The agreement follows a 9th Circuit ruling that the University of Washington violated Stuart Reges' First Amendment rights by treating his dissent as intolerable "disruption."
Stuart Reges, a University of Washington (UW) computer science professor who in 2022 was reprimanded and investigated for mocking a "land acknowledgment," last week received $600,000 as part of an agreement that settles the ensuing First Amendment lawsuit. But Reges did not get an apology or an admission of wrongdoing from the Seattle university, whose spokesman still insists that "we acted appropriately."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit disagreed last December, when a divided three-judge panel ruled that UW administrators violated Reges' First Amendment rights by subjecting him to an inquisition that lasted nearly a year, during which he was denied a merit pay increase, based on his alleged violation of the university's vague "antiharassment" policy. According to the 9th Circuit's decision in Reges v. Cauce, the state university retaliated against Reges for protected speech and engaged in viewpoint discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional.
"They broke the law, but refuse to admit it," Reges writes in the New York Post. "I am astonished that the university still insists that it behaved appropriately."
The UW investigation was prompted by a statement that Reges included in the syllabus for the introductory computer science course he has taught for more than two decades: "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, a critic of "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) policies, was alluding to John Locke while making fun of a university-recommended syllabus statement that "acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations."
Reges saw the land acknowledgment as part of a DEI agenda that "treats some groups of students as more deserving of recognition and welcome than others on account of their race or other immutable characteristic." He thought it was inappropriate to include such a "political statement" in his syllabus and questioned its factual premise, noting that "most of the land currently occupied by UW was densely forested before the land was cleared to make way for the campus." He objected to the implication that "UW's presence is somehow illegitimate, shameful, morally wrong, or unlawful," and deemed the recommended statement "an empty, performative act of moralism."
UW administrators viewed Reges' dissent as intolerable, saying it had caused unacceptable "disruption" at the university. The 9th Circuit did not buy it. "Student discomfort with a professor's views can prompt discussion and disapproval," Judge Daniel A. Bress, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., who was nominated by George W. Bush. "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."
Notwithstanding the university's continued defense of its actions, the settlement agreement repudiates its treatment of Reges by leaving him free to express his views about land acknowledgments. It specifically allows him to include his parody in future syllabi and promises that the university will not offer "competing or 'shadow' sections of his courses" for students offended by it. It forswears "further adverse employment action" against Reges, "including but not limited to pursuing any investigation" or "withholding future salary increases."
The university also undermined its take on Reges' First Amendment claims by revising its "Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action" policy, which administrators cited as the main justification for investigating him, while the case was pending. The official goal of that policy, embodied in UW's Executive Order 31 (EO-31), was "promoting an environment that is free of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation."
EO-31 authorized the university to discipline faculty members for "any conduct that is deemed unacceptable or inappropriate, regardless of whether the conduct rises to the level of unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation." On July 23, 2025, three years after Reges filed his lawsuit, UW rescinded EO-31 and replaced it with EO-81, which says discriminatory harassment must have "the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance" or be "sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive" that it "could reasonably be expected to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or learning environment."
It is hard to reconcile that revision with the university's claim that "we acted appropriately." If that were true, there would have been no need to narrow the policy that Reges supposedly violated. And although the university argued that the "disruption" he caused was enough to justify its investigation, it is now willing to tolerate his dissent, which administrators previously claimed had created a "toxic environment" that had a "significant impact" on the "morale of Native American students" and "their learning," describing "the level of disruption" as "extraordinary."
The settlement "will remind public universities that they are obligated to respect the First Amendment rights of their students, faculty, and staff," Reges said in a press release last Thursday. "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."
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which represented Reges, says the settlement should not be viewed as a victory for any particular opinion about DEI or land acknowledgments. "Reasonable people can disagree about the value of land acknowledgments," FIRE attorney Gabe Walters said. "What's not up for debate is academic freedom. Today's settlement vindicates Reges's right to express his own opinion rather than toeing the university's line. UW learned the hard way: Ignoring the First Amendment can be costly. The livelihoods of professors shouldn't be at the mercy of student or administrator outrage, and this ruling will help protect other professors across the country."
Facts Only
* Stuart Reges is a University of Washington computer science professor.
* In 2022, Reges was reprimanded and investigated for mocking a "land acknowledgment."
* Reges received a $600,000 settlement for the First Amendment lawsuit.
* The 9th Circuit ruled that UW administrators violated Reges' First Amendment rights by subjecting him to an investigation and denying a pay increase based on alleged violation of policy.
* The investigation stemmed from a syllabus statement acknowledging Coast Salish historical land ownership.
* Reges objected to the acknowledgment, viewing it as part of a DEI agenda and questioning its factual premise.
* UW administrators cited "disruption" as justification for investigating Reges.
* A settlement agreement allows Reges to include his parody in future syllabi and prohibits further adverse employment actions against him.
* The University revised its "Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action" policy, embodied in Executive Order 31 (EO-31), to modify disciplinary standards regarding harassment claims.
* The court held that student discomfort does not justify university retaliation for the professor's views.
Executive Summary
A University of Washington professor, Stuart Reges, received a $600,000 settlement to resolve a First Amendment lawsuit stemming from his dissent regarding a university "land acknowledgment." The legal dispute originated from a 9th Circuit ruling that the University of Washington (UW) violated Reges' First Amendment rights by treating his dissent as intolerable disruption. The investigation was triggered by a statement Reges included in a course syllabus acknowledging the Coast Salish people's historical ownership of land, which Reges viewed as part of a "diversity, equity, and inclusion" agenda he opposed.
The court found that UW administrators subjected Reges to an investigation where he was denied a merit pay increase based on alleged violations of university policy. The 9th Circuit determined this constituted retaliation for protected speech and viewpoint discrimination. Despite the university's claims that they acted appropriately, the settlement agreement does not include an admission of wrongdoing. The agreement grants Reges the right to include his parody in future syllabi and prevents the university from offering competing course sections, while also forbidding further adverse employment actions against him.
Full Take
The narrative reveals a tension between institutional claims of procedural propriety and an individual's constitutional right to expression within academia. The core conflict is not about the content of the land acknowledgment itself, but about the process by which dissent is managed: whether legitimate academic disagreement, even when critical of prevailing social or political narratives, constitutes actionable "disruption" warranting punitive institutional action. The shifting nature of the university's policies—moving from a broad anti-harassment stance (EO-31) to a more narrowly defined standard for creating a hostile environment (EO-81)—suggests a strategic attempt by institutions to manage internal discourse while maintaining an appearance of compliance. Reges’ victory, secured through settlement rather than a definitive ruling on the core ideology, forces a reevaluation of where institutional "appropriateness" ends and protected expression begins. The ultimate implication is that academic freedom requires not just protection from overt hostility, but also tolerance for critical, even provocative, viewpoints that challenge prevailing ideological consensus within the campus environment.
Bridge Questions: If institutions are to protect academic freedom without engaging in viewpoint discrimination, how should the threshold for defining "disruption" be established when it involves deeply held philosophical or social disagreements? What systemic changes are necessary to ensure that policy revisions aim genuinely at creating inclusive environments rather than merely managing dissent through retroactive legal maneuvers? How can the concept of institutional appropriateness be redefined so that procedural compliance does not erase the right to critical intellectual engagement?
Sentinel — Human
The text is primarily human-written, effectively synthesizing complex legal and academic disputes while balancing factual reporting with an exploration of the underlying philosophical conflicts regarding academic freedom and institutional policy.