Oberlin and defamation suit interest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly hope this bankrupts Oberlin and they have to close. I’m not sure when progressives started believing they could do anything in the name of “justice.” Oberlin’s actions here did zero to help anyone. Not to mention they completely ruined the black kids arrested for shoplifting. Rich white kids get their petty crimes swept under the rug and never discussed again. Oberlin stupidly gave these boys a scarlet letter.

Come back with an update from reputable publicly available sources re: this scarlet letter, and try again.

all the kids have unique names and are attached to this story in perpetuity. extremely damaging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attempted to read some of the objective reporting on the outcome, it really has bad implications for student free speech in general. While I did not read the trail transcripts or jury instruction, what I read indicates the verdict rests in large part on the school's support for the student senate and its failure to censor the student senate. I would think that would be of concern to all you that worry about how free speech is stifled by higher ed. Or is it just inflamatory conservative free speech you want to protect?

Attaching a bad motive to a school (or any person or institution) using its legal options to appeal and seek review is also questionable. But go ahead continue to think that you are the warriors defending free speech if it make you feel better.

You need to read more. The school took many actions to directly libel the bakery and cut off the school contract. and of course, there are no first amendment implications to the school *supporting* the student senate.

DP. You don’t believe in freedom of contract?

there’s something called “tortious interference with contract” and cancelling the contract is also evidence of malice in the defamation claim.

Do you know what tortious interference with contract is? You can’t tortiously interfere with your own contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really question the morals/values of anyone who has chosen to attend Oberlin since 2016.

Do you say the same about Penn State? About every single student who has attended Penn State since the sexual assault revelations and coverup there? If not: Hypocrite. Well? Dont forget--curse "anyone who has chosen to attend."

Not a valid comparison.

Is the school currently still trying to coverup? Oberlin is still actively doing this.

DP. LOL, are you kidding? Penn State is absolutely still trying to whitewash the whole thing in the hopes that everyone will forget about it and not hold them accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I attempted to read some of the objective reporting on the outcome, it really has bad implications for student free speech in general. While I did not read the trail transcripts or jury instruction, what I read indicates the verdict rests in large part on the school's support for the student senate and its failure to censor the student senate. I would think that would be of concern to all you that worry about how free speech is stifled by higher ed. Or is it just inflamatory conservative free speech you want to protect?

Attaching a bad motive to a school (or any person or institution) using its legal options to appeal and seek review is also questionable. But go ahead continue to think that you are the warriors defending free speech if it make you feel better.

This is incorrect. The case rests upon the actions of Administrators (principally Raimondo) who actively took part in, and used school resources to promote, the protests. There were also emails that showed that the Administrators were targeting the bakery for retaliation, even after the students pled guilty and admitted that they were not racially targeted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attempted to read some of the objective reporting on the outcome, it really has bad implications for student free speech in general. While I did not read the trail transcripts or jury instruction, what I read indicates the verdict rests in large part on the school's support for the student senate and its failure to censor the student senate. I would think that would be of concern to all you that worry about how free speech is stifled by higher ed. Or is it just inflamatory conservative free speech you want to protect?

Attaching a bad motive to a school (or any person or institution) using its legal options to appeal and seek review is also questionable. But go ahead continue to think that you are the warriors defending free speech if it make you feel better.

You need to read more. The school took many actions to directly libel the bakery and cut off the school contract. and of course, there are no first amendment implications to the school *supporting* the student senate.

DP. You don’t believe in freedom of contract?

there’s something called “tortious interference with contract” and cancelling the contract is also evidence of malice in the defamation claim.

Do you know what tortious interference with contract is? You can’t tortiously interfere with your own contract.

DP. It was shown that the Oberlin Administrators pressured the school dining hall contractor to break their subcontract with the bakery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attempted to read some of the objective reporting on the outcome, it really has bad implications for student free speech in general. While I did not read the trail transcripts or jury instruction, what I read indicates the verdict rests in large part on the school's support for the student senate and its failure to censor the student senate. I would think that would be of concern to all you that worry about how free speech is stifled by higher ed. Or is it just inflamatory conservative free speech you want to protect?

Attaching a bad motive to a school (or any person or institution) using its legal options to appeal and seek review is also questionable. But go ahead continue to think that you are the warriors defending free speech if it make you feel better.

You need to read more. The school took many actions to directly libel the bakery and cut off the school contract. and of course, there are no first amendment implications to the school *supporting* the student senate.

DP. You don’t believe in freedom of contract?

there’s something called “tortious interference with contract” and cancelling the contract is also evidence of malice in the defamation claim.

Do you know what tortious interference with contract is? You can’t tortiously interfere with your own contract.

DP. It was shown that the Oberlin Administrators pressured the school dining hall contractor to break their subcontract with the bakery.

and that most definitely would be "tortious interference with contract". bingo

[Anonymous]

Colleges are supposed to work TOWARDS good relationships with town and gown, not against. Oberlin went crazy woke/SJW whatever on this and its own president and the board didn't shut down the administrators who went nuts. and now they pay. Good lesson to all other colleges that might follow. Crazy stuff. And I home their insurers and reinsurers DON'T pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges are supposed to work TOWARDS good relationships with town and gown, not against. Oberlin went crazy woke/SJW whatever on this and its own president and the board didn't shut down the administrators who went nuts. and now they pay. Good lesson to all other colleges that might follow. Crazy stuff. And I home their insurers and reinsurers DON'T pay.

Exactly this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attempted to read some of the objective reporting on the outcome, it really has bad implications for student free speech in general. While I did not read the trail transcripts or jury instruction, what I read indicates the verdict rests in large part on the school's support for the student senate and its failure to censor the student senate. I would think that would be of concern to all you that worry about how free speech is stifled by higher ed. Or is it just inflamatory conservative free speech you want to protect?

Attaching a bad motive to a school (or any person or institution) using its legal options to appeal and seek review is also questionable. But go ahead continue to think that you are the warriors defending free speech if it make you feel better.

You need to read more. The school took many actions to directly libel the bakery and cut off the school contract. and of course, there are no first amendment implications to the school *supporting* the student senate.

DP. You don’t believe in freedom of contract?

there’s something called “tortious interference with contract” and cancelling the contract is also evidence of malice in the defamation claim.

Do you know what tortious interference with contract is? You can’t tortiously interfere with your own contract.

That was in response to the snarky "freedom of contract" comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges are supposed to work TOWARDS good relationships with town and gown, not against. Oberlin went crazy woke/SJW whatever on this and its own president and the board didn't shut down the administrators who went nuts. and now they pay. Good lesson to all other colleges that might follow. Crazy stuff. And I home their insurers and reinsurers DON'T pay.

Especially considering that shoplifting was endemic and the school knew about it. I imagine that everyone conceded from the get-go that the kids actually had attempted to shoplift. This should have been swept far under the rug by Oberlin.

[Anonymous]

The school has an incredible culture of promoting this kind of thing. It's an island (metaphorically) of rich kids and extremely liberal thinking, in a bubble in working class Ohio. These people have no real world experience and simply sit in their triggered echo chamber, getting fired up over their victimization. I identify as a liberal, but these people are nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That doesn’t follow as the intervention related to indemnity obligations

Defense and indemnity are separate things under liability policies.

Not always true.

[Anonymous]

According to an Oberlin parent, Oberlin University sent out an email stating that it has initiated payment to the bakery & will take no further action (beyond payment of the $31 million judgment and interest) in this matter.

[Anonymous]

Go woke, go broke……

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to an Oberlin parent, Oberlin University sent out an email stating that it has initiated payment to the bakery & will take no further action (beyond payment of the $31 million judgment and interest) in this matter.

But no apology - how predictable. They've ruined a family and their business but just sweep it under the rug. How disgusting and classless.