Ted Morgan

I appreciate Frank Duhl's reminding us of the larger context of white supremacy, Trumpism & the election,within which this incident occurred.  And, indeed, the College & Board should work to restore Oberlin's commitment to social justice.  But I really don't have enough information to know whether or not Gibson's action in this incident was racist or not.  Clearly at that point in time (and generally), Oberlin students of color had much to be incensed about, and as Ed notes, perhaps there were some past racist actions by Gibson's, I don't know.

From what little I know, the overall Oberlin (students and administration together) response to the incident does remind me a bit of times in the 1960s when protesting groups' expression of righteous rage, even if fully justified, paid little heed to their impact on audiences and helped to spur a powerful backlash.   I greatly appreciate Chuck Roxin's comments about enlightened ways of resolving conflicts, repairing injuries and restoring trust; Bernie's, too, about more effective mediation.  There are lessons in there widely relevant to our broken society.

Robert Baker

I would like to say that I agree completely with what Ed wrote. I understand that Gibson’s was seen as racist by the black students on campus; and I suspect they were watched more closely than white people while in the store. This sort of racism is endemic in our society. The problem in this case was that the College has long been seen as acting arrogantly in the community and throughout Lorain County.  It is not surprising that the diverse jury had some anger at the way Oberlin College treated Gibson’s; both by distributing a flyer calling it racist and by canceling its long-standing contract with Gibson’s. Oberlin was seen as a bully. 

It also seems clear to me that Oberlin was oblivious to how its actions were perceived by the community. I have to disagree a bit with Jim. Although a $5 Million settlement would have been outrageous 40 years ago (we settled the Kent State shootings case for only about $750,000 for four dead and nine wounded students, albeit a much less clear liability case with a jury also angry about demonstrators); it is not been  considered outrageous over the past 10 years or so. In this case, liability should have been clear from the start. A high-ranking administrator of the College handed a defamatory leaflet to a newspaper reporter. The leaflet called Gibson’s and its owners racists. Oberlin could have claimed that the accusation of racism was true; but it either did not raise truth as a defense or it failed to prove it to the satisfaction of the diverse jury. The First Amendment defense was never a viable defense. 

So, it appears Oberlin went forward with a shaky defense (because it couldn’t prove the truth of the accusation); and with no thought that it might be seen as arrogant by the community.  There is much that could have been done, and should be done, by Oberlin to mend relations with the community, as pointed out also by Bernie, Chuck C. and Chuck R. 

In this situation, I side with the students; but the College should have stayed out of it. I doubt that Gibson’s would have sued any students if the College had not taken the actions it did (just as they did not sue any students in this case). Having jumped in, the College should have settled early without digging in its heels. I was shocked by the size of the final verdict; but apparently 12 diverse jurors were not. 

Donald Salisbury

I too have been following this discussion, and I do especially appreciate Frank Duhl’s exhortation that we message the Administration and Board that efforts be undertaken to reinvigorate the college’s commitment to social justice. This must also have implications for the community and college interactions. In spite of clear factual evidence I have from the very beginning of the 2016 episode suspected Gibson’s of racial discrimination, and I have guessed that this incident was aggravated by the Trumpian political atmosphere. Now, with hindsight, it does appear to me that college could have acted much more wisely. So at this stage I think the college needs to offer apologies for past actions and pledge support for socially just community reconciliation efforts.

John Henretta

I'd like to respond to two of Bob Baker's comments on this forum and now on the reunion website.

 As I understand it, the health services contractor originally agreed to provide reproductive care but later reneged on the commitment. The College had a very short time to make alternative arrangements. We'll have to see how the substitute arrangements work. Over the longer term, the College should seek a contractor who can provide the full range of care, including reproductive care.  It seems to me that the College acted appropriately to develop an interim solution. Do I misunderstand the current situation or the action the College has taken?

3. Rather than divest in fossil fuels, it is  much more effective to stop using fossil fuels. The College has made a major commitment in that direction with its geothermal project and similar actions. I think the College has a very strong environmental record. The large oil producers aren't coming to the market for new capital. Hence divestment simply means changing private owners and  has only weak symbolic effect, expecially as long as the oil companies are very profitable.

Charles Roxin

Dear Ted Guest and Everyone Else,

My post from earlier today was inadvertently deleted. 

Thanks Ted for inviting our input and feedback. Thanks Ralph for your wonderful clarification of legalities, and Bernie for Providing context and clarification. And thanks to everyone else for your input.

I have been reluctant to post comments because I believed that I had less information than I would like to wade in on this issue. This year actually marks the 50th anniversary of my membership, leadership and consulting to boards of directors. This experience has included public, not for profit and for profit organizations. During this month, in fact, I have been managing conflict issues as a board leader and advisor on issues of alleged religious descrimination, and a major university and private sector hiring policies. I hope that all of these will be resolved quietly, fairly and in a manner that leaves all parties with greater understandings than they began with.

regarding the Oberlin Board of Trustees and the Gibson situation, I have several hypotheses.

1. The Board does not have a community public relations initiative that assures mutual understanding and consultation between the College and the larger community.

2. The Board does not have a risk management policy or procedures to anticipate and respond to conflict and challenges.

3. The Board does not have a problem solving and decisionmaking protocol that would have allowed detailed fact finding before reacting to events.

And regarding women's reproductive health care,

4. The Board does not have a systematic Due Diligence process that can be deployed when making any such decision. 

By the way, my largest clients all provide outsource health science services [cardiac imaging analysis and cancer analysis and diagnosis]. In this day and age it is naive to assume that subcontracting to a sectarian provider would be without basic conflict.

In addition, while a student at Oberlin I frequently trod the streets of Elyria and Lorraine going door to door for the Democratic party answering questions and urging people to register and vote. It was clear then that Oberlin was in a 'bubble,' generally detached from the larger community. Also, for two years I lived off-campus with the Gibson family.

My focus is on the future. Ted, please do what you can to assure that Board institute and follow robust policies and procedures for anticipating and managing risk, etc. It is also possible that its members may need fundamental training on board roles and responsibilities as a group and in regard to managing the college.

Finally, I am curious, how are other alumni cohorts reacting to this?

p.s. the original $5 million settlement offer was cheap, and should have been jumped on as soon as it was proposed.

Thanks,

Warm Regards

Chuck Roxin

Paul Safyan

I, too, would like to thank Bernie Mayer and Frank Duhl for staying with the larger context of this dramatic episode, rather than attempting to discern or amplify "the facts" from a very limited scope.

And I endorse Bernie's view that the value and values of the relationship between Gibson's and the College/Conservatory got lost in the efforts by lawyers on both sides attempting to gain "a win" for their clients.  And i also appreciate Frank's urging the College/Conservatory to continue to teach from the base of Oberlins long held values of  social justice.

I think the health care issue that is now unfolding as yet another "black eye" for Oberlin deserves our attention as alumni   That has an immediate effect on current students, staff, and facutly and, to me, shows our alma mater showing a blind eye to the realities of another serious form of discrimination.  I think the Board and the Administration should look very carefully at how it can engage a health contractor which provides equitable care to all.

Charlie Durfee

I wasn't necessarily planning on posting about the Gibson case, but in response to Chuck Roxin's request for others in the class to weigh in, thought I'd at least say I've been reading our class posts about the college and the case, with interest.  I much appreciate the care, concern and discernment shown in the comments.  That should come with no surprise, of course!  

It was sad to see this story become a featured article in the New York Tines.    The college, especially the board and administration, certainly come out poorly.  Although that did give me a chance to get caught up on some of the facts of the case, fron an objective news source.

There have been many more good posts for me to single out any in particular, although I particularly wish to second Frankie's suggestion for a deep dive by the college into not just why this episode blew up so badly, but the overall relationship of the college and community.  (Hope I have that right, Frankie---I'm just working from memory here.)  Obviously needs more than just a smoothing over and hoping time will change things.  

Thanks again, '68, for the great discussion!  

Peter Griswold

I appreciate classmates' efforts to put this incident in a larger context of white supremacy and discimination, and to offer constructive steps forward, but could you will indulge me in a little more speculation about the trial?  Bob Baker's observation that Oberlin could not mount a viable defense because there was no hard evidence that Gibson's was engaged in racial profiling and thus was racist.  I use the word "hard" because I'm guessing that Gibson's wan't doing anything so overt that could verify the truth of the accusations of racism. In fact, one of the arguments that the Gibson's used was that they had pursued charges again a larger number of white students.  More likely to me is that the signs of racial profiling may have been more subtle, and likely not in a white person's radar.  I can'[t speak for Black people, but I am guesing that a suspicious or just unfriendly look by a store employee, a little more attention to Black people browsing, a scrutinizing of IDs, can make people of color feel uncomfortable and racially profiled.  And I'm guessing too that the feeling of being racially profiled is more universal and extends to many interactions in retail establishments between Black people and white staff.  There was a story in the NewYork Times years ago, about two women, a Black woman and a whlte woman, shopping in a store.  Each made a purchase, and the white woman tosssed her receipt into the garbage before leaving the store.  The Black woman was aghast, maintaining that a Black person would never throw away a receipt, because of the anticipation that they will be stopped at the exit door and asked to prove that they purchased the item.  

Regarding the size of the settlement, I'm guessing that members of the jury were aware of the college's billion dollar endowment.  Although the amount of the settlement seems enormous to most of us, the jury might have felt, to quote a line that a lawyer made to Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network in urging him to settle with the Winklevoss twins, "it's a traffic ticket," relativenly small in relation to the College's wealth.

Ralph Shapira

Just a quick clarification on legal terminology so that our contributions about Gibson's, if shown to the administration or trustees, appear better informed.  The money Oberlin ultimately paid was not a "settlement," it was a "judgment."  A settlement in a civil (i.e., not criminal) lawsuit like Gibson's v Oberlin is when the two litigating parties agree to resolve a case before its final conclusion in some manner, usually a payment of money.  If Oberlin and Gibson's had agreed to settle their case before trial by Oberlin's payment of $5 million, as a mediator suggested, then the end result -- the payment of the $5 million in exchange for dismissal of Gibson's lawsuit -- would properly have been called a "settlement."

There was no settlement in the case, because Oberlin and Gibson's never agreed on how to resolve Gibson's lawsuit.  Because the case didn't settle, it proceeded through trial and appeals until the court's final judgment was entered.  The amount Oberlin paid was the "judgment," not the "settlement."

As the New York Times reported in its September 8 article, "The college acknowledged that the size of the judgment, which includes damages and interest, was significant." (emphasis added)

Robert Baker

Just to reply briefly to John Henretta, The college did respond appropriately to the problem of the change in policy; the big problem was outsourcing in the first place (to get lower paid workers, or fewer of them), and the mistake of choosing one affiliated with a church against providing full women's health services. The issue should have been predictable. As far as divestment is concerned, the same arguments were made in opposition to divestment from companies doing business in South Africa in the 1980's. Oberlin should not be making money from fossil fuels. That's why I divested my personal shares in Exxon and Chevron. Those earnings can be made elsewhere. 

Robert Baker

Well said, Peter and Ralph. 

Robert Baker

I should also add that there is a long list of colleges and universities that have adopted a divestment policy (about 90 or so, including many that compete with Oberlin for students -- with some other glaring omissions). 

Ralph Shapira

Divestment is a difficult issue for me personally.  Our homes, businesses and transportation mostly run on oil and gas, and we need someone to supply it.  The oil companies are entitled to earn a profit for doing so, and I wouldn't divest them for supplying a product we're demanding.  

As profit making companies, they may or may not be good investments.  I personally think they're lousy investments since we will be using less and less of their products in the future, and the supply glut which that portends means lower prices and less profitability.  So I don't and wouldn't own their stocks and would counsel Oberlin to avoid doing so.  But that's because they're lousy investments, not because their business is supplying our oil and gas.

Some of the oil companies have run campaigns to deny climate change science, just as the tobacco companies sowed doubt about cancer.  I wouldn't own their stocks as a matter of principle.  From recollection, I think Exxon was an active climate denier, while others weren't.  If I were considering investing in O&G companies, I'd investigate which were guilty of that unpardonable sin and which weren't.  

Peter Griswold

Thanks for the clarification between the terms settlement and judgment.  I've been guildty of confusing the two.    

Christine Bates

Here's another question.  What was the role of Oberlin's insurer in all of this? As an involved party, probably paying legal fees as well as a portion of the settlement,  didn't the insurance company have a recommendation about settling rather than pursuing an unpredictable trial? What was the net amount including legal fees that Oberlin paid after insurance paid part of the settlement. Wondering if current insurance premiums have gone up or if Oberlin has changed insurers. 

Frances Hagberg (Graham)

As I’ve commented in the past, I appreciate the practical information and the heartfelt comments from everyone. I’ve reread again various thoughtful ideas through this long discussion and made suggestions about truth and reconciliation to forge a path forward. (#190) Good practical questions today from Chris Bates; I'd like to know the response.

Meanwhile our brains are full of ideas. Perhaps it would be wise to quiet our minds with their lush desire for explanations. How do we listen and encourage others to listen? Have we given pause to wonder what might be in the minds and hearts now of various persons who participated in the drama of Gibsons? Not to judge them but to expand our capacity for awareness and compassion.

Many of us in our lives have stumbled here and there among our achievements. Most of us have faced difficult family situations. Somehow we have moved forward, and in many cases forgiven ourselves and others, if not forgotten, and gone on. What do our life experiences teach us about limitation, success, and improbable change? Is not one of the great lessons to strive to let go of the resentment, the hardship, the slights others can bring? How might our personal experiences inform what we think about Oberlin and Gibsons?

Do we have any idea what past or present member of the board of directors perceives about the situation? The police? Various business owners? Other participants and observers?

What  do the surviving members of the Gibson’s family seek going forward? (See Lorna Gibson’s article in “commonsense.news”** (see note about website below) - https://www.commonsense.news/p/will-i-ever-see-the-36-million-oberlin.

(The judgment had not been paid as of 9/1 –perhaps it has by now). I read today that Lorna Gibson wants to replace antiquated compressors and rehire staff they had to let go. She reports only having 1 or 2 customers a morning and says she would like to rebuild the relationship with the college if possible after 5 generations. I learned that Allyn Gibson Senior died some months back.

I recall viewing the video of David Gibson (the father who died in 2019 of cancer not the grandfather) that night of the arrests saying something like “this cannot come to a good end.” It was as though he had an emotional reckoning of what would lay ahead. It is a haunting image. He somehow knew that win or lose the case there was no such thing as ultimately winning. (Lorna Gibson says that her husband David was offered a job as professor in chemistry at Ohio Wesleyan after his graduation but came back to join the family business at Gibsons).

Litigation is never a panacea; it is a useful though brutal mechanism in times of desperation. Several of you have ably clarified legal technicalities that help others understand the legal structure of the case. Litigation can be a necessary but harsh effort at remedy never to lightly engage.

What now can be the nonlegal approaches? It is one thing to use the past to heal. I can’t help but wonder if sometimes we are beating around the bush to pick apart past actions. How does Oberlin College move on after the bruising?

Does it help move forward to speculate further the motivations of people we never met or talked to UNLESS it is done with compassion? What can we accomplish for the future? Focusing on the rear view mirror can result in disaster in front of us. Revisiting actions from the past can be used with the specific intent to heal; otherwise it can become punitive, a fixation, an excuse, a dallying.  I do not intend to minimize the horrors of American history, the brutality of today’s world on many. The past must be attended, observed, and dealt with.

Not that I can imagine it but what would happen if students and alumni quietly visited store keepers and others in the community and pledged concern for them? Is there truth to the rumor that current students have opinions and are filled with certainty where none exists?

What if any of us ever travelled to Oberlin and sought out people to listen? If we described what we heard them say could that help them, the school and ourselves? Ted, tell the board members to go out and listen beyond the walls.

FHG

**The website “commonsense.news” is one I never heard of until today that published the Lorna Gibson article. It is (if I understand correctly) run by a woman named Barri Weiss – who from 2017 to 2020 Weiss was an opinion writer and editor at The New York Times. Bari Weiss is a journalist and the author of “How to Fight Anti-Semitism,” which won a 2019 National Jewish Book Award. Barri Weiss is 2020 winner of the Per Ahlmark award “in recognition of her moral courage and eloquence in defending the principles of democracy.” She also the winner of the Reason Foundation’s 2018 Bastiat Prize, which honors writing that “best demonstrates the importance of freedom with originality, wit, and eloquence.”

Jean Poppei (Eisenberg)

Patricia Duran (Bell)

Can someone please refresh for me the details of what happened to the boy(s) who committed or abetted the act at Gibson's. I read tthat there was a guily plea, but what were the consequences?  Fine? Jail time? Expelled?  Disappeared quietly? Thanks,

Pat

Robert Baker

I agree with Frankie as well, and to respond to Christina Bates' question, it is unlikely that Oberlin's insurance covered defamation. I expect the entire judgment (and certainly the punitive damages) will come out of Oberlin's endowment.  The insurance company may have had a duty to defend the case (especially as to the interference with contract claims growing out of the cancellation of Gibson's contact witt the college to provide baked goods; but I doubt that the insurance covered intentional torts such as defamation. Oberlin may have hired the lawyers itself; an I, too, would like to know what advice was given, and the response of the Board. 

Peter Griswold

I've been one to beat around the bush a bit, probably out of fascination with the size of the judgment and the tragedy of the case, how a stolen bottle of wine could lead to such enormous consequences, but agree with Frankie's suggestions about moving beyond that and trying to bring some healing between the College and the community.    

Dick Hobby

A note about litigation.  It is not a bad thing.  Au contraire.  Litigation is great!  It allows each party to present to a jury its side of the story.  And it allows the little guy with no money to bring a suit against powerful entities as the trial attorney gets paid from the amount awarded.

Trial lawyers should be viewed as heroes.

Dick

Ralph Shapira

Disagree with Bob Baker on one small but financially significant point:  comprehensive general liability insurance policies generally do provide coverage for defamation.  They won't pay punitive damages, but will pay defense costs and awards of compensatory damages.  President Ambar's recent statement makes clear that Oberlin's insurers are contributing toward payment of the final judgment.

Robert Baker

Thanks for the correction, Ralph. Do we have any idea how much they will contribute?  Sadly, the punitive damages were the lion's share of the judgment, if I'm not mistaken. 

Edward McKelvey

Pat,

I can only answer part of your question.  The person who actually did the shoplifting eventually admitted his guilt, I believe in a court proceeding.  I'm pretty sure he did not spend any material time in jail; he definitely did not disappear or suffer expulsion as I had him in class after the event.  I do not know what consequences the other two (I believe at least one of them was female, but not sure) suffered, if any.  My understanding is that they joined the fray outside the store.

Hope that helps.  Perhaps others know more.

Ed

Ralph Shapira

Answering questions about Gibson's:  the three African-American students who attacked Allyn Gibson, a male (the shoplifter) and two female friends were all charged with assault; the male was also charged with robbery.  All three pled guilty to the charges.  Each agreed to a statement at sentencing attesting that the Gibsons' conduct was reasonable and not racist.  None of them was sentenced to jail time.

Yes, most of the award consisted of punitive damages.  The jury awarded Gibson's $11 million in compensatory damages, which the judge reduced to $5 million, and $33 million in punitive damages, which the judge reduced to $20 million.  There is no insurance coverage for the $20 million of the judgment attributable to punitives; the college will have to pay that, presumably out of its endowment.  There likely is insurance available to pay at least part of the $5 million in compensatories, the $6.5 million the court awarded in attorneys fees, and the $5 million due in interest.  Whether insurers will pay all of those amounts, or only part, depends on what the college's polic[ies] provide.  For example, there may be significant deductibles.  We don't have that information.