Professor who Parodied University 'Land Acknowledgment' Wins $600K Settlement

University of Washington Professor Stuart Reges

by FIRE, September 3, 2026 -The University of Washington paid $600,000 after punishing Professor
Stuart Reges for parodying a university-approved “land acknowledgment” in his syllabus.

The payout comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held administrators liable under the First Amendment for retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.

Today’s settlement concludes the legal battle that began with a 2022 lawsuit by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression on Reges’s behalf. Besides the monetary settlement, the agreement stipulates that the university cannot take any further action against Reges. While Reges’s appeal was pending, UW also rescinded and replaced the vague antiharassment policy used to punish the professor for his speech.

“I am deeply grateful to FIRE for this legal victory which will remind public universities that they are obligated to respect the First Amendment rights of their students, faculty, and staff,” said Reges. “More importantly, I hope that my protest can help reverse a decade-long trend towards ideological conformity in academia and help to convince them that instead of ‘protecting’ students from controversial ideas, they should be helping them to learn how to cope with disagreement. Only then can we heal the deep divisions that confront us today.”

It has become increasingly common in academia to encourage statements that formally recognize indigenous ties to the land. In December 2021, Reges criticized land acknowledgment statements in an email to faculty, and the next month 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, and a response to the Computer Science department’s recommendation that professors include the UW’s model statement in their syllabi. Reges objected to the political nature of the UW’s model statement and sought to demonstrate that there are competing views on the value of land acknowledgments.

#

Rod's Commentary

by Rod Williams, Sept. 3, 2026- I have followed this case for a while. I think land acknowledgements are silly, performative exercises in virtue signaling, so when I first heard of this professor refusing to play the game, it grabbed my attention. 

After Professor Reges parodied the silly land acknowledgement, the University really went after him. University officials directed IT staff to remove the parody statement from Reges’s syllabus without his consent. They created a “shadow” or competing section of his course taught by another professor, allowing students to transfer into it. A lengthy investigation was opened under a vague anti-harassment policy that could be applied to any conduct deemed “unacceptable or inappropriate.” The investigation lasted about a year and found Reges had “likely violated” the policy, though no formal sanction was issued.  During the investigation, Reges was denied a merit pay increase.  Administrators warned him that repeating the parody in future syllabi could trigger further disciplinary measures. I hope the professor enjoys his $600,000. It should have been more.  

We are going through a period in which the greatest threat to free speech is coming from the Trump administration. That is, of course, not the norm. For decades now, the woke left has been punishing and curtailing free speech, from punishing people for "misgendering" to punishing anything deemed "hate speech," to banning speech that hurts someone's feelings, to refusing to let conservative speakers speak on campus and allowing students to shout down speakers. 

There was a time when illiberal liberals shut down conservatives on the public airwaves by requiring "fairness" and equal time. Thankfully, that is gone.  We can now be glad that illiberal conservatives do not have those tools of suppression in their toolbox. 

To preserve free speech, we must protect it from those who attack it from either the left or the right. We should value free speech as a principle and a right. I fear we are in an age where many are okay with trampling free speech as long as it is their side doing the trampling. 

Top Stories