Media Coverage of Gibson's Verdict Misses the Mark

Earlier this month, a jury awarded Gibson’s Bakery $11 million following a month-long trial stemming from the bakery’s lawsuit against Oberlin College and Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo. Then, last Thursday, it added $33 million in punitive damages. This stunning decision — which strikes a serious blow against free speech on college campuses across the country — has garnered significant attention in major media outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, as well as on social media and various personal blogs.

The tension between the College and Gibson’s began in November 2016, when three Black students were involved in a physical altercation outside of Gibson’s after Allyn Gibson, son of store owner David Gibson, accused one of the students of shoplifting. The three students were arrested. Shortly thereafter, Oberlin students alleged that Allyn had racially profiled the students and launched a protest and boycott of the bakery. A year later, Gibson’s sued, alleging that the College and Raimondo had participated in smearing its reputation.

Unfortunately, much of the coverage and commentary has either inaccurately represented the lawsuit and the events that led up to it, or has only presented parts of the larger story. An extensive timeline of events is outlined in a recent Review article covering news of the verdict (“Jury Rules for Gibson’s, Assigns $44 Million in Damages,” June 14, 2019). Readers looking for more background on the verdict should consult that article.

As stories about the verdict transition from breaking news coverage to think pieces about the impact of the jury’s decision, the Editorial Board wants to identify three of the key ways that existing coverage has skewed or misrepresented events leading up to the trial.

The first concerns the Oberlin Police Department report that was filed following the initial altercation outside Gibson’s in November 2016. The document filed by responding officers was wildly prejudiced in favor of Gibson’s, as it only included statements from owner David Gibson, his son Allyn Gibson, and a Gibson’s employee. David and the employee both backed up Allyn’s version of events, giving them near-complete control of the narrative in the report and, consequently, in the media.

Noticeably absent from the police report was the perspective of any of the three Black students involved in the initial incident, not to mention the witnesses who originally called police out of concern for the students’ safety or who saw the altercation. Officers did include the line, “It should be noted that as the reporting officer was interviewing all three subjects several other individuals who were also on scene at the time of the incident and who were initially interfering with officers attempting to gain control of the situation, began stating that Allyn was the aggressor and the black man didn’t do anything wrong.” This is the only suggestion in the entire report that anything took place outside of the Gibson’s’ version of events.

This omission is meaningful — particularly in a country with a long and shameful history of manipulating testimony and evidence to criminalize people of color, especially Black people. That report defined the narrative that, from the beginning, was parroted by mainstream outlets and right-wing blogs alike to vilify the three Black students and those who came to their defense. By immediately assuming the students’ guilt, the report significantly impacted the way this story is discussed in the public sphere — even today.

Second, many people have bought into the narrative presented in court by Gibson’s’ attorneys that the College acted as a ‘Goliath’ in encouraging students to crush a small, locally-owned family business. While it’s true that the College is often not the most considerate neighbor, in this situation the accusation is entirely contrived, and the support that it has found not just from personal blogs, but major media outlets as well, is misleading.

Former Student Senate Chair Kameron Dunbar, OC ’19, put it best in a recent New York Times article when he said, “Part of the narrative that has been built up is that Oberlin’s administration weaponized students against Gibson’s out of malice. I find that concept to be pretty insulting. We’re autonomous” (“Oberlin Helped Students Defame a Bakery, a Jury Says. The Punishment: $33 Million,” June 14, 2019).

Whatever you think of the protests and boycott of Gibson’s, the responsibility for them lies squarely with students. Nobody at Oberlin — student, administrator, or otherwise — has ever contested this fact and, indeed, students continue to openly take ownership of their actions. On campus, the idea that administrators could somehow orchestrate a student protest is laughable; Oberlin students prize their independence above nearly all else. If anything, students at the time felt that administrators were dragging their feet — especially after it was announced that the College would resume its contract with Gibson’s in early 2017.

In this context, the narrative of the ‘Goliath’ college egging on its students completely deteriorates. It’s true that Raimondo was at the protests, but she was simply attempting to ensure the safety of all involved — as dictated within the responsibilities of her job. Any other framing is incomplete, and we urge both journalists and readers to critically evaluate the facts of the College’s involvement.

Finally, many journalists and commentators — although not all — appear to believe that the salient question at hand is whether the three students involved in the initial altercation were actually guilty of shoplifting, or if students were right to protest the bakery and characterize that incident as racial profiling. Many outlets have even used the names of the three students in their coverage of the trial — an irresponsible decision given that the three students were not parties to the lawsuit and have nothing to do with the legal questions at hand.

We encourage readers and journalists to reject this framing of the story. The core question of the trial was whether Oberlin College and its dean of students are on the hook for statements made by their students. The chilling answer from the jury was a resounding yes. That decision should broadly concern everybody who believes in freedom of speech and student autonomy.

Throughout the trial, the Gibsons maintained that the College should have stepped in on the bakery’s behalf; the College’s argument was that administrators could only try to maintain the safety of all parties involved, and that any attempt to dictate student speech would be blatantly outside the scope of responsible leadership.

The jury sided with the Gibsons — a decision with profoundly disturbing implications for free speech at Oberlin and on college campuses across an increasingly authoritarian country. Conservative commentators often talk about a supposed crisis of free speech on campuses, wherein students wield the sword of political correctness to silence dissenting opinions. To the contrary, this verdict is a real warning shot against free speech. The fact that those same commentators have widely lauded the verdict reveals their hypocrisy and lays their thinly-veiled agenda bare.

Ultimately, we believe that the story of the verdict should be discussed out in the open, because the jury’s decision — as it stands — sets a concerning precedent that must be challenged. However, these discussions must take place with the full picture in mind, otherwise they won’t get anywhere useful. This piece is a starting point for expanding those conversations, but it is by no means the end.

In this difficult moment, we hope that Oberlin students are not discouraged from continuing the kind of sustained and brave activism that emerged following the initial November 2016 incident at Gibson’s. We hope that students continue to validate and support the experiences of their peers, even as some silence them and others attempt to force their institution to do the same. We also hope that students continue the good work of building relationships with community members, and that tension arising from the verdict does not impact the many positive, symbiotic partnerships that exist between students and the broader community.

And, in the very near term, we hope that the College will appeal the jury’s verdict and continue to fight for the right of its students — and the rights of students across the country — to identify injustice and speak out firmly against it.

>> In this difficult moment, we hope that Oberlin students are not discouraged from continuing the kind of sustained and brave activism that emerged following the initial November 2016 incident at Gibson’s... to identify injustice and speak out firmly against it. <<

Ummm... you might want to check with your lawyers about the wisdom of continuing to egg on your students to harass Gibson’s. The College now has to argue that the penalty was too large; combined with the college’s DAQ, this is pretty solid evidence that the penalties have been insufficient to correct the College’s behavior.

But in this case they told the truth. No one, on the left, cares to hear the truth, especially if it differs from their desire to lay the blame at the feet of others. Ergo it had to be racism even if they are told that is not the case by those directly involved.

No, this article/column “gives an idea of the mentality of a majority of the Oberlin students”.

They are not there because they are open-minded, tolerant of other viewpoints, don’t believe that America is a majority racist society, that black suspects won’t lie, that playing the “race card” is an honest approach to discussing something, that all white police hate all blacks, etc.

Why would a Bakery pick a fight with its customers (i.e. students)? If you answer that honestly, then the whole other argument goes up in flames.

Something happened. Since I wasn’t there, I don’t know. If there were any surveillance films, I haven’t seen them. Hope there are.

Obviously the jury felt that the school’s administration exacerbated the problem and libeled the bakery. As for the guilt of the accused, that is another issue.

There is so much wrong with this story, there is no point in dissecting it. The main points are lies.

The news was not running racist stories against the accused because they are African Americans, based on a police report few outside the case ever read. Most of the media coverage of this story was after the verdict. The coverage before the verdict was about the lawsuit and college students protesting the bakery, not racist attacks the accused for being African American.

But if the College newspaper wants to fell better about impending budget cuts to pay for judgment against the school this way, that's their choice.

Bottom line the “kids” shoplifted and were caught. And then they attempted to blame it on race instead of criminal behavior. And the college joined right in with playing the race card against Gibsons.

Gee, I wonder why the editorial was so pro-university, and for those who didn't know:

The Oberlin Review is a student-run weekly newspaper at Oberlin College that serves as the official newspaper of record for both the College and the city of Oberlin, Ohio. It was first published in 1874, making it one of the oldest college newspapers in the nation.

This stunning decision — which strikes a serious blow against free speech on college campuses across the country...

Translation: We did NOT learn a single fkn thing.

This goes to my point that the modern left is totally recalcitrant and needs to be dealt with in the harshest manner possible.

I gathered from Legal Insurrection a few weeks ago, before the verdict, that those funds are pretty well dedicated as collateral for loans.

Oberlin is in a bad pinch.

“As for the guilt of the accused, that is another issue.”

If you are talking about the accused shoplifter, he and his female companions all plead guilty. That is omitted from this piece, because it argues against the “narrative” these lefty idiots are promulgating.

“...the modern left is totally recalcitrant and needs to be dealt with in the harshest manner possible.”

Correct.

If the black students had paid for the bottle of wine, none of this would have happened. The race baiters and college administrators have really turned logic and common sense on its head. I certainly hope the $33M punitive damages make colleges and universities rethink their socialist activism, but I doubt it will have an effect. I think it going to take a lot of jury decisions like this to improve the college culture.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.