1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running racism in America thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Scout, May 26, 2020.

  1. Mngwa

    Mngwa Well-Known Member

    It wasn't a pronouncement from Duke, it was the painful cry of a single athlete
     
    2muchcoffeeman likes this.
  2. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    The argument is that punitive damage have to be so large as to deter the next person or entity from yelling racist. In today’s society its the worst thing you can say to someone, maybe the equal of pedophile. But pedo is so outrageous that unless there’s context no one believes it. Oberlin owns the town and they yelled racist, they yelled it without evidence an when they were confronted with information that contradicted their screaming, they continued it anyway. Oberlin yelled it at a friend of the school’s for a decade to appease children and their knee jerk reaction to everything. But they have endowment of over a billion, so this wont effect the school in any way
     
    Tighthead likes this.
  3. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    If it were the painful cry of a student from Weber State or Rider College or Fordam University, it would have been lost in the News an Notes, maybe. When it says DUKE on the front of the Jersey, the Media pays attention
     
  4. X-Hack

    X-Hack Well-Known Member

    That contradicts nothing I said. As an attorney I'm well aware of the idea behind punitive damages. My point is that Oberlin's endowment -- while considerable -- is nothing compared to a wealth of a corporation like McDonald's (or others) and the punitive award they gave is waaaayyyyyyy out of whack with what was necessary to accomplish its purpose. Any school -- even with a 1B endownment -- will absolutely feel a judgment of 5M in compensatory damages, another couple million in punitives plus interest. The size of this award becomes a big windfall for the family. Good for them, of course. But again, when the self-styled hard-bitten realists bootlick for big corporations decrying relatively modest punitives awards for much more grievous PHYSICAL harm are amen-ing this one because they don't like the smug fucks in Oberlin administration, that makes a joke out of the justice system.
     
  5. Mngwa

    Mngwa Well-Known Member

    Actually, it got picked up from social media by the players aunt. Did more people care because it was Duke question? I don't know. But Black Twitter is a powerful entity. And it's still different from what you said making it sound like Duke orchestrated it. I think the aunt went public because she was pissed at the Duke coach didn't protect her player.
     
  6. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    And what did the coach have to say?
     
    Slacker likes this.
  7. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    Don’t put yourself in the same category as witches.
     
    heyabbott likes this.
  8. Tighthead

    Tighthead Well-Known Member

    I think the issue is that the punitives in the McDonalds case were too low. Yes the Oberlin quantum is disproportionate, but that doesn’t mean it’s the problem. With hindsight, I’d argue the McDs case was laughably low.
     
  9. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    There's also the non-trivial fact that the McDonalds case was 30 years ago. The numbers ain't exactly comparable.
     
    Fred siegle and sgreenwell like this.
  10. X-Hack

    X-Hack Well-Known Member

    Yeah but $1.9M back then would be worth about 4M today -- a quarter of the 20M punitives award in the Oberlin case (and the original punitives award was 33M, reduced under a state punitives cap).. And Stella Liebeck, the McDonald's plaintiff was, again turned in a national joke and slandered as greedily seeking a jackpot through a frivolous lawsuit that was, in reality, anything but. And the punitives award was -- as Tighthead concedes -- laughably low if you look at the the actual underlying facts. And she never even saw close to it -- McDonald's appealed the award and she settled for a confidential amount that was surely less. Yet NOBODY is questioning the size of the punitives award in the Oberlin case because the Oberlin folks are such caricatures. I get the bloodlust people have against the "woke mob" (though in most cases I question how big and influential that woke mob really is, for the most part -- though this case was an exception). And again, I'm fine with punitive damages as a means of stopping a bad actor from deciding that compensatory damages are just the cost of doing business. But the inconsistency bothers me. I mean, this bakery is still operating and despite the bullshit it had to contend with, it was actually pretty short lived. I would even guess that it's probably more profitable now than it was before the incident even occurred. And Oberlin isn't such a huge, well-heeled institution that it wouldn't feel something more proportionate. This was truly a political award.
     
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You just framed an equivalency of two things that are completely unrelated. One was nearly 30 years ago. The other was in the recent past. One was a comparative negligence / product liability case. The other is a defamation case.

    I understand if you think that $20 million in punitive damages is too much for what the university did to defame that bakery. But then just say that.

    FWIW. ... Whether McDonald's even should have been held liable (even just partially liable, as they were in that case) is way more questionable than your narrative of it. Which is why it is a poster child for excessive lawsuits. Nobody questions that the woman burned herself badly. She did. The question is who should have been held responsible (McDonald's liability or lack of it has nothing to do with it being a big corporation). A lot of people would argue that when you buy a hot liquid, it's incumbent on you to take care not to harm yourself with it. When people go into a Starbucks today, they are buying coffee heated to the same exact temperature as the coffee that burned that woman. Would most people buying those coffees think Starbucks is negligently selling them something?

    I don't even know how to compare Oberlin's role in destroying the business of that bakery to that McDonald's case, because the two things are so dissimilar. But in terms of defamation cases, their actual culpability seems so much more clearcut. There isn't anything like, "OK, the bakery may have been a little responsible for what happened, maybe the university was a little responsible."

    In any case, if your point is that you personally think that $20 million was too much penalty for what they did, you really should have just said that. I'd agree. You lost me with the whataboutism.

    I am personally not really that bothered by Oberlin having to pay an amount I find excessive, because punitive damages are designed to be punitive, and maybe if the financial burden is great enough so it is felt by the students and faculty of the college, they will reassess their behavior. But like most people, I tend to get most bothered by excessive awards when I think that any award wasn't justified.
     
  12. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    So.

    BYU / Duke

    - Something happened.

    - Nothing happened.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page