Why are BYU English Professors doing Land Acknowledgements?

This editorial was originally scheduled to be published on September 10, 2025, the date of the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk. 

A week before Fall classes began, students majoring in English at BYU received emails inviting them to meet with academic advisors. At the bottom of these emails, a handful of professors signed off with the phrase “BYU sits on the traditional homelands of the Ute, Paiute, Goshute, and Shoshone peoples.” 

This kind of statement is called a “land acknowledgement.” According to the National Museum of the American Indian, land acknowledgments are done to “recognize Indigenous Peoples who are the original stewards of the lands on which we now live.”

Because it’s their field of study, I’ll assume these English professors understand what they’re implying when they include land acknowledgements in their emails. I trust that they, of all professors, have an appreciation for the rhetorical context in which these statements exist, and how they are likely to be interpreted in our current cultural and political climate.

So, while I’ll extend to these professors all due respect and the benefit of the doubt, I’m deeply skeptical of the message they are sending – in fact, I think it might be antithetical to how BYU professors ought to behave.

For those unfamiliar with them, land acknowledgements are known to generally be critiques of the European colonists who settled the western hemisphere. They are an outgrowth of a radically progressive anti-colonialist ideology which originated in left-leaning academic circles, rooted in what they call Critical Race Theory (CRT). This theory postulates that all inequality is a result of white racism towards minorities, teaches that racism is inherent in western society, and encourages white people to express guilt.

Now, I’m not saying this alone discredits the idea of land acknowledgements. I may disagree with the source of the behavior on ideological grounds, but that’s not the reason I think it’s misguided. In fact, I believe it’s good to have an open discourse on the ethics and effects of colonialism throughout history, and interesting arguments exist on both sides of that debate. I also believe there is great value in understanding Native peoples and the complex history of colonialism (although that history is often skewed in a progressive direction).

So while I think land acknowledgments are silly constructs of misguided liberal thinking, I have bigger problems with what they are used for – a sentiment shared by many indigenous community leaders who openly criticize them. Even the American Anthropological Association (AAA) officially “paused” the practice at the request of the Association of Indigenous Anthropologists (AIA), partly because they were seen as “little more than highly performative, feel-good empty gestures, signaling ideological conformity … to social justice” according to three anthropology professors. 

At their best, land acknowledgements are empty gestures meant to virtue signal, and at their worst they can be used as a form of weaponized niceness, often covering deeply rooted animus towards anglo-american culture or western civilization altogether. In their article, those same three professors discuss how land acknowledgements were paused because they didn’t go far enough. The AAA actually intends to improve land acknowledgments so they can stir up more contention, not less, and drive more action on behalf of indigenous communities. (It is partly for this reason that Ohio State University recently banned the practice on their campus.)

Essentially, the anthropological world seems to think that land acknowledgements should be used to promulgate an “us vs. them” narrative so Native Americans can have more support in prying concessions from the government. One Native American non-profit giving instructions on how to perform a land acknowledgement says to “be sure to recognize … The harm caused by colonization and the forced removal of Indigenous peoples from their lands” and the “ongoing systemic oppression Indigenous peoples face.”

So here’s my question: what are English professors at BYU doing participating in this conversation? Why include the land acknowledgement in simple emails inviting students to meet with their advisors? What’s the intention? Like I said, as English professors, they are rhetorically conscious, so we can rule out the possibility that they aren’t aware of the implications of such statements. So what are they trying to say?

I can think of a couple possibilities.

First, these professors might be, as the three professors I quoted earlier describe, trying to signal ideological conformity to a “naive, left-wing, paint-by-numbers approach to social justice.” If so, this raises other concerns. Why do they feel the need to signal this ideological conformity? What other left-wing ideas do they conform to (notice the pronouns in the email)? Are they intending to use their tithing-funded positions of authority at BYU to push progressive politics on students? It certainly seems like they are willing to use opportunities, even those as benign as pre-semester reminder emails, to engage in promoting social justice through land-acknowledgements. At best, those of us who would prefer politically neutral professors can use this as a way to know who to avoid. At worst, these professors may be inappropriately using their pulpits to propagandize.

The second possibility is more extreme. These professors might actually take issue with the fact that BYU is built where it is. “BYU sits on the traditional homelands of the Ute, Paiute, Goshute, and Shoshone peoples.” The way this is written implies that, at some point in the past, an unjust takeover of indigenous lands took place. This is safe to infer by the fact it is being included in emails with completely different subject matter, which matches customary virtue signaling behavior. 

Disregard the fact that these BYU professors may actually be incorrectly attributing the land to these tribes. If they believe that such a takeover took place, does that mean they believe Joseph Smith was wrong to send the Saints to the western mountains, or that Brigham Young was wrong when he said “this is the place” and sent Saints to settle throughout Utah? Are they suggesting God was wrong to inspire the brethren to settle through these valleys, or that no such inspiration took place at all? I highly doubt that this is what these professors intend. But this is a logical progression of thought when you begin with the simple claim that BYU is built on stolen, indigenous land.

Latter-day Saint relationships with native tribes were much more complicated than a black and white story of victimization on one side. It was complex, involving negotiations, trade, fighting instigated by both sides, and many other factors. Ultimately, the Latter-day Saints successfully settled Utah Valley. It became their home; a refuge from persecution in the east, and a place to worship God. The Utes, Paiutes, Goshutes, and Shoshones no longer have claim to it, just as the Mexican government no longer has claim to it, just as the Fremont culture (which predated the Utes) no longer has claim to it, just as the Desert Archaic Culture (the first known humans to live in Utah) no longer have claim to it. The land BYU is built on has changed hands countless times.

Furthermore, knowing the history of who once owned the land is interesting as a historical matter, but it carries no weight when considering contemporary social issues. For all intents and purposes, Utah Valley is politically and culturally American, and its current inhabitants bear no responsibility for how it became that way. To suggest that it’s incumbent upon students to acknowledge – as an issue of morality – previous ownership of this land by native people suggests that we, somehow, must repent for the actions of people long ago. It also suggests that Latter-day Saints were wrong to settle here, that there is a crime which must be repented of in the first place, and this can only lead to a deeply critical view of early Church leadership.

This is why the social justice movement can quickly become spiritually dangerous. It’s founded on the idea of historic crimes and injustice against non-white, non-western people. This core belief introduces dissonance, because if we accept that all non-white natives were oppressed by white settlers, does that make the predominantly white Latter-day Saint pioneers evil victimizers? It is this train of thought that leads to things like the ahistorical portrayal of Brigham Young in the hit Netflix show American Primeval.

If this land acknowledgment had been written by history professors, or had been written by English professors at another university, that would be one thing. I would still disagree with it, but it wouldn’t be worthy of much comment. But this was written by English professors – who are very conscious of the power of words and rhetoric – at a school owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is why I am concerned about their motivations.

Respectfully, I think BYU professors should stop with the social justice virtue signaling. They should signal virtue to students by standing as stalwart examples of combined faith and academic excellence. No matter how much the rest of the academic system says we ought to do or say things a certain way, we should remember the words of President Spencer W. Kimball, “we must be willing to break with the educational establishment (not foolishly or cavalierly, but thoughtfully and for good reason) in order to find gospel ways to help mankind. Gospel methodology, concepts, and insights can help us to do what the world cannot do in its own frame of reference.”

If BYU professors truly believe that there are injustices which need to be addressed, it is reasonable to expect them to communicate both the problems and solutions within a gospel framework. Intellectual mastery and spiritual maturity, communicated clearly, is a standard we shouldn’t be afraid to hold all BYU professors to. 

Cover Photo Source: https://empowernativevoice.com/products/no-one-is-illegal-on-stolen-land-we-walk-on-native-land-one-sides