Exposing Oberlin College Trustee Chaos

Gibson’s Bakery — shoplifting started it all!

So, what does the Oberlin College Board of Trustees (the BOT) have to do with attacking Gibson’s Bakery? The answer is virtually nothing until the day after President Trump was elected. On that day, an underage Black college student attempted to buy wine in Gibson’s Bakery using a poorly counterfeited ID. When this failed, he tried unsuccessfully to shoplift the wine. Allyn D. Gibson restrained the shoplifter outside the store, where two black women students assaulted Allyn before the police arrived. Allyn was not a store owner — a legally important fact later. The shoplifting student used physical violence against Allyn and his father, David Gibson, and threatened Allyn’s life during the shoplifting incident. These complications turned what would typically have been a misdemeanor into a criminal matter.

Oberlin College students boycott Gibson’s Bakery.

Less than 10% of the student body then launched a Gibsons’ Bakery boycott believing the accusations of racism and racial profiling against the Gibsons, and the screwups began. Most black residents of Oberlin were shocked by these accusations because they had known the Gibsons all their lives and understood the College’s slanderous allegations to be untrue. The unproven accusations against the Gibsons rapidly gained momentum in the deflected anger over the 2016 presidential election results and the resultant TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Individuals in the College administration, including Dean Raimondo, supported the students by enthusiastically leaving behind a paper trail documenting their libel and slander against the Gibsons. The slanderous paperwork was a trial lawyer’s paradise consisting of emails, publicly distributed flyers, and college bulletin board postings. Not smart. This campaign was devastating to the bakery because it endured 40 shoplifting incidents from primarily white college students over the previous 18 months. Based on the unproven accusations, the students advocated that no one patronize the bakery.

Oberlin College policy and procedure deficiencies.

Unlike most educational institutions, the BOT never defined a complete libel and slander policy. It provided no clear way for determining when an individual or group speaks for the College. Consequentially, people can shove their words into the College’s mouth. The College made no effort to deny the students implicit or explicit permission to slander the Gibsons as an official college act. This oversight provided the Gibson lawyers with a vast arsenal of ammunition. They took the case on a contingency basis (only paid if they won) because they saw an almost certain victory.

Dereliction of duty explodes.

This blog calls out the dereliction of duty and breach of fiduciary duty by the BOT’s members for allowing the FUBAR, Keystone Kops style Gibson’s v. Oberlin College litigation to run so far out of control. It appears that misinterpreting the first amendment’s freedom of speech provision is the College’s new excuse for letting slander run wild. The BOT has accidentally given license to anyone associated with the College to shove whatever words they might choose into the College’s mouth, all in support of “free speech!”