On the cusp of his first academic year as president of the University of Wyoming, retired Army Brig. Gen. Shane Reeves made national headlines in late August, though not for his new post leading the state’s sole four-year public university.

Instead, as The New York Times first reported, Reeves was named in a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Military Academy, filed by a civilian climate scientist who alleges he was fired after 17 years at West Point “because he taught that humans influenced climate change,” the complaint states. 

Prior to taking the helm at UW, Reeves served as West Point’s dean of the academic board. The lawsuit accuses him and two other academy leaders of violating Dr. Adam Kalkstein’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The complaint also points to the Trump administration’s “hostility to the accepted scientific notion that human activity was a major cause of present-day climate change.” 

The defendants, including Reeves, have not yet filed a legal response to Kalkstein. Reeves declined WyoFile’s request for an interview for this story. 

West Point, like the University of Wyoming and other institutions of higher education across the country, is not new to questions over the rights of instructors, researchers or students to teach, investigate or discuss ideas without undue interference from the government, donors, university boards or administrators. 

In Laramie, that tension has grown more acute in recent years as the Wyoming Freedom Caucus gained power in the Legislature and sought to restrict the university’s autonomy through legislation and the power of the purse. A 2024 budget footnote, for example, forbade UW from using any state money for diversity, equity and inclusion programming and curricula. The school closed its DEI office as a result. Earlier this year, the Freedom Caucus, citing specific concerns with environmental courses, tried but ultimately failed to reduce UW’s block grant by about 11%. But the group’s message was made clear by its members.

Rep. Ken Pendergraft, R-Sheridan, during the 2026 Wyoming Legislature budget session in Cheynne. (Mike Vanata for WyoFile)

“We’re going to pull this money back,” Rep. Ken Pendergraft, R-Sheridan, said on the House floor in February. “And we want you to focus on ag, we want you to focus on engineering, we want you to focus on education, these other things that benefit Wyoming specifically, rather than training people in majors, minors, ideas and concepts where they’re not going to be, frankly, at home in Wyoming.”  

Before voters ousted most Freedom Caucus incumbents in the primary election last month, the group had already taken aim at Reeves, accusing him of “bringing woke academics to West Point.” 

However, Reeves’ arrival to Laramie has been marked largely by optimism. Much of that is thanks to the first impression the Rock Springs native has made on campus, including via a charming social media presence. The new president’s bullish outlook for the university’s future, despite challenges like declining enrollment and a $15 million budget shortfall, has also contributed to his early popularity. 

“I think it’s on the ascent,” Reeves told WyoFile in August during a wide-ranging interview. “I absolutely think it has a lot of momentum behind it, and accelerating what already exists is going to be part of my job. And I’m really honored to have the opportunity to do it.” 

President Shane Reeves (University of Wyoming)

News of the federal lawsuit began to circulate on campus earlier this month, including via the faculty email listserv, according to The Laramie Reporter. But it hasn’t necessarily soured the mood on campus, according to Faculty President Rob Godby. 

“I think the majority opinion on faculty is that they’re willing to give President Reeves the benefit of the doubt, and you know, are positive and hopeful that he’s as successful as he can be” Godby told WyoFile this week. 

Godby, an associate professor of economics, also said faculty are eager to move forward after a tumultuous period with university leadership. In 2025, the faculty senate voted to adopt a no-confidence resolution against former UW President Ed Seidel amid the controversial ouster of a popular dean. 

“It’s no secret there were some potential leadership challenges based on decisions that the previous president made,” Godby said. “And a lot of faculty just want to move forward and are glad to have those behind them” 

Earlier this year, Godby served on the presidential search committee, and said Reeves stood out from the other candidates for a reason. 

“One of things that impressed us the most about President Reeves was he was among the candidates who gave the strongest explanation and description of academic freedom and the importance and its value on a campus,” he said. 

“And I’ll be honest with you,” Godby said, “not all of our candidates actually did a very good job on that question.” 

In August, Reeves told WyoFile that “intellectual discourse is a very traditional Wyoming value, right?” 

“We can talk about anything, and we can disagree and at the end of the day, we’re still neighbors,” he said. “As a son of the state of Wyoming, I was brought up with a healthy level of cynicism from being told what to think or what to believe. I think that this effort to have real discussion, real discourse, to have students engaged in ideas is a real commitment to the free marketplace of ideas that is the very purpose of an institution of higher education.” 

Cautious optimism

Recently retired professor of philosophy and creative writing Jeff Lockwood is among those in UW’s community who are taking a wait-and-see approach. 

“We’re in the honeymoon, right?” Lockwood told WyoFile. 

“Actions speak louder than words. You know that’s kind of trite, but also, we’ve got some very nice words from the president,” Lockwood said. “He’s a wonderfully engaging, warm person. I mean, his interpersonal skills are on another planet compared to what we’ve had, without being too blunt about that. So we got that right.”

However, Lockwood said, “when resources get allocated and priorities get made via action and budget, that’s when we exchange words for actions, and we find out what’s really going to be going on.”  

A sculpture on campus drew the ire of state lawmakers and the energy industry during Lockwood’s time on campus in 2011. Using charred logs arranged in a 36-foot-wide pinwheel design in the lawn south of Old Main, artist Chris Drury’s “Carbon Sink” sought to draw a visual connection between climate change driven by fossil fuel emissions and the region’s pine beetle epidemic. 

Many considered the removal of Carbon Sink, an art installation seen here, from the University of Wyoming campus, as an example of institutional censorship and the threat to academic independence in action. (Chris Drury)

After lawmakers and energy industry leaders objected to the sculpture, it was removed from campus earlier than planned. University officials denied bowing to political pressure, though documents obtained by Wyoming Public Media in the aftermath indicated otherwise. 

In the years afterwards, Lockwood wrote a book about the controversy and the larger theme of censorship imposed by corporate wealth and power. In 2017, he told Wyoming PBS he was inspired to write the book after “people started coming to me with stories, stories that they couldn’t tell because they were at much more risk than I am as a tenured professor.” 

Lockwood told WyoFile this week that UW faculty are not naïve to Wyoming politics or the institution’s financial reliance on the Legislature. They’re also keenly aware, he said, that “there have been consequences for speaking or writing or teaching freely on subjects that might be uncomfortable to the political environment.”

“When resources get allocated and priorities get made via action and budget, that’s when we exchange words for actions, and we find out what’s really going to be going on.”

Jeff Lockwood, retired professor

The hard question becomes, Lockwood said, “how much will we, as an institution, or we as a faculty, or we as a bunch of administrators, compromise on principles in order to, if you will, protect the funding of the institution?” 

There’s a certain point, he said, “at which the constraint on academic freedom is so egregious that it no longer functions as what it was supposed to be, or what the people want it to be.” 

While Lockwood said he expects the university’s relationship with lawmakers to change in the wake of  the Freedom Caucus’ defeat at the polls last month, the greater dynamic will persist. 

“The conflict between the perceived interests of our industries and the perceived interests of our legislature and the principles of academic freedom on the campus, that’s not going to go away,” he said.

Seidel’s initiative

In 2022, Seidel, who Reeves replaced in July, launched a free-speech initiative. 

He tasked a working group of faculty, staff, administrators, students and a trustee with defining the university’s “core principles in the areas of freedom of expression, intellectual freedom, academic freedom, and constructive dialogue.”

In 2023, the working group’s recommendations were officially adopted by the university. 

“A fundamental principle is that the university plays a unique role by providing a neutral forum for the deliberation and debate of public issues,” Seidel said at the time. “Providing such a forum does not mean the university either endorses or condemns the different perspectives expressed. What it does mean is that, as our free expression group states, UW’s adherence to impartiality reaffirms the intellectual freedom of all at UW to seek and receive information without restriction and enjoy unfettered access to all expression of ideas through which any side of a question, cause or movement may be explored.” 

The group was co-chaired by Martha McCaughey, who was then appointed in 2025 to lead the initiative fulltime. In an emailed statement to WyoFile, McCaughey said she had “no information” on the West Point lawsuit and pointed to the university’s statement of principles, which includes a section on academic freedom. 

“UW is an R1 institution with strong academic standards where people examine evidence, discover new knowledge, and put knowledge to practical use,” McCaughey wrote. 

Matt Burgess, an associate economics professor, has also been involved with UW’s free speech initiative. Burgess told WyoFile he’s confident in Reeves and the direction the university is taking. 

“Everything I’ve seen from him publicly and everything I’ve heard about what he’s been doing behind the scenes suggests very strong, very unequivocal support for free expression, free academic freedom, for the initiative,” Burgess said. “And as somebody who studies climate change, I have no concerns at all about any kind of censorship or pressure coming from Old Main about that.” 

Like Lockwood, Burgess said public pressures are certain to exist, but it’s not the sole responsibility of the university’s president to ensure academic freedom.

“We decide whether we censor ourselves,” Burgess said. “And I think that we academics would do ourselves and our professions a service by doing that less.” 

WyoFile reporter Dustin Bleizeffer contributed reporting.

Maggie Mullen reports on state government and politics. Before joining WyoFile in 2022, she spent five years at Wyoming Public Radio.

Join the Conversation

4 Comments

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Reeves should make a statement declaring whether UW faculty members will be allowed to teach the theories and facts of climate change. Wyoming people deserve to know where he stands.

  2. Dick Cheney loved the idea of the unitary executive theory and the current corrupt SCOTUS agreed with Dick, at least for Republican Presidents.

    Reeves served at the behest of worst Commander in Chief in US history and the only way to rectify the stupid decisions of the CINC is through the Impeachment and Conviction process outlined in the US Constitution. In theory Reeves is “free” of the direct orders from his former boss and based on his current salary could take the hit if called back to service for a courts-martial action. Now that would be a really learning lesson if it were to occur.

    University of Wyoming followed all the procedures to become an R-1 research institute, so keeping that going, at least to my mind, will be a far easier task for his administration than dealing with the NCAA/NIL sports landscape that has left Wyoming behind in the competitive sports environment category.

    If you do not like BG Reeves former boss take it up with Hageman, Barrasso and Lummis. Dick Cheney’s mentor at UW worried about the lack of education the US Citizen was receiving about how our Republic works and now we are finally getting some lessons.

  3. I’m cautiously optimistic about Reeves. It doesn’t bother me that he is named in the lawsuit given Trumps stance on anything science related. When you are at an institution under the US Army, who is under the control of Pete Hegseth, who has his own issues, but also bows down to Trump – I find it hard to believe the decision to fire Dr. Adam Kalkstein was made at the school level. It’s the same as what happened with the office of DEI and the Freedom Caucus.
    I don’t think it was right to fire Dr. Kalkstein, but what battles are the admin at West Point going to take on when they can easily be fired also and replaced with “loyalists” to Trump? I’m glad Dr. Kalkstein is suing – though the courts are inundated with lawsuits on everything the Trump administration is doing (and rightfully so). Unless we hear directly from Reeves about his opinion on this matter (which, due to the lawsuit, he probably won’t speak to), I’ll be optimistic that he truly wants UW to be a strong academic institution in all areas and supports the faculty.
    I do find the irony in those that demonize Reeves because of the lawsuit and the Freedom Caucus not liking him (probably the biggest indicator things will be OK) because he’s “bringing woke academics to West Point.” This is case where I don’t think both things can be true at once.

  4. These are, as Jeff Lockwood says, early days. Unstated here is how management will address the results of a survey of campus mood based on the latest Great Colleges survey (March-April 2026). The survey was timed by Seidel (outgoing) so that results landed after Reeves was announced as incoming.
    Seidel had received a vote of no confidence (43–11) from faculty senate in April 2025. This was a largely a consequence of why and how the dean of the Engineering and Physical Sciences was terminated by UW’s Board of Trustees on Seidel’s recommendation. University presidents rarely stay in post after such votes.
    Two numbers stick out from the most recent GC survey. Satisfaction with salaries/wages was rated by respondents at 18%-25% (staff), 34% (faculty) and 39% (administration). Confidence in UW’s senior leadership at UW (i.e., Seidel and team) was rated at 36% (non-exempt staff), 31% (exempt professional staff), faculty (37%) and administrators (39%).
    Each group was also asked two open-ended questions. Unfortunately, the text of the responses has yet to be released publicly by the head of faculty senate because “redaction is always a troubling exercise,” “some of the answers were very complex,” and “[responses] can also be taken out of context.”
    An alternative explanation is that some responses were truthful, inconvenient or both.