Oberlin College case shows how universities are losing their way

Post by grellas » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #187

grellas wrote: post #14

A bit more factual context: 1. The student "protests" erupted the day after the 2016 election results came in, with a corresponding politically inflammatory element at work in the background. 2. The underlying incident involved an underaged black student who attempted to buy a bottle of wine, was refused, and was then found to have 2 other bottles under his coat as he walked out. When the owner's son chased him out,…

This is a great summary, and I broadly agree with Jacobsen's take, but also took the time to read the primary source documents that he and others linked to. So, some finesse points: 2-3: I don't know that it's been well established that the student who sparked this incident and later pled out to shoplifting went into the store with the intent to steal. The other narrative presented is that he went in with a fake ID (…

Post by surge » Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 1:27 AM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #85

surge wrote: post #23

I saw it happen first hand once at Guilford College, another small liberal arts college. There was an incident between a group of drunken football students and some kids that were Arabic. The school didn't do its part to encourage rational and cool heads until all the facts were in and there were mobs looking for football players, even those not involved. It wasn't safe for them so had to leave campus. Once the facts…

>Free speech standards in the US requires you have evidence to back up what you're saying if you're going to speak negatively of someone You're free to speak negatively of people, you just can't damage someone's reputation by spreading false facts. I'm allowed to call my neighbor a poopyhead or the like, but I can't tell people that he sexually molests children. Debate is fine, lively discussion is fine, talking nega…

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 3:36 AM UTC

hundt wrote: post #194

tptacek wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There can't be, because "jerk" is a subjective assessment, and defamation requires a statement of fact. The "falsifiability" rubric Rayiner has been using is helpful. I'm not a lawyer, but I read lots of defamation lawyers, and note that you can further extend the requirements for defamation: * It's (apparently, in many circumstances, consult lawyer) not defamation to relate your interpretation of facts already on th…

> you also have to prove malicious intent, meaning that the speaker knows that what they're saying is false, and is saying it specifically in order to harm someone. I think you're talking about "actual malice" which as I understand it does not require a particular intent. It is just that you know the statement is false (or have reckless disregard for whether it is false or not). It doesn't matter why you said it.

Post by 333c » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 11:00 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #192

grellas wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent additions - thanks for supplementing/clarifying! Another note or two: 1. Damages might be reduced on appeal but, if not, this will really sting for Oberlin. Why? 2. Its insurer apparently is denying coverage because the wrongs committed were intentional and that removes them from coverage. 3. The legal fee award approved by the jury is likely tied to a contingent fee arrangement and will likely add as much…

It's an insane situation. I have a generally high opinion of Oberlin as a school (my daughter was accepted there, and would have attended had she not wanted to remain closer to home; several friendly acquaintances are faculty there). I also --- broadly and with varying levels of intensity --- share the prevailing politics of its community. But the school's conduct here seems so simultaneously mendacious and clown-sho…