Celebrating
150
Years
WEATHER Mostly sunny High: 94 Low: 73
Serving the Rutgers community since 1869. Independent since 1980.
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY—NEW BRUNSWICK
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
ONLINE AT DAILYTARGUM.COM
U. ups tuition, fees 2.3 percent effective this year RYAN STIESI NEWS EDITOR
Rutgers found that James Livingston, a professor in the Department of History, violated its discrimination and harassment policy following a string of racially-charged posts made to his Facebook. The University is currently reexamining his case. RUTGERS.EDU
Rutgers reexamines professor’s Facebook comments CHRISTIAN ZAPATA AND RYAN STIESI NEWS EDITORS
Rutgers is reexamining its determination that James Livingston, a professor in the Department of History, violated the University’s discrimination and harassment policy following a series of racially-charged Facebook posts. In a letter dated Aug. 29, University President Robert L. Barchi informed School of Arts and Sciences Executive Dean Peter March that he has remanded the report finding Livingston’s comments in violation of the University Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment to the Rutgers Office of Employment Equity (OEE). “I have remanded the report to the Office of Employment Equity and have asked the Office to more rigorously analyze the facts and assumptions underlying its conclusions,” Barchi said according to the email. The letter, obtained by The Daily Targum, began with Barchi acknowledging the posts made by Livingston, and complaints received by the University about said posts, which led to an investigation by OEE into whether the professor’s Facebook comments violated University Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment.
Barchi also said the report was released to March and Livingston before Barchi had been made aware of its contents, according to the letter. The original investigation found that Livingston’s comments were in violation of the policy, as reported by the Targum. The 10-page report was made public by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and dated July 31. On Aug. 10, Livingston’s appeal for the University to reevaluate its decision was denied. In a letter detailing the University’s findings, Harr y M. Agnostak, associate vice president for Human Resources for Rutgers Labor Relations, wrote, “You have provided no cognizable evidence or basis by which to disturb the findings of the investigator ...” On Aug. 20, FIRE wrote to University administrators demanding they reverse their decision against Livingston and protect faculty members’ constitutional right to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, according to TheFire website. In the letter, Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon, director of Litigation for FIRE, argued that in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, an employee’s speech is protected if they are speaking as a citizen, it involves matter of public
concern or the government lacks “adequate justification” for treating the employee differently than the general public. OEE looked at two rubrics in determining whether Livingston violated University policy: First Amendment speech protections and the University’s policy, according to the report. Should his speech fall beyond protected speech, the question turned to whether the statements rose to the level of harassment or discrimination. The report found that Livingston’s comments fell outside of First Amendment protected speech, because they inflicted damage to the University’s reputation. While his statements satisfied two prongs of the OEE analysis — public concern and speech made outside of his job duties — his speech was not af forded blanket protection and was weighed against its impact on the University’s mission, according to the repor t. “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 stated. “Indeed, the disruption has already been felt, as the University has received numerous complaints about Professor Livingston’s ‘racism.’ His views have like-
wise been publicized and criticized by prominent media outlets.” The report then considered Livingston’s statements against the University’s policy and found him in violation of it. Barchi said that he has also asked the Rutgers Office of the General Counsel, a legal advisor to the University, to assemble an advisory group to provide guidance on alleged policy violations that involve First Amendment and academic freedom questions, according to the letter. The group will consist of First Amendment and academic freedom scholars, attorneys and Rutgers faculty, according to the email. It will provide guidance to the Office of Employment Equity during its review of Livingston’s comments. “Like many in our community, I found that Professor Livingston’s comments showed exceptionally poor judgment, were offensive, and, despite the professor’s claims of satire, were not at all funny,” Barchi said in the email. “At the same time, few values are as important to the University as the protection of our First Amendment rights—even when the speech we are protecting is insensitive and reckless.” No statement has been made at the moment as to what punishment, if any, Livingston will receive.
VOLUME 150, ISSUE 59 • UNIVERSITY ... 3 • OPINIONS ... 6 • INSIDE BEAT... 8 • DIVERSIONS ... 9 • SPORTS ... BACK
This summer, the Rutgers Board of Governors approved a 2.3-percent tuition and fees hike effective as of the 2018-2019 academic year. A typical in-state, full-time School of Arts and Sciences undergraduate student at Rutgers– New Brunswick will now pay $14,975 for tuition and mandator y fees, according to Rutgers Today. For students living on campus, total charges including tuition, fees and room and board will climb to $27,681 — up 2.18 percent from last year. This increase follows the board’s approval of a $4.3 billion budget for the 2018-2019 academic year at its July meeting. The University’s average yearly tuition increase of 2.3 percent is on par with tuition and fee increases at all New Jersey public universities over the last five years, according to Rutgers Today. It is also in the midrange of average five-year increases among Big Ten universities. “We understand that any increase is difficult for our students, but we must balance that with the need to provide access to the highest quality education for our students,” said Sandy J. Stewart, chair of the Board of Governors, at the meeting. “This moderate increase allows us to maintain the top academic programs that Rutgers offers to our outstanding students.” Some members of the Rutgers community disagree with these increases and feel they harm the promise of higher education at Rutgers, said David Hughes, vice president of Rutgers’ American Association of University Professors - American Federation of Teachers (AAUP-AFT) and a professor in the Department of Anthropology. “We have consistently investigated the $800 million in unrestricted reser ves, and we argue that that money, while intended by the administration for other things, is not being spent and is available for something like a tuition freeze,” he said. College affordability has been a highly contested topic in recent years while factors such as a consistent decline in state appropriations affect how educational institutions, such as Rutgers, generate revenue. As a result, students have been paying an increasingly larger share for their education. State appropriations comprised approximately 62 percent of a Rutgers education in 1995, according to University data. In 2016, they SEE YEAR ON PAGE 4