UW to pay $600,000 to professor after losing First Amendment fight over his parody land acknowledgment

THE ALASKA STORY

Sept. 8, 2026 – Apparently, the University of Washington has no sense of humor. For that, the university will be paying $600,000 to settle a four-year legal battle with a computer science professor, who the campus administration punished for placing a parody of the university’s recommended Indigenous land acknowledgment in his course syllabus.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression announced the settlement that covers damages, attorneys’ fees and  costs incurred by professor Stuart Reges. It follows a published ruling in which the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that university officials retaliated against Reges and discriminated against him because of his viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment.

The decision may have implications in Alaska, because the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction includes Alaska and seven other Western states, and Alaska has become a stronghold for the performative land acknowledgement, which is now read before every Anchorage Assembly meeting and other official meetings around the city and state.

Fairbanks City Council inching toward ‘land acknowledgement’ requirement

From taxes to ‘occupied land’ politics, a Juneau hearing takes detour

The dispute began in January 2022 at UW’s Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, where Reges has taught introductory computer science courses since 2004.

The school encouraged faculty members to place a land acknowledgment in their syllabi recognizing the Coast Salish peoples and the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.

Reges, who is a a critic of DEI — diversity, equity and inclusion — initiatives, had previously objected to the statement in a faculty email. He described land acknowledgments as political and performative and questioned the historical premise behind the university’s language.

Instead of using the recommended statement, Reges placed his own version in the syllabus:

“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 statement invoked English philosopher John Locke’s labor theory of property, under which ownership rights can arise when a person mixes his labor with natural resources.

Reges said he intended the statement as a parody and as a demonstration that competing views existed about land acknowledgments. UW administrators took great offense and removed the statement from the online syllabus, violating his First Amendment rights. UW also established a competing section of the course so students could avoid taking Reges’ class, and began an investigation under its nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policy. That investigation lasted nearly a year.

Administrators ultimately reprimanded Reges, warned him about possible future discipline and denied him a merit-based salary increase. Reges retained his position and continued teaching throughout the dispute.

FIRE filed a federal lawsuit on his behalf in July 2022 against then-UW President Ana Mari Cauce and other university administrators. FIRE and Reges alleged that the university had retaliated against him for protected speech and engaged in viewpoint discrimination by allowing the preferred land acknowledgment while suppressing his dissenting version.

A federal district judge ruled for the university in 2024. Although the judge concluded that Reges had spoken on an issue of public concern, the court found that the disruption attributed to his statement outweighed his free speech rights.

Reges appealed. Last December, a divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court. The court issued an amended opinion in May 2026 and denied rehearing.

Judges Daniel Bress, appointed by President Donald Trump, and Milan Smith Jr., appointed by President George W. Bush, formed the majority. Judge Sidney Thomas dissented from portions of the ruling. He was appointed by President Bill Clinton and has ruled against gun rights, ruling that the Second Amendment does not protect a general right of the public to carry concealed firearms.

The majority, however, held that Reges had spoken in his own capacity as a professor rather than on behalf of the university. It also found that UW took adverse employment actions against him specifically because of the viewpoint expressed in his syllabus.

“Student discomfort with a professor’s views can prompt discussion and disapproval,” Bress wrote. “But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor.”

The majority said UW had not produced sufficient evidence that the statement caused the kind of operational disruption necessary to outweigh Reges’ First Amendment rights.

“First Amendment protection that rises and falls depending on how upset students become at a professor’s message is little protection at all,” the court said.

The panel directed the federal district court to enter summary judgment for Reges on his retaliation and viewpoint-discrimination claims. It also revived his challenges to the university’s anti-harassment policy and sent the case back to determine the appropriate relief. The Ninth Circuit’s amended opinion is available here.

The settlement resolves those remaining questions without another trial.

Under the agreement, UW may not remove Reges’ parody from his present or future syllabi. The university also agreed not to investigate him again over the statement, create competing or “shadow” sections of his courses, or deny future salary increases because of the statement or complaints about it.

“I hope that my protest can help reverse a decade-long trend towards ideological conformity in academia,” Reges said in FIRE’s announcement. He said universities should prepare students to cope with disagreement rather than protect them from controversial ideas.

UW did not apologize or admit wrongdoing.

“The University of Washington maintains that we acted appropriately, and this settlement is in no way an admission of any wrongdoing,” university spokesman Victor Balta said, according to Seattle Times reporting, as published by The Spokesman-Review.

Balta said the university settled to avoid the additional attorneys’ fees and expenses that would follow the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The university’s position does not alter the appellate court’s published legal conclusion. The settlement itself contains no admission of liability, but the Ninth Circuit separately determined that UW’s actions constituted retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.

While the lawsuit was pending, UW also rescinded Executive Order 31, the policy administrators had relied upon while investigating Reges. It had permitted corrective or disciplinary action for conduct deemed “unacceptable or inappropriate,” even when the conduct did not meet the legal definition of discrimination, harassment or retaliation.

The Ninth Circuit found that language broad enough to warrant further judicial review, rejecting the district court’s narrower interpretation of the policy.

UW replaced it in July 2025 with Executive Order 81. The newer policy defines discriminatory harassment more narrowly, generally requiring conduct that unreasonably interferes with work or academic performance or is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive to create an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. UW’s current policy is published here.

FIRE attorney Gabe Walters said the settlement protects more than Reges’ ability to keep one sentence in a syllabus.

“Reasonable people can disagree about the value of land acknowledgments,” Walters said. “What’s not up for debate is academic freedom.”