This is a single-institution employment/academic freedom dispute with limited constitutional implications. A-score: Civil rights driver scores 3.5 for First Amendment academic speech concerns, but narrow scope (single professor, single university) and judicial mechanism (lawsuit filed, not decided) limit impact. Rule of law scores 2.5 for institutional policy enforcement questions. Capture scores 1.5 for potential ideological enforcement patterns. Mechanism modifier 1.15 for judicial action, scope modifier 0.85 for single-state/narrow population yields final A-score of 11.55. B-score: High meme-ability (7) for 'parody land acknowledgement' culture war framing, strong outrage potential (6) across political spectrum, good media friendliness (6) for simple narrative. Layer 2 shows pattern-matching (6) to broader academic freedom debates and narrative pivot potential (5) to institutional overreach themes. Intentionality moderate (6) with culture war framing evident. Final B-score 21.35. Classification: Both scores below 25, A-score lacks systemic mechanism (single lawsuit, no ruling, no precedent set), exhibits noise indicators (routine academic grievance amplified through culture war lens, single institution, no broader policy change). This is institutional employment litigation with high symbolic/cultural resonance but minimal constitutional damage.