3 ms·

I went to Oberlin. Yes it's too 'woke' but this story is actually backwards from my perspective. There's more to this story and unfortunately it has nothing to

I went to Oberlin. Yes it's too 'woke' but this story is actually backwards from my perspective. There's more to this story and unfortunately it has nothing to do with Gibson's. Gibson's is a small business targeting the lower end, with revenue likely in the low/mid six figures per year. It's like a convenience store which sells some groceries and baked goods. Coffee was near $1.00 in the mid 2000's. If someone were to sell Gibson's on a reasonable market, it would sell for less than 1M, I would guess more like 100k if you were to discount physical assets (which could be sold even after boycott). 36MM is completely absurd from an economic perspective. Instead, something else is going on here. Conservative news outlets have made Oberlin a punching bag, and that must've percolated to this jury's award. It was meant as a political signal from biased citizens to punish Oberlin for being liberal in a now red-leaning state.

tptacek 4y ago
They got $11MM in actual damages. If Oberlin's actions essentially ruined the business, that doesn't seem crazy; further, actual damages have to be tied to, you know, actual demonstrable damages. You could probably look up the transcript to see how actual damages were argued by both sides. The balance of the penalty was punitive damages, which are intrinsically expressive; you can disagree with them, but they have nothing to do with how much the business was worth.
Bakary 4y ago
From a non-American perspective, these sums are ludicrous in any case. However, they don't seem to be inconsistent with other big American payouts for various life-altering incidents, whether aligned with one end of the political spectrum or not.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  If you realize how much money these colleges make and have in their endowment, then you understand any less of an amount won't even register with those who run the college. It seems like the amount awarded is actually on the low side and should probably have been higher to send a message to not join the "woke" mob and get the whole story before acting. Yes, I would say the same for "alt-right" mobs as well.
sudden_dystopia 4y ago
It was an insanely work place in 2001 when I was there for a year. Can only imagine it now.
danielmarkbruce 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages $36m is rational from an economic perspective. It's a giant slap on the wrist to a) stop them doing it again and b) stop others doing it again. If you don't have punitive, a wealthy person(/business/organization) can do something awful to a poor person which causes them great harm (e.g. $50k) but the rich person can easily afford.
Macha 4y ago
If Microsoft destroyed my house out of malice, would the value of my house be a reasonable fine? Would it discourage Microsoft from doing it again? Would Microsoft even notice? The revenue of Oberlin does seem much more relevant than the revenue of the bakery here to me.
ericcumbee 4y ago
I assume that the 36 million isn't just compensatory damages, but punitive damages, and possibly treble damages + legal fees.
pookha 4y ago
It's probably not absurd...In US libel cases the plaintiff has to open their books to the courts which is how they create the damage estimates. Those facts are probably sealed so we don't have the whole picture.
fortran77 4y ago
Oberlin has made itself a punching bag. Don’t blame anyone else.
at_a_remove 4y ago
No, Oberlin had opportunities to settle. Instead, they chose to (in lefty terms) "double down." That means that if you fail, the cost goes up. It was, in retrospect, an unwise choice on their part.
crazygringo 4y ago
> 36MM is completely absurd from an economic perspective That's because it's not just from an economic perspective. It's for damages but also punishment. The original award was $11 mil in damages, plus $33 mil punitive, and then also $6.5 mil legal reimbursement. The punitive got reduced on appeal to $25 mil. Punishment is necessary because if suits were limited to damages, then people would break the law much more often, since suits aren't always brought and don't always succeed. A punitive amount that's a little over double the economic damages is very reasonable. That's the whole point of the punitive part. > something else is going on here... Conservative news outlets... The idea that this is political or biased seems totally unsupported. This is just how the law works.
dekhn 4y ago
The payment wouldn't be compared to the price to sell Gibsons, it would be the money lost due to reputational risk over decades.
ksherlock 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson%27s_Bakery_v._Oberlin_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson%27s_Bakery_v._Oberlin_C...
sleepdreamy 4y ago
Is it absurd though? Their business existed for 139 years(or something) but literally over 100 years in business. You also need to factor in potential future earnings etc; Would the Bakery make 35mm? Probably not. Will the University? With ease. Both need to be taken into account, not just one. It's really tricky and I personally feel that number is appropriate to fine a university considering they have no issue taking loans with zero conscience. Gladly accept 50-200,000 from 18 year olds with limited life experience. The judgement is fair
rockostrich 4y ago
IANAL but the original plea just says sums in excess of $25k for each count [1]. It seems like the damages are set as a deterrent and not based on the actual value of the defamation [2]: > The Gibsons note that the jury initially awarded them $11,074,500 in compensatory damages and $33,223,500 in punitive damages. They assert that the jury’s punitive damages award represents less than three percent of Oberlin’s total assets. Noting that the purpose of punitive damages is to appropriately punish and deter defendants, the Gibsons argue that a purely mathematical application of the caps thwarts those purposes. They also argue that applying the cap in their case bears no rational connection to the public welfare or a rational connection to Oberlin’s wrongful conduct. They further argue that the punitive damages cap violates their right to a trial by jury. That makes sense to me. If Oberlin just had to pay <$1m then what's stopping them from continuing this behavior in the future. [1] https://via.hypothes.is/https://oberlinreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Common-Pleas_Gibson-Bros.-v-Oberlin-College-Meredith-Raimondo.pdf https://via.hypothes.is/https://oberlinreview.org/wp-content... [2] https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-Ohio-1079.pdf https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-O...
stjohnswarts 4y ago
You have to make them hurt though. Oberlin college needs to feel the pain, it's not just to make the store "whole". 36 million seems on the low side to make them hurt and not pull this again, that's why we have punitive damages. Also it's not just about how much money will the store earn over an adult lifetime, as the college's actions greatly endangered that possibility. The judgement like I said seems a little on the low side to convince a college to not do this same kind of "woke punishment" in the future.

tptacek 4y ago

They got $11MM in actual damages. If Oberlin's actions essentially ruined the business, that doesn't seem crazy; further, actual damages have to be tied to, you know, actual demonstrable damages. You could probably look up the transcript to see how actual damages were argued by both sides. The balance of the penalty was punitive damages, which are intrinsically expressive; you can disagree with them, but they have nothing to do with how much the business was worth.

Bakary 4y ago

From a non-American perspective, these sums are ludicrous in any case. However, they don't seem to be inconsistent with other big American payouts for various life-altering incidents, whether aligned with one end of the political spectrum or not.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
If you realize how much money these colleges make and have in their endowment, then you understand any less of an amount won't even register with those who run the college. It seems like the amount awarded is actually on the low side and should probably have been higher to send a message to not join the "woke" mob and get the whole story before acting. Yes, I would say the same for "alt-right" mobs as well.

sudden_dystopia 4y ago

It was an insanely work place in 2001 when I was there for a year. Can only imagine it now.

danielmarkbruce 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages $36m is rational from an economic perspective. It's a giant slap on the wrist to a) stop them doing it again and b) stop others doing it again. If you don't have punitive, a wealthy person(/business/organization) can do something awful to a poor person which causes them great harm (e.g. $50k) but the rich person can easily afford.

Macha 4y ago

If Microsoft destroyed my house out of malice, would the value of my house be a reasonable fine? Would it discourage Microsoft from doing it again? Would Microsoft even notice? The revenue of Oberlin does seem much more relevant than the revenue of the bakery here to me.

ericcumbee 4y ago

I assume that the 36 million isn't just compensatory damages, but punitive damages, and possibly treble damages + legal fees.

pookha 4y ago

It's probably not absurd...In US libel cases the plaintiff has to open their books to the courts which is how they create the damage estimates. Those facts are probably sealed so we don't have the whole picture.

fortran77 4y ago

Oberlin has made itself a punching bag. Don’t blame anyone else.

at_a_remove 4y ago

No, Oberlin had opportunities to settle. Instead, they chose to (in lefty terms) "double down." That means that if you fail, the cost goes up. It was, in retrospect, an unwise choice on their part.

crazygringo 4y ago

> 36MM is completely absurd from an economic perspective That's because it's not just from an economic perspective. It's for damages but also punishment. The original award was $11 mil in damages, plus $33 mil punitive, and then also $6.5 mil legal reimbursement. The punitive got reduced on appeal to $25 mil. Punishment is necessary because if suits were limited to damages, then people would break the law much more often, since suits aren't always brought and don't always succeed. A punitive amount that's a little over double the economic damages is very reasonable. That's the whole point of the punitive part. > something else is going on here... Conservative news outlets... The idea that this is political or biased seems totally unsupported. This is just how the law works.

dekhn 4y ago

The payment wouldn't be compared to the price to sell Gibsons, it would be the money lost due to reputational risk over decades.

ksherlock 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson%27s_Bakery_v._Oberlin_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson%27s_Bakery_v._Oberlin_C...

sleepdreamy 4y ago

Is it absurd though? Their business existed for 139 years(or something) but literally over 100 years in business. You also need to factor in potential future earnings etc; Would the Bakery make 35mm? Probably not. Will the University? With ease. Both need to be taken into account, not just one. It's really tricky and I personally feel that number is appropriate to fine a university considering they have no issue taking loans with zero conscience. Gladly accept 50-200,000 from 18 year olds with limited life experience. The judgement is fair

rockostrich 4y ago

IANAL but the original plea just says sums in excess of $25k for each count [1]. It seems like the damages are set as a deterrent and not based on the actual value of the defamation [2]: > The Gibsons note that the jury initially awarded them $11,074,500 in compensatory damages and $33,223,500 in punitive damages. They assert that the jury’s punitive damages award represents less than three percent of Oberlin’s total assets. Noting that the purpose of punitive damages is to appropriately punish and deter defendants, the Gibsons argue that a purely mathematical application of the caps thwarts those purposes. They also argue that applying the cap in their case bears no rational connection to the public welfare or a rational connection to Oberlin’s wrongful conduct. They further argue that the punitive damages cap violates their right to a trial by jury. That makes sense to me. If Oberlin just had to pay <$1m then what's stopping them from continuing this behavior in the future. [1] https://via.hypothes.is/https://oberlinreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Common-Pleas_Gibson-Bros.-v-Oberlin-College-Meredith-Raimondo.pdf https://via.hypothes.is/https://oberlinreview.org/wp-content... [2] https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-Ohio-1079.pdf https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-O...

stjohnswarts 4y ago

You have to make them hurt though. Oberlin college needs to feel the pain, it's not just to make the store "whole". 36 million seems on the low side to make them hurt and not pull this again, that's why we have punitive damages. Also it's not just about how much money will the store earn over an adult lifetime, as the college's actions greatly endangered that possibility. The judgement like I said seems a little on the low side to convince a college to not do this same kind of "woke punishment" in the future.