How I Battled Campus Land Acknowledgements—and Won

When the University of Washington told me to add an Indigenous land acknowledgement to my computer‑science syllabus, I didn’t think much of it at first. It felt like another box‑checking exercise, a glossy statement about “recognizing” lands that, frankly, I found a bit performative.

Instead of simply complying, I decided to push back with a parody—a tongue‑in‑cheek version that highlighted how such declarations can become hollow ritual. I imagined it would spark a conversation, maybe even a few laughs, but the university’s reaction was swift and, in my view, overly punitive.

Within weeks, my syllabus was stripped of the parody, an apology was mailed to my students, and a second section of the course was created so students could avoid sitting in my class. The administration even launched a year‑long investigation to decide whether I should be disciplined.

Enter the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Their team helped me file a lawsuit claiming the university’s actions violated my First Amendment rights. We lost at the district‑court level, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, stating clearly that student discomfort is not a justification for silencing a professor.

The court wrote, “Discomfort with a professor’s views may prompt discussion, but it is not grounds for retaliation.” That ruling paved the way for a $600,000 settlement—money that, while never a cure‑all, signaled that the university’s conduct was not above reproach.

What baffles me now is that UW still maintains it “acted appropriately” and insists the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. Even the state of Washington filed an amicus brief supporting the university, arguing that protecting “safe learning environments” should trump any free‑speech concerns. The same stance was echoed by the other public universities in the state.

To me, this reflects a broader, worrying trend: campuses that claim to champion diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) often end up stifling dissenting ideas. The irony is palpable—students are shielded from uncomfortable viewpoints, yet they graduate ill‑equipped to grapple with real‑world disagreements.

Waiting for justice was a lonely, frustrating process. Days blended together, lawyers rotated, and the case seemed to live in a slow‑motion bubble while life outside carried on. Still, I’m grateful for the unwavering support from FIRE, whose members are frequently mislabeled as “right‑wing” despite defending free speech for everyone, even when it means confronting administrations of any political stripe.

In the end, the settlement isn’t just about the money; it’s a reminder that universities, public or private, must respect constitutional protections. The fight isn’t over, but the victory shows that even entrenched policies can be challenged—if you’re willing to endure the grind and find allies who understand why open debate matters.