We have been discussing the often inconsistent approach taken to controversial statements or postings of students and faculty at our universities and colleges. The latest such case involves Rutgers University history professor James Livingston, who stated in a post that he hated all white people and wanted them out of his neighborhood. The school has now cleared him of all wrongdoing and that is a victory for free speech. However, it is not clear if the same result would have occurred if the content of the hateful message were directed at blacks or minorities. The concern is the inconsistency of a content-based approach to such sanctions.
Livingston continues with his racist rant on May 31 in saying “OK, officially, I now hate white people. I am a white people, for God’s sake, but can we just keep them—us—us out of my neighborhood?”
Livingston was initially found to have violated the university’s Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment by Rutgers’s Office of Employment Equity. The university then rejected his appeal. That decision was later reversed.
The decision is the correct one. These were statements made outside of school and expressed Livingston’s political and social views with what he claimed was an element of sarcasm. Yet, what if this were a professor speaking of his hate for black people or other minorities and wanting them out of his neighborhood? Would the result be the same? We do not know because Rutgers is not clear on where that sanctionable line is drawn.
The university’s standard emphasized the impact of comments on the university as the critical determinant in this analysis. The university’s Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment (“Policy”), Section 5 (A), defines “discrimination” as:
“an intentional or unintentional act which adversely affects employment or educational opportunities on the basis of membership in one or more protected classes. Rutgers provides equal employment opportunity to all its employees and applicants for employment regardless of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, gender identity and expression, disability, genetic information, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, military service, veteran status, and any other category protected by law.”
In its original findings against him, Rutgers dismissed the defense that statements were made as part of his private life and postings outside of school:
“His interest in free expression must also outweigh the government’s interest in the efficient and effective provision of services. In other words, his speech must be weighed against its potential impact on the university’s mission. Notably, a Government employer may take action against an employee for speaking on a matter of public concern if the employer’s mere prediction of disruption to its operations is reasonable. Jeffries v. Harleston, 52 F.3d 9 (2nd Cir. 1994).”
The university found that it was enough that his words were “offensive” and generated controversy. The later reversal is unclear on the extent to which the initial analysis was flawed. Indeed, it is relatively cursory in its treatment of the case.
What seems clear is that Livingston himself might not support another academic in the same position but the inverse message. In his own defense, Livingston insisted that such statements against all white people are permissible if you are black but not the inverse: “Black people can hate white people, but you can’t call them racists unless they have power over you, and not just over you but your people, those white people you call your own.”
Livingston also claimed that white supremacists were the ones who called in complaints against him.
What is distressing is that Livingston was saved by free speech but appears willing to deny such protections to others. As for Rutgers, the reversal was not a ringing endorsement of a bright-line protection of free speech as much as a cursory decision to remove any sanction.
Is today’s post just another diversionary tactic to avoid the latest Trump outrages? For instance, stating he was thankful for himself and all his accomplishments, and telephoning troops instead of hauling his fat duff to some military installation and visiting in person. My favorite is how he put in comments about what he thinks are his accomplishments. Is there no limit to the narcissism? Then, there’s the subpoenas to Comey and Lynch, calculated to offset attention from Manafort’s sentencing and the subpoena storm coming in January, including dumb, bleached little Ivanka. Hypocrite much? Meanwhile, all stock market gains are now gone. And, on Tuesday, he’s going to endorse pathetic Cindy Hyde-Smith, who just wishes she had been born male about 50 years earlier, so she could attend a real lynching. Hey, the weekend isn’t even here yet.
You’re damaged goods and have no conception of what interests and motivates normal human beings.
But…I’m not wrong.
(music–to tune of Randy Newman song titled Short People)
White people got no reason…
White people got no reason…
White people got no reason to Live!
They got little bitty eyes,… little bitty feet…
Little bitty voices that go peep peep peep.
Don’t want no white people.
Don’t want no white people round here!
Original Intent
The American Founders adopted the Constitution in 1789 and established the requirements for American citizenship within the year, and twice subsequently.
_______________
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…”
For all those commenters who are still living in the 1940s or 1950s, here is modern black America for you! Long, but fascinating story. From 2018, the year we are all of us supposed to be living in:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/11/16/feature/in-a-home-surrounded-by-homicides/?utm_term=.ba43126a1506
Fascinating story. I live in Louisiana so I call bullsh*t on the “I can’t afford to move” part. There is a lot of cheap housing available down here.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Just once I’d like to see an elitist academic hack fired for this sort of nonsense, try to find employment in the commercial sector, and promptly discover they have no marketable skills.
But the he would be relegated to welfare and the rest of society would be no better off.
“However, it is not clear if the same result would have occurred if the content of the hateful message were directed at black or minorities.”
To be equivalent, the hateful message directed at black or minorities would have to be delivered by a black or minority. If a black professor were to announce that he hated all blacks, it’s conceivable that he’d be excused.
The insidious thing about Livingston’s view of the world (shared by liberals) is the presumed pecking order placing whites above blacks in terms of power. Though they don’t explicitly argue for continuing this pecking order, every judgment they make presumes its continuation, and that conveys an expectation that undermines attainment of a post-racial society.
I only hate white liberals which is to say those whites who hate themselves. I guess I can toss al feminists in that group too.
This was poorly handled. Per his Own request. The university should have simply waited and not renewed his contract. Personally I see anything a person does that disrupts the work place or holds it up to public ridicule or rebuke is grounds for termination. Football players, students, and teachers included
THe SJWs and Antifa are immune from all dangers:
https://twitter.com/lukerosiak/status/1064149265604321282?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fjmcfeels
Where da White women at?
–Blazing Saddles.
That movie is not shown on TV very often. And it is not because of the phrase used above. No. It is the scene where the Mayor of the town being besieiged by the local Indians is letting the Black commuters come in to help defend the town. The Mayor agrees to let them in. Then he says, as he pounds his fist: But Not The Irish!
Perhaps there are some at Rutgers who would not like this professor ranting about The Irish!
Little Jack Corn and I don’t care….
Livingston was triggered by seeing white people in a burger restaurant in Harlem and described it as a “place overrun with little Caucasian assholes who know their parents will approve of anything they do. I hereby resign from my race. [redacted] these people.”
Again, people whose emotional self is like this do not belong in authority over others. The guy sounds like Jack Henry Abbot.
Livingston was triggered by seeing white people in a burger restaurant in Harlem and described it as a “place overrun with little Caucasian assholes who know their parents will approve of anything they do. I hereby resign from my race. Fuck these people.”
Again, people whose emotional self is like this do not belong in authority over others.
The real concern should be that if Livingston hates all white people and wants to kick them out of his neighborhood, how the hell is such a blatant racist going to treat his white students in the classroom? Objectively? Not in the least! Will he try to kick them out? And if unsuccessful at doing that will he punish them via corrupt grading? Livingston is the reason why tenure needs to be abolished. This whole anti-white movement is as ignorant and racist as it gets. The New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe et al are vigorous adherents of it, frequently publishing “dear white people” inanity by inane white-hating racists, both white and black, of the Eugene Robinson, Kirsten Powers, Leonard Pitts, Renee Graham, Charles M. Blow, Jr, George Yancy ilk. It has gotten so horrendous that I am now creating the front cover for the next issue of The American Dissident featuring these racists with loud published voices.
He’s nearly 70, and a good argument for mandatory retirement for faculty.
Prof. Turley will not ask the obvious question. In rough descending order of grossness, the worst people in America can be found in…
1. The criminal element
2. Hollywood
3. Lobbying
4. The Media
5. Electoral politics
6. Casino banking
7. BigLaw
8. Higher education
9. School Administration
10. Social work
11. The mental health trade
12. The clergy
Why does higher education attract and retain such a large share of the world’s a**holes? It isn’t has if their hiring process is unselective. (And, in the arts and sciences faculty, pretty much excludes anyone who might be inclined to vote Republican).
We all know that if he had used the word blacks he would be in the unemployment line.
Power Ball Question. Did Livingston move? I’ve seen his photo.
It’s absurd that new norms would even propel such statements by an obviously ignorant, brainwashed individual. His inanity, racism, hyperbole and logical fallacies should have gotten him fired because they were stupid, ignorant and dumb. Free speech is protected but not incompetence. It would give him time to go to therapy to be cured of self loathing. No one with this meager of mental capacity should be allowed to teach in our universities.
He was triggered by victims of affluenza. He made a rant in which he used hyperbole as a rhetorical device.”I don’t want kids like that as neighbors. They are not a credit to my race.”
His version of “Kids these days!” in no way representing his employer so what is their beef?
Mr. Livingston is an employed A-H and Rutgers did the right thing.
But the double standard persists. If a white person had said the same things about blacks, that person would be an unemployed A-H and Rutgers and the liberals would be congratulating themselves for being good citizens.
Once again, the double standard is reinforced and the left won’t acknowledge their prejudices.