A significant ruling came down from a federal appeals court on Friday, determining that the University of Washington infringed upon a professor’s rights to free speech when it investigated and retaliated against him for poking fun at the school’s land acknowledgment statement.
Stuart Reges, a teaching professor in computer science and engineering at the University of Washington, filed a complaint against the university after administrators encouraged faculty to include the land acknowledgment statements in their syllabi back in September 2020. These types of statements are meant to honor Native American tribes recognized as the area’s original inhabitants.
In a humorous twist, Reges decided to parody this acknowledgment in January 2022 within his syllabus for the Computer Programming II class, writing, “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property, the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.” This reference drew from philosopher John Locke’s theory explaining that ownership comes from improving the land.
Following his parody, Reges faced backlash from the university. In July 2022, he filed a lawsuit, claiming that UW authorities demanded he remove the comment, labeled it offensive, and encouraged students to file complaints against him. Additionally, the administration initiated a ‘shadow’ section of the course so students could avoid his class, which sparked a disciplinary investigation that suggested potential further punishment or dismissal.
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Reges, overturning an earlier decision made by a district court. They decided that the lower court had mistakenly ruled in the university’s favor regarding the retaliation claim, affirming that the professor’s humorous syllabus statement was protected academic speech concerning a matter of public interest. The court criticized the university’s actions as unlawful retaliation against Reges for expressing his opinions.
Judge Daniel Bress, writing for the majority, commented, “While it’s natural for student discomfort to arise from differing views, such discomfort shouldn’t serve as justification for retaliation against a professor.”
Reges was backed by lawyers from the Freedom for Individual Rights and Expression. After the ruling, attorney Gabe Walters stated, “Today’s ruling is a major triumph for Professor Stuart Reges and the First Amendment rights of faculty members at public universities. The Ninth Circuit has validated what we have asserted from the start: Institutions cannot coerce professors into adopting the university’s preferred political stance under threat of punishment.”
Prior to this appeal, the lower court had favored the university, dismissing Reges’ claims regarding vagueness and overreach of the non-discrimination policy but failed to adequately address his allegations of retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.
Reges expressed relief after the legal victory, telling Fox News Digital: “Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that my parody was a valid approach to discussing this key subject. Throughout my 39 teaching years, I’ve consistently advocated for free speech—even if it nearly cost me my ideal job. I hope my success will motivate others to resist efforts aimed at stifling free expression on college campuses.”
The response from the University of Washington was cautious, stating, “We are reviewing the 2-1 decision from the appeals court and considering our next course of action. We believe we bear the responsibility to safeguard our students, and we maintain that UW acted appropriately. Professor Reges holds his faculty role and has continued to teach during this timeframe.”
Original article source:Federal appeals court sides with Washington professor punished for mocking university land acknowledgment
