Peter Griswold
Please correct me if I am wrong. My recall of Oberlin's involvement in the incident at Gibson;s was: 1) to allow a sign urging a boycott of Gibson's to hang in a college building; 2) to refuse to buy Gibson's products for a period of time; and 3) to provide some modest support to the protestors.(photcopying, etc). #1 the sign, seems to me an issue of free speech. Do students have the right to post a message on college properrty advocating an action that is legal? Should the college have censored the message? #2 seems to me a business decision. Oberlin can contract with any business they choose to for whatever reason they have. I's clearly not in the Colege's intersts to harm the relationship with the town, but that is a matter of public relations, not law. For #3, I emphasize the word modest. The Dean didn't recruit the students, or encourage them overtly through speech or action. One can argue that Oberlin made a number of mistakes once the Gibson decided to sue, and in retrospect, apolgizing and settling early was the wisest course of action. I have no legal experience, but it seems to me that the president and Board of Trustees are entitled to defend the College against a suit without that defense being perceived by a jury as an additional offense added onto the actions of the college leading up to and on the day of the protest. What I can't get over is the size of the award! Was Gibson's business hurt that badly to justify over $10 million in compensatory damages? Were the actions of the college leading up to the protest and on the day of the protest so heinous to warrant the size of the punitive damages? I believe the College was liable, but liable to that extent? The award seems so out of proportion. Sadly, I agree with my classmates who lamented the harm this had done to the College's reputation. I believe that the repercussions from this loss will not go away in an easy or timely manner.
|