5 ms·
Wow, talk about a moral hazard - salaried employees can break laws that fine in the millions and there is no repercussions for the individual. Instead, endowme
by Vaslo 7y ago
Wow, talk about a moral hazard - salaried employees can break laws that fine in the millions and there is no repercussions for the individual. Instead, endowments and tuition pay, despite the fact those paying or endowing don’t share those opinions, or at least not to the point they would break libel law.
- asciident 7y agoIsn't this the same for companies, government agencies, hospitals, churches, etc.? I'm not sure what would be different in any institution where someone is acting as an employee.
- mirimir 7y agoSure, but "acting as an employee" isn't set in stone. All it takes is arguing that they broke some rule, and they were no longer "acting as an employee". While IANAL, I suspect that, if there were no stipulation from the jury, Oberlin might just cut her loose. So the jury wanted to ensure that someone with adequate resources would be on the hook. There's also the issue that she's hugely popular among students, graduates, and donors. And generally, among people who care about "social justice" (as they see it). So firing her would have some negative PR consequences. Maybe even financial consequences, albeit not as much as $44 million.
- luckylion 7y ago> despite the fact those paying or endowing don’t share those opinions, or at least not to the point they would break libel law She was found guilty of libel by supporting & being part of the student protests/boycotts/misinformation campaign. It's hard to say what students think that weren't immediately at the protests or printing flyers, but insofar that the only public statements of larger numbers of students were those protesting, it seems they did share those opinion, and might even go much further than that.
- mirimir 7y agoFrom what I've read, just about everyone at Oberlin seems supportive.
- subpixel 7y agoIt’s uncanny, though also depressing, how similar this behavior is to Trump supporters who will not let the facts get in the way of their support. It’s like identification: this person signals everything that I hold sacred so I’m all-in.
- mirimir 7y agoI guess that it's a bug. We all have more or less access to information, more or less training and experience in assessing information, and more or less free time and/or psychic resources for dealing with it all. So there's a tendency to take shortcuts. In a good way, makin g intuitive leaps. In a bad way, getting stuck with our preconceptions. And then, as you say, there's the social aspect, identifying with our tribe, hunting pack, or whatever. Wanting acceptance and approval from our peers.