The First Amendment is being tested by a case at Rutgers University in which a professor stated "I hate white people" and was punished for it.
The constitutional provision, after all, was designed to protect speech that offends, as no one objects to speech that pleases them.
Rutgers President Robert Barchi told senior administrators he ordered a reevaluation of the ruling that found James Livingston guilty of violating university policy.
Livingston posted his comments on Facebook.
TRENDING: Jihad against Christians is due to … climate change?
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is defending Livingston, said he made the post May 31 while at a restaurant in his Harlem neighborhood.
The post said: "OK, officially, I now hate white people. 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 was "overrun with little Caucasian ---holes" and said, "I hereby resign from my race."
After Facebook removed the post the following day, citing its Community Standards on hate speech, Livingston posted, "I just don't want little Caucasians overrunning my life … remand them to the suburbs, where they and their parents can colonize every restaurant."
The posts got the attention of reporters, and Rutgers soon was hit with complaints about the racist comments.
The university's Office of Employment Equity investigated and found Livingston's posts violated the school's policy against discrimination and harassment.
The university report concluded the comments were not protected by the First Amendment and were racial discrimination.
FIRE activists then wrote to Barchi, arguing that Livingston's posts to his personal account "amounted to speech on a matter of public concern – namely, gentrification and race – and are certainly protected by the First Amendment."
"We reminded the president of his laudable promise in public comments that: '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,'" FIRE said.
Now, in a letter, Barchi has told officials he ordered the reevaluation of the decision.
He explained he wants university officials to "more rigorously analyze the facts and assumptions underlying its conclusions."
He said the speech certainly is offensive, but "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."
FIREÂ said the president "will also convene an advisory group of scholars and Rutgers faculty to provide guidance on alleged policy violations that raise First Amendment and academic freedom questions."
FIRE warned that if Livingston's punishment stands, "all of Rutgers faculty should be afraid to post or say anything potentially offensive or controversial, particularly when they are one screenshot or recording away from riling an internet backlash."
Â