Black students stole from a bakery. Baker chased students, who were eventually arrested. This led to protests and accusations of racism against the bakery. University administrators (in particular the Dean of Students) actively took part and supported these, and advocated for the university to end its business relationship with the bakery.
> The appellate judges held that while the trial court had properly found that “the student chants and verbal protests about the Gibsons being racists were protected by the First Amendment,” what separated Oberlin and placed it in a financial vise was the active, irresponsible and defamatory actions of several of its senior administrators. Rather than try to resolve the matter early on or use the resulting guilty pleas as a lesson, Oberlin actively sought to punish Gibson’s Bakery for having a different perspective, for standing by the arrest of the three Oberlin students, and for exercising its right of legal redress.
I used to follow this case closely, but in hindsight, I believe the headline pretty much covers it. The school has to pay for defamation. The controversy I recall was about whether the school was involved, or just a professor or two, or just the student body. Now the facts are settled, I don't take much exception to the ruling.
I do think this was the correct ruling and applying maximum damage was the correct remedy. Oberlin still thinks it was correct in allowing and encouraging employee to libel and defame another entity and even cancel contracts without compensation.
If anyone thinks this way about Student Free Speech you have to have willing and purposefully choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that school admins acting in their official role and on the clock for Oberlin joined in these protests, even supplied material, and broke contracts without paying the penalty required by the contract.
To be fair, this is one of those situations where the school itself would find itself the next victim of the mob if they didn't side with it. It's just the way cancel culture works.
* Students steal from bakery.
* Students malign bakery through appeal to one-sided sensationalism.
* Students go after everyone who does business with bakery, which implicates...Oberlin.
* Oberlin shits their pants and joins the mob to avoid accusations of "supporting racism."
The ruling is correct-- spinelessness is not a defense. But I don't envy anybody put in this position.
That's understating it -- they stole from the bakery, and assaulted the employee that tried to stop them, then ganged up to attack him on the ground[1].
It's a great illustration of Scott Alexander's Toxoplasma of Rage article[2], where you're left thinking, like, even if the store employees were discriminating, and even if you could make the case, why would you cite this incident as an example of it, where it manifestly was not discrimination, and the victim committed serious crimes?
Actually in this case some of the school administrators themselves are also part of the little red guards. Don't just blame the "students".
The colleges have been in the making of little red guards in decades, it is inevitable that some of the little red guards became school administrators.
Many true believers on planet Oberlin... (probably majority). Preference falsification is indeed a thing but you will never know if these actors lie predominantly to themselves or others to save their hide.
20 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 62.9 ms ] threadBlack students stole from a bakery. Baker chased students, who were eventually arrested. This led to protests and accusations of racism against the bakery. University administrators (in particular the Dean of Students) actively took part and supported these, and advocated for the university to end its business relationship with the bakery.
> The appellate judges held that while the trial court had properly found that “the student chants and verbal protests about the Gibsons being racists were protected by the First Amendment,” what separated Oberlin and placed it in a financial vise was the active, irresponsible and defamatory actions of several of its senior administrators. Rather than try to resolve the matter early on or use the resulting guilty pleas as a lesson, Oberlin actively sought to punish Gibson’s Bakery for having a different perspective, for standing by the arrest of the three Oberlin students, and for exercising its right of legal redress.
If anyone thinks this way about Student Free Speech you have to have willing and purposefully choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that school admins acting in their official role and on the clock for Oberlin joined in these protests, even supplied material, and broke contracts without paying the penalty required by the contract.
* Students steal from bakery.
* Students malign bakery through appeal to one-sided sensationalism.
* Students go after everyone who does business with bakery, which implicates...Oberlin.
* Oberlin shits their pants and joins the mob to avoid accusations of "supporting racism."
The ruling is correct-- spinelessness is not a defense. But I don't envy anybody put in this position.
That's understating it -- they stole from the bakery, and assaulted the employee that tried to stop them, then ganged up to attack him on the ground[1].
It's a great illustration of Scott Alexander's Toxoplasma of Rage article[2], where you're left thinking, like, even if the store employees were discriminating, and even if you could make the case, why would you cite this incident as an example of it, where it manifestly was not discrimination, and the victim committed serious crimes?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson%27s_Bakery_v._Oberlin_C...
[2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...
The colleges have been in the making of little red guards in decades, it is inevitable that some of the little red guards became school administrators.
Many true believers on planet Oberlin... (probably majority). Preference falsification is indeed a thing but you will never know if these actors lie predominantly to themselves or others to save their hide.
Practically speaking, it doesn't matter
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/04/04/oberlin-colle...
news, non-paywall, not fulminating op/ed.