(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.