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 was 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 a store employee, not a store owner — a fact that is legally important 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 Gibson’s, and the screwups began. Most black residents of Oberlin were shocked by these accusations because they had known the Gibsons all their lives and knew 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 enthusiastically, leaving behind quite a paper trail documenting their libel and slander against the Gibsons. Not smart.

The slanderous paperwork was a trial lawyer’s paradise containing emails, publicly distributed flyers, and college bulletin board postings. Based on the unproven accusations, the students advocated that no one patronize Gibson’s. This campaign was devastating to the bakery, which had already suffered 40 shoplifting incidents over the previous 18 months, mostly by white college students.

Oberlin College policy and procedure deficiencies

Unlike most educational institutions, the BOT had never bothered to define a complete libel and slander policy. Moreover, there was no clear way set up for determining whether an individual or a group was speaking for the College or was speaking for themselves. In short, any group or individual can shove their words into the College’s mouth.

It appears that misinterpreting the first amendment freedom of speech provision is the College’s new excuse for having let slander run wild.

No effort was made by the College to deny the students either implicit or explicit permission to slander the Gibsons as an official college act — an oversight which gave the Gibson’s lawyers a vast arsenal of ammunition. The Gibson’s attorneys took the Gibson case on a contingency basis 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. 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 the name of “free speech!”

Liar, liar, your pants are on fire!

Jan. 8, 2020 addition: Badly choked communication channels between the BOT and the college strongly suggest that the BOT was extensively and glibly lied to by people whom they trusted. That would explain a lot.

OberlinChaos is now working with other interested parties to find a way out of the tragic corner in which the BOT finds itself.

Dec. 20, 2020 addition: It is also likely that the rats in the administration are just soldiers following stupid orders from the BOT. If this is the case, the BOT will most likely blame and fire their soldiers for committing war crimes — i.e. following immoral orders from above.