Anecdotal sources, so take that as you will. I didn't go to Oberlin but have a fair amount of friends that did and they have talked about this case extensively. They all agree that Gibsons frequently racially profiled students but that the students and university overstepped here and made the matter much worse by organizing protests to support students that were very obviously in the wrong. This case aside, it's not an outlandish claim that a store in an isolated semi rural area would have issues like this, and I don't doubt that it happened.
In addition to whatever racial undercurrents are present there's a strong students vs townies tension in the town of Oberlin and the store, again not surprising with a very activist liberal school in the middle of nowhere. Car ownership is actively discouraged and most students don't have other options for shopping so despite there being no love lost neither party really had other options. Students needed the store and the store needed business. General consensus among my friends is that the university's egregious missteps gave Gibsons an opportunity to cash out of a business they didn't particularly enjoy being in and they took it.
It's extraordinarily easy to look back after a big event like this and say "Oh yes, Gibson's has always been racially profiling." Your mind will even construct memories to justify that belief if you're not careful.
Unless someone can point to some pre-November 2016 documentation of Gibson's racially profiling I'm going to be extremely skeptical of that claim. The article even notes that Gibson's is conspicuously absent from a discussion of racial discrimination by Oberlin businesses during the civil rights era.
In contrast to the 2nd hand opinionated recollections of your friends, actual facts were presented in the article:
> David Gibson brought statistics from the Oberlin Police Department to the college showing that of the 40 people arrested for shoplifting at Gibson’s over the previous five years, 33 were students of the college, 32 were white, six were African American and two were Asian, which almost perfectly matched the racial makeup of the city.
It's a useful statistic to consider as a baseline, but I'm not sure it's relevant to the accusation. "Racial profiling" usually means that people of a particular race are singled out for attention to a degree greater than appropriate. One definition of "appropriate" is matching the incidence rate. Showing evidence that the number of people arrested matches the racial profile of the town might imply that the a rational shopowner should be equally suspicious of all races. But it doesn't (so far as I can see) show that in actuality they treat all races equally. Would the statistics be in any way contradicted if the store was in fact unduly suspicious of black customers?
> They all agree that Gibsons frequently racially profiled students
There seems to be some legitimate dispute over that. And keep in mind that this was a libel case over fliers that claimed the Gibsons were racist. Truth is an absolute defense for libel, and racial profiling sounds like pretty strong evidence of racism.
So if it was easy to prove that the Gibsons had a history of racial profiling...well, why wasn't it done during the trial? :)
The environment which could produce that synopsis is covered in the article pretty thoroughly though. There was always going to have to be some face-saving historical reconstruction of what happened. If the Gibson’s were frequently racially profiling, then this was a case of the students being morally right, if strategically incorrect, even legally. They were outmatched and outwitted, but remember we fought the right fight etc.
It’s not the most unfair historical maneuvering ever, there is at least some culpability taken though. But for people outside of the distortion field...
What were the examples of racial profiling? Clearly they thought detaining someone who they thought was stealing but happened to be black was profiling.
People of color were reportedly followed and treated suspiciously in the store, an incredibly common experience in this country. No one I know thought the incident that set this off was an example of profiling, the students were pretty obviously shoplifting. My point isn't that the the university or the students were in the right here, no one I know to thinks that. Was just trying to provide context that this was a tipping point in a relationship that was strained to begin with, not a massive confrontation that came out of nowhere.
Is Gibson's going out of business? I had heard reports that the college had renewed the contracts to receive product from the bakery that they had previously broken off, and can't find anything that indicates the store is closing.
In addition to whatever racial undercurrents are present there's a strong students vs townies tension in the town of Oberlin and the store, again not surprising with a very activist liberal school in the middle of nowhere. Car ownership is actively discouraged and most students don't have other options for shopping so despite there being no love lost neither party really had other options. Students needed the store and the store needed business. General consensus among my friends is that the university's egregious missteps gave Gibsons an opportunity to cash out of a business they didn't particularly enjoy being in and they took it.