Court Ruling Upholds Professor’s Free Speech Amid Controversy Over Land Acknowledgment Statement at University of Washington
A federal appeals court has determined that the University of Washington infringed upon the First Amendment rights of one of its computer science faculty members after the institution investigated and issued a warning regarding a satirical land acknowledgment statement he placed in his course materials.
Stuart Reges, who has been a member of the teaching faculty at UW’s Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering since 2004, created his own version of a land acknowledgment statement in January 2022 for an introductory programming class syllabus. This came in response to the university’s suggestion that instructors include acknowledgments recognizing Coast Salish peoples in their course materials.
Reges’ alternative statement referenced philosopher John Locke’s labor theory of property to present a contrasting perspective, asserting that indigenous peoples could claim minimal ownership of the territory where UW stands.
The controversial statement triggered complaints from students and prompted a public statement of apology from the Allen School. The university launched a disciplinary inquiry that extended beyond a year, and administrators arranged for an alternative course section to be led by a different instructor.
While Reges did not receive formal sanctions at the conclusion of the investigation, university officials cautioned him that using similar language again might result in disciplinary action. The appeals court determined that this warning itself constituted a violation of First Amendment protections.
In 2022, with legal representation from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Reges filed a lawsuit against the University of Washington. Initially, a district court found in favor of the university, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling on Friday, December 19, in a split decision among a three-judge panel.
Judge Daniel Bress, writing the majority opinion, stated that student discomfort alone cannot provide justification for taking retaliatory action against a professor’s speech on topics of public interest.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Sidney Thomas contended that the disruption caused to Native students’ educational experience by Reges’ statement outweighed the professor’s free speech interests under the First Amendment.
The University of Washington now faces several possible courses of action. The institution could petition for a rehearing before the entire Ninth Circuit panel or file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. Should the university choose not to pursue either option, the matter would return to district court where appropriate remedies would be determined.
In a statement addressing the decision, UW officials indicated they are considering their available options moving forward. The university maintained its position that it has an obligation to safeguard its students and asserted that its actions in this matter were
appropriate.
The case has drawn attention to the tension between institutional efforts to create inclusive learning environments and protections for academic freedom and free speech rights of faculty members. The ruling establishes important precedent regarding the boundaries of university authority when responding to controversial statements made by professors in their teaching materials.
The controversy began when the university recommended that faculty include land acknowledgment statements, which have become increasingly common in academic settings as institutions seek to recognize the historical presence and ongoing relationship of indigenous peoples to the land. Reges’ decision to craft a statement that challenged this practice sparked the chain of events leading to the legal proceedings.
The appeals court’s decision represents a significant development in ongoing debates about free speech on college campuses and the extent to which universities can regulate faculty expression, particularly when that expression relates to matters of public concern or controversy.
