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, āOK, officially, I now hate white people. I am a white people, for Godās sake, but can we keep themāusāus out of my neighborhood?ā He went on to write that the restaurant was āoverrun with little Caucasian assholesā and said, āI hereby resign from my race.ā The next day, Livingston was informed by Facebook that his post violated Facebookās Community Standards, which prompted Livingston to publish a follow up post stating, āI just donāt want little Caucasians overrunning my life ⦠remand them to the suburbs, where they and their parents can colonize every restaurant.ā The Daily Caller reported on Livingstonās Facebook posts, and news coverage followed in local and national outlets.
After receiving complaints from members of the public about Livingstonās posts, Rutgersā Office of Employment Equity (OEE) launched an investigation of the professor. Despite recognizing that Livingstonās speech was commentary by a private citizen addressing a matter of public concern, the investigator erroneously concluded that Livingstonās posts were not protected by the First Amendment and violated Rutgersā Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment. Livingstonās appeal of the determination was denied. On Aug. 20, 2018, Āé¶¹“«Ć½IOS wrote to Rutgers to remind the public institution of its obligation to honor and protect its faculty membersā First Amendment rights and promising to intervene on Livingstonās 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 Livingstonās and all future faculty speech cases. On remand, the OEE reversed its earlier decision and found that Livingstonās speech was protected by the First Amendment.