New Oberlin College PR campaign blames jury while declaring itself a victim


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

This is how you get more Trump: Oberlin College has begun the rollout of a new PR campaign that tries to spin the recent slander decision against it as an attack on free spech while declaring the university a victim.

The email letter from Oberlin announcing this campaign, as well as the accompanying FAQ, are so filled with sanctimonious self-righteous blather and hatred for those it considers the great unwashed (such as the jury) that it is difficult to read. Go to the link and absorb it for yourself. It will disgust you, and reveal that the university, like Evergreen State College, has learned nothing from this episode. They are still certain they are right, and everyone else is wrong. They also think they are the only ones capable of understanding these issues, and that anyone who disagrees with them must be either a fool or plain stupid.

As noted at the link,

What Oberlin College wants to do is now (in addition to winning an appeal) is not to become the next Mizzou or Evergreen State, where unsavory social justice warfare by faculty and staff, egging on students, cause enrollments to collapse. Oberlin College, already suffering from weak enrollment numbers, faces that real possibility. [emphasis mine]

I think this is an understatement. I expect their enrollment numbers to drop like a rock. And if I had a child attending this college now I would pull them out as fast as possible, demanding my money back. Every administrator there should be out of a job. They are not qualified to run a college. In fact, I’m not sure they are qualified to do anything better than street sweeping, and in saying this I must apologize to every street sweeper in the world.

Share

6 comments

  • Cotour

    “Who are going to believe, me or your own eyes”?

    https://youtu.be/cHxGUe1cjzM

  • Andrew_W

    As a freelancing writer for the Legal Insurrection blog on this case, I was the only national reporter who covered it from beginning to end. For seven weeks, I sat in the courtroom listening to witness testimony and poring over emails and texts and thousands of pages of evidence. I saw what the jury saw.
    https://quillette.com/2019/06/20/ideology-and-facts-collide-at-oberlin-college/

  • Cotour

    I would like to point out a few things here (I do this kind of work every day, Black, white, old young and everything in between):

    The clerk who was in the drivers seat and is driving the bus in this situation did not handle things in the proper manner. He appears to not be trained properly.

    1. The 19 year old was attempting to create a fraud related to his age and purchasing alcohol. The simplest thing to do is calmly point out that his ID is no good or that you just do not believe him as to his age and that he has to leave the building, along with his friends. They are all complicit at this point. Everyone, out!

    And if they were to come back within maybe 6 months they may or may not again be asked to leave the building, it depends. After that point maybe they have learned something from their experience. Most everyone gets a second chance to shoot themselves in the foot again. However if they prove to continue to be problem individuals you ban them from entering the building for cause. Period, no muss no fuss. You want to call the police, go right ahead. Banning someone is not done for no reason.

    2. If the clerk also found that the young man had some hidden products and was attempting to steal them then he now has another choice to make. 1. Plainly tell the young man that if he does not relieve himself, of the I am assuming clearly detectable potentially stolen product, the police will be called and you will be arrested or 2. The police are called and they sort it all out . (Its all on video I assume). You make it the choice of the young man, choose the light or choose the dark. This is based in respect and reason, the young man can walk away and he will remember that you gave him a choice and he will respect you for that.

    (You do not have to love me, but you will respect me. And that is a two way street)

    3. You NEVER touch a customer unless they are in the process of physically about to touch / or assault you as the clerk. If a customer dares to attempt to physically assault anyone on the property then that changes everything, besides defending ones self there will be called some usually large men or women who are armed and who will deal with the situation.

    Run across the street and tackle someone because they have a bottle of wine or a package of Twinkies? Really? You could get hurt or worse. You have now chosen to escalate the situation or you might see it as forcing respect. And you can never force respect. Respect is a choice.

    Most all situations can be defused and mitigated through having the proper perspective. The clerk can tend to become subjective and aggressive in keeping things “right”. However the clerk must be trained to be objective when driving the bus, and it can be difficult at times if you are taken by surprise. But that is the job.

    Business: Definition: Solve problems, do not create bigger and more problems, pay bills.

    So this entire thing is about respect. The young people in the community must understand that there are clearly established consequences for not acting properly in these open to the public venues. Everyone knows the rules of proper conduct. And there are proper ways to communicate these rules and that is accomplished by the management.

    When you are dealing with people, especially young people, they want respect but it must be established that there are expected parameters of their behavior. So they must also give it and it all can happen without the police being called or lawyers being involved.

    A big escalated mess caused by bad management IMO.

  • Cotour

    I listened to an interview this morning between the new president of Oberlin college and an NPR interviewer. She is proposing that the judgement goes against the First Amendment of the individuals who work for the college and that the college itself has no responsibility regarding it. I think that the evidence tends to disprove her assertion though and that is what the jury based their ruling on. If there is an appeal, and I suspect there will be given the sum, it will be an interesting argument.

    Related to my last post: This situation appears to be something that has been escalated by both sides into what it is today. The clerk at the open to the public venue IMO did not handle themselves in an appropriate and objective manner due to poor or improper training, and the college and its employees appear to have taken it unnecessarily to unreasonable heights as a lesson in civil and community activism based in politically correct thought process.

    (In a politically correct world, we are all dead, and on our way to our destruction to top it off there is no humor to soften the blow)

    Both entities IMO share some degree of blame here for their own irrational and juvenile (Subjective / emotional) actions and reactions to a situation that could have been handled and defused in an entirely different manner and we would have never heard of any of it.

    No one ( No Adult) was in proper control of either side in this situation.

  • Cotour: See: The Culture of Theft at Oberlin. The problem is far greater than this single incident, and the context helps explain the storekeeper’s actions.

  • Cotour

    Yes, I have taken into consideration that this situation is not based on a single incident but a culture of misbehavior. Still, if you are going to do your business in that kind of atmosphere you must make choices about how you operate and what might mitigate and improve the situation. Choices must be made.

    Like here: “[T]his theft culture influenced the decision making at the college with regard to Gibson’s, as related in the trial. College officials were concerned that backing Gibson’s over shoplifting could “trigger” a negative reaction from students, since the college was “trying to get students to realize that shoplifting was harmful.””

    The college chooses to treat their students like they were kinder gardeners instead of grown adults. And so they remain children and poor citizens, they fulfilled the low expectations of their “teachers”. They need to be “triggered” and then shown the error of their thinking and actions through consequences for their faulty thinking and actions.

    “Concerned about negative reaction”. Yes, because the young people have learned that the college management is afraid of them and not leading them. Not acceptable, fire everyone!

    The store must establish that when you come into its portal there will be respect. And respect will be given by the store employees as a default, but respect will also be expected in return. Once again, everyone knows the rules.

    If the store knew it had this problem then it is up to them to understand it objectively and set the rules of operation in dealing with it and properly train their employees at least to 1. not get injured and 2. to not escalate it beyond any necessary point. There is a point where the police are to be involved but there can be a long road between the two.

    This may be a representation or a microcosm that represents our culture and the rot that is political correctness and adults not willing to set a proper example related to behavior. In other words colleges and universities are miserably failing the youth that they are charged with educating. Which ultimately is your core point and I agree entirely with you. And the fear of retribution or of the “upsetting” of a young person is just not sustainable as justification for such behavior and failure of a fiduciary responsibility.

    What exactly are these educators teaching if they can not even teach the basic concept of respect for others and right and wrong? Something that the young people, most all anyway, understand intuitively. Don’t steal, its fundamental.

    I am certain that someone like Saul Alynski figures onto this equation at some point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *