Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised if insurance companies would want to get involved. $11 million is a high figure, especially for a bakery in a small town.

But the insurance company wanting to get involved doesn't mean Oberlin is innocent. At all. So don't fall into the trap of thinking that somehow it means Oberlin wasn't at fault. The insurance companies are only involved to minimize the financial damages the college will have to pay to the bakery. That is their role and it is not to provide evidence of Oberlin's innocence.

The college's board of trustees should also be reviewing the actions of certain administrators and leaders at the college and why they behaved in the way they are alleged to have behaved without first doing a due process review. And even if the college had sincere reasons to come to the defense of the students who shoplifted and started the fight with the bakery staff, it is also quite clear that the college administrators also encouraged the larger community to directly boycott and interfere with the bakery's operations instead of letting the matter be investigated properly first. That the college dean also specifically asked the bakery to not refer a crime (however petty it was) to the police but to notify the college first, and attempted to withhold evidence (the fake ID) is very much overstepping their responsibilities and implying that the college is above the law in that community. When your local police force has to threaten legal action to get the college to give up the evidence is very damning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Don’t Oberlin’s liability insurance companies have a say on the litigation? If I have a car accident, it’s usually the insurance company that determines whether they will fight or settle. The insurance companies must’ve thought this is not as clear-cut as the $11 million judgment against Oberlin suggests. If so, there’s something wrong with the $11 million judgment.

You are assuming the insurance company is involved in funding Oberlin's defense (and I've no indication that is true). And of course insurance companies sometimes make mistakes in assessing case risk. So there may be nothing "wrong" with the $11 million judgment other than that the insurance company (if it is involved) mis-assessed the litigation risk.

Source pls.

Yes I'd like to see a source from the first PP indicating that insurance companies are involved at all. Pure speculation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Don’t Oberlin’s liability insurance companies have a say on the litigation? If I have a car accident, it’s usually the insurance company that determines whether they will fight or settle. The insurance companies must’ve thought this is not as clear-cut as the $11 million judgment against Oberlin suggests. If so, there’s something wrong with the $11 million judgment.

You are assuming the insurance company is involved in funding Oberlin's defense (and I've no indication that is true). And of course insurance companies sometimes make mistakes in assessing case risk. So there may be nothing "wrong" with the $11 million judgment other than that the insurance company (if it is involved) mis-assessed the litigation risk.

Source pls.

Yes I'd like to see a source from the first PP indicating that insurance companies are involved at all. Pure speculation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oberlin College includes a world-class conservatory. The idea that Oberlin is all SJW just doesn’t pass the smell tes. Its conservatory students go on to place in most famous orchestras in the country. I just can’t imagine every one of them breathing fire.

Conservatory students tend to exist in isolation from the rest of the university. I can't speak for Oberlin but that has been my experience elsewhere.

The defamation suit is both bad news for Oberlin and good news for common sense. The Oberlin dean quoted should lose her position over this. But she likely won't. There's no sense of responsibility nor honor in higher education these days. It's all pandering to special interest groups and babying the SJWs.

I think you are just regurgitating on here what you read in right-wing media. It can’t be from your experience. Oberlin is one of few colleges with a conservatory. There aren’t many colleges or universities you could have experienced similar demographics.

Granted, my kid wants a music community in college. So, that has informed his looking. But, he’s likely applying to Rochester (Eastman), CWRU (Cleveland Institute) and Oberlin, with excellent conservatories. Northwestern has a great one. They aren’t rare.

I believe Oberlin has either a 1/3 or 1/4 of its student body at the conservatory. And a decent number of kids who dual enroll. And they share a campus, unlike at Rochester.

I think the Washington Post makes a good point that Oberlin and Lorrain have town and gown issues. The town is much more conservative than the college, and people who have loved there their who love and are conservative resent all the liberal kids— many of them more affluent and on their way to being more educated than the business owners, taking over the small town. Oberlin has started Community Relations training the students. Which they should.

But flip in on its head. This bakery makes a lot of its income selling baked goods to Oberlin. And Oberlin is financially supporting most of the downtown. It’s pretty much the only game in town, financially. I’m not sure how much an $11 million judgment by conservative town members helps the community in the long term. The college would like to source locally. It’s part of their thing. But, if pushed, I’m sure they will find another bakery to use.

Both sides need to take a beat here and consider the role they played in a shoplifting getting so far out of hand. It seems like the college is implementing programs. As they should. But, how much should the town stick it to the libs when they dependent on the libs to get bills paid? Maybe the town has a role to play in patching up town and gown relations too.

Exactly what role did the bakery place in "the shoplifting getting so far out of hand"???? Oberlin students broke the law and faced the consequences that one faces for breaking the law. Should the bakery just let kids buy alcohol even if they know they're not of age? Should they just stand their if people are stealing stuff from their establishment?



Exactly

No. And No. but that isn’t why Oberlin was sued. They aren’t responsible for college kids being college kids. They also weren’t sued because of the fight outside. Three kids were arrested for that, charged and plead guilty.

So, re-read the article. Why was Oberlin sued? Because the kids protested the arrests and the college got dragged into it. The protests. Not the shoplifting. That’s where the town and gown relations broke down. And if you think Oberlin or it’s students will ever spend a penny in that shop again, you are wrong. And before, Oberlin placed regular orders for the cafeteria. No— the bakery doesn’t have to accommodate what they perceive to be SJW overreaction. But they should, if their customers are SJWs.

There seem to be a lot of details left out. But it’s seems hard to believe this stands on appeal. Calling someone racist isn’t defamation, because it’s an opinion. And it isn’t tortious interference with business relations. If you have a right not to bake my gay wedding cake, I have a right not to buy my wedding cake from you, because I disagree with your values.

As for both sides— for town gown relations to get this bad, yep, it is highly like.y both sides played a role.

No. And No. Officials from Oberlin College distributed the fliers and encouraged people to obstruct the Gibson's parking lot and take up spaces. Raimondo also demanded that the Director of Dining Services cease any business with Gibson's (which caused said director to take a leave of absence because she was so distressed), used school equipment to copy fliers, etc.

Cite for this. Because I have only seen that it was student lead, not college lead. And that the dean asked the campus to temporarily stop purchasing from the bakery because of student demands.

So, please cite to the dean instigating any of this.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/09/gibson.bakery.v.oberlin.college.lawsuit.pdf

There, Oberlin College representatives, including Raimondo, handed out
hundreds of copies of the flyer to Oberlin College faculty, staff, and students, the Oberlin
community, and media representatives stating that Gibson's Bakery and its owners racially
profiled and discriminated against Aladin, Whettston, and Lawrence

Upon information and belief, Oberlin College agents, including the Associate
Dean for Academic Affairs, copied the flyer on Oberlin College copier machines, so that they
could be distributed to large numbers of people.

Raimondo distributed the flyer to Oberlin College students, faculty, the public and
even the media.

Upon information and belief, Raimondo and other Oberlin College professors,
including Tita Reed, the assistant to the President of Oberlin College, raised their fists in support
of the demonstration, while shouting the defamatory statements on a bullhorn, thereby assuring
that a large audience would hear their defamatory statements.

To further encourage and perpetuate the defamatory statements, Oberlin College
suspended classes to allow students to attend protests and demonstrations outside Gibson's
Bakery.

Oberlin College encouraged students to demonstrate outside Gibson's Bakery in
lieu of attending scheduled classes and provided credit to the students who attended and
participated in the demonstration(s).

Oberlin College ordered its employees to supply the demonstrators, who were
shouting the defamatory statements espoused by Defendants, with free food and drink.

Upon information and belief, an
Oberlin College administrator was present at Jonathan Aladin's criminal booking. Upon
information and belief, a member of the Oberlin Police Department accidently gave the
administrator the fake identification card used by Jonathan Aladin during the attempted robbery
and theft of Gibson's Bakery. Upon information and belief, the Oberlin Police Department later
asked Oberlin College to return the fake identification, because it was evidence of a crime and
because it had been given to the college in error. Upon information and belief, Oberlin College
refused to return the evidence on several different occasions. Upon information and belief,
Oberlin College eventually returned the evidence only after the City of Oberlin Police
Department threatened to pursue obstruction of justice charges against Oberlin College.

On or before November 14, 2016, Vice-President Raimondo approached the
Oberlin College Director of Dining Services Michelle Gross and demanded that she instruct Bon
Appetit to cease from engaging in any business with Gibson's Bakery.
58. Because Gibson Bakery's contract was with Bon Appetit Management Company,
Oberlin College, as directed by Raimondo, instructed Bon Appetit Management Company to
cancel its contract with Gibson's Bakery, which it reluctantly did, which resulted in extreme
emotional distress of Michelle Gross causing her to take a leave of absence and then early
retirement.
59. Upon information and belief, Michelle Gross was deeply disturbed by the demand
from Raimondo as Gibson's Bakery had had a longtime, positive relationship with the college
and she did not want to damage and adversely impact Gibson's Bakery.

60. Upon information and belief, Oberlin College desires to harm and/or acquire the
Gibson Bakery business, the Gibson Bakery property, and the real property owned by Off Street
Parking, Inc. ("OSP"). David Gibson recently acquired the controlling interest in OSP. OSP is
the owner of the parking lot immediately contiguous to Oberlin College, and it is supposed to be
for the exclusive use of patrons of the downtown businesses, including Plaintiffs' business.
61. Oberlin College has encouraged, facilitated, and permitted its professors,
administrators, faculty, students, and third party contractors to use the parking lot
notwithstanding that OSP has advised the individuals and Oberlin College to stop parking in the
lot, issued parking notice violations to offenders, and has had vehicles towed.
01837109-2 / 12000.00-0027 15
62. During most of the month of August 2017, Oberlin College instructed its
construction contractors to park vehicles and large construction equipment and otherwise use the
parking lot, obstructing access to the parking lot and parking spaces within the lot.

63. Approximately a week after Oberlin College caused Gibson's contract to be
canceled, David Gibson sat down with President Krislov and Tita Reed and advised the
representatives of Oberlin College that 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.
64. David Gibson requested that Oberlin College immediately retract the defamatory
statements and reinstate its contracts with Bon Appetit.
65. Defendants represented that they would consider reinstating business relations
with Gibson's Bakery on a long-term basis, but only if Gibson's Bakery would agree that
"Gibson's would not push criminal charges against first-time shoplifters."
66. David Gibson explained how unworkable and unacceptable it would be to give
free passes to all so-called "first-time shoplifters."
67. It would be difficult to know whether someone was a "first-time shoplifter" or
whether it was simply their first time getting caught.
68. Gibson's Bakery already loses thousands of dollars a year due to stolen
merchandise, and such losses would certainly multiply if students learned they could steal
without repercussion.
69. In a subsequent meeting between Raimondo and David Gibson, Oberlin College
also insisted that Gibson's Bakery call Raimondo when students are caught stealing rather than
informing the police.
70. David Gibson believed the policy would be inconsistent with his core belief that
an educational institution of higher learning should be teaching its students not to commit
robbery and theft, instead of sheltering and excusing that criminal activity.
71. Again, David Gibson did not agree to such a request and Oberlin College
continued to attempt to steamroll and intimidate Gibson's Bakery and refused to retract its
defamatory statements or reinstate its business with Gibson's Bakery.

WOW.

Oberlin = fascist bully

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Don’t Oberlin’s liability insurance companies have a say on the litigation? If I have a car accident, it’s usually the insurance company that determines whether they will fight or settle. The insurance companies must’ve thought this is not as clear-cut as the $11 million judgment against Oberlin suggests. If so, there’s something wrong with the $11 million judgment.

You are assuming the insurance company is involved in funding Oberlin's defense (and I've no indication that is true). And of course insurance companies sometimes make mistakes in assessing case risk. So there may be nothing "wrong" with the $11 million judgment other than that the insurance company (if it is involved) mis-assessed the litigation risk.

Source pls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty crazy that the "victim" they decided to take a stand for was a guy who tried to steal wine and then beat up the owner... WTF?

Good for this business and shame on Oberlin.

I am a liberal and idiots like this give us a bad name

Exactly. Oberlin chose to defend its shoplifting students.
Shame, shame, shame on Oberlin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Don’t Oberlin’s liability insurance companies have a say on the litigation? If I have a car accident, it’s usually the insurance company that determines whether they will fight or settle. The insurance companies must’ve thought this is not as clear-cut as the $11 million judgment against Oberlin suggests. If so, there’s something wrong with the $11 million judgment.

You are assuming the insurance company is involved in funding Oberlin's defense (and I've no indication that is true). And of course insurance companies sometimes make mistakes in assessing case risk. So there may be nothing "wrong" with the $11 million judgment other than that the insurance company (if it is involved) mis-assessed the litigation risk.

Anonymous wrote:Pretty crazy that the "victim" they decided to take a stand for was a guy who tried to steal wine and then beat up the owner... WTF?

Good for this business and shame on Oberlin.

I am a liberal and idiots like this give us a bad name

Anonymous wrote: Don’t Oberlin’s liability insurance companies have a say on the litigation? If I have a car accident, it’s usually the insurance company that determines whether they will fight or settle. The insurance companies must’ve thought this is not as clear-cut as the $11 million judgment against Oberlin suggests. If so, there’s something wrong with the $11 million judgment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 18:52 -- you're citing from the complaint; you do know that's not law, right?

I mean, the judge ordered Oberlin to pay $11 million to the bakery due to the content in the complain soo...

Anonymous wrote:At 18:52 -- you're citing from the complaint; you do know that's not law, right?