Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Professor in ‘Land Acknowledgement’ Parody Case

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Professor in ‘Land Acknowledgement’ Parody Case

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the free speech rights of a University of Washington (UW) professor who had been sanctioned over a “land acknowledgement” parody he inserted into his syllabus.

For those who attended college when it was focused on academics and learning rather than performative politics, administrators acknowledging that university property may at some time in the past have been occupied by Indians is all the rage in leftist campuses.

Think of it as placating the overly sensitive students before grade inflation takes over, like giving a three-year-old a cookie before their tablet time.

But the present case takes this absurdity to a whole new level.

Per the Ninth Circuit’s opinion:

In 2015, UW adopted a land acknowledgment stating: “The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.”

According to UW’s “Office of Minority Affairs & Diversity,” this land acknowledgment was developed “to acknowledge that our campus sits on occupied land” and to recognize the “difficult, painful[,] and long history” associated with UW’s location.

In 2019, the UW’s Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering revised its “Best Practices for Inclusive Teaching” to recommend that instructors include an “Indigenous Land Acknowledgement” in their own course syllabi.

But Stuart Reges, who worked as a Teaching Professor at the Allen School, teaching introductory computer science courses since 2004, thought that was ridiculous.

Specifically, he thought the land acknowledgment expressed “that UW’s presence is somehow illegitimate, shameful, morally wrong, or unlawful,” and considered it an empty act of moralism ripe for parody.

On January 3, 2022, the first day of UW’s Winter Quarter, Reges’s Computer Science and Engineering 143: Computer Programming II (CSE 143) first accessed his syllabus, which contained the following statement:

“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.”

Perhaps predictably, this tongue in cheek dual critique of Marxism and land acknowledgements caused an uproar.

Later that same day, a student submitted a complaint, writing that she felt “intimidated” and unwelcome in Reges’s class and believed that she would not “be supported and led to be successful in this required course for my major.”

The statement was also brought to the school’s attention by its “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) student committee.” That committee emailed the school’s “assistant director for DEI” to complain about the inclusion of “this offensive language.”

Citing the “emotional harm to students,” the school’s Recruiter for Diversity & Access asked how she could recruit Native students “into an environment where their history is questioned and their rights are denied.” Unwilling to back down, Reges was eventually investigated, reprimanded, and threatened by UW.

But he continued to resist, eventually hauling several UW officials into federal court alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech.

However, while the district court agreed that Reges’s statements were protected speech, on balance, they found UW had a right to end the disruption to university functions and the learning environment caused by his statements.

Enter the Ninth Circuit.

The Court found that while the UW community was free to regard Reges’s speech as disrespectful, self-aggrandizing, or worse, and to speak out against him, “Reges has rights, too.”

UW was free to ask Reges to consider removing his parody statement, but opening a lengthy disciplinary investigation, reprimanding him, and threatening him with further discipline, was unconstitutional retaliation.

Per the Court, Reges included the parody land acknowledgment in his syllabus to comment on the propriety of land acknowledgments, to challenge the Allen School’s recommendation to include a land acknowledgment on syllabi, and to question the factual basis for UW’s land acknowledgment.

This is a speech on an issue of public concern, and the only disruption to campus affairs caused by Reges’s statement was due to student discomfort, much of which may have been encouraged by the Allen School after the fact.

In short: “Student unrest is an inevitable byproduct of our core First Amendment safeguards in the higher education context. This unrest therefore cannot be the type of disruption that permits restricting or punishing a professor’s academic speech.”

And in perhaps the best line of the opinion, the Court concludes that “exposure to views that distress and offend is a form of education unto itself.”

This kind of basic defense of bedrock free speech protections may come as quite a shock to UW students, administrators, and their eggshell skull emotionalist allies.

But to those of us who know basic constitutional law, or still facts more important than feelings when it comes to public policy, the Ninth Circuit has done nothing more than acknowledge reality.

[Featured image via YouTube]

Reminder: we are a small organization going up against powerful and wealthy government and private institutions devoted to DEI discrimination. Donations are greatly needed and appreciated.

———–

Timothy R. Snowball is a Senior Attorney at the Equal Protection Project.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.