Columbia University satire student paper The Federalist has long relished triggering viewers, particularly conservatives. When it mocked the murder of Charlie Kirk, it shrugged off objections that people need to get a sense of humor. However, the paper has now apologized for something beyond satire: land acknowledgments. The editors issued a cringing apology for a joke about land acknowledgments. It appears that, unlike political assassinations, land acknowledgment are simply not laughing matters. It pledged to focus on something called “punch-up humor” that picks only on “people and systems in positions of power.”
The editors removed a column titled “I Lived It: Before We Had Sex, My Boyfriend Said a Land Acknowledgment.” It posted a statement on its Instagram page that the article “upset many members of the Columbia community and handled a sensitive topic rashly and irresponsibly: the important recognition of the native land Columbia University and much of our country sit on.”
We take full accountability for the weight of our harmful words, and we thank Columbia’s Native American Council, as well as other members of the community, for bringing this to our attention. We deeply apologize for any harm this article caused, and we are taking this moment to refine our humor guidelines to ensure that our mission of satire does not hurt communities and voices that should uplifted.
In a moment like the one we are currently living in on a campus like ours, political satire is more important than ever, and we would like to reaffirm our commitment to uplifting marginalized voices in this endeavor.
It was a telling moment in higher education, with institutions fighting to coerce faculty members and students to engage in what critics call a woke, performative moment before meetings, classes, and events.
Recently, the University of Washington settled a case after burning a fortune on litigation over a professor’s dissenting view of land acknowledgment.
We previously discussed the case of Professor Stuart Reges, who teaches at the computer science and engineering school of the University of Washington. He refused to post the school’s “land acknowledgment” and instead posted an alternative statement. Professor Reges sued the university and various officials in 2022. Professor Reges has declared, “Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity that should be resisted, even if it lands you in court.”
After the university encouraged faculty to add a prewritten “Indigenous land acknowledgment” statement to their syllabi, reading:
“The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.”
Reges decided to write his own statement:
“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.”
The labor theory (which I teach) generally refers to John Locke’s theory. In his Second Treatise, Locke laid the foundation for property as a divine gift of God that began in the state of nature, where all was created in common by God. Reges declared that these tribes, indigenous people, “can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land and that the claim of the university land was not sufficiently used or developed to bestow a claim upon the Coast Salish people. That acknowledged group is a broad collection of different groups with ethnic or linguistic associations.”
In his lawsuit, Professor Reges detailed how, after he stated his own views, the university moved against him.
Reges noted that the university allowed other professors “to include modified statements in their syllabi that were more consistent with the University’s recommended statement.” The operative point is that “other faculty at the Allen School continue to include land acknowledgment statements in their syllabi that differ from the University’s own statement, so long as they express a viewpoint consistent with the University’s recommended version.”
That ended up costing the public a massive amount of money in Washington, but none of the faculty or administrators responsible for this conflict incurred any penalties or costs. Indeed, they were heralded for their struggle in favor of land acknowledgments.
Given such efforts, it is clear that many in academia will not tolerate any jokes, let alone alternatives, to land acknowledgments. It is part of the ideological echo chamber of higher education. The joke, however, is on these forces of orthodoxy. Forcing public apologies with public acknowledgments only undermines efforts to get people to consider the history of Native peoples.
Many of us support discussion and recognition of the history of native peoples. We simply oppose mandatory land acknowledgments, including “voluntary” systems that bar alternatives or coerce participation. As for the cringing editors of The Federalist, they supplied the greatest satirical moment after claiming a mission to “doggedly pursue the truth in its most raw, exaggerated, hyperbolic, blatantly untrue form.”
Some matters in higher education are simply beyond satire, and that is a truly pathetic acknowledgment.
Keep reading
You must be logged in to post a comment.