What an embarrassment to the university.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/3134...s-anti-white-rant-little-amanda-prestigiacomo
https://www.dailywire.com/news/3134...s-anti-white-rant-little-amanda-prestigiacomo
Rutgers Prof. James Livingston should be fired
- Thread starter BigTenRutgers
- Start date
Of course he should be fired ... it'll never happen with the clown running our university, though.
It would be unconstitutional to fire him on the basis of his political views. The state can't punish someone for the content of their speech, especially speech outside the classroom.
"I hate white people" is not a political view. It's an invitation for a civil rights lawsuit from any white student (past, present or future) who doesn't like his/her grade.
The state can't punish someone for the content of the speech? Try standing in front of your classroom and starting the semester with "I hate all n-words" and see how long your career lasts.
Last edited:
Is this correct?? There is no higher standard of contact as to a state employee? Don't they have a CBA or employment agreement? If this guy had said this about black people, they really couldn't fire him on misconduct?
This is not political speech. Its racially motivated hate speech. Weird, misguided and ignorant hate speech.
It would be unconstitutional to fire him on the basis of his political views. The state can't punish someone for the content of their speech, especially speech outside the classroom.
He's not in front of his class -- he's mouthing off as a private citizen. So your n-word analogy doesn't work. (I'm not even sure he'd lose if he *were* in front of his class so long as what he was saying was somehow relevant to the course.). And the student suit would be unsuccessful unless there were actual evidence that the professor had discriminated.
He's not in front of his class -- he's mouthing off as a private citizen. So your n-word analogy doesn't work. (I'm not even sure he'd lose if he *were* in front of his class so long as what he was saying was somehow relevant to the course.). And the student suit would be unsuccessful unless there were actual evidence that the professor had discriminated.
Racially motivated hate speech is political speech. Remember that the Supreme Court upheld the rights of that vile "Baptist: group to demonstrate at military funerals. The Constitution protects hate speech. The state cannot do anything that interferes with constitutional rights, whether under the guise of a collective bargaining agreement or otherwise.
Of course hate speech is protected. The 1A protects his right to say it, not his right to be employed. Anyone who is privately employed can be terminated for their speech, whether during work hours or not. You are saying the government is hamstrung when it comes to its employees? It has no rights as an employer, and is instead held to the constitutional limits that apply between the government and a private citizen?
I just can't believe or understand why that would be true. While the government firing is obviously a state actor, it seems to me the relationship between government and its employee is distinct from that between the government and a random citizen. Based on what you are saying a Rutgers professor can give hate speeches on the public square during his lunch break, and Rutgers cannot fire that professor for misconduct, like any private employer would. That is nuts.
The First Amendment does not apply to private employers, who can dismiss anyone for any reason. It does apply to the state. And the First Amendment does apply to the state-employee relationship. This is not new; it's been the law for a very long time.
They fired this professor at LSU for use of profanity in the class room. She sued and the court threw out the lawsuit and said the university's reasonable person standard in determining whether the professor's “behavior and speech interfered with the educational opportunities of her students both in the classroom and in the student teacher or field setting," was appropriate.
http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_ro...cle_eaf46e12-8995-5602-b688-cfabb8994589.html
I'll say it again, there's no way a professor expressing the point of view that he hates all *insert race, sex, sexual orientation, religion here* people is not going to create a hostile learning environment for students included in that group of people. The school's right to insulate itself from liability for discrimination suits alone (absent any other action by the professor) makes a firing reasonable. You don't have a right to be both (a) an outspoken racist, and (b) employed by the state as an educator.
http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_ro...cle_eaf46e12-8995-5602-b688-cfabb8994589.html
I'll say it again, there's no way a professor expressing the point of view that he hates all *insert race, sex, sexual orientation, religion here* people is not going to create a hostile learning environment for students included in that group of people. The school's right to insulate itself from liability for discrimination suits alone (absent any other action by the professor) makes a firing reasonable. You don't have a right to be both (a) an outspoken racist, and (b) employed by the state as an educator.
The case is, as lawyers say, readily distinguishable. First and foremost, it involves in-class room activity. Second, it involves obscenity, which is not protected (except when it sends a political message, as in the 1969s "**** the Draft" t-shirt).
So far the courts have not bought the argument that a creating a "hostile learning environment" is unprotected. Indeed, conservative professors and jurists have argued vociferously against that position, saying that it would threaten a great deal of conservative speech by professors. In other words, we should be happy that Livingston is protected, because protecting Livingston helps to protect everyone, including you.
I want equal treatment for everyone. If they can fire a professor for saying "I hate all black people" or "I hate all muslims" (and believe me, they would in a heartbeat - the sentence wouldn't even be halfway out of his mouth before he/she was fired), then a person proclaiming "I hate all white people" should get the same treatment.
The only way to get equal treatment from leftists is to inconvenience them with their own rules.
If the statements were outside the classroom, the courts would reverse the firing without a doubt.
Decisions of state courts are reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is strongly committed to protecting the first amendment. Beside, the case would not be heard in state court. Rather, the fired professor would sue in federal court.
Likely he would. I still believe the average 3rd Circuit federal judge is likely to find in favor of a school firing a professor for saying "I hate all muslims" on facebook.
I respectfully think you're wrong, and that any such decision would be promptly overturned by the Supreme Court. Lower courts try to follow the Supreme Court -- lower courts have a duty to do that -- and it's clear what the Supreme Court's cases say on matters like this. If the Westboro Baptist Church can obnoxiously demonstrate at serviceperson's funerals, then it is pretty clear that an out-of-classroom statement that "I hate Muslims' is constitutionally protected.
I have plenty of respect for your opinion. However, I have almost no respect for the judicial approach of most northeast judges (state and federal). And sheer numbers suggest it would be very unlikely to ever reach the Supreme Court.
To be clear, on the legal merits, I think a state university can absolutely terminate a professor based on public racist statements. However, I think it is far more likely to be decided on the basis of "That guy hates blacks. **** him, I'm glad they fired him," jurisprudence.
Yes, I am an attorney, too. No, I do not have a very high opinion of the judiciary in 2018.
Of course, lawyers often disagree, and you are entitled to your opinion about what the courts would do. I think that if the 3rd circuit were to decide against the professor -- and I think it is very unlikely they'd do that -- the Supreme Court would summarily reverse and remand without even bothering to have oral argument. (As you know, the Court does that when the decision below is obviously contrary to Court precedent.) I also think that it is very unlikely that the courts would uphold a state decision to terminate anyone on the basis of non-obscene statements outside the classroom, and we are a long way away from racial insults being treated the way obscene words are. But of course you're entitled to your own opinion.
Exclusive: White professor whose ‘I hate white people’ rant went viral speaks out
“Why am I doing this? This is the question,” Professor James Livingston, of Rutgers University, mused when PIX11 News caught up with him uptown.
http://pix11.com/2018/06/13/exclusi...hate-white-people-rant-went-viral-speaks-out/
“Why am I doing this? This is the question,” Professor James Livingston, of Rutgers University, mused when PIX11 News caught up with him uptown.
http://pix11.com/2018/06/13/exclusi...hate-white-people-rant-went-viral-speaks-out/
Rutgers professor under scrutiny by university for Facebook post saying he hates white people
A longtime Rutgers University history professor could be facing disciplinary action after an investigation by the university concluded he violated its discrimination and harassment policy when he posted on Facebook that he hates white people, a comment he argues was “satirical.”
Rutgers’ decision, the professor says, threatens the tradition of academic freedom at public institutions. But the university argues it needs to maintain a discrimination-free environment.
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/sto...ho-made-anti-white-facebook-posts/1055156002/
A longtime Rutgers University history professor could be facing disciplinary action after an investigation by the university concluded he violated its discrimination and harassment policy when he posted on Facebook that he hates white people, a comment he argues was “satirical.”
Rutgers’ decision, the professor says, threatens the tradition of academic freedom at public institutions. But the university argues it needs to maintain a discrimination-free environment.
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/sto...ho-made-anti-white-facebook-posts/1055156002/
It's anyone's guess what the disciplinary action will be, and whether Livingston will challenge that disciplinary action in court. I continue to think he will win if he challenges the disciplinary action whatever it may be.
Washington Post
After a professor wrote about hating white people, Rutgers considers the limits of free speech
I think some manner of censure short of firing is probably the right balance.
Even public employees have limits on their speech while at work.
The classic NJ case was State employees were coming to work wearing a button or t-shirt that said something along the lines of the "The Governor is a fink". For employees in a role that faced the public it was held that management could compel the employee to not wear that. It was deemed that employees working back in the warehouse or other non-public places could wear them.
In NJ not long ago there was a case where a public college faculty member claimed the right to say discriminatory things about a colleague in a staff meeting. The ruling held that the State's Anti-Harassment/Discrimination policy held even for faculty.
Pre-social media it was much easier to distinguish what happened at work versus not.
After a professor wrote about hating white people, Rutgers considers the limits of free speech
I think some manner of censure short of firing is probably the right balance.
Even public employees have limits on their speech while at work.
The classic NJ case was State employees were coming to work wearing a button or t-shirt that said something along the lines of the "The Governor is a fink". For employees in a role that faced the public it was held that management could compel the employee to not wear that. It was deemed that employees working back in the warehouse or other non-public places could wear them.
In NJ not long ago there was a case where a public college faculty member claimed the right to say discriminatory things about a colleague in a staff meeting. The ruling held that the State's Anti-Harassment/Discrimination policy held even for faculty.
Pre-social media it was much easier to distinguish what happened at work versus not.
But Livingston wasn't at work. If he had been, this would be a better case for Rutgers. He made that awful post on his own time.
Just saw this
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/08/23/rutgers-fired-history-professor-anti-caucasian-comments/
Plus this which includes the 10 page findings from the RU investigation.
http://gothamist.com/2018/08/21/rutgers_investigation_discrimination_livingston.php
Seems the reasoning could hold up. At least RU recognizes that racism is racism.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/08/23/rutgers-fired-history-professor-anti-caucasian-comments/
Plus this which includes the 10 page findings from the RU investigation.
http://gothamist.com/2018/08/21/rutgers_investigation_discrimination_livingston.php
Seems the reasoning could hold up. At least RU recognizes that racism is racism.
Rutgers to reconsider punishing prof who said f--- white people
Rutgers University President Robert Barchi has ordered university officials to take a second look at their decision that a white professor who said he hates white people violated university policy.
In a letter to top officials, Barchi said the ruling that professor James Livingston's speech was not protected by the First Amendment must be analyzed "more rigorously."
https://www.nj.com/education/2018/08/rutgers_f---_white_people_prof_james_livingston.html
Rutgers University President Robert Barchi has ordered university officials to take a second look at their decision that a white professor who said he hates white people violated university policy.
In a letter to top officials, Barchi said the ruling that professor James Livingston's speech was not protected by the First Amendment must be analyzed "more rigorously."
https://www.nj.com/education/2018/08/rutgers_f---_white_people_prof_james_livingston.html
Yes, I agree. But the whole online presence, remote work thing blurs the distinction.
Livingston says he's been cleared. That's what I said would happen under the First Amendment. Had he said it in the classroom, the case would have come out differently IMHO. https://www.nj.com/education/2018/11/the_rutgers_prof_who_said_f---_white_people_just_g.html
