��ݮ��ƵAPP����

When the University of Washington encouraged faculty to include a statement in each course syllabus acknowledging that the school sits on land once held by the Coast Salish tribes, computer science professor Stuart Reges decided to express his disagreement.

“I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property,” Reges began his parody statement, “the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

But when a handful of students and staff complained, the university removed his syllabus from the course website, encouraged students to file complaints against him, siphoned away his students to a newly created second offering of his class to be taught by another professor, and launched a year-long investigation into Reges, an award-winning professor, over allegations that his parody statement was offensive and violated university anti-harassment policy.

With ��ݮ��ƵAPP����’s help, Reges stood up for his academic freedom.

We filed suit in federal court demanding that the university stop retaliating. Yet the district court ruled in favor of the university, misapplying Supreme Court precedent to find that the school’s interest in preventing “disruption” outweighed the professor’s interest in expressing a dissenting political opinion.

Professor Reges and ��ݮ��ƵAPP���� are grateful for the support of this impressive coalition. His case will play a vital role in keeping bulwark protections for unpopular viewpoints on college campuses so that intellectual inquiry may continue to flourish.

But discomfort is not disruption. The right of public university professors to speak on important issues — and the right of students to hear diverging viewpoints — do not yield every time a listener takes offense. If they did, academic freedom would be meaningless.

Thankfully, Reges has received support from civil liberties organizations across the country in his appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. PEN America, the Pacific Legal Foundation, Students for Liberty, the Manhattan Institute, and the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal have all submitted “friend of the court” briefs in support of Reges and his lawsuit against UW.

The outcome of Reges’ appeal in the Ninth Circuit will have national ramifications, which is why so many civil liberties organizations have lined up to show their support and explain for the court what is at stake for college faculty, especially at public institutions governed by the First Amendment.

University of Washington administrator doubles down on censorship and compelled speech in land acknowledgment debacle

Read More

PEN America describes the importance of academic freedom and exposure to dissenting viewpoints in preparing students for civic life. As they explain, “concerns of interpersonal harmony and other similar goals are not necessarily relevant in a university setting,” while “discord and debate are often necessary for scholars . . . to effectively perform their duties.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation also lauds academic freedom and the protection of controversial speech as uniquely “further[ing] the university’s mission.” The brief argues that “a university without debate and dissent is not a university” just as “[a] gym without weights is not a gym.” We could not agree more.

Students for Liberty’s brief, authored pro bono by Dechert LLP, highlights how the district court improperly applied Pickering v. Board of Education in determining whether the University’s interest outweighed that of Professor Reges. As the brief aptly points out, the district court’s decision “runs roughshod over the Pickering test,” which “[c]ourts apply . . . precisely to prevent this sort of viewpoint discrimination.”

The Manhattan Institute highlights the University’s adverse employment actions taken against Professor Reges and argues that those kinds of retaliatory acts chill protected speech on campuses nationwide. As the brief describes, the district court “wholly failed to consider the countervailing interests of [Professor Reges] and the special protections due to First Amendment free speech rights on a university campus.”

The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal submitted a brief authored pro bono by attorney Omer Ali Khan. This brief emphasizes, among other things, that the district court erred in failing to consider how the University itself “invited” professors to take a stance on this political issue in their class syllabi. Professor Reges’s purported mistake was that he took the wrong one.

Professor Reges and ��ݮ��ƵAPP���� are grateful for the support of this impressive coalition. His case will play a vital role in keeping bulwark protections for unpopular viewpoints on college campuses so that intellectual inquiry may continue to flourish.