Reges’s statement does not constitute “government speech” under this standard. The record shows that Reges was speaking in his own capacity as a professor, and not on behalf of his employer. As we noted above, UW acknowledges that “the syllabus is the purview of the faculty,” syllabi are not reviewed by the university before posting, and faculty have “great flexibility” in determining the contents of their syllabi. As an objective matter, it is also highly unlikely that students could reasonably perceive Reges as speaking on UW’s behalf when his statement begins: “I acknowledge . . . .” In fact, the record reflects that students attributed the speech to Reges, as they argued that Reges’s speech warranted condemnation because it conflicted with UW’s views and policies on inclusivity. We do not decide whether a statement contained in a syllabus could never constitute government speech, or whether a university may limit the kinds of information that professors include in their syllabi (such as the course readings and class policies). But in the present circumstances, UW cannot claim that Reges is speaking on its behalf.
9th Cir., 2-1, holds that it violated the First Amendment for UW to reprimand, withhold a pay bump, and threaten to discipline a professor who mocked indigenous land acknowledgements in a class syllabus.
A win for FIRE.
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...
