Photo: Wolterk / iStock Editorial / Getty Images
The University of Washington has paid Stuart Reges, a computer science and engineering teaching professor, $600,000 after punishing him for parodying the university’s land acknowledgment statement in his course syllabus. The payment follows a court decision that found the university violated Reges’s First Amendment rights by investigating and reprimanding him for his satirical statement, which challenged the university’s suggested—but not required—land acknowledgment practice.
In January 2022, Reges included in his syllabus a modified land acknowledgment, stating, “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.” University officials deemed the statement inappropriate and offensive, and subsequently removed it from his syllabus, launched a months-long harassment investigation, and offered a competing class section so students could avoid his course.
Reges, with support from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), filed a lawsuit against the university in July 2022, alleging viewpoint discrimination and violation of his free speech rights. On December 19, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Reges’s favor, stating that the university’s actions constituted retaliation for protected speech. The court’s majority opinion affirmed that “debate and disagreement are hallmarks of higher education” and that student discomfort with a professor’s views is not grounds for punishment.
Reges said, “Now the Ninth Circuit has affirmed that my parody was a fully protected way to participate in the discussion of this important topic." He also expressed hope that his case would inspire others to defend free speech on college campuses.
The university maintains that land acknowledgments are intended to recognize the historical ties of Native peoples to university land, not to express personal viewpoints, and that the syllabus was not the appropriate place for political debates. Still, the court’s ruling emphasized that public universities cannot mandate faculty to adopt specific institutional viewpoints or penalize those who dissent.
As a result of the settlement and court decision, Reges has been financially compensated, and the case has set a precedent regarding academic freedom and free expression at public universities.