Oberlin defamation suit and verdict : not a good optic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYTimes ran an article including an interview with Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer. Abrams states that “the chances of ultimate reversal of the award are substantial.”

It is an opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it will happen.

I suspect the award will be cut down on appeal but the college still found guilty of some liability.

The particular irony, and from Abrams himself, is his saying that the outcome represented “a double-barreled threat to free speech on campus." I'm not sure if there is true free speech on Oberlin's campus. The pattern of thought policing is infamously associated with Oberlin in the last few years.

And free speech has its own restrictions. Shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn't exclude you from prosecution if there was no such fire and damages occurred in the aftermath of the stampede to get out of the theater. The issue at here is defamation and whether the college aided and abetted by that defamation and if so, to what degree is the college responsible for aiding and abetting the defamation against the bakery? The reports on the actions of key Oberlin administrators surrounding the controversy is not helpful on Oberlin's behalf because it shows a pattern of the college administrators intervening on behalf of the students.

PP dismisses NYTimes expert as having expressed a mere “opinion.” S/he then go on give us his or her opinion of what’s gonna happen. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYTimes ran an article including an interview with Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer. Abrams states that “the chances of ultimate reversal of the award are substantial.”

It is an opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it will happen.

I suspect the award will be cut down on appeal but the college still found guilty of some liability.

The particular irony, and from Abrams himself, is his saying that the outcome represented “a double-barreled threat to free speech on campus." I'm not sure if there is true free speech on Oberlin's campus. The pattern of thought policing is infamously associated with Oberlin in the last few years.

And free speech has its own restrictions. Shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn't exclude you from prosecution if there was no such fire and damages occurred in the aftermath of the stampede to get out of the theater. The issue at here is defamation and whether the college aided and abetted by that defamation and if so, to what degree is the college responsible for aiding and abetting the defamation against the bakery? The reports on the actions of key Oberlin administrators surrounding the controversy is not helpful on Oberlin's behalf because it shows a pattern of the college administrators intervening on behalf of the students.

PP dismisses NYTimes expert as having expressed a mere “opinion.” S/he then go on give us his or her opinion of what’s gonna happen. Go figure.

Having worked in journalism for a paper of NYTimes quality, I have good reasons to be careful before reading too much into quotes from experts. It's very feasible Abrams knew little about the Oberlin incident. The Times wanted to speak to an expert and may have approached him (he has nothing to do with the lawsuit from what I can find) and he may very well not known of the matter beyond a few basic information casually told to him by the reporter (student protesting alleged racism) and not the finer details of the lawsuit. This happens all the time. Abrams is a First Amendment lawyer and the lawsuit was based on defamation and other allegations, not free speech. And Abrams will have his own biases, just as we all do, and makes statements based on his bias.

And the NYTimes is just as guilty of any paper or media organization of having its own biases and selective reporting to promote a certain interpretation of events. The more dangerous attitude, which too many people fall into the trap of doing, is assuming everything stated in the Times is the correct or likely interpretation of any situation. It is merely the Times' opinion, and the Times will be looking at any situation from the perspective of the Times, which is certainly not balanced and non-biased. Following the Times like a sheepdog is the same mindset that causes other people to follow Fox News like a sheepdog.

That is why I am comfortable not taking seriously an "expert" opinion quoted in the Times or any other newspaper until I know more of the circumstances in which the expert gave the opinion and the extent of knowledge of the situation the expert is commenting on. And I am also old enough to know that experts are frequently and routinely proven wrong. In this case, the courts will decide, not Mr. Abrams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYTimes ran an article including an interview with Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer. Abrams states that “the chances of ultimate reversal of the award are substantial.”

It is an opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it will happen.

I suspect the award will be cut down on appeal but the college still found guilty of some liability.

The particular irony, and from Abrams himself, is his saying that the outcome represented “a double-barreled threat to free speech on campus." I'm not sure if there is true free speech on Oberlin's campus. The pattern of thought policing is infamously associated with Oberlin in the last few years.

And free speech has its own restrictions. Shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn't exclude you from prosecution if there was no such fire and damages occurred in the aftermath of the stampede to get out of the theater. The issue at here is defamation and whether the college aided and abetted by that defamation and if so, to what degree is the college responsible for aiding and abetting the defamation against the bakery? The reports on the actions of key Oberlin administrators surrounding the controversy is not helpful on Oberlin's behalf because it shows a pattern of the college administrators intervening on behalf of the students.

PP dismisses NYTimes expert as having expressed a mere “opinion.” S/he then go on give us his or her opinion of what’s gonna happen. Go figure.

Having worked in journalism for a paper of NYTimes quality, I have good reasons to be careful before reading too much into quotes from experts. It's very feasible Abrams knew little about the Oberlin incident. The Times wanted to speak to an expert and may have approached him (he has nothing to do with the lawsuit from what I can find) and he may very well not known of the matter beyond a few basic information casually told to him by the reporter (student protesting alleged racism) and not the finer details of the lawsuit. This happens all the time. Abrams is a First Amendment lawyer and the lawsuit was based on defamation and other allegations, not free speech. And Abrams will have his own biases, just as we all do, and makes statements based on his bias.

And the NYTimes is just as guilty of any paper or media organization of having its own biases and selective reporting to promote a certain interpretation of events. The more dangerous attitude, which too many people fall into the trap of doing, is assuming everything stated in the Times is the correct or likely interpretation of any situation. It is merely the Times' opinion, and the Times will be looking at any situation from the perspective of the Times, which is certainly not balanced and non-biased. Following the Times like a sheepdog is the same mindset that causes other people to follow Fox News like a sheepdog.

That is why I am comfortable not taking seriously an "expert" opinion quoted in the Times or any other newspaper until I know more of the circumstances in which the expert gave the opinion and the extent of knowledge of the situation the expert is commenting on. And I am also old enough to know that experts are frequently and routinely proven wrong. In this case, the courts will decide, not Mr. Abrams.

Ugh, just stick to the facts - the facts that stick - cuz you are just showing your age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYTimes ran an article including an interview with Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer. Abrams states that “the chances of ultimate reversal of the award are substantial.”

It is an opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it will happen.

I suspect the award will be cut down on appeal but the college still found guilty of some liability.

The particular irony, and from Abrams himself, is his saying that the outcome represented “a double-barreled threat to free speech on campus." I'm not sure if there is true free speech on Oberlin's campus. The pattern of thought policing is infamously associated with Oberlin in the last few years.

And free speech has its own restrictions. Shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn't exclude you from prosecution if there was no such fire and damages occurred in the aftermath of the stampede to get out of the theater. The issue at here is defamation and whether the college aided and abetted by that defamation and if so, to what degree is the college responsible for aiding and abetting the defamation against the bakery? The reports on the actions of key Oberlin administrators surrounding the controversy is not helpful on Oberlin's behalf because it shows a pattern of the college administrators intervening on behalf of the students.

PP dismisses NYTimes expert as having expressed a mere “opinion.” S/he then go on give us his or her opinion of what’s gonna happen. Go figure.

Having worked in journalism for a paper of NYTimes quality, I have good reasons to be careful before reading too much into quotes from experts. It's very feasible Abrams knew little about the Oberlin incident. The Times wanted to speak to an expert and may have approached him (he has nothing to do with the lawsuit from what I can find) and he may very well not known of the matter beyond a few basic information casually told to him by the reporter (student protesting alleged racism) and not the finer details of the lawsuit. This happens all the time. Abrams is a First Amendment lawyer and the lawsuit was based on defamation and other allegations, not free speech. And Abrams will have his own biases, just as we all do, and makes statements based on his bias.

And the NYTimes is just as guilty of any paper or media organization of having its own biases and selective reporting to promote a certain interpretation of events. The more dangerous attitude, which too many people fall into the trap of doing, is assuming everything stated in the Times is the correct or likely interpretation of any situation. It is merely the Times' opinion, and the Times will be looking at any situation from the perspective of the Times, which is certainly not balanced and non-biased. Following the Times like a sheepdog is the same mindset that causes other people to follow Fox News like a sheepdog.

That is why I am comfortable not taking seriously an "expert" opinion quoted in the Times or any other newspaper until I know more of the circumstances in which the expert gave the opinion and the extent of knowledge of the situation the expert is commenting on. And I am also old enough to know that experts are frequently and routinely proven wrong. In this case, the courts will decide, not Mr. Abrams.

+ a million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYTimes ran an article including an interview with Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer. Abrams states that “the chances of ultimate reversal of the award are substantial.”

It is an opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it will happen.

I suspect the award will be cut down on appeal but the college still found guilty of some liability.

The particular irony, and from Abrams himself, is his saying that the outcome represented “a double-barreled threat to free speech on campus." I'm not sure if there is true free speech on Oberlin's campus. The pattern of thought policing is infamously associated with Oberlin in the last few years.

And free speech has its own restrictions. Shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn't exclude you from prosecution if there was no such fire and damages occurred in the aftermath of the stampede to get out of the theater. The issue at here is defamation and whether the college aided and abetted by that defamation and if so, to what degree is the college responsible for aiding and abetting the defamation against the bakery? The reports on the actions of key Oberlin administrators surrounding the controversy is not helpful on Oberlin's behalf because it shows a pattern of the college administrators intervening on behalf of the students.

PP dismisses NYTimes expert as having expressed a mere “opinion.” S/he then go on give us his or her opinion of what’s gonna happen. Go figure.

Having worked in journalism for a paper of NYTimes quality, I have good reasons to be careful before reading too much into quotes from experts. It's very feasible Abrams knew little about the Oberlin incident. The Times wanted to speak to an expert and may have approached him (he has nothing to do with the lawsuit from what I can find) and he may very well not known of the matter beyond a few basic information casually told to him by the reporter (student protesting alleged racism) and not the finer details of the lawsuit. This happens all the time. Abrams is a First Amendment lawyer and the lawsuit was based on defamation and other allegations, not free speech. And Abrams will have his own biases, just as we all do, and makes statements based on his bias.

And the NYTimes is just as guilty of any paper or media organization of having its own biases and selective reporting to promote a certain interpretation of events. The more dangerous attitude, which too many people fall into the trap of doing, is assuming everything stated in the Times is the correct or likely interpretation of any situation. It is merely the Times' opinion, and the Times will be looking at any situation from the perspective of the Times, which is certainly not balanced and non-biased. Following the Times like a sheepdog is the same mindset that causes other people to follow Fox News like a sheepdog.

That is why I am comfortable not taking seriously an "expert" opinion quoted in the Times or any other newspaper until I know more of the circumstances in which the expert gave the opinion and the extent of knowledge of the situation the expert is commenting on. And I am also old enough to know that experts are frequently and routinely proven wrong. In this case, the courts will decide, not Mr. Abrams.

Ugh, just stick to the facts - the facts that stick - cuz you are just showing your age.

You seem to have trouble grasping the concept of facts, as the facts do seem to support that Oberlin, as represented by its students and administration, went beyond the norm in protesting the bakery by enacting in defamation of the bakery's name and disrupting bakery services.

Several Oberlin students were arrested for attempting to steal from the bakery and the assault on bakery staff that followed - FACT

These students stated that their encounter by the bakery staff who attempted to stop the shoplifting was not racially motivated - FACT

Despite the above, Oberlin students led a campaign against the bakery - FACT

These students launched a campaign alleging the bakery was racist, despite the perpetrators' admission it wasn't racially motivated - FACT

An Oberlin Dean attempted to interfere with the police investigation by withholding evidence from the police and only released the evidence when the police threatened legal action - FACT

The same Dean is on record asking the bakery to refer shoplifting by Oberlin students to the college, not the police - FACT

Shall I keep going?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYTimes ran an article including an interview with Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer. Abrams states that “the chances of ultimate reversal of the award are substantial.”

It is an opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it will happen.

I suspect the award will be cut down on appeal but the college still found guilty of some liability.

The particular irony, and from Abrams himself, is his saying that the outcome represented “a double-barreled threat to free speech on campus." I'm not sure if there is true free speech on Oberlin's campus. The pattern of thought policing is infamously associated with Oberlin in the last few years.

And free speech has its own restrictions. Shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn't exclude you from prosecution if there was no such fire and damages occurred in the aftermath of the stampede to get out of the theater. The issue at here is defamation and whether the college aided and abetted by that defamation and if so, to what degree is the college responsible for aiding and abetting the defamation against the bakery? The reports on the actions of key Oberlin administrators surrounding the controversy is not helpful on Oberlin's behalf because it shows a pattern of the college administrators intervening on behalf of the students.

PP dismisses NYTimes expert as having expressed a mere “opinion.” S/he then go on give us his or her opinion of what’s gonna happen. Go figure.

Having worked in journalism for a paper of NYTimes quality, I have good reasons to be careful before reading too much into quotes from experts. It's very feasible Abrams knew little about the Oberlin incident. The Times wanted to speak to an expert and may have approached him (he has nothing to do with the lawsuit from what I can find) and he may very well not known of the matter beyond a few basic information casually told to him by the reporter (student protesting alleged racism) and not the finer details of the lawsuit. This happens all the time. Abrams is a First Amendment lawyer and the lawsuit was based on defamation and other allegations, not free speech. And Abrams will have his own biases, just as we all do, and makes statements based on his bias.

And the NYTimes is just as guilty of any paper or media organization of having its own biases and selective reporting to promote a certain interpretation of events. The more dangerous attitude, which too many people fall into the trap of doing, is assuming everything stated in the Times is the correct or likely interpretation of any situation. It is merely the Times' opinion, and the Times will be looking at any situation from the perspective of the Times, which is certainly not balanced and non-biased. Following the Times like a sheepdog is the same mindset that causes other people to follow Fox News like a sheepdog.

That is why I am comfortable not taking seriously an "expert" opinion quoted in the Times or any other newspaper until I know more of the circumstances in which the expert gave the opinion and the extent of knowledge of the situation the expert is commenting on. And I am also old enough to know that experts are frequently and routinely proven wrong. In this case, the courts will decide, not Mr. Abrams.

Ugh, just stick to the facts - the facts that stick - cuz you are just showing your age.

You seem to have trouble grasping the concept of facts, as the facts do seem to support that Oberlin, as represented by its students and administration, went beyond the norm in protesting the bakery by enacting in defamation of the bakery's name and disrupting bakery services.

Several Oberlin students were arrested for attempting to steal from the bakery and the assault on bakery staff that followed - FACT

These students stated that their encounter by the bakery staff who attempted to stop the shoplifting was not racially motivated - FACT

Despite the above, Oberlin students led a campaign against the bakery - FACT

These students launched a campaign alleging the bakery was racist, despite the perpetrators' admission it wasn't racially motivated - FACT

An Oberlin Dean attempted to interfere with the police investigation by withholding evidence from the police and only released the evidence when the police threatened legal action - FACT

The same Dean is on record asking the bakery to refer shoplifting by Oberlin students to the college, not the police - FACT

Shall I keep going?

You seem to have a lot of time in your retirement... go ahead, knock yourself out. I just don’t have time to go through your cut-and-paste from Fox or whatever...

[Anonymous]

Real estate grab by Oberlin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYTimes ran an article including an interview with Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer. Abrams states that “the chances of ultimate reversal of the award are substantial.”

It is an opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it will happen.

I suspect the award will be cut down on appeal but the college still found guilty of some liability.

The particular irony, and from Abrams himself, is his saying that the outcome represented “a double-barreled threat to free speech on campus." I'm not sure if there is true free speech on Oberlin's campus. The pattern of thought policing is infamously associated with Oberlin in the last few years.

And free speech has its own restrictions. Shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn't exclude you from prosecution if there was no such fire and damages occurred in the aftermath of the stampede to get out of the theater. The issue at here is defamation and whether the college aided and abetted by that defamation and if so, to what degree is the college responsible for aiding and abetting the defamation against the bakery? The reports on the actions of key Oberlin administrators surrounding the controversy is not helpful on Oberlin's behalf because it shows a pattern of the college administrators intervening on behalf of the students.

PP dismisses NYTimes expert as having expressed a mere “opinion.” S/he then go on give us his or her opinion of what’s gonna happen. Go figure.

Having worked in journalism for a paper of NYTimes quality, I have good reasons to be careful before reading too much into quotes from experts. It's very feasible Abrams knew little about the Oberlin incident. The Times wanted to speak to an expert and may have approached him (he has nothing to do with the lawsuit from what I can find) and he may very well not known of the matter beyond a few basic information casually told to him by the reporter (student protesting alleged racism) and not the finer details of the lawsuit. This happens all the time. Abrams is a First Amendment lawyer and the lawsuit was based on defamation and other allegations, not free speech. And Abrams will have his own biases, just as we all do, and makes statements based on his bias.

And the NYTimes is just as guilty of any paper or media organization of having its own biases and selective reporting to promote a certain interpretation of events. The more dangerous attitude, which too many people fall into the trap of doing, is assuming everything stated in the Times is the correct or likely interpretation of any situation. It is merely the Times' opinion, and the Times will be looking at any situation from the perspective of the Times, which is certainly not balanced and non-biased. Following the Times like a sheepdog is the same mindset that causes other people to follow Fox News like a sheepdog.

That is why I am comfortable not taking seriously an "expert" opinion quoted in the Times or any other newspaper until I know more of the circumstances in which the expert gave the opinion and the extent of knowledge of the situation the expert is commenting on. And I am also old enough to know that experts are frequently and routinely proven wrong. In this case, the courts will decide, not Mr. Abrams.

Ugh, just stick to the facts - the facts that stick - cuz you are just showing your age.

You seem to have trouble grasping the concept of facts, as the facts do seem to support that Oberlin, as represented by its students and administration, went beyond the norm in protesting the bakery by enacting in defamation of the bakery's name and disrupting bakery services.

Several Oberlin students were arrested for attempting to steal from the bakery and the assault on bakery staff that followed - FACT

These students stated that their encounter by the bakery staff who attempted to stop the shoplifting was not racially motivated - FACT

Despite the above, Oberlin students led a campaign against the bakery - FACT

These students launched a campaign alleging the bakery was racist, despite the perpetrators' admission it wasn't racially motivated - FACT

An Oberlin Dean attempted to interfere with the police investigation by withholding evidence from the police and only released the evidence when the police threatened legal action - FACT

The same Dean is on record asking the bakery to refer shoplifting by Oberlin students to the college, not the police - FACT

Shall I keep going?

You seem to have a lot of time in your retirement... go ahead, knock yourself out. I just don’t have time to go through your cut-and-paste from Fox or whatever...

Aww.... some snowflake got crushed and is whining. Kid, grow up.

[Anonymous]

What facts support Oberlin? None.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYTimes ran an article including an interview with Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer. Abrams states that “the chances of ultimate reversal of the award are substantial.”

It is an opinion, of course. Doesn't mean it will happen.

I suspect the award will be cut down on appeal but the college still found guilty of some liability.

The particular irony, and from Abrams himself, is his saying that the outcome represented “a double-barreled threat to free speech on campus." I'm not sure if there is true free speech on Oberlin's campus. The pattern of thought policing is infamously associated with Oberlin in the last few years.

And free speech has its own restrictions. Shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn't exclude you from prosecution if there was no such fire and damages occurred in the aftermath of the stampede to get out of the theater. The issue at here is defamation and whether the college aided and abetted by that defamation and if so, to what degree is the college responsible for aiding and abetting the defamation against the bakery? The reports on the actions of key Oberlin administrators surrounding the controversy is not helpful on Oberlin's behalf because it shows a pattern of the college administrators intervening on behalf of the students.

PP dismisses NYTimes expert as having expressed a mere “opinion.” S/he then go on give us his or her opinion of what’s gonna happen. Go figure.

Having worked in journalism for a paper of NYTimes quality, I have good reasons to be careful before reading too much into quotes from experts. It's very feasible Abrams knew little about the Oberlin incident. The Times wanted to speak to an expert and may have approached him (he has nothing to do with the lawsuit from what I can find) and he may very well not known of the matter beyond a few basic information casually told to him by the reporter (student protesting alleged racism) and not the finer details of the lawsuit. This happens all the time. Abrams is a First Amendment lawyer and the lawsuit was based on defamation and other allegations, not free speech. And Abrams will have his own biases, just as we all do, and makes statements based on his bias.

And the NYTimes is just as guilty of any paper or media organization of having its own biases and selective reporting to promote a certain interpretation of events. The more dangerous attitude, which too many people fall into the trap of doing, is assuming everything stated in the Times is the correct or likely interpretation of any situation. It is merely the Times' opinion, and the Times will be looking at any situation from the perspective of the Times, which is certainly not balanced and non-biased. Following the Times like a sheepdog is the same mindset that causes other people to follow Fox News like a sheepdog.

That is why I am comfortable not taking seriously an "expert" opinion quoted in the Times or any other newspaper until I know more of the circumstances in which the expert gave the opinion and the extent of knowledge of the situation the expert is commenting on. And I am also old enough to know that experts are frequently and routinely proven wrong. In this case, the courts will decide, not Mr. Abrams.

Ugh, just stick to the facts - the facts that stick - cuz you are just showing your age.

You seem to have trouble grasping the concept of facts, as the facts do seem to support that Oberlin, as represented by its students and administration, went beyond the norm in protesting the bakery by enacting in defamation of the bakery's name and disrupting bakery services.

Several Oberlin students were arrested for attempting to steal from the bakery and the assault on bakery staff that followed - FACT

These students stated that their encounter by the bakery staff who attempted to stop the shoplifting was not racially motivated - FACT

Despite the above, Oberlin students led a campaign against the bakery - FACT

These students launched a campaign alleging the bakery was racist, despite the perpetrators' admission it wasn't racially motivated - FACT

An Oberlin Dean attempted to interfere with the police investigation by withholding evidence from the police and only released the evidence when the police threatened legal action - FACT

The same Dean is on record asking the bakery to refer shoplifting by Oberlin students to the college, not the police - FACT

Shall I keep going?

You seem to have a lot of time in your retirement... go ahead, knock yourself out. I just don’t have time to go through your cut-and-paste from Fox or whatever...

Aww.... some snowflake got crushed and is whining. Kid, grow up.

+1.

Grow up, or pay up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What facts support Oberlin? None.

Crickets.

[Anonymous]

Not going to quote the whole NYT article and reply but I also used to love the NYT and think it was sophisticated and the last word on everything. Now such a strong liberal bias I can’t read it without questioning almost everything the articles say.

[Anonymous]

My child attends Oberlin and started after this event happened. While it doesn’t reflect well on some students and some administrators it’s not representative of everyone. It’s a great community and my child is thriving. Seems like people on this board have way too much time on their hands. Just don’t send your child there if you can’t get past this issue. Oberlin will do fine in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child attends Oberlin and started after this event happened. While it doesn’t reflect well on some students and some administrators it’s not representative of everyone. It’s a great community and my child is thriving. Seems like people on this board have way too much time on their hands. Just don’t send your child there if you can’t get past this issue. Oberlin will do fine in the long run.

Oberlin has proved itself to be the ultimate racists.
I'm sorry your child is there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child attends Oberlin and started after this event happened. While it doesn’t reflect well on some students and some administrators it’s not representative of everyone. It’s a great community and my child is thriving. Seems like people on this board have way too much time on their hands. Just don’t send your child there if you can’t get past this issue. Oberlin will do fine in the long run.

Oberlin has proved itself to be the ultimate racists.
I'm sorry your child is there.

Using a wide brush stroke like that, you must think Yale and Stanford people are all involved in the recent pay-to-play bribery scandal. There are plenty other great things going on in Yale, Stanford, and in Oberlin. People who use wide brush stroke usually are loners, become a monk, move into a monastery, or in your case, probably a retirement home. You sound like a grumpy ol’ fart even your spouse can’t stand.