Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

First Amendment

Rutgers University Reverses Course, Affirms Free Speech Rights for Professor Accused of Anti-White Racism

"Any other result would have undermined the free speech and academic freedom rights of all Rutgers faculty members."

Robby Soave | 11.15.2018 2:05 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Rutgers
Tomwsulcer / Wikimedia Commons

A Rutgers University professor is no longer facing punishment for writing, "Okay, officially, I now hate white people," on social media.

Administrators had initially determined that this post violated university policy forbidding harassment and discrimination. But thanks to the efforts of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Rutgers has backed off.

History Professor James Livingston had complained that white people were overrunning a hamburger joint in Harlem, and about gentrification in general. (Livingston is white.) Facebook took down the post, and Rutgers found him guilty of breaking the faculty code. This could have resulted in suspension, or even termination.

Offensive or not, Livingston's statements were unquestionably protected under the First Amendment. Rutgers is a public university, and it can't discipline a professor for exercising his free speech rights. FIRE sent a letter to Rutgers President Robert Barchi reminding him of this, and the president ordered a review of the matter. The university has now reversed its finding of guilt, a spokesperson for FIRE told me.

"FIRE is pleased that Rutgers did the right thing and reversed the charge of racial discrimination against Professor Livingston," said Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon, FIRE's director of litigation. "Any other result would have undermined the free speech and academic freedom rights of all Rutgers faculty members."

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Hey, Libertarians! The Criminal Justice Reform Movement Sees You Out There

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

First AmendmentCampus Free SpeechFree Speech
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (35)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. JP88   7 years ago

    Good work by FIRE. Also, why would anyone go to Rutgers?

    1. AlmightyJB   7 years ago

      "why would anyone go to Rutgers"

      Bad at sports and everything else.

    2. mad.casual   7 years ago

      Good work by FIRE.

      Man, I don't know. "We'll see." might be the best description. I could see FIRE winning 100% selectively against all the anti-white bigotry that comes up and them, genuinely or not, shrugging their shoulders and saying "A win is a win." Not to imply malice on the part of FIRE, but it wouldn't be the first time an organization nominally against defamation turned on its principles and effectively defamed whole races of people.

    3. Azathoth!!   7 years ago

      Good work?

      They facilitated the double standard.

      Understand, had the professor written 'okay, now I hate black people' nothing would have made Rutgers change their tune. NOTHING.

      Rutgers had been forced to treat anti-white racism the way they treat anti-black racism.

      And FIRE stopped that.

      They fought for the wrong principle.

      1. SQRLSY One   7 years ago

        "They facilitated the double standard."

        Yeah man... Do the flipperoo...

        '"Okay, officially, I now hate white people," on social media.' ... Do that to black or Islamic or purple or green or Native American folks, instead, and see what happens!!!!

      2. Social Justice is neither   7 years ago

        If they're fighting for the principle then eventually they're going to have to sit on both sides of the standard. They fight enough for free speech without disclaimer or reservation that I can't fault FIRE here.

        That said, Rutgers should not have reversed course to my mind. You're either against hatred & bigotry or you are not. If it's all cool but only if it goes one way then being against those things isn't actually part of your core values without further modifiers they probably don't want to come out and say.

    4. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

      Rugters is ranked high nationally and internationally. It's a bargain if you live in New Jersey and want to visit the hometown on the weekends or hang out with your old friends who went to high school with you before going to Rugters.

  2. Francisco d'Anconia   7 years ago

    So...

    Is Rutgers repealing its policy forbidding harassment and discrimination?

    1. John   7 years ago

      Excellent question.

    2. John   7 years ago

      Excellent question.

    3. SchillMcGuffin   7 years ago

      Yeah... "Reverses course" seems a bit strong a description, given the selective enforcement of such things generally. I think there's a good argument that not dropping the charges would have been a broader victory for free speech, in that it would make everyone suffer equally under a bad policy.

  3. Billy Bones   7 years ago

    This is good news for the professor and for Freedom of Speech, but I have this nagging voice whispering to me that if this white professor posted the statement, "Okay, officially, I now hate black people", this story would have a much different ending.

    1. shortviking   7 years ago

      Exactly.

  4. Mickey Rat   7 years ago

    As long as it applies for the same thing said about other races.

    1. John   7 years ago

      Yeah, sure it does Mickey. Sure it does.

    2. AlmightyJB   7 years ago

      LOL. You're a riot!

  5. John   7 years ago

    How is a white person supposed to trust the treatment they recieve in this guy's class? I don't see how blatent statements of racism can not be considered something a University can prohibit as a term of employment. This is not him holding controversial or whacky political view. This is him saying he hates an entire race of people. Given the need for not only professors to treat their students fairly without discriminating and for the students to percieve that they are being treated fairly, I don't see how you can allow an avowed racist to be a college professor.

    1. JoeBlow123   7 years ago

      I honestly do not see why universities cannot sack whoever they want. If this was a corporate setting dude would be out already. If this was the military then I hope he enjoys being brought up on charges, reduction in rank. Not sure how universities have managed to create (selectively leftist) consequence free zones.

      1. John   7 years ago

        The claim is that they are run by the government and therefore restrained by the BOR. And I think that is correct. That, however, doesn't mean that Universities can never fire anyone even when they have a valid reason and have given the person due process. Here, I don't see how being an avowed racist of any kind is not a valid reason to fire someone whose job it is to give often subjective grades to students. If this guy were a researcher in a lab somewhere, it might be different. But he is a liberal arts professor.

        1. JoeBlow123   7 years ago

          If he worked for Treasurery or was a police dude I'm pretty sure he would be dropped. Probably not be out within a day but would be gone I bet. Not sure why Universities are more (consequence) free than anywhere else. Shit, I went to a school (Colorado) that had a Professor named Ward Churchill who faked being a Native American and called the people killed in WTC "little Eichmans." Took years to fire his ass.

      2. JoeJoetheIdiotCircusBoy   7 years ago

        Rutgers is a public university. As such, it "at least in theory" has to uphold constitutional principles. This is why (public) universities cannot sack whoever they want.

        And, if I remember this story correctly, there is no evidence that the professor discriminated against his students or any students on the basis of color. Granted, he made this stupid/idiotic tirade, but there is no evidence that this influenced his classroom. Now, yes, I know some people are going to likely argue that where there is smoke there is fire, but if we go down that path then people have every right to fire faculty for making statements against gay marriage (he is discriminating against his LGBT students), supporting Republican candidates (he supports white supremacy, so he must discriminate against his non-white students), libertarian faculty (he wants to destroy the publicly funded university), etc. etc.

    2. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

      You can't sack a professor for being racist off the clock, because the alternative is following professors around with a camera all the time to record any possible bias. (But enough about TL.) You can have someone not employed by the university monitor off the clock activity to identity professors to watch on the clock. If anyone finds bias on the clock, that is grounds for termination. Any professor bold enough to say, "I hate White people," on social media probably has enough problematic papers published in academic journals to get him fired if normal people actually read his work.

  6. Average Dude   7 years ago

    Guy sounds like a complete tool bag. And of course he has every right to be a complete tool bag.

    1. AlmightyJB   7 years ago

      My right to be an asshole shall not be infringed! / not sarc

      1. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

        My neighbor is a dick and agrees with you on this point.

  7. Sigivald   7 years ago

    I agree.

    Though I think they ought to fire him for being stupid and thinking of people only as categories, not individuals.

    Because those two things make him bad at his job.

  8. Dillinger   7 years ago

    white guy gets racist-ed for racist-ing white people, then doesn't. beautiful.

  9. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

    Back when I taught high school, the union rep told us we had the right to say and publish anything we wanted off the clock provided we did not present the statement as coming from the school.

  10. I'm Not Sure   7 years ago

    "History Professor James Livingston had complained that white people were overrunning a hamburger joint in Harlem, and about gentrification in general. (Livingston is white.)"

    White people other than him, no doubt.

    1. Eddy   7 years ago

      Yeah, that part is really weird.

      1. Eddy   7 years ago

        ...but he probably thinks he's one of the *good* white people, you know, the ones who don't want black businesses to have too many white customers.

  11. Eddy   7 years ago

    I think FIRE was probably pushing against an open door, demanding the right for professors to be racist against white people.

    I'm surprised the professor even got in trouble in the first place.

    The complaint from FIRE probably gave them the chance to back away from a stance they felt uncomfortable taking in the first place.

    1. Eddy   7 years ago

      I'm aware that the remark was probably meant to be, by his standards, light-hearted, but that excuse usually doesn't work. I mean, "ha ha I hate black people now" probably wouldn't be written off as just a harmless joke.

      I guess maybe he could invoke the Chris Rock defense, that he's making fun of his own group. That defense also gets Jewish comics, for example, off the hook for what might be a blacklisting* offense for a gentile comic.

      *no pun intended

  12. OsamasPornStache   7 years ago

    What about Professor Michael Chikindas who was disciplined for anti semetic Facebook posts last year FIRE was silent in that case at the same university no less.

  13. Curly4   7 years ago

    A Rutgers University professor is no longer facing punishment for writing, "Okay, officially, I now hate white people," on social media.

    I wonder what kind of repercussions this white professor would be facing if he had said 'Okay, officially, I now hate black people' on social media.?

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Overruling Trump's Tariffs Should Be an Easy Decision for SCOTUS

Damon Root | 6.5.2025 7:00 AM

What Ronald Reagan's Fusionist Politics Teach Us About Liberty, Virtue, and Their Limits

Stephanie Slade | From the July 2025 issue

Brickbat: Not Permitted

Charles Oliver | 6.5.2025 4:00 AM

The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Add $2.4 Trillion to the Deficit

Eric Boehm | 6.4.2025 5:05 PM

Anti-Israel Violence Does Not Justify Censorship of Pro-Palestinian Speech

Robby Soave | 6.4.2025 4:31 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!