Land Acknowledgments

[Parasaurolophus]

The additional information in a syllabus tends to focus on academic regulations, legal requirements, additional resources for students, etc. The topic is irrelevant to the subject matter of the course.

"Tends" is doing a lot of work there. There's still information on the syllabus that doesn't pertain exclusively to instructional matters, such as welcoming students to the course, university-level operational details (including security information, statements on sexual harassment, violence, and misconduct, etc.

Unless, perhaps, you're at a magical unicorn institution with absolutely minimal syllabus boilerplate, or zero syllabus oversight?

It is dogma for UW to insist that only its approved message on the topic may and should be included in the syllabus.

Once again, you claim it's dogma but don't offer any supporting argument. What makes it dogma, specifically? And what makes it insidious? Those terms have fairly strict application-conditions, and the onus is on you to at least make a plausible case that they apply rather than other, less charged terms.

Let me give you an example of a university requirement that's much more significant, directly impacts our teaching (and negatively so, I'd argue), and yet which still doesn't qualify as insidious': at my institution, we don't have full control over our assessments. Each course has a syllabus template, and each section of a course must conform to the template's methods of assessment. If the template doesn't have exams or quizzes, we can't assign them; if it doesn't have essays, tough shit. If you want to assign presentations, capstone projects, scaffolded essays, etc., you're almost certainly out of luck. I think that inflexibility leads to generally bad pedagogical practices, at least where methods of assessment are concerned. The effect is clearly bigger, and more deleterious, than a blurb acknowledging that your campus sits on stolen land. But it's not insidious.


You're also shifting the goalposts. Is UW insisting that only its approved land acknowledgement may or should be used? I've not yet seen any evidence of that.

You don't have to like land acknowledgements. You don't have to approve of them. You're welcome to oppose their inclusion. But you shouldn't go around mindlessly catastrophizing them, either. Especially when they're common practice in some countries and gasp the sky hasn't fallen on anyone's head yet.

[Anon1787]

It is dogma for UW to insist that only its approved message on the topic may and should be included in the syllabus.

Once again, you claim it's dogma but don't offer any supporting argument. What makes it dogma, specifically? And what makes it insidious? Those terms have fairly strict application-conditions, and the onus is on you to at least make a plausible case that they apply rather than other, less charged terms.


You're also shifting the goalposts. Is UW insisting that only its approved land acknowledgement may or should be used? I've not yet seen any evidence of that.

You don't have to like land acknowledgements. You don't have to approve of them. You're welcome to oppose their inclusion. But you shouldn't go around mindlessly catastrophizing them, either. Especially when they're common practice in some countries and gasp the sky hasn't fallen on anyone's head yet.

I claim that it is dogma because as the article recounts, UW removed the professor's own statement from his syllabus. Thus professors can either include UW's approved statement or not have one at all, which means that the only message that may be conveyed via the syllabus is the official one (I seriously doubt if UW would make a special effort to offer separate sections for students who might object to UW's official message being included in a syllabus). If the university were to give professors the option either to include a syllabus statement to the effect that the Christian God (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) is the one, true God or to remain silent on the subject, we would hear howls of protest about the university's attempt to impose religious dogma.

These sorts of statements are insidious because they unnecessarily politicize the curriculum and undermine free speech and academic freedom. Professor Reges is willing to stand up to this, but many others won't. And I wouldn't hold up Canada or any other countries as shining examples of free speech protection.

[marshwiggle]

The additional information in a syllabus tends to focus on academic regulations, legal requirements, additional resources for students, etc. The topic is irrelevant to the subject matter of the course.

"Tends" is doing a lot of work there. There's still information on the syllabus that doesn't pertain exclusively to instructional matters, such as welcoming students to the course, university-level operational details (including security information, statements on sexual harassment, violence, and misconduct, etc.

All of these "university-level operational details" are related to potential action of students; either actions which are prohibited (with the resulting consequences), or actions which are allowed or encouraged (such as where to access student services if needed.)


Things that don't belong in the syllabus are statements that students ought to eat a healthy diet, get regular exercise, look both ways before crossing the street, say "please" and "thank you" and so on. Unless a student comes from an indigenous community, the land on which the student lives , buys groceries, plays soccer, etc. is probably in the same category as the university regarding land status, so the land acknowledgement is no more relevant to the institution than it is to basically everywhere else the student spends time.

Unless there's some specific action expected of students, ( or forbidden to students), the land acknowledgement in the syllabus doesn't serve any clear purpose other than ideological posturing.

(By contrast, if an institution had an archaeological dig on-site revealing a former indigenous settlement, then a land acknowledgement could indeed have specific relevance, especaily if there were a monument or building on campus where people could go to learn more about that historical community.)

[Parasaurolophus]

I claim that it is dogma because as the article recounts, UW removed the professor's own statement from his syllabus. Thus professors can either include UW's approved statement or not have one at all, which means that the only message that may be conveyed via the syllabus is the official one (I seriously doubt if UW would make a special effort to offer separate sections for students who might object to UW's official message being included in a syllabus).

The removed message was unequivocally disrespectful (and, as far as academic matters are concerned, it misrepresented Locke's theory of property). If you have a choice between providing a respectful land acknowledgement or none at all, then the institution isn't exactly requiring you to believe something without argument--it's not requiring you to believe anything at all. It's just requiring that official documents be minimally respectful.

And since a syllabus is an official university document, not a personal communication, piece of research, etc., it's hard to see how exercising oversight like that infringes upon one's academic freedom.

These sorts of statements are insidious because they unnecessarily politicize the curriculum and undermine free speech and academic freedom. Professor Reges is willing to stand up to this, but many others won't.

To show that it's insidious, you need to show that it (1) causes serious harm, and (2) spreads gradually or beneath one's notice. What, exactly, is the slippery slope here, and what's it leading to? An Indigenous rebellion and genocide against white people?

I'm willing to grant you (2) for the sake of argument, although it seems pretty dubious to me, especially since a land acknowledgement is made in plain sight. But you need to establish (1). And it's just far from obvious that there's any harm here, let alone a serious one. The bar for that is pretty high.

The potential harms you're identifying might be harms, but equally, they may not be (I certainly don't see any prima facie reason to grant them, and you've not yet made a non-circular case for them). Even if we accept that they are harms, however, we still need to establish that they're serious harms if we want to qualify them as insidious. And given the givens (a disrespectful acknowledgement, the ability to opt out) it just doesn't look like they could ever rise to meet that standard.

Like I said, you can think they're a bad thing. But insidious?

And I wouldn't hold up Canada or any other countries as shining examples of free speech protection.

I'm not asking you to. I'm saying that Canada and New Zealand are hardly free speech hellscapes despite (1) having had land acknowledgements for years (though not decades), and (2) having some laws minimally regulating speech. To the extent that we're not "shining examples of free speech protection", you'd need to do some legwork to connect those issues to land acknowledgements.

(Indeed, you won't find provincial legislators banning the teaching of certain aspects of our history or the mention of certain kinds of familial arrangements in either place, which is at least a marked improvement upon the American status quo.)

All of these "university-level operational details" are related to potential action of students; either actions which are prohibited (with the resulting consequences), or actions which are allowed or encouraged (such as where to access student services if needed.)

Once you allow that non-course-relevant but university-relevant material is appropriate on the syllabus, you open the door to university-relevant material like a land acknowledgement.

Unless a student comes from an indigenous community, the land on which the student lives , buys groceries, plays soccer, etc. is probably in the same category as the university regarding land status, so the land acknowledgement is no more relevant to the institution than it is to basically everywhere else the student spends time.

As I see it, the point is that public institutions are expected to shoulder a greater share of responsibility for reconciliation than the private sector because of their government ties. Although we certainly have some individual responsibilities for facilitating reconciliation, it's obviously a project that must be (and is best) pursued collectively, by the government, given the nature of the historical injustice and how we've collectively benefited from it (e.g. by having our universities exist on land which, technically, they cannot legally occupy).

Unless there's some specific action expected of students, ( or forbidden to students), the land acknowledgement in the syllabus doesn't serve any clear purpose other than ideological posturing.

Again, I take it that part of the point is educational. The specific action expected, then, is learning a bit about our recent history and extant law, and the university's place in it, as well as making local Indigenous populations visibile rather than consigning them to invisibility.

(By contrast, if an institution had an archaeological dig on-site revealing a former indigenous settlement, then a land acknowledgement could indeed have specific relevance, especaily if there were a monument or building on campus where people could go to learn more about that historical community.)

This sort of thing is, of course, the case at many of our universities. Even at my podunk institution.

[marshwiggle]

All of these "university-level operational details" are related to potential action of students; either actions which are prohibited (with the resulting consequences), or actions which are allowed or encouraged (such as where to access student services if needed.)

Once you allow that non-course-relevant but university-relevant material is appropriate on the syllabus, you open the door to university-relevant material like a land acknowledgement.

Unless a student comes from an indigenous community, the land on which the student lives , buys groceries, plays soccer, etc. is probably in the same category as the university regarding land status, so the land acknowledgement is no more relevant to the institution than it is to basically everywhere else the student spends time.

As I see it, the point is that public institutions are expected to shoulder a greater share of responsibility for reconciliation than the private sector because of their government ties. Although we certainly have some individual responsibilities for facilitating reconciliation, it's obviously a project that must be (and is best) pursued collectively, by the government, given the nature of the historical injustice and how we've collectively benefited from it (e.g. by having our universities exist on land which, technically, they cannot legally occupy).

So where can (and should) they go? Should they disband?

Unless there's some specific action expected of students, ( or forbidden to students), the land acknowledgement in the syllabus doesn't serve any clear purpose other than ideological posturing.

Again, I take it that part of the point is educational. The specific action expected, then, is learning a bit about our recent history and extant law, and the university's place in it, as well as making local Indigenous populations visibile rather than consigning them to invisibility.

If the "action" is learning, they'd be much farther ahead by simply creating a required indigeneous studies course that every student must take.

The "expectation" of learning about the issues just from hearing a land acknowledgement over and over again is not well-founded.

Maybe people who don't have a religious background are unused to liturgy and are overly impressed by the novelty of this sort of thing. People who have a religious background are well aware of how performative things like this, no matter how well-intentioned, don't prevent normal human hypocrisy and/or insincerity.

[Parasaurolophus]

So where can (and should) they go? Should they disband?

No. What should be done is for the federal government to negotiate a treaty and compensation with the peoples whose land it is (or, alternately, to repeal the relevant laws, although that is almost certainly a bad idea on every front). That is, of course, one of the aims of Reconciliation. Several other aims were set out in the wake of the TRC, of course, some educational, some legal, etc.

If the "action" is learning, they'd be much farther ahead by simply creating a required indigeneous studies course that every student must take.

Almost certainly. And that's under discussion at the institutional level across the country, although I expect it won't materialize at the post-secondary level (in many provinces, it's already more or less in place at the level of the secondary curriculum).

But as I said in my first post, symbolic gestures do matter, especially to people who have been wronged.

[mahagonny]

So where can (and should) they go? Should they disband?

No. What should be done is for the federal government to negotiate a treaty and compensation with the peoples whose land it is (or, alternately, to repeal the relevant laws, although that is almost certainly a bad idea on every front). That is, of course, one of the aims of Reconciliation. Several other aims were set out in the wake of the TRC, of course, some educational, some legal, etc.

So, working stiffs and our children can start paying extra taxes to compensate the people who are the rightful owners of the land that enabled tenured academics and administrators public distinctions and cushy 30 year retirements, since these high-minded academics have recently experienced an epiphany about the rights of these indigenous people to restitution? I had a feeling we were going here.

[marshwiggle]

So where can (and should) they go? Should they disband?

No. What should be done is for the federal government to negotiate a treaty and compensation with the peoples whose land it is (or, alternately, to repeal the relevant laws, although that is almost certainly a bad idea on every front).

Canada's GDP (2020, according to the World Bank), was about 1.6 trillion dollars. If most of the land is stolen, how much of that 1.6 trillion should be turned over to indigenous people, and where should all of the "settlers" go?

[mamselle]

To piggyback on Para's comment:

Quote
(By contrast, if an institution had an archaeological dig on-site revealing a former indigenous settlement, then a land acknowledgement could indeed have specific relevance, especaily if there were a monument or building on campus where people could go to learn more about that historical community.)

This sort of thing is, of course, the case at many of our universities. Even at my podunk institution.

I know of at least two other (U.S.) schools who do archeological digs on their own property and record their findings in public interpretive signage as their findings lead to more specific knowledge, conclusions, and awareness.

So this is not new.

Nor, so far, have any harms accrued to those who do the work, those who post the signage, those who read it, or those of us who include it in our own tours of such areas.

M.

[Anon1787]

The removed message was unequivocally disrespectful (and, as far as academic matters are concerned, it misrepresented Locke's theory of property). If you have a choice between providing a respectful land acknowledgement or none at all, then the institution isn't exactly requiring you to believe something without argument--it's not requiring you to believe anything at all. It's just requiring that official documents be minimally respectful.

To show that it's insidious, you need to show that it (1) causes serious harm, and (2) spreads gradually or beneath one's notice. What, exactly, is the slippery slope here, and what's it leading to? An Indigenous rebellion and genocide against white people?

I'm willing to grant you (2) for the sake of argument, although it seems pretty dubious to me, especially since a land acknowledgement is made in plain sight. But you need to establish (1). And it's just far from obvious that there's any harm here, let alone a serious one. The bar for that is pretty high.

The potential harms you're identifying might be harms, but equally, they may not be (I certainly don't see any prima facie reason to grant them, and you've not yet made a non-circular case for them). Even if we accept that they are harms, however, we still need to establish that they're serious harms if we want to qualify them as insidious. And given the givens (a disrespectful acknowledgement, the ability to opt out) it just doesn't look like they could ever rise to meet that standard.

Like I said, you can think they're a bad thing. But insidious?

I'm not asking you to. I'm saying that Canada and New Zealand are hardly free speech hellscapes despite (1) having had land acknowledgements for years (though not decades), and (2) having some laws minimally regulating speech. To the extent that we're not "shining examples of free speech protection", you'd need to do some legwork to connect those issues to land acknowledgements.

(Indeed, you won't find provincial legislators banning the teaching of certain aspects of our history or the mention of certain kinds of familial arrangements in either place, which is at least a marked improvement upon the American status quo.)

The professor's statement might be disrespectful to the university administration in the context of protesting the administration's officially approved message, but not the statement itself (which was the rationale for creating a separate course section for students). Your mere assertion doesn't make a statement either affirming or denying a property right "unequivocally disrespectful" (especially if you are using Canadian standards). What's more, the principle of free speech does not require that disagreement must be made in a "respectful" manner. (Whether the professor misrepresented Locke's theory of property is irrelevant and also merely asserted by you.)

The compelled speech and chilling effect aspects are what make it insidious. As you admit, this is part of a specific political agenda to promote an "apology" and "reconciliation". Instructors should not be forced to participate in promoting political agendas in their classrooms.

[mamselle]

So, there is no "right," or "wrong," anymore, there is only "political"--which is only wrong if it's the other person's "political" you're talking about?

M.

[marshwiggle]

So, there is no "right," or "wrong," anymore, there is only "political"--which is only wrong if it's the other person's "political" you're talking about?

The distinction I would make between those terms is something like this:

• "Right" - things you are supposed to do.
• "Wrong" - things you are not supposed to do.
• "Political" - things you are supposed to believe.

[Parasaurolophus]

Canada's GDP (2020, according to the World Bank), was about 1.6 trillion dollars. If most of the land is stolen, how much of that 1.6 trillion should be turned over to indigenous people, and where should all of the "settlers" go?

There's no 'ifs' about it, since extant law going back to colonial days requires treaties for land use, and ~65% of the country is not covered by treaties.

Expulsion and deportation are obviously not on the table, and nobody is calling for them. What they are calling for are recognition of land claims, more robust legal protections, a seat at the table when decisions are made about land use, etc. Financial compensation for land that won't be returned is presumably a possibility, but as far as I know it's not even a priority.

The professor's statement might be disrespectful to the university administration in the context of protesting the administration's officially approved message, but not the statement itself (which was the rationale for creating a separate course section for students). Your mere assertion doesn't make a statement either affirming or denying a property right "unequivocally disrespectful" (especially if you are using Canadian standards).

Do you genuinely not think that saying

"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.

mocks the practice of land acknowledgements and thereby derides the Coast Salish's land claims?

It's one thing to make a bare statement, or even to say such a thing in the context of a serious discussion about the issue (although in that context, the misrepresentation of events and of Locke's account of property becomes a serious problem). But when it's satirical, it acquires different content. That's the point of satire, after all, and it comes at someone's expense. The meaning here is plain for all to see: it's not just that we should deny Coast Salish claims to their land, but that they're not even worthy of serious engagement. It says this through the medium of ridiculing land acknowledgements.

What's more, the principle of free speech does not require that disagreement must be made in a "respectful" manner. (Whether the professor misrepresented Locke's theory of property is irrelevant and also merely asserted by you.)

That is correct. But it also doesn't mean that anyone can say anything at all in any context whatsoever. Indeed, you'll recall that the First Amendment is about government regulation of speech, and that non-government entities can regulate their members' speech in various ways. Remember also that these are institutional documents, and they're required to conform to certain standards. You can't paste just anything into a syllabus, after all. These are limitations we regularly accept because they're quite minimal. The university decided that, in this case, the document did not adhere to its standards.

As for Locke: again, you're correct. I'm relying on my authority as someone with a PhD in the relevant discipline, because I don't have the time to teach a whole free class on seventeenth-century theories of property, let alone on contemporary responses to it. I'm also assuming that anyone who has read Locke on property understands that the labour theory is part of the first phase of property rights and applies to the state of nature. The second phase is the development of trade, the third of governments and institutions. And I guess I'm assuming that everyone knows that when Europeans set foot in the New World, it wasn't actually empty and, thus, wasn't in the first Lockean phase (nor, indeed, were Europeans in the first phase).

Is it irrelevant? Not if you want to contend that what he said was a bare assertion of fact. Because in that case, the fact that it's false is absolutely relevant. If we concede that it's satirical and mocking, then sure, its accuracy isn't all that relevant--but then, we've conceded that it's disrespectful and thus violates university standards for syllabi.

The compelled speech and chilling effect aspects are what make it insidious. As you admit, this is part of a specific political agenda to promote an "apology" and "reconciliation". Instructors should not be forced to participate in promoting political agendas in their classrooms.

Not all compelled speech is insidious. As a mandated reporter, for example, I am legally required to report a student who, say, tells me that they abuse little children. When you take the witness stand in a trial, you are legally required to speak truly.

Or, again, consider the way in which my university controls my assessments. I think the practice is pedagogically deleterious. I expect you'd agree. It certainly infringes upon my academic or instructional freedom, and I think it's obvious that its negative consequences are more immediate and widespread (and more significant, though perhaps we'd disagree about that) than those of a land acknowledgement. But it doesn't rise to the level of being insidious, because the stakes remain relatively low and it's a perfectly overt policy.

Again, to qualify as 'insidious' it would have to, at a minimum, (1) have very bad consequences, and (2) be covert. Neither you, nor anyone, has shown that it satisfies those conditions.

Is it chilling? I struggle to see how.

Is the instructor being forced to participate? It's hard to see how you can be forced to participate in something you aren't required to do. Remember:

The University of Washington has countered by noting there is no university policy requiring a land acknowledgment or specific text that is required to be used for land acknowledgments.

[marshwiggle]

Canada's GDP (2020, according to the World Bank), was about 1.6 trillion dollars. If most of the land is stolen, how much of that 1.6 trillion should be turned over to indigenous people, and where should all of the "settlers" go?

There's no 'ifs' about it, since extant law going back to colonial days requires treaties for land use, and ~65% of the country is not covered by treaties.

Expulsion and deportation are obviously not on the table, and nobody is calling for them. What they are calling for are recognition of land claims, more robust legal protections, a seat at the table when decisions are made about land use, etc. Financial compensation for land that won't be returned is presumably a possibility, but as far as I know it's not even a priority.

What in the heck could "recognition of land claims" mean if it didn't in some way suggest the return of the land or compensation in lieu?

[Anon1787]

[

All of these "university-level operational details" are related to potential action of students; either actions which are prohibited (with the resulting consequences), or actions which are allowed or encouraged (such as where to access student services if needed.)

Once you allow that non-course-relevant but university-relevant material is appropriate on the syllabus, you open the door to university-relevant material like a land acknowledgement.

I agree with marshwiggle. The university-relevant material is related to regulating student conduct on campus that is essential to maintaining good order. Land acknowledgements have no immediate relevance to that end.