University of Washington violated professor’s free speech rights over parody of land acknowledgment: appeals court

A federal appeals court has ruled that the University of Washington violated the First Amendment rights of a computer science professor when it investigated and reprimanded him over a syllabus statement that mocked UW’s recommended land acknowledgment.

In a decision filed December 19, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that UW unlawfully retaliated against Stuart Reges, a professor in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, for protected “academic speech.”

UW had adopted an official land acknowledgment in 2015, and the school later recommended that instructors include an Indigenous land acknowledgment on course syllabi as part of “Best Practices for Inclusive Teaching.” Reges objected to the practice and placed a parody statement in the syllabus for his introductory programming course syllabus that read, “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.”

The reference invoked philosopher John Locke’s labor theory of property, that ownership can arise from mixing one’s labor with land. According to court documents obtained by The Ari Hoffman Show on Talk Radio 570 KVI, complaints escalated after a student raised concerns and the statement circulated online. The Allen School’s director, Magdalena Balazinska, demanded that Reges remove the language, claiming it was creating a “toxic environment” in a required course. When he refused, administrators replaced the posted syllabus with a version that removed the parody statement.

The school also publicly condemned the statement as “offensive,” emailed students apologizing, and encouraged those who felt they hadn’t been treated respectfully to file formal complaints. UW also opened a second course section taught by another instructor; roughly 170 of about 500 students transferred.

UW then initiated a disciplinary process that included a faculty committee investigation, which later reported substantial disruption, including claims that one Native student took a leave of absence and another dropped out.

In June 2023, the dean closed the investigation without imposing sanctions but warned Reges that repeating the statement in future syllabi, if it led to further disruption, could trigger discipline under UW’s nondiscrimination policy (Executive Order 31) and the Faculty Code. The Ninth Circuit’s majority concluded that Reges’s syllabus statement was protected academic speech, not “government speech,” and that UW’s investigation, reprimand, and threat of discipline qualified as adverse actions that could chill protected expression.

The panel held that the “disruption” UW cited was largely a product of student discomfort and anger at the viewpoint expressed, which cannot justify punishing academic speech in a university setting. The opinion emphasized that debate and disagreement are central to higher education and warned against letting hostile audience reaction become a de facto “heckler’s veto.”

The court reversed the lower court’s summary judgment for UW and directed that summary judgment be entered for Reges on both his retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims, sending the case back to the district court to determine appropriate relief.

The decision also reopened Reges’s facial challenge to UW’s nondiscrimination and affirmative action policy, Executive Order 31 (EO-31). The panel said the district court improperly narrowed the policy when dismissing the challenge, because EO-31’s text authorizes discipline for “any conduct” deemed “unacceptable or inappropriate” even if it does not rise to unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. The Ninth Circuit remanded for the district court to evaluate the policy’s constitutionality, including how it is applied in practice.