Jorjani v. New Jersey Institute of Technology

On September 19, 2017 the New York Times published an opinion piece and embedded video that brought widespread attention to Jason Reza Jorjani, a humanities lecturer at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. In the video and related remarks he addressed off campus issues including race, immigration, and politics, and predicted a future in which Adolf Hitler would be regarded like Napoleon or Alexander the Great rather than as a unique monster. The recordings were made by someone posing as a graduate student seeking to discuss how the political left silences right wing thought. The Times also quoted Jorjani characterizing liberalism, democracy, and universal human rights as ill conceived and bankrupt sociopolitical ideologies. Around the same time Jorjani had been involved with what was called the Alt Right Corporation, an organization associated with alt right activism.

Soon after the Times publication, NJIT’s president and senior administrators publicly denounced Jorjani’s comments as antithetical to the university’s core values, and several academic units including the Faculty Senate stated that his views were morally repugnant. Six days after the story ran the university placed Jorjani on paid administrative leave, citing belief that the article had caused significant disruption that might continue to expand. The university received an unverified number of calls and, at most, fifty emails expressing concern about his remarks. NJIT also initiated an investigation into whether Jorjani had properly disclosed his outside affiliations under university policy.

On February 13, 2018 NJIT informed Jorjani that it would not renew his one year teaching contract for the following academic year. In July 2018 he filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the nonrenewal was unlawful retaliation for protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. In 2024 the district court granted summary judgment for NJIT, concluding that Jorjani’s speech had created disruption that outweighed his free speech interests under established public employee free expression law.

On September 8, 2025 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a precedential opinion reversing the district court’s judgment. The appellate panel held that Jorjani had spoken as a private citizen on matters of public concern and that NJIT had not shown actual operational disruption sufficient to justify adverse employment action. The court noted that the record did not show classroom problems, protests, or measurable interference with university functions, and emphasized that off campus political and social expression remained protected even when controversial or offensive. The Third Circuit vacated the summary judgment ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.