Rutgers University: Tenured professor found guilty of violating discrimination and harassment policy for Facebook posts about gentrification
Cases
Rutgers University - New Brunswick
Case Overview
On May 31, 2018, tenured Rutgers University history professor James Livingston published a post about gentrification on his personal Facebook account following his visit to a Harlem restaurant. He wrote, 鈥淥K, officially, I now hate white people. I am a white people, for God鈥檚 sake, but can we keep them鈥搖s鈥搖s out of my neighborhood?鈥 He went on to write that the restaurant was 鈥渙verrun with little Caucasian assholes鈥 and said, 鈥淚 hereby resign from my race.鈥 The next day, Livingston was informed by Facebook that his post violated Facebook鈥檚 Community Standards, which prompted Livingston to publish a follow up post stating, 鈥淚 just don鈥檛 want little Caucasians overrunning my life 鈥 remand them to the suburbs, where they and their parents can colonize every restaurant.鈥 The Daily Caller reported on Livingston鈥檚 Facebook posts, and news coverage followed in local and national outlets.
After receiving complaints from members of the public about Livingston鈥檚 posts, Rutgers鈥 Office of Employment Equity (OEE) launched an investigation of the professor. Despite recognizing that Livingston鈥檚 speech was commentary by a private citizen addressing a matter of public concern, the investigator erroneously concluded that Livingston鈥檚 posts were not protected by the First Amendment and violated Rutgers鈥 Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment. Livingston鈥檚 appeal of the determination was denied. On Aug. 20, 2018, FIREwrote to Rutgers to remind the public institution of its obligation to honor and protect its faculty members鈥 First Amendment rights and promising to intervene on Livingston鈥檚 behalf if the decision was not reversed In response, Rutgers president Robert Barchi remanded the case to the OEE and convened a committee of First Amendment experts to review and advise on Livingston鈥檚 and all future faculty speech cases. On remand, the OEE reversed its earlier decision and found that Livingston鈥檚 speech was protected by the First Amendment.