Oberlin College ordered to post $36 million bond to delay Gibson’s Bakery collection of Judgment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

Why is the student senate fundamentally different from the student newspaper in this regard? Or from an official, school-sanctioned college republicans/democrats organization? Or an official Black or Hispanic students association?

Depends on the form and format of the student newspaper. If a student newspaper is purely independent, it's unlikely the school would be liable. However, as with many/most student newspapers, which are officially sanctioned by the school, and operated in a way that does not make it a public forum, then it will also be liable for libel. Here again, I will just point out that there is a huge difference between the student body and a student newspaper. The former is a collection of private individuals, the later is a component of the school with participation from students.

A college wouldn’t be responsible for the activities of a wholly unaffiliated organization? Ground breaking legal analysis there. 🙄

And also not what we’re talking about, which is the activities of school-recognized student organizations.

I don't know who is writting what but I'm the PP and the posts I was responding to mentions "student body" in one, and then "student newspaper" as an example of the former, as if these two are the same. They are clearly not. School-recognized is not the same thing as school-sanctioned. I am talking about school-sanctioned student-staffed organizations.

[Anonymous]

Who cares? They have to pay up. Appeals have been exhausted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

Why is the student senate fundamentally different from the student newspaper in this regard? Or from an official, school-sanctioned college republicans/democrats organization? Or an official Black or Hispanic students association?

Depends on the form and format of the student newspaper. If a student newspaper is purely independent, it's unlikely the school would be liable. However, as with many/most student newspapers, which are officially sanctioned by the school, and operated in a way that does not make it a public forum, then it will also be liable for libel. Here again, I will just point out that there is a huge difference between the student body and a student newspaper. The former is a collection of private individuals, the later is a component of the school with participation from students.

A college wouldn’t be responsible for the activities of a wholly unaffiliated organization? Ground breaking legal analysis there. 🙄

And also not what we’re talking about, which is the activities of school-recognized student organizations.

I don't know who is writting what but I'm the PP and the posts I was responding to mentions "student body" in one, and then "student newspaper" as an example of the former, as if these two are the same. They are clearly not. School-recognized is not the same thing as school-sanctioned. I am talking about school-sanctioned student-staffed organizations.

That covers pretty much every student government, newspaper, social club, sports team, or school recognized frat or sorority. Few student newspapers are truly independent of the university (ie, no money, advising, real estate, use of printers/tech systems, etc)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

Why is the student senate fundamentally different from the student newspaper in this regard? Or from an official, school-sanctioned college republicans/democrats organization? Or an official Black or Hispanic students association?

Depends on the form and format of the student newspaper. If a student newspaper is purely independent, it's unlikely the school would be liable. However, as with many/most student newspapers, which are officially sanctioned by the school, and operated in a way that does not make it a public forum, then it will also be liable for libel. Here again, I will just point out that there is a huge difference between the student body and a student newspaper. The former is a collection of private individuals, the later is a component of the school with participation from students.

A college wouldn’t be responsible for the activities of a wholly unaffiliated organization? Ground breaking legal analysis there. 🙄

And also not what we’re talking about, which is the activities of school-recognized student organizations.

I don't know who is writting what but I'm the PP and the posts I was responding to mentions "student body" in one, and then "student newspaper" as an example of the former, as if these two are the same. They are clearly not. School-recognized is not the same thing as school-sanctioned. I am talking about school-sanctioned student-staffed organizations.

That covers pretty much every student government, newspaper, social club, sports team, or school recognized frat or sorority. Few student newspapers are truly independent of the university (ie, no money, advising, real estate, use of printers/tech systems, etc)

It takes more than just providing resources for generic use. Read the decision, the school has to have control/authority over the conduct of the organization. And if it truly has control/authority, then it has the responsibility to ensure that the conduct of the organization is legal. Power comes with responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? They have to pay up. Appeals have been exhausted.

Some of the PPs are concerned about the schools being responsibiel for student conduct - which is a valid concern. It's good to discuss these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

Why is the student senate fundamentally different from the student newspaper in this regard? Or from an official, school-sanctioned college republicans/democrats organization? Or an official Black or Hispanic students association?

Depends on the form and format of the student newspaper. If a student newspaper is purely independent, it's unlikely the school would be liable. However, as with many/most student newspapers, which are officially sanctioned by the school, and operated in a way that does not make it a public forum, then it will also be liable for libel. Here again, I will just point out that there is a huge difference between the student body and a student newspaper. The former is a collection of private individuals, the later is a component of the school with participation from students.

A college wouldn’t be responsible for the activities of a wholly unaffiliated organization? Ground breaking legal analysis there. 🙄

And also not what we’re talking about, which is the activities of school-recognized student organizations.

I don't know who is writting what but I'm the PP and the posts I was responding to mentions "student body" in one, and then "student newspaper" as an example of the former, as if these two are the same. They are clearly not. School-recognized is not the same thing as school-sanctioned. I am talking about school-sanctioned student-staffed organizations.

That covers pretty much every student government, newspaper, social club, sports team, or school recognized frat or sorority. Few student newspapers are truly independent of the university (ie, no money, advising, real estate, use of printers/tech systems, etc)

You are failing to grasp the nuance of this case. Oberlin isn't in trouble for it's students extreme views or behavior. It's responsible for the staff and officially sanctioned organizations and so liable when defamatory statement are made through the college's communications. Also, Oberlin staff used their positions within the college to make the defamatory statements appear to be sanctioned by the college itself. But no college is held responsible for the ridiculous viewpoints individual students post on social media or even if they write it into an op-ed in the school newspaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

Why is the student senate fundamentally different from the student newspaper in this regard? Or from an official, school-sanctioned college republicans/democrats organization? Or an official Black or Hispanic students association?

Depends on the form and format of the student newspaper. If a student newspaper is purely independent, it's unlikely the school would be liable. However, as with many/most student newspapers, which are officially sanctioned by the school, and operated in a way that does not make it a public forum, then it will also be liable for libel. Here again, I will just point out that there is a huge difference between the student body and a student newspaper. The former is a collection of private individuals, the later is a component of the school with participation from students.

A college wouldn’t be responsible for the activities of a wholly unaffiliated organization? Ground breaking legal analysis there. 🙄

And also not what we’re talking about, which is the activities of school-recognized student organizations.

I don't know who is writting what but I'm the PP and the posts I was responding to mentions "student body" in one, and then "student newspaper" as an example of the former, as if these two are the same. They are clearly not. School-recognized is not the same thing as school-sanctioned. I am talking about school-sanctioned student-staffed organizations.

That covers pretty much every student government, newspaper, social club, sports team, or school recognized frat or sorority. Few student newspapers are truly independent of the university (ie, no money, advising, real estate, use of printers/tech systems, etc)

You are failing to grasp the nuance of this case. Oberlin isn't in trouble for it's students extreme views or behavior. It's responsible for the staff and officially sanctioned organizations and so liable when defamatory statement are made through the college's communications. Also, Oberlin staff used their positions within the college to make the defamatory statements appear to be sanctioned by the college itself. But no college is held responsible for the ridiculous viewpoints individual students post on social media or even if they write it into an op-ed in the school newspaper.

Not appear to be - by definition the resolutions of the student Senate are sanctioned by the college itself since it delegated that power to the student Senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

Why is the student senate fundamentally different from the student newspaper in this regard? Or from an official, school-sanctioned college republicans/democrats organization? Or an official Black or Hispanic students association?

Depends on the form and format of the student newspaper. If a student newspaper is purely independent, it's unlikely the school would be liable. However, as with many/most student newspapers, which are officially sanctioned by the school, and operated in a way that does not make it a public forum, then it will also be liable for libel. Here again, I will just point out that there is a huge difference between the student body and a student newspaper. The former is a collection of private individuals, the later is a component of the school with participation from students.

A college wouldn’t be responsible for the activities of a wholly unaffiliated organization? Ground breaking legal analysis there. 🙄

And also not what we’re talking about, which is the activities of school-recognized student organizations.

I don't know who is writting what but I'm the PP and the posts I was responding to mentions "student body" in one, and then "student newspaper" as an example of the former, as if these two are the same. They are clearly not. School-recognized is not the same thing as school-sanctioned. I am talking about school-sanctioned student-staffed organizations.

That covers pretty much every student government, newspaper, social club, sports team, or school recognized frat or sorority. Few student newspapers are truly independent of the university (ie, no money, advising, real estate, use of printers/tech systems, etc)

You are failing to grasp the nuance of this case. Oberlin isn't in trouble for it's students extreme views or behavior. It's responsible for the staff and officially sanctioned organizations and so liable when defamatory statement are made through the college's communications. Also, Oberlin staff used their positions within the college to make the defamatory statements appear to be sanctioned by the college itself. But no college is held responsible for the ridiculous viewpoints individual students post on social media or even if they write it into an op-ed in the school newspaper.

This.

What screwed the college was that the adminstrator was really really bad. She could have supported students and the school would have been fine. Brought water and food to protest. Helping make sure students were safe. That would have been fine. But the email and testimony showed that she was an organizer. She sanctioned school funds for making the sheets with the statements that she knew at the time to be false or misleading. She organized the students at the protest with the bullhorn. She helped cancel the bakery's school contracts for what she knew were false reasons. She had the power to call off the protest when she wanted to. There was a lot more. The jury had enough to conclude she was running the show. She should not have been. The college's general counsel is the one really to fire here. That person may be gone but it was that person's job to keep the adminstrator in her lane and not do these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

Why is the student senate fundamentally different from the student newspaper in this regard? Or from an official, school-sanctioned college republicans/democrats organization? Or an official Black or Hispanic students association?

Depends on the form and format of the student newspaper. If a student newspaper is purely independent, it's unlikely the school would be liable. However, as with many/most student newspapers, which are officially sanctioned by the school, and operated in a way that does not make it a public forum, then it will also be liable for libel. Here again, I will just point out that there is a huge difference between the student body and a student newspaper. The former is a collection of private individuals, the later is a component of the school with participation from students.

A college wouldn’t be responsible for the activities of a wholly unaffiliated organization? Ground breaking legal analysis there. 🙄

And also not what we’re talking about, which is the activities of school-recognized student organizations.

I don't know who is writting what but I'm the PP and the posts I was responding to mentions "student body" in one, and then "student newspaper" as an example of the former, as if these two are the same. They are clearly not. School-recognized is not the same thing as school-sanctioned. I am talking about school-sanctioned student-staffed organizations.

That covers pretty much every student government, newspaper, social club, sports team, or school recognized frat or sorority. Few student newspapers are truly independent of the university (ie, no money, advising, real estate, use of printers/tech systems, etc)

You are failing to grasp the nuance of this case. Oberlin isn't in trouble for it's students extreme views or behavior. It's responsible for the staff and officially sanctioned organizations and so liable when defamatory statement are made through the college's communications. Also, Oberlin staff used their positions within the college to make the defamatory statements appear to be sanctioned by the college itself. But no college is held responsible for the ridiculous viewpoints individual students post on social media or even if they write it into an op-ed in the school newspaper.

Not appear to be - by definition the resolutions of the student Senate are sanctioned by the college itself since it delegated that power to the student Senate.

The case would never have been won based on a student senate vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to read an unbiased, fact-based analysis of the case that does not include political overtures, this is the best thing I've seen:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gibson-s-v-oberlin-college-how-false-6341044/

What's wild to me is that the jury and the court additional holds Oberlin responsible for the statement published by the Student Senate. So even if the Oberlin admin wasn't involved at all, because the Student Senate defamed Gibson's the university would still be on the hook. This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the link, did you read it? It's pretty well reasoned why actions by the student Senate was linked to Oberlin admin. The student Senate derives it's authority from Oberlin, and Oberlin has oversight over the student Senate.

DP. But the consequence of this will be that colleges in Ohio need to crack down on student activities and exercises of free speech by students involved in those activities so that the college will not be held legally responsible for students’ statements. Editorials in the student newspapers, speaker invitations by campy political groups, and expression of speech will need to be filtered the administration first to make sure it is the “correct” kind of speech. That will be a pretty big hit for the campus Republican groups who have been fighting hard for freedom to invite controversial speakers for organization events.

Oh Lord. There is a huge difference between the student body and the student Senate. Anything the college officially sanctions and exercise authority/control over, it must not use as a tool for slander/libel. It must also exercise it's powers to prevent slander/libel by the same. I also don't think you are making the right argument about the "correct" kind of speech. What's at hand here are claims of facts, not opinions.

Why is the student senate fundamentally different from the student newspaper in this regard? Or from an official, school-sanctioned college republicans/democrats organization? Or an official Black or Hispanic students association?

Depends on the form and format of the student newspaper. If a student newspaper is purely independent, it's unlikely the school would be liable. However, as with many/most student newspapers, which are officially sanctioned by the school, and operated in a way that does not make it a public forum, then it will also be liable for libel. Here again, I will just point out that there is a huge difference between the student body and a student newspaper. The former is a collection of private individuals, the later is a component of the school with participation from students.

A college wouldn’t be responsible for the activities of a wholly unaffiliated organization? Ground breaking legal analysis there. 🙄

And also not what we’re talking about, which is the activities of school-recognized student organizations.

I don't know who is writting what but I'm the PP and the posts I was responding to mentions "student body" in one, and then "student newspaper" as an example of the former, as if these two are the same. They are clearly not. School-recognized is not the same thing as school-sanctioned. I am talking about school-sanctioned student-staffed organizations.

That covers pretty much every student government, newspaper, social club, sports team, or school recognized frat or sorority. Few student newspapers are truly independent of the university (ie, no money, advising, real estate, use of printers/tech systems, etc)

You are failing to grasp the nuance of this case. Oberlin isn't in trouble for it's students extreme views or behavior. It's responsible for the staff and officially sanctioned organizations and so liable when defamatory statement are made through the college's communications. Also, Oberlin staff used their positions within the college to make the defamatory statements appear to be sanctioned by the college itself. But no college is held responsible for the ridiculous viewpoints individual students post on social media or even if they write it into an op-ed in the school newspaper.

Not appear to be - by definition the resolutions of the student Senate are sanctioned by the college itself since it delegated that power to the student Senate.

The case would never have been won based on a student senate vote.

I don't think it was the student vote that was the issue, it was the publication of the resolution containing objectively false claims of facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


You are failing to grasp the nuance of this case. Oberlin isn't in trouble for it's students extreme views or behavior. It's responsible for the staff and officially sanctioned organizations and so liable when defamatory statement are made through the college's communications. Also, Oberlin staff used their positions within the college to make the defamatory statements appear to be sanctioned by the college itself. But no college is held responsible for the ridiculous viewpoints individual students post on social media or even if they write it into an op-ed in the school newspaper.


This.

What screwed the college was that the adminstrator was really really bad. She could have supported students and the school would have been fine. Brought water and food to protest. Helping make sure students were safe. That would have been fine. But the email and testimony showed that she was an organizer. She sanctioned school funds for making the sheets with the statements that she knew at the time to be false or misleading. She organized the students at the protest with the bullhorn. She helped cancel the bakery's school contracts for what she knew were false reasons. She had the power to call off the protest when she wanted to. There was a lot more. The jury had enough to conclude she was running the show. She should not have been. The college's general counsel is the one really to fire here. That person may be gone but it was that person's job to keep the adminstrator in her lane and not do these things.

Agree with almost all of this. Any school with a decided tilt toward one side of the political spectrum (be it right or left) should try to get a general counsel that is much more to the center to be a tempering voice. But I disagree that this fell entirely on the general counsel. Don't know how the Obie org chart works, but it is unlikely that the GC could have fired the Dean. This one is on the College President at the time. They should have reigned Meredith Raimondo in and fired her for insubordination if she didn't fall in line. I am astonished that the woman was hired by another educational institution after creating this financial nightmare for Oberlin. Talk about failing upwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


You are failing to grasp the nuance of this case. Oberlin isn't in trouble for it's students extreme views or behavior. It's responsible for the staff and officially sanctioned organizations and so liable when defamatory statement are made through the college's communications. Also, Oberlin staff used their positions within the college to make the defamatory statements appear to be sanctioned by the college itself. But no college is held responsible for the ridiculous viewpoints individual students post on social media or even if they write it into an op-ed in the school newspaper.


This.

What screwed the college was that the adminstrator was really really bad. She could have supported students and the school would have been fine. Brought water and food to protest. Helping make sure students were safe. That would have been fine. But the email and testimony showed that she was an organizer. She sanctioned school funds for making the sheets with the statements that she knew at the time to be false or misleading. She organized the students at the protest with the bullhorn. She helped cancel the bakery's school contracts for what she knew were false reasons. She had the power to call off the protest when she wanted to. There was a lot more. The jury had enough to conclude she was running the show. She should not have been. The college's general counsel is the one really to fire here. That person may be gone but it was that person's job to keep the adminstrator in her lane and not do these things.

Agree with almost all of this. Any school with a decided tilt toward one side of the political spectrum (be it right or left) should try to get a general counsel that is much more to the center to be a tempering voice. But I disagree that this fell entirely on the general counsel. Don't know how the Obie org chart works, but it is unlikely that the GC could have fired the Dean. This one is on the College President at the time. They should have reigned Meredith Raimondo in and fired her for insubordination if she didn't fall in line. I am astonished that the woman was hired by another educational institution after creating this financial nightmare for Oberlin. Talk about failing upwards.

She has demonstrated her progressive bona fides. She could probably beat Biden in an election.

[Anonymous]

Oberlin went woke; Oberlin goin’ broke.

Victory for the people who work in this country to build things.

Thanks/ it’s nice to win sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


You are failing to grasp the nuance of this case. Oberlin isn't in trouble for it's students extreme views or behavior. It's responsible for the staff and officially sanctioned organizations and so liable when defamatory statement are made through the college's communications. Also, Oberlin staff used their positions within the college to make the defamatory statements appear to be sanctioned by the college itself. But no college is held responsible for the ridiculous viewpoints individual students post on social media or even if they write it into an op-ed in the school newspaper.


This.

What screwed the college was that the adminstrator was really really bad. She could have supported students and the school would have been fine. Brought water and food to protest. Helping make sure students were safe. That would have been fine. But the email and testimony showed that she was an organizer. She sanctioned school funds for making the sheets with the statements that she knew at the time to be false or misleading. She organized the students at the protest with the bullhorn. She helped cancel the bakery's school contracts for what she knew were false reasons. She had the power to call off the protest when she wanted to. There was a lot more. The jury had enough to conclude she was running the show. She should not have been. The college's general counsel is the one really to fire here. That person may be gone but it was that person's job to keep the adminstrator in her lane and not do these things.

Agree with almost all of this. Any school with a decided tilt toward one side of the political spectrum (be it right or left) should try to get a general counsel that is much more to the center to be a tempering voice. But I disagree that this fell entirely on the general counsel. Don't know how the Obie org chart works, but it is unlikely that the GC could have fired the Dean. This one is on the College President at the time. They should have reigned Meredith Raimondo in and fired her for insubordination if she didn't fall in line. I am astonished that the woman was hired by another educational institution after creating this financial nightmare for Oberlin. Talk about failing upwards.

I'm sure at her job interview it's not her that caused Oberlin's nightmare but rather the MAGA forces surrounding the baker, in her own personal opinion of course.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know which non-profit hired the three shoplifters.