Academic Freedom Prevails in Land Acknowledgment Dispute
Ten years back, the University of Washington established an official statement recognizing the Coast Salish peoples as traditional inhabitants of the campus lands. By 2018, the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering started encouraging faculty to incorporate this acknowledgment into their course materials.
Stuart Reges, a longtime instructor in the school since 2004, responded critically to this recommendation. In his syllabus for CSE 143, he included a satirical statement questioning the historical basis of such acknowledgments, 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 led to university administrators investigating Reges, issuing a formal reprimand, and threatening further disciplinary measures.
Last Friday, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit determined these actions infringed upon the professor's constitutional rights. Judge Daniel A. Bress, joined by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., wrote in their opinion: "A public university investigated, reprimanded, and threatened to discipline a professor for contentious statements he made in a class syllabus. The statements, which mocked the university's model syllabus statement on an issue of public concern, caused offense in the university community. Yet debate and disagreement are hallmarks of higher education. Student discomfort with a professor's views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor."
Gabe Walters, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression who represented Reges, commented on the decision: "The Ninth Circuit agreed with what FIRE has said from the beginning: Universities can't force professors to parrot an institution's preferred political views under pain of punishment."
The controversy began when Allen School Director Magdalena Balazinska learned about Reges' syllabus statement on January 4, 2022. She immediately demanded its removal, citing concerns about creating "a toxic environment" in a required course for computer science majors. When Reges refused, university IT staff removed the statement from his online syllabus.
University administrators subsequently formed a special faculty committee to investigate Reges. In October 2022, this committee reported that his statement had an "extraordinary" disruptive impact on Native American students' learning and morale, claiming it caused one student to take a leave of absence and another to leave the university entirely.
However, Judge Bress noted significant problems with these claims. The student who took leave wasn't enrolled in Reges' course and cited multiple other factors for their decision. Regarding the student who supposedly dropped out, Bress observed that "it appears undisputed that this student does not exist."
Despite these findings, College of Engineering Dean Nancy Allbritton informed Reges in June 2023 that the investigative committee believed he had likely violated university policy by causing "significant disruption." While she declined to impose sanctions, she warned that including similar statements in future syllabi could lead to disciplinary action.
The court's majority determined that the university had overemphasized claims of disruption while undervaluing Reges' right to express views on matters of public importance. Bress wrote: "It is readily apparent that the disruption that occurred at UW after Reges included his land acknowledgment in his Winter 2022 syllabus is attributable to one irreducible source: student discomfort and anger with Reges's views."
Will Creeley, FIRE's Legal Director, reflected on the ruling's significance: "The 9th Circuit's ruling recognizes that sometimes, 'exposure to views that distress and offend is a form of education unto itself.' As we always say at FIRE: If you graduate from college without once being offended, you should ask for your money back."
The decision represents a substantial affirmation of academic freedom protections for faculty at public institutions, particularly regarding their ability to critique institutional policies through course materials.
