HE’S SAYING WHAT WE KNEW ALL ALONG: The media elite and left-wing colleges desperately wanted to make the Gibson’s Brothers Inc. v. Oberlin Oberlin College case about “academic freedom.”  Anybody who actually read the facts (brought to many of us through the incomparable work of Legal Insurrection‘s William Jacobson) knew that was utter horseshit.

Oberlin’s defenders tried — through the pages of The New York Times and other usual suspects — that the college was unfairly being punished for students’ speech. But those weren’t the facts: A jury learned that Oberlin administrators helped the defamatory fliers to be made with Oberlin-owned equipment; Oberlin staff participated in handing out the flyers; and worse yet, Oberlin officials attempted to prevent a local news photographer from recording the scene. The speech at issue was Oberlin’s as much as the students’.

Frederick Hess, American Enterprise Institute’s director of education policy studies revisited the case in Forbes a few days ago, and the headline really says it all: “Oberlin Defamed A Bakery Rather Than Hold A Shoplifter Accountable. It’s Now $36 Million Poorer.”

Hess paints the background first:

“When the incident first occurred, because the shoplifters were black, the Oberlin community quickly accused Gibson’s of racism and discrimination in a series of high-profile attacks. Gibson’s and the college had a longstanding relationship, students regularly frequented the bakery, and there had been no prior suggestion that the owners or employees were racist. All of that context was conveniently ignored.”

And why did Oberlin avoid using common sense? Hess explains quite simply:

“Why did Oberlin defame a longtime partner rather than simply confront three students who’d engaged in misconduct? One former administrator wondered if Oberlin was simply fearful of angering students, musing, “A freshman from an East Coast big city might come to Oberlin and find there is little for a social justice warrior to do in a small town like this, so they get frustrated and make issues like this shoplifting thing bigger than it should be, and the school follows along.”

Truly, the inmates are running the asylum. Having followed the case closely, one legal sidenote of interest continues to bug me.  Laughably, in motion practice, Oberlin’s defense lawyers tried to argue that being called a racist was not defamatory. This ought to blow any wokist’s mind. The president of the college even admitted under oath that “being called a racist was possibly the worst thing you can say about someone.” Odder yet, I can’t find any use by the defense of Ohio’s “innocent construction” rule. Ohio is one of the few states with a rule in civil law that if a statement can be interpreted in an innocuous way, then that is the meaning which must be ascribed to it. (I litigated the same issue with success in the First Circuit where a libel plaintiff insisted that calling his store “trashy” meant it was literally strewn with garbage. The court did not buy it).

Hess ends his Op/Ed with a cautionary note every educator ought to read:

“Oberlin’s grown-ups had an obligation to teach students there are consequences for misconduct and to help ensure that justice was done. Instead, they found it more expedient to defame a community business and ravage the owners’ lives. Well, Oberlin is finally paying for that mistake. Campus officials, there and elsewhere, should take note.”