University punishes professor for ‘inappropriate’ land acknowledgement opinion
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лип 2022
- Press release: www.thefire.org/university-of...
More about this case: www.thefire.org/lawsuit-profe...
It has become increasingly common in academia to promote statements that formally recognize indigenous ties to the land on which a university sits, and the University of Washington Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering encourages professors to include a land acknowledgement on their syllabi, and included recommended language.
Professor Stuart Reges learned the hard way that faculty are expected to parrot the school’s recommended language on this controversial topic - or else. Administrators censored a land acknowledgement on his syllabus because it didn’t conform to the University’s prescribed viewpoint. Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression called on UW to ensure that faculty, if they choose to address this topic of public debate in their syllabi, can not just use the university’s statement, but can craft their own, free from retaliation or censorship.
#universityofwashington #firstamendment #facultyrights #studentrights #freespeech
Keep up the fight for free speech! Thank you!
Go back to Europe
Thanks for your courage in standing up to these crybullies, Stuart. I hope you survive professionally. I'm not sure if things will get better, but I do appreciate those who stand up to these moral exhibitionists.
More than simply being performative, "Land acknowledgements" set a concerning precedent for irredentist ideology and ethnic legitimacy. They imply, by design, that whichever groups occupied the area in the past did so without prior dispute or invasion, that their loss-of-claim to the land was illegitimate, and that, by extension, everything afterwards, including modern-day ownerships, governments, and peoples are ALSO illegitimate. You wouldn't hold an event in Kaliningrad celebrating it as the traditional, unceded territory of the German race, at least not without being attacked in the street.
I have to here about the Native American land before every lecture at my medical school lol. It is so ridiculous.
Go back to where you came from. Simple as that
It's so important for every human to learn to listen to things they disagree with with respect and attention. We don't really now what we support until we've heard all viewpoints. Kudos to those willing to fight back against censorship.
Most of the students that switched likely just didn't want to have to attend a live lecture class, so when an alternative was offered that they could take from the comfort of their own homes or dorm rooms (and still get the same credits), of course they were going to switch. 💁🏿♂️
That likely had nothing to do with the professor.
This is a good point. They never asked the students who switched why they switched. The assumption is they were upset over the statement when (and I'm a former lecturer so I know this for a fact) most students don't really read the syllabus apart from looking-up assignment dates, test dates, and textbook selection.
Thank you for fighting for freedom of speech.
Who are you kidding? Faculty is all about chasing research money.
Complete support to the professor!
How is this land acknowledgement helps anyone??? This victim mentality is absolutely sickening and pathetic.
Yeah, ask the race that inspired you to adopt that stupid screen name.
Know your enemies, Collective 🤲
Excellent video. Thank you.
Watch what we do with UBC which resides on unceded Musquem Territory 🤲 A'HO 🤲
Why the hell do we do land acknowledgements for first nations, but not for the countries we conquered? We assimilate cultures whenever we invade another country, why should the indigenous be any different?
FIRE, or organisations like it, is going to be needed in so many more countries in the near future. It is really needed in the private sector where political conformity is a necessity to keeping one's job.
30 years ago we would not believe this could happen in OUR AMERICA.
Wealth is a zero sum game. If you are not willing to give your own assets back to the indigenous people, don't lecture other people to do so.
Land acknowledgments are asinine
Energy vampires are in offices, schools, churches, organizations, companies and that sudden drained tiredness and sickness you have is from at least 1 energy vampire sent in to harvest from the whole companyv
Please share! We need to bring free and protected speech back! Being raised in a society that taught values and freedom were rights of all people and that turning into this tyrannical society we are faced with now is unsettling.
Stand firm in freedom and truth!
The funny thing about land acknowledgements is that, since only the most turbo-woke people like them, the tribes that get acknowledged the most are the ones who came from areas that are now the most far left woke urban areas. So 80% of the time you hear one of these its always about the Coast Salish, etc.
You are on NativeLand. (USA/Canada) and NativeLand is Back to the NativePeople 🤲 A'HO 🤲 you will acknowledge our territories as such and respect it as such 🤲 you will come to know the power and respect we weld as Protectors to the Original Land Rights and Protectors and Chief Nations to each territories 🤲 A'HO 🤲 and the land and the Land Protectors and Names will be respected 🤲 A'HO 🤲 we have done it your foreign ways for 500 years and we are done 🤲 so disrespectful 🤲 A'HO 🤲 We will simply remove your universities and governments since it is so disrespectful to us and it's People and Land 🤲 A'HO 🤲 All My Relations 🤲 Ekosi 💜 Creator 🤲 A'HO 🤲 LuvShamanLittleFawn 🤲 PrayerWarriorLittleFawn 🤲 ChiefLittleFawn 🤲
I go into churches to assess how "Godly" it is and most I have not found God in these places 😤 Alot of scouting energy vampires for covens searching for victims to energy harvest from
The real mistake here is on the side of the University of Washington for responding at all--it should know this will be made into an issue of tenure. Tenure, the protection it offers those teaching and doing research at the UW is necessary and even if you think it goes wrong in some cases, is still necessary. The UW doesn't need to create martyrs to the cause of those who disagree with best practices as it often gives those who disagree power that they don't need to have. I work in a university library and, during the George Floyd protests on my campus, my employment unit had a meeting to discuss the issues. I think this is one of the great things about working for a university is that we are seen as participants in our community, but on campus and as part of the larger area we live in. At this forum the concept of defunding police organizations and rethinking the military nature of policing was discussed. Most of us are likely on the political left but there are a small number of conservatives, some of them Christian conservatives. One of those staff persons pushed back against the overwhelming number critical of the police. After the forum, one of the managers of our library called me up and asked me how that me feel. I told her that I think a person who is willing to accept the authority of the police is being willfully ignorant of the experience many people have with police officers. She then asked me if what she said made me uncomfortable at which point I told her the direction of the questioning concerned me. "Are you planning on taking action against her," I asked. She told me that she was wondering if this person should be 'talked' to. "Do that at your peril," I said. "I disagree with her but she likely has connections to right wing free speech lawyers and you'll do nothing but turn her into a martyr and where is the positive in that? She has an opinion--it's not clearly any kind of hate speech--leave this alone. And she did."
Personally, I think that land acknowledgements seem a bit hollow to me and ours is very long but I include a link to the campus organization for our Native American/First Nations organization of faculty, students and staff, in my communications out of respect for them just like I use he/him and they/their pronouns in solidarity with transgender people. The best, and quite biting satire comes from Canada and show Baroness von Sketch: ua-cam.com/video/LQyFfC7_U-E/v-deo.html
"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's quite the shot across the bow. While an entirely reasonable opinion, I'm sure it had the identity warfare crowd writhing.
@Don´tbehasty It wasn't a fact that there was a genocide - the term "genocide" is a huge and morally loaded claim and this is highly debated among historians. There are the facts of what happened with the interaction and wars against Native Americans, but the label of genocide is a judgement call that many scholars disagree with and I can see why. The facts present a much more complex picture than that.
@@Helmutandmoshe well luckily for us, historians don't define what genocide is, people whom make laws against genocide do. That is because genocide is a crime, not a historical fact or anything for historians to decide.
The definition of genocide can vary by country but in general means something along the lines of "the deliberate targeting of an identifiable group and either: 1.) directly commiting acts of violence (murder, assault, etc.) OR by 2.) depriving the group of the adequate conditions to survive, with the aim of destroying them indirectly."
For example, in my country, the definition of genocide in our laws is: "genocide. (2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or. (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction."
-Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) "Defenition of Genocide"
In the US the definition is a bit more flushed out:
"(a)Basic Offense.-Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such-
(1)kills members of that group;
(2)causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
(3)causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
(4)subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
(5)imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or
(6)transfers by force children of the group to another group;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b)."
-18 U.S. Code § 1091 - Genocide
The US and Canada did many examples of genocide according to both of their legal definitions.
The US for example did many examples fitting into clause (1), like the Lakota wounded knee massacre, the Blackfoot Marias massacre, and many more countless examples similar to those.
The US killed many indigenous people by methods which would fall under clauses (2) & (4) by things like the many ethnic cleansings of many eastern indigenous nations out west, these are also known colloquially as "great walks" within the histories of the tribes it happened to. There are also examples of the government not giving the food rations promised to tribes when they were on reservations. The targeting of the buffalo, the main food source of the various nations on plains, was as explicit as it gets at an attempt at (4) if I've seen it.
The US sterilized indigenous women in the 1960's and 1970's in a coordinated effort via the IHS (Indian health service) this falls under clause (5)
That's ALL ignoring the boarding schools in the US which explicitly fall under clause (6) & (4) (and in some cases even (1).) As well as boarding schools, the current foster care system that disproportionately represents indigenous population relative to their population in the US, falls under clause (6)
for example, in the state of Oklahoma, they represent 35% of the foster care population while only making up 9% of the Oklahoma population overall. Additionally, foster care runaways are hunted down by police in the U.S. solidifying the "transfers by force" part of the clause.
So after all the stuff we analyzed, its undeniable to The US very much so targeted the Indigenous people for genocide, which it explicitly defines in its own laws, and it very much applies to the methods used to attempt this genocide. because of these facts, It is simply the fact of the matter - There was a genocide of American Indians perpetrated by the US, even according to its very own definitions of the act. There simply is no debating that, unless of course; you're willing to dispute many long standing historical facts and the fucking law lol
@@anarcho.femboyism "There simply is no debating that, unless of course; you're willing to dispute many long standing historical facts" - first, false, there is "debating that" and second the dispute and debate among historical facts and intentions is squarely in the expertise of historians, not lawyers. So, it would seem that your sophomore history class term project doesn't end the debate about "historical facts and the fucking law, lol."
Yeah the Reddit talked about this a little I guess
Horrible
8:48 lmao
👏👏👏👏👏
This is partly why I am leaving teaching after a decade. My particular school is pretty good on this stuff. But out of 120 professors, there are no Republicans. But they dont indoctrinate but certainly are not intellectually diverse.
Don't leave teaching; leave the school. There are plenty of conservative schools who would love to have you as a teacher. If conservative teachers leave education altogether, then the liberals will win.
@@jjettswriting1900 It's already 1 in 20 (or was it one in 12..?) Point is it's over and done.
@@piotr78 I think you'd be surprised. The definition of liberal and conservative mean nothing these days. They are just meaningless labels. A liberal of the 80s and 90s would be considered conservative today.
@@media4011 I'd be surprised? By the amount of right leaning people teaching in schools? I doubt that
@@jjettswriting1900 Yes. I get that. I am near retirement. My school is moderate. I’ll do some consulting and some speaking.
Eh the Indians lost too bad?
I could see this included on a syllabus for a social sciences class, but going beyond that, I think it's just opening a can of worms.
Indigenous, Aboriginal & Native all mean the same thing
Land acknowledgment acts are useless, don’t get me wrong it’s interesting to learn about the tribe of the area your in. However, in my experience the speaker just reiterated the obvious K-12 knowledge of how their people were conquered and proceeded to laughably insult the audience by calling us “guests”. As if generations of us haven’t lived here and we just popped off the Mayflower.
I wonder what fears lie behind obstructing acceptance and rejecting equity and loving-kindness.
Up and to the left of the land acknowledgement on the board is "I love boobs," with too little bosom doodles.
Now *that's* free speech!
My land acknowledgement: "It's the American Indians' land but we stole it fair and square." How's that?
Your race is full of degenerates and on fentanyl..congrats
Higher education is a business like everything else in a capitalist economy. Milton Friedman said businesses do not have their own preferences but their customers'. This wave of American university mandates is a reflection of their customers', i.e., students' preferences. So why are college students moving further to the left?
Lin Yutang once wrote that "one naturally becomes conservative when some things work in their life." Does that mean fewer and fewer things work in the life of our college students? I'd imagine costly higher education, stagnant wages, and astronomical property prices do not help evoke a hopeful feeling among them.
It is really tough for our students nowadays. I do not have any solution as an individual. One thing I do is to tip well when I dine out.
If they don't like it, they can go to a different college. Psychopaths should not be allowed to dictate what's allowed to be said or _believed_ in reference to a professor's political opinions. And I strongly agree with his last (case summary) sentence in the video.
Native Warriors ARE FEARLESS!!! And I can smell and feel YOUR FEAR!!! GOOD 🤲 We're coming for you, Savage Warrior Style 🤲 A'HO 🤲 Ekosi 💜 Creator 🤲 All My Relations 🤲 LuvShamanLittleFawn 🤲 PrayerWarriorLittleFawn 🤲 ChiefLittleFawn 🤲
Shoulda been tougher, you were too weak
Dennis Prager made a point that there are a lot of gay, Jewish and black people leading the resistance against wokeness. Reyes sounds like a great professor.
Why all the segregation?
@@rarefruit2320 It’s old fashioned Liberals. These groups were formerly from that segment of the population.
The issue is mostly between different white people strategies. I acknowledge that.
Ohh he's really trying to piss them off lol, he's got a thin blue line flag. I'm shocked that hasn't been ripped down repeatedly.
"A lot of students complained" was probably a lie, anyway. 🙄
It's so telling they even never tell you who complained. How many, what their exact complaints were.
As a UW student he's literally the talk of the campus in such bland time to live in
The labor theory of property? Coast Salish people have been here and caring for their lands for thousands of years. White people didn't labor the forests they took for timber or sustainability manage our fish populations that were in abundance until over fishing and dam building. The hydropower made the NW a technology hub for this native people paid the cost of our way of life and food sources being destroyed for power.
Lol, Why no equivalency here? LAs and faculty rights are both subjectively defined, whatever you may convince yourself of. As such, the question then becomes what is really going on here? I see dichtomizing, binaristic interpretations of threat to privilege when the reality is we are merely acknowledging the presence of the original people's ties to this land. If that is a threat to you, then I suggest your time is best pursued in examining your ties to this land, your connections to others, to society and to yourself.
I'm so confused right now. The land acknowledgement was supposed to be to make sure people whose land is often not acknowledged are seen and remembered, which does not harm anyone. This professor literally went out to purposely say that those people own less of the land than others think, a huge a**hole statement, and then wonders why people were hurt and complained? And now on top of that there's a whole UA-cam video made to reinforce this statement? I'm so confused the kind of country we're living in.
All things aside, what kind of person and especially teacher who is in power over students, some of whom are Native American or minorities, would say something this discriminatory that could hurt people just to prove a point. Like I just don't understand what to say to make people who are so into this understand why* this is bad.
You admit you are confused, which is a good sign - usually that is an invitation to dialogue. We would have never heard of this if all that happened is some people getting pissed off at what the professor wrote. That always happens - professors have a variety of styles, opinions and world views and it makes some students mad. The big deal is that the UW took official action against him - and that is worth fighting against. As far as the actual point of view being discriminatory - I fully disagree. He has a certain view of property rights and land ownership and feels that the land that UW is on is legitimately owned. Similarly, I have a house on a half acre of land and I legitimately own it. It changed ownership more than a dozen times over the last 150 years and at one time the government used eminent domain to break up the farmland that it once was. That was terribly unfair. I don't even know that farmers name and even though I fully disagree with that power of the government, it happened and the present ownership is established unambiguously by current law. The complexities of the past ownership of my own land is not something I need to engage with because I am the legitimate owner now. The history of land my family owns in Europe is even more complex and contested than this. My point in bringing this up is that the discussion is big, deep and nuanced. People may feel that they have it figured out and know "the right thing to do" - but it is never that clear. One thing that is helpful is to stop claiming someone is racist or discriminatory because they don't agree with the Native American view or the activists view on how the world should work. Talk, learn and engage, repeat.
@@Helmutandmoshe You seem to think that I meant that I'm confused literally. I'm not actually confused. I am expressing my frustration with this, with the fact that people supporting this fervently or being okay with him making this statement don't understand that it is bad. And I think that you don't understand where I'm coming from either. I totally agree that it's valid to think there are objective delineations of current land. There is nothing wrong with a statement that currently a large percentage of a land is owned by a university and a smaller percentage of land is owned by Native Americans. This is where my problem lies: Native American people have historically been pushed aside for many years (which I don't think you're arguing with), and they are still facing the repercussions of that today in devastating ways in addition to the government continuing to hurt these people, too. The land acknowledgement efforts is a tool to help alleviate this using bringing attention to these injustices. I am positive that most Native American people would be happy to hear these land acknowledgements because they know the history and understand the pain. In an objective conversation with a person or group of people what that professor said may be okay, as long as he wasn't belittling the complaints of people (another problem is, I think he is - I think he's just seeing this as a baseless complaint which is an ignorant slap in the face to so many people who are trying to get their voices heard), but in this case he is going out on a limb to publicly state this which has a completely different connotation. It is no longer an objective statement made in an environment where it is understood that no one is being hurt. It now becomes a loud statement saying this: "Native American people are complaining for no reason." It is a big f*** y** to many people, and completely tries to render problems they're having irrelevant. You wouldn't come up to someone who came to you telling you they are depressed and on the verge of suicide and tell them "screw you, it's your fault just cheer up" or if your child came to you and is being bullied and beat up, you wouldn't say "grow a pair". If someone went and told you they have an issue with something, what would be your first response? To listen to them. Not to assume they are wrong and judge them as people who are often complaining and not worth your attention. All I've said is something that is immediately understood by people who are against this. Where is the disconnect where some people don't understand or believe this? My confusion was rhetorical. I know the issue. I think that often in republican-based media, people never hear of some serious problems that people face. They are literally not explained to people by that media. And even further than that, try to give reasons why that is not the case. I don't know if it's the people in power not knowing and understanding that those things are taking place (maybe from being in power for money or in a corrupt way or not out of evil but just never having dealt with this in their personal lives) or if they are purposely spitting out propaganda (which can happen with leaders obviously.) The thing is there are serious issues. Some people are trying to alleviate that. This person is working against it and against many human beings. I agree that he should not be arrested for free speech. That would be f***** up. I would probably stand with you against that. But I understand why the school is asking him to be sensitive. Because he is not, he is being hurtful.
@@yulia7191 Nobody I know, conservative, libertarian or progressive makes light of the struggles of Native American peoples. There have been so many tragic aspects of living on reservations and the incredibly irrational interactions and decisions from our Federal and State governments. Making light of Native American trauma? This professor did nothing of the sort, what he believes is that Native Americans can’t claim ownership of the land that UW is built on. He bases this idea on concepts of property rights and land ownership developed over the past few centuries. There is no strong evidence that any of the tribes used the UW land to any degree. The forest that was removed was dense and full of unyielding underbrush. Apart from this, it would seem from his writings and lectures that he fully understands that the idea of “owning” land is a foreign concept for Native peoples. Native Americans feel the land is sentient. It encompasses many life forms and spaces. It holds immense energy. From a Native perspective one cannot “own” land, yet one may live with the land.
Furthermore, land acknowledgments have taken on a much bigger idea than just honoring the past and have become part of a political agenda that this professor is very aware of. Many of the acknowledgments on the UW campus refer to the demands of the Land Back movement. Land Back is a campaign that seeks to establish political and economic control and property rights for Indigenous people in the United States and Canada over land that had historically belonged to them prior to colonization. Here is an example of a UW acknowledgment inspired by this thinking, complete with a website to start paying rent:
“We acknowledge that we are located on the unceded land of the Duwamish People, the first people of Seattle, and honor the Duwamish Tribe, their ancestral heritage, and their land with gratitude. We suggest that you consider paying rent to the Duwamish at duwamishtribe.networkforgood.com/projects/35157-real-rent-duwamish"
This has a completely different feel to it and it is arguably unjustified. Seeing this as a problem that needs countering and pushback doesn’t make you insensitive or an a-hole or someone who is trying to hurt people - it just makes you a person with a different sense and understanding of what should and should not happen in a just society with multiple cultural interests and claims. Speaking out about it publicly doesn’t make it less “objective” or inappropriate.
I don't feel that it's the matter of saying something on the syllabus that's the problem, but the way he said it. To use a theory by someone who was part of the problem in the first place as an effort to stand up to the land acknowledgment was in poor taste and does nothing to state or educate on the fact. If he truly wanted to stand up and point out the problem with the movement, he should have used a legitimate viewpoint. The way he did it comes across as a childish kickback. I think that is the problem the university is having with his statement, not that he put out a statement.
"hE sHoUlD hAvE uSeD a LeGiTiMaTe ViEwPoInT"
There you people go again with the thought policing. 🙄
You don't get to decide what is a 'legitimate' viewpoint, nor what isn't- it's a _viewpoint._
Other people's views do not have to match yours.
And the word you were looking for is *clapback*, not 'kickback'.
(Not that you have a valid point on that front either.)
Oh you sweet summer child. The only acceptable options are compliance or silence. ANYTHING else will trigger punishment, no matter how well reasoned or thoughtfully stated.
Americans should acknowledge that the land is theirs because their forefathers wrested it from the aborigines and with blood and sweat made it into a mighty nation.
"wrested it" there was a literal ethnic cleansing, a genocide, in order for America to exist.
lol sure buddy
He’s a troll. Just stupidity.
Yeah, but he's trolling bullies who are violently imposing their ludicrous thesis (an entire continent belongs in perpetuity to the people who first set foot on it 10,000 years ago and whoever came after them is a land thief). Whatever happened to no one is an alien?
Poking a little fun at people that create the most toxic of environments, one where nobody can trust the next person, isn't wrong in any way. I will never take these people seriously no matter how highly they may think of themselves.
And as always the case with these "events" you're not even allowed to know who and how many people complained in the first place.
And they have the gal to tell the professor that he's the one creating a toxic environment.
@@piotr78 The whole problem is that this is not* just poking fun. It's saying f*** y** to all the Native American students and all who learn about this at this university. That does not justify the means and renders this pointless unfortunately.
@@yulia7191 As Helmut and Moshe stated above, he isn't saying FU to Native Americans but to those activists who pressure universities into abandoning ideological neutrality and taking a partisan standpoint instead. It's entirely reasonable to use sarcasm in order to express ones opposition to such an agenda.
I feel your fear, opps...GOOD 🦬