admin
The University of Washington quietly handed over $600,000 this week to settle a First Amendment lawsuit brought by Professor Stuart Reges. The case started when Reges put a satirical “land acknowledgment” in his syllabus and the university opened a lengthy investigation. The settlement lets him keep the parody in his syllabus forever and bars UW from punishing him for that speech. If you believe in free speech, that is a win. If you believe in campus orthodoxy, it’s a costly lesson paid for by the taxpayers.
What the settlements actually did
In plain terms, the University of Washington agreed to stop investigating or punishing Professor Stuart Reges — and to pay roughly $600,000 that covers damages and legal costs. The Ninth Circuit had already found that UW’s investigation and reprimand were unlawful retaliation and viewpoint discrimination. Around the same time, the Kern Community College District settled with Professor Daymon Johnson, agreeing to a permanent injunction that protects his classroom and private speech and to pay $150,000 toward legal fees. Both settlements come after federal judges pushed back against heavy‑handed campus rules that force faculty to toe an ideological line.
Why this matters for free speech and academic freedom
These rulings are not about being rude. They are about whether public universities can punish professors for political speech. The Ninth Circuit said they cannot. That is a big deal for academic freedom across the western states. Professors should be able to teach, joke, and challenge orthodoxy without threats of investigation, lost raises, or shadow course sections created to dodge an inconvenient instructor. The courts are reminding public colleges that students’ offense does not trump First Amendment rights.
Taxpayers paid the bill for campus overreach
Here’s the part no one in the administration will advertise: these are public institutions, and taxpayers pick up the tab. UW settled rather than keep spending on litigation after an appellate panel ordered clear relief. The university says the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. Fine. But when a school rescinds a policy only after the appeals court ordered summary judgment, it’s hard to call that a win for good governance. Schools rushed into enforcement against dissenting views. Now taxpayers are footing settlements that could have been avoided if campus leaders defended free speech instead of chasing the next woke checklist.
What should happen next
Universities should learn from this: rescind overbroad harassment or speech rules and stop using DEI mandates to police classroom speech. Lawmakers should keep an eye on public colleges and make clear that compelled orthodoxy won’t survive court challenges. And professors should take heart — these settlements show that the courts will protect honest teaching. For those who cheered the original investigators, this result should sting a little: satire and debate cost less in a free country than $600,000, but apparently not on today’s campuses. The settlements close these chapters, but they open a larger conversation about accountability, academic freedom, and who ultimately pays when universities overreach.
