Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: After A Professor Wrote About Hating White People, Rutgers Considers The Limits Of Free Speech

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,333
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    189
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,107
    Thanked in
    629 Posts

    After A Professor Wrote About Hating White People, Rutgers Considers The Limits Of Free Speech

    A history professor was found guilty of discrimination and harassment after writing on Facebook that he hated white people, leading an advocacy group to complain that Rutgers University had violated his right to free speech.

    In May, James Livingston, a tenured professor who is white and lives in the Harlem neighborhood of New York City, wrote on social media about his frustration over the gentrification of the neighborhood. “OK, officially, I now hate white people," he posted. "I am a white people, for God’s sake, but can we keep them--us--us out of my neighborhood?”

    He wrote that the restaurant he was in was “overrun with little Caucasian ---holes who know their parents will approve of everything they do," and announced, “I hereby resign from my race.”

    The post was removed by Facebook for violating standards on hate speech. Livingston later wrote, “I just don’t want little Caucasians overrunning my life … remand them to the suburbs, where they and their parents can colonize every restaurant.”

    His words were quickly picked up by the media, starting with the Daily Caller, and provoked immediate outrage.

    Livingston faced a barrage of hate emails, slur-laced insults and death threats.

    He also faced an investigation by Rutgers, where officials said they had also received messages complaining about his words. Livingston told university officials that he was writing satirically, that his words weren’t a true expression of racism, and that he had a right to express his opinions, according to a copy of the investigation that he shared with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

    The report concluded: “Professor Livingston’s statements were clearly insulting and degrading to Caucasians. While he may indeed have merely meant to express his views on gentrification, he exercised astonishingly poor judgment in his choice of words.

    "Professor Livingston clearly was on notice that his words were offensive, yet instead of clarifying that he meant to comment on gentrification, he chose to make another belligerent barb against whites. Given Professor Livingston’s insistence on making disparaging racial comments, a reasonable student may have concerns that he or she would be stigmatized in his classes because of his or her race. As such, Professor Livingston’s comments violated University Policy.”

    He was found guilty of violating the school’s policy prohibiting discrimination and harassment. His appeal was denied, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has asked the school to reverse the decision, and he faces disciplinary action that could include discharge.

    A spokeswoman for Rutgers declined to discuss the case, saying they could not discuss the specifics of a personnel matter.

    “I allowed FIRE to publicize this finding not simply on my own behalf, but because I believe the intellectual mission of Rutgers, a place to which I’ve devoted my career, is in peril, and being overridden for the sake of public relations,” Livingston said in a statement. “Allowing human resource administrators to tell a professor of 30 years what he can and can’t say on Facebook means that the tradition of academic freedom in our public universities is essentially over. I respect that tradition too much not to protest.

    “I’m also a fan of the Constitution, which is equally under assault here,” Livingston said. “I very much hope the university will see its way to overturning this finding of ‘reverse racism’ and reaffirming the democratic freedoms that Rutgers has long stood for.”

    Rutgers’s president has defended the rights of faculty to speak freely, even when their words offend others.

    “Both academic freedom and our First Amendment rights are at the core of what we do,” Robert Barchi wrote. “Our University policy on speech is clear. All members of our community enjoy the rights of free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. Faculty members, as private citizens, enjoy the same freedoms of speech and expression as any private citizen and shall be free from institutional discipline in the exercise of these rights.”

    The report on the investigation into Livingston noted that “the university does, however, demand that the conduct of a faculty member ‘be in accordance with standards dictated by law,' ” and that "the First Amendment generally affords a public employer substantial latitude to discipline employees for speech.”

    “It is reasonable to predict that the university’s core function of educating a diverse student body may be disrupted by Professor Livingston’s public statements,” the report found, with numerous anonymous complaints that he was racist.

    Suzanne Link, the president of the Rutgers University Student Assembly, wrote in an email, “At Rutgers, students feel strongly about their First Amendment rights, but it is widely acknowledged that there is a line between acceptable and unacceptable expression in our community. As a university, Rutgers prides itself on fostering inclusivity, and hateful rhetoric is not reflective of our values.”

    Will Creeley of FIRE said the university had found Livingston guilty of either altering a workplace environment or hurting students' ability to get an education, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Rutgers received a complaint from anyone at the university about Livingston’s remarks.

    “The concern for public relations goes to the heart of this case,” Creeley said. “It’s very easy for outrage mobs to seize upon a professor’s comment on social media, amplify it, deluge an institution with hate mail ... and ask for action.”

    The First Amendment clearly protects private citizens employed by government agencies — such as a public university — to speak about matters of public concern, such as gentrification, Creeley said, and that right is particularly important for faculty members. “You may not agree with the faculty member, but the First Amendment exists to protect speech that challenges you or asks you to think about things in a different way.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/educa...s-free-speech/

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Nachtengel For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Ravenrune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 04:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon-Celt
    Ancestry
    Irish, English, Scottish, German, French, Mi'kmaq
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    maker of things
    Politics
    non-corruption for the people
    Religion
    Pantheism / Norse pagan / Taoism
    Posts
    606
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    78
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    650
    Thanked in
    333 Posts
    In May, James Livingston, a tenured professor who is white and lives in the Harlem neighborhood of New York City, wrote on social media about his frustration over the gentrification of the neighborhood. “OK, officially, I now hate white people," he posted. "I am a white people, for God’s sake, but can we keep them--us--us out of my neighborhood?”

    LOL .... what?! So this white professor lives in a neighbourhood in Harlem which he complains is being taken over by white people?

    Name:  tenor.gif
Views: 30
Size:  169.1 KB

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Ravenrune For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Senior Member
    Nordic Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    51 Minutes Ago @ 08:54 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Nordid + Dalofaelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Married parent
    Politics
    Germanic Nationalism
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    290
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    195
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    403
    Thanked in
    134 Posts
    Self-hating whites are just one thing: Pathetic.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Nordic Angel For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member



    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Y-DNA
    R-L448
    mtDNA
    K2a5a
    Country
    England England
    State
    Rhode Island Rhode Island
    Location
    KY
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Docker
    Politics
    Whig Loyalist
    Religion
    Ancestor veneration
    Posts
    3,112
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,896
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    306
    Thanked in
    262 Posts
    A self-hating WASP is easy to attack, but no repercussions would follow Italian-Americans, Mexicans, Jews, Muslims and negroes issuing much worse and more sustained assaults in the grand free for all. The only Whites I don't care for out his way would be the cast of the Jersey Shore, not ALL Whites. This is all a great sham and shame, because I bet it's only the Italian-Americans taking offence, whilst his is one of the oldest and most notable families of upstate NY.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, November 26th, 2018, 11:31 PM
  2. Free speech under fire yet again - Professor Andrew Fraser
    By Furius in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, September 18th, 2005, 03:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •