As Twitchy recently reported, über-liberal Oberlin College was recently ordered to pay the maximum of $33 million in damages to the owners of Gibson’s Bakery. In short, an employee at the business stopped three black Oberlin students from shoplifting alcohol. The super-woke Oberlin student body decided to protest in front of the bakery and organize a boycott, accusing the owners of having a long history of racial profiling.

Except they didn’t. And they proved it in court. What was the reason for the college cutting business ties with the bakery they’d done business with for more than a century? Administrators’ emails showed they were afraid their little snowflakes would “have a tantrum.” Police didn’t exactly buy that school administrators were just “chaperoning” students at the protests blocking the bakery, either.

Now, we’re learning even more about why that verdict was just thanks to a piece in The Atlantic.

Conor Friedersdorf reports:

The lawsuit goes on to allege that when David Gibson sat down with administrators to tell them about the devastating effect that defamation, boycotts, demonstrations, and refusal to do business with Gibson’s were having on his family’s store, Oberlin administrators sought to negotiate special treatment for shoplifting students in exchange for resuming relations with the bakery.

In short, Oberlin administrators said they’d consider resuming business with the bakery if the bakery would agree to not push criminal charges on first-time shoplifters; that would solve the “profiling” problem.

Even worse, the lawsuit alleged that “credit was given to students who attended the protest in lieu of classes, and administrators bought them food to support them.”