Washington school settles in land acknowledgment parody case

The University of Washington settled Thursday for $600,000 with a professor who officials punished for parodying a university-approved land acknowledgment statement. Thursday’s settlement with the professor guaranteed that the Seattle-based university can’t take any further action against Stuart Reges. The settlement vindicated Reges’ right to express his opinion rather than parroting the university’s view, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, which represented the professor. The settlement followed after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that administrators were liable under the First Amendment for retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.

How did the case get here? School officials encouraged Reges and other professors to include a statement in their syllabi acknowledging the university’s property sat on land once owned by indigenous tribes. Reges criticized common land acknowledgements like this in an email to faculty in December 2021, FIRE said. The following month, he included a parody land acknowledgement statement on his syllabi.

What exactly did he write? According to court documents, Reges wrote the following statement in his syllabi: “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 labor theory he refers to is a reference to a theory of land ownership attributed to the English philosopher and physician John Locke, which says that land ownership derives from improving the property, according to court documents. His statement implied that the indigenous people failed to improve the majority of the land, so under Locke’s theory, they have no legal claim to ownership of it.

University officials alleged Reges’ statement was offensive, and soon censored the remarks. They also launched a nearly year-long investigation into the professor under an anti-harassment policy, FIRE said.

Reges sued officials in 2022, alleging that his First Amendment protections from retaliation and viewpoint discrimination were violated, but the university denied those allegations in its response. A district court sided with the university in 2024. On appeal, the 9th Circuit upheld Reges’ speech rights and sent the case back to the lower court to determine his damages.

Did the settlement change anything at the school? While the case was pending, university officials rescinded and replaced the anti-harassment policy it used against Reges, FIRE said.

His case can help reverse a trend of ideological conformity in academia, Reges said in a statement. He added that universities should allow students to engage with different ideas.

How has the university responded to the settlement announcement? In a statement to WORLD, a spokesman said University of Washington administration officials maintained that they acted appropriately, and that the settlement was in no way an admission of wrongdoing. He added that a settlement was the most reasonable option after the appeals court overturned the federal district court's decision in favor of the university. The settlement also avoided costly attorney's fees, according to the spokesman. He went on to point out that Reges retained his faculty position and had continued to teach while his case played out in court. His status with the university remained unchanged, according to the spokesman.