We have been covering Professor Charles Negy’s battle with the University of Central Florida (UCF) since inception.Of all the post-George Floyd summer of 2020 purges of academia, Negy’s case was perhaps the most chilling and abusive I saw in the many cases we covered (including my own). To this day it sends a chill up my spine to recall what he went through. University administrators not only sacrificed him to satieate the howling internet and campus mobs, the administrators became a mob unto themselves, launching an 8-month investigation to try to find something, anything, they could to justfy firing Negy. They also drummed up complaints as part of that effort. See my August 16, 2020, post for details, The administrative torment of UCF Prof. Charles Negy:
I had heard of Charles Negy, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Central Florida (UCF). What I heard seemed like a particularly egregious example of cancel culture that is purging academia and imposing uniformity of opinion, particularly with regard to the Black Lives Matter movement. Having looked into it more, it’s worse than I realized.Negy’s alleged crime that sparked the controversy was two tweets questioning the orthodoxy of systemic racism and white privilege.One tweet, which no longer is available,said:
“If Afr. Americans as a group, had the same behavioral profile as Asian Americans (on average, performing the best academically, having the highest income, committing the lowest crime, etc.), would we still be proclaiming ‘systematic racism’ exists?”
A second tweet, also no longer available, said:
“Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege. But as a group, they’re missing out on much needed feedback.”
Rather than debate the merits or lack of merits in his opinions, a particularly aggressive attempt to get Negy fired ensued.
There was a Change.org petition with over 30,000 signatures, a Twitter hashtag was launched (#UCFFireHim) that trended, the student Senate passed a resolution, and there were protests on campus in which the President participated….
Eventually UCF fired Negy based on the pretextual investigation. Because Negy was part of a union, he was able to take UCF to binding arbitration, and won. He was reinstated by order of the arbitrator, U. Central Florida Prof. Charles Negy, Fired After Tweeting “Black Privilege is Real,” Ordered Reinstated With Tenure and Back Pay
Based on our coverage, I was interviewed by Fox News about Negy and his case, “Charles Negy, in many ways, is the poster child for what goes wrong when DEI takes over a campus”
And then he sued. See this post for details on the history of the case and the court filing, Prof. Charles Negy, Investigated and Fired After Tweets Disputing Systemic Racism, Files Federal Lawsuit Against U. Central Florida.
UCF and its officials moved to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that the Board of Trustees was immune to suit due to sovereign immunity, and that the adminstrative officials named in the Complaint had qualified immunity.
The federal court in the Middle District of Florida ruled last week, dismissing part of the case based on sovereign immunity, lack of standing to seek injunctive relief, and dismissing some ancillary claims for failure to state a claim. But importantly, the court allowed the key First Amendment claims to move forward against the adminstrative officials finding that enough had been alleged to overcome qualified immunity.
The full Order is at the bottom of the post, but here is the key portion on Negy’s First Amendment claims (starting at page 13 of the Order):
Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known.” ….Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegations against the individual Defendants only cover acts that were within the scope of their discretion as UCF administrators. (Doc. 32 at 11). This point is uncontested by Plaintiff. And the Court agrees….Now, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show Defendants violated clearly established law….The Court must determine if a reasonable public official would understand that investigating and terminating Plaintiff because of his Twitter posts and the subsequently solicited complaints violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights….Insofar as Plaintiff’s statements were made in the classroom pursuant to his official duties as a professor at UCF, the First Amendment affords him no protection. See Boyce, 510 F.3d at 1342–43. As to Plaintiff’s statements made outside the classroom, Defendants do not contest that Plaintiff’s Twitter posts were made as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Plaintiff posted from his personal account, which was unaffiliated with his role as a UCF professor and disclaims “Opinions are my own.” (Doc. 26 at 7). Therefore, those statements were in his capacity as a citizen rather than as a state employee. See Boyce, 510 F.3d at 1341. The exact content of the speech is not in the complaint, but Plaintiff alleges the speech argued that Black people were not systemically oppressed in the United States. (See Doc. 26 at 2). Twitter is often used by members of the public to air their views on wide-ranging topics. And to provide context, Plaintiff alleges the posts were “[i]n response to the national conversation around race.” (Doc. 26 at 8). Therefore, Plaintiff has adequately alleged his speech was on a matter of public concern. See Chesser, 248 F.3d at 1123….Defendants argue Plaintiff’s statements caused great disruption on campus, impeding “UCF’s interest in maintaining an efficient and non-disruptive work environment.” (Doc. 32 at 13). These disruptions are well documented in Plaintiff’s allegations—including protests by current students and calls for Plaintiff to be fired, (see Doc. 26 at 8–13), and current and incoming UCF students voicing concerns about the situation on campus, (see id. at 12). Even if the speech caused protests and campus unrest, it does not necessarily equate to an inefficient functioning of the university’s public service: delivering education to its students. Disruption, debate, disagreement, and protest happen at educational institutions—whether the result of athletic wins and losses, controversial speakers and texts, or current national and global events….The state interest here is not strong enough to outweigh Plaintiff’s interest in free expression. This is one of the extraordinary circumstances where Pickering balancing shows Defendants’ conduct was unconstitutional. The need to give in to the demands an offended, angry student body is not a basis to knowingly engage in content discrimination.3 Therefore, at this early stage of the process, Plaintiff has met his burden of pleading that Defendants’ conduct was forbidden by clearly established law. The Court will now proceed to the constitutional violation prong….[T]he Eleventh Circuit has held that granting qualified immunity is inappropriate where the record suggests the employer fired an employee for pretextual reasons…. Plaintiff’s allegations suggest the investigation was a pretext to terminate him for his Twitter posts based on the timing of the investigation and Defendants’ remarks to the angry student population….Accepting the allegations in the Amended Complaint as true, Plaintiff was terminated in substantial part because of his controversial Twitter posts, and Defendants have been unable to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they would have terminated him absent that speech. Therefore, a reasonable official should have known that terminating an employee based on those Twitter posts violated the First Amendment. Thus, based on Plaintiff’s allegations, individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims at this stage of the proceedings.
Negy’s attorney, Samantha Harris, provided the following statement:
“This decision is an important first step towards holding UCF administrators accountable for their cruel acts of retaliation against Dr. Negy. It is also a vindication of public employees’ right to speak out on matters of public concern without fear of reprisal. We look forward to continuing the fight for justice.”
We will continue to follow the case.
———————–
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY