MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rutgers Can Criticize a White Professor for Anti-White Racism, But Punishing Him Would Violate Free Speech

"Okay, officially, I now hate white people" is a gross statement that deserves First Amendment protection.

RutgersRickyrab / Wikimedia CommonsAdministrators at Rutgers University have determined that a history professor, James Livingston, violated the university's policy against discrimination and harassment when he wrote on Facebook: "Okay, officially, I now hate white people" and called Caucasians "assholes."

This is a bad outcome for academic freedom. If Rutgers takes punitive action against a professor for making insensitive comments about white people on social media, it will chill free speech on campus and imperil the right of faculty members to address controversial subjects.

Livingston, who is white, made his comments on Facebook after visiting a hamburger joint in Harlem. He described it as "overrun with little Caucasian assholes."

"I hereby resign from my race," he wrote. "Fuck these people."

Facebook determined that Livingston had violated its nebulous community standards and removed the post. And, after a bevy of campus watchdog groups weighed in, Rutgers leapt into action, according to Inside Higher Ed.

Livingston has claimed he was trying to make a point about gentrification, and was using satirical language. Ever since, he's been flooded with hateful messages from white supremacists. But one doesn't have to be a white supremacist to find Livingston's comments distasteful. If he wanted to complain about gentrification, he could have done that without expressing contempt for people because of the color of their skin.

Livingston has also argued that his post cannot possibly be racist, because there's no such thing as racism against white people. This is the theory, popular among the intersectional left—particularly in academia—that because white people have not suffered structural oppression, they cannot be victims of racism. (See the Slate Star Codex article below for an extended discussion of lefty obfuscation on this subject.)

But even if Livingston is wrong about anti-white racism—and to be clear, I think that he is—Rutgers has no business disciplining a professor for wrongthink. Such a course of action would violate the First Amendment (Rutgers is a public university) and would send a message that controversial subjects are off-limits on campus. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes:

Rutgers' actions come at a time when the American Association of University Professors has voiced "increasing concerns about efforts to intimidate and harass faculty" online. In a 2017 report on the trend, the AAUP called on college administrators to "defend academic freedom and to condemn targeted harassment and intimidation of faculty members"—something that Rutgers has refused to do in Livingston's case.

"By capitulating to anonymous outrage generated by an internet mob, Rutgers has shamefully betrayed its obligation to its faculty and the public, trivialized actual harassment, and signaled to would-be censors nationwide that its faculty may be silenced at will and without resistance," wrote FIRE Director of Litigation Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon in FIRE's letter to the university.

This isn't an ambiguous situation. Livingston is not accused of harassing or discriminating against any specific student. His comments weren't even about students, and they occurred outside the classroom. It might be a different matter if he retaliated against a student for challenging his notion that anti-white racism is impossible, but no one has alleged that he did so. This is a simple free-speech case, and a powerful reminder that speech restrictions threaten left-wing as well as right-wing expression.

Photo Credit: Rickyrab / Wikimedia Commons

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>"I hereby resign from my race," he wrote

    "race". just be a people, idiot. super-easy.

  • Ron||

    they complained when the white people left and then they complain when they come back I guess you just can't make people happy.

  • Kivlor||

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Yeah, fuck those people for using their free will to decide where to have a burger.

    What a pretentious asshole this guy is. Not to mention that he was, uh, a white guy in the same burger joint in Harlem that he thought was overrun with white people. So he checks off the hypocrisy box as well.

  • perlchpr||

    This was going to be my comment. It was all those other white people in the Harlem burger joint that are the problem, not him. What a fuckstain.

  • H. Farnham||

    Didn't you read the rest of the tweet? He resigned from his race... I guess racially fluid is a thing now.

  • John||

    He is just another poor black man living in the white man's world Farnham.

  • H. Farnham||

    A black man's oppression yet still wielding a white man's pecker... true victim status.

  • Johnny B||

  • D-Pizzle||

    "I was born a poor, black child."

  • Longtobefree||

    No more genetic than sex, right?

  • creefer||

    I can't really agree here. This person is in charge of students who he must impartially grade. Hard to do your job when you hate half of them.

  • Jason Dawes the Elder||

    And that's exactly why the first amendment doesn't protect the speech here.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    By that standard, no Republican could teach at an integrated school.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Hey, Artie, you REALLY fucked that one up. It's like you're not even trying anymore. Too busy with the harvestin?

    But don't worry, we'll fix it for you--


    By that standard, no Democrat could teach at an integrated school.

    That was an easy one.

    Hick.

  • H. Farnham||

    I have to disagree here. I think universities (whether public or private) should be able to discipline staff for unprofessional behavior or conduct. Further, I think any employer should hold employees to standards of civility if the conduct in question will reflect upon the organization. This guy is free to get a job elsewhere that doesn't take issue with his level professionalism.

    And just to equivocate, my opinion on the matter would be the same if a professor were to tweet out something like, "many Muslims are terrorists, I hate Muslims."

  • John||

    If a corporation kept people who made public proclamations of their racism in management positions they would be sued into bankruptcy. But somehow Robby thinks the taxpayers of New Jersey must do just that in the name of "free speech".

    Further, the idea that Robby would hold the same position if a state school employed a professor who proclaimed to hate black people is so laughable it is hard to even type the words. God Robby is a douche bag.

  • H. Farnham||

    To me, the ideology or intent is immaterial in a situation like this. It's simply unprofessional and juvenile to make public statements of that nature. Even though standards for 'professionalism' or 'civility' can be very arbitrary or ambiguous, employers should absolutely hold there employees accountable.

  • John||

    You are absolutely right. Professors are given a lot of power and the entire system depends on people trusting their grades to be reflective of merit. You can't employ professors who say things like that that call their assessments of students into question.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    In k though 12 education, teachers are allowed to say and publish whatever they want off the clock without risking their careers. I guess professors should enjoy the same liberty.

  • What's that smell?||

    Citation please.

  • Jerry B.||

    Not so much. This teacher was suspended for exercising, albeit in an unusual way.

    Pole Dancing Teacher

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Always take anyone who uses the term "white supremacist" with a huge grain of salt.

    I've met while nationalists, and white separatists, but I've never met anyone who referred to themselves as a white supremacist.

    Those are all distinct terms with distinct meanings. Attempting to conflate them is a sure sign of cluelessness.

  • H. Farnham||

    To be honest, I'm about as concerned with the distinctions of those three terms as I am with distinguishing between communist, Stalinist, and socialist. Actually, I'd probably just lump all six terms together as being 'collectivist'.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    And I'll bet you're the first one to take exception to people who lump libertarians in with libertines.

  • H. Farnham||

    No, I really don't care then either. My values and principles aren't guided by labels.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The difference between Japanese ethno nationalists and Japanese ethno supremacists is 15-20 million dead Koreans and Chinese.

    The difference between ethno nationalists and ethno supremacists matters.

  • vek||

    You could even go further. IMO one could be an ethno supremacist, but if you have no intention or desire for an expansionist/imperialistic foreign policy, even that doesn't matter.

    In reality the official part line in China is that Chinese people ARE the master race. They talk up the fact that Chinese people have the highest IQs in the world, along with Japanese and Koreans. This is excluding the Jews of course who score even higher, but they're a pretty small group... So China #1!!!

    That is literally a mainstream talking point in China. They also reject the out of Africa theory, and say that East Asians evolved separately from whites and blacks from a further back common ancestor. ALL THAT SAID whatever geopolitical goals China has, I don't see them having any intention of invading and mass murdering millions of people specifically because of their race. And they LITERALLY are ethno supremacists as official policy.

    Ethno nationalists are definitely not a problem except in the minds of idiots.

  • Kivlor||

    You sound an awful lot like a white supremacist who consorts with known white supremacists, using white supremacist dog whistles

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I hear whistles other people don't hear. You should trust my judgment."

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Whistling isn't always catcalling. Sometimes it's intended to draw the attention of neighbors when you notice an out-of-towner on the block. :P

  • Microaggressor||

    It's the same thing as fascist.
    When used by a marxist, it refers to anyone opposed to marxism.
    The term white supremacist refers to anyone opposed to neomarxism.

    Opposing the equity doctrine is interpreted as advocating in favor of inequality.
    These people aren't big on critical thinking.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    but I've never met anyone who referred to themselves as a white supremacist.

    Richard Spencer and his many followers?

  • Kivlor||

    Richard Spencer calls himself a "white separatist". Other people call him a supremacist. Proving the guy's point.

    That said, Spencer has done more to harm the white identitarian movement in the US than he has helped it.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    If I said "I believe the white race is inherently superior to other races", then I'm in effect calling myself a white supremacist. Even if I didn't use the term.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Now, show us a quote from someone who actually said that.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Ok then Jared Taylor if you prefer. The point is that there are plenty.

  • Kivlor||

    Good God you are retarded. Taylor is a far cry from a Supremacist. He styles himself as a "Huwite Advocate" and does not seem to hold any notion that huwites are superior to other races, rather that all races are merely different from each other.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Oh for fucks sake, of course he does. He says that blacks aren't capable of cobbling together civilization. He says that whites have a genetic predisposition to be more ethical and more intelligent. Sure, "more ethical" and "more intelligent" doesn't necessarily equal "superior", but come on.

    I mean Jesus... If you want to play the semantics game to try to convince people that there aren't white supremacists out there, go right the fuck ahead. It doesn't matter who the exact names are -- whether Spencer, Taylor, or some other d-bag. I don't follow any of them closely enough to give a shit. But I think most rational people know exactly what someone means when they say a certain race is inherently "more ethical" and "more intelligent".

  • sharmota4zeb||

    To be fair, how is that different from the claim that black people are always on the oppressed side of the equation? Social Justice Warriors take it for granted that black people are "more ethical".

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I don't think you have to argue that a group is intrinsically, biologically "more ethical" in order to argue that they've been oppressed by a group of people or a government. Pot smokers probably aren't more ethical than non-smokers, but it would be hard to argue that they haven't been targeted and oppressed for a very long time.

  • vek||

    To be fair, you have to realize that almost 100% of people you would call "white supremacists" nowadays ACTUALLY could be more properly argued to be Jewish or Asian supremacists... Because they tend to accept the infinitely massive amounts of scientific evidence that ALWAYS show Jews, Asians, then whites and others in terms of intelligence and most other "positive" traits.

    So ethno nationalists, identitarians, sure. They are definitely those things. Supremacists... When you accept that other ethnicities are smarter on average and have other positive qualities (criminality, out of wedlock births, etc etc etc) at higher rates than your own people... I dunno man, it's a stretch.

    Modern white nationalists mostly just accept the body of scientific and statistical research at face value, which means whites get the Bronze medal. But they're okay with that.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Because they tend to accept the infinitely massive amounts of scientific evidence that ALWAYS show Jews, Asians, then whites and others in terms of intelligence and most other "positive" traits.

    I'd love to see some of this evidence.

    Supremacists... When you accept that other ethnicities are smarter on average and have other positive qualities

    I tried to be careful in my terminology here, using the words "inherent" and "intrinsic" rather than outcomes based. For example, if you look at land ownership a year after slavery is abolished, one could conclude that white people are better at land ownership than black people. But this isn't an INTRINSIC quality, it's a situational one.

  • vek||

    Google "Race Realism" and watch some of the videos that haven't been pulled from YouTube, or read some articles. It's a massive thing. There are in fact many non whites who thoroughly believe in a genetic basis in the huge intelligence score gaps.

    The short version is that these gaps show up everywhere, under every circumstance, and always in the same hierarchy. Twin studies, multi generational studies, mixed race people studies, all seem to point towards a strong, but not 100%, genetic basis. This is of course "racist" and so many mainstream academics decry it, and endlessly try to find environmental reasons to explain it... But not a single study has ever been able to eliminate a large genetic factor.

    Modern white nationalists accept that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQs on average. They say as much in their videos/articles.

  • vek||

    As for situational versus intrinsic... As I said, these gaps appear everywhere and under all circumstances. Starving children in North Korea have only a couple point disadvantage over South Koreans, despite them having all the positive environmental attributes the environmental hypothesis people say make up the gap in the USA/Europe with minorities. NK has a 20 point higher IQ score on average versus American blacks, which get the highest scores of any blacks in the world. It's a 30+ point improvement over many actual African countries, which likely suffer from environmental factors like lack of food etc. American blacks are also about 25% genetically European on average.

    Mulatto race blacks in the USA tend to score almost exactly between the black and white averages, even when they were raised in black environments and consider themselves solely black.

    One could go on forever. The body of evidence points towards genetic causes... But that is "unthinkable" in the modern world. I'm not 100% either way on the subject, but I think it is highly likely that the 60-70% genetic versus environmental factors with respect to IQ is probably realistic. That's the most common range most studies tend to find.

    If it was purely environmental, one would expect to find exceptions to the rule. A place where East Asians had sub par scores, and blacks had above average ones, etc. No such exceptions exist. Sooo make of that what you will...

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    There are in fact many non whites who thoroughly believe in a genetic basis in the huge intelligence score gaps.

    I understand. And no evidence is provided. I was asking about evidence. That there are studies that show outcome-based results without any mechanistic explanation (genetic or otherwise) do not constitute evidence to support the hypothesis. If you have any SPECIFIC studies to cite, I promise to read them.

    But not a single study has ever been able to eliminate a large genetic factor.

    Proving the null hypothesis is not the way to go about things.

  • vek||

    Lemme ask you a question... If every single "circumstantial" piece of evidence, which let's say ends up being THOUSANDS of circumstantial pieces, ALL point in a single direction... If one HAD to take a guess about something, which direction is the logical one to choose? The one where every single piece of evidence points, or the one where ZERO evidence points?

    Tons of studies have been done specifically to pick out the genetic versus environmental component in IQ. They've all concluded genetics is between 50-80%, with 60-70% being the most common. You might find some stuff of interest on this BLACK mans blog:

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/

    He is a believer in almost all traits being highly genetic in origin, but he has plenty on intelligence. He goes out on a limb on some stuff IMO, but has lots of good commentary, links in posts etc. He's also a liberal! Weird mix of ideology there...

    I never wanted to believe in genetic differences... But the evidence points that way. I still HOPE that it isn't the case, and some magic silver bullet takes all the other evidence down... But the only "proof" I've ever seen to doubt the current evidence is purely political in nature, not scientific. It's basically, "It can't be true! That's racist!" Which, FYI, is not an argument. I don't think the randomness of evolution cared about making everybody exactly equal in ALL ways so that it wouldn't offend 21st century ultra egalitarians political sensibilities.

  • vek||

    The truth is, different genetic groups ("races" not even actually being a real good dividing line) have pros and cons over each other. Physically and mentally. Some of this is so obvious we can't ignore it, like height differences. Others are juuust obscured enough in day to day life, even though they clearly show in statistics, that we've convinced ourselves they can't possibly be true... Because we don't WANT them to be true.

    It's the exact same situation with male/female differences. Massive and clear differences in physical and mental traits show up clear as day in statistics, but the crazy left now won't even accept there ARE genders. You think people THAT crazy wouldn't sweep ethnic differences under the carpet?

    The evidence is still just stacking up even further too. They've now identified the first several hundred genes related to intelligence... Methinks they will find them in varying quantities in different folks...

    Sooner or later I think people will have to accept reality. It is STILL the commonly held belief in Asia actually. The official ChiCom party line is that East Asians are the smartest people on earth, they're not shy about saying it either. We've basically had a 50ish year run in the west where ZERO differences has been the common belief, out of all of human history. I think people will go back to accepting differences, but hopefully still being nice to each other.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Can you demonstrate that Robby has taken that position before? I don't remember him calling for people in academia for being fired for the content of their message.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    From a legal perspective, you're correct. I think corporations should have the ability to discipline staff for these things. Like you, I would also extend it to public companies. (e.g. the boss at a post office should obviously be able to discipline an employee for saying "I hate white people" to every customer who comes in)

    But, legality aside, I think we should be mindful that one of the jobs of university faculty is to push the envelope. Systematically censoring speech in an academic setting is a very dangerous road to start going down.

  • ThanksForTheFish||

    Here's a better idea. Stop trying to hold the employer responsible for what a single employee thinks or says away from work.

    If this douchebag said this on campus, I'll help light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks. But I don't want my employer monitoring me after hours, and I alone am responsible for what I say and do.

  • Teddy Pump||

    If a white Rutgers professor said "black people are stupid & I hate them!" they would be instant toast!

  • JoeBlow123||

    +1

    Do not post things on Facebook or Twitter if you are too dumb to realize they might come with repercussions. Apparently this guy is too dumb to have realized this and should accordingly be hit in the face with the hammer of reality.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    What you just said would apply to the majority of Americans then.

  • John||

    Rutgers is a state school. And the people of New Jersey are obligated to pay taxes and the salaries of professors who hate them? Yes, free inquiry should be encouraged at universities. But what is the value of lines of inquiry that consist of hating millions of people because of the color of their skin? Isn't there no statement, no matter how appalling and offensive that the taxpayers of New Jersey should not pay to support in the name of "free speech"?

    Lastly, how can a college continue to employ a professor who claims to hate the majority of its students because of their race? How can any white person who takes this guy's classes know they are going to be treated fairly? They can't and that alone warrants this guy being fired. I really don't see how it is unreasonable or a violation of free speech for the State of New Jersey to say "if you are a racist of any kind you can't teach at our colleges"

  • Hunthjof||

    Add how many Alumni might stop donations or reduce them cause of this Goobernuggets behavior. Especially stupid since the owners of the business denounced what he said.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    It doesn't matter, as long as the University is government run, they are bound by the US Constitution generally and the 1st Amendment specifically as a state actor. That is well established law.

  • Longtobefree||

    Bad news Matt - -
    The constitution applies to private and public institutions. Actually, it applies to individuals; in either public or private institutions.

  • Alcibiades||

    Bad news Matt - -
    The constitution applies to private and public institutions. Actually, it applies to individuals; in either public or private institutions.

    Private colleges are not bound by the same restrictions as public institutions of higher learning.
    If you enroll at a private college that says it respects and upholds freedom of expression and you find out it does anything and you get expelled then you may have a case against the college, not because it violated your First Amendment rights but rather because it broke the terms of the contract you entered into when you signed up to go there.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I don't disagree with you, but I really do think this is a poor application of the first amendment. Your first amendment right guarantees that you can't be prosecuted for what you say (even though this is violated all the time -- for example, try saying fuck over public airwaves -- so let's not pretend America is perfect in this regard). But it doesn't guarantee that you can continue to be employed. The rights to do stuff without being imprisoned do not extend to rights to do things without being fired by a government employer.

    Not that I'm suggesting he's fired for this. But it should not be a freedom of speech issue.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    consist of hating millions of people because of the color of their skin

    That's not why people hate white people (or black people). They hate the culture. The skin color is irrelevant. A black guy with vitiligo is no less hated by people who hate black people.

    This may seem trivial but the point is that the judgment follows realistic, cultural divides. People who claim to hate black people are often ok with black people as long as they're dressed in a suit and tie, don't speak with a black accent, and behave like they expect white people to behave. Likewise, when this guy said he hated white people, he probably meant he hated the culture that supported a history of conquest, capitalism, and other stuff that he finds unpalatable.

    This isn't a defense of the stereotype -- I'm pointing out that many of us find certain behaviors distasteful and we put a name to those groups (e.g. we don't like liberals). The notion that you can eliminate bias is absurd. What's important is that students have a viable avenue where they can challenge grades. Rutgers does this quite well.

  • vek||

    This, unlike many of your other posts, is pretty close to reality. People hate ghetto ass black culture. The problem for blacks is that a way higher percentage of blacks have "bad" culture, versus say white trash folks, which middle class+ white people also hate. This is why white people love Asians... They out white white people in most ways statistically. Other than having bad voting patterns, I friggin' love Asians.

    Of course the ultimate question with respect to racial divides, is can it be any other way? That's where the biological versus society-created-the-problem argument comes into play. Those that take the IQ test scores, and the endless reams of other evidence at face value, simply don't think blacks can be any other way. They never have been after all, not anywhere in the entire world, under any circumstances. They're basically a permanent sub-class in a white/Asian society, hence a problem. The other side thinks it's ALL white peoples fault somehow.

    Personally I think it's a little column A, little column B. I believe in science, even when it produces inconvenient results... But I also believe eliminating the welfare state and victim hood ideology could go a long way. We'll see how it all plays out.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Of course the ultimate question with respect to racial divides, is can it be any other way?

    Of course it can. That's where tolerance comes in (I hate this word, but probably for reasons different from you). Other cultures are and can be perfectly functional. It's easy to say that victimhood should be cast aside, but the US government has been massively oppressive for a very long time. There are lots of victims out there whose stories should be acknowledged. Libertarianism aims to end that oppression. Until we've ended that oppression, I don't think you can say that population statistics reflect intrinsic qualities of a group or subgroup.

    I continue to maintain that libertarianism is the ULTIMATE means to ending systemic bias and discrimination and facilitating socioeconomic mobility.

  • vek||

    Well, read my post above. Actual racists, or "race realists," do believe some qualities are a result of evolution. Many scientific studies point this direction. They MAY be wrong, but there is quite a body of evidence. Frankly I think it would be the default assumption with the evidence pointing where it does, except it is wildly politically incorrect.

    I know many other societies are pretty nice... Like ones in Asia. Who by IQ testing, actually have higher IQs than Europeans. Outside of there, things get pretty messy compared to the bar set by Asian and European countries. IQ And The Wealth Of Nations found that the average IQ in a nation directly correlates to how economically successful it is. IQ also correlates with crime, divorce rates, and a million other things.

    IF these facts are correct, then we can never have equal outcomes, because we don't have equal abilities. This is the argument "racists" make. I'm all for eliminating oppressive laws, but if that still yields vastly different outcomes... What then?

    In other words, if in a fair system, people still fail what do you do? What if there are genetic differences in AVERAGE traits. Individuals can still be smart or dumb of course, but at the statistical level this will show different groups with vastly different outcomes. Libertarianism assumes we're all equal, but if that's not the case, it has strong implications for a lot of stuff.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    They MAY be wrong, but there is quite a body of evidence.

    Just one paper. Should be easy to find if there's "quite a body of evidence".

    I'm all for eliminating oppressive laws, but if that still yields vastly different outcomes... What then?

    Then nothing. I don't need to see equal outcomes to be satisfied. I need to see equal treatment under the law first and foremost (which does not presently exist), and then I'd like to see equal societal treatment -- although I don't believe the latter should be legislated.

  • vek||

    See the link to a blog above, which does link to papers/studies. I can't walk you through shit tons of stuff I've read over the years. Buy The Bell Curve, or IQ and The Wealth Of Nations books. GOOGLE RACE REALISM as I said. You'll have 100s of hours of reading/watching to do if you want. I'm not playing the "give me a magic link that will change my whole worldview" game.

    "I need to see equal treatment under the law first and foremost (which does not presently exist)"

    Here's the problem... IF there are differences between people, there can never be the APPEARANCE of equal treatment, because the groups that are more troublesome will be committing more crimes, and getting arrested more.

    IQ is actually the best predictor of criminality. Better than income, race, anything. Whites and blacks of the same IQ have almost identical incarceration rates. The differences is in IQ distribution. More blacks come out at the lower IQs that tend to be associated with criminality. Therefore it APPEARS to be disparate treatment, but in fact may simply be equal enforcement on a more criminal group. The numbers based on IQ bell curves for whites/blacks come out almost identical to observed incarceration rates.

    Keep in mind this is all stuff mainstream people won't touch with a 10 foot pole. The raw numbers and things often get collected in innocuous ways, through mainstream studies, but you crunch the numbers and pull out nuggets of truth like the above, and all of a sudden you're a pariah.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I could understand if students start conducting teach-ins at his classes.

  • John||

    This isn't an ambiguous situation. Livingston is not accused of harassing or discriminating against any specific student. His comments weren't even about students, and they occurred outside the classroom.

    It is called the appearance of impropriety, you half wit. How can any white student who takes this person's class have any faith that they are being treated fairly? They can't. And that is why Rutgers has every right and in fact a duty to fire this dipshit.

  • John||

    http://pjmedia.com/trending/l-.....he-people/

    It is a fair point to say this is a small group of losers not worth paying attention to. That point, however, cannot be made by people like Reason who made an enormous story out of 20 losers attending the Unite the Right March in Washington. If that is a big deal, then this should be a bigger deal.

    It is not and reason won't say a word about it because reason just can't believe that the left can ever really be that bad. The left in reason's view are just well meaning nice people who are mistaken. If and when these losers ever do do something terrible, Robby will dutifully be trotted out to point out that "sure violence is always bad and they were wrong here but lets not forget the real dangers posed by the right or let the right's desire to politicize this take away from that danger..." The fact that these people would if they could take Robby out and shoot him in the back of the head and leave him in a ditch to rot will never enter his mind. If that ever did happen, the last thought that would go through Robby's head before the bullet did would be how the whole thing was just some big misunderstanding caused by the evil right.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Stalinists had good intentions, but..."

  • Mickey Rat||

    Of course, it is also a bad outcome if Rutgers does not punish Livingston but would punish him if his comments were about another race.

    What is really concerning is the absolutism of his worldview that rationalizes his attitude as being correct. European domination of world affairs has been a relatively new thing in world history, coming about as central and east asian empires were simultaneously entering a state of decrepitude which just happened to work in the favor of the Western powers.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Remind me again where Poland's colonies in Africa were.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "European domination of world affairs has been a relatively new thing in world history."

    Hey, as a history professor, this guy is well aware that conquerors like Atilla the Hun, Genghis Khan, the Mughuls who took over India, and the medieval Muslim Caliphate were all a bunch of old, white, Christian men!

    Who's gonna know that better than a history professor, right?

  • Microaggressor||

    White guilt complexes are just kind of sad. None of these people lead a fulfilling life. Just an outpouring of impotent rage at the fact that we don't live in utopia. But utopia is always just around the corner, if only certain behaviors could be corrected...

  • John||

    It is just moral narcissism. To this guy him understanding the evil nature of his race makes him morally superior to all of those white people who don't. Black people are just the means by which he asserts his moral superiority over other white people. Yes, it is pathetic.

  • Microaggressor||

    It's funny, though. This sort of status climbing only works with his fellow cultists. Normal people see it and conclude they belong in the loony bin. That's why I want to see more of this.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Thanks, John. My parents are starting to make more sense now.

  • vek||

    Yeah, it's sad. That's why I just rock it nowadays. If anybody whines about white people doing XYZ, I basically just say "So what? We kicked ass and took names, it's sweet! If the Chinese, or Zulu, or Aztecs had been the ones to get boom sticks first they would have gladly invaded and conquered everybody else too... So why should I feel bad about shit I had nothing to do with?"

    A lot of leftists are taken aback so much they basically don't know what to say. Because it's so obviously true. I can of course bust out endless historical details about this stuff, like how the Aztec empire was only taken out by Cortez because of Indian allies who HATED them so much for being ruthless, blood thirsty tyrants. Basically I shut them down hard, and most of them take it like a bitch because there is no rebuttal.

  • Incredulous||

    Yeah, he's a self-hating racist scumbag. I have to disagree with Robby. If the professor would be fired for racist statements against "people of color" (and I believe he would be), then he should be fired for these statements. Otherwise, the University is being hypocritical and racist itself by condoning anti-white racism exclusively.

    As for the idea that racism against whites isn't possible, why even mention such obvious idiocy. It's similar to giving credibility to those who think the world is flat.

  • John||

    The biggest mistake we are making is to consult murderers. White people are 9% of the population, they own 79% of land. They never came and consulted us for the land. If they want us to forgive them now, then let us share the land, the mineral resources."

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.co.....murderers/

    White racism is just impossible. Robby actually believes that.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, he believes it's possible in this very piece.

    It is fair to say that he is far more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, however.

  • John||

    True. I just don't believe Robby and give him zero benefit of the doubt.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The irony of this statement is that the land the Boers settled on in South Africa was uninhabited when they arrived.

  • Jerryskids||

    I really don't care if the guy hates white people. Fortunately for me, I'm a pinkish-tan people.

  • Microaggressor||

    I keep hearing about this orange person who's a white supremacist. Why does he hate himself so much?

  • Brandybuck||

    What if he said the exact same thing about any other race. There's your answer. Fire his ass.

    This is not a free speech issue, it's about the freedom of Rutgers not to associate with this asshole any longrer. He can spew his hatred all he wants while standing in the unemployment line.

  • Alcibiades||

    It is called the appearance of impropriety, you half wit. How can any white student who takes this person's class have any faith that they are being treated fairly? They can't. And that is why Rutgers has every right and in fact a duty to fire this dipshit.

    I don't agree and firing him would clearly violate his First Amendment rights.
    And even setting that aside, legally you need evidence of impropriety, the odd tweet doesn't even remotely approach that requirement.

  • John||

    Legally you don't need evidence of impropriety. Part of being a professor is your students having faith in your judgement being fair. If they can't have that, and clearly no white student could, then the guy can't teach anymore.

  • Alcibiades||

    You need evidence that he's not being impartial in his teaching duties.
    A tweet doesn't cut it.
    He's an idiot, so let the social shaming begin but let's not sully our First Amendment principles for this moron.

  • John||

    Bullshit. If I make no secret that I hate a particular race of people, I can not be trusted to treat those people fairly.

  • Kivlor||

    I think John is right on this technically falling under "appearance" rather than "evidence". And publicly saying what he said would give the appearance of impartiality.

    That said, I'm actually opposed to firing people for holding racist views, even though race traitors like him deserve the lowest circle of hell. I'm generally opposed to going after peoples jobs for saying bad things or having bad thoughts.

  • Rossami||

    No, actually you don't need that evidence Alcibiades. It would be nice if they had it but like most other states in the US, New Jersey is an employment-at-will state. Livingstone can quit at any time for any reason or none - and his employer has the same right.

  • Alcibiades||

    No, actually you don't need that evidence Alcibiades. It would be nice if they had it but like most other states in the US, New Jersey is an employment-at-will state. Livingstone can quit at any time for any reason or none - and his employer has the same right.

    Not if he has tenure and/or an employment contract that says otherwise.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    "Okay, officially, I now hate white people"

    Isn't that literally hate-speech, and isn't hate-speech prohibited on campus? Doesn't the administration have a legal duty to provide a safe space to protect its special snowflakes?

  • Microaggressor||

    Some hate speech is more equal than others.

  • John||

    This is a bad outcome for academic freedom. If Rutgers takes punitive action against a professor for making insensitive comments about white people on social media, it will chill free speech on campus and imperil the right of faculty members to address controversial subjects

    So professors can't address controversial subjects without proclaiming their hate for entire races of people? I don't think so.

  • NoVaNick||

    If he hates being white so much, why doesn't he just do a Rachel Dolezal?

  • Grumpa||

    Livingston has a bio on the Rutgers website. He has been passing judgement as an academic since ~1980. His judgment about people being despicable based only on their skin tone confirms my opinion of the kind of deep thought necessary to get tenure at most Universities today. I will go out on a limb thinking that Livingston's hatred of whites is reflected in his teaching of History at Rutgers. Rutgers is $14K in state and $29.5K out of state per year, throw in books, housing etc, probably $120K in state 4 year degree. Does anyone else question the value of a liberal arts degree today? Student loan payback working as a barista would probably put you in debt till you are 40. In the STEM world, unicorn thinking is not a recipe for success.

  • JeffreyL||

    When you say they can't punish him. If he is incapable of not discriminating against his white students, which it would appear could be the case, then what? What do white students that are put into his class do?

    Not only that, but what happens when every white student starts claiming discrimination as they then know its a free pass for an A for his class? If i am the university admin, i know i have a real problem now.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This is the theory, popular among the intersectional left—particularly in academia—that because white people have not suffered structural oppression, they cannot be victims of racism.

    It is impossible for one to debate in good faith using words one has redefined to bolster one's argument.

  • buybuydandavis||

    American whites have suffered under anti white government mandated racial preferences for 40+ years.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    White-grievance yahoos are among my favorite faux libertarians.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Once someone claims the right to define words his own way, turn around is fair play.

    Him: "Only white people can be racist."

    Me: "I am glad you agreed when I said that black people can be racist too. Here, let me write down the real definition of every word you said so you can understand that you agree with me."

  • Sevo||

    If profs couldn't be assholes, the classrooms would only have the students in them.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The vast majority of universities in this country have supported academic freedom, due in part to the fact that the American Association of University Professors lists academic freedom as both paramount and absolute. I would be shocked if anything came of this aside from Rutgers simply condemning the content of his message.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Oh yeah, AAUP is all about liberty. And equality. And social justice. And safety. And dismissive of any free speech issues at all.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I didn't say they're all about liberty, did I?

    I see nothing particularly wrong with that phone script by the way. Institutions SHOULD be internally run, not politically run. The only part I disagree with is that funding is being slashed. Everything else in that document is supported by facts and numbers.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Here.

    On a substantive level, does Click's assault merit her suspension or dismissal? No. First of all, this is an "assault" in name only. Most people imagine that an "assault" is a vicious physical attack causing potential harm to another. What Click did, at worst, was momentarily grab a camera. She caused no damage, and no violence.

    And at the same time they consider watch lists on professors to be a suppression of free speech and threats of violence which must be condemned.

    The measures proscribed in Goldwater-inspired legislation are tailored specifically to respond to the kinds of incidents that have affected conservative speakers. The legislation rarely addresses other constraints on campus free speech, such as the recording of professors in classrooms or professor watchlists.These highly specific measures suggest that its primary goal is not to enhance campus free speech, but to protect conservative voices.

    The audacity! Recordings! Watchlists! And yes, you read that: protecting conservative voices (as in not supressing or censoring them) does not enhance campus free speech. Do you see anything wrong with that?

  • Johnny B||

    He makes $129,531 per year to write stuff like this

    http://php.app.com/agent/rutge.....==

  • Rossami||

    Interesting. On the one hand, Rutgers is a publicly-funded university bound by the First Amendment. On the other hand, Rutgers is an employer and professors are in the same position of power and oversight as many company supervisors and managers.

    So, yes, the professor said some stupid and insensitive things on his personal time. That's protected speech. But yes, some students might reasonably believe that a professor with those stated beliefs might not evaluate them fairly. That puts Rutgers in a no-win situation.

    The legal standard set by the Supreme Court in Pickering v Board of Education is that "the interests of the [employee] as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern" must be balanced against "the interest of the State as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." So while I think FIRE has the better argument, Rutgers probably could discipline or fire him even for this speech just because the way it was uttered demonstrated such bad judgement.

    Meanwhile, the claim that there is "no such thing as racism against white people" is simply ludicrous. Regardless of what he said about the restaurant, Livingston should be fired for being stupid enough to say that.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    As others have said, they could likely fire him on the idea that students are unable to trust his grading.

  • Alcibiades||

    Then provide that evidence.

  • Azathoth!!||


    "Okay, officially, I now hate white people" and called Caucasians "assholes."

    Did you miss that?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I'm curious -- do we know for sure he teaches any classes?

  • Rossami||

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Research, outreach, internal or external consulting, administration, technical service...

    Not that I'm trying to nitpick. But I'd like to see if there's evidence that he has applied his "hatred" of young people, white people, wealthy people, or any other group to his duties. I mean, I "hate" democrats, but that doesn't mean I've ever considered grading someone more harshly because they're a democrat.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    By the way, by posting the above (or really, any of my anti-democrat postings), I'm guilty of exactly the same offense this Rutgers professor is guilty of. An offended democrat reading this could rat me out. I'll hide behind my anonymity for good measure. :)

  • Rockabilly||

    Where is my safe space and huggy bear?

  • Happy Chandler||

    Has any actual student said they don't trust him because of the tweet, or just a bunch of concern trolls taking a facetious, but intemperate, tweet way too seriously?

    http://www.ratemyprofessors.co.....id=1193176

    Middling reviews. Most say he's pretty easy. One person complained about his politics, but said the class was good.

  • CDRSchafer||

    I could say with 99% certainty that if he were fired he would be replaced by an equal or better employee.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I'm also curious if anyone here actually read his full tweet. Does anybody believe that it wasn't at least 90% tongue in cheek? He even called his own post "ridiculous". His words. People say shit like this on facebook all the time when they're bitching about some kind of thing that happened that day. This sounds like a bunch of conservative snowflakes pissed off that someone used terminology that offends them. It was such a benign, stupid post.

  • GILMORE™||

    "benign, stupid "

    Sort of like Justine Sacco?

  • Ecoli||

    Why would a University want to employ a professor who writes stupid posts? He is a PROFESSOR. His posts should be intelligent with many subtle layers of meaning so that they can be examined by other learned professors in English 101.

  • Azathoth!!||


    People say shit like this on facebook all the time when they're bitching about some kind of thing that happened that day.

    Yes they do. And if they say it about anyone except white people they get reprimanded, suspended, fired, arrested or attacked in some way. There's no major media brigade formed to defend them.

    Oh, yeah--they get blocked, quite often, by the very media source they made the comment on.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Devlin wrote that "Rutgers' position on free speech is clear: 'All of the members of our community, including faculty and staff, are free to express their viewpoints in public forums as private citizens. Yet at Rutgers University we also must foster an environment free from discrimination, as articulated in our policy prohibiting discrimination.'"

    Yeah. Clear. 1) free to express viewpoints. 2) not free to express viewpoints. Got it.

  • Alcibiades||

    Devlin wrote that "Rutgers' position on free speech is clear: 'All of the members of our community, including faculty and staff, are free to express their viewpoints in public forums as private citizens. Yet at Rutgers University we also must foster an environment free from discrimination, as articulated in our policy prohibiting discrimination.

    Classic doublespeak and devoid of meaning.

  • GILMORE™||

    As someone said the other day:

    "Rational Thinker 69
    @Rationalist69 Aug 18

    About 75% of the time you can replace 'white' guy/woman/person with the word "commoner" and the point reads the same.

    This is more likely to be true if the person using it is white.
  • Raoul Duke||

    Basically, no government employee or person being paid by the state can be disciplined for anything deemed "controversial," since that would be The State infringing on a person's individual freedoms. Got it.

  • Longtobefree||

    Of course, for the rest of his life, if he gets in a fight with a Caucasian, it will be a freebie add on for hate crime status.

    Maybe the 'University' should just send him to mandatory rehab for self-hate. Run out whatever amount the faculty insurance pays for mental health, and let him go broke paying the rest because he is still crazy.

    He can probably get a job advising Bernie and whats-her-name in mental health issues.

  • Jeep's Blues||

    Watching the public "wokeness" movement play in blogs and social media is like observing a live sociological experiment. What this Rutgers professor has done is not new, but in the age of all-omnipotent social media has become a coalitional sport.

    Arnold Kling in The Three Languages of Politics spends a chapter on the purpose of signaling to one's coalition to enhance one own's status and cement one's membership within the group. It's a form of communication that with Twitter, Facebook and internet comments sections that's become the modern way to communicate tribal behavior. Politicians, educators, academics, private citizens -- everyone's in on the game.

    In this respect that the professor has made an incontrovertibly racist and discriminatory statement on a public media platform is of no consequence as it confers status among members of his coalition and signals to them his fealty to the tribe.

  • Jeep's Blues||

    Btw, this statement by Mr. Soave is a causal fallacy:

    "If Rutgers takes punitive action against a professor for making insensitive comments about white people on social media, it will chill free speech on campus and imperil the right of faculty members to address controversial subjects."

    This statement assumes that in order to address 'controversial subjects' one's only choice is to do so with openly discriminatory language. This is false. If, for example, the professor wants to discuss gentrification in Harlem he has the freedom to do so with reasoned argument supported by data rather than snark masquerading as adult debate.

  • tommhan||

    Free speech does not mean no repercussions from your speech.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "This is a bad outcome for academic freedom. "

    Not really. It's a step up.

    One way academic freedom, that only applies to the Left, isn't academic freedom at all, but simply Leftist power and privilege.

    One Set of Rules for All is a step toward liberty and justice for all.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Right-wingers would never accept 'one set of rules for all,' which would disqualify those who disdain science to flatter superstition.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Disdain science, like denying a child in the womb is a unique human being with a heartbeat and not a mass of cells?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "His comments weren't even about students, and they occurred outside the classroom. "

    He had no white students?

    Say the same thing about any other race, and, *if you're white*, you'll be out on your ear.

    If you're Asian, you can be an editor at the New York Times.

    A step at a time.

    Notice that the vermin was a Marxist, and has no more place as a Professor at a University than a Nazi.

  • WillPaine||

    When will the discussion begin about the fact that clearly public platforms are somehow able to avoid the Constitution by calling themselves private? You cannot privatize to deny rights, no? The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not end for any citizen if/when they become involved with a "private" company, yes? And a platform/s that now provides 70% of the public with what "news" they get, cannot hide behind "we're a private company", and so censor free speech. Who decides what is shouting fire in a crowded theatre. And I gotta believe the average American cannot be all that influenced even by the subtlest of manipulations of the internet, excepting the incredibly easily manipulated (translate what, "stupid"?- I don't believe the average American is). In that sense, I don't see "the Russians" or anyone else, having that much influence on "us".
    Manipulation of numbers is another issue, as is voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the electoral college. The college was established in a time when travel and communication were difficult, and the average citizen could hardly read. No more; enough. The electoral college has to go. And a closer examination is nauseating; from the DNC cheating Bernie, to all across the country and its ward heelers. Enough. Time for a real vote, and paper ballots; all.

  • Mark22||

    When will the discussion begin about the fact that clearly public platforms are somehow able to avoid the Constitution by calling themselves private? You cannot privatize to deny rights, no?

    The Constitution is a list of enumerated government powers, and the Bill of Rights is an enumerated list of limits on government powers. Neither of them apply to private companies. Neither of them grants you rights.

    So, the US government cannot censor you, but Facebook most certainly can.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Livingston, who is white, made his comments on Facebook after visiting a hamburger joint in Harlem. He described it as "overrun with little Caucasian assholes."

    The preferred term is "Columbia University students".

  • MasterThief||

    Change the comments to any other race or identity group outside of males, Christians, or heterosexuals and does the narrative change? Yeah, he has the right to say stuff like this. I'd actually like a little more context to even partially accept the given explanation that this isn't outright hateful racism.
    I seem to recall that Robby has made the argument that people are free to say racist bs like this but that their employers are also free to fire them for being bigots. Freedom of speech and freedom of association are at play here and a little consistency on applying the standards for them would be appreciated.

  • MasterThief||

    I forgot to condemn and commend FB for their part in this. They get condemnation for choosing to censor him. They get commended for at least being even handed for once. I'll also condemn Robby for "Facebook determined that Livingston had violated its nebulous community standards and removed the post." He seems to be more complicit in the censorship if the target is right-leaning.

  • Mark22||

    Administrators at Rutgers University have determined that a history professor, James Livingston, violated the university's policy against discrimination and harassment when he wrote on Facebook: "Okay, officially, I now hate white people" and called Caucasians "assholes."

    Like many progressives, he is erroneously generalizing from his own deplorable character to everybody with the same skin color as himself.

  • Mark22||

    Livingston is not accused of harassing or discriminating against any specific student. His comments weren't even about students, and they occurred outside the classroom.

    Applying progressive logic, he created a hostile learning environment, made people uncomfortable, promoted racism, and committed aggression. Furthermore, he is a government employee

  • Mark22||

    Rutgers has no business disciplining a professor for wrongthink. Such a course of action would violate the First Amendment (Rutgers is a public university)

    Government most certainly can enact limits on the private behavior of public employees and does so all the time. Engaging in racist speech can, and should be, cause for dismissal for a public employee because racist conduct of any kind is incompatible with government employment.

  • Hattori Hanzo||

    I can see an argument to be made that Rutgers overreacted but it's hard to sympathize for a proggie. I enjoy seeing them burned with their own tactics to stifle speech.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Absolutely! But, if he takes any action against another to implement his hatred, he should be dropped off the Verrazano Narrows Bridge.

  • Duelles||

    Livingston is dumb enough so that his only job choice in life is to be a college professor. Oh? Does this step on some toes? Gore some ox? Well, he's intellectually isolated and I, for one, hope he physically remains isolated. Who need s this cretin.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Your logic is astoundingly simplistic. "Preferred job choice" and "only job choice" are two completely different things.

  • James Dawson||

    The story states: "Livingston has claimed he was trying to make a point about gentrification".

    Professor Livingston apparently has forgotten that Harlem was once previously "gentrified" into farmland by Europeans from its origins 1st as the hunting grounds of the native tribe the Manhattans, then into a small rural village and then again by the establishment of country estates by wealthy investors from further south on the Manhattan Island, then occupied by Irish squatters, then it experienced a building boom on the mid-1800s with row houses (as distinct from the previous generation's free-standing houses) were being constructed in large numbers by 1876. A fall in real estate prices which attracted immigrant Eastern Europe Jews and Italians to Harlem in accelerating numbers. A Jewish community of 12 in in 1869 that grew to a peak of almost 200,000 in about 1915. As they left, their apartments in East Harlem were increasingly filled by Puerto Ricans, who were arriving in large numbers by 1913. Italian Harlem lasted longer, and traces of the community lasted into the 1970s. Black residents have been present in Harlem continually since the 1630s. By 1900, tens of thousands lived in Harlem.

    I wonder if the learned history professor should instead be removed from the university for being "unsure of the concept" of the subject history.

  • vek||

    Well... Everybody knows Italians aren't white, so his point still stands ;) LOL

  • Jr12||

    Free speech requires the private control of economic interaction, products, profits, the market and the market places, as that is also the private control of the platform for all speech. Coercive political regulation of speech is the sole violation of free speech, leaving all to speak on their own property or that of anyone else with owner permission.

    That fact that one has to seek an owner's permission for speaking on their property is what this author is protesting, supporting his hypocrisy with the leftist argument for political control of profits and property as the origin and retention of free speech.

    Obviously, the only reason to redefine free speech as requiring the coercive control of its property platforms, is that Soave's mad because anti-white hate was penalized rather than applauded.

    Odd, though, that an American university would penalize anyone for anti-white hate, since they are responsible for all of it.

  • Jr12||

    continued.......the typical leftist "education" presents leftism's typical collectively acting twin stereotypes. Today, those of white oppressors perpetually victimizing whoever educators label as collective victims. Last century the stereotypes of savage blacks requiring discriminatory suppression to preserve civilization was an "education." In other countries, leftist "education" consisted of collectively oppressive Jews victimizing Aryans, collectively oppressive rich victimizing the poor, collectively acting Christians victimizing Muslims, as well as last century's leftist education which reversed these victim/oppressor stereotypes, as Muslims victimizing Christians.

    And if the stereotype fueled hate results in wars, pogroms and genocide the left.does.not.care because the only point of leftism is to transfer to themselves, the prosperity producing profits and property cooperatively earned by whoever they can stereotype as collective oppressors. Leftists are like locusts consuming all without replacement until nothing is left and all starve. And leftists, like locusts, do.not.care.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    That fact that one has to seek an owner's permission for speaking on their property is what this author is protesting

    This doesn't appear to have happened on Rutgers property. And even if it did, it's irrelevant.

    Rutgers is basically doing what the NFL does. Punish an employee for how he represents himself outside the workplace. It's a PR move. It's pretzel logic (not yours... the administration's) to suggest that this has resulted in unfair treatment of students absent any evidence of unfair treatment of students.

  • vek||

    The REAL question is, if he had said:

    "Okay, officially, I now hate black people" after visiting Compton... Would you still have the balls to defend him?

    Any which way, this guy can go fuck himself. Self loathing white people are idiots. Whites have done more good for the world than anybody else, and anyone who can't accept that objectively verifiable fact is a moron.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Whites have done more good for the world than anybody else

    And also more harm to the world.

    That's not a defense of his statement or tribalism in general, but if we're being objective...

  • vek||

    How have we done more harm? I do think we've done more good... But you know the Muslim conquest of India alone killed 80-100 million people by some estimates? The British didn't kill anywhere near that many when they took over. Muslims also castrated 100% of their male African slaves. Far more barbaric than how we did it in the south, not that slavery was a good thing here mind you.

    Countries that were colonized by white people in the past are wealthier on average than ones that weren't.

    So where did we do more harm? I don't think we did. Personally I'd rather just say it's all a wash, and we shouldn't be playing this game... But since the left demands we demonize whites as the worst people EVAR... It's just bullshit. We've done nothing worse than anybody else, and have done plenty better IMO.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    How have we done more harm?

    What race has shed more blood than whites? What race has ganged together to oppress other people more than whites?

    Far more barbaric than how we did it in the south, not that slavery was a good thing here mind you.

    I'm glad you issued that disclaimer. I wasn't sure about you.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    What race has shed more blood than whites?

    This should read "drawn".

  • vek||

    Did you not see what I already said? The Mongols, Muslim conquests, Chinese imperialism, Japanese imperialism, etc were all ultra violent.

    The Mongol conquests alone, or the Muslim conquest of India alone, were probably more direct deaths than the French, British, or Spanish inflicted. MAYBE if you could unintentional deaths by disease in the Americas, but that's hardly fair.

    Did you know that the next bloodiest war in history after WWII was probably the Three Kingdoms War in China, that westerners don't even know about? Like worse than WWI yo. Google bloodiest wars in history... They're mostly NOT wars involving Europeans.

    My point is that any objective person who knows history should say "All people are shitheads." Because it is simply false that white people have been more murderous or brutal, by the numbers even. I reckon you could say whites and Asians are tied maybe if you want... But that's only because Amerindians and Africans just never had a chance to do it for historical reasons... But they gladly would have if they'd been given the chance.

  • vek||

    On the oppression point, YES Europeans ruled almost the entire world for a minute. This included ruling over lots of non Europeans. But so have various Asian ethnicities, the Arabs/Turks, etc. As above, Africans and Amerindians would have been STOKED to have crushed and subjugated Europe... They just never got the chance.

    So your argument boils down to the fact that Europeans happened to win wars, against often highly combative enemies, and since we didn't lose... We're EVIL! If the Muslims had taken over Europe in any of their MANY attempts to do so, they might have ended up having the distinction of having conquered the most foreign peoples... So what then? White people WOULDN'T be evil all of a sudden?

    Having won more wars doesn't make one any worse than the other guy who was trying to do the same to you... It just makes you a winner.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online