Academic freedom. Freedom of inquiry. Free speech.
That’s what Stuart Reges (photo, left), a University of Washington computer science professor, and the public interest law firm representing him, thought they were defending when he sued UW in federal court after administrators sought to punish him for what they considered a violation of their internal email and syllabus writing policies.
It’s really a case of the above ideals colliding with political correctness.
Archaeologists believe Coast Salish indigenous peoples occupied the land under the UW campus from at least the 6th century A.D. (see Wikipedia article here). As a nod to this heritage, the UW begins meetings, gatherings, and important functions with a land acknowledgement statement (see example here). The UW administration also “suggests that faculty include an optional indigenous land acknowledgement” in their course syllabuses.
A “land acknowledgement” basically is an expression that Native Americans were here first and this once was their land. The practice of acknowledging this, out of respect to the tribes, isn’t unique to UW; other entities have adopted it, including in other countries, and Wikipedia says (here) it’s gaining momentum in the U.S. among “arts institutions, museums, higher education, non-profit organizations, local governments, churches,” and even the movie industry’s Oscars ceremonies.
At the UW, administrators take it very seriously, and a lot of thought and consideration has gone into it. The UW’s Office of Minority Affairs & Diversity teamed up with its Office of Tribal Relations to develop a training workshop for UW faculty and staff on land acknowledgements (details here), and at least one academic department puts out a 19-page handbook that includes best practices (see it here). The UW faculty weren’t given a mandate and then left dangling in the breeze; substantial resources are available to help them implement UW’s policy and practice on land acknowledgements.
Professor Reges rebelled. He doesn’t like the whole idea. He probably wouldn’t have gotten in trouble if he’d kept it to himself, but he circulated an email criticizing the policy (see story here), then wrote a counter-acknowledgement based on 17th century English philosopher John Locke’s “labor theory of property” (described here, which derives from “natural law,” detailed here), the kind of stuff conservative Federalist Society lawyers like. He claims it was “tongue in cheek” (see story here), but it came across as mocking the university-approved wording.
His statement said,
“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.”
Ouch. The very next day, his department chair called him on the carpet. She denounced his land acknowledgement statement as “inappropriate and offensive,” and ordered him to remove it from his syllabus. This, of course, was a restraint on his freedom of speech. He refused, asserting her demand was “viewpoint discriminatory,” so the UW administration launched a disciplinary investigation. At this point, you wonder if he really was joking.
Reges hasn’t been fired; as of today (May 7, 2024), he’s still in the computer science department’s “core faculty” directory (here). As far as I know, he hasn’t received disciplinary action. Rather, the department chair tried to go around him (as detailed in the article links).
In April 2024, Reges sued the UW. In almost no time, it was dismissed (see Seattle Times report here). His lawyer framed it as a free speech issue, but I haven’t found the dismissal order on the internet, so I don’t know what the court’s response or reasoning was. I’ll venture a guess that because he still has his job and hasn’t been punished, the magistrate decided it wasn’t ripe for litigation. A plaintiff has to suffer an actual harm before a court will take a case.
Do UW professors have unfettered freedom of speech? Of course not. Campus and classroom speech is regulated. (This gets especially interesting in the context of the anti-Israel protests happening on U.S. campuses, joined by faculty as well as students, with accusations of “antisemitism” flying thick.) Prof. Reges’ department promulgated “best practices” for its faculty to follow (read them here). Best practices are common in both the public sector and private businesses.
Generally speaking, from other legal cases I know about, courts take the position that employers own content in their email systems. Thus, there’s no right of privacy with respect to emails sent or stored on workplace IT systems. Therefore, the UW had a right to read Reges’ email, and because he sent it to other employees, they could deem it insubordinate. Because employers are given wide latitude to govern their workplaces, courts also will allow them to enforce their policies, so long as they don’t violate anti-discrimination or other laws.
That puts Professor Reges in a tough spot. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from abridging free speech (and state governments for reasons explained here). Private employers certainly can, within the limits of anti-discrimination laws, but the UW is part of state government which makes things a little dicier. Still, I suspect the UW would prevail under the general principles of workplace governance I outlined above if Reges’ case went to trial.
That’s because while he has a constitutional right of free speech, he has no constitutional right to UW employment, although tenure may confer a contractual right. The university can employ whoever it wants. F0llowing this reasoning to its logical endpoint, his opinion about land acknowledgements belongs on a soapbox at a public street corner, not in campus email or his course syllabus. I’m not sure I’m right about this, though; this stuff is pretty complicated.
But that’s only the legal side of things. There’s still the philosophical side. Here, I’m talking about the UW’s philosophy concerning those things I opened this article with: Academic freedom. Freedom of inquiry. Free speech. How free are UW professors to disagree with university policies? Are there channels they must go through, such as the Faculty Senate? It seems obvious administrators don’t want these disputes spilling over into classrooms and involving students, which I think is the real heart of the conflict between Professor Reges and his department chair.
I used to kick these issues around with Prof. Steve Schwartz, the creator of this blog, when he was alive. Dr. Schwartz had strong opinions (and his own conflict with the UW School of Medicine, where he taught). He was an early victim of the Covid pandemic, and all of that died with him. In his absence, this blog isn’t as focused on UW campus issues as it once was.
Prof. Reges’ story highlights much broader issues of campus free speech that have simmered for decades. I don’t hear the phrase “political correctness” very often anymore; it’s been replaced by complaints of repression of conservative ideas. Now that campuses are a hotbed of antiwar protests again, the responses of university administrators to what you might loosely call “free speech” are in the spotlight.
Most people go to college in their late teens and early twenties. At no time in their lives will they be more idealistic or have more freedom. For some, their college experience is drinking and parties and spring breaks; for others, it’s about trying to change the world and make it better. For all, it’s freedom, and being free of the restraints that will come when they enter workplaces. Reaching these young minds, and filling them with useful knowledge, is half the reason why universities exist. (The other half is research.)
Do I think Prof. Reges crossed a line? I don’t want to frame it that way. The “labor theory of property” isn’t part of American property law, so bringing it up is a philosophical discussion. Some “natural law” ideas have crept into our jurisprudence via conservative judges; as a lawyer, I have to deal with that. If I were Prof. Reges’ lawyer, I would have to figure out whether his rights were violated, but I’m not, so I don’t need to. It would take a lot of time and study of the law and legal precedents.
I think Stuart Reges would be a really interesting guy to have a conversation with. But my thoughts, legal and philosophical, on faculty freedom to express nonconforming opinions that fly in the face of university policies aren’t fully formed. And because I tend to think legally, not philosophically, my curiosity travels in the direction of what our courts would likely do with this. I don’t have an answer for that right now.