American universities have spent years forcing professors to recite approved political statements or face the consequences.
Stuart Reges at the University of Washington decided to write his own version instead.
That decision just cost the university $600,000 and something they can never get back.
How a Parody Land Acknowledgment Triggered a Four-Year Legal War
Professor Stuart Reges has taught computer science at the University of Washington since 2004.
His department had pressed faculty to include a university-approved land acknowledgment in their syllabi – the kind of performative woke ritual that has invaded every corner of American academia.
Reges had a different idea.
In January 2022, instead of the university's approved statement recognizing Coast Salish Indigenous lands, he wrote: "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."
Department director Magdalena Balazinska immediately ordered Reges to remove the statement – calling it "inappropriate," "offensive," and "toxic."
Reges refused.
University of Washington Launched a First Amendment Crackdown Over a Syllabus
The university went to war over a single syllabus sentence.
Administrators publicly condemned his statement and issued an apology to his students.
UW created an entirely separate competing section of Reges' own course so students could escape his classroom – and roughly 170 of 500 students transferred into it.
Then came the year-long harassment investigation.
While the investigation dragged on, UW withheld Reges' merit pay increase.
At the end of it, the university issued a formal reprimand and warned him that repeating the statement in future syllabi could trigger further discipline.
Reges and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression – the organization that has become the last line of defense for free speech on American campuses – filed a First Amendment lawsuit in July 2022.
A Biden-appointed federal district judge, John Chun, dismissed the case – ruling that "the disruption caused by Plaintiff's speech rendered it unprotected."
Ninth Circuit Rules UW Committed Viewpoint Discrimination
In December 2025, Trump-appointed Ninth Circuit Judge Daniel Bress wrote the majority opinion reversing Chun's ruling.
The Ninth Circuit found UW guilty of two separate First Amendment violations: retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.
"A public university investigated, reprimanded, and threatened to discipline a professor for contentious statements he made in a class syllabus," Bress wrote for the majority.
"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."
The court held UW administrators personally liable.
After the ruling, UW quietly rescinded and replaced the very anti-harassment policy it had weaponized against Reges – an admission in everything but name that the policy was unconstitutional.
On September 3, 2026, UW wrote a check for $600,000.
Under the settlement, UW is permanently prohibited from taking any further action against Reges over his parody statement – and must allow him to include it in his syllabi forever.
For the rest of his career, every Computer Programming II student at the University of Washington will read the sentence Balazinska called "toxic."
The university issued a statement insisting it "acted appropriately" and that the settlement "is in no way an admission of wrongdoing."
They wrote that check and surrendered in perpetuity. But acted appropriately.
FIRE attorney Gabe Walters did not mince words.
"UW learned the hard way: Ignoring the First Amendment can be costly," Walters said. "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."
Reges said he hopes the victory helps "reverse a decade-long trend towards ideological conformity in academia."
The $600,000 First Amendment Settlement That Could Protect Professors Nationwide
This case is not an isolated incident – it is the operating model.
Administrators push an approved ideological line.
Anyone who dissents faces investigation, censure, and professional destruction. The process is the punishment, and it works because most professors cannot afford four years of litigation.
What happened to Stuart Reges happens every week on American campuses – to professors who give an unapproved answer, assign an unapproved text, or write one sentence that breaks from the official orthodoxy.
Most of those professors stay silent.
Reges did not. And after four years, one Biden judge's dismissal, one Trump judge's reversal, and one $600,000 settlement, the University of Washington is legally required to display his "toxic" sentence in his classroom forever.
That is what winning looks like.
Sources:
- Alexander Hall, "University pays professor $600K after being punished for parodying land acknowledgments," Fox News, September 4, 2026.
- "Washington professor who parodied university 'land acknowledgment' wins $600K settlement," Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, September 3, 2026.
- Margaret Flavin, "Professor Punished by University for Parodying Land Acknowledgments Gets Payday," Gateway Pundit, September 4, 2026.
- "Professors punished for resisting woke orthodoxy win six-figure settlements, freedom to teach," Just the News, September 3, 2026.
- "University of Washington pays professor $600,000 after losing free speech case over parody of land acknowledgment," The Post Millennial, September 4, 2026.
- "Seattle professor punished for mocking land acknowledgments fights back, scores win against woke university," Blaze Media, December 23, 2025.
