say for sure but the fact it's some kind of community staple hardly protects it from accusations of racism. Remember: throwing the book at black shoplifters vs slaps on the wrist for white is definitely a key feature of racism.
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  I don't disagree. But, at a time when the cost/benefit ratio of college is challenged every day in popular discourse, maybe colleges have no choice but to embrace "The customer is always right" as a fundamental value.
  - Chazprime 7y ago
    The difference here is that the college appears to have actively taken part in the protests, as opposed to merely letting them happen.
    - HillaryBriss 7y ago
      Yeah, and that's how a college can really show some hustle and outcompete. I mean, imagine an idealistic 12th grader with a social justice bent. Does she choose a college that merely pays lip service to her righteous values, or does she choose one that jumps right into the trenches alongside her, blasting a megaphone and waving a giant sign?
  - nradov 7y ago
    College administrators always have the option of doing the right thing, even when it impacts revenue.
tc313 7y ago
Does anyone know what framework an appellate court will use to review/revise the damages? The article says $22 million is the state max, but are there other factors that will reduce the amount further?
- protomyth 7y ago
  Its 2x the compensatory damages. So, in this case compensatory damages were $11 million, so the punitive damages is capped at an additional $22 million leaving a total verdict of $33 million. The standard appeals process can overturn or reduce damages.
  - bradleyjg 7y ago
    But the jury verdict is entitled to deference (or at least would be in my state, couldn't swear to Ohio law).
    - jhayward 7y ago
      In almost every state jury awards for damages are reduced, often drastically, down to what can be proven as material damage. Unless someone has receipts for the $11 million (I haven't read the case) it will likely be reduced. This is the benefit of the 'tort reform' theories pushed by pro-business GOP legislators over the last 40 years.
- busymom0 7y ago
  From what I know, 22 million isn’t the max, 2X is the max for punitive damages. So they got 11.2 million for damages so they can only get 2x11.2=22.4 for the punitive. So 33.6 million total. Sorry, not sure if I answered the question?
- hirundo 7y ago
  Here's the statute: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2315.21 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2315.21 I find it hard to parse, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of room to remove the cap. Maybe if they conclude that the acts of the school amounted to felony libel? > (6) Division (D)(2) of this section does not apply to a tort action where the alleged injury, death, or loss to person or property resulted from the defendant acting with one or more of the culpable mental states of purposely and knowingly as described in section 2901.22 of the Revised Code and when the defendant has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a criminal offense that is a felony, that had as an element of the offense one or more of the culpable mental states of purposely and knowingly as described in that section, and that is the basis of the tort action.
protomyth 7y ago
Handy tip, you probably don't want to say a local, family-owned business that dates back to the 1800's is only worth $35,000. It comes off as elitist and hometown juries hate elitist with a passion. Best coverage was Legal Insurrection since they actually had people in the courtroom: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/oberlin-college-hit-with-maximum-punitive-damages-capped-at-22-million-by-law-in-gibsons-bakery-case/ https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/oberlin-college-hit-wi... (summary of coverage at bottom of article)
- milesdyson_phd 7y ago
  Leonard French had a good live stream yesterday going through everything too. Lawful Masses on YouTube for those interested.
- wl 7y ago
  I'll heartily endorse Legal Insurrection's coverage, but with the caveat that they've got a bone to pick against "social justice" and leftist campus activism. It doesn't seem to get in the way of them reporting all the relevant facts in a fair way.
  - clairity 7y ago
    interesting. opposition to "social justice" signals an opposition to fairness and equality, and theoretically should be rare. i wonder if it's the strain of opposition that sees it as zero-sum and resists (i.e., "if things get fairer for the disadvantaged, then i, as an advantaged person, must necessarily lose something")? or the strain that resists social normalization (e.g., i should be free to offend and belittle others)? or something else? even if everyone gains from growing the pie, the desire for relative status seems more powerful than our desire for fairness and equality unfortunately.
    - InTheArena 7y ago
      There is a form of the SJW movement that eschews “Liberalism” as basically being nothing more then the representation of the power of the oppressor rather then being a bedrock set of principles necessary for democracy and civil society. They have been vocal in demanding that those that would impress by any means (including speech) be suppressed and de-platformed or “canceled“. The systems that protect viewpoints that diverge or protect oppressors are must be removed. You see this not only with speech, but also things as basic as right to consul, right to face your accuser, right to a fair and speed trial - Under title 9 at college. It’s basically the same authoritarianism that hard core Trump fans embrace, but on the left.
bradleyjg 7y ago
The problem here is an insulation from consequences. After costing their employer $33 million dollars, plus legal fees, will the libelers be fired? I'd guess not. Ironically this is the same root cause for overuse of force by police officers that is alluded to in the article as a problem these university employees were concerned about. Police officers are also far too insulted from consequences and generally keep their jobs even after causing their employers (i.e. us) millions of dollars in lawsuit damages. The moral of the story is that all institutions should have effective mechanisms for accountability. Insulate employees too much and at least some will surely run amok.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
grellas 7y ago
A bit more factual context: 1. The student "protests" erupted the day after the 2016 election results came in, with a corresponding politically inflammatory element at work in the background. 2. The underlying incident involved an underaged black student who attempted to buy a bottle of wine, was refused, and was then found to have 2 other bottles under his coat as he walked out. When the owner's son chased him out, an altercation ensued and, as police arrived, they found the owner's son on the ground being hit and kicked by three persons, including 2 female friends of the shoplifter. 3. I use shoplifter, instead of "alleged shoplifter," because a guilty plea was entered admitting to the crime and also acknowledging that racial profiling had nothing to do with the incident. 4. Protests immediately erupted and were so volatile that the local police chief said he felt he had to call in outside help from a riot squad. 5. The students who did the protests claimed that Gibson's bakery not only had engaged in racial profiling in the particular incident but also that it was a long-time racist presence in the local business community. (Gibson's had been founded in 1880 and was strictly a family owned business, with the business supporting 3 generations of the family at the time of the incident). 6. The Oberlin dean of students (Merideth Raimondo) appears to have joined in the protests directly, shouting through a bullhorn and handing out fliers calling Gibson's racist. She claimed she used the bullhorn for 1 minute only and only to tell the students to observe safety precautions. Multiple other witnesses at the trial claimed she did so for a half hour and that she was a direct participant in the events. The jury obviously did not believe her. Also, she denied that she had handed out any fliers, was contradicted by a local reporter who said she had handed one to him, called that reporter a liar, and (at trial, once under oath) later admitted that he was telling the truth that she had handed him a flier knowing him to be a reporter. 7. The college immediately joined in the affair by terminating its long-term contract with Gibson's. A couple of months later, it reinstated that contract. Then, when the Gibson family filed suit, it terminated the contract permanently. 8. The college took the position that the matter would be dropped if Gibson's dropped the shoplifting charge and if it committed in the future to bring all incidents involving students directly to the college before it got the police involved. Gibson's refused to comply with this condition. 9. Gibson's in turn offered to forego any and all legal claims if the college sent out a mass communication stating that Gibson's had not engaged in racist activity and had no history of being racist. The college declined to do this. 10. Gibson's took a huge financial hit as a result of all this, barely managing to stay in business. It had to lay off all of its 12 employees and the family owners continued to operate the business without salary for 2 years. 11. Gibson's sued the college and its dean of students alleging libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interference with business relations. 12. Throughout the trial, the college took the position that it had done nothing wrong, was only protecting the students' right to free speech, and had no responsibility for what happened. It also took the position that Gibson's was worth no more than $35,000 in total value as a business and that such amount should be the maximum awarded in any damages award. 13. The jury award $11.2 million in compensatory damages, $33 million in punitive damages, and also said that Oberlin had to pay Gibson's attorneys' fees. Under state law, there is a 2x cap on punitive damages (2x times the amount of compensatory damages awarded) and thus the punitive award will be set at $22 million. The judge is still determining the attorneys' fees question. All in all, though, the jury basically slammed Oberlin to the max and also awarded major damages against the dean of students. 14. Oberlin sent a mass email to its alumni association essentially saying that the jury disregarded the clear evidence showing it had done nothing wrong and vowing to fight this through appeal. It also formally announced that it will be filing an appeal. 15. Oberlin has had a long-time "townie" vs. "gownie" culture but this far transcends the small tensions that have historically existed. William Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection has been on this case in great depth from inception, believing it is a case of major significance concerning college activism run amok. Here is a link to his reporting on the original verdict that contains a ton of links to the prior coverage: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/verdict-jury-awards-gibsons-bakery-11-million-against-oberlin-college/ https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/verdict-jury-awards-gi... The article here is by Jonathan Turley, a distinguished liberal law scholar, who is pretty critical of Oberlin's handling of the case, as I think most people are.
daodedickinson 7y ago
Oberlin is teaching textbook racially-organized crime, as seen thousands of years ago in Greece and earlier still elsewhere. Next time, they will have the judge and the jury and will win.
- dang 7y ago
  Please do not post ideological flamebait, or any flamebait, to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
hownottowrite 7y ago
Oberlin is an extreme case, even among other small, liberal arts colleges.
- tomohawk 7y ago
  No. Evergreen is the extreme case. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/the-evergreen-state-college-no-safety-no-learning-no-future/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/the-evergree...
  - hownottowrite 7y ago
    I said “an” extreme case. Take it easy, Francis.
- 0xdeadfa65 7y ago
  I wish I shared your optimism.
zuminator 7y ago
The problem I always have with stories like this is the context. 1) The writer breathlessly warns that "campuses across the country" are succumbing to mob rule. How many campuses is that? Sure, we "know" from the internet that this problem is rampant, just like we "know" that other hot-button issues such as shooting of unarmed black teens, the incel movement, anchor babies, etc. have reached epidemic proportions. But in many cases as in this article we have no context as to just how common these problems are. Is this happening at 10 percent of campuses, fifty percent, 1/10 of 1%? Is the trendline up in the past year or just the reporting of it? 2) What about the historical context? Colleges have been hotbeds of protest for hundreds of years. Is it really true that something has fundamentally changed, or does it just seem that way because this time groups that we (ymmv) approve of are on the receiving end of the protests? If the issue is free speech, ought we not also compare historical limits on free speech imposed by governments, college donors and churches? Perhaps students have gained power because some of those prior actors have lost power, and if so, maybe that is not a bad thing. How much free speech did Jews, women and black students have when they weren't even allowed to enroll in certain colleges in the first place? When exactly was the golden age of academic freedom that everybody wants to return to? I have a feeling the answer to that strongly depends on when the respondent happened to attend school. 3) This article also lumps together issues which are linked in only the most nebulous of ways. What is this specific bakery case meant to be an example of? The author states, "Across the country, academics have caused lasting damage to their institutions by failing to stand up to, or actively supporting, extreme demands for speech codes, limits on academic freedom, and tenure changes." But this situation, of Oberlin officials and students protesting a bakery, doesn't seem to fit into any of those categories. Or maybe it's meant to illustrate how "leaders are ceding control to a small group of activist students and faculty members." Huh, who's ceding control to whom? Seems to me the activist students and faculty members <i>are</i> the leaders. 4) In this specific instance, the writer in my opinion fails to adequately cover both sides of the story. Why were the students and faculty so sure that racism took place if that so clearly was not the case, as portrayed here? It appears as if they had ample opportunity to walk back their position but refused to even in the face of potentially ruinous litigation. 5) And if schools are losing verdicts and enrollment right and left, then isn't this a self-correcting problem? The expression goes that you have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences. Overactivist universities will face oblivion, problem solved. Or perhaps potential students will decide that going to schools that support their social issues is worth the higher tuition and stricter environment. Many religious institutions impose extra restrictions and limit free expression -- some people are okay with that kind of learning environment; as a society we're generally not apoplectic over it. I'm not denying there are some seeming trends that are seemingly worrisome. I just can't tell, from most of these articles, how truly widespread they are, how deep is their support, how much of the hysteria is media or internet driven, how badly activism affects the overall university experience, and why supposedly large numbers of students and faculty are so strongly in support of them if they are all downside and no benefit. EDIT: When I started writing my comment there were no other replies. Thank you grellas and others for providing a lot more context than existed in the article itself.
high_derivative 7y ago
I am a grad student leaving university soon enough, and this does not surprise me at all. Especially at elite universities, there is this interesting phenomenon of mostly upper middle class white women from on average the most privileged upbringings in the western hemisphere arriving at a university they (anyone) could only attend by incredible privilege and luck. Yet they arrive fully convinced they have been held back by the patriarchy their entire lives. Same for other groups and their pet causes. They find no apparent contradiction at being the most privileged of their generation (speaking of Harvard, Oxbridge, Stanford here), yet the smaller and local the cause, the more vicious the activism. Someone they disagree with dare speak on campus? Violence, trauma, discrimination, hate. Getting arrested for taking off a veil in Iran? Genocide? Consumerism destroying the planet? Yawn. I often see people on hn saying this is all blown out of proportion and a small vocal minority but when you talk to undergrads these days, you will realize these beliefs are not just a handful of people but carry weight across the student population. Not least because opposition is shamed into silence. University admins are usually easily cowed submission on these causes, mostly because it does not cost them anything to uninvite/fire someone.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  I find your narrative plausible, but I wish I had good quantitative data about the generalizations / trends you mention. Otherwise it's hard to decide how much weight to give your generalizations.
- DanBC 7y ago
  People misunderstand the concept of privilege. You compare people from similar socio-economic backgrounds. You don't compare dissimilar groups. Those women are being held back when you compare to their brothers.
  - baggy_trough 7y ago
    Certainly this is nonsense. A significant majority of undergraduate and graduate degrees go to women.
surge 7y ago
I saw it happen first hand once at Guilford College, another small liberal arts college. There was an incident between a group of drunken football students and some kids that were Arabic. The school didn't do its part to encourage rational and cool heads until all the facts were in and there were mobs looking for football players, even those not involved. It wasn't safe for them so had to leave campus. Once the facts were in the football players had medical evidence of being assaulted and punched with a hand wrapped with a belt which conflicted with the students story of just being jumped (if you have time to take off your belt and wrap it around your hand, you have time to escape or deescalate). Other eye witness statements lined up that both parties were drinking (the other students had been on their way to the club). In the end it seemed like the both parties were at fault but the ones claiming victim status were the original antagonizers and lost the fight so cried foul. In either case, there were calls to disband the football team and athletic program as a result of the actions of a few students. No where was the college saying wait for all the evidence to be presented, rather than going on the word of one side before reacting. They allowed the students to take over effectively and no students who encouraged the mob were ever disciplined afterwards for libel. It's a common practice at these schools to assume guilt because of race (they're white), which is just as unjust as the crimes in the past. The hard standard is to not involve mass mob or protest until evidence is provided. If schools are supposed to be institutions of higher learning and thought, they should be encouraging students to be impartial and consider all evidence and act on that and not hearsay. Free speech standards in the US requires you have evidence to back up what you're saying if you're going to speak negatively of someone, even more so if you're going to take action against them, colleges should be encouraging that standard and rational thought over emotional reaction.
- ThrustVectoring 7y ago
  >Free speech standards in the US requires you have evidence to back up what you're saying if you're going to speak negatively of someone You're free to speak negatively of people, you just can't damage someone's reputation by spreading false facts. I'm allowed to call my neighbor a poopyhead or the like, but I can't tell people that he sexually molests children. Debate is fine, lively discussion is fine, talking negatively about people is fine. What crosses the line is when you go after someone's livelihood or ability to live in peace. That's really what this case is about - Oberlin college administrators got into a disagreement with a local bakery, so they tried to use their clout and influence to run them out of business. Juries really do not approve of that sort of behavior.
thatoneuser 7y ago
Good. There are far too many sitting comfortably in their ivory towers these days indoctrinating kids turning into adults as their personal army. There's too much hatred of certain races/genders (typically from what I see its white/men, but by no means are those two groups the only ones who are victims) that gets ignored. Many years ago (tho not that many) blacks would have their businesses routinely ransacked, protested, and strong armed out. I don't doubt that it still happened to this day. We learned about that in civics and history - the atrocity of racially based attacks in the past to financially ruin others. Now it's 2019 and the very same institutions that led those concerns are themselves causing the same problem. This can't go on. Free speech is fine. If you have an opinion and you want to state it - then state it. But when you weaponize your speech to ruin others, especially when those others are merely doing the most basic thing they ought to (ie, protecting their business and livelihood of themselves and their employees) - you deserve to be punished. There's no room in a progressed society for small groups to usurp control beyond legal frameworks. To establish witch hunts and expect that you'll get away with it. I hope the individuals at the University also face financial and legal hardship for their actions. It's despicable. Edit: At this point I expect downvotes for speaking honestly and truthfully. The very people down voting are the ones who promote the hateful rhetoric this college exhibited.
- dang 7y ago
  The downvotes are more likely because of the fiery rhetoric in your comment. It's tedious, and there's far too much of it online. People come to HN to be interested, not blared at. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and using this site as intended from now on? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - thatoneuser 7y ago
    Please enlighten me as to what about my post is rhetoric rather than describing a position and backing it up with facts from this very article. You keep saying I'm doing this yet I can't really see what I'm doing beyond assessing a social phenomenon. Can you be more direct than referring me to nebulous guidelines? Because to me it doesn't seem constructive at all. Fwiw I see posts all over that have the same "fire" that my post does which are top posts. Doubly so for posts that are people just talking their opinions out. Usually around opinion pieces of tech. Is this only different because it involves race?
Nasrudith 7y ago
Really I think the issue isn't activism per say but how they are doing it - demagoguic and tribalistic instead of even a coherent philosophy or let alone a logical one. There is a lack of reflection before or after for actions and just concern about how they feel.
NotSammyHagar 7y ago
The tl;dr seems to be an underage black person tried to buy wine, apparently stole wine, then there was a fight with the owner's son. There was a demonstration that was probably based on an unclear understanding of the events. So people over-reacted to events, yes they were stupid to do. But you shouldn't use this as an excuse to clutch one's pearls and conclude colleges have lost their way. This looks like a cya activity after the true(-er?) facts came out.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  Did you miss the part about college officials committing purgery? In what institution would she be able to keep her job? So yes - some protest and confusion in the days after are understandable. But the actions of the college go way beyond that. She should have been fired long ago the college should have apologized to the community alumni and the bakery and then it would all have ended. This is a good example of colleges getting completely out of hand.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    yeah, if she lied she should be fired. I am surprised there is not clear evidence, like a recording.
pessimizer 7y ago
It's strange that stories from the progressive end of this discussion get (often rightfully) flagged into oblivion in seconds, but this conservative campus panic story survives to 45 comments.
- dang 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "this discussion", but if you mean ideology in general, HN has had plenty of stories from progressive perspectives on the front page. This is an area where perceptions are particularly unreliable. Each side tends to feel that the site is biased against their side, often quite passionately. We sometimes turn off flags on stories that are substantive and interesting and where there's hope for a thoughtful discussion. Sometimes those stories have one ideological polarity, sometimes another.
- deogeo 7y ago
  The 8chan warrant story is still on the 2nd page after a whole day, and wasn't flagged. And this story is about a $887 million institution pressuring a working-class assault victim to drop charges against their attackers, by using libel and economic sanctions. So what makes this story 'conservative'? That the victim was white?
  - elicash 7y ago
    Most of the interest in this story has been in right-wing media stemming from a false "racism" accusation that is a PART of this case and also due to a bigger narrative around left-wing campuses. I'd frame the story differently than you did, but the bigger point is that we shouldn't pretend this isn't mostly a right-wing media news story for these reasons. I think we both agree that if the racism charge had strong merit (it didn't), then most would see this as a liberal news story because that's mostly who would be focusing on it. People tend to be drawn to stories that reinforce their world view. That, of course, doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the discussion here. (I've been active in this thread so obviously I think it should be here.) Edit: Also, I'm not the person you were responding to but this was very dishonest of you: > That the victim was white? OP said exactly why they thought it was conservative. They cited that it was because it was related to "conservative campus panic." To pretend they could have said it because "the victim was white" is very dishonest of you.
thatoneuser 7y ago
It sounds like you're taking a very one sided perspective in evaluating this. The story is pretty clear - a black kid stole product, the owner tried to protect his product, the kid cried racism, the college called racism, the college encouraged and orchestrated protests, the college financially intervened by removing contracts with the business, etc. Since when is someone not entitled to protecting their property? He didn't come out shooting a gun, he came out and got jumped. The school said it was racial profiling - even though no one denied it was theft. What side of the story is missing here? More personal testimony that the intervention was racially based? There's just nothing more to the story that could make this balance out. I think your reluctance to take the facts at face value and instead say "well what if this really was racist" is exactly the indoctrination that schools like this have fostered. It's like back in the day when people did this kind of crap to ruin black businesses and thinking "well what if we don't know the full story behind their behavior?" Sure maybe there was a valid justification for the hateful behavior, but apply the logical razor. Racism seemed to be getting a lot better about 10 years ago and since then it seems to have taken a turn. Now it's seemingly in vogue to hate on whites. Don't doubt that there are people out there who think that's a good thing, but consider that the next time the pendulum swings it won't still be the same race being targeted. Do we want to have another Jim Crow era in 2030 where we collectively hate blacks like is so popular to do to whites now?
- zuminator 7y ago
  I don't know how you're quoting me at saying "well what if this really was racist?" My question was why did the students and faculty think it was racist to the point of going forward with a disastrous trial? About your last paragraph, I feel like you're just illustrating my larger point. Is it really en vogue to "hate on whites" or is the media and internet pushing that narrative because divisiveness brings page views? Btw, Jim Crow wasn't just about hating on black people, it was about a legal and societal framework where blacks were kept in subservience, poverty, disenfranchisement and constant fear for their lives. People didn't need to hate blacks so much, as long as they stayed in their place. Things were orders of magnitude worse than people on Twitter jawboning about reparations and white privilege.
  - 7y ago
dqpb 7y ago
An article solely about Oberlin college, at best, only shows that Oberlin college is losing their way.
thatoneuser 7y ago
There wasn't just a demonstration (tho even that would be overdone considering the kid was shoplifting wine - which is a crime and it's not like he was just trying to get some food to survive.) This was deliberate and repeated attempts to libel a store owner out of business or into inane submission. Imagine if your family owned and operated a business for over 100 years, only for it to be dismantled because you rightfully tried to protect your property from theft. Sounds like you have been indoctrinated by the same hate these colleges are peddling. No not all colleges do this, but 1/10 is too much. These are institutions which should be educating and enlightening, not promoting ignorance of circumstance and leading witch hunts.
- dang 7y ago
  > Sounds like you have been indoctrinated by the same hate Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20192246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20192246 and marked it off-topic.
  - thatoneuser 7y ago
    Easy there big guy, nothing I did is a personal attack. Though you should watch your own posts because they're the type that gets you banned.
    - BeetleB 7y ago
      >Though you should watch your own posts because they're the type that gets you banned. Easy there - you're talking to the one who likely does the banning around here.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
neilv 7y ago
Hopefully, this judgment encourages colleges to reassert educating students in critical thinking and thoughtful societal engagement -- not pandering to students, nor indulging faculty/administrators who are doing the opposite of their jobs.
CrowFly 7y ago
From an article linked in the first one, the students, with the encouragement of the faculty, handed out flyers saying the bakery “is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.”" (caps in original quote.) What horrific people! They're defending the right of underage African American students to shoplift wine? This is why we cannot have tuition debt forgiveness.
abbadadda 7y ago
What an awful website experience.
insickness 7y ago
I've heard/read about similar situations recently where a black person is caught committing a crime and people protest the establishment for racism. At a vintage store in Brooklyn, a black woman was caught shoplifting and arrested. Then a group of people started protesting the store.
shriphani 7y ago
It is like you see your car is headed towards a ditch and you step on the gas. Quite amazed that such poor judgement was exercised throughout this incident - from deans and upper level admins no less - how out of touch with reality can someone be?
RickJWagner 7y ago
Oberlin was acting totally irresponsibly. I'm glad for the damages. I hope this sends a chilling message to universities-- spend your time and efforts on providing the best education possible. Leave toxic politics in the past. Education should be the primary reason for existence, by far.

242 points by grellas 7y ago

The merits of the case did not seem to bother Oberlin officials or student protesters. Dean of students Meredith Raimondo reportedly joined the massive protests and even handed out a flier denouncing the bakery as a racist business. Without knowing the details of the case, it's hard to determine who's truly at fault here. Even so, given that the dean herself apparently chastised a dissenting staffer who advocated for the bakery (“F* ROGER COPELAND”), it's a bit disconcerting to think that this is someone who is charged with the well-being of every student on campus. It's one thing to encourage student activism, but if these universities are teaching students to throw empathy, logic and reason to the wind, they are only doing them a disservice.

surge 7y ago
Short of it was that a student was confronted about shop lifting a bottle of wine, two other students with them assaulted the shop owner/employee when they were confronted about it. All the students admitted guilt for the shop lifting of a bottle of wine and the assault. The university still pressed and encouraged the protests saying they were only targeted because of their race. It should be worth mentioning that the bakery has been a family business for over 100 years and at that point a community feature, and the defense argued the multi employee bakery was a business worth only 35k and so therefore, no sizable damage to its reputation was done. The school, with an endowment of 887 million, sent a mass email to the campus and alumni out after the verdict but before the full damages could be determined basically saying the jury were idiots in so many words for ruling against the college and sticking to their guns.
- ryanobjc 7y ago
  It's all mixed up but when I hear that it was a 100 year family owned business the likely hood it is racist goes way up to me. I can't say for sure but the fact it's some kind of community staple hardly protects it from accusations of racism. Remember: throwing the book at black shoplifters vs slaps on the wrist for white is definitely a key feature of racism.
HillaryBriss 7y ago
I don't disagree. But, at a time when the cost/benefit ratio of college is challenged every day in popular discourse, maybe colleges have no choice but to embrace "The customer is always right" as a fundamental value.
- Chazprime 7y ago
  The difference here is that the college appears to have actively taken part in the protests, as opposed to merely letting them happen.
  - HillaryBriss 7y ago
    Yeah, and that's how a college can really show some hustle and outcompete. I mean, imagine an idealistic 12th grader with a social justice bent. Does she choose a college that merely pays lip service to her righteous values, or does she choose one that jumps right into the trenches alongside her, blasting a megaphone and waving a giant sign?
- nradov 7y ago
  College administrators always have the option of doing the right thing, even when it impacts revenue.

tc313 7y ago

Does anyone know what framework an appellate court will use to review/revise the damages? The article says $22 million is the state max, but are there other factors that will reduce the amount further?

protomyth 7y ago
Its 2x the compensatory damages. So, in this case compensatory damages were $11 million, so the punitive damages is capped at an additional $22 million leaving a total verdict of $33 million. The standard appeals process can overturn or reduce damages.
- bradleyjg 7y ago
  But the jury verdict is entitled to deference (or at least would be in my state, couldn't swear to Ohio law).
  - jhayward 7y ago
    In almost every state jury awards for damages are reduced, often drastically, down to what can be proven as material damage. Unless someone has receipts for the $11 million (I haven't read the case) it will likely be reduced. This is the benefit of the 'tort reform' theories pushed by pro-business GOP legislators over the last 40 years.
busymom0 7y ago
From what I know, 22 million isn’t the max, 2X is the max for punitive damages. So they got 11.2 million for damages so they can only get 2x11.2=22.4 for the punitive. So 33.6 million total. Sorry, not sure if I answered the question?
hirundo 7y ago
Here's the statute: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2315.21 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2315.21 I find it hard to parse, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of room to remove the cap. Maybe if they conclude that the acts of the school amounted to felony libel? > (6) Division (D)(2) of this section does not apply to a tort action where the alleged injury, death, or loss to person or property resulted from the defendant acting with one or more of the culpable mental states of purposely and knowingly as described in section 2901.22 of the Revised Code and when the defendant has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a criminal offense that is a felony, that had as an element of the offense one or more of the culpable mental states of purposely and knowingly as described in that section, and that is the basis of the tort action.

protomyth 7y ago

Handy tip, you probably don't want to say a local, family-owned business that dates back to the 1800's is only worth $35,000. It comes off as elitist and hometown juries hate elitist with a passion. Best coverage was Legal Insurrection since they actually had people in the courtroom: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/oberlin-college-hit-with-maximum-punitive-damages-capped-at-22-million-by-law-in-gibsons-bakery-case/ https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/oberlin-college-hit-wi... (summary of coverage at bottom of article)

milesdyson_phd 7y ago
Leonard French had a good live stream yesterday going through everything too. Lawful Masses on YouTube for those interested.
wl 7y ago
I'll heartily endorse Legal Insurrection's coverage, but with the caveat that they've got a bone to pick against "social justice" and leftist campus activism. It doesn't seem to get in the way of them reporting all the relevant facts in a fair way.
- clairity 7y ago
  interesting. opposition to "social justice" signals an opposition to fairness and equality, and theoretically should be rare. i wonder if it's the strain of opposition that sees it as zero-sum and resists (i.e., "if things get fairer for the disadvantaged, then i, as an advantaged person, must necessarily lose something")? or the strain that resists social normalization (e.g., i should be free to offend and belittle others)? or something else? even if everyone gains from growing the pie, the desire for relative status seems more powerful than our desire for fairness and equality unfortunately.
  - InTheArena 7y ago
    There is a form of the SJW movement that eschews “Liberalism” as basically being nothing more then the representation of the power of the oppressor rather then being a bedrock set of principles necessary for democracy and civil society. They have been vocal in demanding that those that would impress by any means (including speech) be suppressed and de-platformed or “canceled“. The systems that protect viewpoints that diverge or protect oppressors are must be removed. You see this not only with speech, but also things as basic as right to consul, right to face your accuser, right to a fair and speed trial - Under title 9 at college. It’s basically the same authoritarianism that hard core Trump fans embrace, but on the left.

bradleyjg 7y ago

The problem here is an insulation from consequences. After costing their employer $33 million dollars, plus legal fees, will the libelers be fired? I'd guess not. Ironically this is the same root cause for overuse of force by police officers that is alluded to in the article as a problem these university employees were concerned about. Police officers are also far too insulted from consequences and generally keep their jobs even after causing their employers (i.e. us) millions of dollars in lawsuit damages. The moral of the story is that all institutions should have effective mechanisms for accountability. Insulate employees too much and at least some will surely run amok.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

grellas 7y ago

A bit more factual context: 1. The student "protests" erupted the day after the 2016 election results came in, with a corresponding politically inflammatory element at work in the background. 2. The underlying incident involved an underaged black student who attempted to buy a bottle of wine, was refused, and was then found to have 2 other bottles under his coat as he walked out. When the owner's son chased him out, an altercation ensued and, as police arrived, they found the owner's son on the ground being hit and kicked by three persons, including 2 female friends of the shoplifter. 3. I use shoplifter, instead of "alleged shoplifter," because a guilty plea was entered admitting to the crime and also acknowledging that racial profiling had nothing to do with the incident. 4. Protests immediately erupted and were so volatile that the local police chief said he felt he had to call in outside help from a riot squad. 5. The students who did the protests claimed that Gibson's bakery not only had engaged in racial profiling in the particular incident but also that it was a long-time racist presence in the local business community. (Gibson's had been founded in 1880 and was strictly a family owned business, with the business supporting 3 generations of the family at the time of the incident). 6. The Oberlin dean of students (Merideth Raimondo) appears to have joined in the protests directly, shouting through a bullhorn and handing out fliers calling Gibson's racist. She claimed she used the bullhorn for 1 minute only and only to tell the students to observe safety precautions. Multiple other witnesses at the trial claimed she did so for a half hour and that she was a direct participant in the events. The jury obviously did not believe her. Also, she denied that she had handed out any fliers, was contradicted by a local reporter who said she had handed one to him, called that reporter a liar, and (at trial, once under oath) later admitted that he was telling the truth that she had handed him a flier knowing him to be a reporter. 7. The college immediately joined in the affair by terminating its long-term contract with Gibson's. A couple of months later, it reinstated that contract. Then, when the Gibson family filed suit, it terminated the contract permanently. 8. The college took the position that the matter would be dropped if Gibson's dropped the shoplifting charge and if it committed in the future to bring all incidents involving students directly to the college before it got the police involved. Gibson's refused to comply with this condition. 9. Gibson's in turn offered to forego any and all legal claims if the college sent out a mass communication stating that Gibson's had not engaged in racist activity and had no history of being racist. The college declined to do this. 10. Gibson's took a huge financial hit as a result of all this, barely managing to stay in business. It had to lay off all of its 12 employees and the family owners continued to operate the business without salary for 2 years. 11. Gibson's sued the college and its dean of students alleging libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interference with business relations. 12. Throughout the trial, the college took the position that it had done nothing wrong, was only protecting the students' right to free speech, and had no responsibility for what happened. It also took the position that Gibson's was worth no more than $35,000 in total value as a business and that such amount should be the maximum awarded in any damages award. 13. The jury award $11.2 million in compensatory damages, $33 million in punitive damages, and also said that Oberlin had to pay Gibson's attorneys' fees. Under state law, there is a 2x cap on punitive damages (2x times the amount of compensatory damages awarded) and thus the punitive award will be set at $22 million. The judge is still determining the attorneys' fees question. All in all, though, the jury basically slammed Oberlin to the max and also awarded major damages against the dean of students. 14. Oberlin sent a mass email to its alumni association essentially saying that the jury disregarded the clear evidence showing it had done nothing wrong and vowing to fight this through appeal. It also formally announced that it will be filing an appeal. 15. Oberlin has had a long-time "townie" vs. "gownie" culture but this far transcends the small tensions that have historically existed. William Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection has been on this case in great depth from inception, believing it is a case of major significance concerning college activism run amok. Here is a link to his reporting on the original verdict that contains a ton of links to the prior coverage: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/verdict-jury-awards-gibsons-bakery-11-million-against-oberlin-college/ https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/verdict-jury-awards-gi... The article here is by Jonathan Turley, a distinguished liberal law scholar, who is pretty critical of Oberlin's handling of the case, as I think most people are.

daodedickinson 7y ago

Oberlin is teaching textbook racially-organized crime, as seen thousands of years ago in Greece and earlier still elsewhere. Next time, they will have the judge and the jury and will win.

dang 7y ago
Please do not post ideological flamebait, or any flamebait, to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

hownottowrite 7y ago

Oberlin is an extreme case, even among other small, liberal arts colleges.

tomohawk 7y ago
No. Evergreen is the extreme case. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/the-evergreen-state-college-no-safety-no-learning-no-future/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/the-evergree...
- hownottowrite 7y ago
  I said “an” extreme case. Take it easy, Francis.
0xdeadfa65 7y ago
I wish I shared your optimism.

zuminator 7y ago

The problem I always have with stories like this is the context. 1) The writer breathlessly warns that "campuses across the country" are succumbing to mob rule. How many campuses is that? Sure, we "know" from the internet that this problem is rampant, just like we "know" that other hot-button issues such as shooting of unarmed black teens, the incel movement, anchor babies, etc. have reached epidemic proportions. But in many cases as in this article we have no context as to just how common these problems are. Is this happening at 10 percent of campuses, fifty percent, 1/10 of 1%? Is the trendline up in the past year or just the reporting of it? 2) What about the historical context? Colleges have been hotbeds of protest for hundreds of years. Is it really true that something has fundamentally changed, or does it just seem that way because this time groups that we (ymmv) approve of are on the receiving end of the protests? If the issue is free speech, ought we not also compare historical limits on free speech imposed by governments, college donors and churches? Perhaps students have gained power because some of those prior actors have lost power, and if so, maybe that is not a bad thing. How much free speech did Jews, women and black students have when they weren't even allowed to enroll in certain colleges in the first place? When exactly was the golden age of academic freedom that everybody wants to return to? I have a feeling the answer to that strongly depends on when the respondent happened to attend school. 3) This article also lumps together issues which are linked in only the most nebulous of ways. What is this specific bakery case meant to be an example of? The author states, "Across the country, academics have caused lasting damage to their institutions by failing to stand up to, or actively supporting, extreme demands for speech codes, limits on academic freedom, and tenure changes." But this situation, of Oberlin officials and students protesting a bakery, doesn't seem to fit into any of those categories. Or maybe it's meant to illustrate how "leaders are ceding control to a small group of activist students and faculty members." Huh, who's ceding control to whom? Seems to me the activist students and faculty members <i>are</i> the leaders. 4) In this specific instance, the writer in my opinion fails to adequately cover both sides of the story. Why were the students and faculty so sure that racism took place if that so clearly was not the case, as portrayed here? It appears as if they had ample opportunity to walk back their position but refused to even in the face of potentially ruinous litigation. 5) And if schools are losing verdicts and enrollment right and left, then isn't this a self-correcting problem? The expression goes that you have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences. Overactivist universities will face oblivion, problem solved. Or perhaps potential students will decide that going to schools that support their social issues is worth the higher tuition and stricter environment. Many religious institutions impose extra restrictions and limit free expression -- some people are okay with that kind of learning environment; as a society we're generally not apoplectic over it. I'm not denying there are some seeming trends that are seemingly worrisome. I just can't tell, from most of these articles, how truly widespread they are, how deep is their support, how much of the hysteria is media or internet driven, how badly activism affects the overall university experience, and why supposedly large numbers of students and faculty are so strongly in support of them if they are all downside and no benefit. EDIT: When I started writing my comment there were no other replies. Thank you grellas and others for providing a lot more context than existed in the article itself.

high_derivative 7y ago

I am a grad student leaving university soon enough, and this does not surprise me at all. Especially at elite universities, there is this interesting phenomenon of mostly upper middle class white women from on average the most privileged upbringings in the western hemisphere arriving at a university they (anyone) could only attend by incredible privilege and luck. Yet they arrive fully convinced they have been held back by the patriarchy their entire lives. Same for other groups and their pet causes. They find no apparent contradiction at being the most privileged of their generation (speaking of Harvard, Oxbridge, Stanford here), yet the smaller and local the cause, the more vicious the activism. Someone they disagree with dare speak on campus? Violence, trauma, discrimination, hate. Getting arrested for taking off a veil in Iran? Genocide? Consumerism destroying the planet? Yawn. I often see people on hn saying this is all blown out of proportion and a small vocal minority but when you talk to undergrads these days, you will realize these beliefs are not just a handful of people but carry weight across the student population. Not least because opposition is shamed into silence. University admins are usually easily cowed submission on these causes, mostly because it does not cost them anything to uninvite/fire someone.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
I find your narrative plausible, but I wish I had good quantitative data about the generalizations / trends you mention. Otherwise it's hard to decide how much weight to give your generalizations.
DanBC 7y ago
People misunderstand the concept of privilege. You compare people from similar socio-economic backgrounds. You don't compare dissimilar groups. Those women are being held back when you compare to their brothers.
- baggy_trough 7y ago
  Certainly this is nonsense. A significant majority of undergraduate and graduate degrees go to women.

surge 7y ago

I saw it happen first hand once at Guilford College, another small liberal arts college. There was an incident between a group of drunken football students and some kids that were Arabic. The school didn't do its part to encourage rational and cool heads until all the facts were in and there were mobs looking for football players, even those not involved. It wasn't safe for them so had to leave campus. Once the facts were in the football players had medical evidence of being assaulted and punched with a hand wrapped with a belt which conflicted with the students story of just being jumped (if you have time to take off your belt and wrap it around your hand, you have time to escape or deescalate). Other eye witness statements lined up that both parties were drinking (the other students had been on their way to the club). In the end it seemed like the both parties were at fault but the ones claiming victim status were the original antagonizers and lost the fight so cried foul. In either case, there were calls to disband the football team and athletic program as a result of the actions of a few students. No where was the college saying wait for all the evidence to be presented, rather than going on the word of one side before reacting. They allowed the students to take over effectively and no students who encouraged the mob were ever disciplined afterwards for libel. It's a common practice at these schools to assume guilt because of race (they're white), which is just as unjust as the crimes in the past. The hard standard is to not involve mass mob or protest until evidence is provided. If schools are supposed to be institutions of higher learning and thought, they should be encouraging students to be impartial and consider all evidence and act on that and not hearsay. Free speech standards in the US requires you have evidence to back up what you're saying if you're going to speak negatively of someone, even more so if you're going to take action against them, colleges should be encouraging that standard and rational thought over emotional reaction.

ThrustVectoring 7y ago
>Free speech standards in the US requires you have evidence to back up what you're saying if you're going to speak negatively of someone You're free to speak negatively of people, you just can't damage someone's reputation by spreading false facts. I'm allowed to call my neighbor a poopyhead or the like, but I can't tell people that he sexually molests children. Debate is fine, lively discussion is fine, talking negatively about people is fine. What crosses the line is when you go after someone's livelihood or ability to live in peace. That's really what this case is about - Oberlin college administrators got into a disagreement with a local bakery, so they tried to use their clout and influence to run them out of business. Juries really do not approve of that sort of behavior.

thatoneuser 7y ago

Good. There are far too many sitting comfortably in their ivory towers these days indoctrinating kids turning into adults as their personal army. There's too much hatred of certain races/genders (typically from what I see its white/men, but by no means are those two groups the only ones who are victims) that gets ignored. Many years ago (tho not that many) blacks would have their businesses routinely ransacked, protested, and strong armed out. I don't doubt that it still happened to this day. We learned about that in civics and history - the atrocity of racially based attacks in the past to financially ruin others. Now it's 2019 and the very same institutions that led those concerns are themselves causing the same problem. This can't go on. Free speech is fine. If you have an opinion and you want to state it - then state it. But when you weaponize your speech to ruin others, especially when those others are merely doing the most basic thing they ought to (ie, protecting their business and livelihood of themselves and their employees) - you deserve to be punished. There's no room in a progressed society for small groups to usurp control beyond legal frameworks. To establish witch hunts and expect that you'll get away with it. I hope the individuals at the University also face financial and legal hardship for their actions. It's despicable. Edit: At this point I expect downvotes for speaking honestly and truthfully. The very people down voting are the ones who promote the hateful rhetoric this college exhibited.

dang 7y ago
The downvotes are more likely because of the fiery rhetoric in your comment. It's tedious, and there's far too much of it online. People come to HN to be interested, not blared at. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and using this site as intended from now on? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- thatoneuser 7y ago
  Please enlighten me as to what about my post is rhetoric rather than describing a position and backing it up with facts from this very article. You keep saying I'm doing this yet I can't really see what I'm doing beyond assessing a social phenomenon. Can you be more direct than referring me to nebulous guidelines? Because to me it doesn't seem constructive at all. Fwiw I see posts all over that have the same "fire" that my post does which are top posts. Doubly so for posts that are people just talking their opinions out. Usually around opinion pieces of tech. Is this only different because it involves race?

Nasrudith 7y ago

Really I think the issue isn't activism per say but how they are doing it - demagoguic and tribalistic instead of even a coherent philosophy or let alone a logical one. There is a lack of reflection before or after for actions and just concern about how they feel.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago

The tl;dr seems to be an underage black person tried to buy wine, apparently stole wine, then there was a fight with the owner's son. There was a demonstration that was probably based on an unclear understanding of the events. So people over-reacted to events, yes they were stupid to do. But you shouldn't use this as an excuse to clutch one's pearls and conclude colleges have lost their way. This looks like a cya activity after the true(-er?) facts came out.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
Did you miss the part about college officials committing purgery? In what institution would she be able to keep her job? So yes - some protest and confusion in the days after are understandable. But the actions of the college go way beyond that. She should have been fired long ago the college should have apologized to the community alumni and the bakery and then it would all have ended. This is a good example of colleges getting completely out of hand.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  yeah, if she lied she should be fired. I am surprised there is not clear evidence, like a recording.

pessimizer 7y ago

It's strange that stories from the progressive end of this discussion get (often rightfully) flagged into oblivion in seconds, but this conservative campus panic story survives to 45 comments.

dang 7y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "this discussion", but if you mean ideology in general, HN has had plenty of stories from progressive perspectives on the front page. This is an area where perceptions are particularly unreliable. Each side tends to feel that the site is biased against their side, often quite passionately. We sometimes turn off flags on stories that are substantive and interesting and where there's hope for a thoughtful discussion. Sometimes those stories have one ideological polarity, sometimes another.
deogeo 7y ago
The 8chan warrant story is still on the 2nd page after a whole day, and wasn't flagged. And this story is about a $887 million institution pressuring a working-class assault victim to drop charges against their attackers, by using libel and economic sanctions. So what makes this story 'conservative'? That the victim was white?
- elicash 7y ago
  Most of the interest in this story has been in right-wing media stemming from a false "racism" accusation that is a PART of this case and also due to a bigger narrative around left-wing campuses. I'd frame the story differently than you did, but the bigger point is that we shouldn't pretend this isn't mostly a right-wing media news story for these reasons. I think we both agree that if the racism charge had strong merit (it didn't), then most would see this as a liberal news story because that's mostly who would be focusing on it. People tend to be drawn to stories that reinforce their world view. That, of course, doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the discussion here. (I've been active in this thread so obviously I think it should be here.) Edit: Also, I'm not the person you were responding to but this was very dishonest of you: > That the victim was white? OP said exactly why they thought it was conservative. They cited that it was because it was related to "conservative campus panic." To pretend they could have said it because "the victim was white" is very dishonest of you.

thatoneuser 7y ago

It sounds like you're taking a very one sided perspective in evaluating this. The story is pretty clear - a black kid stole product, the owner tried to protect his product, the kid cried racism, the college called racism, the college encouraged and orchestrated protests, the college financially intervened by removing contracts with the business, etc. Since when is someone not entitled to protecting their property? He didn't come out shooting a gun, he came out and got jumped. The school said it was racial profiling - even though no one denied it was theft. What side of the story is missing here? More personal testimony that the intervention was racially based? There's just nothing more to the story that could make this balance out. I think your reluctance to take the facts at face value and instead say "well what if this really was racist" is exactly the indoctrination that schools like this have fostered. It's like back in the day when people did this kind of crap to ruin black businesses and thinking "well what if we don't know the full story behind their behavior?" Sure maybe there was a valid justification for the hateful behavior, but apply the logical razor. Racism seemed to be getting a lot better about 10 years ago and since then it seems to have taken a turn. Now it's seemingly in vogue to hate on whites. Don't doubt that there are people out there who think that's a good thing, but consider that the next time the pendulum swings it won't still be the same race being targeted. Do we want to have another Jim Crow era in 2030 where we collectively hate blacks like is so popular to do to whites now?

zuminator 7y ago
I don't know how you're quoting me at saying "well what if this really was racist?" My question was why did the students and faculty think it was racist to the point of going forward with a disastrous trial? About your last paragraph, I feel like you're just illustrating my larger point. Is it really en vogue to "hate on whites" or is the media and internet pushing that narrative because divisiveness brings page views? Btw, Jim Crow wasn't just about hating on black people, it was about a legal and societal framework where blacks were kept in subservience, poverty, disenfranchisement and constant fear for their lives. People didn't need to hate blacks so much, as long as they stayed in their place. Things were orders of magnitude worse than people on Twitter jawboning about reparations and white privilege.
- 7y ago

dqpb 7y ago

An article solely about Oberlin college, at best, only shows that Oberlin college is losing their way.

thatoneuser 7y ago

There wasn't just a demonstration (tho even that would be overdone considering the kid was shoplifting wine - which is a crime and it's not like he was just trying to get some food to survive.) This was deliberate and repeated attempts to libel a store owner out of business or into inane submission. Imagine if your family owned and operated a business for over 100 years, only for it to be dismantled because you rightfully tried to protect your property from theft. Sounds like you have been indoctrinated by the same hate these colleges are peddling. No not all colleges do this, but 1/10 is too much. These are institutions which should be educating and enlightening, not promoting ignorance of circumstance and leading witch hunts.

dang 7y ago
> Sounds like you have been indoctrinated by the same hate Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20192246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20192246 and marked it off-topic.
- thatoneuser 7y ago
  Easy there big guy, nothing I did is a personal attack. Though you should watch your own posts because they're the type that gets you banned.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    >Though you should watch your own posts because they're the type that gets you banned. Easy there - you're talking to the one who likely does the banning around here.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

neilv 7y ago

Hopefully, this judgment encourages colleges to reassert educating students in critical thinking and thoughtful societal engagement -- not pandering to students, nor indulging faculty/administrators who are doing the opposite of their jobs.

CrowFly 7y ago

From an article linked in the first one, the students, with the encouragement of the faculty, handed out flyers saying the bakery “is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.”" (caps in original quote.) What horrific people! They're defending the right of underage African American students to shoplift wine? This is why we cannot have tuition debt forgiveness.

abbadadda 7y ago

What an awful website experience.

insickness 7y ago

I've heard/read about similar situations recently where a black person is caught committing a crime and people protest the establishment for racism. At a vintage store in Brooklyn, a black woman was caught shoplifting and arrested. Then a group of people started protesting the store.

shriphani 7y ago

It is like you see your car is headed towards a ditch and you step on the gas. Quite amazed that such poor judgement was exercised throughout this incident - from deans and upper level admins no less - how out of touch with reality can someone be?

RickJWagner 7y ago

Oberlin was acting totally irresponsibly. I'm glad for the damages. I hope this sends a chilling message to universities-- spend your time and efforts on providing the best education possible. Leave toxic politics in the past. Education should be the primary reason for existence, by far.