Ninth Circuit Court Rules in Favor of UW Professor's Free Speech

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of University of Washington (UW) computer science professor Stuart Reges, determining that university officials unlawfully punished him for including a parody land acknowledgment in his syllabus. This acknowledgment challenged the university's recommended statement recognizing Coast Salish tribes. The court's decision prevents UW from warning, investigating, or sidelining Reges solely for offending students regarding matters of public concern. The ruling emphasizes that student discomfort does not justify retaliation against a professor's speech.

MyNorthwest

Reges faced over a year of investigation following student complaints about his syllabus, which included a statement asserting that indigenous peoples could rightfully claim almost none of the land under the university. In response to the backlash, the Paul G. Allen Center for Computer Science and Engineering issued a public apology. The court's ruling highlighted the importance of protecting free speech, particularly in a public university setting, where First Amendment rights are applicable.

MyNorthwest

The ruling has sparked a debate about the value and effectiveness of land acknowledgments. KIRO Newsradio host Ursula Reutin expressed skepticism about their impact, suggesting that they may be largely performative and fail to inspire meaningful action. She argued that while land acknowledgments are intended to recognize indigenous peoples, they often do not lead to further engagement or support.

MyNorthwest

Conversely, KIRO producer Andrew Lanier supported the court's decision, advocating for free speech even when it may be uncomfortable. He noted that the case involved a public employer, which complicates the issue of censorship and emphasizes the need to protect individual expression in academic settings.

MyNorthwest

Critics of Reges's approach argue that his parody undermines the significance of land acknowledgments and may perpetuate misunderstandings about indigenous rights. They contend that such statements should be taken seriously and that parody can detract from genuine efforts to support Native American and indigenous communities.

MyNorthwest

• “This particular professor faced more than a year of investigation, and he was warned not to repeat the statement. A divided Ninth Circuit Court ruled the warning alone violated his First Amendment rights, and the court said student discomfort does not give a public university the right to retaliate against a professor’s speech on matters of public concern,” — Ursula Reutin, KIRO Newsradio Host

MyNorthwest

• “I think it’s largely performative. I think people aren’t inspired to do more, or do they feel like, ‘Well, I’m doing enough, or I’m doing this, or they’re rolling their eyes, or whatever it is,'” — Ursula Reutin, KIRO Newsradio Host

MyNorthwest

• “I’m for free speech, even when it makes us uncomfortable,” — Andrew Lanier, KIRO Producer

MyNorthwest

The Ninth Circuit's ruling in favor of Stuart Reges underscores the ongoing tension between free speech and the sensitivities surrounding discussions of indigenous rights. As the debate continues, the effectiveness of land acknowledgments remains a contentious topic, with calls for more substantive support for Native American and indigenous communities beyond mere recognition.

MyNorthwest