Obituary, Recommended

On the Passing of Oberlin Plaintiff David Gibson

It was the truths that made the people grotesques. The old man had quite an elaborate theory concerning the matter. It was his notion that the moment one of the people took one of the truths to himself, called it his truth, and tried to live his life by it, he became a grotesque and the truth he embraced became a falsehood.
Sherwood Anderson, Winesburg, Ohio

As a journalist, I am just passing through the lives of others, and usually not at their best moments. This is particularly true of defamation cases, when reporters, lawyers, and angry litigants are forced to intermingle at a time when each party to a dispute is accusing the other of being lousy human beings. Courts provide a regulated arena for culturally approved warfare, the purpose of which is to decide who deserves humiliation, possible ruin, and sometimes even jail. For the rest of us, this all provides voyeuristic risk-free entertainment. Typically, observers and note-takers in the galleries don’t get to know the main players well, so it’s a bit like watching a bloody sporting event untroubled by an allegiance to either team.

But last April, as I made my way into the Ohio courthouse where I would sit for the next seven weeks, I met David Gibson. Gibson was suing his longtime neighbor, Oberlin College, in a case I was covering for the website Legal Insurrection. The day after the 2016 Presidential election, he had called the police when three black Oberlin students were caught shoplifting wine from his small family business. The university campus erupted in outrage, a contract the bakery had to provide food for the university cafeteria was torn up, and Gibson’s bakery was besieged by student protests operating with the apparent complicity of college faculty and administrators. The college was accused of providing malicious support to students circulating defamatory claims that Gibson and his family were racists. These claims, the jury would subsequently conclude, were baseless. The prestigious liberal arts college was found guilty of libel, and ordered to pay close to $50 million in damages. (Both the verdict and the award are being appealed, but while the damages may be reduced, depending on what state caps permit, legal experts say the reversal of a civil case like this one is unlikely under Ohio law.)

The media didn’t pay all that much attention to the case while it was being tried, but when the verdict was announced, it went berserk. Conservative outlets crowed that it was a victory for the kind of common man elitist college radicals held in contempt, and outraged progressives seethed that free speech was being sacrificed to enable bigotry and hatred of minorities. But in their hurry to use the case as a blunt object with which to club their political enemies, neither side got it right. For Gibson and his family, meanwhile, the verdict provided hard-won vindication but also bemusement. “All Oberlin had to do,” Gibson told me in September, “was to say we weren’t racists and there would have been no trial. What I didn’t understand is that they didn’t have the civility to do so. The basic civility we all try to live by. They didn’t seem to understand that.”

David Gibson has not lived to see the end of this distressing saga. In late 2018, he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and, on November 16 of this year, he passed away aged 65. At his funeral, there were no bitter condemnations of the school’s administrators. Instead, friends and family spoke fondly of his kindness, his volunteer work helping the marginalized to find jobs and addiction treatment, his unpaid service on various local boards, and how his family had been active members of the Oberlin community since the late 1800s. But Eddie Holoway, a longtime family friend and one of many African Americans who attended the service, did address the point that almost everyone else had tactfully avoided. “The environment today is where name-calling is quite popular,” he said. “Words do matter. The names put upon him weren’t very pleasant. But he wanted to see a healing point. David had made peace with this before he died … his main concern wasn’t himself, but for everyone in this town. This [lawsuit] was about damag[e to] his reputation, but all of us who knew him knew what his reputation is. He had a good heart and helped everyone he could and that was priceless.”

The assembled mourners seemed to appreciate these remarks but they made me angry on behalf of Gibson and his surviving family. Oberlin College has hired high-powered lawyers to handle the appeal, and still maintains that it is the real victim of this ugly controversy. Academics who never set foot in the courtroom insist that the case was about the right of students to freedom of speech, even though the judge had explicitly declared such arguments irrelevant. The trial was intended to determine whether or not the college had “aided and abetted” the dissemination of false and defamatory claims made about Gibson’s bakery by Oberlin students, and the jury was asked to decide if the school had promoted accusations it knew to be untrue.

Nevertheless, over the past few months, Oberlin College president Carmen Twillie Ambar has repeatedly claimed that the verdict was a disgraceful violation of First Amendment rights. “The specter of such liability could chill free speech and justify censorship,” she wrote in an op-ed published this summer. “This is especially troubling for colleges, which the law recognizes distinctively as ‘marketplaces of ideas’ where speech should have ‘breathing space’ so that ideas can be tested and thought can flourish. The First Amendment encourages us to speak up. This verdict tells us to be quiet.”

This past fall, Gibson told me that the school president’s interventions in this vein were what bothered him most. “We have never said that students don’t have the right to free speech,” he said. “Our family has had this business on the town square for more than 100 years and we have seen many protests. We have helped students through the years, even letting them use our tables and chairs on the sidewalk during this protest. But the school couldn’t even do a simple and basic thing by saying in some way that we aren’t racist. Because we weren’t and we aren’t.”

Gibson always politely declined to answer my questions about the case while the trial was ongoing. So instead we spoke about other things. He was a graduate of Ohio Wesleyan University with a degree in chemistry, but returned to help run the family business in the late 1970s. From what I could tell, he didn’t do so because he longed to make cookies and sell cheap beer to college students; it was just that his family had been doing this since 1885 and he was next in line to run things, so he felt a sense of responsibility and duty.

During the trial, he was looking after his 91-year-old father, Allyn D. Gibson, and on most days, they ate lunches together from brown paper bags in the courthouse hallway (“eating at restaurants isn’t that great when you work at a restaurant,” he laughed). He spoke with pride about his son, Steven, a wildlife specialist at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, whose job it is to help coordinate medical care for injured animals and return them to their natural habitat. Gibson knew who longtime forgotten Ohio novelist Sherwood Anderson was, and remembered his epic 1919 novel, Winesburg, Ohio. We could see Anderson’s house in Elyria from our seventh-floor courthouse perch. And he told me what a promising young basketball player he had been back in the early 1970s, and I told him how great I was then too.

We were both amused by how much political attention the case received in the wake of the verdict. My Twitter account had exploded with new followers, many of them sporting multiple red Xs (a protest, I later learned, against perceived anti-conservative bias across social media). I was somewhat alarmed to discover that I had become a magnet for the Alex Jones/Infowars conspiracy crowd. When I told David this, he joked that he should “hold a news conference and tell everyone how you are a liberal, socialist, Trump-hating, fake news reporter.” But we both knew that the partisan media feeding frenzy was in danger of getting out of hand.

There were occasional voices, however, who seemed to recognize that the trial had been about more than a zero-sum war of political ideologies. Last month, the veteran American journalist Ted Koppel travelled to Oberlin, a small college town of about 8,000 people located some 35 miles southwest of Cleveland, to interview the main participants for a CBS-TV news show. His most telling exchange was with college president Carmen Twillie Ambar, who hadn’t even been appointed to that position when the controversy first erupted three years ago.

KOPPEL: What is a reputation worth? You’re a very distinguished academic. What’s your reputation worth?

AMBAR: My reputation is important.

KOPPEL: It’s worth a lot, isn’t it? [Ambar nods] I mean, if your reputation was destroyed overnight, you could hardly put a price on that could you?

AMBAR: Well, I certainly believe that reputations are important, but here’s what’s also true, and it’s the jury system that we have, right? And the legal system that we have. That we go through a legal process that makes that determination. And what the institution has said is that we believe that this determination was excessive.

During the trial, David Gibson testified that he had found the trashing of his ailing father’s reputation particularly upsetting. “At that point … we didn’t know whether he was going to make it or not. He said to me that he had done everything right in his life, treated everyone equally and fairly, and that he would die being called a racist.” Juror Misty Smith told Koppel how that had affected the jury: “You just feel the heart, like the whole courtroom just went phew. Everyone I think was trying to hold back tears.” The jury did not know that David Gibson was also dying from pancreatic cancer. Oberlin College attorneys had successfully moved to have any evidence relating to David Gibson’s health excluded, lest it unduly influence the jury.

Following the verdict in June, I wrote about the case for Quillette in an attempt to explain why an anodyne shoplifting incident had blown into a vicious racial scandal, and a cultural standoff between town and gown. The community that once joined the college and its environs no longer exists. What happened to David Gibson and his family is evidence of a resentful meanness that always lurked in the background, but which polarizing cultural and political pressures have inflamed.

As I reported at the time, David Gibson testified that the school had offered to allow the bakery’s food back in the university cafeteria on two conditions: that Gibson drop the shoplifting charges, and agree to report all future instances of theft by students to the university and not the police. Gibson refused. “They didn’t want to move forward until we agreed to special treatment for students shoplifting,” he told the jury. “But I kept telling them that we have to be consistent and call the police no matter who is stealing.” Only later did he realize that the school administrators might be using the controversy to launder their own reputations. “[The school administration] had been accused of being racists by students in the previous year,” he testified, “and I think they used us to deflect from that problem they had. I believe they were using us as a target so that their racial problems with their students would go away.”

In December 2015, Oberlin College’s black student union had published a 14-page, 58-point list of demands, in which they accused the university of “anti-blackness” following four separate race-based controversies in a single year. At the end of May, the New Yorker published a long essay about Oberlin College entitled “The Big Uneasy,” examining unrest at the college, in which one student interviewee complained, “I literally am so tired of learning about Marx, when he did not include race in his discussion of the market!” When Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton on November 8, 2016, the students thought their world was ending. “Part of the inconceivable quality of the election is, I don’t know a Trump voter personally, and I can’t imagine someone voting for Trump,” an Oberlin College senior told the campus newspaper. “I don’t know how to reach across that line. I don’t even know who they are.”

When three African American students attempted to steal three bottles of wine the following day, the protests against the Gibson family’s allegedly racist decision to call the police became a vehicle for election anxiety. David Gibson knew immediately that the timing was going to bring trouble. “They’re going to be trashing us,” he told police an hour after the crime occurred. The row which ensnared the small family business was a proxy for national and college political battles in which it had no part, and over which it had no control.

During the prosecution of the three shoplifters, Oberlin’s attorney attempted to get the charges reduced from felonies to misdemeanors, a deal that required Gibson’s cooperation. Gibson was asked if he would meet with the shoplifters and speak to them about the larger issue of shoplifting and how it affects small businesses and their customers. Sure, Gibson replied, they can come to the store and I’ll show them how we work. In the end this arrangement fell through amid legal wrangling, but the students were eventually charged with misdemeanors anyway. In September, I asked Gibson why he had agreed to reduce the charges. “I’ve done this before and feel the same way as I always have,” he told me. “A felony can follow them further down the road, and I don’t want anyone to have to deal with that because of something stupid they did in college.”

This is the man Oberlin students and faculty vilified as a racist, who Oberlin College punished by cancelling his cafeteria contract, and who is now accused, even in death, of attacking free speech for attempting to clear his family name. The Gibson family aren’t racists, they were just grist to a political mill. And as I watched all this unfold in court, I was stunned by how unnecessary and senselessly destructive the whole episode had been.

About 300 people showed up for David Gibson’s funeral at the First Church of Oberlin. The church was built in the 1840s and is now one of the oldest landmarks in the town, along with the college campus and the town square where the Underground Railroad had once helped slaves from the South escape to Canada. It was at this church that Horace Greeley, Frederick Douglass, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mark Twain, Booker T. Washington, and Woodrow Wilson all addressed the Oberlin community over the years. But, aside from a few retired professors, no one from Oberlin College was there to pay their respects.


Daniel McGraw is a freelance journalist and author in Lakewood, Ohio. You can follow him on Twitter @danmcgraw1

Featured pic courtesy of Bob Perkoski, reproduced with his kind permission.


  1. Free speech doesn’t include the right to defame, to lie for the purpose of harming another. That’s libel/slander (based on the medium of the lie). It is rather ironic coming from a place that associates a “cat call” with sexual harassment.

  2. The biggest disgrace in all of this (and that’s saying something) might be Oberlin’s pretending to value free speech.

    The people involved in this story didn’t deserve David Gibson’s grace.

  3. Shame on the alumni who continue to donate money to Oberlin.

  4. I literally am so tired of learning about Marx, when he did not include race in his discussion of the market!

    That is priceless.

  5. This just goes to show how the Manichean narrative of intersectional feminism can set natural allies against one another. If the left-leaning types at the college had the common humanity approach of the true social justice movement, empathy might have shown them how regulatory measures naturally favour huge corporations, along with the inherent costs of legal and accountancy services (which are much higher, as a proportion of revenue for small businesses). But of course, they aren’t liberals- there are actually two mutually exclusive movements within the Democratic Party- far left illiberal and moderate.

    I’m beginning to think that modern western liberalism differentiates into stage one and stage two. Stage one liberalism is actually quite healthy in most respects (other than it’s contribution to the dissolution of the family)- it throws away societies more hateful attitudes towards some groups and argues for equality under the law. Stage two is unhealthy and is anything but liberal, but a natural inter-generational result of the parenting and teaching strategies which liberals deploy. It is incredibly susceptible to the worst ideas of feminism, post-modernism and Marxism. It is fuelled by resentment, narcissism and a sense of entitlement.

    Maybe Jordan Peterson was wrong to lay the blame solely at the door of the professoriate. Perhaps the peddling of their own bad ideas was just disgruntlement at the corporatisation of campuses and the usual shameless self-promotion. Jonathan Haidt maintained in one talk or panel discussion that social media allowed the usually cubby-holed ideas of the grievance studies to breach containment and spread like a mind virus throughout the student body in the more liberal colleges (that last bit was Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay). Douglas Murray remarked recently that periods of societal instability like those caused by the 2008 crash make people susceptible to bad ideas, particularly the young. Add the creation of the like button and social media, and the safety culture the children of liberals were raised in, and you effectively have a hive mind which perceives constant threat- like a swarm that has just been sprayed.

  6. Perhaps, Geary, but on the other hand,
    @neoteny’s observation about

    being priceless, induces me to opine that preaching dumbed-down versions of Marxist theory to an otherwise economics-untutored and generally ill-informed population is a certain recipe for inculcation of extremism.

    It’s one thing to assign Das Kapital and compel students to trudge all the way through the theoretical minutiae of that dismal tome, and quite another to dumb down a few basics like the labor theory of value and then titillate raging post-adolescent hormones with the Manifesto.

    I see your point and don’t substantially dispute it, but I’m inclined to weight the problem heavily toward it being the faculty’s responsibility, on the “a little learning is a dangerous thing” principle.

  7. And there you have it, an admission Oberlin College is the quintessential bubble. Another example of diversity, a collection of black leftists, other people of color leftists, female leftists, gay leftists, trans leftists, and white male leftists who know their place.

  8. One of the problems is who these people really are. The progressives in the US co-opted the “liberal” label 100 years ago when they sullied the the progressive label under Wilson and had to abandon the term. For too long the left has masqueraded under the term liberal and infiltrated the ranks of those who believe in freedom of the individual . The left should no longer be allowed to call what they do as “liberal”, that is unless the term “liberal” takes on the new definition:

    “A political philosophy that exalts race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

    If that sounds familiar it is taken from the definition of fascism.

  9. The grace and courage displayed by the Gibsons through their ordeal is truly admirable. My condolences to the family on the loss of David Gibson, he taught by example strength of character, something not understood by the careless denizens at the neighboring Oberlin College.

    Should the court’s ruling stand, the money will likely not substitute for the misery suffered at the hands of the self righteousness Oberlin bullies. I hope those at the college live long enough to understand shame for their part in this drama.

    Lastly my congratulations to Daniel McGraw and Legal Insurrection for their coverage of the story, it was done without hyperbole or emotionalism. Their coverage illuminated for the world and this reader an injustice perpetrated by a College that instead should be educating young people. Kudos to Quillette for allowing McGraw to post an article here.

  10. I agree with much of your take, but this sounds more like individual justice as opposed to social justice. Social justice prioritises group outcomes and is thus a contradiction in terms. If disparities, upon further examination, tend to be rooted in people’s individual choices, tipping the scales to artificially level those disparities at the group level is contrary to equal treatment under the law.

  11. But the fact remain that the accusation of racism was an ugly slur made without evidence. Hence, the verdict.

  12. I wouldn’t put much stock in these claims, but if you are concerned about potential right-wing bias, here is an article from the gold standard of Left of Centre publications (according to, The Atlantic:

    As you can see from the story, there were numerous people from minority backgrounds who were willing to testify that the Gibsons were not racist. Plus, without knowing the substance of the Facebook post, or its broader judgement, we have to reserve judgement.

    I think the disconnect comes from the Left’s definition of what racism is. One cannot simply redefine a word without allowing for the possibility that the general populace either won’t know or won’t accept the new definition. For example, the idea that reverse or constructive racism cannot exist, because of some implicit balance of power and oppression, is accepted only amongst a proportion of liberals, and certainly not by the majority of any Western country. For one thing, it fails to deal with exceptions to this power rule when dealing with racism between two non-white races, which in some instances can be considerably more common than between whites and a given ethnic group. But more importantly, this new definition of racism has been consistently rejected by courts in America and Britain.

    Unfortunately, this is what happens when concepts and language are deliberately tinkered with by academics, without the steadying effects of viewpoint diversity and disconfirmation. In all likelihood, in the minds of some students on the campus, it is likely they took the fact that the store was unwilling to simply left the perpetrators off, in some form of ad hoc reparations for white guilt, as evidence of racism, in and of itself, without stopping to think that not everyone shares their mindset or their worldview. This is the point at which the adults should have stepped in, and they were singularly negligent on this point, instead deciding to let Gibson’s Bakery take the heat, shifting the onus away from there own problems with the student body. Shame on them, they abdicated their responsibility as mentors and got what they deserved.

  13. “Drop the lawsuit or we’ll hurt these innocent students!”

    I don’t care if an underprivileged but deserving high school student attends another university.

  14. A cogent and well-argued case Jack, as I’ve come to expect of your contributions. But if we’re looking at dynamics, then there may be other, more likely suspects. Principally, young versus old and the way and the way two distinct narratives have polarised the country. To say that racism still exists in America, is an obvious truth, but rather than adopt the pathological narrative of intersectional feminism, it might be fairer (and safer) to reassert the old perspective that although we have come a long way, we still have a long way to go. And let’s not forget that it’s the kids who have been indoctrinated in this new narrative, sitting round the dinner table, chiding their grandparents that whilst you can say people of colour, you can never say person of colour, if you are white.

    So you are right, there are underlying tensions and resentments that beset this case and socio-economic resentment, and the perceived lecturing and condescending privilege of the liberal elites probably is a factor. But the other resentment is the feeling, as Stephen Fry so eloquently put it in the Monk debates, paraphrasing somewhat, that we have all suddenly woken up in East Germany, with the Stasi listening for every mispoke word or phrase. Now, most Americans couldn’t name the root cause of this devisiveness, athough 80% will tell you that they are against political correctness, whilst of the 8% of those who subscribe to woke progressivism, 30% admit that it sometimes goes to far. But a large majority of Americans will tell you that they feel cheated somehow, given that it wasn’t so long ago, with Obama’s election, that we were all soon supposed to be living in a post-racial society.

    Most people who voted for Trump, will tell you that they don’t like him personally. A very common sentiment amongst his supporters, is the wish that someone would take his phone away. But the reason why they continue to support him is because of the economy, and the feeling that he has improved employment and employment prospects for everyone. In a recent Emerson poll, African American support for him almost doubled to 34%. Many commentators will tell you that it’s Kanye that made the difference, but I think a far more likely candidate is Dave Chapelle. He got up on that stage, said all those things and… the sky didn’t fall on his head. Instead he received overwhelming endorsement on Rotten Tomato.

    But back to Oberlin College and the verdict. I think that a significant number of those voters have been holding a grievance for a number of years. They didn’t like being told they were ignorant, just because they used an out-of-date phrase. They didn’t like being told they were ‘deplorables’ for considering voting for Trump and they certainly didn’t being called racist for him having won. They didn’t like being told. So this case comes along and it’s David vs. Goliath, the Gibson’s versus Oberlin College and they finally get their chance to have their say, to seek redress. Even better they get to stand up for the little guy- what could be more American than that? So you are right, there probably was a great deal of resentment vented in deliberation- the basic unfairness of it all given full vent. Not so much a rebellion as a revolution, against the arbitrary narratives of white oppression and patriarchy, because, despite it’s flaws, the West is the least racist, least oppressive and most egalitarian set of societies in the history of the world. That there is still progress to be made, there can be no doubt, but it has to be made under the auspices of our common humanity, instead of setting black against white, and man against woman.

Continue the discussion in Quillette Circle

68 more replies


Comments have moved to our forum