The Oberlin Review

“Grape”’s Editorial Reflects Dogmatism, Outrage Politics of Oberlin Students

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

Oberlin students, I’m glad to say, have retreated a few steps in recent years from the sort of divisive, outrage-fueled politics that would routinely erupt into conflagrations of bad discourse and unsolvable conflict on campus. This paradigm of activism flourished under Obama, but it doesn’t play as well in the current political era. The 2016 election offered something of a reality check. Suddenly our righteousness didn’t look so noble; our dogmatism didn’t look so pure. We are a little more open-minded now, and a little less reactionary. The campus feels calmer and more welcoming. It’s been a gratifying transformation to watch.

So, I was disheartened when last week The Grape chose to publish a flippant and brazenly misleading piece shoring up support among first-years for the now two-year-old boycott of Gibson’s Food Market and Bakery. The Gibson’s controversy is complex, subjective, and highly personal. The events were tragic and traumatizing. Newcomers to Oberlin ought to have a much fuller picture of the conflict than The Grape’s article offers before coming to any conclusions.

The author side-steps any substantive engagement with the facts of the case by suggesting that because of the lawsuit and because they once worked at Gibson’s, they must be careful to avoid “libeling” their former employer. Their caution is reasonable on the surface, and yet, when the article gives an account of the origin of the boycott, it is reductive to the point of being deceitful.

I don’t think it was meant to deceive — more likely, it was just ill-considered and under-informed — but nonetheless, publishing a piece this lacking in context and nuance was irresponsible. Writers should feel obliged to discuss serious issues affecting our community honestly and in good faith.

I was especially disturbed by the line chosen as the pull-quote by the editors: “I’m not going to tell you not to shop at Gibson’s, but I will tell you that the social implications of being seen at Gibson’s are much worse than most other freshman year faux pas I can imagine.” Is this really the sort of discourse we want to encourage? Threatening social blacklisting — a very real problem on this campus — to anyone who acts contrary to a prevailing set of ideas?

As the “Support Gibson’s” lawn signs sprouting up around Lorain County remind us, the Gibson’s boycott is not like the abstracted, at-a-distance activism typical of college campuses. Our actions on this front have a direct and dramatic impact on the lives and livelihoods of dozens of people in the greater Oberlin community. These people are not caricatures. They are not merely the sum of their worst inclinations. They are our hosts — when they push back against us, we owe them our sincere consideration. As students, we inevitably leave Oberlin behind, and with it, the repercussions of the choices we made here. But the residents of the town remain. They inherit our legacy.

I understand that dedicated proponents of the boycott like the author of the article in question are motivated by a genuine commitment to justice. But if we want to continue down this path, we have to ask ourselves — what would justice look like? What are our long-term goals? Why did we enter a boycott in the first place? Trump was elected the day before the protests started — did shock and dismay affect our judgement? And does an alleged history of racial profiling and the untoward violence of one angry young man justify shuttering a beloved small business that has served Oberlin since 1885? Because the chance that Gibson’s will have to close its doors for good is more significant than most of us seem to realize. Do we really want that, if it means alienating hundreds of our neighbors?

There are no easy answers to these questions, but they demand our engagement.

I encourage anyone so inclined, especially underclassmen, to talk to the Gibson family and its employees. Ask them about their motivations for the lawsuit. Talk to students, and ask about their motivations for the boycott. Read the reports. Read the coverage in The Grape and the Review. Then come to an informed decision.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 Responses to ““Grape”’s Editorial Reflects Dogmatism, Outrage Politics of Oberlin Students”

  1. Steven PATRICK Kennedy on September 22nd, 2018 10:49 AM

    Oberlin is still boycotting Gibsons? After the Police made public their records showing no racial profiling, and the student charged with shoplifting admitted his guilt and absolved Gibson’s of racism? I guess the egotistical activists are incapable of admitting a mistake.

  2. Brian McDonough on September 23rd, 2018 7:44 PM

    The real egotistical activists not admitting mistakes are Oberlin College and their loud mouth administrators. The inevitable jury verdict against them shall be the legal admission of, and the public’s condemnation of their legally binding mistakes. Have they “no sense of dignity?” Have they “no sense of shame?”

  3. Robin Harte on September 24th, 2018 11:56 AM

    It would be wise to remember that Gibson’s Bakery and the Gibson family are not the only victims here; most of Oberlin’s downtown merchants experience shoplifting as a chronic problem, causing persistent and often significant losses of revenue. While not all such crime is committed by students of the College, a lot is, which raises the obvious question: Why? Do Oberlin College students believe they’re entitled to take whatever they want when they see it or when the mood strikes them? Are students financially unable to afford what they want or need, and think that the shopowners must be able to sustain the loss of their goods? Is there no awareness that the stores of Oberlin are private businesses, that their revenues go toward supporting the families that own them?

    Blame undoubtedly belongs to many: the shoplifters themselves, of course; their parents, perhaps; society in general for fostering an undeserved sense of entitlement; our educational system perhaps, for not sufficiently addressing students’ moral development.

    But to blame the Gibsons for trying to prevent theft in their business is like blaming a professor who warns her students not to cheat on exams, then punishes them if they do. If you break the rules, you should be prepared to experience the consequences, whether in a classroom or in the real world.

  4. Errrr on October 10th, 2018 6:05 PM

    “The Gibson’s controversy is complex, subjective, and highly personal. ”

    No, it’s dead simple. A student tried to steal from the store. He was caught by a store worker and a bunch of other students took it upon themselves to beat the employee up. They thought they had a moral right and duty to enact vigilante justice based on their own prejudices. The Oberlin polity encouraged them in their delusion. It isn’t “highly personal”: they were encouraged in their self righteous entitledness by a narcissistic grievance culture.

    “The events were tragic and traumatizing.”

    Tragic? No. Deeply, deeply comic, just not terribly humorous. Traumatizing? Well, to the guy who got beaten up, yes. Everyone else, it was a matter of self inflicted wounds.

    It’s this mealy mouthed retreat into “Gosh, it’s all so complicated!” that is so toxic. A bit of moral clarity here: the students were wrong. Oberlin college was wrong. The editorials and commentators in this newspaper of yours were wrong. They got nothing right. Nothing at all. It was all petty venality and self righteous horse hockey to begin with, and it still is. Why you can’t simply say this is beyond me. It’s the truth, and it is what you should say, plainly and loudly, without qualification or equivocation. It’s good that the whole episode may have taught some very self important people a tiny bit of humility but that isn’t “traumatizing”. That way of phrasing it just removes from the poor “sufferers” the personal responsibility for their own vicious idiocy. Own this nonsense.

Please keep all comments respectful and relevant. The Review does not allow comments containing profanity, foul language, personal attacks, hate speech, or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. Comments are only published at the discretion of a moderator.

Established 1874.