Oberlin College continues to play the victim card. After the massive $11 million compensatory and $33 million punitive damage verdicts (later reduced to $25 million under Ohio tort reform caps) against it for defaming Gibson’s Bakery and its owners, Oberlin College should have looked at its own conduct in nearly destroying a 135-year-old family business. One would think a unanimous verdict and a large punitive damage award would cause some reflection on the college’s part in the hopes of rectifying clearly immoral and illegal conduct.
One would be wrong, of course. From the moment the initial verdict was handed down by the jury, Oberlin College has attempted to portray itself as the victim. The college says that it was held liable for the speech of its students.
William Jacobson, who writes for Legal Insurrection, represented the only national media outlet to be present throughout the trial. The day the verdict was handed down he predicted that the college would not take responsibility and he was right.
Oberlin College’s President Carmen Ambar has launched an aggressive campaign in an attempt to discredit the jury’s verdict. She claims the verdict occurred because the jury lacked the requisite understanding of the legal definitions involved in the case. Ambar is trying to paint Oberlin College and its administration as knights in shining armor who just tried to uphold the right to free speech and to see that their students remained safe. Ambar claims that the college didn’t defame or libel anyone, nor did Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo.
Ambar is repeating this false narrative in different venues (NPR,CBS News, The Wall Street Journal, local media outlets, etc.). She obviously believes that if she does this often enough, people will buy into her story. And who knows, she may turn out to be right. After all, there are still many people in this country who believe the lie put forward by the MSM about Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
In a statement, Gibson attorney Lee Plakas said,
“The recent efforts of Oberlin College and President Akbar to reframe this as a First Amendment issue, while undermining the jury’s decision, should be incredibly concerning to us all. Oberlin College was never on trial for the free speech of its students. Instead, the jury unanimously determined that Oberlin College libeled the Gibsons. Despite what spin the college places on the facts of this case, libelous statements have never enjoyed protections under the First Amendment.”
The verdict states that the college and its employees were found guilty. The speech of its students was not under review at trial even though defamatory speech is not protected under the 1st amendment. Ambar is engaging in major league misdirection by bringing in the speech rights of its students.
This case involved two “types” of malice: (1) libel actual malice; and (2) common law malice.
To recover punitive damages on their libel claims, the Gibsons were required to show libel actual malice, which was defined by the Court in the jury instructions as follows:
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
To recover punitive damages on their other claims, the Gibsons were required to show common law actual malice, which was defined by the Court in the jury instructions as follows:
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
Was this a free speech issue? No. Oberlin College was on trial for libeling the Gibsons. Libelous statements have never enjoyed the protections under the First Amendment. Also the judge had ruled that the statements in the Flyer and the Student Senate Resolution were libelous per se:
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
Ambar asked the media to look at the evidence presented at trial. Let’s take a look at some of that evidence.
Was Dean Raimondo who was present at the protests merely there to ensure the safety of all concerned or did she help to promote the protests and publish the defamatory statements?
Oberlin College and Dean Raimondo admit that she passed out, or using legal terminology, published a copy of the flyer to Jason Hawk of the Oberlin News Tribune. Hawk testified about his interaction with Dean Raimondo, indicating she handed him the flyer on her own accord:
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
Just how is this seeing to the safety of her students? An aside to this is that Dean Raimondo tried to interfere with the reporter’s right to take photos of the protest.
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
An obvious question here is did Dean Raimondo know at this point that what was going on was wrong?
Multiple observers testified that they saw the Dean at the protests and that she appeared to be in charge. She was using a megaphone to tell students where they could rest up, get refreshments, print more copies of the flyer, etc. This certainly sounds like someone who was in charge.
Trey James, a man of color, was one such witness.
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
Multiple other witnesses testified in a similar fashion. In other words she was leading the protests according to these witnesses. Is this within the Dean of Students’ job description, to lead protests defaming a small business and its owners? Or was Dean Raimondo just trying to enhance her street cred with the students?
There was also evidence presented that Julio Reyes, the Assistant Director of the College’s Multicultural Resource Center, who reported to Dean Raimondo, distributed the defamatory flyers. This was testified to by Rick McDaniels, former Director of Security for the college.
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
Dean Raimondo also authorized reimbursement for gloves that were purchased, so that the protestors could keep their hands warm as they distributed the defamatory flyers.
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
So college funds were authorized to help out the protestors. These same protestors were defaming the Gibsons with the flyers they were handing out. The flyers are the ones that the judge said were libelous per se.
Did Dean Raimondo see the students as a weapon that could be used against the Gibsons and those who supported them? The following text message would seem to affirm that. Dean Raimondo was responding to article written by a former Oberlin College professor in support of the Gibsons:
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
What started all of this? Three Oberlin College students of color were caught shoplifting on November 9, 2016. In August 2017, the students pled guilty to charges of attempted theft and aggravated trespass. The students stated in open court that the Gibson’s employee was within his legal rights to detain them and that the arrests were not a result of racial profiling.
Was Dean Raimondo aware of the public admissions of their crimes in court? She admitted on the stand that she was. She was communicating in real time with Assistant Dean Toni Myers at the courthouse when the students made their pleas. Myers noted the students would be eligible for expungement in a year, after which the College could “rain fire and brimstone” down upon Gibson’s Bakery. Dean Raimondo thanked her.
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
Other examples of the ill will and hatred directed at the Gibsons are reproduced below.
Source…Gibson Trial FAQ
Many more such examples can be found in the trial transcripts and submissions. All of this hatred and malice took place long before the Gibsons filed their suit for libel. Put simply, this was a business (Oberlin College), that employed a not insignificant number of townspeople, trying to bully a local shop owner who was doing nothing more than trying to defend his business from thieves. Just what kind of an example is the college setting for its students? Just how was the college’s conduct not an issue?
Oberlin College and its employees were found guilty by unanimous verdict. The jury was not a group of country bumpkins who did not understand what happened. They got it right. The students in question have owned up to their mistakes. Oberlin College through its President, Carmen Ambar, continues to demonstrate their inability to do the same. Just who are the mature adults at Oberlin College?
A more complete presentation of the facts can be found at the Gibsons’ Trial FAQ’s.