(06-08-2019 02:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2019 01:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Oberlin
Good deal. I hope they get max punitives.
Apparently the state law controlling the case is much different than Texas. The issue of punis is still to be determined -- apparently they do a bifurcated proceeding on the issue. This one will be next week. It will be hard sledding for the defense since their overall strategy was to essentially drop trou and dump on a 170 year old business as being worthless. They essentially denigrated the bakery every step of the way in the case to this point. That assertiveness will come back to bite them --- my guess is that the jury is already emotionally 3/4 of the way there on punis.
The arguments for punis are always a hoot to view when presented..... the bifurcated proceeding actually makes the defense's job easier. One can concentrate on the liable/not liable question without interference from the punis argument.
Best yet, it that the insurance provider is likely to disclaim coverage for the underlying intentional torts. They have already sought to intervene and have indicated their stance in court filings.
And, for the dean that was individually names -- dollars to donuts his personal insurance will refuse to pony up for damages. Bummer.
As some say: 'hit back, twice as hard'. Cheers to Gibsons.
(06-08-2019 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And, for the dean that was individually names -- dollars to donuts his personal insurance will refuse to pony up for damages. Bummer.
Take his house (I don't think Ohio has the same homestead exemption as Texas), take his bank accounts, take everything he has. Make the rest of his life a living hell. SOB deserves it.
(06-05-2019 04:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 04:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 03:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The day the Mexican tariffs were announced the market dropped. Other things also occurred that day however most ascribe the drop to the tariff announcement.
Since then, there has been softened rhetoric from China regarding trade negotiations.
Probably a result of Trump playing hardball, instead of the softball of previous administrations. People get scared when hardball is played - they are told it is risky. What the media and the weak-kneed do not seem to understand is that tariffs are not the goal of Trump - merely a tool. This is where electing a negotiator (instead of a beggar) pays off.
I think everybody sees the tariffs as a tool. I'm also not convinced that Trump knows how tariffs work.
He seems to understand how they work as a tool to get action from other countries.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tru...7Kz#page=2
(06-08-2019 04:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2019 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And, for the dean that was individually names -- dollars to donuts his personal insurance will refuse to pony up for damages. Bummer.
Take his house (I don't think Ohio has the same homestead exemption as Texas), take his bank accounts, take everything he has. Make the rest of his life a living hell. SOB deserves it.
Her* house.
Read that article and couldn’t quite figure out what the university itself did, can anyone explain? It was clear that the students falsely accused the bakery of racism due to the store owner shockingly not wanting their goods stolen, and that Oberlin reacted to the student reactions by removing them from campus stores. It seems like the verdict is mostly in response to the student senate passing a vote?
Weird story and an example of why false accusations can be so damaging.
(06-08-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2019 04:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2019 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And, for the dean that was individually names -- dollars to donuts his personal insurance will refuse to pony up for damages. Bummer.
Take his house (I don't think Ohio has the same homestead exemption as Texas), take his bank accounts, take everything he has. Make the rest of his life a living hell. SOB deserves it.
Her* house.
Read that article and couldn’t quite figure out what the university itself did, can anyone explain? It was clear that the students falsely accused the bakery of racism due to the store owner shockingly not wanting their goods stolen, and that Oberlin reacted to the student reactions by removing them from campus stores. It seems like the verdict is mostly in response to the student senate passing a vote?
Weird story and an example of why false accusations can be so damaging.
Actually, reading the article more carefully, apparently there is a stipulation that Oberlin indemnify her, so they won't get her house or her bank accounts or anything else of hers. That's too bad, IMO, although that's probably the way it had to go down.
What Oberlin did was have deeper pockets than a bunch of students, so they got sued. Standard plaintiff's attorney practice, find the money and sue it. The article indicates that the jury found that Oberlin facilitated the actions taken by students against the Gibsons. That would be enough to get them into the suit.
It seems that at Oberlin — as, sadly, at many elite universities — there are some really stupid people among the students, staff and administration.
(06-08-2019 04:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 04:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 04:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 03:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The day the Mexican tariffs were announced the market dropped. Other things also occurred that day however most ascribe the drop to the tariff announcement.
Since then, there has been softened rhetoric from China regarding trade negotiations.
Probably a result of Trump playing hardball, instead of the softball of previous administrations. People get scared when hardball is played - they are told it is risky. What the media and the weak-kneed do not seem to understand is that tariffs are not the goal of Trump - merely a tool. This is where electing a negotiator (instead of a beggar) pays off.
I think everybody sees the tariffs as a tool. I'm also not convinced that Trump knows how tariffs work.
He seems to understand how they work as a tool to get action from other countries.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tru...7Kz#page=2
I'm not convinced that he does.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/08/politics/...index.html
There seems is a pattern of Trump creating an issue, this issue has negative consequences, and then he walks back his original decision. Ultimately he claims victory for "solving" the problem.
(06-09-2019 12:00 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that at Oberlin — as, sadly, at many elite universities — there are some really stupid people among the students, staff and administration.
I also looked into this story to get the details as the headlines seem really bad.
I still don't understand why the Oberlin students protested this business.
So Oberlin got punished solely on the indepenent actions of some to their students? Is there more to this?
(06-08-2019 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2019 04:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2019 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And, for the dean that was individually names -- dollars to donuts his personal insurance will refuse to pony up for damages. Bummer.
Take his house (I don't think Ohio has the same homestead exemption as Texas), take his bank accounts, take everything he has. Make the rest of his life a living hell. SOB deserves it.
Her* house.
Read that article and couldn’t quite figure out what the university itself did, can anyone explain? It was clear that the students falsely accused the bakery of racism due to the store owner shockingly not wanting their goods stolen, and that Oberlin reacted to the student reactions by removing them from campus stores. It seems like the verdict is mostly in response to the student senate passing a vote?
Weird story and an example of why false accusations can be so damaging.
Actually, reading the article more carefully, apparently there is a stipulation that Oberlin indemnify her, so they won't get her house or her bank accounts or anything else of hers. That's too bad, IMO, although that's probably the way it had to go down.
What Oberlin did was have deeper pockets than a bunch of students, so they got sued. Standard plaintiff's attorney practice, find the money and sue it. The article indicates that the jury found that Oberlin facilitated the actions taken by students against the Gibsons. That would be enough to get them into the suit.
Also in beyond the student government passing a vote, the school itself joined the subsequent boycott. Still, only tortious for the 'interference in contract' issues.
But the kicker is that the aforementioned dean directly participated in the onsite protests and was active in in handing out leaflets that were found to be defamatory. I would assume the plaintiffs produced evidence that tended to show that the dean's actions went outside the dean's role as a private citizen and as of a representative of the institution. At that point the liability imputes to the school as well.
And, to be blunt, Oberlin the school has not been shy 'politically' for the last decent number of years.
Also, indemnification clauses typically dont cover intentional torts. But that creates a real catch 22 for Oberlin itself -- if the clause is a standard one (and the school's attorneys should be sued for malpractice if it isnt), then if they challenge the indemnification clause, then they are literally cutting the dean off at the knees -- they are saying 'not in the scope' and we aren't involved. But to do so is notably self-serving and not really worth spit in evidence. If they don't challenge the clause, thay can be taken as an admission that the dean's actions are indeed the school's actions.
(06-09-2019 07:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2019 12:00 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that at Oberlin — as, sadly, at many elite universities — there are some really stupid people among the students, staff and administration.
I also looked into this story to get the details as the headlines seem really bad.
I still don't understand why the Oberlin students protested this business.
I’ve been trying to dig a little too. It seems that:
- the shoplifters concocted a story in an attempt (ultimately retracted - they all plead guilty) to save their skin.
- the students were all too eager to seize on the story, without a moment’s consideration of whether it was true.
In sum, it is probably no more complicated than (1) some criminals lied and (2) a hopelessly prejudiced community bought the lie.
Granted, criminals concocting false racial cover stories, which are then seized upon uncritically by a prejudiced community, is as old as the hills; see, e.g, the Scottsboro boys for a particularly infamous case. It’s a disgraceful phenomenon, and the community deserves the resulting scorn, but sadly it’s not a new one.
Quote:So Oberlin got punished solely on the indepenent actions of some to their students? Is there more to this?
The institutional culpability is less clear. As best I can figure so far:
- there is a hint at least that a dean and a multicultural affairs staffer may had some slight role in abetting particular defamatory actions by the students;
- It seems clear that the university did nothing to discourage the students erroneous rush to judgment, or to even suggest a note of caution. To the jury, that obvious failure to be the adult in the room may ultimately have been the salient fact. Whether the university had a legal duty to do so will no doubt be argued thoroughly on appeal.
More generally, there seems to be a good case that the Oberlin campus has an “economic lynching” culture, in the way that other universities are alleged to have “rape cultures”. I suspect there is no shortage of academics who have argued that imposing legal liability for “toxic culture” or “institutionalized aggression” is not merely a positive step, but a magnificent one. This is that step.
(06-09-2019 07:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2019 04:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 04:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 04:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 03:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The day the Mexican tariffs were announced the market dropped. Other things also occurred that day however most ascribe the drop to the tariff announcement.
Since then, there has been softened rhetoric from China regarding trade negotiations.
Probably a result of Trump playing hardball, instead of the softball of previous administrations. People get scared when hardball is played - they are told it is risky. What the media and the weak-kneed do not seem to understand is that tariffs are not the goal of Trump - merely a tool. This is where electing a negotiator (instead of a beggar) pays off.
I think everybody sees the tariffs as a tool. I'm also not convinced that Trump knows how tariffs work.
He seems to understand how they work as a tool to get action from other countries.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tru...7Kz#page=2
I'm not convinced that he does.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/08/politics/...index.html
There seems is a pattern of Trump creating an issue, this issue has negative consequences, and then he walks back his original decision. Ultimately he claims victory for "solving" the problem.
Tariffs are not the issue. Trump did not create the issues with China and Mexico that he is using tariffs as a way of forcing change. He merely addressed the issues where previous administrations ignored them.
(06-09-2019 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2019 07:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2019 04:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 04:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 04:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Probably a result of Trump playing hardball, instead of the softball of previous administrations. People get scared when hardball is played - they are told it is risky. What the media and the weak-kneed do not seem to understand is that tariffs are not the goal of Trump - merely a tool. This is where electing a negotiator (instead of a beggar) pays off.
I think everybody sees the tariffs as a tool. I'm also not convinced that Trump knows how tariffs work.
He seems to understand how they work as a tool to get action from other countries.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tru...7Kz#page=2
I'm not convinced that he does.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/08/politics/...index.html
There seems is a pattern of Trump creating an issue, this issue has negative consequences, and then he walks back his original decision. Ultimately he claims victory for "solving" the problem.
Tariffs are not the issue. Trump did not create the issues with China and Mexico that he is using tariffs as a way of forcing change. He merely addressed the issues where previous administrations ignored them.
The article states that most of the items in the agreement were agreed to prior to him putting tariffs in place.
Quote:Mexico had already promised to take many of the actions agreed to in Friday's immigration deal with the US -- months before President Donald Trump's tariff threat, officials from both countries who are familiar with the negotiations told the New York Times in a story published Saturday.
Trump moved to accept the existing agreements in a deal Friday after negotiations prompted by his threat to impose growing tariffs on Mexico in response to the border situation dragged on over several days. Talks between Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard and State Department officials lasted for more than 11 hours Friday.
The Mexican government had pledged to deploy the National Guard nationwide with a focus on its southern border -- a key part of Friday's agreement -- during secret meetings in March between former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Mexican interior secretary Olga Sanchez in Miami, the officials told the Times.
(06-09-2019 09:09 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2019 07:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2019 12:00 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that at Oberlin — as, sadly, at many elite universities — there are some really stupid people among the students, staff and administration.
I also looked into this story to get the details as the headlines seem really bad.
I still don't understand why the Oberlin students protested this business.
I’ve been trying to dig a little too. It seems that:
- the shoplifters concocted a story in an attempt (ultimately retracted - they all plead guilty) to save their skin.
- the students were all too eager to seize on the story, without a moment’s consideration of whether it was true.
In sum, it is probably no more complicated than (1) some criminals lied and (2) a hopelessly prejudiced community bought the lie.
Granted, criminals concocting false racial cover stories, which are then seized upon uncritically by a prejudiced community, is as old as the hills; see, e.g, the Scottsboro boys for a particularly infamous case. It’s a disgraceful phenomenon, and the community deserves the resulting scorn, but sadly it’s not a new one.
Quote:So Oberlin got punished solely on the indepenent actions of some to their students? Is there more to this?
The institutional culpability is less clear. As best I can figure so far:
- there is a hint at least that a dean and a multicultural affairs staffer may had some slight role in abetting particular defamatory actions by the students;
- It seems clear that the university did nothing to discourage the students erroneous rush to judgment, or to even suggest a note of caution. To the jury, that obvious failure to be the adult in the room may ultimately have been the salient fact. Whether the university had a legal duty to do so will no doubt be argued thoroughly on appeal.
More generally, there seems to be a good case that the Oberlin campus has an “economic lynching” culture, in the way that other universities are alleged to have “rape cultures”. I suspect there is no shortage of academics who have argued that imposing legal liability for “toxic culture” or “institutionalized aggression” is not merely a positive step, but a magnificent one. This is that step.
Here is a rundown of the Oberlin role:
Quote:But James said he saw Raimondo “standing directly in front of the store with a megaphone, orchestrating some of the activities of the students. It appeared she was the voice of authority. She was telling the kids what to do, where to go. Where to get water, use the restrooms, where to make copies.”
The copy making was needed to get more flyers for the students to pass out. These flyers said Gibson’s had a long history of racial profiling, had assaulted the shoplifting students, encouraged a boycott of Gibson’s, and gave a list of other stores to shop with.
James said Raimondo was taking part in the distribution of these flyers. “She had a stack of them,” James testified, “and while she was talking on the bullhorn, she handed out half of them to a student who then went and passed them out.”
Quote:The level of “participation” in the protest grew to higher levels with the last two witnesses. Two employees who worked in the school’s music conservancy offices (just down the street from the Gibson’s store) said students were allowed to use the conference room in their offices, make copies of the flyers that said Gibson’s was racist, use the restrooms of these offices, and were brought in pizza and beverages by the music conservancy administrators that had been ordered by the school.
Quote:The plaintiffs’ lawyers had plenty of examples of what they told the jury was “personal beliefs overshadowing professional responsibility.” In one email, Ben Jones, the vice president of communications for the school wrote to his co-executives in the school administration that, “I love how these Gibson supporters accuse us of making rash assumption decisions, but are totally blind to their own assumptions … all these idiots complain about the college.”
He closed with, “****-em … they’ve made their own bed now.”
When Roger Copeland, an Oberlin College professor of theater and dance (he is “emeritus” status now) wrote a letter to the campus newspaper soon after the protests ended, and criticized how the school was treating Gibson’s in the letter, Jones sent a text message in caps saying, “**** ROGER COPELAND.”
“**** him,” Raimondo responded in a message. “I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”
(06-09-2019 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2019 09:09 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2019 07:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2019 12:00 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that at Oberlin — as, sadly, at many elite universities — there are some really stupid people among the students, staff and administration.
I also looked into this story to get the details as the headlines seem really bad.
I still don't understand why the Oberlin students protested this business.
I’ve been trying to dig a little too. It seems that:
- the shoplifters concocted a story in an attempt (ultimately retracted - they all plead guilty) to save their skin.
- the students were all too eager to seize on the story, without a moment’s consideration of whether it was true.
In sum, it is probably no more complicated than (1) some criminals lied and (2) a hopelessly prejudiced community bought the lie.
Granted, criminals concocting false racial cover stories, which are then seized upon uncritically by a prejudiced community, is as old as the hills; see, e.g, the Scottsboro boys for a particularly infamous case. It’s a disgraceful phenomenon, and the community deserves the resulting scorn, but sadly it’s not a new one.
Quote:So Oberlin got punished solely on the indepenent actions of some to their students? Is there more to this?
The institutional culpability is less clear. As best I can figure so far:
- there is a hint at least that a dean and a multicultural affairs staffer may had some slight role in abetting particular defamatory actions by the students;
- It seems clear that the university did nothing to discourage the students erroneous rush to judgment, or to even suggest a note of caution. To the jury, that obvious failure to be the adult in the room may ultimately have been the salient fact. Whether the university had a legal duty to do so will no doubt be argued thoroughly on appeal.
More generally, there seems to be a good case that the Oberlin campus has an “economic lynching” culture, in the way that other universities are alleged to have “rape cultures”. I suspect there is no shortage of academics who have argued that imposing legal liability for “toxic culture” or “institutionalized aggression” is not merely a positive step, but a magnificent one. This is that step.
Here is a rundown of the Oberlin role:
Quote:But James said he saw Raimondo “standing directly in front of the store with a megaphone, orchestrating some of the activities of the students. It appeared she was the voice of authority. She was telling the kids what to do, where to go. Where to get water, use the restrooms, where to make copies.”
The copy making was needed to get more flyers for the students to pass out. These flyers said Gibson’s had a long history of racial profiling, had assaulted the shoplifting students, encouraged a boycott of Gibson’s, and gave a list of other stores to shop with.
James said Raimondo was taking part in the distribution of these flyers. “She had a stack of them,” James testified, “and while she was talking on the bullhorn, she handed out half of them to a student who then went and passed them out.”
Quote:The level of “participation” in the protest grew to higher levels with the last two witnesses. Two employees who worked in the school’s music conservancy offices (just down the street from the Gibson’s store) said students were allowed to use the conference room in their offices, make copies of the flyers that said Gibson’s was racist, use the restrooms of these offices, and were brought in pizza and beverages by the music conservancy administrators that had been ordered by the school.
Quote:The plaintiffs’ lawyers had plenty of examples of what they told the jury was “personal beliefs overshadowing professional responsibility.” In one email, Ben Jones, the vice president of communications for the school wrote to his co-executives in the school administration that, “I love how these Gibson supporters accuse us of making rash assumption decisions, but are totally blind to their own assumptions … all these idiots complain about the college.”
He closed with, “****-em … they’ve made their own bed now.”
When Roger Copeland, an Oberlin College professor of theater and dance (he is “emeritus” status now) wrote a letter to the campus newspaper soon after the protests ended, and criticized how the school was treating Gibson’s in the letter, Jones sent a text message in caps saying, “**** ROGER COPELAND.”
“**** him,” Raimondo responded in a message. “I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”
Holy cow: the Oberlin administration sounds pretty trashy.
(06-09-2019 12:07 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Holy cow: the Oberlin administration sounds pretty trashy.
They all need to roast in hell.
"unleash the students"
That's all I need to hear.
(06-09-2019 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2019 07:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2019 04:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 04:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019 04:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Probably a result of Trump playing hardball, instead of the softball of previous administrations. People get scared when hardball is played - they are told it is risky. What the media and the weak-kneed do not seem to understand is that tariffs are not the goal of Trump - merely a tool. This is where electing a negotiator (instead of a beggar) pays off.
I think everybody sees the tariffs as a tool. I'm also not convinced that Trump knows how tariffs work.
He seems to understand how they work as a tool to get action from other countries.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tru...7Kz#page=2
I'm not convinced that he does.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/08/politics/...index.html
There seems is a pattern of Trump creating an issue, this issue has negative consequences, and then he walks back his original decision. Ultimately he claims victory for "solving" the problem.
Tariffs are not the issue. Trump did not create the issues with China and Mexico that he is using tariffs as a way of forcing change. He merely addressed the issues where previous administrations ignored them.
America's approach to foreign policy prior to Trump has been largely a "pretty-please" approach, which lately it has been more of an "or else" approach. I can see how those accustomed to "pretty-please" would be horrified and alarmed by "or else". However, the OE approach far outperforms the PP approach.
Some people are hanging their hats on reports that things were agreed upon.long ago. So why have they not been implemented in the years/months since they were agreed to?
(06-09-2019 12:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2019 12:07 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Holy cow: the Oberlin administration sounds pretty trashy.
They all need to roast in hell.
I saw this interesting take on it elsewhere. This take also seems to describe Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin 2016 pretty clearly.
Quote:One point that none of the commentors seem to be making/noticing is the ‘town/gown’ dynamic.
Oberlin is the classic small liberal college in a less liberal (though still very) town that exists entirely to support the small liberal college.
Thus the jury was made up of ‘townies’ who resent the college, the students and the administration and the college resented that the unwashed townies were ALLOWED to have any input on the actions and deportment of their superiors.
Throw in the many notable examples of the current ‘elites’ being both lacking in competence and unlacking in hubris and you get everything from the protests against an innocent (townie/unwashed/ignorant) baker through the hubristic email. Not to mention a jury that’s about to throw the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary at them.
I’m not getting why others aren’t getting this. The dynamic is obvious to me.
I also notice Oberlin responded to the verdict with an email that said, essentially, 'the townies who are still able to throw the book at us with punis really didnt listen well.'
Quote:We are disappointed with the verdict and regret that the jury did not agree with the clear evidence our team presented.
I am astounded that, with a punis hearing upcoming, Oberlin would say anything like this. It seems that their defense overall was to sludge the baker (the local).
Most companies, when popped with a verdict, will just say that they are disappointed with the results. Period. You dont imply in any manner that the jury (that is still empaneled) didnt agree with (or listen to) your 'clear evidence'. That can be very much taken as an underlying jab at the jury, who somehow cant fathom *your* 'clear evidence'. Oberlin is very much tone deaf in most respects on this.
I guess this might be a clear lesson why punitives exist, to be blunt.
I remember working on a case years ago. I had a deposition, and walking out I really felt like I had screwed it up. Next day, the other side offered to settle for basically every penny they owned. Senior partner said, "Well, I guess you didn't screw it up."
(06-09-2019 04:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2019 12:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2019 12:07 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Holy cow: the Oberlin administration sounds pretty trashy.
They all need to roast in hell.
I saw this interesting take on it elsewhere. This take also seems to describe Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin 2016 pretty clearly.
Quote:One point that none of the commentors seem to be making/noticing is the ‘town/gown’ dynamic.
Oberlin is the classic small liberal college in a less liberal (though still very) town that exists entirely to support the small liberal college.
Thus the jury was made up of ‘townies’ who resent the college, the students and the administration and the college resented that the unwashed townies were ALLOWED to have any input on the actions and deportment of their superiors.
Throw in the many notable examples of the current ‘elites’ being both lacking in competence and unlacking in hubris and you get everything from the protests against an innocent (townie/unwashed/ignorant) baker through the hubristic email. Not to mention a jury that’s about to throw the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary at them.
I’m not getting why others aren’t getting this. The dynamic is obvious to me.
I also notice Oberlin responded to the verdict with an email that said, essentially, 'the townies who are still able to throw the book at us with punis really didnt listen well.'
Quote:We are disappointed with the verdict and regret that the jury did not agree with the clear evidence our team presented.
I am astounded that, with a punis hearing upcoming, Oberlin would say anything like this. It seems that their defense overall was to sludge the baker (the local).
Most companies, when popped with a verdict, will just say that they are disappointed with the results. Period. You dont imply in any manner that the jury (that is still empaneled) didnt agree with (or listen to) your 'clear evidence'. That can be very much taken as an underlying jab at the jury, who somehow cant fathom *your* 'clear evidence'. Oberlin is very much tone deaf in most respects on this.
I guess this might be a clear lesson why punitives exist, to be blunt.
A Cornell law professor who seems to have been following the case fairy closely has a nice critique of the Oberlin email:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/ob...kery-case/
His conclusion is that Oberlin’s General Counsel (the signer and apparent author of the email) is an idiot. It’s hard not to agree.