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

[Anonymous]

So the penalty was because the college chose to cease business with Gibson’s? I thought businesses could boycott whomever they want? As long as it’s not because of a protected class? I thought we all got to use our dollars for our or against a company if we don’t like their actions? Or for no reason at all?

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand how Oberlin is responsible. Students led the boycott and handed out flyers.

Oberlin administrators attended the student-led protest, but under the guise of supporting student-community relations. The school administrators did not call the business “racist.”

The school then attempted to end their business relationship with the school, but under OH law that’s some sort of actionable tort?

And how do they get to $36M? This is kind of an insane judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the penalty was because the college chose to cease business with Gibson’s? I thought businesses could boycott whomever they want? As long as it’s not because of a protected class? I thought we all got to use our dollars for our or against a company if we don’t like their actions? Or for no reason at all?

They boycotted the business because of the owner's skin color and false claims of his behavior toward POC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the penalty was because the college chose to cease business with Gibson’s? I thought businesses could boycott whomever they want? As long as it’s not because of a protected class? I thought we all got to use our dollars for our or against a company if we don’t like their actions? Or for no reason at all?

They boycotted the business because of the owner's skin color and false claims of his behavior toward POC.

I'm white, I don't think being white is a protected class? I understand you might wish it were, but as of now I don't think it is.
If there is a particular libel charge, that can and should be decided by the legal process.
If there is a particular breach of contract, that can and should be decided by the legal process.

I'm not saying I agree with the college. I'm just not sure that boycotting a business for whatever reason is/should be actionable, legally.

We have been told that corporations are people with consciences and they have to be able to do what they want, even when this exercise of conscience has a disparate impact on a protected class. See Hobby Lobby and birth control for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the penalty was because the college chose to cease business with Gibson’s? I thought businesses could boycott whomever they want? As long as it’s not because of a protected class? I thought we all got to use our dollars for our or against a company if we don’t like their actions? Or for no reason at all?

They boycotted the business because of the owner's skin color and false claims of his behavior toward POC.

I'm white, I don't think being white is a protected class? I understand you might wish it were, but as of now I don't think it is.
If there is a particular libel charge, that can and should be decided by the legal process.
If there is a particular breach of contract, that can and should be decided by the legal process.

I'm not saying I agree with the college. I'm just not sure that boycotting a business for whatever reason is/should be actionable, legally.

We have been told that corporations are people with consciences and they have to be able to do what they want, even when this exercise of conscience has a disparate impact on a protected class. See Hobby Lobby and birth control for women.

Discriminating against someone because of race is illegal.... being "white" is race.

And, this is NOT just about boycotting at all. This is about defamation.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit-payment-reaj/index.html

When three Black Oberlin College students were accused of shoplifting by the owners of an Ohio bakery, the small liberal arts school that was once a stop along the Underground Railroad supported the students and called for a boycott.

The owners of Gibson's Bakery took the matter to court, claiming they had been defamed in 2016 when Oberlin professors and deans joined the student protests -- in some cases handing out fliers that read, "DON'T BUY."
"This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION," the flier said, according to the 2017 lawsuit.

The case stems from the November 2016 arrests of three Black Oberlin students at the bakery and market near the college's campus in Oberlin, Ohio.
One student, Jonathan Aladin, was accused of attempted robbery for allegedly trying to "steal wine or otherwise illegally obtain wine" from the bakery, according to the defamation lawsuit. He would eventually confess in a written statement to trying to buy alcohol illegally.
The two other suspects were arrested and accused of misdemeanor assault, court documents state. Oberlin staff members later tried to discredit the family-owned bakery, according to the lawsuit.
The suit said Oberlin's then Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo and other college staff members "handed out hundreds of copies" of the accusatory flier to the community and the media stating that Gibson's Bakery and its owners racially profiled and discriminated against the three students.

The suit said the "defamation, boycotts, demonstrations, and refusal to do business with Gibson's Bakery was having a devastating effect on Gibson's Bakery and the Gibson family."
In August 2017, nine months after the three students were arrested, Aladin and Endia Lawrence pleaded guilty to attempted theft and aggravated trespass, court documents state.
The third student also pleaded guilty to attempted theft and aggravated trespass. Her case has been expunged, Traci Orlando, civil secretary for Judge John R. Miraldi, said in 2019.
In a written statement released that same year, Aladin confessed to using a fake ID to try to buy alcohol when a shop clerk tried to detain him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the penalty was because the college chose to cease business with Gibson’s? I thought businesses could boycott whomever they want? As long as it’s not because of a protected class? I thought we all got to use our dollars for our or against a company if we don’t like their actions? Or for no reason at all?

They boycotted the business because of the owner's skin color and false claims of his behavior toward POC.

I'm white, I don't think being white is a protected class? I understand you might wish it were, but as of now I don't think it is.
If there is a particular libel charge, that can and should be decided by the legal process.
If there is a particular breach of contract, that can and should be decided by the legal process.

I'm not saying I agree with the college. I'm just not sure that boycotting a business for whatever reason is/should be actionable, legally.

We have been told that corporations are people with consciences and they have to be able to do what they want, even when this exercise of conscience has a disparate impact on a protected class. See Hobby Lobby and birth control for women.

Have you ever read the US constitution or case law? There is no free reign to discriminate against white people based on their race. Your arguments sound a lot like what undergrads in Oberlin might believe meets the definition of racial discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This judgment against Oberlin has been upheld.
cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit-payment-reaj/index.html

Oberlin grad and eegads. I don't really understand how this comes out to a $36 million judgment, though. That seems crazy high based on every recounting I've read of what actually happened.

It’s RWNJ culture of victimhood gone wild.

[Anonymous]

This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This judgment against Oberlin has been upheld.
cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit-payment-reaj/index.html

Oberlin grad and eegads. I don't really understand how this comes out to a $36 million judgment, though. That seems crazy high based on every recounting I've read of what actually happened.

It’s RWNJ culture of victimhood gone wild.

Really? So leading a boycott against a business because of the owner's race is just no big deal? And leading it through a college that accepts federal student loans as well! I thought we were past Jim Crow etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the penalty was because the college chose to cease business with Gibson’s? I thought businesses could boycott whomever they want? As long as it’s not because of a protected class? I thought we all got to use our dollars for our or against a company if we don’t like their actions? Or for no reason at all?

There's a lot of information out there on what the college did.

Read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”

Are they holding the College responsible for what the students did/said or the College's role in events? Sounds like the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the penalty was because the college chose to cease business with Gibson’s? I thought businesses could boycott whomever they want? As long as it’s not because of a protected class? I thought we all got to use our dollars for our or against a company if we don’t like their actions? Or for no reason at all?

They boycotted the business because of the owner's skin color and false claims of his behavior toward POC.

I'm white, I don't think being white is a protected class? I understand you might wish it were, but as of now I don't think it is.
If there is a particular libel charge, that can and should be decided by the legal process.
If there is a particular breach of contract, that can and should be decided by the legal process.

I'm not saying I agree with the college. I'm just not sure that boycotting a business for whatever reason is/should be actionable, legally.

We have been told that corporations are people with consciences and they have to be able to do what they want, even when this exercise of conscience has a disparate impact on a protected class. See Hobby Lobby and birth control for women.

Have you ever read the US constitution or case law? There is no free reign to discriminate against white people based on their race. Your arguments sound a lot like what undergrads in Oberlin might believe meets the definition of racial discrimination.

Of course there's no "free reign to discriminate", that was not even a thing when the Constitution was written.

Please show me where it is a Federal offense or an Ohio state offense to discriminate against white people.

This isn't about "free reign" it is about what is ILLEGAL. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This judgment against Oberlin has been upheld.
cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit-payment-reaj/index.html

Oberlin grad and eegads. I don't really understand how this comes out to a $36 million judgment, though. That seems crazy high based on every recounting I've read of what actually happened.

It’s RWNJ culture of victimhood gone wild.

Really? So leading a boycott against a business because of the owner's race is just no big deal? And leading it through a college that accepts federal student loans as well! I thought we were past Jim Crow etc.

+1 not to mention the accused were actually guilty of the crime. Glad these woke imbeciles were held accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This decision is a big f#cking deal.

It basically makes colleges responsible for the expressed OPINIONS of its students if such opinions can be viewed as potentially defamatory. And, as Oberlin points out, the only way for a university to avoid a tort is to categorically stop the students from expressing opinions.

Kinda weird that the rightwing so obsessed with “cancel culture” is basically salivating at suing universities for the speech of its students.

Read Oberlin’s appeal, the decision has huge legal ramifications:
https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/Memo-in-Support-of-Jurisdiction.pdf

Of course, the next step to this is to sue universities if students accuse someone of being a “rapist” or “sexual harasser.”

I think you are ignoring the actions of school administrators to call this holding the college responsible for student opinions. The college forced their caterer to break the caterer’s subcontract with the bakery. They actively participated in slandering the bakery. This isn’t about the students. It’s about the behaviour of the employees of the college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the penalty was because the college chose to cease business with Gibson’s? I thought businesses could boycott whomever they want? As long as it’s not because of a protected class? I thought we all got to use our dollars for our or against a company if we don’t like their actions? Or for no reason at all?

They boycotted the business because of the owner's skin color and false claims of his behavior toward POC.

I'm white, I don't think being white is a protected class? I understand you might wish it were, but as of now I don't think it is.
If there is a particular libel charge, that can and should be decided by the legal process.
If there is a particular breach of contract, that can and should be decided by the legal process.

I'm not saying I agree with the college. I'm just not sure that boycotting a business for whatever reason is/should be actionable, legally.

We have been told that corporations are people with consciences and they have to be able to do what they want, even when this exercise of conscience has a disparate impact on a protected class. See Hobby Lobby and birth control for women.

Have you ever read the US constitution or case law? There is no free reign to discriminate against white people based on their race. Your arguments sound a lot like what undergrads in Oberlin might believe meets the definition of racial discrimination.

Of course there's no "free reign to discriminate", that was not even a thing when the Constitution was written.

Please show me where it is a Federal offense or an Ohio state offense to discriminate against white people.

This isn't about "free reign" it is about what is ILLEGAL. Thanks.

Why don't you read the case and find out or do you know more than a jury, judge, and appellate court?