Staff Reports
The culture fight over land acknowledgements just got a new chapter. A recent settlement between the University of Washington and Professor Stuart Reges — including a $600,000 payment and permission to keep a parody land‑acknowledgement in his syllabus — has conservatives cheering and many on the left scrambling for cover. The Western Journal op‑ed that followed, offering a proud, pro‑settler alternative acknowledgement, is part of that pushback. This moment is about more than words on a script; it is about free speech, historical truth, and whether institutions will reward performance or real action.
Why the UW case matters
The Ninth Circuit raised serious First Amendment questions about how public universities discipline faculty for syllabus speech. The university’s settlement with Professor Reges is being read as a warning shot: clamp down on speech at your peril. For conservatives who have long argued that land acknowledgements are often performative and politicized, the case is proof that institutions can overreact and punish dissenting viewpoints. Whether you love the idea of acknowledgements or hate them, the lesson here is clear — universities must not treat classroom pages as safe zones from debate.
Land acknowledgements: symbol versus substance
There are two separate complaints rolled into one loud argument. One issue is performative ritual. Too many organizations read a bland statement, then file it under “diversity box checked” and move on. Indigenous groups themselves warn such gestures are hollow unless paired with real relationships, funding, and policy change. The second issue is historical framing. Some acknowledgements simplify a complicated past into a single story of dispossession. The Western Journal piece pushes back by offering an alternative acknowledgement that celebrates the patriots who built free‑land ownership and modern liberty, and it argues that a bit of pride is not a crime.
Free speech and the syllabus battleground
Syllabi are not campus orthodoxy
The Reges settlement matters because public universities cannot be the arbiter of acceptable history or humor in faculty materials. If a professor uses satire to challenge a campus ritual, the right response is debate, not an administrative investigation. Conservatives should be careful not to turn every parody into a crusade, but we should also insist that academic freedom survive its current squeeze. Protecting dissenting views protects all students and faculty — including those who prefer a different kind of acknowledgement that celebrates founding principles instead of ritualized national contrition.
A practical conservative path forward
Conservatives should do two things at once: defend free speech and push for meaningful, accountable exchanges with tribal nations. If institutions want to acknowledge Indigenous ties to land, fine — make it local, negotiated with tribes, and tied to concrete acts like scholarships, land agreements, or curriculum partnerships. But don’t let hollow recitations become a way to shame an entire national story or to silence debate. Pride in our founding need not erase the past; it can sit beside honest recognition so that institutions respect both truth and liberty.
