VICTORY: Court vindicates professor investigated for parodying university’s ‘land acknowledgment’ on syllabus

• Universities can’t encourage professors to wade into controversial subjects, then punish professors for disagreeing with the administration
• Court: “Student discomfort with a professor’s views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor.”

SEATTLE, Dec. 19, 2025 — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today delivered a decisive victory for the First Amendment rights of public university faculty in Reges v. Cauce. Reversing a federal district court’s opinion, the Ninth Circuit held University of Washington officials violated the First Amendment when they punished Professor Stuart Reges for substituting his satirical take on the university’s preferred “land acknowledgment” statement on his syllabus.

On Dec. 8, 2021, Reges criticized land acknowledgment statements in an email to faculty, and on Jan. 3, 2022, he parodied UW’s model statement in his 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.” Reges’s statement was a nod to John Locke’s philosophical theory that property rights are established by labor.

COURTESY PHOTOS FOR MEDIA USE

Represented by FIRE, Reges filed a First Amendment lawsuit in July 2022 challenging the university’s actions, which included a months-long “harassment” investigation. University officials created a competing class, so students wouldn’t have to take a computer science class from someone who didn’t parrot the university’s preferred opinions. 

“Today’s opinion is a resounding victory for Professor Stuart Reges and the First Amendment rights of public university faculty,” said FIRE attorney Gabe Walters. “The Ninth Circuit agreed with what FIRE has said from the beginning: Universities can’t force professors to parrot an institution’s preferred political views under pain of punishment.”

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Daniel Bress stated: “A public university investigated, reprimanded, and threatened to discipline a professor for contentious statements he made in a class syllabus. The statements, which mocked the university’s model syllabus statement on an issue of public concern, caused offense in the university community. Yet debate and disagreement are hallmarks of higher education. Student discomfort with a professor’s views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor. We hold that the university’s actions toward the professor violated his First Amendment rights.”

That’s exactly right. 

“Today’s opinion recognizes that sometimes, ‘exposure to views that distress and offend is a form of education unto itself,’” said FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley. “As we always say at FIRE: If you graduate from college without once being offended, you should ask for your money back.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

CONTACT:

Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org