Home » Oberlin will fight the Gibson verdict

Comments

Oberlin will fight the Gibson verdict — 23 Comments

  1. ‘Over? It’s not over til we say it’s over! Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

    Maybe Blutarski’s now in charge at Oberlin!

  2. Oberlin’s board has about 30 members. More than there ought to be, but not dreadfully unwieldy. About 1/2 are out of the business community. If they’re worth a pitcher of warm spit, Ambar, Varner, and Raimondo will be canned and their interim successors will be told to quit digging. Not holdin’ my breath, though.

  3. One gets the sense upon reading this email that the Oberlin folks are still ensconced in their bubble and are still in malign denial.

  4. You can use “townies” so long as the townies are deplorable.
    This case was tried in Lorain County court. I looked up Lorain County on maps and the county has about four cities, the largest being Elyria. It appears to be a bedroom community for Cleveland OH. Not everyone in the county is a “townie” but they are living outside the hothouse college bubble and were probably unfamiliar with and disgusted by the privilege and arrogance and ignorance and malice contained in that bubble. Essentially, these demented people attempted to run a small and well-established business out of town on trumped up identity politics charges after a shoplifting event that most definitely occurred as reported. They organized their little community of idiots, handed out the pitchforks and the torches, and released them, expressly hoping for the worst.

  5. “I want to assure you that none of this will sway us from our core values.
    We are disappointed in the jury’s decisions and the fragmentary and sometimes distorted public discussion of this case.”
    Carmen Twillie Ambar, President of Oberlin College

    Clearly and legally, “a jury of their peers” does not share their ‘values’.

    Clearly, they know that they did in fact egregiously defame the Gibsons.

    So the rationalization is that defaming Gibsons is just breaking eggs to get their omelet. The justification being that the end justifies the means.

    In which case, breaking their eggs to get our omelet is simply fighting fire with fire.

    You gain leverage over an enemy by attaching to their aggression, what for them is intolerable consequence.

    In this case, Oberlin is not the target. Oberlin’s administrators are the target. Make it personal. Gibsons must bring suit against Carmen Twillie Ambar and every other deeply involved Oberlin personnel involved in this malicious defamation of Gibsons.

  6. They brought suit against Meredith Raimondo. Ambar didn’t work there at the time the incident occurred, nor did Donica Thomas Varner, the college’s hopeless GC.

  7. You respect the integrity of the jury? Fine. Where’s your acknowledgement then of any responsibility in the matter?
    If I were a judge sitting on any appeal, Id let the judgement stand off that omission alone.
    No. You havent learned anything from this. The award stands.

  8. Whether or not the jury was comprised of “townies,” they were definitedly NOKD.

  9. I also think that Oberlin will be successful on appeal in getting the award reduced, and that it will end up being just a little bump in the road for the college. The award itself won’t hurt enough. What will hurt more—if it occurs—is a big drop in enrollment in the future.

    The appeal will take about a year. It will be interesting to see what happens to enrollment in that time.
    Sept 2016 enrollment (Nov 2016 Gibson’s kerfuffle)
    Sep 2017 enrollment
    Sept 2018 enrollment
    Sept 2019 enrollment (June 2019 lawsuit decision)
    Sept 2020 enrollment (est. June 2020 appeal decision)

    Given Oberlin’s greater prestige, I doubt an enrollment drop- if any- will be as bad as the Bing Search:Evergreen State enrollment drop. From Hot Air:

    President George Bridges has told the campus community that the school’s 3,800 student population is predicted to hover at about 3,100 when the 2018-19 school year begins. This 700-student loss represents an 18.5 percent decrease.

    This estimate sent shock waves among faculty, and some speculate it spurred an anonymous call for Bridges’ resignation by way of flyers recently inserted into faculty mailboxes declaring “Please Resign,” among other disparaging comment

    Oberlin has cultivated a “woke” student body-or at least a certain “woke” proportion- for years. Recall how the Oberlin administration handled a fake hate crime hoax.
    Given the fate of Antioch, perhaps Oberlin honchos should step back and reflect. Antioch was neither as prestigious nor as well-endowed as Oberlin, but back in the day it was respected. Over the decades, Antioch students became more and more “woke,” which resulted in more normal students increasingly avoiding the college. Until, Antioch was no more. My sister’s best friend went to Antioch. As an indication that she was NOT of the “woke” persuasion, her obituary requested that people not send flowers, but donate to a fund for school choice.

  10. They will ask the judge to set aside the verdict, and when this fails they will file the appeal. However, since they lost they are going to have to post an appeal bond – which is not cheap. They will also face post-judgment interest which can add up. This may resolve post-verdict with a settlement, but it will be significant. They are in a very weak position. Can’t say I feel sorry for them since this the damage was self-inflicted.

  11. Better — “Oberlin doubles down on failure.” There, I fixed it for you.
    There is an investment fallacy, the “St. Petersburg” error.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox
    When you have a loss, double the bet and you’ll recover all at the next toss.
    Or if it’s another loss, just double down AGAIN.
    The fallacy? Eventually you go bankrupt, and not before you recover.
    Let’s hope so soonest, for the left

  12. “I also think that Oberlin will be successful on appeal in getting the award reduced, ” — Neo

    Not if they use the same legal team.
    I binge-read the posts at LI last night, and it was like reading a Reader’s Digest Condensed John Grisham novel, or maybe the script for a Perry Mason episode.
    The plaintiff’s lawyers were brilliant; the defendants’ — not so much.

  13. I’m wondering how much discretion the judge has in this appeals process.

    While I also suspect the amount will be reduced, I can imagine it goes down only to the normal max punitive damages of twice as much.

    I’m sure Oberlin’s enrollment totals won’t be much worse than before in terms of numbers, but I’d guess the total applications goes down, and the SAT score median goes down.

  14. “…none of this will sway us from our core values…”

    Which consist of screaming “racist” at anyone who thinks that black people should not be exempt from law enforcement.

    I look forward to Oberlin having to pay a mountain of additional lawyers’ fees but the real comeuppance will arrive as parents realize via the ongoing publicity that they are paying the price of a house only to have their children turned into Maoist Red Brigades.

    Employers will see the same and graduates will find that their Oberlin degrees are job market poison. I suspect that is already happening, and when THAT news gets out only the most radical leftist parents will want to throw their children’s lives into that incinerator, then it’s goodbye Oberlin.

    Can’t happen fast enough. These totalitarian training grounds need to be gone.

  15. Oberlin/Gibson = a significant battle in the culture war. Not quite Stalingrad. But it sounds like Ambar’s in the bunker.

  16. Since it won’t materially affect their mission, that means they can afford to pay, right?

  17. Keep in mind that Varner and Ambar were both hired in the last two years. If the current bloc of trustees was the least bit interested in repairing Oberlin as an institution, these two would not be there; Varner has scant experience as an ordinary working lawyer and Ambar has little academic achievement to her name nor any background as an executive outside of academe. They’re hacks. Raimondo’s ugliness is manifest, and a capable general executive would have had an interim dean in place within a matter of weeks, and a national search underway for a replacement. Ambar did not do that.

    There might be a critical mass among the trustees in favor of removing the three stooges for gross incompetence, but almost certainly no interest in re-orienting the institutional culture in favor of academic seriousness.

  18. Oberlin/Gibson = a significant battle in the culture war.

    No. An interesting curio. Nothing much will change. Fr. Paul Shaugnessy, SJ coined the term ‘sociologically corrupt’ to describe institutions which lack the resources to reform themselves and require outside intervention. The market and the state legislatures might be of assistance in curing academe. Academe is uninterested in healing themselves. So far, the state legislatures do nothing but provide a facility for over-building. As for the market, the only thing it seems to kill off are men’s and women’s colleges.

  19. Oberlin does more harm than good for the communities that surround it despite it being an elite LAC, mainly because it despises the simple and conservative atmosphere that surrounds it.

  20. >Employers will see the same and graduates will find that their Oberlin degrees are job market poison.

    I keep reading this, of poisonous degrees from “woke” unis, but there’s no data or any trend of blacklisting certtia
    institutions within the job market. Oberlin students probably will be heading to graduate school or seeking job opportunities in major metros, and such places also probably don’t care if current wokeness has damaged the public appearance of whatever degree granting college they come from. They employees who are familiar with Oberli know Oberlin is an elite LAC – and that’s all they care about, if they care at all. Same thing will Yale being elite.

  21. Progressives are allowed—encouraged!—to attack “Deplorables”.
    “Deplorables” are not allowed to fight back (even if it’s their legal right to do so).
    Should the “Deplorables” somehow win (legally), then this “victory” must not be allowed to stand.

    IOW:
    By definition, attacking “Deplorables” is the epitome of morality.
    By definition, “Deplorables” are not allowed to hold their ground or fight back.
    By definition, “Deplorables” must lose.

    Palestinian rules.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>