The Right Honourable Boris Johnson, who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 2019 to 2022, spoke to The Madison Federalist in an exclusive interview before his March 23 speech at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Johnson said he viewed “division” as the greatest threat the West faces. “I think it’s obvious to me that there’s a group of countries that include Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, that are hungry to displace the United States as the hegemonic power in the world,” he said. “Everybody in the West needs to understand that and prevent it from happening.”

He was skeptical of the United States and Israel’s recent military actions in Iran but said “it’s too early to say” how the situation will resolve.

He said they are “not necessarily what I would have advocated from what I see at the moment, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that good can’t come out of it.”

“Clearly, there’s a lot of people who are very worried about the effect it’s having on the world economy, and they include me,” he said. “Inflation is up, interest rates are up, millions of ordinary people face being impoverished because of a war whose objectives are unclear and whose exit strategy is unknown. That’s the problem.”

“I think that it was always predictable and indeed predicted that Iran would respond to being bombed by closing the Strait of Hormuz. So I didn’t quite understand why President Trump said that nobody talked about what was going to happen.”

However, he emphasized that the Iranian regime is run by “very bad guys” who “do terrible things.”

“If this leads to change in Iran, which it might well do, then that would be a good thing,” Johnson said.

He is concerned about the students and young people who “get out and demonstrate in favor of Hamas” or “the Ayatollahs.” Johnson said Western nations cannot survive “if we don’t know ourselves.”

“I think young people should look at how young people behave in the autocracies. What do they want? They want to come here. They want to come to the University of Wisconsin, Madison. They’re looking at us on the internet with real envy.”

Johnson also discussed artificial intelligence, which is one of his favorite topics. “I love it. I think it’s great. It’s a great tool. I think it’s a brilliant adventure,” Johnson said. “There are lots of functions where we just don’t have enough pairs of hands,” so AI can be used to solve many problems.

Subscribe now

Johnson was surprised, and disappointed, to learn that students often use AI to cheat on assignments. “Do they? The rotters!,” he said. “Academics will have to find alternative means of discriminating between candidates and other ways of assessing intellectual progress, because, clearly, you can just produce a computerized essay that’s indistinguishable from what was previously thought to be a standard essay.” He believes professors will “have to find a new way of determining the originality of thought and memory and learning.”

Johnson viewed concerns about workers being replaced by AI as overstated. He said Europe and the United States have an “aging population” so artificial intelligence could help boost a shrinking workforce.

Johnson was hosted at UW-Madison by Young Americans for Freedom and the Tommy G. Thompson Center on Public Leadership.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of its author. All University of Wisconsin-Madison students and faculty are welcome to submit op-eds or pitches to madisonfederalist@gmail.com.

I am a man who loves other men. I believe everyone should be accepting of who they are and who others are, which is why it pains me to see the continued existence of conversion therapy in our society. Conversion therapy is a stain on the history of American healthcare, and states have an important role in prohibiting it. That is precisely why the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar deserves a more careful reading than it has received. The ruling has been enveloped in a whirlwind of misunderstanding and misinformation regarding its actual content.

Many have alleged that the Court ruled that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy was unconstitutional, or that it ruled that states do not have any power to ban conversion therapy. The reality is far more mundane—and far more nuanced.

The Supreme Court did not decide whether Colorado’s law is constitutional. The majority in Salazar ruled only that the lower Court of Appeals had applied the wrong legal test and ordered that the case be reargued. In the opinion of the Court, Justice Gorsuch writes, “The judgment of the Tenth Circuit is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” In plain terms, the Court overturned the lower court’s reasoning and instructed it to try again using the correct standard. Constitutional law depends on rulings like these, ensuring the correct standard is applied to balance the interests of states and the rights of citizens of the United States.

The obvious question, then, is what standard the Court required. The answer, strict scrutiny, is the most demanding form of constitutional review we have. There are several levels of scrutiny federal courts use in evaluating the constitutionality of legislation, with strict scrutiny being the most demanding, and rational basis review the most lenient. Strict scrutiny requires Colorado to prove that it had a “compelling governmental interest” in passing this law, that the law was “narrowly tailored” in its scope, and that it was the “least restrictive means” the state could have used to achieve its goal. The Court did not rule on whether the law would pass strict scrutiny; that question remains open.

The Tenth Circuit originally upheld the law using rational basis review, reasoning that it interpreted the Colorado law as “regulating professional conduct and… regulat[ing] speech only incidentally.” That distinction matters. Laws that merely touch on speech indirectly are given broad deference, but laws that regulate speech on the basis of content or viewpoint trigger the Constitution’s highest level of protection.

The Supreme Court found that Colorado’s law crosses that line. As Justice Gorsuch explains, “Colorado’s law does not just regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’s speech. It goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express.” The law itself prohibits “any practice or treatment by a licensee… that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” The key point of contention in this case is the prohibition of “any practice or treatment,” which, in the case of Ms. Chiles (the therapist suing the state of Colorado), includes the things she says to her patients.

Citing the language of the Colorado law, the Court further elaborates that “Ms. Chiles may express ‘[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for the facilitation of . . . identity exploration.’... But if a gay or transgender client seeks her counsel in the hope of changing his sexual orientation or gender identity, Ms. Chiles cannot provide it.” The argument is a straightforward one: Ms. Chiles is not only limited in what she can say, but she is also required to only express a certain viewpoint on a client’s identity regardless of the client’s desires.

Even if a client who suffers from gender dysphoria seeks assistance in conforming with their biological sex, therapists cannot offer such counseling. No matter what, the state of Colorado requires that therapists advance an affirming viewpoint in their conversations with patients. A law that permits one side of a conversation while prohibiting the other is not merely regulating conduct; it is regulating viewpoints. Because of this distinction between censoring one viewpoint and compelling another, a higher standard of review must be used. That does not mean the Court has ruled on whether this legislation is constitutional; that is for the lower court to decide.

If this law is deemed unconstitutional, it will be only on very narrow grounds. The question at hand in Chiles v. Salazar is not whether a state can ban conversion therapy altogether, but whether the state has a compelling interest in regulating “talk therapy” aimed at changing a client’s sexuality, and whether the current means Colorado has used to meet these interests are not more restrictive than what’s needed. Ultimately, that question will be up to the lower courts. “The question before us is a narrow one,” Gorsuch writes “[Ms. Chiles] does not take issue with the State’s effort to prohibit what she herself calls ‘long-abandoned, aversive’ physical interventions.” The opinion of the Court even suggests that Colorado has the right to ban “conduct—such as aversive physical interventions,” because such interventions are considered conduct rather than speech, with the former having much fewer constitutional protections than the latter.

Subscribe now

Nothing in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chiles v. Salazar determines that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy is unconstitutional or guarantees that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals will determine it to be unconstitutional when the case is reargued, but that is not the point. The Supreme Court did not endorse conversion therapy, nor did it strip states of their authority to regulate it. It simply reaffirmed the longstanding principle that when the government regulates speech on the basis of viewpoint—no matter how misguided that viewpoint—it must meet the Constitution’s highest standard.

Culver’s will open a location on State Street in January 2027, adding to the already-thriving restaurant scene near campus. The Wisconsin-based fast food chain has multiple locations in Madison, but none within walking distance of UW-Madison. According to the announcement, “Culver’s believes that college students deserve easy access to our world-famous Butter Burgers ®, frozen custard, and fried cheese curds.”

The new franchise will replace the recently-closed Stop and Shop, and is expected to be one of the chain’s most profitable locations according to internal estimates.

Craig Culver said that the company hopes this will assist the chain in its new initiative to expand to California. Citing the large number of students from the state, he said that the company is betting on them returning home after graduation and taking their love of cheese curds with them.

Currently, most out-of-state students do not experience eating at a Culver’s during their time on campus. With the most accessible Culver’s to campus being near the West Towne Mall, most students simply do not make the effort to take the bus trip while they are here.

Culver also noted the importance of Culver’s as a state symbol “Frankly, the Culver’s brand is so associated with Wisconsin that it’s ridiculous it’s taken us this long to establish a branch so close to our flagship university.” Kwik Trip, another franchise heavily ingrained in the state’s identity, opened its campus location over a decade ago in 2014.

The Madison Federalist recommends that readers check the date before telling their friends about this news.

READ MORE FROM THE MADISON FEDERALIST:

‘Trad Cath’ Group Proposes Adding ‘Giant Spikes’ to Newman Center

The Madison Federalist Reaches Nearly Nineteen Readers

Badger Herald to Merge with Sex Out Loud

A group of traditionalist students concerned that UW-Madison’s Newman Center is “not based enough” is working on convincing the diocese to add massive iron spikes to its chapel.

The all-male group “Knights of Saint Dominic” presented the controversial proposal in a meeting with the St. Paul’s board of directors last week. The six-foot spikes would be directed toward parishioners on the bottom floor “in order to further convey God’s power and authority.” Additional spikes will be placed directly above the pews in the top balconies and over the confession line benches on the bottom floor “to communicate the omnipresence of God.”

When asked if he believed the spikes were necessary, parishioner Giorgio Jackson said “While it is not technically necessary according to canon law, Mass with spikes is clearly a superior form. Spikes get people more engaged with the liturgy, like using incense or Latin. There is no better way to get people listening to a homily than the image of a giant Jesus-spike shooting out of the wall and impaling them for their sins. We can clearly see from the internet that people do not want lukewarm Christianity: On fire Christianity means Latin, incense, and big spikes hanging over people’s heads in Church.”

Parishioner Dwight Hershey, in response to those worried that spikes would make some people wary of coming to church, said, “If they’re really so put off by a few spikes in the Chapel that they stop going to Mass, they were probably never going to be involved here in the first place.” Hershey, who first encountered Catholicism via Instagram Reels four months ago, identified himself as a “Based Traditionalist Catholic.” He said, “The spikes remind me of all those pointy bits on the Jerusalem Cross, which is based because the Jerusalem Cross is about crusaders and killing heathens. That’s what Christianity is all about, fighting with everyone around you that you disagree with.”

A UW art student who is not Catholic drew the blueprints. Responding to The Madison Federalist in an email, she said she jumped at the opportunity, and plans to use the piece, titled “Guilt”, as her honor’s thesis.

When asked about the thought process behind the spikes, a spokesman for the Knights responded: “They’re supposed to make you scared. People aren’t scared enough of God. We tried to tell people that Jesus loved them in the seventies, and look how that turned out! They all left because they thought that meant God loves them when they sin, or worse, when they don’t go to Church! That’s how we got empty parishes, and heresies. Scaring people is the only way to bring them back. We need churches full of people who are too scared to leave.”

However, many parishioners have expressed skepticism toward the proposal. “I’ve never seen any of these people before,” said the front desk receptionist. The Knights have approximately a dozen members, but a petition against the proposal has gathered 900 signatures.

This article is entirely satirical.

READ MORE FROM THE MADISON FEDERALIST:

ASM Passes Resolution to Dissolve Board of Regents

Bucky Badger “Too Turnt” to Fulfill Make-A-Wish Obligations

Daily Cardinal to Merge with Sex Out Loud

The Associated Students of Madison passed a controversial resolution prohibiting the organization from “doing business in any way with companies complicit in apartheid and genocide, including Israel’s genocide of Gaza” and calling for the UW System to do the same. It has sparked condemnation from Jewish students, UW Hillel, and UW-Madison itself.

On Wednesday, March 25, the ASM voted 15-5-3 on a resolution that calls for divestment from companies that engage in “discriminatory practices such as apartheid, genocide, and militarized violence.” It accuses Israel of “genocide” and “maintaining a system of apartheid,” but does not reference any violence by Hamas or the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Other states or organizations called out in the resolution include the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan and the United Arab Emirates. Israel was referenced 15 times in the resolution, which is more than any other states. Iran and Venezuela are mentioned in the resolution, but only to criticize the United States’ “unprovoked” military action that removed their respective dictators from power.

Speaking at Wednesday’s meeting, Jewish UW student Ariav Hayempour said “The bill proposed will hurt Jews and Israelis of all identities on this campus.” He said, “A lot of antisemitism is excused because it’s shrouded in language related to Israel. When the Jewish community tells you what you’re doing will hurt me and is hurting me, we’re met with a shrug in silence.”

Hayempour asked, “How can one claim to believe in inclusion and equality, but selectively pick which groups deserve that?”

After Hayempour concluded, a large group of Jewish students applauded his speech and walked out of the room together. Reuven Weinstein, a UW-Madison student, told The Federalist, “We reconvened at the Hillel on campus for dinner and enjoyed the beautiful weather rather than sitting in a stuffy room for hours listening to accusations and attacks from strangers and so-called friends alike,” he said. “As Jews, we are not strangers to hatred, but we rise above it and fight back by speaking up for ourselves, not putting up with hate, and living our lives freely and without fear.”

During open debate between ASM representatives, Michael Harry noted that China and its treatment of the Uyghurs was not mentioned once in the resolution. Elizabeth Anderson felt that the resolution contained unnecessarily controversial language. Jianda Ni said the university should adopt more morally responsible investment practices, but that the resolution’s focus on Israel could increase the risk of harm for Jewish students.

At the previous week’s ASM meeting, a message from ASM representative Gabo Ochoa-Samoff that read “”the proportion of zios rises as the speakers list goes on” was leaked from a group chat. Multiple speakers condemned Samoff for using the term, and he apologized during open debate, noting that he is Jewish.

ASM representative Amitabha Shatdal proposed an amendment that would have struck references to specific countries in the resolution. ASM chair Landis Varughese did not allow the amendment to go to a vote because he felt it was too substantial. Shatdal said, “This kind of action on the behalf of our chair does not seem becoming of an impartial representative.” Varughese pushed back, saying, “You guys can overrule what I do via two thirds [vote.]”

The resolution, which cites links from Qatari media organization Al Jazeera and multiple left-wing interest groups, was endorsed by organizations including BLK Power Coalition, Students for a Democratic Society, and Mecha de Teejop. Sex Out Loud endorsed the resolution and said, “As a sex-positive student organization, we know that we cannot truly celebrate autonomy, empowerment, and equity until the liberation of all people is achieved.”

The resolution also criticized UW System index funds for including corporations that “contract with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to develop data systems, surveillance, and policing tools used in immigration enforcement and deportation operations.”

After the resolution passed via a roll call vote, the room erupted with cheers. UW-Madison released a statement shortly after and said it was disappointed that ASM “passed a resolution on Wednesday that issued a number of flawed, unrelated and illegal demands.”

READ MORE FROM THE MADISON FEDERALIST:

UW-Madison Professor Defends Iranian Bombings of American Service Members, Congratulates Khamenei on “Martyrdom”

UW Grants Housing Accommodation to Jewish Student After Legal Threat

As Antisemitism Rises, New Campaign Confronts Hate On Campus

“Wisconsin state law prohibits state and local government agencies from adopting their own rules or policies that would involve them in a boycott of Israel,” the statement said. “Despite the fact that ASM leadership was counseled by university attorneys on the clear illegality of that specific part of the resolution, ASM Student Council nonetheless voted to pass it.”

At the previous ASM meeting, UW-Madison Dean of Students Christina Olstad informed the ASM that the university viewed the resolution as in violation of Wisconsin state statute 20.931, which prevents state agencies from boycotting Israel.

ASM representative Roman Fritz contended that the resolution was not illegal. He read a statement from attorney Oren Jakobson that said, “Refusing to deal with or terminating business relations with any nations, organization, business, or person practicing or condoning through its actions discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, creed or sex is at times lawfully mandated – see Wisconsin Statute 36.29(1) – and at all times lawful.”

In an emailed statement to The Madison Federalist, UW Hillel director of community relations Aaron Seligman said the organization is “deeply disappointed that ASM voted to pass the antisemitic BDS resolution.” He continued, “BDS campaigns are not constructive policy discussions. They are efforts to normalize antisemitism and target Jewish students. We will continue to support a thriving Jewish community at UW-Madison.”

Professor Chad Goldberg told The Federalist that he was grateful for the university’s “unequivocal statement condemning antisemitism.” He is proud “of the Jewish student leaders who organized, showed up to the ASM meeting, and spoke out with clarity and courage.” Goldberg, who serves on the board of directors at UW Hillel, said he fully endorsed the organization’s statement.

“I do not believe this resolution reflects the views of the majority of students at University of Wisconsin–Madison,” said Sophie Genshaft, the president of Hillel’s student organization on campus. She told The Federalist, “Student government is meant to address issues that directly impact student life, and this resolution instead takes a stance on a complex international issue that many students neither feel represented by nor asked about. It’s a misalignment of priorities and does not accurately capture the full range of student perspectives on this campus.”

While some of those who spoke at the ASM meeting in favor of the resolution identified themselves as Jewish, Genshaft said the response “has been one of deep frustration and concern” across the Jewish community. “This resolution has made many Jewish students feel singled out and uncomfortable on their own campus. While individuals may hold a range of views on Israel, what is unifying right now is a clear need to stand together for freedom, democracy and also against the growing normalization of antisemitism.”

Jewish students also started a petition that has gathered nearly 400 signatures to condemn the resolution.

Ian Braun, a Jewish freshman, told The Federalist that some who support the resolution “genuinely believe in the things that this bill says and will do,” but “antisemitism is a factor.” Erika Klein, another Jewish student, believed the ASM is “compromising the safety” of Jewish students on campus and argued that BDS resolutions are correlated with spikes in antisemitism.

The university said “resolutions that call for actions that would violate the law do not warrant further engagement.” It noted that ASM resolutions do not set policy for UW-Madison, the Board of Regents, or the Wisconsin Foundation and Alumni Association.

As we approach the semiquincentennial of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, I find it necessary to examine the many ways that we have strayed from the original “American Experiment” that our Founding Fathers intended.

In comparing modern politics to those of our founding, we have seen a much more democratized government, rather than the compound republic that was our intended purpose. The average empire survives for 250 years, and we are now three months away from that critical tipping point for the nation. In order to maintain American dominance around the globe, we must analyze our present system compared to the original that was created to last ad infinitum.

An unwavering national spirit, opposition to tyranny in its many forms and a passionate desire to improve the lives of the citizenry have consistently been the chief objectives of our leaders, even when strong policy disagreements have led to a ferocious polarization of the people. Intense, fundamental and philosophical feuds have been constant throughout the relatively short life of the United States, so when an overwhelming consensus is found in our accomplished past, it becomes incumbent upon us to understand the political philosophy and to examine our reasonings for altering that system of governance.

In short, Federalism is the idea that Federal and State governments enter into an agreement of shared powers to promote the safety and general welfare of the people. James Madison describes this agreement in Federalist No. 45 as, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

This concept allowed for the passing of the United States Constitution under the Connecticut Compromise that gave us the House of Representatives being proportional to population and the Senate equally representing the states. This allowed for the people to hold the power of the purse in the House, while the states could debate laws in the Senate. The Senate has been famously dubbed as the “cooling saucer” meant to cool the “hot tea” legislation passed in the House and thoroughly examine the ramifications of the proposed bills.

The Senate is an essential aspect to the idea of Federalism, and it is also the primary example of how we have strayed from that grand philosophy.

In 1913, the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, altering Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution changing “The Senate of the United States shall be … chosen by the Legislature thereof” to “elected by the people thereof,” completely altering the structure of the United States government. This allows United States Senators to be elected by popular vote, rather than the original system of being appointed by the state legislators.

I see the 17th Amendment as not only diametrically opposed to our system of governance, but the point where the Senate completely lost its original purpose. State legislatures are elected by their constituents and are held responsible in their own respective elections, so it becomes the duty of the people in that state to elect representatives that will appoint Senators to represent their state’s interests.

By turning Senate elections to a popular vote, it diminishes the nonhereditary, yet aristocratic foundation of the Senate and transforms who the Senators represent, which becomes the people rather than the state. With this new system, we have seen nationalized corruption in campaign donations, propaganda that makes people vote against their interests and a Senate that has become a smaller House of Representatives. Then, there is James Madison’s vision in Federalist No. 10 and those “who possess the most attractive merit, and the most diffusive and established characters.”

Of course, many would suggest that this idea of a respected, intelligent and virtuous Senate is an unreasonable demand on the basis of understanding basic human nature. However, when this corruption is seen by the people, they would be far more motivated to spark local and statewide change in their representatives that would appoint their Senator, rather than focus on one national race and forget about the importance and power in local elections.

It may seem that corruption is inevitable because it was the leading factor in the passage and ratification of the 17th Amendment. However, in the former system, corruption was far more visible and localized, so it can be quashed much easier. But now the monster of corruption has been nationalized, with Senators being at the mercy of large campaign financiers and taking bribes from foreign nations, with former Senator Bob Menendez being a prime example of blatant corruption in our modern system. This has taken power from the states and has become so embedded in our political system that it is becoming nearly impossible to reform.

The Federalist system was intended to protect the mutual relationship between the federal and state governments, to protect the people from a tyrannical government overreach, and also to limit the well known defects in democracy. Creating that balance is an impossible task, and it is no surprise that it degenerates into either an authoritarian state or shifts towards a direct democracy.

Subscribe now

We are slowly becoming a direct democracy, and that is horrifying. Alexander Hamilton spoke of this at the New York Ratifying Convention when he said, “It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this.”

The Founding Fathers knew of the grand failures of the Ancient Greek states, and our intense partisan divide, grand corruption in the highest halls of power, and an uninformed electorate constantly voting for the “lesser of two evils” is a horrific example of the failures in our governmental shifts. This is why it is so necessary to examine political systems and seek a return to Federalism and our nation’s grand purpose.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s faculty lobbying organization presents itself as a voice for all UW-Madison professors, but it has overwhelmingly taken progressive policy stances on issues including male participation in women’s sports and race-based practices in higher education.

The Public Representation Organization of the Faculty Senate (PROFS) was founded in 1976 by the UW-Madison faculty senate. Its goal is to advocate “on behalf of UW-Madison faculty before state legislators, the governor, the Board of Regents, members of Congress and the public.”

The executive committee of the faculty senate serves as the PROFS Board of Directors, while the Steering Committee directly oversees PROFS activities and determines the organization’s positions.

In the 2023 to 2024 and 2025 to 2026 legislative sessions, PROFS lobbied for or against 78 bills. It lobbied against 30 bills, 28 of which were Republican. Of the 48 bills it lobbied in favor of, 24 were bipartisan, 6 were Republican and 18 were Democratic. In 2025, PROFS total lobbying expenditures exceeded $60,000.

Senate bills and assembly bills are distinct, even if they cover the same topics. The Federalist counted them separately because Wisconsin’s official lobbying system does so. However, the overwhelming majority of bills PROFS registered support for or against in the assembly had a similar bill counted in the senate.

The lobbying group opposed AB 446 and SB 445, which would adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. These were the only bipartisan bills opposed by PROFS in the last two legislative sessions. PROFS opposed no Democratic bills in the same timeframe.

PROFS lobbyist Jack O’Meara, who has a background in Democratic politics, said he was surprised by the disparity in a phone interview with The Madison Federalist. “I didn’t know that until you just told me,” he said.

PROFS’s listed priorities include “competitive compensation,” “faculty governance,” “protection of tenure,” “state support for the university’s operating and capital budget,” “federal support for research,” and “retirement and other employee benefits.”

However, it has taken stances on a wide array of public policy positions. It lobbied against AB 102, which would have prohibited male students from playing on women’s sports teams. O’Meara told The Madison Federalist that the organization’s steering committee “didn’t like the way it was drafted.”

PROFS also lobbied against SB 652, which would have changed “race-based programs or requirements in higher education” to serve “disadvantaged students rather than minority students.” It lobbied against AB 377, which would have established English as the official language of Wisconsin.

PROFS registered against a bill that would give UW academic staff greater say in institutional governance. It opposed a bill that would have prevented undergraduate tuition at UW institutions from increasing more than the consumer price index. Furthermore, it opposed a bill that would establish free speech and academic freedom standards across the UW System.

O’Meara noted that PROFS works with Republican and Democratic legislators. He pointed to the 2019 Mark Cook Bill and their recent work with Senator Rachel Cabral-Guevara on a bill to change the fall start dates of University of Wisconsin institutions.

“Some groups make a big deal about claiming to be non-partisan and yet register against every single Republican initiative. PROFS seems to keep their focus on higher education and they have registered in favor of bills that I have authored,” Cabral-Guevara told The Madison Federalist via email. “It is helpful for legislators to hear from more than just the university administrators in Bascom and Van Hise. I’ve worked with PROFS in the past to develop and tweak legislation. It’s natural for us to have disagreements about the direction UW should be going in. While PROFS job is to bring the concerns of only UW professors to the Capitol, as an elected leader, my job is to hear from people on all sides of an issue.”

However, state representative Amanda Nedweski told The Federalist, “In my experience, PROFS has far more often supported Democrat-authored proposals while opposing reforms introduced by Republicans.”

PROFS recently worked with Democratic lawmakers to introduce a bill that would make it illegal for anyone to possess a firearm on a public university campus, even if they have a concealed carry license.

On campus, feelings about PROFS are mixed.

Political science professor emeritus Donald Downs told The Federalist via email that he was never a member of PROFS, but he did work with the organization. “They were earnest and honorable, and cared about academic freedom, especially when attacks came from outside the institution,” he said. However, “They were less on board about some internal threats, but were not hostile to those who were concerned about restrictions based on political correction. I always saw them as necessary but not always sufficient to defend academic freedom from all attacks, and was glad they were present and to work with them.”

A conservative professor who spoke to The Federalist under the condition of anonymity to avoid professional repercussions was more critical. “While PROFS presents itself as the voice of the faculty, UW–Madison’s faculty hold a much wider range of views than the organization’s lobbying suggests. Many of us simply want to focus on teaching, research, and maintaining high scholarly standards without ideological litmus tests. PROFS does not represent that broader faculty perspective, nor does it represent mine.”

O’Meara said, “We consider ourselves representing all faculty. Some faculty choose to contribute as members.” He said that fewer than half of the UW-Madison faculty are members of PROFS.

The professor said PROFS functions as “a strongly left-leaning advocacy group” that frequently supports policies against his understanding of “academic excellence and intellectual freedom.” Nedweski also felt that “the line between being a faculty advocacy group and acting as a progressive political organization has become increasingly blurred.”

PROFS Board of Directors chair Annie Jones and Steering Committee President Michael Bernard-Donals did not respond to questions sent via email from The Madison Federalist about how PROFS determines which bills it will support. O’Meara said he is not involved with those internal deliberations.

Both O’Meara and Nedweski believed that PROFS’s overall lobbying efforts were less influential than the university’s. “In terms of their influence on higher education policy, I would say it’s very limited compared to the UW System’s government relations office,” Nedweski said.

University spokesman John Lucas told The Federalist via email, “UW-Madison meets with PROFS to discuss issues of common interest but the group is an independent non-profit, with its own views and perspectives. No UW-Madison funding goes to support PROFS.” Notably, PROFS does have an office in Bascom Hall and a wisc.edu website.

“A faculty advocacy organization should prioritize academic merit and excellence, genuine viewpoint diversity, color-blind hiring policies, and the protection of scholars who hold dissenting views,” the anonymous professor said. “It should also advocate for performance-based funding that fairly recognizes UW–Madison’s outsized contributions rather than subsidizing weaker institutions, while working to build constructive goodwill across the political aisle instead of consistently framing one party as an adversary.”

Editor’s note: Nedweski is a former neighbor of the article’s author.

UW-Madison announced on Monday, March 9 the appointment of John Zumbrunnen as provost and executive vice chancellor for academic affairs.

Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin praised Zumbrunnen’s principled leadership and strong commitments to the Wisconsin Idea, shared governance, student success and excellence in research and teaching.

“Both in his service as interim provost and in several preceding leadership roles here at UW–Madison, John has earned the broad trust of our students, faculty, and through his thoughtful engagement on a wide range of complex issues,” Mnookin said in a campus-wide message.

Zumbrunnen, a political science professor since 2008 and former department chair, stepped into the interim provost role last summer. He co-founded the Division for Teaching and Learning, helped lead the Wisconsin RISE initiative to address grand challenges through interdisciplinary research and oversaw the creation of the university’s new AI-focused college.

As interim provost, he managed budget pressures, new faculty workload policies and the sunset of the Division of Diversity, Equity & Educational Achievement. Support programs were redistributed, but many student cultural centers, scholarships and key services remain in place.

The two other finalists in the provost search were Anna Stenport from the University of Georgia and Charles Martinez Jr. from the University of Texas-Austin. All three finalists - Zumbrunnen, Stenport and Martinez - have previously expressed their support for DEI programs on college campuses.

“We should never rest on that continuous and fearless process of sifting and winnowing we talk so much about,” Zumbrunnen said in an emailed statement to The Federalist.

The university maintains diversity as a core value, including viewpoints, identities and backgrounds. Zumbrunnen helped implement recommendations from the Student Experience Group report, which focuses on tailored support, continuous assessment and resource stewardship to expand pathways for all students.

He has publicly affirmed the commitment to free speech while addressing concerns about bias, and he participated in a campus forum on antisemitism, resilience and inclusive higher education environments in 2024.

In late February, the three provost finalists pitched their plans for the role. Zumbrunnen tied his vision to former Chancellor Charles Van Hise’s declaration to never be content. He stressed preparing students for a dynamic world through rigorous education that prioritizes quality and impact over raw numbers. “It’s not about ‘will we attract 8,500 students here?’ It’s about what students do we want to attract here, and what experience do we want them to have?”

Zumbrunnen also advanced the Wisconsin Exchange program, which builds civil dialogue, viewpoint diversity and respectful debate across political divides. “The Wisconsin Idea is not just a principle. It’s not just pride. It is a challenge to us,” he said.

Zumbrunnen’s knowledge of campus operations and shared governance set him apart in the national search. During public presentations, he addressed political pressures on higher education values and the need to build trust amid disagreements.

Stenport, dean at the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Georgia, previously held an appointment in the Gender and Women’s Studies department at the University of Illinois. She emphasized multidisciplinary collaboration to foster inclusion and strengthen college identity, linking it to the Wisconsin Idea through public service and a “one health” approach.

Martinez, Dean of the College of Education at UT-Austin, drew on his family’s immigrant experience to describe universities as “door-openers, not gate-keepers.” He focused on affordability, social mobility and tying research directly to the Wisconsin Idea. His departure from UT-Austin sparked controversy amid state debates over higher education priorities.

As provost, Zumbrunnen provides continuity as the campus begins its chancellor search following Mnookin’s departure to Columbia University. With Eric Wilcots serving as interim chancellor, the new provost will help guide academic priorities at a pivotal time.

Zumbrunnen told The Federalist that his focus remains on advancing the mission with deans and partners. “Priorities for me are to look to the future, think about how we can advance research that impacts lives and improves the world.”

He said he wants to “build on what is already an amazing educational experience for our students.”

Subscribe now

This article by University of Wisconsin-Madison senior Rebecca Draeger was originally published in The College Fix.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison has yet to hire a “conservative political thought” professor despite agreeing to do so several years ago in exchange for funding from the state legislature.

Asked about the status of the position, a campus official gave the exact same answer he provided last year to The College Fix.

“UW–Madison continues to actively work on the creation of an endowed chair in conservative political thought,” spokesman John Lucas told The Fix via email.

He said university officials “don’t have other updates to share at this time,” repeating what he told The Fix in February 2025.

However, Lucas did say “the university has hired multiple scholars with a broad range of perspectives, including those who self-identify as conservative.”

Lucas did not clarify the timeline for the university’s hiring process, define which steps the school has taken since the agreement was made, or list which organizations they reached out to identify candidates or secure funding.

As previously reported by The Fix, UW-Madison agreed to the deal as part of a broader $800 million funding agreement between the regents for the University of Wisconsin system and state legislative leaders that also included cuts to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programming.

In exchange, the university system received money for pay raises, and UW-Madison specifically received $347 million for a new engineering building.

The deal, first passed in December 2023, requires the university to create an “endowed chair to focus on conservative political thought, classical economic theory, or classical liberalism.”

The 2023 agreement was, in part, a reaction to a survey that found most UW–Madison students were afraid to express their views on controversial topics in class. Students identifying as “conservative” and “very conservative” were especially likely to self-censor.

About 40 percent of survey respondents said they were worried their grades would suffer if they spoke up.

Later, a 2024 analysis by political science professor Alexander Tahk found that “over 99% of political dollars contributed by UW faculty went to Democrats and left-wing groups over the past decade.”

They found that the odds of a UW–Madison humanities or social science professor making a political donation to a Republican were 1 in 530.

Higher ed experts weigh in on potential bias at UW-Madison

Several higher education experts recently spoke on campus about “scholar-activist faculty hiring,” and gave comments afterward to The Fix about potential bias in the university’s hiring system.

The Center for Research on the Wisconsin Economy, the Tommy G. Thompson Center, and the Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy sponsored the March 4 event.

A former University of Wisconsin regent said hiring processes must be fixed to weed out bias.

University hiring practices “have to become less biased and homogeneous,” Free Speech for Campus President Tim Higgins told The Fix in person after the UW-Madison event hosted by several centers on campus. The former University of Wisconsin regent said the Madison campus tends to “hire woke people.”

In response to a question on how the Wisconsin Legislature should respond, Higgins said: “Our next governor really needs to look at holding the state agency to producing the kinds of changes that need to be done.”

“The university system has gone so far off track,” he said.

Higgins referenced a famous UW–Madison plaque that commits the university to the “fearless sifting and winnowing” of information and academic freedom in pursuit of the truth and said, “We need to get back to that.”

John Sailer, an investigative journalist and fellow with the Manhattan Institute, spoke at the event.

When asked by The Fix about how the university could increase viewpoint diversity in the Q&A portion of his talk, Sailer responded, “I’m not advocating for Make America Great Again statements as a replacement for diversity statements.”

He expressed that the issue is the personnel pipeline, beginning at the undergraduate level. Sailer commented that there aren’t many conservatives who enter into higher education in the first place.

“One thing that needs to happen is a lot of universities need to say ‘Hey, we are interested in and enthusiastic about hiring conservatives. That doesn’t mean we’re going to give you some leg up if you’re a lousy scholar, but also conservative … but we desire to be a place that welcomes conservatives, and we mean it.’”

Sailer further recommended the creation of scholarship opportunities that would interest conservatives, such as American history, constitutional studies, and the classics.

Sailer suggested that increasing viewpoint diversity will require long-term efforts to encourage more conservatives to pursue academic careers.

UW-Madison sociology professor Samer Alatout said that Iranian bombings of U.S. military bases are “highly logical” and praised Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a recent series of social media posts.

As first reported by Campus Reform, Alatout made heated claims on X in the aftermath of U.S.-Israeli airstrikes that killed Khamenei.

On March 6, Alatout wrote, “I hope you’d be willing to condemn your own country if and when it displays arrogant imperial power like mine is doing.”

Four days earlier, he made a post responding to the U.S.’s report of the deaths of American soldiers in Operation Epic Fury, saying, “Sacrificing American youths, mostly poor and people of color, only to assist Israel’s dark powers and genocidal government to establish demonic rule, is a disgrace, let alone traitorous.”.

On March 2, a post written in Arabic claimed that the bombings of American bases by Iranian forces were either “highly” or “completely” logical, depending on the translation. In the same message, he voiced his belief that Arab states should prevent other nations from using their territories to strike Iran, calling this not a mere political demand, but a “moral and spiritual one.”

After Khamenei was confirmed to be dead, Alatout praised him for leading “resistance against colonialism and the Zionists” and congratulated him on his “martyrdom.”

Gillian Drummond, UW-Madison’s Director of Public Affairs, told The Madison Federalist that Atalout’s comments do not reflect the view of the university and that “UW-Madison does not monitor the social media of students and staff.” She added that when a faculty member decides to voice their opinion, “they speak for themselves, not the university” and that “as an institution, UW-Madison supports freedom of expression and the civil exchange of all ideas and views.”

Alatout did not respond to The Madison Federalist’s request for comment via email.

Alatout’s RateMyProfessor profile has a 2.6-star rating out of 5 stars. Students left anonymous reviews with one saying that his “personal opinions on tense situations made the classroom uncomfortable for those in class” and that “he let real life events dwell in the classroom.” Another reviewer called his teaching “erratic,” and another added that “he fails to provide insight into the textbook material, instead he goes off on tangents.”

In May 2024, Alatout was arrested for obstructing a police officer in connection with the anti-Israel encampment at UW-Madison. In an interview with WMTJ-TV Milwaukee, Alatout said his objective was to “protect students’ right to protest and to protect their safety.” He added that he locked hands with others around the encampment to “protect the students from any violence by the police.” He accused the university administration of “racist shit” and claimed he was specifically targeted.

On the one-year anniversary of the October 7th terrorist attacks, Alatout decried “Jewish supremacy” when he addressed a Students for Justice in Palestine protest. Pro-Israel students mocked Alatout throughout that speech. Alatout is a former faculty advisor for UW-Madison’s SJP chapter.

Other recent posts by Alatout include one saying Tucker Carlson is “ideologically consistent, smart, sincere, and direct” and an endorsement of democratic-socialist gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong.

Subscribe now

A version of this article was originally published by the MacIver Institute.

The Tommy G. Thompson Center for Public Leadership released a survey on March 8, titled “Faculty Perspectives on Academic Freedom, Free Expression, and Campus Climate at UW-Madison.” The results yielded interesting insights about the severity of the ideological diversity problem that Wisconsin’s biggest university faces.

The survey was led by the director of the Tommy G. Thompson Center and professor of political science, Alex Tahk, and collected answers from 633 tenure-track and tenured faculty members at the University of Wisconsin-Madison across a wide variety of colleges and departments.

This survey comes after great concern about First Amendment rights and the lack of ideological diversity at Wisconsin’s public universities. An analysis also conducted by Professor Alex Tahk and his former colleague, Ryan Owens, in 2024 found that over 99 percent of political donations from UW-Madison in the last decade went to Democratic candidates or left-wing groups.

The Thompson Center’s recent faculty survey delves further into this analysis to discover faculty attitudes surrounding free speech, ideological diversity, and conservative viewpoints.

Overall, the survey found that 70 percent of faculty members at UW-Madison identify as some kind of liberal. Only 9 percent of faculty members identify as some kind of conservative, with the vast majority describing themselves as being only “slightly conservative.” Altogether, only 3 percent of UW-Madison consider themselves to be “conservative” or “extremely conservative.”

The survey notes that this ideological distribution is vastly different from that of the rest of the country, where 28 percent of the U.S. population identifies their views as being “conservative” or “extremely conservative.”

A common critique from progressives on why there are not many conservative faculty in higher education is that there are just far fewer conservatives pursuing doctoral degrees than liberals. However, the data suggests that this cannot fully explain the ideological imbalance at UW-Madison given that 12 percent of Americans who have doctoral degrees identify as being “conservative” or “extremely conservative” compared to only 3 percent of faculty at UW-Madison.

The survey also found that the area of study with the highest proportion of liberal faculty was the humanities, with 74 percent identifying as liberal and only 6 percent identifying as conservative. The area of study with the highest proportion of conservative faculty was economics, with 24 percent of faculty describing themselves as some form of conservative.

When looking at political party affiliation, the imbalance becomes even more apparent. 96 percent of the liberal faculty lean towards the Democratic Party, while only 64 percent of the conservative faculty lean toward the Republican Party. This is likely due to the fact that most faculty who identify as conservative only consider themselves to be “slightly conservative.”

Another interesting aspect of this survey was that it analyzed potential hiring biases among faculty members at UW-Madison. The survey asked faculty if they would be less likely to hire a candidate based upon a political statement that they made. Survey respondents were randomly assigned either a liberal or a conservative statement made by the imaginary candidate on the topics of abortion, immigration, affirmative action, and transgender sports.

The results showed that across all four topics, many UW-Madison faculty reported that they would be less likely to hire the candidate who expressed the conservative view point at higher rates than the candidates who expressed the liberal view point.

The topic with the biggest difference was immigration. The liberal statement was “The U.S. should allow immigrants without legal status to remain in the U.S. and offer a path to citizenship,” and the conservative statement was “The U.S. should strictly limit immigration and deport those who are here illegally.”

Forty-five percent of faculty given the conservative statement said it would make them less likely to hire the job candidate. Only 7 percent of faculty who received the liberal statement said the same.

For the abortion question, only 3 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to hire a candidate if they expressed their view that “abortion is a basic human right and should be available on demand.” However, 29 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to hire a faculty candidate if they expressed the view that “abortion is the taking of a human life and should be illegal in most cases.”

This poses a problem when most new faculty at UW-Madison are hired through the shared governance process, which gives current faculty members primary jurisdiction over searching for and reviewing candidates for new faculty positions. If a significant portion of faculty are less willing to hire candidates who express certain political views, it raises a concern that conservatives will be less likely to get hired in the first place, further tipping the ideological imbalance on campus.

The campus climate for conservative views was also not rated well by faculty. The vast majority of liberal faculty members agreed that the campus environment was at most “somewhat” welcoming to conservatives. The vast majority of liberal faculty also said the campus climate was “very” to “extremely” welcoming to progressives. This shows that the hostility of the campus climate toward conservative ideas is recognized by most faculty regardless of their political leanings.

Out of all the conservative faculty members in the survey, not a single one said UW-Madison’s campus environment was “very” or “extremely” welcoming to conservatives.

Liberal professors also showed a gap between whether they believed that the inclusion of different racial groups or conservative viewpoints was important. No faculty said that the inclusion of different racial groups was “not at all” important, and only a very slim number rated it as being “a little” or “somewhat” important.

However, when asked the same questions about the inclusion of conservative viewpoints, some liberal faculty did say it was “not at all important,” and even more said it was only “a little” or “somewhat” important.

It is worth noting that a majority of liberal faculty still rated the inclusion of conservative viewpoints as being “very” or “extremely important.”

Unsurprisingly, the survey also found a huge gap in conservative and liberal faculty’s comfortability in expressing controversial views. While 55 percent of liberal faculty said they felt “very” or “extremely” comfortable expressing controversial views on campus, only 23 percent of conservative faculty said the same.

In fact, 77 percent of conservative faculty reported that they are “not at all” to only “somewhat” comfortable discussing controversial topics with other faculty members.

Conservative faculty also reported feeling less comfortable on specific topics, particularly transgender issues, where 69 percent report feeling “not at all” or only “a little” comfortable expressing their views, compared to 36 percent of liberal faculty.

Many conservative faculty also felt like their First Amendment rights were less protected on campus than their liberal colleagues’. Only 42 percent of conservative faculty said they felt their First Amendment rights were “quite a bit” or “a great deal” protected, compared to 63 percent of liberal faculty when answering the same question.

The survey also examined if there were differences between liberal and conservative faculty facing punishments after expressing a controversial view. The data showed that while liberal faculty members were far more likely to express controversial opinions, conservative faculty members were far more likely to face negative consequences for doing so.

Among faculty who shared controversial views on social media, 30 percent of conservative faculty reported institutional repercussions, compared to 8 percent of liberal faculty. Additionally, among faculty who expressed a controversial view in the classroom, 20 percent of conservatives said they faced an institutional consequence versus only 1 percent of liberals.

There is also growing concern that universities will continue to become more liberal as time goes on. Data from the survey provides some evidence for this given that junior faculty at UW-Madison were more likely to identify as liberal than senior faculty.

The difference is significant, with nearly two-thirds of junior faculty self-identifying as “liberal” or “extremely liberal,” compared to less than half of tenured faculty. While this phenomenon could be explained by faculty moderating over time, another possible explanation could be that UW-Madison’s faculty cohorts are slowly shifting further left due to hiring more progressive candidates.

Tahk told The Madison Federalist, “This report should be highly relevant to the UW–Madison community” because it “replaces anecdotal concerns with concrete, empirical data.”

“For faculty governance, for administrators making policy around diversity and inclusion, and for students trying to understand the intellectual environment they're learning in, this is the kind of institutional self-examination that can be genuinely useful.”

Many of his study’s conclusions mirror the findings in the UW System Student Views on Freedom of Speech survey, which was conducted in the fall of 2022 across all of Wisconsin’s public universities. The UW System’s survey found that many students, particularly conservative students, did not feel comfortable expressing their views on campus out of fear of social and academic consequences.

The UW System survey found that 67 percent of Republican students at UW’s campuses said that they were uncomfortable expressing their views on transgender issues, and 55 percent of Republican students said they were uncomfortable sharing their views on abortion.

This is comparable to the Tommy G. Thompson Center’s survey, which found that 69 percent of conservative faculty reported feeling “not at all” or only “a little” comfortable expressing their views on transgender issues, and nearly 70 percent of conservative faculty reported feeling “not at all” or only “a little” comfortable sharing their views on abortion.

The UW System survey also shed light on the fact that many students, particularly on the left, did not feel like Wisconsin’s public universities should be places of completely free and open speech. 33 percent of Democrat students at UW system schools believe that administrators should ban the expression of views that they feel cause harm. Only 9.5 percent of Republican students agreed with this. 45 percent of Democrat students in the UW system also think that views they find to be “offensive” are an act of violence toward vulnerable people.

Similarly, the Tommy G. Thompson Center’s survey found that 45 percent of faculty respondents believe the University of Wisconsin-Madison should prohibit hate speech, even though it is protected at public universities under the First Amendment.

The survey from the Tommy G. Thompson Center gives valuable insight into the climate surrounding free speech and political discourse at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

University spokesman John Lucas told The Federalist via email, “The Thompson Center survey will inform the university’s efforts toward greater viewpoint diversity and constructive dialogue on campus.”

“UW–Madison does not maintain data about the political affiliation of its employees and it is illegal to ask about political affiliation during the hiring process,” he wrote. “That said, university leadership has made a concerted effort to amplify the institution’s support for viewpoint diversity to encourage broader applicant pools.”

He pointed to the Wisconsin Exchange, which is “a collection of programs and opportunities for students, staff and faculty that build skills for meaningful dialogue and understanding and reflects our long-standing commitment to free expression, academic freedom and civic engagement.”

The Thompson Center’s survey can also help explain the findings from the UW System’s 2022 free speech survey, where students showed discomfort expressing political views and a distaste for completely free and open dialogue. The campus climate begins in the classroom, where faculty play an integral role in teaching students how to engage in political discourse and encounter views that they do not agree with.

Tahk emphasized that the survey did not measure the impact on students, but he believes “some findings do have potential implications for the student experience.” For example, “If faculty are substantially less comfortable expressing certain viewpoints […] students may be encountering a narrower range of perspectives in the classroom than the full spectrum of opinion even among faculty.”

While Tahk believes the report points to “several areas where change could be warranted,” the type of change warranted remains an open question. This is especially true for findings about “perceptions and comfort levels, which are harder to address through policy even if one views them as problematic.”

Moving forward, it will be important that the University of Wisconsin-Madison addresses the ideological imbalance among its faculty members to ensure that an academic environment is being created that is conducive to the purpose of higher education: the free exchange of diverse viewpoints in pursuit of truth.

Subscribe now

It is now available on newspaper racks around campus. If you can’t find one, fill out this form:

Print Edition Request

TOP NEWS ARTICLES:

UW-Madison Scores Highly in Manhattan Institute College Rankings

DEI Initiatives Persist at UW-Madison Despite Closure of Central Diversity Division

Faculty Hiring Prioritizes Activism Over Scholarship, Argues John Sailer in Campus Lecture

TOP COMMENTARY ARTICLES:

Are Men Being Left Behind at UW-Madison?

Publish the Syllabi: UW-Madison Should Embrace Transparency

UW-Madison Should Abandon “Land Acknowledgements”

WRITE FOR US:

Join

This article first appeared in the Winter 2026 print edition of The Madison Federalist.

Former Governor Scott Walker joined The Madison Federalist for an interview via Zoom on Thursday, Jan. 29, to discuss topics including the upcoming gubernatorial election, campus issues, and immigration.

Gubernatorial Election

Republicans have a chance to take back the governor’s seat in the upcoming gubernatorial election. Walker believes the top priority for this election is to reduce the cost of living. “There’s still many voters, particularly young voters, who are still very concerned about cost of living and about wages keeping up with things like housing,” Walker said. “Interest rates, for example, are so much higher than they were, four or five years ago.”

“We saw what happened under Joe Biden. That had an impact on Wisconsin, so the next governor really needs to not only talk about costs of living but reduce the size of government to help drive down costs,” he said. “High taxes take away from the ability of voters and hardworking people in Wisconsin to cover the bills that they have.”

Currently, Congressman Tom Tiffany is the presumptive nominee for governor in the Republican primary. Walker noted that Tiffany is a strong candidate as “he was in the state legislature, he went through the battles, and he’s been tested in that regard.”

Walker reiterated the importance of reducing the cost of living, including taxes, fees, and student loan debt. He believes it’s important to “get the cost down in the first place so students aren’t taking on an even greater burden.”

Public safety is another key component, such as border security, in “keeping us safe from people who’ve come into this country illegally, particularly those who’ve committed additional crimes.”

Walker believes that Tiffany was in a good place to win this election. He said, “Tiffany showed a more than $2 million raise which is really good” and said “the fact that Evers is not running again” bodes well for Republicans. This leaves the Democrats with a wide open primary. Walker told The Federalist, “I think it is hopeful for us, but there’s still the swing voters in Wisconsin– kind of like undecided students on campus– who aren’t necessarily conservative or liberal.”

He continued, “It’s a difficult task to win as a Republican overall, but particularly when Republicans are in the White House. Every election– but one for governor– has gone the opposite of who was in the White House. For example, I won three elections for governor, all three were when Barack Obama was president of the United States. Typically, it goes back and forth.”

For “Tiffany to win, he’s going to have to break through that and stay focused on cost of living issues,” Walker added.

Walker recalled campaigning in Wisconsin on behalf of President Trump. “I talked about going to the grocery store and how the cost of filling up one grocery cart was about the same as what I could get four years earlier for two carts,” he said. “People can relate to that. Those are the things they want people to talk about.”

Walker was elected governor of the state twice– 2010 and 2014– and he survived a recall election in 2012. With his election experience, Walker’s “advice to whomever the nominee is, as well as people running for state senate, state assembly, Congress, on the conservative side, is don’t take the bait” and “focus on the things that really matter to everyday voters.”

In the Democratic primary, candidates such as Sarah Rodriguez, Mandela Barnes, David Crowley, Francesca Hong, and others are hoping to become the nominee for governor. Walker believes the nominee will be Barnes, but he “is the most radical.”

He added that “as we saw in New York City, it can be appealing if people don’t know anything about history” or if they don’t know what “happens when those policies fail elsewhere in the world.”

UW-Madison Campus issues

According to the 2026 FIRE Free Speech Ranking, UW-Madison placed 101st out of 267 colleges and universities nationwide, receiving a free speech grade of “F” overall. Additionally, FIRE conducted a free speech survey, which found that 35 percent of students at UW-Madison believe that violence is acceptable to stop someone from speaking on campus, at least in rare cases.

Walker said free speech “is a constitutionally protected right” and “our founders felt so passionately about it that they put it right at the beginning of the Constitution.” College campuses are “the very place that it should be revered” but “the place it’s most at risk.”

Walker believes there should not only be “a consistent free speech policy at all of the University of Wisconsin System schools, but it should be enforceable.”

“That’s the whole Socratic principle of gathering together for higher education,” Walker said. “Expanded learning should be the free debate and discussion of big ideas” and “to be exposed to things that you may fundamentally disagree with but to expand horizons. That has not happened at the University of Wisconsin. That is not happening in schools across the country.”

Walker discussed the heckler’s veto, and he believes students who try to shut down speakers should be issued “a warning, but subsequent to that, things like expelling students who violate free speech standards” repeatedly.

“That’s not saying that someone can’t protest,” Walker continued. “I can’t violate the constitutional rights of other students to be able to hear a speaker, regardless of whether I agree with him or her.”

“The students deserve the right to hear from a wide variety of different ideological, political, and other beliefs.”

Walker hopes UW-Madison “embraces and promotes” the constitutional right of freedom of speech because “one diversity most lacking on most college campuses is diversity of thought.”

He also hopes that intellectual diversity will be applied when hiring for jobs. “It’s tragic to me, particularly in the arts and sciences, the social sciences, how many campuses are almost devoid of any conservative or even slightly right-of-center faculty members.”

Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin was recently named the next president of Columbia University, and Walker said he was surprised by the announcement. For the next chancellor, Walker emphasized that “it’s going to be incredibly important to find someone who’s committed to having a safe place for all voices.” He reiterated “that conservatives overwhelmingly are concerned about speaking out about their views.”

“College should be a place where you’re free to talk about your ideas,” Walker said. That “doesn’t mean you’re protected from any challenges, but you shouldn’t feel that just because of your point of view, your grade is going to be damaged or that other students are going to take action against you.”

He believes there are many models of leadership in higher education, pointing to former president of the University of Florida and U.S. Senator Ben Sasse. Walker said that Sasse “really transformed that school and was adamant about free speech.” He also “very strongly encouraged the kind of intellectual diversity we talked about.”

“There are a handful of folks that do a really nice job, even at public institutions across the country, and we should expect that at UW-Madison.”

Walker also discussed the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk. Walker said, “I’d known Charlie for years. He actually came up from Illinois to help our recall election.”

“I was with him and his parents a month before the assassination, so personally, I was very troubled by it,” he said. “I know just how devastating it was.”

Charlie Kirk “was such a bigger than life personality” and he “was not only talking on a college campus, he was actually listening to people.”

“One of the key things that I think is lost, particularly in the world of social media, is listening to people, not just waiting until they’re done so that we can own them with whatever their counter attack is, but actually listening to what they say.” Walker stated this is important because “most students are not ideologically tied to the left or the right. They’re just trying to figure it out.”

Immigration

Walker has experience in dealing with civil unrest from his time as governor of Wisconsin, and he gave his opinion on how he would deal with the immigration situation in Minneapolis. He said, “Governor Tim Walz has totally screwed that up.”

“He [Walz] has every right, just like any citizen does to speak out, if he disagrees with the policies” but it is another thing “to encourage people to get in the middle of federal law enforcement agents carrying out the law.”

Walker points out that it was the same laws that ICE agents were enforcing “when Barack Obama was president and when Bill Clinton was president.”

In response to the fatal shooting of ICE protesters, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Walker said, “What happened with the two individuals whose lives were lost is tragic.” He believes Minnesota’s leadership “should be telling people to go find a place to peacefully protest.”

Walker told The Federalist the best thing a leader can do is to advise people to “not engage in creating any more chaos, and unfortunately, they’re doing the opposite.”

On March 9, Brother Isaiah of the Holy Face gave a talk on contemplative and monastic life and its significance to the world. Today, fewer people are entering monastic life than ever before. Each year, fewer people become monks or nuns, and these communities struggle to uphold their traditions. In his talk, Brother Isiah presented an argument based on the works of Saint John of the Cross about whether the tradition of monastic contemplation contributes to the good of the broader social community.

Brother Isaiah began by giving a brief history of attitudes towards contemplative orders, such as the Carmelites, and discussing how several leaders throughout history, including Napoleon, had them disbanded or even persecuted for seemingly providing no benefit to society.

He then asked a simple question: Who does more good, someone who interacts with the world through their daily life, or someone who sits in a monastery praying to God? For many people, these contemplative orders that don’t do charity, education or any material works do little to no good for the common society. However, Brother Isaiah argued that what the people in contemplative orders do is of supreme value to the common good.

He argued that the common good is something that helps society thrive, such as education and truth-telling. He then pointed out that if there is a common good, not only do people “have a right to common good” but they also have a “duty to defend and uphold the common good.”

Brother Isaiah then offered a simple thought experiment to explain why it is those very people in the contemplative orders who do the most to uphold the common good. He gave an example of four women. One woman upholds the good by working at a law firm to help defend the innocent, a second woman stays at home to raise good children, a third who is a teacher helping to educate children but is also dishonest, and a nun who is a good person and spends her days cloistered with her fellow sisters. Brother Isaiah asked which of these women does the most for the common good.

The first two women uphold the good in their lives. The third woman does too, but she is imperfect in her path. Many people may find it difficult to see what the nun does to help those around her, but Brother Isaiah argues that the good she does is “loving God,” devoting her entire life to love and most importantly, “meriting grace for souls.”

Brother Isaiah then uses examples of near-death experiences to illustrate the idea of a good and loving light at the end. He discusses how many people who experience these events describe it as the best thing there is. That loving light is God who is the creator and source of all goodness. The nun, in a broad sense of the common good, is “helping people get to the point where they are inundated with loving life for all eternity.”

He then uses the example of the life review, which many experience during near-death experiences, where people see their life flash before their eyes. He explained how the life review is a measure of all our actions, and this might occur at the end of our lives.

He continued by saying that “love is the measure of all of our actions.” The nun puts herself under constant review of all her actions, not just in near-death situations. She puts herself in front of that loving light and believes she has faith. She engages in contemplation, lifting her mind and heart to God.

Brother Isiah used the analogy of a wheel with the loving light — God — at its center and the heart of all things good. He describes the wheel with spokes leading out to all different peoples and actions. The three other women engage in relative works or things that will temporarily help others and lead them closer to goodness, but that will ultimately come to an end.

The good work the nun does is from the heart and genuine. This is seen through prayer and contemplation, and the nun becomes a heart of goodness and love by “pumping grace into the whole body of humanity.” The act the nun performs of loving God continues eternally, and this is the most supreme act of good someone can do in their life.

Subscribe now

The verse Mark 12:30-31 in the Bible says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” The nun who spends her life loving God enacts the greatest good and can love her community and neighbors. Therefore, prayer and contemplation are the most important things we can do.

Brother Isaiah concluded his talk by discussing the story of Jesus visiting Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42 of the Bible, which serves as the basis for these thoughts by Saint John of the Cross. In the Bible story, Jesus visits a village and is invited to the home of sisters Martha and Mary. While Martha was busy preparing material goods for her guests, Mary stayed by Jesus and listened to him teach. Martha became upset and asked Jesus to send Mary to help her. Jesus simply responded that Mary had chosen the better path to listen to the Lord’s teachings. As followers of Jesus, everyone is called to do supreme good and carry out the greatest act of love for God.

This article first appeared in the Winter 2026 print edition of The Madison Federalist.

On February 4th, American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher Scalia spoke to students and faculty about the intersection between faith, culture, and politics. Hosted by The Madison Federalist, the Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy, and Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), the talk centered on Scalia’s belief that in order to meaningfully engage with contemporary culture, conservatives must embrace the beauty of the present.

Scalia, who earned a Ph.D. in English from UW-Madison before spending time in academia and joining the American Enterprise Institute, was recently named Poetry Editor for the New Criterion and is author of 13 Novels Conservatives Will Love (but Probably Haven’t Read). He regularly writes about literature, culture, and higher education. As this issue has become increasingly pressing, Scalia emphasized that although it may feel unorthodox for conservatives to reside in the fluid and ever-changing aspects of modern culture, doing so may be far more beneficial than commonly assumed.

Scalia opened by first addressing culture itself, noting that it can refer to both intellectual and artistic activity. Conservatism, he argued, doesn’t always value both equally; instead, it tends to prioritize the intellectual activity over the artistic, a tendency he described as a serious flaw. Scalia warned of culture “drowning out conservative and political advances.” He portrayed culture and politics as two streams running alongside and interacting with one another — streams conservatives must learn to navigate in order to gain political ground in an ever-changing environment.

Using the Trump Administration as the primary example, Scalia credited President Donald Trump with understanding the importance of cultural engagement. Though describing Trump as a “right-wing populist with conservative inclinations,” Scalia remarked that “more than any Republican I’ve seen […] Trump understands how important the arts and entertainment are.” While acknowledging that Trump often leans into political stereotypes, Scalia described his attention to the arts, such as the planned Kennedy Center renovation, as a “commendable and positive impulse.” He added, however, that Trump could have demonstrated more consistent cultural support through greater investment in the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.

Continuing on the importance of cultural engagement, Scalia cautioned against relying on celebrity endorsements as a substitute for meaningful participation in modern culture. “There’s no doubt that having cultural voices on your team can give you a kind of sugar high and excite the base,” he said. “But rarely are they going to bring people over to your side.” Instead, Scalia emphasized appearances at popular cultural events as a more effective way to establish genuine connections with contemporary interests.

Shifting away from electoral politics, Scalia addressed “what conservatives who aren’t in the political arena can do about culture.” While acknowledging the natural conservative instinct to prefer the past — and, in extreme cases, to withdraw entirely from contemporary culture — he argued that such an attitude must change in order to achieve long-term political success. “If you don’t know anything about culture, if you close it off from yourself, you will not be able to shape it,” he said. “You can’t shape a society you’re entirely ignorant of.”

For conservatives to meaningfully institute change, Scalia believes they must first understand why people engage with modern culture in the first place. From there, appreciation may follow. “It’s a conservative instinct to think what is new is necessarily inferior, and sometimes, maybe even often it is,” he noted. “But that doesn’t mean it’s without value.” ​​If conservatives wish to become more attuned to the country they seek to influence, they must first understand its culture by engaging with it.

Scalia also emphasized the importance of storytelling in shaping culture. Many of the most enduring ideas of the past, he argued, came from great works of literature that helped shape habits, manners, and beliefs. The moral imagination, he said, is essential. “It’s how we learn right from wrong, the proper ordering of our souls, and what it means to be human. We understand America in part by the stories we tell about America.”

Turning to the arts more broadly, Scalia stressed that the most important thing a conservative can do is learn his craft. In order to influence culture, he argued, it is better to be a better artist than a stronger ideologue. “Practice it, refine it, become excellent,” he said. “The art you create must be stronger than the messenger conveying it.”

Those who seek to shape culture, Scalia explained, should not be primarily concerned with how instructive their work is, but instead with creating work rooted in what they genuinely care about. “There is something unthreatening about the beautiful,” he said. “It works a sort of alchemy in the soul, and beautiful things awaken a desire to participate, to imitate, and finally to share.” Scalia maintained that humans are naturally drawn to beauty, and that conservatives, in particular, should pursue it because beauty has the power to persuade in ways arguments cannot.

Scalia concluded by encouraging conservatives to engage deeply with literature. Through interaction with the written word, individuals gain a stronger understanding of culture, and, in turn, a deeper understanding of themselves. To understand the culture of which we are a product of, Scalia suggested, is ultimately to better understand humanity itself.

Public universities have found themselves in a complicated moment. Tuition continues to rise, political polarization has intensified and public trust in higher education has steadily declined. As institutions supported by taxpayer dollars, universities increasingly face pressure to demonstrate accountability to the public that funds them. Transparency is one way to do it.

For a public institution like UW-Madison, transparency should not be seen as a threat. It should be seen as an opportunity.

As more public university systems begin publishing course syllabi online, the University of Wisconsin-Madison should consider following suit. Making syllabi publicly accessible would strengthen trust in higher education while reaffirming the university’s commitment to academic freedom.

Late last year, the University of North Carolina System announced a policy requiring syllabi to be publicly available through a searchable online platform beginning in the Fall 2026 semester. Under the policy, syllabi must include core information such as course descriptions, learning objectives, grading scales and required materials. They must also outline how student performance will be evaluated and what expectations students should meet throughout the semester. Most importantly, the syllabi must be posted before the semester begins.

UNC System President Peter Hans defended the policy as a necessary response to growing public skepticism toward higher education. Encouraging professors to “stand behind our work,” Hans argued that transparency can help restore legitimacy during what he described as “an age of dangerously low trust in some of society’s most important institutions.”

UNC is hardly alone. Similar policies already exist in the University System of Georgia, Florida’s public universities, Indiana University and the University of Texas System. These institutions have recognized that providing access to syllabi does not interfere with academic decision-making. Instead, it simply makes information available that students already receive once they enroll in a course.

Still, the proposal has drawn criticism from some faculty members who argue that publishing syllabi could expose professors to harassment or political scrutiny. Others worry that outside criticism may pressure instructors to alter course content or self-censor in order to avoid controversy.

These concerns should be taken seriously. Universities have a responsibility to protect faculty who become targets of harassment or intimidation. But, transparency itself is not the cause of such behavior. Problems arise when institutions fail to defend their scholars, not when the public can see what courses require.

At its core, the case for syllabus transparency rests on a simple principle: public institutions should operate in the open.

Many universities already recognize this reality. The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, for example, provides faculty with guidance and institutional support in the event that they face online harassment or “doxxing” attacks. The university recognizes that such incidents can be professionally disruptive and personally difficult, and it outlines protocols for threat assessment, reporting, and response. Transparency and protection are not mutually exclusive — universities can defend their faculty while also maintaining openness about how their courses operate.

At its core, the case for syllabus transparency rests on a simple principle: public institutions should operate in the open. Taxpayer-funded universities exist because the public supports them. Course syllabi function as basic records of instruction, outlining what students will learn and how they will be evaluated. Allowing the public to access these records is not an extraordinary demand; it is a logical extension of democratic accountability. Citizens have the right to know what public institutions are doing on their behalf.

Transparency also benefits students themselves. Choosing courses often requires balancing workload, grading expectations and the cost of required materials. Some UW-Madison departments already publicly list their past syllabi. By allowing students to review syllabi before the semester begins, universities give them a clearer understanding of what each course requires.

This information can help students evaluate textbook costs, understand grading structures and determine whether a course fits into their schedule. It can also help transfer students assess whether a program aligns with their academic goals before committing to a new institution.

Opponents of transparency often frame the issue as a threat to academic freedom. But that argument misunderstands what academic freedom actually protects. Academic freedom exists to protect intellectual inquiry from censorship and political coercion. It allows scholars to teach controversial ideas and pursue truth without fear of retaliation. What it does not do is shield publicly funded instruction from public view.

Policies requiring syllabus publication do not dictate course content, ban readings or impose ideological constraints. They simply require instructors to outline the structure of their courses. Universities already publish course catalogs, learning objectives and degree requirements. Making syllabi accessible without an open records request or other hurdles would simply extend that existing commitment to openness.

More importantly, transparency may strengthen public confidence in the university. Critics of higher education often claim that professors push ideological agendas in the classroom. Universities frequently respond by emphasizing that faculty are committed to learning and the pursuit of knowledge. If that is true — and most professors would agree that it is — then universities should have no hesitation in allowing the public to see the structure and content of their courses.

For a public institution like UW-Madison, transparency should not be seen as a threat. It should be seen as an opportunity. At a time when higher education faces increasing scrutiny, openness demonstrates confidence in the integrity of academic work. By making course syllabi easily accessible, UW-Madison would reaffirm both its commitment to academic freedom and its responsibility to the public it serves.

On Monday, March 9th, Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidate Maria Lazar spoke to students at an event hosted by the College Republicans of UW-Madison. She currently serves as a judge for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals for District II, and is running for a spot on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in this April’s election.

She describes herself as an honest candidate for the people, and someone who upholds impartiality and respect in the courts, unlike many of today’s judges around the country. She also holds the belief that diversity of thought is integral to the court and criticized courts that are either uniformly conservative or liberal. She said last year’s historically expensive election was too partisan and harmed the public perception of the judiciary.

Lazar emphasized that she was born and raised in Wisconsin. She is a graduate of Milwaukee’s Mount Mary University, and immediately returned to serve her home state after she graduated from Georgetown University Law Center. She also stated that she is not accepting any out-of-state endorsements.

Her opponent, Chris Taylor, was previously a Democratic member of the Wisconsin State Assembly, and was the former public policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. Lazar, who said she is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, said that judges must uphold the law and not be a part of divisive partisan politics. She argued that she is the only candidate for this election who is dedicated to bringing impartiality to the Supreme Court.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court election is the most significant election on the ballot this spring. Lazar noted that it has been difficult to get people excited about the race, but she is optimistic about her chances of winning.

She hopes her commitment to refraining from partisan politics has made her an appealing candidate to both Democratic and Republican voters across the state. Lazar rejected the claim that she is the ‘anti-abortion’ candidate, as she said it is her duty as a judge to uphold Wisconsin State Law, which currently allows abortion until twenty weeks after conception.

Lazar told The Madison Federalist that she hopes young people turn out to vote in April. “I wish we had a huge turnout in April, and I wish everyone came out and voted. That would be amazing,” she said.

Throughout her career, she has taught classes in Wisconsin, from high school students to law students, to cultivate their interests in law and local judicial systems. She believes that college students and recent graduates would be receptive to her campaign messaging.

What if the concentration of progressive ideology at the top of educational institutions was not a natural result of competition in the market of ideas, but rather, a precisely crafted political machine that was used to eliminate differences of viewpoint?

That is exactly what John Sailer uncovered through his work at the Manhattan Institute.

On Wednesday, March 4, the Center for Research on the Wisconsin Economy and Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy hosted Sailer for a lecture on “Scholar-Activist Faculty Hiring in America.” Sailer’s research involves investigations into DEI hiring practices at colleges, uncovering criteria that favor candidates with left-leaning views.

Sailer’s last event in the state was abruptly canceled by the Medical College of Wisconsin, so he viewed this lecture as a triumphant return.

“Despite other controversial figures on the panel, it was me [that was removed] for my fact-based reporting on what universities and medical institutions are doing in order to advance a politically charged idea of equity,” Sailer said about that event.

In his presentation, Sailer claimed that “scholar-activists” were considered to be at the top of the hiring totem pole because of DEI initiatives.

“University systems, private foundations, public agencies, have worked in tandem to create career pathways for scholars who share an activist vision for higher education,” he said. Calling this the “scholar-activist pipeline,” Sailer argues that these practices are theoretically used to increase diversity, but they instead created viewpoint homogeneity.

Through his research, Sailer found three distinct ways in which hiring methods are used to vet candidates who are not left-leaning. These methods include diversity statements, cluster hiring and career investment.

Diversity statements, which are one to two page essays in job applications that required the applicant to “describe their commitment to, and plans for advancing, diversity, equity, and inclusion,” originated in the early 2010s. By 2022, 46 percent of large institutions had adopted DEI criteria for promotion and tenure standards according to the American Association of University Professors. He found that these statements had become heavily weighted by a number of hiring committees.

One example he cited was from Texas Tech, noting hiring records for an application within the Department of Biological Sciences. An applicant stated in his interview that “DEI is not an issue because he respects his students and treats them equally.” This was listed in the report as a “weakness” because the candidate had a “poor understanding of the difference between equality and equity.”

The rubric created for measuring DEI characteristics offered the lowest score to an applicant who “explicitly states the intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and ‘treat everyone equally.’”

Another report from The Ohio State University exemplified how these requirements were used to favor far-left-leaning candidates. One white male was not “outwardly present as a diversity candidate,” but his research on Critical Race Theory was highlighted as a reason he scored high within the DEI criteria.

This shows that the vetting committee used ideological theories as a way to bypass the diversity requirements, effectively allowing the process to be one in which candidates are hired based on political leanings.

“On one hand, this is clearly a way to filter out, either intentionally or not, people who view a whole cluster of social issues differently than the sort of majority opinion on campus,” Sailer said. “This is a perfect way to compound the effects of a viewpoint conformity.”

Another statement Sailer found from another employer stated that “they don’t want to hire white men” when doing a cluster hire. Cluster hiring is essentially hiring multiple faculty members at once across many disciplines, which allows administrators to expand their involvement through conditional funding for faculty alliances.

A final example given by Sailer was career investments, particularly focusing on how one group, the Andrew Mellon Foundation, systematically increased activist hires among universities. According to Sailer, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation is the “premier funder of the humanities in the United States.”

This foundation is “akin to its own federal agency in giving power” and provides career enhancing grants for candidates that share the foundation’s activist vision for higher education.

One situation Sailer discussed was about Dr. LaVelle Ridley, a professor hired at The Ohio State University after receiving multiple grants from the Mellon Foundation. The professor’s research focused on “cultural politics of black transgender women in the U.S., specifically in advances in anti-capitalism, prison, and abolitionist agendas.”

When professors are funded for a clear political agenda and hired by schools because of DEI requirements, a knowledge vacuum is created where institutions think homogeneously about certain political issues, leading to a decrease of public trust.

In the 21st century view of higher education, the use of scholarship funds must continue the “passionate pursuit of truth, even if it takes you to conclusions that are inconvenient, or even defy the dominant perception of what social justice is or ought to be,” Sailer said.

Sailer concluded by mentioning how this concentration of progressive views at the top of institutions may deter right-leaning thinkers from entering academia, which continues the current institutional culture, even after DEI requirements are removed.

“A lot of people who might have considered an academic career in the first place will look at what they have to do to apply to graduate school, what they have to do to apply to faculty jobs, and what kind of backing for these jobs are available and say, this is clearly not for me,” Sailer said. “I think that’s exactly what has happened because of diversity statements.”

Modern society often presents work and spirituality as separate from one another. Professional jobs are largely guided by productivity and economic gain, while religion is often viewed as private, or partially removed from everyday life.

In a recent lecture on campus, Frank Ngo from the Ohio State University discussed how the Catholic organization, Opus Dei, reflects broader shifts in the Church’s understanding of work and ordinary life. Ngo’s lecture “From opus Dei to the Opus Dei: the Modern Reevaluation of Labor in the Roman Catholic Church” is part of the Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy’s Order and Influence Series, which explores the role of Catholicism in society. Ngo argued that shifts in how religious communities value everyday life reveal how those communities understand holiness itself.

Opus Dei was founded in 1928 by Spanish Catholic priest Josemaría Escrivá and defines work as a path to holiness not by withdrawing from the secular world, but by ritualizing ordinary life. Members view themselves as secular, in contrast to consecrated religious members, such as nuns and monks, who live withdrawn from society.

Rather than viewing labor as a burden or a means to an end, Opus Dei frames work as humanity’s original vocation, according to Ngo. Members of Opus Dei maintain discreet piety in the roles they already hold within society. As Ngo explained, if someone is a father, a student, a friend, they should strive to be virtuous within these roles.

The name comes from the Latin phrase opus Dei, meaning “the work of God.” Escrivá believed that everyday work could become part of the “work of God” and worked to bring back an earlier model of Christianity where laypeople were very involved in charity work, education and community life, according to Ngo. Opus Dei sought to place the responsibility to pursue sainthood back into the hands of ordinary people.

Historically, the Catholic Church has viewed ordinary life as subordinate to monastic life. In medieval Christianity, holiness was often associated with monastic life, where monks and nuns took vows of poverty, celibacy and obedience, maintaining strong boundaries between the sacred and the secular. Liturgical prayer took precedence over ordinary work, something referred to as “time out of time.”

According to Ngo, the Church recognized labor as necessary for existence, but considered ordinary labor to be fleeting as it is subject to the passing of time. In contrast, Opus Dei members view ordinary labor and life as a path to holiness when oriented towards God.

Philosopher Charles Taylor described ordinary life as parts of life concerning labor, economic activity, marriage and family, Ngo mentioned. For members of Opus Dei, spiritual holiness can be sought through structuring ordinary life and work around spiritual discipline. Members often repeat a saying, “Sanctify your work, sanctify yourself through your work, and sanctify others through your work.” This frames work as the hinge of sanctification, according to Ngo.

Subscribe now

Opus Dei offers an alternative way of life that expands the boundaries of spirituality into modern, everyday life. Where monastic rituals take place during “time outside of time,” Opus Dei members ritualize ordinary life through spiritual discipline, structure and intention. These elements make up the Plan of Life, a pursuit of holiness. Ngo discussed how members incorporate prayer into commutes, work, and domestic routines, highlighting that these practices do not compete with secular obligations but instead integrate the two.

As Ngo explained, modern Catholic movements increasingly reflect a shift toward “the common person having the responsibility to be saintly.” Vatican II brought shifts in the Church that reflected the modern world, noting the importance of “universal holiness” and lay participation in the Church.

Ngo argued that Opus Dei reflects a modern shift within the Church where ordinary people are encouraged to pursue sainthood themselves. Consequently, Opus Dei’s structure is largely made up of Catholic practices available to any Catholic, but the difference lies in the institution of Opus Dei and the spiritual direction it offers to its members.

According to Ngo, there are many different ways the Church responds to modernity, and Opus Dei is just one of those changes. Opus Dei demonstrates how the Church has increasingly recognized ordinary life as a path to holiness. It shows how religion responds to changes in society and seeks to integrate modern work and religion, suggesting that spirituality can be found in ordinary life.

The next lecture in the Order and Influence Series is tonight at 6:00 p.m. in Law School 7200. More information about its upcoming lectures can be found here.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of its author. All UW-Madison students can submit op-eds or pitches to madisonfederalist@gmail.com!

At the start of 2026, the Wisconsin Assembly approved legislation requiring cultivated meat to be labeled as “lab-grown.” Supporters described the measure as common-sense transparency, as consumers deserve to know whether their protein comes from a farm or a factory. That instinct resonates with libertarian commitments to informed consent and honest exchange. But transparency should not stop at new technologies. If consumers have a right to clarity in the marketplace, they also deserve to understand how conventional meat production has been shaped by federal policy, and how sustained industry lobbying has helped secure that support.

At the heart of free-market economics is a simple premise: Prices should reflect real costs, and markets should discipline inefficiency without political favoritism. By that standard, the U.S. poultry industry offers a clear case of crony capitalism. It operates within a framework of subsidies, indemnity payments, and regulatory structures that shield large integrators from downside risk. Taxpayers absorb environmental and public health spillovers. Contract growers shoulder debt within vertically integrated supply chains. And sentient animals are reduced to production inputs rather than recognized as individuals.

Start with subsidies. While agricultural support programs are often defended as neutral safety nets for “farmers,” the structure of federal farm policy disproportionately benefits commodity crops like corn and soy. Those crops are the primary feed inputs for animal agriculture. When taxpayers underwrite feed production, they indirectly subsidize the poultry and livestock sectors. Cheap feed enables artificially cheap meat.

The burden does not end there. Taxpayers also absorb the externalities of cheap chicken. Concentrated animal feeding operations generate pollution that strains local water systems, while public health systems bear the costs associated with antibiotic resistance linked to routine livestock use. When crises hit, federal dollars flow to stabilize the industry. Recent avian influenza outbreaks have triggered costly indemnity payments and emergency interventions, effectively socializing losses while allowing corporations to privatize gains. Since January 2022, the H5N1 virus has affected nearly 185 million commercial, backyard, and wild birds in the United States. Since March 2024, it has also been detected in more than a thousand cattle herds across multiple states, including a confirmed case here in a Wisconsin dairy herd.

Meanwhile, the structure of the poultry industry itself reflects a peculiar arrangement that hardly resembles classical market competition. Integrator corporations often own the hatcheries, the feed mills, the processing plants, and the brand. Contract growers, by contrast, own the land, the poultry houses, and the debt. When equipment upgrades are required, or flocks underperform, it is the grower who bears much of the financial risk. In other words, the companies own everything that makes money, and farmers own everything that costs money.

There is another dimension of distortion that receives far less attention: humane washing and the conditions imposed on animals themselves. Humane washing is the practice of using labels and marketing cues to create the impression of high welfare standards. Practices that mainly serve to make consumers feel better about their consumption choices, but do little to help animals. Industrial poultry production typically confines tens of thousands of chickens in enclosed sheds, breeds them for unnaturally rapid growth that strains their skeletal systems, and subjects them to painful practices such as debeaking and crowded transport. Marketing campaigns increasingly emphasize “cage-free” or “humanely raised” labels, yet these terms often mask systems that remain fundamentally industrial in scale and design. Even if welfare standards were improved, the basic framework remains unchanged, which is that animals are treated as resources, and not beings with subjective experiences.

For libertarians who emphasize freedom, consent, and the non-aggression principle, this raises an ethical issue. Chickens are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and distress, yet they are confined, manipulated, and slaughtered without any meaningful possibility of consent. Because of humane washing, the animals’ preferences are not considered in market analyses. This ethical cost can be understood as an additional negative externality of industrial agriculture, namely the systematic harm imposed on sentient beings whose interests are excluded from the pricing system. Even in the absence of low welfare standards, a system that views living beings purely as resources stands in tension with the libertarian commitment to minimizing coercion and unjustified harm.

The ethical concern is inseparable from a structural one. For conservatives wary of centralized power, the close relationship between large agribusiness firms and the federal government should be equally troubling. If markets are to function properly, the government should not pick winners and losers. The race to produce the cheapest, fastest-growing birds depends on artificially low input costs.

Yet here lies the contradiction. If federal intervention were dramatically reduced and feed subsidies curtailed, chicken prices would likely rise. Consumers accustomed to cheap chicken products might not be pleased. In a time of rising food prices, any additional increase would be politically sensitive.

But perhaps this tension signals something deeper. If the only way to maintain rock bottom chicken prices is through an elaborate system of subsidies, bailouts, risk socialization, and unpriced ethical costs, then the system is not genuinely efficient. It is dependent. A truly free market would allow prices to reflect actual environmental, public health, and moral costs. If higher prices dampen demand, that is not market failure; it is market correction.

Moreover, we are living in a moment of rapid technological change. Artificial intelligence is transforming supply chains and logistics. Innovations such as cultivated meat and advanced plant-based proteins are on the technological horizon. These emerging industries may eventually offer protein production methods that require less land, fewer antibiotics, and lower environmental impact, while also reducing the ethical concerns tied to confinement and slaughter. Rather than doubling down on a subsidy-dependent poultry model, policymakers should ask whether the long-term national interest is better served by moving away from the most distortion-heavy parts of animal agriculture. That question is especially relevant in Wisconsin, where potential cultivated meat bans and restrictive labeling laws risk protecting incumbent industries at the expense of innovation.

None of this requires hostility toward farmers. On the contrary, it may require the opposite. If we cease to view farmers as disposable inputs in a corporate supply chain and the sentient animals they raise as mere units of production, we can begin to rethink rural policy. A system that locks farmers into debt-financed contracts while corporate integrators capture margins is not a model of rural empowerment. It is a model of consolidation.

Instead, perhaps a surprising alliance is possible. Libertarians committed to free markets, conservatives wary of corporate-state fusion, farmers seeking independence, consumers concerned about transparency, and advocates for animals may find common ground. Opening the protein production space to genuine market competition, while ending subsidy distortions and fully accounting for environmental, public health, and ethical externalities, could represent a win for freedom, for rural communities, and for sentient beings whose interests have too long been excluded from the ledger.

Subscribe now