
Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way - grellas
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/448711-oberlin-college-case-shows-how-universities-are-losing-their-way
======
grellas
A bit more factual context:

1\. The student "protests" erupted the day after the 2016 election results
came in, with a corresponding politically inflammatory element at work in the
background.

2\. The underlying incident involved an underaged black student who attempted
to buy a bottle of wine, was refused, and was then found to have 2 other
bottles under his coat as he walked out. When the owner's son chased him out,
an altercation ensued and, as police arrived, they found the owner's son on
the ground being hit and kicked by three persons, including 2 female friends
of the shoplifter.

3\. I use shoplifter, instead of "alleged shoplifter," because a guilty plea
was entered admitting to the crime and also acknowledging that racial
profiling had nothing to do with the incident.

4\. Protests immediately erupted and were so volatile that the local police
chief said he felt he had to call in outside help from a riot squad.

5\. The students who did the protests claimed that Gibson's bakery not only
had engaged in racial profiling in the particular incident but also that it
was a long-time racist presence in the local business community. (Gibson's had
been founded in 1880 and was strictly a family owned business, with the
business supporting 3 generations of the family at the time of the incident).

6\. The Oberlin dean of students (Merideth Raimondo) appears to have joined in
the protests directly, shouting through a bullhorn and handing out fliers
calling Gibson's racist. She claimed she used the bullhorn for 1 minute only
and only to tell the students to observe safety precautions. Multiple other
witnesses at the trial claimed she did so for a half hour and that she was a
direct participant in the events. The jury obviously did not believe her.
Also, she denied that she had handed out any fliers, was contradicted by a
local reporter who said she had handed one to him, called that reporter a
liar, and (at trial, once under oath) later admitted that he was telling the
truth that she had handed him a flier knowing him to be a reporter.

7\. The college immediately joined in the affair by terminating its long-term
contract with Gibson's. A couple of months later, it reinstated that contract.
Then, when the Gibson family filed suit, it terminated the contract
permanently.

8\. The college took the position that the matter would be dropped if Gibson's
dropped the shoplifting charge and if it committed in the future to bring all
incidents involving students directly to the college before it got the police
involved. Gibson's refused to comply with this condition.

9\. Gibson's in turn offered to forego any and all legal claims if the college
sent out a mass communication stating that Gibson's had not engaged in racist
activity and had no history of being racist. The college declined to do this.

10\. Gibson's took a huge financial hit as a result of all this, barely
managing to stay in business. It had to lay off all of its 12 employees and
the family owners continued to operate the business without salary for 2
years.

11\. Gibson's sued the college and its dean of students alleging libel,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interference with business
relations.

12\. Throughout the trial, the college took the position that it had done
nothing wrong, was only protecting the students' right to free speech, and had
no responsibility for what happened. It also took the position that Gibson's
was worth no more than $35,000 in total value as a business and that such
amount should be the maximum awarded in any damages award.

13\. The jury award $11.2 million in compensatory damages, $33 million in
punitive damages, and also said that Oberlin had to pay Gibson's attorneys'
fees. Under state law, there is a 2x cap on punitive damages (2x times the
amount of compensatory damages awarded) and thus the punitive award will be
set at $22 million. The judge is still determining the attorneys' fees
question. All in all, though, the jury basically slammed Oberlin to the max
and also awarded major damages against the dean of students.

14\. Oberlin sent a mass email to its alumni association essentially saying
that the jury disregarded the clear evidence showing it had done nothing wrong
and vowing to fight this through appeal. It also formally announced that it
will be filing an appeal.

15\. Oberlin has had a long-time "townie" vs. "gownie" culture but this far
transcends the small tensions that have historically existed.

William Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection has been on this case in great depth
from inception, believing it is a case of major significance concerning
college activism run amok. Here is a link to his reporting on the original
verdict that contains a ton of links to the prior coverage:
[https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/verdict-jury-awards-
gi...](https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/verdict-jury-awards-gibsons-
bakery-11-million-against-oberlin-college/)

The article here is by Jonathan Turley, a distinguished liberal law scholar,
who is pretty critical of Oberlin's handling of the case, as I think most
people are.

~~~
elicash
Thanks for this. I hadn't dug deeply into this previously.

Reading this, I'm struck by how fragile our first amendment is that you can be
sued for participating in a protest. It sounds like the only things that the
university did "wrong" was end a contract and also one of their deans took
active part in protesting.

Much of the glee seems to stem from the fact that the speech being expressed
in the protest was dumb. I, for one, think dumb speech should be protected.

~~~
rayiner
Defamation has long been deemed to be speech not protected by the first
amendment. Because of the risk to freedom of expression, such claims have been
limited in numerous ways, and are exceedingly difficult to win. But where a
plaintiff does manage to overcome those hurdles, it is not an indicator of the
fragility of the first amendment for the defamation claim to actually succeed.
It’s simply applying well defined outer limits to freedom of expression, no
different than ones for fraud, false advertising, and other malicious conduct
that incidentally involves speech.

Two points @grellas mentioned are key.

First, this case involves falsehoods. Factually untrue assertions are
generally outside the scope of protected speech:
[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.h...](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html).
(Otherwise, the first amendment would swallow claims for fraud, false
advertising, etc). This case, moreover, doesn’t fit the scenarios where false
statements can be protected expression, such as hyperbole or satire.

Second, the speech was against a private party. The first amendment
restrictions on defamation claims are less stringent when it comes to private
parties than to the government, politicians, or public figures. In particular,
where defamatory speech turns out to be false, it might still be protected by
the first amendment if it was directed to a public figure and the false
statements were not made recklessly or knowingly. But if a private party is
involved, that additional layer of protection doesn’t exist. (The theory being
that there is a greater interest on making statements about public figures,
where sometimes you might get the facts wrong, than with private figures.)

I’m a first amendment extremist, but a defamation claim here doesn’t strike me
as problematic any more than a prosecution for fraud. There is no legitimate
expressive value in spreading demonstrable falsehoods about a private party.
Nor is there a slippery slope. The key elements of private party versus public
figure, and demonstrably false versus possibly true statements are bright line
limits that have long served us well.

~~~
elicash
Thank you for being the first person to agree with my fundamental point that
there are actual implications to the first amendment when it comes to libel
laws.

I'd love to hear any of the actual false statements ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY
OR ITS STAFF. I relied on the so far uncontested statement of facts offered by
OP. If those facts are wrong I'd be thrilled to revisit my position.

~~~
rayiner
A university dean admitted to passing out a flyer that falsely stated that the
Oberlin student had been assaulted:
[https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-
oberl...](https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-
college-trial-day-2-i-dont-know-may-come-back-to-haunt-the-defense). A police
officer testified that the Oberlin students had assaulted the bakery employee,
not the other way around. The flyer also stated that the bakery had a long
history of racial profiling. But at trial the dean admitted that she didn’t
know whether that was true. Numerous witnesses testified it was false.

A high ranking university employee handed out a flyer containing damaging
assertions of fact, with the intent that people believe and act upon those
assertions, and at trial offered nothing to suggest she had even a good faith
belief that those assertions were true. That’s not an exercise of free
expression.

~~~
djakjxnanjak
Whether someone is a victim of assault or rightfully practiced self-defense is
often a difficult question dependent on the states of mind of the people
involved in a volatile situation, remembered through the veil of faulty human
memories. Details like who used force first are pretty much impossible to
determine without a video recording. Of course, police officers are as
fallible as anyone else. Defamation requires a willful disregard for truth,
and I have a hard time believing that “they committed assault” would be
defamation when “they got in a fight” is accurate.

For what it’s worth, I consider myself a liberal, and I went to a liberal arts
college cut from the same cloth as Oberlin and wrote anonymous posts debating
what I perceived as the excesses of liberal campus activists.

~~~
Fins
Given that students in question plead guilty, it seems quite plausible that
"willful disregard for the truth" is exactly what happened here.

~~~
asveikau
It's a good thing innocent people have never pled guilty before.

~~~
Fins
Yeah, this clearly was the case here!! Although even Oberlin does not seem to
be making that claim.

~~~
asveikau
I don't know if you caught that. But for me, "they pled guilty!" is
meaningless. People are coerced into that all the time. So speaking generally,
to those who think saying that is shorthand for winning an argument, it's
quite silly.

~~~
Fins
_In general_ it may not mean much. People do plead guilty even when they
aren't, for many reasons, and even more so with minorities. In this specific
case though we're talking Oberlin students, not some poor kids from the
ghetto, already making this less likely, and even worse, while I would not
necessarily expect rioting progressive students to make any sort of logical
and factual argument, I _would_ expect better from the administration. But
interestingly, they also never presented anything based on logic, let alone
facts, and never even made the claim that the assailants were coerced to plead
guilty, witnesses bribed, investigations botched. They just took the narrative
that fits with their ideological view and ran away with it, facts be damned.

------
Chazprime
_The merits of the case did not seem to bother Oberlin officials or student
protesters. Dean of students Meredith Raimondo reportedly joined the massive
protests and even handed out a flier denouncing the bakery as a racist
business._

Without knowing the details of the case, it's hard to determine who's truly at
fault here. Even so, given that the dean herself apparently chastised a
dissenting staffer who advocated for the bakery (“F __* ROGER COPELAND”), it
's a bit disconcerting to think that this is someone who is charged with the
well-being of every student on campus.

It's one thing to encourage student activism, but if these universities are
teaching students to throw empathy, logic and reason to the wind, they are
only doing them a disservice.

~~~
HillaryBriss
I don't disagree. But, at a time when the cost/benefit ratio of college is
challenged every day in popular discourse, maybe colleges have no choice but
to embrace "The customer is always right" as a fundamental value.

~~~
Chazprime
The difference here is that the college appears to have actively taken part in
the protests, as opposed to merely letting them happen.

~~~
HillaryBriss
Yeah, and that's how a college can really show some hustle and outcompete. I
mean, imagine an idealistic 12th grader with a social justice bent. Does she
choose a college that merely pays lip service to her righteous values, or does
she choose one that jumps right into the trenches alongside her, blasting a
megaphone and waving a giant sign?

------
surge
I saw it happen first hand once at Guilford College, another small liberal
arts college. There was an incident between a group of drunken football
students and some kids that were Arabic. The school didn't do its part to
encourage rational and cool heads until all the facts were in and there were
mobs looking for football players, even those not involved. It wasn't safe for
them so had to leave campus. Once the facts were in the football players had
medical evidence of being assaulted and punched with a hand wrapped with a
belt which conflicted with the students story of just being jumped (if you
have time to take off your belt and wrap it around your hand, you have time to
escape or deescalate). Other eye witness statements lined up that both parties
were drinking (the other students had been on their way to the club). In the
end it seemed like the both parties were at fault but the ones claiming victim
status were the original antagonizers and lost the fight so cried foul. In
either case, there were calls to disband the football team and athletic
program as a result of the actions of a few students. No where was the college
saying wait for all the evidence to be presented, rather than going on the
word of one side before reacting. They allowed the students to take over
effectively and no students who encouraged the mob were ever disciplined
afterwards for libel. It's a common practice at these schools to assume guilt
because of race (they're white), which is just as unjust as the crimes in the
past. The hard standard is to not involve mass mob or protest until evidence
is provided. If schools are supposed to be institutions of higher learning and
thought, they should be encouraging students to be impartial and consider all
evidence and act on that and not hearsay.

Free speech standards in the US requires you have evidence to back up what
you're saying if you're going to speak negatively of someone, even more so if
you're going to take action against them, colleges should be encouraging that
standard and rational thought over emotional reaction.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
>Free speech standards in the US requires you have evidence to back up what
you're saying if you're going to speak negatively of someone

You're free to speak negatively of people, you just can't damage someone's
reputation by spreading false facts. I'm allowed to call my neighbor a
poopyhead or the like, but I can't tell people that he sexually molests
children.

Debate is fine, lively discussion is fine, talking negatively about people is
fine. What crosses the line is when you go after someone's livelihood or
ability to live in peace. That's really what this case is about - Oberlin
college administrators got into a disagreement with a local bakery, so they
tried to use their clout and influence to run them out of business. Juries
_really_ do not approve of that sort of behavior.

~~~
elicash
> I'm allowed to call my neighbor a poopyhead or the like, but I can't tell
> people that he sexually molests children.

"Racist" is more in the category of the former than the latter. The "assault"
allegation in the flier handed out, in part, by a dean is admittedly more of a
gray area than either of your examples.

~~~
lliamander
> "Racist" is more in the category of the former than the latter.

Depends on how likely you are to be fired from you job if you are accused.

------
bradleyjg
The problem here is an insulation from consequences. After costing their
employer $33 million dollars, plus legal fees, will the libelers be fired? I'd
guess not.

Ironically this is the same root cause for overuse of force by police officers
that is alluded to in the article as a problem these university employees were
concerned about. Police officers are also far too insulted from consequences
and generally keep their jobs even after causing their employers (i.e. us)
millions of dollars in lawsuit damages.

The moral of the story is that all institutions should have effective
mechanisms for accountability. Insulate employees too much and at least some
will surely run amok.

------
protomyth
Handy tip, you probably don't want to say a local, family-owned business that
dates back to the 1800's is only worth $35,000. It comes off as elitist and
hometown juries hate elitist with a passion.

Best coverage was Legal Insurrection since they actually had people in the
courtroom: [https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/oberlin-college-hit-
wi...](https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/oberlin-college-hit-with-maximum-
punitive-damages-capped-at-22-million-by-law-in-gibsons-bakery-case/) (summary
of coverage at bottom of article)

~~~
wl
I'll heartily endorse Legal Insurrection's coverage, but with the caveat that
they've got a bone to pick against "social justice" and leftist campus
activism. It doesn't seem to get in the way of them reporting all the relevant
facts in a fair way.

~~~
clairity
interesting. opposition to "social justice" signals an opposition to fairness
and equality, and theoretically should be rare.

i wonder if it's the strain of opposition that sees it as zero-sum and resists
(i.e., "if things get fairer for the disadvantaged, then i, as an advantaged
person, must necessarily lose something")?

or the strain that resists social normalization (e.g., i should be free to
offend and belittle others)?

or something else?

even if everyone gains from growing the pie, the desire for relative status
seems more powerful than our desire for fairness and equality unfortunately.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
Everyone is all for fairness and equality but, as is becoming increasingly
clear, "social justice" as a movement has little, if anything, to do with
actual fairness or equality. Oberlin College's misbehavior may be at the
extremum but it is far from the only example of this.

Even on as pro-left a site as HN, people are realizing that this movement is
more of a problem than a force for good and that one can be a liberal without
necessarily being a progressive and vice-versa.

~~~
clairity
but what is "the movement"? the situation here seems like small-time stupidity
and jerkiness (of behavior), not a movement.

just to note, group-labeling people tends to undermine openness and short-
circuits revelation, so i'd like to avoid that (especially dichotomies like
left-right and liberal-conservative).

------
neilv
Hopefully, this judgment encourages colleges to reassert educating students in
critical thinking and thoughtful societal engagement -- not pandering to
students, nor indulging faculty/administrators who are doing the opposite of
their jobs.

------
RickJWagner
Oberlin was acting totally irresponsibly.

I'm glad for the damages. I hope this sends a chilling message to
universities-- spend your time and efforts on providing the best education
possible. Leave toxic politics in the past. Education should be the primary
reason for existence, by far.

------
insickness
I've heard/read about similar situations recently where a black person is
caught committing a crime and people protest the establishment for racism. At
a vintage store in Brooklyn, a black woman was caught shoplifting and
arrested. Then a group of people started protesting the store.

------
Nasrudith
Really I think the issue isn't activism per say but how they are doing it -
demagoguic and tribalistic instead of even a coherent philosophy or let alone
a logical one. There is a lack of reflection before or after for actions and
just concern about how they feel.

------
shriphani
It is like you see your car is headed towards a ditch and you step on the gas.

Quite amazed that such poor judgement was exercised throughout this incident -
from deans and upper level admins no less - how out of touch with reality can
someone be?

------
hownottowrite
Oberlin is an extreme case, even among other small, liberal arts colleges.

~~~
tomohawk
No. Evergreen is the extreme case.

[https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/the-
evergree...](https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/the-evergreen-
state-college-no-safety-no-learning-no-future/)

~~~
hownottowrite
I said “an” extreme case. Take it easy, Francis.

------
high_derivative
I am a grad student leaving university soon enough, and this does not surprise
me at all.

Especially at elite universities, there is this interesting phenomenon of
mostly upper middle class white women from on average the most privileged
upbringings in the western hemisphere arriving at a university they (anyone)
could only attend by incredible privilege and luck. Yet they arrive fully
convinced they have been held back by the patriarchy their entire lives. Same
for other groups and their pet causes.

They find no apparent contradiction at being the most privileged of their
generation (speaking of Harvard, Oxbridge, Stanford here), yet the smaller and
local the cause, the more vicious the activism. Someone they disagree with
dare speak on campus? Violence, trauma, discrimination, hate.

Getting arrested for taking off a veil in Iran? Genocide? Consumerism
destroying the planet? Yawn.

I often see people on hn saying this is all blown out of proportion and a
small vocal minority but when you talk to undergrads these days, you will
realize these beliefs are not just a handful of people but carry weight across
the student population.

Not least because opposition is shamed into silence. University admins are
usually easily cowed submission on these causes, mostly because it does not
cost them anything to uninvite/fire someone.

~~~
DanBC
People misunderstand the concept of privilege.

You compare people from similar socio-economic backgrounds. You don't compare
dissimilar groups.

Those women are being held back when you compare to their brothers.

~~~
high_derivative
Evidence needed, strongly. There is an incredible push happening at all levels
of e.g. STEM, tech companies, everywhere, to get women. They receive special
support, scholarships, extra application tracks, extra programs, preferred
hiring, and boys are falling more and more behind.

Are you really trying to say that the Harvard-Stanford-Oxbridge woman is held
back compared to, say, the plumber's son (no offence, a highly useful
profession, but you will find few of their children at these unis)?

~~~
0xB31B1B
Not who you are replying to, but in general I would say that the things you
point (extra help women receive right now) are in general working, and that
the fact that they are working is supports the fact that they should continue.
This doesn’t mean that men should not also receive targeted help, as should
anyone who is disadvantaged, whether through socioeconomic status, race,
disability, or otherwise. Solving problems that classes of people have on a
class level and making those classes of people more successful is a good
thing, and we should be doing more of it. There is a huge issue now where
young men, especially those of low SES are not encouraged to or given the
right pathways to find success and I see the wheels slowly start turning on
social movement to facilitate positive change on that front as well,
especially starting in early childhood education.

------
zuminator
The problem I always have with stories like this is the context.

1) The writer breathlessly warns that "campuses across the country" are
succumbing to mob rule. How many campuses is that? Sure, we "know" from the
internet that this problem is rampant, just like we "know" that other hot-
button issues such as shooting of unarmed black teens, the incel movement,
anchor babies, etc. have reached epidemic proportions. But in many cases as in
this article we have no context as to just how common these problems are. Is
this happening at 10 percent of campuses, fifty percent, 1/10 of 1%? Is the
trendline up in the past year or just the reporting of it?

2) What about the historical context? Colleges have been hotbeds of protest
for hundreds of years. Is it really true that something has fundamentally
changed, or does it just seem that way because this time groups that we (ymmv)
approve of are on the receiving end of the protests? If the issue is free
speech, ought we not also compare historical limits on free speech imposed by
governments, college donors and churches? Perhaps students have gained power
because some of those prior actors have lost power, and if so, maybe that is
not a bad thing. How much free speech did Jews, women and black students have
when they weren't even allowed to enroll in certain colleges in the first
place? When exactly was the golden age of academic freedom that everybody
wants to return to? I have a feeling the answer to that strongly depends on
when the respondent happened to attend school.

3) This article also lumps together issues which are linked in only the most
nebulous of ways. What is this specific bakery case meant to be an example of?
The author states, "Across the country, academics have caused lasting damage
to their institutions by failing to stand up to, or actively supporting,
extreme demands for speech codes, limits on academic freedom, and tenure
changes." But this situation, of Oberlin officials and students protesting a
bakery, doesn't seem to fit into any of those categories. Or maybe it's meant
to illustrate how "leaders are ceding control to a small group of activist
students and faculty members." Huh, who's ceding control to whom? Seems to me
the activist students and faculty members <i>are</i> the leaders.

4) In this specific instance, the writer in my opinion fails to adequately
cover both sides of the story. Why were the students and faculty so sure that
racism took place if that so clearly was not the case, as portrayed here? It
appears as if they had ample opportunity to walk back their position but
refused to even in the face of potentially ruinous litigation.

5) And if schools are losing verdicts and enrollment right and left, then
isn't this a self-correcting problem? The expression goes that you have
freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences. Overactivist universities
will face oblivion, problem solved. Or perhaps potential students will decide
that going to schools that support their social issues is worth the higher
tuition and stricter environment. Many religious institutions impose extra
restrictions and limit free expression -- some people are okay with that kind
of learning environment; as a society we're generally not apoplectic over it.

I'm not denying there are some seeming trends that are seemingly worrisome. I
just can't tell, from most of these articles, how truly widespread they are,
how deep is their support, how much of the hysteria is media or internet
driven, how badly activism affects the overall university experience, and why
supposedly large numbers of students and faculty are so strongly in support of
them if they are all downside and no benefit.

EDIT: When I started writing my comment there were no other replies. Thank you
grellas and others for providing a lot more context than existed in the
article itself.

~~~
oska
This is your paraphrase:

> The writer breathlessly warns that "campuses across the country" are
> succumbing to mob rule.

And this is the actual sentence from the article from which you took the
quote:

> As on other campuses across the country, these protests are encouraged by an
> array of faculty members and ever accommodating administrators.

Not exactly a fair paraphrase. And I found the article's tone quite level;
hardly 'breathless'.

~~~
yborg
>...Oberlin College in Ohio is the equivalent of the “China syndrome” during
nuclear accidents, a point where chain reactions become impossible to stop or
control.

You find literally comparing this court case to a nuclear meltdown "level"? I
tend to agree with the OP here, this takes an egregious case at a notoriously
liberal school and then generalizes it to "across the country" as a clear and
present danger. Oberlin was obviously in the wrong here and is being sharply
punished for it, so it seems that the system is working.

------
tc313
Does anyone know what framework an appellate court will use to review/revise
the damages? The article says $22 million is the state max, but are there
other factors that will reduce the amount further?

~~~
protomyth
Its 2x the compensatory damages. So, in this case compensatory damages were
$11 million, so the punitive damages is capped at _an additional_ $22 million
leaving a total verdict of $33 million. The standard appeals process can
overturn or reduce damages.

~~~
bradleyjg
But the jury verdict is entitled to deference (or at least would be in my
state, couldn't swear to Ohio law).

~~~
jhayward
In almost every state jury awards for damages are reduced, often drastically,
down to what can be proven as material damage. Unless someone has receipts for
the $11 million (I haven't read the case) it will likely be reduced. This is
the benefit of the 'tort reform' theories pushed by pro-business GOP
legislators over the last 40 years.

------
pessimizer
It's strange that stories from the progressive end of this discussion get
(often rightfully) flagged into oblivion in seconds, but this conservative
campus panic story survives to 45 comments.

~~~
deogeo
The 8chan warrant story is still on the 2nd page after a whole day, and wasn't
flagged.

And this story is about a $887 million institution pressuring a working-class
assault victim to drop charges against their attackers, by using libel and
economic sanctions.

So what makes this story 'conservative'? That the victim was white?

~~~
elicash
Most of the interest in this story has been in right-wing media stemming from
a false "racism" accusation that is a PART of this case and also due to a
bigger narrative around left-wing campuses. I'd frame the story differently
than you did, but the bigger point is that we shouldn't pretend this isn't
mostly a right-wing media news story for these reasons.

I think we both agree that if the racism charge had strong merit (it didn't),
then most would see this as a liberal news story because that's mostly who
would be focusing on it. People tend to be drawn to stories that reinforce
their world view.

That, of course, doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the discussion here.
(I've been active in this thread so obviously I think it should be here.)

Edit: Also, I'm not the person you were responding to but this was very
dishonest of you:

> That the victim was white?

OP said exactly why they thought it was conservative. They cited that it was
because it was related to "conservative campus panic." To pretend they could
have said it because "the victim was white" is very dishonest of you.

~~~
deogeo
> OP said exactly why they thought it was conservative. They cited that it was
> because it was related to "conservative campus panic." To pretend they could
> have said it because "the victim was white" is very dishonest of you.

Dishonest? In your very post, you agree with me! You say if the racism charge
had merit, i.e. if the white kid was at fault, then it would be a liberal
story. Just like [1].

Saying they thought it was conservative because it was related to conservative
campus panic is pretty much circular logic, and doesn't explain anything. If
anything was dishonest in my post, it was the implication that the attitude
was limited to pessimizer, when in fact it seems to have seeped into the terms
'conservative' and 'liberal' themselves.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/25/citing-
trump...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/25/citing-trump-woman-
in-video-calls-latino-man-rapist-animal-drug-dealer)

------
thatoneuser
It sounds like you're taking a very one sided perspective in evaluating this.
The story is pretty clear - a black kid stole product, the owner tried to
protect his product, the kid cried racism, the college called racism, the
college encouraged and orchestrated protests, the college financially
intervened by removing contracts with the business, etc.

Since when is someone not entitled to protecting their property? He didn't
come out shooting a gun, he came out and got jumped. The school said it was
racial profiling - even though no one denied it was theft. What side of the
story is missing here? More personal testimony that the intervention was
racially based? There's just nothing more to the story that could make this
balance out.

I think your reluctance to take the facts at face value and instead say "well
what if this really was racist" is exactly the indoctrination that schools
like this have fostered. It's like back in the day when people did this kind
of crap to ruin black businesses and thinking "well what if we don't know the
full story behind their behavior?" Sure maybe there was a valid justification
for the hateful behavior, but apply the logical razor.

Racism seemed to be getting a lot better about 10 years ago and since then it
seems to have taken a turn. Now it's seemingly in vogue to hate on whites.
Don't doubt that there are people out there who think that's a good thing, but
consider that the next time the pendulum swings it won't still be the same
race being targeted. Do we want to have another Jim Crow era in 2030 where we
collectively hate blacks like is so popular to do to whites now?

~~~
yardie
Well that went off the rails real fast. Might want to wall back that last
paragraph. No one is hating on whites. Nazis, on the other hand, can go fuck
themselves.

~~~
thatoneuser
Let me guess, everyone suffers from racism except white people. And white
people are the only ones who can be racist.

I've learned a lot about HN today.

~~~
dang
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our
requests to stop.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and
give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
abbadadda
What an awful website experience.

------
thatoneuser
There wasn't just a demonstration (tho even that would be overdone considering
the kid was shoplifting wine - which is a crime and it's not like he was just
trying to get some food to survive.) This was deliberate and repeated attempts
to libel a store owner out of business or into inane submission. Imagine if
your family owned and operated a business for over 100 years, only for it to
be dismantled because you _rightfully tried to protect your property from
theft_.

Sounds like you have been indoctrinated by the same hate these colleges are
peddling. No not all colleges do this, but 1/10 is too much. These are
institutions which should be educating and enlightening, not promoting
ignorance of circumstance and leading witch hunts.

~~~
dang
> Sounds like you have been indoctrinated by the same hate

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please stop posting in
the flamewar style to HN?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20192246](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20192246)
and marked it off-topic.

------
dqpb
An article solely about Oberlin college, at best, only shows that Oberlin
college is losing their way.

------
NotSammyHagar
The tl;dr seems to be an underage black person tried to buy wine, apparently
stole wine, then there was a fight with the owner's son. There was a
demonstration that was probably based on an unclear understanding of the
events. So people over-reacted to events, yes they were stupid to do. But you
shouldn't use this as an excuse to clutch one's pearls and conclude colleges
have lost their way. This looks like a cya activity after the true(-er?) facts
came out.

~~~
sonnyblarney
Did you miss the part about college officials committing purgery?

In what institution would she be able to keep her job?

So yes - some protest and confusion in the days after are understandable. But
the actions of the college go way beyond that.

She should have been fired long ago the college should have apologized to the
community alumni and the bakery and then it would all have ended.

This is a good example of colleges getting completely out of hand.

~~~
NotSammyHagar
yeah, if she lied she should be fired. I am surprised there is not clear
evidence, like a recording.

