Below you’ll find a small portion of the many comments about the Gibson’s Bakery case which were posted, during the first half of September 2022, on the two websites which were created for our 50th reunions. You’re invited to add your  Reply  on this topic right here on this Cluster website; scroll down below.

These are only a few edited excerpts. To read all the Class of 1968 comments, go to https://www.oberlincollege-con68.com/class_forum.cfm. However, you won’t be able to add your own thoughts there unless you’re a member of that website.

To read all the Class of 1969 comments (plus a lot of birthday greetings), go to https://www.oberlin69reunion.com/class_whats_new.cfm. However, you won't see the most recent comments unless you’re a member of that website.

We’d be glad to make you a guest member of either the 1968 or 1969 website, or both! Simply send a message to us here at the Cluster website using the  Contact Us  function.

And you can always start a new topic on this site's  Discussion Forums .

Ralph Shapira ’68:   On August 30 the Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear Oberlin's appeal in the Gibson's Bakery case. Oberlin College must pay the Gibsons $31.6 million, comprised of $11.1 million in compensatory damages, $13.9 million in punitive damages, and $6.3 million for the Gibsons' attorney fees.

Richard Apling ’68:   Also, it is time for the college to apologize to the family and supporters of Gibson's, which the administration apparently has not done.

Peter Griswold ’68:   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 (photocopying, etc.). The sign seems to me an issue of free speech.

Reed Cosper ’68:   It was not a free speech case. It was a case of reckless participation in an economic boycott of a small business that does the best it can to survive in a college town.

Ralph Shapira ’68:   "Gibson's is racist," if untrue, is not free speech -- it is actionable slander (if spoken) or libel (if written), the two kinds of defamation. The First Amendment does not protect defamation. There is no free speech right to make untrue, slanderous statements if the target is injured as a result. So if Gibson's had sued students who claimed it had a long history of racial animus, they might have won. But Gibson's sued the college, not the students. (It didn't go after the students, probably because it would have made them even more unpopular on campus and because the students wouldn't likely have had the money to pay any judgments against them.) What Oberlin was found liable for was its own dissemination of untrue statements about Gibson's, for wrongfully cancelling its business with Gibson's, and for aiding and abetting the students' defamatory conduct.

John Barrer ’68:   Wow, thanks for the education. I didn't know of all the subtleties and facts. Consequently, I had believed that the college was being penalized for merely sympathizing with the students whose actions were defamatory.

Ralph Shapira ’68:   Anyone interested in the Gibson's Bakery story should read a September 1 article by Lori Gibson, who runs the bakery, in the New York Post.

Elizabeth Sherman (Elvy) ’68:   I was horrified to read Mrs. Gibson's side of the story. That woman and her family were wronged -- first by petty pilfering by privileged students who should know better; next by slander and libel and an unjust boycott; next by breaking the wonderful relation that Gibson's Bakery has always had with Oberlin College. Now the College should pay up with grace and an apology to the last remaining Gibson.

Ted Gest ‘68:   In case anyone didn't notice, the New York Times chose to put the case on its front page today, September 9, another PR hit for us.

Tom Clark ’69:   Featuring a pic of a lil ol' donut shop in a small town in Ohio on the front page was a bit bizarre. The accompanying story delved into the facts, but not the substance.

Roberta Leinwand Opper ’69:   It is unfortunate that Oberlin did not take the high road and pay the original, much smaller, judgment to spare the College the enormous payout it is now facing, as well as the terrible national publicity from which the College’s reputation has clearly suffered. It certainly would have been advantageous to all involved if this had been settled amicably early-on.

Ralph Shapira ’68:   The Board of Trustees should consider why it continues to misrepresent the case to the Oberlin Community and the public. I can think of only one purpose: to conceal from the Board of Trustees and the rest of the college community the extraordinary recklessness and incompetence certain members of the administration displayed from the beginning of this sorry affair until today.

Bernard Mayer ’68:   I also wanted to add the outsourcing of many college services and the laying off of many long serving college staff, just as COVID was beginning to take its toll. Most of those who were dismissed, many after years and years of service, live in the community. This has certainly not helped the college with relationships with people in Lorain County. And it pissed off a lot of alumni too.

Edward McKelvey ’68:   You don't have to spend much time living in Oberlin before you realize how negatively the College is viewed by those not connected with it. Many in the county feel the College throws its weight around. This is the pool from which the jury was drawn, and while I think the case was decided correctly on what I understand the facts to be, decisions on the size of the award may well have been influenced by these attitudes.

Ralph Shapira ‘68:   Yes, the award was grossly excessive. But that's what can happen when a jury gets royally pissed off at a defendant, which both it and the Court of Appeals surely were. Dean Raimondo’s appalling emails doubtless inflamed the jury.

Ted Gest ’68:   To clarify one point, former Dean Raimondo is no longer at Oberlin but left to head student affairs at Oglethorpe University. I believe that all major officials involved in this sorry episode have departed Oberlin.

Steven Slosberg ’69:   Why has Krislov, who was still president when this blew up, skated? He fled to Pace University and left a heaping pile of fecal matter behind.

Edward McKelvey ’68:   Now Carmen is starting her sixth year as Oberlin's president. Chris Canavan has been president of the Board of Trustees even longer. This administration and this board bear significant responsibility in managing this case. I don't know how others feel, but I am not willing to give to the College until I see the administration and the Board of Trustees acknowledge how badly they handled this situation along with tangible evidence that meaningful efforts are underway to improve community relations.

Chuck Cole ’68:   I also intend to withhold gifts to the College until I see a commitment from the Trustees to admit their mistakes (the buck stops there) and chart a different course. Perhaps our next class reunion (cluster) gift should come with some strings attached. And how do we begin to alter the composition of the Board?

Frances Hagberg (Graham) ’68:   The culmination of this case with the Gibsons demands, in my opinion, a period of serious self-examination such as a Truth and Reconciliation Commission with the exploration eventually published and publicly available. Not to punish, but to reflect and set about exploring on a factual basis what has evolved into a failure of character and statesmanship.

Bernard Mayer ’68:   I agree with Frankie that some kind of restorative justice would be useful. The most effective of these requires that healing work start within the different parties to a conflict before they are brought together.

Frances Hagberg (Graham) ’68:   It would require some sort of seed funding. I would rather support something that was an affirmation of what I have learned in my life in and out of Oberlin than participate in protest.

Charles Roxin '68:   While a student at Oberlin, for two years I lived off-campus with the Gibson family. I frequently trod the streets of Elyria and Lorain going door to door for the Democratic Party. It was clear then that Oberlin was in a “bubble,” generally detached from the larger community. This year actually marks the 50th anniversary of my membership, leadership and consulting to boards of directors. Regarding the Oberlin Board of Trustees, I have been reluctant to post comments because I had less information than I would like. I have several hypotheses: The Board does not have a Community Public Relations initiative, or a Risk Management policy, or a systematic Due Diligence process, or a problem-solving and decision-making protocol that would have allowed detailed fact-finding before reacting to events. 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.

Robert Dickinson ’68:   I wonder if anyone in the current administration or members of the Board of Trustees have access to, or bothered to read the messages that are posted to our Message Forum?

Dick Hobby ’67:   Let's share our comments with President Ambar and the Trustees. What would be the mechanism for doing this? A summary is OK but I really think it would be more effective to send all the comments in full to Ambar and to each member of the board. Then they will get the full force of our ideas and criticism.

Edward McKelvey ’68:   I doubt the key decision makers will have the time or patience to read through all of these comments. And only a small fraction of the class has weighed in on the Gibson's case. This may be the easiest justification for ignoring them.

Bernard Mayer ’68:   Remember how limited our perspective is. But of course, we should hold the college’s feet to the fire about how they have allowed things to get to this point, as best we can with our rather limited power.

Steve Kravitz ’68:   I think that we should insist on meeting with President Ambar and other administrators at our reunion. We should be given a full explanation of why this case was allowed to drag on so long, why the five-million-dollar settlement offer was rejected, what is being done to prevent another out-of-control frenzy from happening again, and why they still think that they were right. And are any of the perpetrators of this mess still working at Oberlin? I also think that we should be given the opportunity to question the trustees to find out why they didn't put a stop to this when they had the chance. This could easily be done on-line.

Wayne Alpern ’69:   On April 18, 2018, when the dispute with Gibson’s Bakery was escalating, I wrote the following open letter to President Carmen Ambar and others. “Dear Carmen, The College's litigious response to the Gibson matter is out of character and detrimental to our relationships and reputation. ‘When they go low, we go high.’ Let’s conduct an open college/town forum to facilitate dialogue, air grievances, and restore the respect and trust we need to function as the ethical community our founders intended. That is what Oberlin is all about, not distasteful accusations of racism and greed, courtroom taunts and condemnations, and tactical motions for change of venue. With admiration and support, Wayne Alpern, Class President ’69.” After repeated initiatives on my part to discuss this case with the Board of Trustees, I was reprimanded and firmly instructed to not further contact any Trustees. I was unable to arouse much concern among our planning committee and classmates before and during the reunion.

John Barrer ’68:   I am just so disappointed in Oberlin. In the 60's students were protesting national issues, such as the Vietnam war, racial discrimination, and women's rights. In this instance, protesting the assumed racism of a mom-and-pop grocer doesn’t seem to be in the same universe of causes. It just struck me as not a call to end racism; it was a call for revenge. My son graduated from Oberlin in 2021 in Politics. He didn't feel like he fit in with the extreme views that seemed to be the norm. There was a widespread atmosphere of intolerance at Oberlin at a time when educated people should be advocating for rational discussions of issues and tolerance of diverse opinions.

Bernard Mayer ’68:   I am especially concerned about the impact this has had on students at Oberlin, and even more specifically on BIPOC students. There is an underlying tone to the coverage that suggests that this is all a result of Oberlin having become too “woke” or “politically correct” for its own good. The implication here is pretty clear. And yet, I am pretty sure that most students of color are feeling blamed and alienated by this whole situation.

Ralph Shapira ‘68:   Answering questions... 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 additionally charged with robbery. All three pled guilty to the charges. None was sentenced to jail time.
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 the $5 million in compansatories, the $6.5 million the court awarded in attorneys fees, and the $5 million in interest. Whether insurers will pay all of those amounts, or only part, depends on what the polic[ies] provide. For example, there may be significant deductibles. We don't have that information.

Ted Gest ’68:   As our class's only representative on the Alumni Leadership Council, I'm glad to convey the thoughts on this forum to the college administration. But I doubt that they would read through them all, so what is the succinct message? That many people in our class are unhappy and some don't want to give further donations until the college details the mistakes made in the Gibson's affair? That sounds like a reasonable request, but will it get us anywhere? Remember that all major people involved in the affair, including the lawyers, are gone, so the current administration likely would find some way to blame it on them. The trustees responsible are still there and are culpable. I would hope that the trustees and current administrators have learned from this, but we need to hear that. The Alumni Leadership Council is meeting at Oberlin in early October and is sure to learn more about this. Any other suggestions?

Ted Gest ’68, October 10, 2022: I've just returned from a meeting of the Alumni Leadership Council on campus. Superficially, all is fine, with great fall colors. And we almost won a football game v. Kenyon. On the issues raised in this forum, however, there is continued strife in some quarters. Here is a brief and inconclusive report on three of them:

* Gibson's case: College officials (including trustees) will not discuss it in more detail right now, apparently because the college stilll is working with insurers about how much of the total verdict is being paid by insurance. There also is a fear (which I don't understand) of more liability, hence a continued ban on discussing the case on the college's official alumni Facebook page. I will keep everyone posted when this is resolved, but we all know the general result. It is not clear to me what budgetary cutbacks are necessary to pay what the college itself owes.

 * Reproductive health: The college insists that it was blindsided by the sudden change in the health care provider's abortion policy. It also says that students are being provided abortion-service referrals. On the question of why Oberlin didn't summarily cut off relations with the main provider when the policy was changed, the college says it needs to maintain a relationship with the operators of the hospital, which is the only health care facility in town. We will also hear more about this.

* Faculty and Finney Compact: The trustees approved the by-law changes this past weekend, so that issue is resolved for now. We talked directly to President Ambar about this. She says it is a matter of resolving a discrepancy between the college by-laws.and written faculty practices, which were in conflict over the selection of and authority of the deans. I spoke to only one faculty member about this. He believes that insurance companies were not going to insure the college as long as this discrepancy remained. My interpretation, to use the Gibson's case as an example, was that insurers are insisting on knowing that deans are part of the college administration and what they do reflects official college policy. This may sound obvious, but if the faculty is selecting deans and/or setting their policies and practices, it is then unclear who is in charge. I stress that I am not personally an expert on this, but both the president and the faculty member with whom I spoke did not believe that Oberlin's academic quality would be diminished by the resolution of this dispute. We will have to see how it plays out.

There are many unanswered questions in all three of these issues. 

Some 883 new students enrolled this fall, which I believe is far more than when we were students. I don't know how the college is cramming them all into existing housing. I am not privy to the college's budget, but I am guessing that one motivation for enrolling more students is to obtain more tuition money.

Re-posting here an important issue about the Gibson's Bakery case that I wrote about some time ago on the '68 discusssion forum:

Oberlin has said the Gibson’s verdict will chill free speech on campuses across the country. If so, Oberlin itself is to blame: it is the College’s own misleading statements about the case that will cause the chill. 

Oberlin has consistently said that the College was not involved in the  libel or the boycott, that the Gibsons’ losses and suffering were caused solely by students exercising their free speech rights. But that badly misstates the case. For one thing, the first amendment does not protect libelous speech --the students had no "free speech" right to spread untruths about Gibson's.  More to the point, the evidence at trial showed that Oberlin, through its Dean of Students (“Dean”), directly libeled the Gibsons, fueled and fomented the student protests and intentionally interfered with Gibson’s business. Other colleges need not fear the Gibson’s precedent unless they directly participate, as the Dean did, in wrongful conduct that injures others. Nothing about the Gibson’s case if properly understood suggests that any college need restrict student speech to avoid liability.  

The evidence showed that at the demonstrations, the Dean gave a copy of the libelous flyer to an editor for the Oberlin News Tribune. There’s no more effective way to publish a defamatory statement than to give it to a newspaperman. 

That’s not all. The Dean arranged to have copies of the libelous flyer made for handout by the demonstrating students on the Conservatory’s copying machines without charge. Witnesses testified that she and an assistant personally handed out stacks of the flyers. She took a bullhorn, stood amidst the students and directed and encouraged them. She arranged for the College to reimburse the purchase of gloves for the protestors, she provided them food and water and she directed them to resting places. Oberlin allowed the libelous materials to be posted in Wilder Hall, where they remained for a year after the protests. There was ample evidence for the jury to find that the College directly disseminated the libelous statements and sponsored the protests.

The Dean also personally directed Oberlin’s food service company to stop buying from Gibson’s, directly participating in the boycott. While other administrators including the College’s then-President disagreed with cancelling the bakery’s business, they kept silent to “support” the Dean.  

All the above evidence is apparent in the excerpts of the trial transcript reproduced in plaintiff counsels’ FAQ. While Oberlin presented evidence to the contrary, the jury chose to believe plaintiffs’ evidence.

There is no doubt that students wrote and distributed the libelous statements and initiated the boycott, but Oberlin is legally responsible for its own actions in the course of that conduct as well as for aiding and abetting the students’ efforts. The Judge ruled that “one who requests, procures, or aids and abets, another to publish defamatory matter is liable as well as the publisher,” citing the Ohio case Cooke v. United Dairy Farmers.

In light of the Dean’s actions and the serious economic losses and emotional distress suffered by the Gibsons, this was always a dangerous case that should have been settled. Oberlin’s self-delusion that only student free speech was at issue caused it to see the case as “a matter of principle” and likely discouraged it from making the serious settlement efforts that could have resolved the case before (or during) trial -- admitting the Gibsons were not racist, apologizing for the Dean’s actions, helping restore Gibson’s business and paying reasonable compensation -- to the bakery for its economic losses and to its owners for their emotional distress.  

It also led to the ill-advised written statement by the college’s General Counsel, after the jury’s multimillion dollar compensatory damages verdict and on the eve of its considering punitive damages, that notwithstanding the jury’s finding to the contrary, Oberlin did not libel the Gibsons. That statement, seized on by plaintiffs’ counsel to argue for punitive damages, doubtless further inflamed the jury against the College. Insulting a still-empaneled jury is profoundly bad strategy, and juries tend to reward dissemblers with bad results. Trial lawyers know how effective it can be in seeking punitive damages to argue that the defendant “still hasn’t learned its lesson” or “accepted responsibility.” The General Counsel’s statement created out of thin air new damaging evidence which Gibson’s predictably used as a club to bludgeon the College.  

The Board of Trustees should consider how and why the institution so badly underestimated the case against it, why it failed to make more meaningful efforts to settle, and why it continues to misrepresent the case as solely about student free speech. 

Oberlin’s widely publicized warnings about the threat to campus free speech will cause other colleges, reviewing their own policies on student protests, to study the Gibson’s case. They will quickly see that Oberlin’s “student free speech” mantra is a smokescreen to cover the administration’s own wrongful conduct and poor decision-making. When its peer institutions realize that Oberlin has been crying wolf about student free speech, the College will lose credibility if not become a laughingstock. None of us wants to see that happen.