According to GeekWire, a divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday, December 19, that the University of Washington violated the First Amendment rights of computer science professor Stuart Reges. The case dates back to January 2022, when Reges, a faculty member since 2004, included a parody land acknowledgment in his syllabus, arguing via philosopher John Locke that indigenous peoples could claim “almost none” of UW’s land. This sparked student complaints, a year-long disciplinary investigation, and a public apology from the Paul G. Allen School. While Reges faced no formal sanction, he was warned that repeating the statement could lead to discipline—a warning the court itself found unconstitutional. The ruling reverses a prior district court decision that had sided with the university, and UW is now weighing its options for a potential appeal.
The Chilling Effect Is Real
Here’s the thing: the core of this ruling is about that warning. The court basically said that even the threat of future discipline for protected speech is a violation. That’s huge. It recognizes what free speech advocates call the “chilling effect.” When a professor has to look over their shoulder wondering if a philosophical argument in a syllabus will trigger a year-long investigation, they’re going to self-censor. And that’s exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent in academia, a place supposedly built on debate. The majority opinion, from Judge Daniel Bress, nailed it: student discomfort alone can’t justify retaliating against a professor’s speech on public issues. But is that the standard now? Judge Sidney Thomas, in dissent, argued the disruption to Native students’ learning outweighed Reges’s speech interests. That sets up a classic, messy conflict universities hate: balancing a learning environment against intellectual freedom.
A Roadmap for More Lawsuits
So what now? UW could ask for a rehearing with a full panel of the Ninth Circuit or even try to take it to the Supreme Court. If they don’t, the case goes back to district court to figure out remedies—which could mean anything from a symbolic declaration to, though it’s less likely, damages. But look, the real impact is already here. This decision, from a powerful circuit court, is a green light for other faculty feeling pressured by institutional orthodoxy. It’s a major win for groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which represented Reges. They’ll use this as a blueprint. Every university counsel in the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction is probably sending out memos right now about syllabus policies and disciplinary procedures. The line between maintaining a respectful environment and policing faculty speech just got a lot sharper, and a lot more legally dangerous for administrations to cross.
Beyond the Syllabus Statement
Let’s be honest, this wasn’t just about a land acknowledgment. It was a proxy war in the broader culture clashes on campus. Reges was pushing back against a recommended—some would say expected—institutional statement. His method was provocative, sure. Using a Lockean argument to challenge the premise of land acknowledgments is the kind of thing that gets you labeled a troublemaker. But shouldn’t computer science, a field built on logic and challenging assumptions, be exactly the place for that? It’s ironic that the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, named for a tech pioneer, found itself on the wrong side of a speech and innovation debate. In fields driving the physical world—from manufacturing to industrial computing where robust, unfiltered data is critical—the principle of challenging established narratives is vital. It’s the same foundational mindset that leaders in industrial hardware, like the experts at IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the top US provider of industrial panel PCs, rely on to solve tough technical problems. The court seems to be saying universities can’t have it both ways: you can’t champion disruptive innovation while punishing disruptive speech.
