It's postively insane how anyone could defend what the university did, here.
https://reason.com/2025/12/22/the-9th-circuit-upholds-a-university-of-washington-professors-right-to-mock-land-acknowledgments/
Read those bolded parts carefully. In an effort to support their agenda, they flagrantly made **** up.
What's even more insane is, the original judge and the dissenting appeals court judge, fully cognizant of the fact that university flagrantly made **** up, still sided with them.
We really, really, really need to start holding these radical agenda driven judges accountable.
https://reason.com/2025/12/22/the-9th-circuit-upholds-a-university-of-washington-professors-right-to-mock-land-acknowledgments/
Quote:
The 9th Circuit Upholds a University of Washington Professor's Right to Mock 'Land Acknowledgments'
The appeals court ruled that administrators violated Stuart Reges' First Amendment rights when they investigated and threatened to punish him for constitutionally protected speech.
Quote:
Stuart Reges, a critic of such "land acknowledgments" who had taught an introductory computer science course, CSE 143, in that school since 2004, responded with a syllabus statement mocking the concept: "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." That parody resulted in an internal investigation, a reprimand, and threats of disciplinary action.
Quote:
Last year, U.S. District Judge John H. Chun ruled in favor of the defendants, concluding that their treatment of Reges was justified by concerns about the disruptive impact of his speech. That judgment relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1968 ruling in Pickering v. Board of Education, which held that the First Amendment requires "a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." Chun also narrowly construed the rule that Reges challenged, saying it was constitutional if understood as applying only to "conduct that resembles or is akin to discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory conduct.
Quote:
On March 2, 2022, Balazinska launched an investigation of Reges for possible violations of the faculty code, university policy, and the school's collective bargaining agreement. When Reges again refused to desist, College of Engineering Dean Nancy Allbritton, who oversees the Allen School, convened a special faculty committee, which that October issued an oral report averring that Reges' statement had a "significant impact"
on the "morale of Native American students" and "their learning," describing "the level of disruption" as "extraordinary." As evidence of that disruption, the committee claimed one Native American student had taken a leave of absence while another had dropped out of the university.
The first student, Bress notes, was not even enrolled in Reges' course and "described other factors influencing the decision to take a leave of absence, including the lack of available tutoring services, the Allen School's focus on testing, and feeling 'used' after meeting with Balazinska to discuss Reges." Bress adds that the university "could not explain whether this student's mental health problems began with or pre-dated Reges's speech." As for the student who supposedly had dropped out, "it appears undisputed that this student does not exist."
Read those bolded parts carefully. In an effort to support their agenda, they flagrantly made **** up.
What's even more insane is, the original judge and the dissenting appeals court judge, fully cognizant of the fact that university flagrantly made **** up, still sided with them.
We really, really, really need to start holding these radical agenda driven judges accountable.
