On Monday, September 21, the Revolutionary Communists of America (RCA) held a public meeting at College Library to examine the efforts of the Corey Ruiz protests and the subsequent encampment. Analyzing past attempts to organize and challenge the capitalist system, members pointed to a Marxist revolution as the country’s only option.

Committed to spreading revolutionary communism, the comrades focused on their disdain for the present. Led by comrade Mary Deck, a 2023 graduate of the UW-Madison Mead Witter School of Music, the meeting touched on various topics, namely the ills of capitalism. “The years of the U.S. being the world’s sole superpower are over. Capitalism, which once was the most revolutionary force on the planet, has produced its own gravediggers. And for nearly a century, the world has been ripe for socialist revolution.” Members expressed frustration. “Over time, conditions have become so untenable. People try so many methods, anger builds up, and then a straw can break the camel’s back.”

Affiliated with Revolutionary Communists International, the RCA Party’s objectives include the complete overthrow of capitalism, fighting for a world of material superabundance, rejecting a profit-based system, establishing a workers’ government (to tackle the capitalist roots of war, inequality, oppression, and climate catastrophe), and improving workers’ lives. Together, revolutionaries dedicate themselves to the implementation of such a society.

The meeting consisted of several undergraduate students, graduate students, and workers. A majority of those present identified themselves as members, which RCA calls “comrades.” Those who have agreed to sign up for the organization are expected to fulfill the role of revolutionary leadership, becoming “an apparatus, a force that revolutionaries can use to spread these ideas, to convince larger sections of the working class and to win them over to the perspectives, not just to put up a big fight against the system, but to actually overthrow it.”

The comrades discussed the aftermath of the Corey Ruiz demonstrations.

The July shooting of Ruiz by a police officer shook the City of Madison. Protests surfaced almost immediately after the incident. What began as a memorial for mourners and protesters soon turned into an encampment. An entire intersection was held hostage for two weeks, preventing traffic flow and harming local businesses, until city officials intervened.

Members mentioned the significance of the Madison “working class” holding the intersection for as long as they did. “People were able to go to this vigil…they were able to go there and feel like they were safe.”

The Corey Ruiz movement took lessons from the George Floyd protests; racism was deemed the sole proprietor. “Before the founding of the United States, the ruling classes on this continent have wielded racism as a weapon to split the exploited masses and keep them from uniting in struggle against their oppressors. The racial basis of chattel slavery was a conscious choice by the ruling class, which was frightened and threatened by uprisings from below. And the ruling classes effectively use racism to tamp down revolutionary struggles. It’s infected every facet of life in modern capitalist society.”

For the Revolutionary Communists, the Corey Ruiz movement has “represented a striving of exploited and oppressed layers uniting and struggling against the racist system of police terror. It [has shown] us a small glimpse of the revolutionary potential that lies buried beneath the surface of the working class.”

The group presented various complaints surrounding the failed encampment, blaming seemingly everyone except themselves. They claimed that the movement “demonstrated the profound weakness of leadership on the left in Madison,” including politicians’ lack of loyalty to the socialist movement.

Criticizing Francesca Hong’s past leadership, Deck paused to “imagine, for a moment, if we’d had a real socialist candidate, someone who told the truth about the fundamental ties between the unlivable crisis of capitalism and its reliance on force and repression to maintain the social order. Someone who could call on all the radicalizing youth and workers to put real pressure on their unions and organizations to prepare for a general strike. Someone connected to a larger apparatus built by the most class-conscious and militant layers of workers in youth and society, with no reliance on the enemy class.”

Though leadership stifled much of the movement, Revolutionary Communists maintained heightened levels of aggression. “Masses of working people who attended these protests chanted fuck the police, who bravely faced down tear gas, who defended each other, and looked to the example of our neighbors in Minneapolis.”

The movement’s failure was also attributed to protesters’ lack of awareness of the specific demands raised by Party leadership. Without a clear perspective, people became exhausted, mentally and physically. “Not only are we living through the worst cost of living crisis that we’ve seen in decades, but also, I mean, it’s not that long ago that everyone was out on the streets protesting against ICE.”

The Revolutionary Communists spent their time discussing the need for societal upheaval and the mobilization of the working class as a catalyst for revolution. “We have to prepare and we have to ensure the victory of these revolutions. But we also cannot get too big of heads about this. We alone cannot spark the revolution. We cannot make it happen. Our role is to make sure that it succeeds.”

For a group that feels as though the very social order threatens their way of life, remedy does not come through politicians that “move from the pole to the extent that their leash allows them to move from,” it comes from the working class. Members state that revolution will — and is coming — soon. “It’s gonna be weird to not have the opinion that we need an entirely different system at some point.”

The group points to the 1917 Russian Revolution, “one of the greatest moments in history,” as their guiding light. “There was a lot of impatience, and the Bolsheviks forged themselves out of a lot of the youth. They realized that they needed to base themselves on the working class, a force that was actually capable of transforming society. And they actually recognized the inevitability of revolution…We need to take power for ourselves. We need to understand how to actually seize power.”

Members directed fellow Revolutionary Communists to attend their Marxist schools, weekend-long seminars filled with programming for revolutionaries to dive deeply into the fundamentals of Marxist philosophy, revolutionary history, and strategy. A “training ground for Bolsheviks,” those who attend will prepare to organize the end of the capitalist system.

The presence of this group on campus may be a warning sign of the left’s fracturing coalition. Jenna Lawrence, co-president of the College Republicans of UW-Madison, shared her thoughts. “Any group is allowed to have meetings and share ideas. I don’t support their agenda, but they’re open to having meetings. I do think it’s concerning — the ideas that are spreading — but I would hope common sense thinkers will dismiss them.”

At present, the RCA’s resources are directed towards acquiring as many members as possible and ensuring that those members are as educated as possible. The group has grown its influence in Madison and plans for further growth by “winning over” the working class. “You need to be trying to coordinate strikes…learning these lessons faster than normal people and bringing them forward to the people who are already a little bit disillusioned, a little bit uncertain…that we can at least start to influence. And once we have numbers, we are going to have a much greater ability to bring these ideas forward and get people to listen to them. We are in a position of being in a country where capitalism was able to unnaturally prolong its existence and hold over society… so much of that is also on these foundations which are rapidly eroding.”

The Revolutionary Communists of America’s spread across the country demonstrates widespread ideological tumult, with Madison following closely behind. “And so I think that this is what we need to take away from, not only the recent events, but also the distant past, is that what is missing right now is a revolutionary party.”

Subscribe now

Federal immigration and visa policy changes have created uncertainty for international students considering American universities. In July, the Department of Homeland Security finalized a rule that would replace the longstanding “duration of status” system for F-1 and J-1 visa holders with fixed admission periods, generally up to four years.

However, a federal judge temporarily blocked the rule before it took effect nationwide. The legal challenge does not remove the uncertainty created by recent changes to visa processing, work authorization and immigration policy. As students weigh whether to study in the United States, some may instead pursue programs in countries with more predictable pathways.

UW–Madison has already seen signs of that effect. The university expected a 20 percent decline in international graduate enrollment for fall 2026, according to court filings reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. A sustained decline could affect the university’s research capacity, tuition revenue and the wider Madison economy.

Academic and research programs

International students are an important part of UW–Madison’s campus community. College Factual estimates that they make up about 13.2 percent of the student body. UW–Madison also enrolls international students across a wide range of graduate and undergraduate programs, including engineering, computer science, economics, mathematics, statistics and biosciences.

Graduate students are especially important to large research universities. Many serve as teaching assistants, research assistants and laboratory staff while working toward advanced degrees. If fewer international graduate students enroll, departments could have a smaller pool of candidates for those roles. That could mean larger workloads for remaining assistants, fewer discussion sections, slower research progress or greater pressure to recruit and fund domestic students.

The effect would likely vary by department. Programs that rely heavily on graduate research assistants or enroll large numbers of international students may face the greatest challenges. The issue is not that international students are interchangeable with other students, but that a sudden decline in enrollment can disrupt the staffing and research plans that departments have built over several years.

University revenue and budget

International students often pay nonresident tuition and may also face additional costs, including international student fees and health-insurance expenses. Their enrollment therefore provides an important source of revenue for universities, particularly at the graduate level.

A decline in enrollment would not automatically create a university-wide budget crisis, but it could create pressure in programs that depend on tuition from nonresident and international students. Some professional and master’s programs use tuition revenue to support course offerings, staff and other academic expenses. If enrollment falls sharply, the university may need to adjust spending, delay new initiatives or find other ways to cover costs.

The broader national trend also shows why the issue matters. A recent report from the Association of American Universities found that international applications to doctoral programs at 55 AAU institutions fell 21 percent from fall 2025 to fall 2026. The report also cited projections that declining international enrollment could result in billions of dollars in lost economic activity across the United States.

Housing and the local economy

The effects of enrollment decline would extend beyond university finances. International students rent apartments, buy groceries and furniture, eat at local restaurants and use transportation and other services in the communities where they study. Their spending supports businesses throughout Madison, especially those near campus.

A smaller international student population could reduce demand for some local goods and services, though it is too early to determine the effect on Madison’s housing market or rental prices. The more immediate concern is the loss of consumer spending and the possibility that local businesses will see fewer customers during the academic year.

International students also contribute perspectives and experiences that enrich classroom discussions, research teams and campus life. UW–Madison’s academic reputation depends partly on its ability to attract talented students and researchers from around the world. If federal policy uncertainty continues to discourage those students from choosing the United States, the university could face long-term challenges in maintaining its research strength, global connections and academic competitiveness.

Subscribe now

Christina Bambrick, a political theorist at the University of Notre Dame, recently spoke at UW-Madison about whether liberal constitutionalism can address problems that extend beyond the traditional relationship between governments and individuals. Bambrick’s research dives into American and comparative constitutionalism, republican theory, and the history of political thought.

Bambrick’s September 22 talk, hosted by the Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy, focused primarily on two questions: what virtues are necessary for a liberal society to function and whether constitutional rights should sometimes apply to the private sphere, rather than only to governments.

She began by discussing what she described as a common understanding of liberalism: a broad school of political thought that emphasizes political theory rooted in liberty and the rule of law. She emphasized a political system that sets focus on virtue, duty, and the role they play in liberal politics. This laid the foundation for the rest of the lecture.

She moved on to talking about two projects she worked on in recent years. The first project is an article she wrote in The Political Science Reviewer in 2023 titled “The Promise of Virtue, Old and New: On Building Bridges in Contemporary Politics.” The second project was her recent book, Constitutionalizing the Private Sphere: A Comparative Inquiry. Although the projects address different subjects, Bambrick said both examine what some scholars and political actors understand as weaknesses in modern constitutionalism, as well as potential solutions to address those weaknesses.

Bambrick began with the role of virtue in liberal politics. She discussed the promise of liberal virtues through Rawlsian liberalism and the idea that liberal politics should maintain a degree of neutrality toward competing views about morality and life.

She turned to communitarian critics such as Michael Sandel, who challenged liberalism for producing what they viewed as overly individualistic citizens who could potentially become disconnected from their communities and lack a strong sense of duty in society. She pointed to some liberal theorists responding to the criticism by developing the idea of “liberal virtues.”

However, Bambrick argued these virtues still begin with a liberal understanding of the individual and autonomy. She suggests that older traditions of virtue could provide another way to approach questions about human nature and what is good for people. Traditions include prudence, justice, courage, and temperance.

She challenged the idea that liberalism and republican political thought have always been separate traditions. She argued historical scholarship suggests that liberal and republican ideas have often existed together, even going so far as to say liberalism grows out of republicanism. This furthers her argument that older traditions could still contribute to contemporary liberal politics.

She then shifted focus to her book, which examines whether constitutional rights should apply not only to governments but also to private actors. Bambrick described the traditional approach as the “vertical” model, in which constitutional rights primarily govern the relationship between the state and individuals.

She said the vertical model aims to protect the private sphere by keeping private actors free from constitutional regulation, allowing people to exercise liberty in their private lives, which ultimately protects the sphere of liberty. Bambrick argued that the separation between state and individuals can leave people without constitutional protections from harm caused by other private actors and overlook duties that citizens may have toward each other.

Bambrick pointed to what she believes is a solution to this weakness. She introduced the idea of a “horizontal” model, where private actors potentially become responsible for rights in the private sphere. This would allow constitutional protections to apply to abuses wherever they might occur outside of direct government action.

She then connected the horizontal approach to republican political thought, which focuses on duties and responsibilities between citizens. She described horizontal application as a “republican vein in liberal constitutions,” arguing that it introduces ideas of shared responsibility into a system focusing on individual rights.

Bambrick used the United States, India, and South Africa to illustrate different approaches to the public and private divide.

She first used the United States to exemplify this. She focused on policy during the Reconstruction era, with a specific focus on the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which expanded constitutional protections. She specifically highlighted the 14th Amendment because the language focused on state action.

Bambrick explained that some Radical Republicans wanted Congress to enforce equality in private spaces, including inns, theatres, and public transportation. The Supreme Court ultimately adopted the state action approach, which limited the reach of the 14th Amendment into private relationships.

She moved on to discussing India, which she named as the only example in her book where the framers were self-consciously republican when drafting their constitution. She focused on Article 15, which prohibits discrimination in places such as restaurants, shops, and hotels. She also pointed to B.R. Ambedkar’s emphasis on making fundamental rights real protections for citizens, which goes hand in hand with the broader goal of extending constitutional principles to private spaces.

The last example she discussed was South Africa’s transition away from apartheid. Bambrick explained that its interim constitution took a more laissez-faire approach to the public-private divide. She highlighted Du Plessis v. De Klerk, where the majority maintained this separation, before the 1996 constitution moved toward more explicit application of constitutional rights to private actors.

One concern Bambrick mentioned with the horizontal model is the expanded role it gives to the courts. She acknowledged that judges would have significant power to decide when constitutional rights apply between private actors. In response, she suggested allowing space for the legislature and legislative institutions to be involved in decision-making, so that the obligations do not solely rely on the courts.

Bambrick concluded her presentation with a Q&A portion, where audience members were able to ask her questions regarding her ideas on virtue and liberal constitutionalism, as well as how her arguments would apply to different real-life problems.

During this session, Bambrick’s responses discuss how law and civic virtue could work together to address issues such as climate change and artificial intelligence. She said that law and virtue have a “bidirectional” relationship, meaning that law can be instructive for society, but can also be counterproductive if people are not ready to accept what the law requires.

One audience member asked whether a horizontal model could limit pluralism if adopted. Bambrick said the question ultimately comes down to which constitutional values a society wants to apply more broadly and where those values might have influence.

Finally, when asked whether the United States could adopt a more horizontal model in the future, she claimed she did not see that broad of a change happening, especially not anytime soon. She did note, however, that there may be specific circumstances where greater constitutional protections for private actors would be useful.

Subscribe now

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression recently released its 2027 college free speech rankings, placing the University of Wisconsin-Madison 61st out of 261 colleges and universities.

The placement represents a 40-place increase from UW-Madison’s 2026 ranking. FIRE’s rankings draw on student survey responses, university speech policies and documented campus speech controversies to evaluate each institution’s free-speech climate.

UW-Madison received an overall score of 65.05 and a D speech-climate grade, an improvement from the D- it received in the prior ranking. FIRE reported gains in comfort expressing ideas, disruptive conduct, administrative support and openness.

The university earned a C+ in disruptive conduct, its highest category grade. It received a C in openness, D grades in comfort expressing ideas and self-censorship, a D- in administrative support and an F in political tolerance. FIRE reported that political tolerance was unchanged from the prior year, while the self-censorship score declined.

In FIRE’s survey, 42 percent of UW-Madison respondents said they self-censor on campus at least once or twice a month. One anonymous student from the Class of 2025 said they felt “as a conservative student” they had to suppress their own opinions “nearly every day in classes and on campus.”

The survey also found a 3.06-to-1 ratio of liberal to conservative respondents. Those figures describe the survey sample and should not be treated as a census of the student body.

The ranking arrives after several prominent campus disputes over speech and protest. In April 2025, Students for Justice in Palestine protested an event featuring former United States Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield at the La Follette School of Public Affairs. The protest included disruptions inside Shannon Hall and demonstrations outside the venue. UW-Madison later suspended the organization for alleged violations of university policies.

UW-Madison could improve their ranking by reforming several “yellow light” policies containing “ambiguous language that could be used to suppress student speech,” according to FIRE in a comment to The Madison Federalist.

FIRE also cited a broader problem: Students have a reluctance to share views they believe may be unpopular. FIRE recommended “programs to teach students how to engage in respectful, rational debate and dialogue, even with those they ardently disagree with,” to promote political tolerance.

UW-Madison is covered by the Universities of Wisconsin’s 2015 free-expression statement, which closely aligns with the principles of the University of Chicago’s Statement. The university also points to its long-standing “sifting and winnowing” metaphor coined by UW President Charles Kendall Adams that has come to represent the pursuit of knowledge through differing ideas and perspectives.

When asked for comment, the university affirmed its support for “the freedom to exchange, consider, and challenge different ideas.” University officials also pointed to revised student protest guidelines, the implementation of free expression training for new students, and The Wisconsin Exchange, which aims to promote civil discussion in a “polarized world.”

“As a public university UW–Madison is, as a matter of both law and institutional values, dedicated to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and values freedom of expression as an essential part of its educational mission.”

Another recent dispute involved registered student organization Animal Advocacy. The university opened an administrative investigation because of flyers with a QR code that linked to material describing plans to enter Ridglan Farms and remove dogs. University officials said the review was administrative rather than criminal, while Animal Advocacy denied that its materials encouraged illegal conduct.

FIRE and the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project criticized the investigation and urged the university to end it. UW–Madison concluded that Animal Advocacy was not responsible for soliciting burglary on July 7. The university did find the group responsible for an improper-posting violation related to posters for a separate speaking event and issued a written reprimand and educational sanction.

FIRE’s results show that UW-Madison’s overall ranking has improved, while concerns about self-censorship and political tolerance among surveyed students remain. Whether the university’s policy changes and newer dialogue initiatives affect those measures will become clearer in future rankings.

Subscribe now

Hundreds of animal-rights activists converged on Ridglan Farms’ beagle-breeding facility on April 18 in Blue Mounds. The attempted break-in resulted in approximately 25 arrests, according to the Dane County Sheriff’s Office.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Animal Advocacy organization posted fliers headlined, “Help Save 2,000 Beagles” on April 13, just five days before the break-in. The fliers included a QR code linking to information about an “open rescue” at Ridglan Farms and ways that students could support the beagles’ welfare through advocacy.

University administrators warned Animal Advocacy on April 20 that the fliers appeared to be “soliciting or encouraging individuals to participate in criminal activity” because the linked materials referenced a future rescue attempt, followed by the sentence “Now is when we need to ACT.”

The university formally opened an investigation earlier this year into whether the organization had solicited others to enter Ridglan Farms and remove animals from the property, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

FIRE penned a letter to the university in June, arguing that such speech is protected under the First Amendment and that the QR codes did not actually encourage students to break the law. The university found Animal Advocacy “not responsible” for the allegation arising from the “Help Save 2,000 Beagles” fliers.

The group was not sanctioned for the flyer-related solicitation allegation, but it did receive a written reprimand and educational sanction for separate posters placed outside the Mosse Humanities Building. That distinction matters, but it does not answer the question of whether the original investigation deterred protected advocacy.

The Supreme Court has recognized the principle of a “chilling effect,” wherein government conduct discourages individuals from exercising a constitutional right without directly prohibiting a particular action. This was best articulated in Dombrowski v. Pfister, where the Court noted, “the chilling effect upon the exercise of First Amendment rights may derive from the fact of the prosecution, unaffected by the prospects of its success or failure.” Dombrowski involved criminal prosecutions under challenged state laws, not a campus disciplinary process. Its warning that the process itself can burden speech is relevant here.

A university disciplinary investigation is not a criminal prosecution, but it can still impose real costs: meetings with administrators, uncertainty about possible sanctions, and the stigma of being accused of misconduct. Those costs may cause students and student organizations to think twice before engaging in contentious advocacy, even when the university ultimately finds no violation.

That fear is not unfounded. Jackson Ray, the Animal Advocacy president, said the investigation was “a little scary for a lot of students.” For organizations without outside legal counsel, the prospect of a formal investigation may still be daunting.

Before opening a formal disciplinary investigation into expressive activity, the university should require more than an accusation that such expression “indicates a possible violation of the Organizational Rules of Conduct.” At minimum, a more substantial, objective basis for believing that the alleged expression actually constitutes a violation should be necessary. Protecting students’ freedom of expression should not be secondary to investigating every alleged “possible violation” of the Organizational Rules of Conduct.

The case also raises a broader question about whether UW–Madison’s written guidance gives students enough notice about the difference between protected expression, reportable conduct, and punishable misconduct. FIRE’s Spotlight database identifies several UW–Madison policies that it rates as potentially threatening to constitutionally protected expression. FIRE’s ratings are advocacy assessments, not court rulings, but they raise a question UW–Madison should answer directly: Do its policies give students clear notice of what speech may be reported, investigated or disciplined?

For example, FIRE points to the Office of Student Assistance and Support’s “harassment/discrimination form” and its page on harassment, discrimination, and bias. Although the form appears limited to harassment and discrimination, it also lets students report “unwelcome conduct,” including “microaggressions, slurs, degrading language or intimidation.”

The same page defines harassment and discrimination as “offensive or insensitive acts” targeting someone because they belong to a particular group or protected class. It also lists microaggressions, degrading language, and symbols as examples.

Such broad definitions leave too much room for speculation among students and arbitrary decision-making among administrators. What one student considers a sincerely held opinion may be perceived as a microaggression by another. If a student claims that “homosexuality is a sin” or says that “from the river to the sea Palestine will soon be free,” are they committing a microaggression? Either statement could be considered “insensitive.” Is that conduct “unwelcome,” discriminatory, and/or harassing?

No one can be sure. That uncertainty also chills speech. It would not be unreasonable for an evangelical or pro-Palestinian student to ask, “Can this opinion get me in trouble?” Or, at the very least, “Will voicing this opinion result in me being investigated?”

For a university that has long championed the principle of “sifting and winnowing,” and supposedly prides itself on its dedication to “the principles of free speech and free expression” and its commitment to “the free and open exchange of ideas through expressive activity,” its commitment to those principles often seems to end at a cursory glance. Investigations, ambiguous policies, and uncertainty have sowed doubt and made students more hesitant to exercise their right to free expression. It’s time for the university to uphold its own values and engender confidence in them.

This article was updated to clarify the details of the investigation.

Subscribe now

Levi Harper is the Events Coordinator and Co-Founder of Badgers for Life.

It is a sunny afternoon on State Street in Madison, Wisconsin. A college student walks toward East Campus Mall, taking in the restaurants, music, and crowds around her. Then she hears a man’s voice booming through a speaker.

As she gets closer, she sees graphic anti-abortion signs and a man arguing with another young woman. “Abortion is murder,” he tells her, before calling her uneducated, stupid, and ignorant. When a nearby band begins playing loudly enough to drown him out, he shouts over the music that “God has prepared a place for His enemies.”

For someone who is pro-choice, this may be her first personal encounter with the pro-life movement. And she may walk away thinking: If this is what God’s love looks like, I want nothing to do with it.

As someone in the pro-life movement, I am always deeply distressed when I see these demonstrations come to campus. As a college student at a liberal university, I also know how they are received on campus: with unseriousness, obstinacy, and pure rage. “Why is a man telling me what to do with my body?” or “Oh great, here’s another Christian group telling me I’m going to hell.”

While I admire abolitionist groups for their conviction, willingness to educate, and ability to mobilize, I would like to propose that there is a better way to communicate the pro-life cause — one rooted in love, compassion, and care for the lives of both the woman and the baby.

Abortion abolitionists generally call for the immediate and complete criminalization of abortion and reject legislation that merely restricts abortion. Some abolitionist groups also argue that women who knowingly obtain abortions should be subject to criminal prosecution, although views on the appropriate punishment vary within the movement.

As an incrementalist, I approach the issue differently. I believe we have to take the culture where it is and save as many lives as we can while continuing to work toward greater protections for unborn life.

According to a January 2026 poll from the Pew Research Center, 66% of Americans ages 18 to 29 say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 34% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. On a college campus, that cultural reality matters.

Social Judgment Theory helps explain why. The theory argues that people evaluate persuasive messages according to their existing beliefs, placing them within a latitude of acceptance, non-commitment, or rejection. A message that falls too far into someone’s latitude of rejection is unlikely to persuade them. For someone who strongly identifies as pro-choice, an immediate call to completely criminalize abortion may fall far outside anything they are currently willing to consider.

Incrementalism begins closer to where people actually are, looking for common ground and achievable protections while continuing the larger conversation about the value of human life. But reaching people where they are requires more than simply choosing the right policy approach. It also requires us to think carefully about how we communicate. The following principles are tools that can help us navigate these conversations with greater clarity, compassion, and effectiveness.

1. Attack the argument, not the person

Calling someone stupid, ignorant, evil, or uneducated does nothing to strengthen our argument. It is an ad hominem attack, shifting the conversation away from the actual issue and toward the character or intelligence of the person standing across from us. If we believe our position is true, then we should be able to defend it without degrading the person who disagrees with us.

And we need to remember something important: we are coming to them. When we walk onto a college campus, approach someone on the street, or initiate a conversation about abortion, the responsibility is on us to communicate our beliefs in a way worth listening to. We cannot insult someone and then blame them for refusing to hear us. We can be better. It is on us, not them.

2. Hate the sin, not the sinner

While it is just an expression, it is also something deeply biblical. Jesus commands us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. That becomes especially important when talking about an issue as personal and painful as abortion.

We do not know the story of the person standing across from us. We do not know what she has experienced, what someone close to her has experienced, or what brought her to the beliefs she holds today. That should produce humility and compassion in us.

If we believe every human life possesses inherent dignity, then that dignity cannot suddenly disappear when someone disagrees with us. The people arguing with us have value too. The Bible should never become a weapon we lash at someone we are called to love. We can condemn what we believe is wrong without treating the person in front of us as our enemy.

3. Listen, not lecture

Listening does not mean surrendering our convictions. It means caring enough about other people to actually understand what they believe before deciding what they need to hear.

Too often, conversations about abortion become two people waiting for the other person to stop talking so they can respond. That is not listening. Listening means asking questions. What does he actually believe? Why does he believe it? What experiences shaped that belief? Where do we agree? Where do we actually disagree?

It was evident in the dialogue I witnessed on campus that both sides had much to learn about each other. Yet if we are the ones initiating the conversation, I believe the greater responsibility falls on us to listen first.

4. Educate, not berate

If we want to persuade people, we need to understand where they are starting from. Most college-aged people have grown up in a culture where abortion is legal and widely accepted. Yelling at them or immediately demanding a total ban is unlikely to change their minds.

Instead, we should educate. Ask what they actually believe. Explain fetal development, abortion laws, and what happens during pregnancy. Share stories from people they can relate to. Give them information they may have never heard before.

Our goal should not be to win a shouting match. It should be to move someone closer to understanding the value of human life.

5. Speak the truth in love

Abolitionists I have spoken with have told me that speaking the truth is love. There is something important in that argument. Love does not require us to abandon what we believe is true. But Scripture also tells Christians something about how truth should be communicated.

The book of Ephesians tells us to speak the truth in love. Colossians 4:6 tells us, “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt.” Second Timothy 2:24–25 says that “the Lord’s servant should not be quarrelsome, but kind, gently instructing opponents.” And 1 Corinthians 13:1 warns, “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”

Truth and love are not competing responsibilities. For Christians, they belong together.

We want to be more than noise. We need to be a voice that cuts through the chaos, listens to the hurt, and responds with grace, truth, and love. If our words are loud enough for an entire campus to hear but our love is nowhere to be found, then we are completely missing the basis for why we hold this conviction.

We have a responsibility to pro-choicers and unborn children to treat them with compassion, grace, dignity, and love. When we begin to compromise these basic needs, we’ve already lost. Let’s start winning for life again.

Subscribe now

THE MADISON FEDERALIST is back in action this semester! Our latest print edition can be found on newspaper racks around campus today.

CHECK OUT SOME OF OUR TOP STORIES BELOW:

UW-Madison Students Commemorate Life of Charlie Kirk

A group of students gathered on the evening of September 10 to commemorate the life of Charlie Kirk, who had been assassinated exactly one year earlier. While the vigil on Library Mall was a somber occasion, student messages on YikYak were a different story. The anonymous messaging app, which requires a wisc.edu email address to register, was the site of numerous posts joking about the “Kirkaversary.”

This UW-Madison Program Strives to Bridge Political Divides

The Deliberation Dinners program engages undergraduate students at UW-Madison in discussion about controversial political issues throughout the school year. Over the course of six dinners, one each month from October to March, students have a chance to expand their knowledge of politics and discussion skills, especially with people with whom they may disagree.

UW-Madison Medical School Admissions Data Show Racial Disparities

Black and Hispanic applicants faced better odds of being admitted to the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in the 2025 admission cycle than did White or Asian applicants with the same MCAT score and GPA, according to the university’s own data. Among applicants with the same admission test scores and grade point averages, a Hispanic or Black applicant had nearly 4 times the odds of admission of an Asian applicant.

UW-Madison Sponsored a Drag Show for Welcome Week

The Wisconsin Welcome is an annual celebration for new students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It usually consists of events such as the Sunburst Festival, the Bakke Block Party, and the W Project. This year, it included a “Drag Brunch Bingo” hosted by the Office of Student Transition and Family Engagement and the Gender and Sexuality Campus Center.

UW-Madison Ranks Near Middle for Faculty Viewpoint Diversity in FIRE Study

A study released by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in May found that faculty donors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and other top universities are highly concentrated on the political left.

ARE YOU A UW-MADISON STUDENT INTERESTED IN MAKING A DIFFERENCE ON CAMPUS? SIGN UP TO WRITE FOR US BELOW!

Write for US

ADVERTISEMENT:

Trust in American media is at an all time low, dropping to 28 percent October 2025. Many prominent news outlets are asking the same question: How do we get Americans to trust our reporting again?

The New York Times has been at the forefront of this discussion and hosted a panel discussion on “Truth and the 2026 Election” on Tuesday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The event was moderated by Patrick Healy, the Times’s assistant managing editor overseeing trust and standards, and the panel included New York Times’s White House correspondent Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Chicago bureau chief Julie Bosman.

A constant theme throughout the conversation was that trust in the media starts by listening to readers. It is important “to engage with readers directly about their questions and not just say, we’re in an ivory tower and we’re going to let the journalism speak for itself,” Healy said. “It’s about fact-based journalism. You count on us to go to places around the country, around the world, confirm and verify facts, and bring that to you without spin, without an agenda.”

Even as the media tries to stick with fact-based, unbiased journalism, skepticism among readers still arises. “I actually think skepticism is a good thing when you’re reading the news,” Kanno-Youngs said. “I don’t see that as a knock or something we would push back against… Hopefully that then results in a reader engaging with me.”

There was a clear consensus among the panel that they enjoyed when readers pushed back on an article, as long as the criticism is constructive. “When people come to us with feedback and it’s the most racist, sexist, antisemitic, islamophobic, vulgar, it’s just, what point are you making,” Healy said. “And the reality is if they have an actual point, good faith, maybe it’s even bad faith, but they want to make a point, we are usually open to it.”

Independence was also a major topic throughout the question. “Our north star is the idea of independence, independent journalism that nobody’s going to tell us what to write, whether it’s President Trump, President Biden, whoever’s in charge,” Healy said. He was referring to the criticism left-leaning news networks faced after the 2024 election as many Americans perceived they were not reporting enough on former President Joe Biden’s deterioration in office.

The handful of reporters who were writing about President Biden’s age and health, like New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, were subsequently ostracized by many within the Democratic establishment until it became clear Biden wouldn’t be able to run again. “I have to say, [of] the anger I have received and heard from the White House press offices, the greatest in my time has been from the Biden White House press office,” Healy said. “Just enormous anger at the times for asking these questions. Whether it was the withdrawal from Afghanistan or some [of] the congressional legislation, but especially around health and age and a sense we were holding him to a double standard.”

The conversation then turned towards the news coverage of the Wisconsin governor’s race and how the media portrayed Francesca Hong, the democratic socialist candidate who narrowly lost the Democratic primary in August. A few weeks before the primary, Hong’s past social media tweets, especially one where she called for the canceling of Thanksgiving, became a major point of contention within the media and questions arose about how it should be covered.

“I think that the way we wrote about it in the end was… we just rooted it in, does this matter to voters, “ Julie Bosman said. “And very often people were like… the Thanksgiving thing is a little off.” Healy then brought up the criticism that the news was focusing far too much attention on past questionable comments and not enough about issues that affect voters, such as affordability.

“I think it’s a very case by case basis,” Bosman said. “I often land on the idea that if our readers are hearing about something on CNN or reading about it on Twitter or wherever they get news, … you know, we should be writing about what people are talking about.” There was a consensus among the panel that they would much rather have readers learn about something while reading a news article which gives context to a given situation instead of seeing it on social media with little context.

There was also an emphasis in the conversation on how the New York Times has covered the second Trump administration and more broadly about how the media interacts with the administration. “I just think there are plenty of people calling the president names,” Kanno-Youngs said. “Especially in this day and age of where the White House can pick, more than in previous administrations, which reports go into the Oval Office, which reporters will be in the press conferences. I feel like I have more impact by asking a question that can result in an answer that people then can go use.”

This sentiment was also shared by Healy when discussing how some New York Times readers wanted reporters to push back against President Trump more. “Some of our readers want us to go into the Oval Office and just speak truth to power,” he said. “Just give speeches, get in his face, call him adjectives, or adverbs that would make some of our readers feel good. That is not our role. Our job is to ask questions.”

Subscribe now

Democratic nominee for governor David Crowley supports granting in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants. This harmful and expensive policy would allow people in the country unlawfully to reap the same benefits as hardworking, taxpaying Wisconsinites. By giving special advantages to foreigners that law-abiding U.S. citizens do not have, this policy would put Wisconsin last.

During a gubernatorial primary debate on June 22, Crowley indicated his support for providing in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, alongside Francesca Hong and the other Democratic candidates. Under current University of Wisconsin residency guidance, no undocumented student or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients may receive in-state tuition or financial assistance to attend a public university in the state.

This issue highlights the difference between the gubernatorial candidates’ visions for the state: While Republican nominee Tom Tiffany has maintained a Wisconsin-first stance, Crowley has done the opposite.

“Wisconsin taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize in-state tuition for people who are in this country illegally,” Tiffany said in a statement to The Madison Federalist. “Crowley’s position is another example of putting benefits for illegal immigrants ahead of the taxpayers who are footing the bill. As governor, I will oppose efforts to provide taxpayer-subsidized in-state tuition to illegal immigrants and work to ensure Wisconsin’s higher education system puts Wisconsin students and taxpayers first.”

A spokesman for Crowley’s campaign did not return a request for comment from The Federalist.

State taxes made up around 17 percent of the operating budget for the Universities of Wisconsin, and federal grants made up around 20 percent in the 2024-25 year . Undocumented immigrants should not be receiving the same privileges, including a discounted educational system, that legal Wisconsin and U.S. citizens are subsidizing.

Governor Tony Evers’s 2019 budget proposal included in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. This was eventually killed by the legislature. Illegal immigrants and DACA recipients were barred from receiving in-state college tuition by a bill signed in 2011 by former governor Scott Walker. This reversed a short-lived policy from the 2009-2011 biennial budget that granted in-state tuition to illegal immigrants who had graduated from a Wisconsin high school, lived in the state for three years, and filed an affidavit promising to apply for a permanent resident visa as soon as they became eligible to do so.

Proponents of granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants argue that because they have lived in our state for a majority of their lives, they should be granted the same privileges. However, this only incentivizes breaking the law and would potentially encourage more illegal migration to Wisconsin with the promise of a cheap education.

The U.S. Department of Justice argues that such policies violate federal law, and attempts by other states to grant undocumented immigrants in-state tuition have already been challenged by the DOJ. The DOJ has had wins overturning state laws that gave in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants in the district courts governing Texas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Illinois.

The Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against 24 states and Washington D.C. challenging laws that provide in-state tuition and financial assistance to undocumented students. This means it has sued every jurisdiction with this type of policy. The DOJ argues that these laws conflict with Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate, who currently leads the Civil Division of the DOJ, stated that laws granting in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants in these cases are a simple matter of federal law: “Colleges cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens.”

Based on the position of the DOJ and the 1996 law, it is likely that any proposal by a potential Crowley Administration to seek a change in Wisconsin’s tuition residency law would also be challenged by the Trump Administration. If the state attorney general’s office is forced to defend these laws, it would be more taxpayer dollars wasted.

The future of Wisconsin’s higher education system will be decided on November 3. Tom Tiffany believes that the University of Wisconsin System should work to serve Wisconsinites first, while David Crowley’s support of illegal tuition equity would undoubtedly put Wisconsinites last.

Subscribe now

Professor Paul Carrese delivered a lecture on September 14 titled “The Constitution, Civic Education and Reflective Patriotism.” Carrese is the founding director of the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University. He recently published the book “Teaching America,” elaborating on the themes in his lecture.

Carrese’s Constitution Day lecture was the first in the Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy’s Civic Virtue Lecture Series. Law professor Cecelia Klingele introduced Carrese, noting that “days after commemorating the 25th anniversary of the event of 9/11, it seems … fitting that we begin this series with a discussion of a virtue that was on play in the weeks and months following the tragic events” of that day.

Carrese began his lecture by observing that the political culture of the country is not healthy, torn between extremes of “regularly violent political speech and political anger” and “civic apathy or civic disaffection”. He suggested that universities “should consider at this moment whether we are failing at civic education and citizenship education” which may be a cause of the rise of these harmful attitudes.

He observed that Constitution Day was instituted in 2004, after an awareness developed that the civic unity engendered by 9/11 was “cracking and deteriorating”. That trend, he noted, has only continued in the years since, “especially among Americans 35 and under”, citing a 2022 Quinnipiac poll indicating that 55 percent of people aged 18-34 would rather not “stay and fight” for the American homeland if it were invaded. He referenced a 2025 Gallup poll as evidence that among all age groups there has been a decline in patriotism.

Carrese suggested that academics in higher education should not disclaim responsibility for contributing to the increase in both violence and apathy and should work to remedy their causes. Carrese explained that the prevalent view in “research university culture” is that mere education about, “let alone encouragement” of civic attitudes is considered to be “indoctrination”.

Carrese indicated that this is potentially a serious problem because if the attitudes have “shifted in higher education, all of the teachers, no matter what subject … all the teachers and any school, as well as the principal as well as the board members” will adopt such attitudes. A shift in the educational institutions, he argued, is evidenced by “our declining, deteriorating specific culture” in the United States.

The remedy for these problems, Carrese proposed, was a proper educational program to address the “deficit of knowledge among younger Americans”. For him, it is a cornerstone of restoring the “civic virtue of reflective patriotism, American patriotism” which has, perhaps, been adversely affected by the “academic neglect of or even undermining” of it.

Carrese argued that because the Constitution sets up a complex structure and a republican form of government it “implicitly calls for a citizenship education in this kind of knowledge of virtues”. Alongside “reflective patriotism,” it includes the virtues of “civic friendship across … party policy”. Indeed, the separation of powers, as it “prompts argument within and across separate institutions” itself “implicitly calls for civic friendship” so that disagreements might be amicably processed and resolved.

The civic virtues of reflective patriotism and civic friendship, according to Carrese, must be paired with “civic education”. Carrese emphasized that the founding fathers “wrote regularly about the importance of educating the citizenry” in the principles underpinning the then new Republic. Carrese noted that George Washington, in both his first and his final annual messages, himself articulated the importance of civic education for the future of the nation.

“Our poor state in civic knowledge”, Carrese said, “calls for [the] University of Wisconsin-Madison and other leading universities and colleges to recover this kind of wisdom again”. Carrese suggested that it is necessary to “learn to disagree constructively and yet maintain civil bonds across deep differences”.

Carrese acknowledged that the picture he painted of America might seem bleak, but “to avoid despair” or even a “naïve optimism” the virtue of “civic hope in America” was required. Nevertheless, he said that it is difficult to rebuild.

He suggested that among the “glitters of hope” is the fact that several universities are undertaking projects to promote civic education, noting that the project he led at Arizona State University will celebrate its 10th anniversary this academic year. That type of project, he observed, “has spread to 13 states, 18 public university campuses”.

Carrese concluded by calling on the audience to exercise civic hope in America and to participate in the project to rebuild the virtues of reflective patriotism and civic friendship.

Subscribe now

This article was originally published by The College Fix.

A University of Wisconsin-Madison group focused on “sex-positive education and activism” could receive more than $130,000 in mandatory fees from the student government.

The Associated Students of Madison Student Services Finance Committee allocated $132,991 for the club’s operations in the 2026-27 academic year. Nearly $95,000 of this year’s funding was allocated for salaried positions within Sex Out Loud. “Supplies” accounted for more than $22,000.

Planned events for this current school year include “Condoms and Candy” and “National Condom Week.” The data come from publicly available student government records.

Student government press director Drew Wesson told The College Fix he “sent a request for information out to others” for further information in the past several days, but he ultimately did not provide further comments.

The group has a history of hosting erotic events and using student fees to purchase sex toys.

Events hosted by Sex Out Loud last year included a burlesque performance, an HIV bootcamp, “Sex Jeopardy,” “Sexy Bingo,” and “Drag Bingo.”

For “Kinky November,” the organization hosted a “Kink Advocate Talk,” “Paddle Painting,” and “Rope Tying.” For “National Condom Week,” the group hosted events such as “Yoga for Better Sex” and “Queer Speed Friending.” It also hosted a lecture called “Sex After Dark” that was sponsored by sex toy company Lovense.

Sex toys are frequently listed as prizes for their game-style events, but program coordinator Evan Loftus told The College Fix no student fees were used to purchase sex toys. The group has, however, purchased sex toys with student fees in the past, and the homepage of its website features a row of dildos.

Sex Out Loud “did spend money on condoms and other contraceptive barriers, but no money was spent on emergency contraceptives,” he told The College Fix in an emailed statement. His group did not receive any donations from Planned Parenthood last year, but it has collaborated with the organization. Plan B was provided by Planned Parenthood in the previous academic year.

Members of Sex Out Loud wrote a column called “Hump Day” for the Badger Herald, a progressive campus newspaper. The club publishes an annual zine that contains erotic poetry and artwork for students. The 2024-25 issue was titled “F*ck Me” and contained numerous graphic sexual drawings. While the group announced a 2025-26 zine and collected submissions, it has not yet been published. Loftus confirmed it eventually will be.

Students at UW-Madison can request short courses taught by peer facilitators. One course explores “masturbation techniques” and seeks to “normalize self-stimulation.” Another one teaches about “sex toys and how to use them.” Other courses explore topics including BDSM, “birth justice,” “reproductive justice,” “ethical porn,” and “sexual accommodations” for disabled people.

Students can request “sex supplies” including glow in the dark condoms, anal lube, a “Slippery Stuff Pillow,” nitrile gloves, and dental dams. They can also order UTI tests, pregnancy tests, and Plan B from an online order form.

While sex and abortion are two of the club’s main causes, it has other interests that are not as clearly connected.

It endorsed a student government resolution that called on the university to divest from companies that do business with Israel in March. “As a sex-positive student organization, one of our core values is social justice,” read the organization’s statement. “We cannot truly celebrate autonomy, empowerment, and equity until we can achieve the collective liberation of ALL people.”

UW-Madison University Health Services “has maintained a longstanding advising relationship” with Sex Out Loud, campus spokesman John Lucas told The College Fix. UHS “manages the sexual health clinic and prevention services for campus” and has partnered with SOL as recently as April. Sex Out Loud is listed as a campus resource for obtaining “safer sex supplies” in SexWIse, the university’s sex education program for first-year students.

ASM allocated funding to 18 student organizations for the academic year. The only student organization that received more funding than Sex Out Loud was Badger Supports, which hosts peer support groups and mental health awareness events. It was allocated $140,134.

The Black Power Coalition received about $19,000; the Latine Student Union received $62,000; the Black Student Union received $68,000; the Muslim Student Association received $40,000; Animal Advocacy received $32,000; Badger Catholic received $73,000. Other organizations that received funding include the Formula SAE racing team, the Student Voters Union, and NeuroPride.

Funding must be viewpoint-neutral, expert says

This funding came from the General Student Services Fund, which is supported by mandatory student segregated fees. ASM was limited in its funding discretion because decisions must be made in a viewpoint neutral manner.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia “says that a pool of money set aside by the government for the purpose of supporting private expression” is “a limited forum,” UW-Madison political science professor Howard Schweber told The Fix.

This means that the student government can restrict the type of content or people eligible for funding, but not which viewpoints are eligible.

“The government (UW) arranges for the collection of money to be independently administered (so not government speech) for the purpose of supporting expressive activities (student orgs),” Schweber said in an email. “In that situation there can be personnel restrictions (‘student orgs’ have to involve students) and content restrictions (there could be a rule saying only political or only educational orgs will be supported) but not viewpoint.”

While ASM can have rules for administering grants, “They can’t contradict the basic principles of a limited forum: once an org is eligible, it cannot be denied a grant because of its viewpoint.”

If a student organization believes a funding decision was not made in a viewpoint-neutral manner, it can appeal to the university chancellor. According to Lucas, “The chancellor and Universities of Wisconsin have authority to override ASM funding decisions, typically only in cases that violate applicable policies or statutes.”

Schweber noted, however, “In practice, to show discrimination at either stage is a very fact-intensive process unless you have an ASM official publicly saying ‘I won’t vote in favor of this grant because it’s from a group of liberals and I hate liberals.’”

Sex Out Loud’s funding was slightly less than the $135,706 allocated in the 2026-26 academic year. According to an earlier analysis by The Fix, SOL has received more than $1.1 million in student fees since 2014.

Subscribe now

American physicist Neal Lane delivered a lecture titled “Lessons from Physics, Academia and Washington - Can We Save Science?” on September 4 at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Lane, who served as director of the National Science Foundation and science advisor to President Bill Clinton, discussed his career as a physicist, researcher, administrator, and civil servant. He talked about how his time at the NSF and the White House affected his views on science and academia as they are treated today.

Lane began his talk by discussing the early career of his good friend, colleague, and mentor, Chun Lin. Lin taught physics at the University of Oklahoma, where he met Lane.

Lane described his early career, including earning his master’s and PhD, working as an assistant professor at Rice University, and eventually moving into administration before becoming director of the NSF in 1993.

While at the NSF, he most notably got to speak with Al Gore and Newt Gingrich, along with other top members of the political sphere. He spent much of his time at the foundation overseeing their move to a new building and learning about the people in the political sphere who funded the NSF and the universities as a whole.

Lane described a number of projects he directed, such as resolving several funding issues for major projects that were already underway and helping to secure funding for a project between Caltech, MIT, and the government. After some upgrades, it eventually detected the first merger of two black holes and continues to provide major scientific data. Lane also secured funding to refurbish the Amundsen-Scott Research Station to its current form, which is still in use today.

He then discussed his time working in the White House as Clinton’s science advisor and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in 1998. Lane remarked on a number of personal stories during his time in the White House and the political turmoil that the president’s impeachment caused. Lane continued advocating for more funding and attention to the sciences, especially the material sciences, which he believed had been long neglected.

Lane said the most important project during his tenure as science advisor was the launch of the first module of the International Space Station, which required convincing senators to work with the Russian government. With political support from the White House, this was eventually achieved and began one of humanity’s most impressive engineering and scientific achievements.

Lane also discussed work on the Human Genome Project and the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which, as he believed, were far easier to convince senators to support, with promises of scientific breakthroughs and more easily understood benefits for the people and businesses of America.

Lane talked about the state of the NSF, science, and academia during the current political climate and administration. Lane gave an example of the politicization of science, explaining a current issue being debated in the legislature that research should not just undergo peer review but also political review. Lane said this would effectively hand research power to Congress and make it something that could be exploited and forcefully guided for personal interest rather than developing more naturally under researchers in the field. He believed that this would put the future of academic-led research in jeopardy.

Lane discussed the current science advisor, Michael Kratsios, and his new report that was released, titled “Science: A New Golden Age.” Kratsios, unlike many of his predecessors, had little background in the key areas of science, technology, and research that typically characterize the role. However, Lane acknowledged he had some experience in related fields.

Lane addressed Kratsios’ report, which he explained was related to a very similar document titled “Science: The Endless Frontier” by Vannevar Bush, who was the first science advisor to the president. The document acknowledges problems in the direction science has taken in the United States and attempts to help improve the organization.

After his talk, Lane answered a few questions and offered suggestions to the faculty and graduate students present. He explained that the scientific community needed to do more than explain its research in ways the public could understand; it needed to show the benefits independent academic research has provided for the U.S.

He answered a question about the decline of DEI and related initiatives in the scientific fields, saying, “I was stunned that they were able to push that so fast, with no pushback … and I think it’s because they are all afraid. Or maybe more people disagree about what’s been done to diversify the science workforce.”

Lane concluded by calling on the audience and telling them they can make a difference by standing up and fighting for the independence of science in the current political climate.

Subscribe now

The Wisconsin Welcome is an annual celebration for new students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It usually consists of events such as the Sunburst Festival, the Bakke Block Party, and the W Project.

This year, it included a “Drag Brunch Bingo” hosted by the Office of Student Transition and Family Engagement and the Gender and Sexuality Campus Center.

The unconventional bingo game, which featured provocative performances and mocked Christianity, was held on Sunday, September 6 in Memorial Union. The poster advertised four drag queens featured in the event: Cowphusia Mylkhymn, Malaiya Marvel, Krystal Kuttabish, and Cynthia Mooseknuckle.

Caitlyn LoMonte, Gender and Sexuality Campus Center Director for Student Success, Education and Dialogue, gave an opening presentation on drag. The slides displayed definitions such as “drag queen,” “drag king,” and “drag pageant.”

One slide LoMonte presented listed rules and “drag etiquette” for the event. The first bullet point said to “leave your assumptions at the door” because “drag is all about challenging norms and expectations.” Another rule said, “Tipping can be one way to show appreciation and is a popular custom at drag shows.”

One drag queen repeatedly called an audience member a “twink” and joked that the game was “good Christian bingo with good Christian values.”

The drag queen also told the players to scream bingo “like you’re faking something.” A pride flag was the prize for round one.

The second round was the “tops and bottoms” round. The drag queen joked that all the men are “bottoms” in Madison.

Throughout the game, drag queens would perform by walking through the tables to dance and collect tips from the clapping bingo players.

“Wisconsin Welcome is a multi-week celebration that offers first-year and transfer students more than 400 events to discover Madison, meet fellow Badgers, and to find their campus community,” UW-Madison public affairs director Gillian Drummond said in a statement to The Madison Federalist.

“Events are organized and funded by various campus departments, student organizations, and community organizations.”

She did not answer what the decision process was for making “Drag Queen Bingo” a Wisconsin Welcome event or specifically how it was funded.

The Office of Student Transition and Family Engagement organizes new student orientation and the Wisconsin Welcome.

The Gender and Sexuality Campus Center co-sponsored the event and had a table set up to give away stickers, pamphlets and pens.

The GSCC says it envisions a university “that actively addresses oppression in all its forms and affirms, includes, and celebrates people across the spectrum of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation, including their intersectional experiences and perspectives.”

The GSCC website has a map of all-gender restrooms on the UW-Madison campus, a “Pronouns Matter Page,” and material for students who are seeking a gender and name change.

The GSCC hosted many LGBTQ events last year, such as activities for National Coming Out Day on Oct. 11. This event was open to students and staff to create friendship bracelets and other art projects.

One GSCC employee said that “in the midst of anti-trans rhetoric maintaining purchase on national platforms, we know that building community power is more important than ever.”

Another event hosted by the GSCC last December was the Trans Monologues and Talent Showcase. This event showcased “poets, musicians, and a monologist” to perform for International Transgender Day of Remembrance.

UW-Madison students, staff and faculty can request trainings from the GSCC on topics such as “LGBTQ+ inclusion and intervention” and “Trans Health and Clinical Practice.”

Until shortly after the publication of this article, the GSCC Linktree listed a section of “Sex Worker Resources.” It included links such as “Sex Work and Queer Politics in Three Acts” and “Unpacking harmful myths around sex work.”

LoMonte is also the Director of Education and Dialogue in the UW-Madison Office of Inclusion Education. This office was founded in 2020 to “centralize and expand diversity, inclusion, and social justice education efforts within Student Affairs.”

While UW-Madison dissolved its central DEI division in 2025, it has maintained DEI practices and offices on campus. The Office of Inclusion Education has events planned throughout the upcoming semester.

Editor’s note: This article was updated because the Gender and Sexuality Campus Center removed a “Sex Worker Resources” section from its Linktree after publication.

Subscribe now

A group of students gathered on the evening of September 10 to commemorate the life of Charlie Kirk, who had been assassinated exactly one year earlier.

While the vigil on Library Mall was a somber occasion, student messages on YikYak were a different story. The anonymous messaging app, which requires a wisc.edu email address to register, was the site of numerous posts joking about the “Kirkaversary.”

The vigil was attended by about seventeen students. Two university administrators stood a few feet from the group as the memorial took place. The memorial lasted for about fifteen minutes and was led by the president of Turning Point USA UW-Madison, Zach Tomlinson. The vigil included a speech about Kirk’s legacy, a short prayer, and a moment of silence for the life of Charlie Kirk.

“This event is important because it honors Charlie, as a father, a son, a husband and most importantly a servant of God,” Tomlinson told The Federalist. “Charlie was an avid Christian and God has such a special place for him. This event not only honors his memory but is to make sure nobody forgets the impact Charlie had on this world.”

Kirk was a conservative political activist who founded the organization Turning Point USA. He was one of the most influential political leaders in the country.

On September 10, 2025, Kirk was assassinated during a public event at Utah Valley University. Tyler Robinson was arrested and charged with murder for the shooting.

Tomlinson’s speech covered Kirk’s life by recognizing him as a father and thought leader dedicated to challenging people’s beliefs through open debate. He encouraged attendees to carry on Kirk’s work by themselves, unapologetically sharing their beliefs on campus, and ended the speech with a call for an end to all forms of political violence.

“It’s really important we remember Charlie Kirk’s legacy,” said Jenna Lawrence, co-president of the College Republicans of UW-Madison, in a statement to The Madison Federalist. “He did a lot for the conservative movement, and changed how we view free speech on college campuses. Just because he’s done, doesn’t mean his ideas won’t carry on.”

Kirk visited the University of Wisconsin-Madison on multiple occasions, including twice in 2024. According to President Donald Trump’s speech at his memorial service, the “very liberal” UW-Madison was the first campus Kirk tabled at.

On the day of his death, multiple chalk messages were written on or near campus celebrating. In a video posted by the Badger Herald, students suggested they were happy Kirk was dead.

While the students on Library Mall commemorated Kirk’s life with prayer and reflection, students on YikYak celebrated his death.

At least one in-person celebration was held in Witte Residence Hall. The Federalist reviewed multiple videos of the party, but declined to publish them. In one video, about two dozen students were dancing to the AI-generated song “We Are Charlie Kirk.” In another, the students played music as they walked down a hallway. In a final video, a student held up a speaker while playing music in an elevator as the students sang along.

One post suggested that there would be a Charlie Kirk “lookalike” contest on the Terrace at Memorial Union. A follow up post said “we should mock shooting the winner in the neck […] i just want it to be really clear what i’m celebrating.”

Another post said “Scheduled my abortion on the kirkiversary #twobirdsonestone.”

One anonymous student said there would be a “9/11 afterparty” after the clock struck midnight.

One poster suggested that he may be “too woke” because he thought the jokes about “kirkiversary” are “just immortalizing the guy.” He wondered, “why are we allowing a white supremacist to be remembered.”

One asked, “Will you be my kirkentine?” Another asked, “are we twerking for Kirk?”

“No matter if you disagreed with him or if you truly hated him, murder is never something that should be celebrated,” Tomlinson said in response to the viral posts on YikYak. “Think about Charlie’s family today who mourns the loss of him. The murder of any human being is a tragedy. I hope today the people considering making this a day of mockery will take a step back and think about the human life that was lost a year ago today.”

A collection of some of the YikYak posts are below:

Zach Tomlinson is the president of Turning Point USA at UW-Madison.

The day following Charlie Kirk’s assassination, I was on my way to class when I looked at the ground on State Street. Written in chalk were messages of hatred rejoicing over his assassination. “Charlie Kirk is Dead,” read one. Another compared him to Hitler. I couldn’t believe what I was reading. His murder was an attack on both the freedom of speech and the freedom of thought. What struck me most was not that people had written that Kirk was dead, but that they were actually celebrating it. The question for me became: Why?

At the age of 18, Kirk picked up a card table, a chair, and a piece of cardboard on which he would write “Prove Me Wrong” about numerous political topics. A kid fresh out of high school, he debated people on the street about any idea he thought was worth discussing. He certainly had plenty of jokes and sarcastic remarks while debating, but no matter what, he would always allow the person speaking to be heard and respected. Kirk stood for the freedom of speech, but also the freedom of ideological exploration. He searched for the truth in everything. Open debate was his platform to do that.

The first college Kirk tabled at was the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It was the first time he invited any person passing by to talk with him. College is supposed to be a place where students encounter new ideas, challenge those ideas, and potentially change their minds. Kirk opened these doors for so many through his willingness to allow others to be heard, regardless of their beliefs.

The United States was founded on these principles: the idea that no matter what you believe, your voice matters and has a right to be respectfully expressed. But how are those foundational principles affected when someone is murdered for simply expressing their opinion? Furthermore, how much more extreme is that effect when students and professors are celebrating the death of a loving husband, son, and father of two children? Is the idea of “Prove Me Wrong” so powerful that it should cost you your life? Thought and debate should result in reflection, not violence, regardless of whether you like the message or not.

As a student at UW-Madison, there are many opportunities to get involved in clubs, organizations, and classes that allow you to pursue what you believe in. The beauty of the United States is that you are free to do that, no matter your beliefs. You can have open discussions with fellow students. You can start clubs for a topic you are passionate about. The opportunities are truly endless.

But the freedom to explore ideas can only exist if we are willing to allow people we disagree with to express their ideas as well, without screaming or violence.

It is easy to extend free speech to people who share your beliefs, but the difficulty comes when you disagree with someone. Liberty isn’t attacked because of more ideas; it is attacked through attempts to silence dissent. When people attempt to shut down others with ridicule, hatred, and bullets, that is when freedom is attacked. That is the danger to free thought. Political disagreement is intense. It should not, however, be dangerous on a college campus.

I am not arguing that Kirk was right about everything. I am not telling you to admire him. I am arguing that all people are entitled to an opinion and to be heard safely, whether you like it or not. College exposes us to many ideas, and you have the privilege to either agree or disagree with those ideas. No matter what side of the aisle you are on, you have a voice, and that shouldn’t ever be infringed upon — especially through violence.

You should be able to sit down with and have a discussion with the people you disagree with, not meet them with anger and hatred. Disagreement should bring conversations, not silence or anger. As the Turning Point USA president at UW-Madison, I strive to bring people from all walks of life together to respectfully share their views.

Kirk’s movement was based on the ability to have respectful conversations and debate. “Prove Me Wrong” wasn’t an attack; it was an invitation. An invitation to dissent respectfully. An invitation to explore ideas and discover the truth.

Regardless of the motivation behind the assassination of Kirk, violence became the ultimate rejection of debate and disagreement. Instead of having a conversation, violence silenced a voice and ended a life.

The messages written after Kirk was assassinated should be concerning to all students at UW-Madison and throughout the country. All life is valuable, and in the United States, you have the freedom to believe what you want. No matter what creed you live by or who you disagree with, have that discussion just as Kirk did.

The chalk on State Street has been washed away, but the question it provoked remains: Can we disagree without hating each other? Can we challenge ideas without attacking the people who hold them? Charlie Kirk spent his life asking people to prove him wrong. Perhaps that is something every college student should be willing to do.

Subscribe now

READ MORE:

MAKING SENSE OF CHARLIE KIRK

WISCONSIN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS CALLS ON UW SYSTEM TO CONDEMN CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION

UW-MADISON MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS DATA SHOW RACIAL DISPARITIES

Black and Hispanic applicants faced better odds of being admitted to the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in the 2025 admission cycle than did White or Asian applicants with the same MCAT score and GPA, according to the university’s own data.

Among applicants with the same admission test scores and grade point averages, a Hispanic or Black applicant had nearly 4 times the odds of admission of an Asian applicant.

The data provide evidence that some racial and ethnic groups may be favored in the admissions process, and follow earlier results branded as “brazen” by anti-discrimination activists.

On their own, however, the data do not establish discrimination. Because the school uses a holistic approach in admissions, the disparities could result from other factors, such as life experiences, essays, and letters of recommendation. Furthermore, the dataset does not identify admissions pathways or pipeline programs, such as dual degrees or the Wisconsin Academy for Rural Medicine. These have materially different criteria for admission.

“Our admission process reviews every aspect of an application with the strength of academic preparation key to determining an applicant’s likelihood of success,” university spokesman John Lucas told The Madison Federalist. “Students are admitted on the basis of their likelihood to succeed throughout the rigorous course of study in UWSMPH programs.”

He said that “admission standards fully comply with the law” and “no student is admitted on the basis of their race/ethnicity/identity.” He did not answer whether the admissions process changed in any way between the 2025 and 2026 admissions cycles.

University admissions have come under heightened scrutiny in the wake of a 2023 Supreme Court decision barring universities from using race as an admissions factor.

The medical school’s admissions data were received in August in response to a December 2025 open records request. The data categorizes applicants as “admitted,” “matriculate,” “denied,” and “waitlisted.” This analysis counts “matriculate” and “admitted” toward acceptance.

The table below shows the overall acceptance rates for Asian, White, Black, and Hispanic applicants. It also contains the mean Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores and GPAs of the admitted applicants for each group. The acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants is more than double that of Asian applicants.

The differences widen among out-of-state admissions, which are more competitive. While the total acceptance rate for in-state applicants is 22 percent, the total acceptance rate for out-of-state applicants is 1.8 percent — making Wisconsin residency a far greater indicator of admission odds than ethnicity.

There were fewer than a dozen applications from those of Native American ancestry and no admissions.

While the raw acceptance rates show a sizable difference, the average MCAT scores and GPAs do not tell us how the odds of admission differ for applicants with the same scores. Regression analysis, however, allows such a comparison, revealing that, among applicants with the same MCAT scores and GPAs, a Hispanic applicant had 3.5 times the odds of admission of an Asian applicant. A Black applicant had 3.7 times the odds.

When residency is also factored in, the disparity actually grows higher. Both Black and Hispanic applicants had about 4 times the odds of admission of Asian applicants.

Among out-of-state applicants, a Hispanic applicant had 6.8 times the odds of admission of an Asian applicant with the same GPA and MCAT. A Black applicant had 6 times the odds.

White and Asian applicants were statistically indistinguishable in the same model.

When looking only at in-state applicants, a Hispanic applicant has about 1.4 times the odds of admission of an Asian applicant with the same GPA and MCAT. A Black applicant has more than 2 times the odds. Notably, the in-state findings were not statistically significant. The in-state sample was much smaller, so the estimates are imprecise.

Disparities in admissions also showed up in the 2024 application cycle. According to a study by Do No Harm, a group opposed to identity politics in medicine, UW-Madison was identified as “particularly brazen in efforts to reward black candidates and punish Asian candidates” when compared to other medical schools. In that year, the average MCAT scores of rejected Asian and White applicants were higher than the scores of accepted Black applicants.

Former chancellor Jennifer Mnookin discussed the report with The Madison Federalist in November, saying that since the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, “the university has reviewed and revised admissions policies in accordance with the guidelines, and we certainly expect all of our schools, including SMPH, to abide by the legal standards not to consider race directly in the course of their admissions.” She said, “I know this is something that the new dean of the medical school is paying close attention to and assessing.”

After the Students for Fair Admissions ruling, UW-Madison announced it would review its admissions practices. Universities cannot directly consider race or use a proxy for race when making admissions decisions.

In its biennial report to the state legislature in 2024, the medical school said it “maintains compliance with all state and federal legislation,” including Students for Fair Admissions. It said it “has reviewed questions in the application process to ensure compliance while continuing to align with the mission and vision of the school and University.”

Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, many schools have been subject to civil rights investigations by the Education and Justice departments due to race-based practices in their admissions. The Department of Justice found that multiple University of California medical schools violated civil rights laws by intentionally using race in their admissions decisions. In July, the Education Department announced it was investigating five medical schools for race-based admissions practices.

In June, the DOJ announced an investigation into 15 unnamed medical schools. UW-Madison did not answer whether the school was under investigation, and the DOJ declined to comment.

Subscribe now

Politics can be a divisive subject for college students, but some believe that sharing a meal around the dinner table can provide an environment for productive conversation.

The Deliberation Dinners program engages undergraduate students at UW-Madison in discussion about controversial political issues throughout the school year.

Over the course of six dinners, one each month from October to March, students have a chance to expand their knowledge of politics and discussion skills, especially with people with whom they may disagree.

The Deliberation Dinners were developed by The Discussion Project, a UW-Madison program dedicated to training university instructors to initiate meaningful discussion in the classroom. The Deliberation Dinners program was first founded in 2023 by Diana Hess, dean emerita of the School of Education and the principal investigator of The Discussion Project.

Last year, 365 undergraduate students participated in the dinners, according to the annual summary. This year the program plans to host a similar number of students, and in the future, they hope for up to 500 students.

Sarah Bendorf, a sophomore studying accounting at the Wisconsin School of Business, has been involved with the Deliberation Dinners for one year.

“I really did enjoy each of the dinners and left them feeling empowered because I knew my voice was heard,” Bendorf told The Madison Federalist via phone call. “Everyone was just really welcoming and understanding.”

She first applied to the Deliberation Dinners after receiving an email about the program because she wanted to meet more people during her freshman year.

Applications for the 2026-2027 dinners opened August 24, according to Akshay Manna, a student assistant with the Deliberation Dinners program. Students who apply will provide demographic information and take the Political Typology Quiz from the Pew Research Center to categorize them into one of the nine political types, which include “conservatives,” “moderates,” and “liberals.”

This anonymous information is used to ensure each table of 10 to 12 students has diverse beliefs for a stronger discussion. “It’s really important to us that at each table there is political diversity and diversity of ideas and opinions represented,” Manna said.

Bendorf said she leans more conservative in her political beliefs. “Coming into the situation, I knew that there wasn’t going to be a lot of people that agreed with me on everything I said, but what I learned through these dinners is that even people that aligned, at the same level of the spectrum, when they took that survey, even they didn’t agree,” she said.

After accepted students are placed into a group, they are matched with a trained UW-Madison instructor who acts as the facilitator for each table. This approach is what sets the Deliberation Dinners apart from other national small groups that discuss political issues: They are intentional about incorporating political diversity at each table and ensuring a trained facilitator is present.

Students remain with the same group and facilitator for all six dinners to help foster relationships. “As the time went on, we all got really close,” Bendorf said about her group. “We were able to talk more freely. We would see each other outside of these dinners and be friends and have fun, so that was a cool experience for me.”

Along with the students in the program, there are 36 facilitators who go through training from The Discussion Project to be able to moderate and engage discussion on controversial issues. The facilitators represent seven different schools and colleges within UW-Madison.

Ajay Sethi, a professor of Population Health Sciences, has been involved as a facilitator of the Deliberation Dinners for the past two years. This fall will be his third year.

In a statement to The Federalist, Sethi described how the dinners impact both him and the students at his table. “After each dinner and before I go to bed, I reflect on the conversation and deliberation skills that I tried to help students develop and think about the improvements I’ve seen and how I might guide them at the next dinner,” Sethi said.

“Other than being a guest lecturer in various classes, I don’t teach or advise undergraduates, so I’ve enjoyed serving as a facilitator and getting to know the students who have been at my table both years,” he said.

Katherine Cramer, the Virginia Sapiro Professor of Political Science at UW-Madison, was a facilitator during the program’s inaugural year and currently serves on the advisory board for the Deliberation Dinners.

“I have been enormously impressed with the wide range of opinions I have heard voiced during these discussions, the skill students have developed in asking questions of and learning from each other, and the satisfaction they have shown in discussing controversial issues in an intense and yet respectful way,” Cramer said in a statement to The Federalist.

“I am more convinced than ever that talking about public issues in a respectful and productive way is a skill that can be cultivated, that it can be enjoyable, and that students on our campus have the appetite to learn about each others’ views and have others learn about their own,” she said.

The goal of the dinners is not for all participants to come to a consensus, but rather to deliberate. “Deliberation, more specifically, is a discussion that answers the question, ‘What shall we do?’ — without requiring or seeking consensus,” according to the program’s website. “The work is in listening to understand and ensuring everyone has a voice.”

Sethi believes the dinners are “a nice opportunity to bring students together to share their own and listen to others’ perspectives on a variety of subjects.”

“One time, I asked students to visualize deliberation, as opposed to debate, as a conversation occurring between people who have different perspectives but are on the same team,” he said. “I asked them to think about how talking to their own teammates might sound and feel different from talking to members of a different team.”

Similarly, Cramer said the Deliberation Dinners “provide an opportunity for students on our campus to develop skills to encounter and reflect on a wide variety of perspectives on important public issues, learn more deeply about those issues, and clarify their own beliefs and stances on those topics.”

To help students prepare for each dinner, they are provided with 15 to 20 pages of background reading on the topic. The program has a writer who drafts and revises the reading before sending it to experts on campus and then to interest groups.

The background reading for the abortion topic was sent to Planned Parenthood and the Wisconsin Right to Life to get comments from both sides so there is “equal footing with information,” according to Lynn Glueck, the program director of the Deliberation Dinners. Then the background reading is revised and sent to the students to prepare for the dinner.

“I’ve appreciated the neutrality and educational value of the reading materials that are created for each deliberation,” Sethi said. “They’ve always included some content or perspectives that are not top of mind. Listening to students and how they think (and how they think about thinking) has been wonderful.”

Sethi said facilitators meet before and after the dinners to brainstorm how to help students improve their “deliberation skills.” Facilitators are given the years and majors of the students at their tables to help them “learn about any perspectives and opinions they may have on various topics we discuss.”

Sethi and Cramer both noticed growth with the participating students throughout the course of the program.

“Some start out as better listeners than others. Some more naturally lead with curiosity while others improve that skill over time,” Sethi said. “Some have a harder time distinguishing deliberation from debate at the beginning. In both years I’ve participated, I’ve noticed growth and improvement among the students assigned to my tables who make it to the majority or all of the dinners.”

Cramer also noted the evolution she saw in her students. “I observed the students at my table evolve from strangers with each other, to students who were slightly wary of each others’ views, to inquisitive discussion participants, to friends who were deeply respectful of each other and proud of the fact that they had developed that mutual respect,” she said.

Bendorf also recounted her experience as a student during the dinners. “The first few meals were difficult just because we were a new group of people talking about a lot of personal experiences,” she said.

“It’s just kind of cool to see that and see how I don’t have to be one-sided all the time, and I could ebb and flow and have varying ideas and positions on certain topics,” she said.

Professor Aja Watkins, assistant professor of philosophy at UW-Madison, was the facilitator at Bendorf’s table. “She was really great at leading our discussions and sort of helping us all make sure our voices were heard,” she said.

Monet Walvoort is another student who participated in the Deliberation Dinners program this past year. Walvoort is a sophomore studying Elementary Education at UW-Madison.

In a statement to The Federalist, she said that “the atmosphere was comfortable and inviting, which made it easy to converse with other students and share my opinion.”

Although Walvoort said attending the Deliberation Dinners was out of character for her, she “felt enriched with knowledge and community” and wants “to continue attending over the next few years.”

Each of the issues for the six dinners will be released monthly, and over the course of the program, the issues become even more “contentious,” according to the Deliberation Dinners program. The political issues must be salient, have political authenticity, and must be open-ended with several perspectives.

The first dinner will begin this October with a topic related to voter identification requirements. Some of last year’s issues included marijuana legalization, gun regulations, abortion policies, and U.S. immigration criteria.

During the discussions, Bendorf said “there’s a lot of compromise that is willing to be made.”

After disagreements on these issues, Bendorf said she received the most “thank yous” after the dinner. “People making comments, like, ‘Hey, you had a really good point there and it made me see things in a way I’ve never seen it before,’” she said.

Walvoort similarly believes the dinners encouraged her to put herself in other’s shoes and have a better understanding of “where someone might be coming from” when discussing opposing views. “It is a skill often overlooked, as a lot of times people see empathy and understanding as a weakness rather than a tool for collaboration and peace,” Walvoort said.

Bendorf was also able to use information she learned from the dinners in other situations. “I would go around campus, I would see sort of the same similar discussions show up in other spaces, even less formally. I would be able to use facts that another table mate would share during one of the dinners and bring it to this discussion, which was kind of cool because you’re just expanding your source of knowledge and being able to look from different points of view,” she said.

“I have a lot of respect for the people around me, a lot of respect for the people that put this on and were in charge, and I’m really grateful that I was able to have this experience,” Bendorf said.

Since the beginning of the Deliberation Dinners in 2023, the Wisconsin Evaluation Collaborative has conducted independent evaluations of the program. The program’s effectiveness is measured through student pre- and post-program surveys and post surveys for the facilitators, according to the Deliberation Dinners program. After each dinner, students must also complete an exit ticket survey which collects feedback to improve the experience and assess what the students learned.

Walvoort said the program has a positive effect on campus discourse, and she “would highly recommend the program to other students who want to grow their critical thinking skills as well as their ability to openly talk to new people while considering their differing perspectives and opinions.”

“It is encouraging to know that even when your views differ from your peers, collaboration and meaningful discussion are still possible.”

Subscribe now

On July 22, Madison resident Corey Ruiz was fatally shot by a Madison police officer. The details from the incident are limited, and only shaky video footage exists. However, that has not stopped people from making claims about the shooting. For some, the video showed a man executed by police without justification. For others, it was a classic example of an officer acting in self-defense against an armed assailant.

This incident has made one thing clear: The Madison Police Department should require its officers to wear body cameras. The reality is that MPD has long wanted its officers to wear them, but Madison progressives stood in the way. That is the view of former mayor Paul Soglin, who argued that the City of Madison has failed to provide funding for body cameras because “the police want it.”

The first major push for body cameras happened after the fatal shooting of Tony Robinson by a Madison police officer in 2015. After that shooting, the Madison community was searching for answers. The public wanted to know what happened before the shooting, how the police interacted with Robinson, and if the police were ever in immediate danger. Without any body camera footage, the public was left with more questions than answers.

The police department wanted to implement cameras, but they first needed the funding. However, as public opinion was being gathered, it was clear the Madison community wasn’t in favor of body cameras. “After the information from the forums was tallied, it was indisputable, black and brown people don’t want body cameras in their communities,” said one community activist.

While progressive leaders wanted police reform, they did not think body cameras went far enough. They believed people would become complacent after minor reforms and would give up fighting for the changes many of the activist groups wanted. This ultimately led to Madison’s Community Policing and Body Camera Ad Hoc Committee voting against recommending a body camera pilot program in September 2015. “Right now we need to pay attention to the concerns of the community first. Take care of that, then possibly move forward in the future with the use of body cameras,” Committee chair Veronica Lazo said about the vote.

Another factor in the failure of body camera policies was the belief that they wouldn’t change how police acted. “The real question is who has the power to interpret the footage and frankly, who has the power to make a determination of wrongdoing?” said a leader of activist group Freedom Inc.

One of the most common concerns expressed by progressives was that the cameras would be used to surveil citizens. A 2021 feasibility study cited concerns regarding “the expansions of surveillance and intrusions upon privacy, the financial cost of BWCs and data storage, and data suggesting that BWCs expand criminalization of marginalized populations.”

Proposal after proposal to give the police department funding for body cameras failed, with the exception of a 90-day pilot program in 2024. Last November, the Madison Common Council rejected a plan to fund body cameras because it would have taken funding away from an independent office tasked with monitoring police actions. The council is now faced with a proposal to allocate $414,000 for a three year roll out program, which is long overdue.

All of this came even as the police department was open to a policy requiring officers to wear body cameras. “If the department is provided direction (and funding) to expand the use of body-worn cameras we will implement the program as effectively and efficiently as possible,” the Madison police department stated in 2018.

Since 2015, Madison has become an outlier. While Madison police do wear cameras in limited circumstances, they simply do not have the funding to implement them broadly. Almost all major police departments have instituted mandatory body cameras because they understood something the Madison community didn’t: Body cameras lead to more transparency and accountability.

Take the 2021 shooting of Ma’Khia Bryant in Columbus, Ohio. The police report stated Bryant had a knife and was attempting to stab an innocent bystander. The public was skeptical at first and many did not trust that the police report told the full story.

Protesters gathered in the streets of Columbus to protest and the situation was getting to a tipping point. However, body camera footage came out within hours, clearly showing Bryant was lunging at another person with a knife when the officer fired the first shot. The video mostly stopped the controversy before it got out of hand. It was clear to anyone who watched it that the use of force was, unfortunately, justified.

Body cameras don’t just help exonerate good cops. They also help root out bad ones. One example is the brutal beating of Tyre Nichols by Memphis Police in January 2023. The initial police report said Nichols attempted to fight the officers and even at one point tried to grab one of their guns. Like the Bryant incident, the public wasn’t convinced this is how the encounter went down, and their suspicions ended up being correct.

Body camera video didn’t substantiate the police report’s claims. Not only that, it showed the police attempting to beat Nichols multiple times while he never struck back at the cops and was even complying with their commands. After the video was released and an investigation was completed, six officers involved in the beating were fired. The footage allowed the public to understand what actually happened and ensured the blatantly false police report wouldn’t be the only side of the story heard.

Body cameras don’t just help with transparency. Some studies have also shown they can lead to a decrease in complaints over an officer’s use of force. A study performed by the Boston Police Department found there was a decrease in citizen complaints against police officers and their use of force. While there isn’t a causal relationship between body cameras and use of force, it has become evident they at least help to alleviate a lack of trust between the public and police.

Body cameras for the Madison Police Department are long overdue. There have been too many incidents of shootings where details are murky and police have to rely on evidence that lacks the conclusiveness of officer videos. There is no reason to continue holding out on small reforms solely because Madison progressives believe bigger reforms must come in the future.

Body cameras are a step in the right direction toward more public trust in law enforcement. They ensure the right information gets out so people aren’t left to make assumptions about these situations solely based on their preexisting notions about law enforcement.

Subscribe now

Federal funding for fetal tissue research was halted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison earlier this year due to updated policy guidelines from the National Institutes of Health. According to UW-Madison’s research page, NIH funds no longer permit human fetal tissue from elective abortions to be used in research. The change was effective in January 2026.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “ended the permitted use of human fetal tissue from elective abortion in agency-funded research” on January 23, 2026. This policy follows the Trump Administration’s “priorities to uphold the sanctity of human life and modernize biomedical science.”

The NIH distributes most HHS medical research funding. It has “long maintained policies governing the responsible and limited use of human fetal tissue in biomedical research” according to the press release. However, “NIH supported research using human fetal tissue has been in sharp decline since 2019.” It only supported 77 projects in fiscal year 2024.

“The science supports this shift, the ethics demand it, and we will apply this standard consistently across the Department,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said in the press release.

According to the NIH, “this policy update underscores the Administration’s commitment to scientific excellence and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”

Anita Bhattacharyya, an associate professor at UW-Madison, and her research group were affected by the NIH’s policy. “We were surprised by the ‘effective immediately’ announcement, as it gave us no time to respond and prepare,” Bhattacharyya said to The Federalist in an emailed statement.

Bhattacharyya’s research group conducted experiments using “post-mortem fetal brain tissue to understand how the brain develops differently in neurodevelopmental disorders” and “conditions that cause intellectual disability, such as Down syndrome and some genetic forms of autism.” Bhattacharyya explained that the brain forms prenatally, so this stage is when mistakes - or differences - usually occur.

Her group also identified mistakes in brain development by using human stem cells. “We need to validate that the things we see in cell culture are truly happening in the brain,” she said. “We need this comparison to be able to potentially replace the use of fetal tissue.”

The results from these experiments “have the potential to inform therapeutic strategies that can improve cognition and daily life for these individuals” and “will also provide insight into how the human brain forms.” Bhattacharyya said that this announcement only applies to NIH funding, and “it’s not a law.”

She believes the NIH should have communicated with the “scientific community” before the suspension. “Engagement with researchers in advance of policy changes helps ensure that NIH’s decisions are grounded in the latest scientific evidence and that the agency is fully informed about which lines of research may be constrained or lost due to its changes in oversight.”

Bhattacharyya has stopped receiving tissue and is not conducting research using the NIH funding.

“None of the experiments we do are illegal,” she said. Fetal tissue research continues to be “governed by a well-established ethical and legal framework that includes rigorous scientific review, robust informed consent, and prohibition of profit from tissue donation.”

The policy shift has been praised by advocates for the unborn. “Scientific research must always advance in ways that respect the inherent dignity of human life,” said John Shelton in a statement to The Madison Federalist. Shelton is the vice president of policy at Advancing American Freedom, a think tank founded by former vice president Mike Pence.

AAF has frequently criticized HHS under the second Trump administration, but Shelton said, “HHS deserves credit for barring taxpayer funding from destructive fetal tissue research and directing scientific research toward more ethical alternatives.” He believes, “The administration must do more to promote a consistent culture of life that protects both pregnant mothers and their unborn children.”

After “decades of technological advancement” there are “ethical alternatives to the continued dependence of research upon the intentional destruction of human embryos,” Shelton said. “A humane bioethics agenda would promote investment in these alternatives as a critical opportunity to protect the rigor and reputation of the scientific discipline.”

The NIH Office of Science Policy and UW-Madison administration did not respond to a request for comment from The Federalist.

Subscribe now

United Faculty and Academic Staff, the union that represents many University of Wisconsin-Madison faculty members, has endorsed state Rep. Francesca Hong for governor. Hong, a Democratic socialist who represents the 76th assembly district, is running for the Democratic nomination.

“I am incredibly honored and proud to have earned UFAS’s endorsement. This one is especially personal to me because my dad is a UFAS member,” Hong told The Madison Federalist via email. “Faculty and academic staff deserve a governor who respects their expertise, invests in the institutions they serve and stands with them in the fight for dignity and a meaningful voice at work.”

In a July 9 statement announcing its support, UFAS said Hong “will be an ally to working people in Wisconsin.” It cited her advocacy for a statewide moratorium on the construction of data centers, raising the minimum wage, and providing free health and child care as reasons for its endorsement.

UFAS also mentioned Hong’s “moral clarity” in supporting the 2024 UW-Madison encampment protesting Israeli actions in Gaza. Hong has continually been critical towards Israel, and controversially appeared on a livestream with leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker.

UW-Madison faculty and academic staff can voluntarily join UFAS, which is not formally affiliated with the university. UFAS co-president Barret Elward told The Federalist via email, “Endorsements, like any major decision undertaken by our union, are democratic (small “d”) decisions that involve all of our members.” UFAS is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, a national teachers’ union. Elward did not answer a question about what proportion of faculty and academic staff are members of UFAS.

Presumptive Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Tiffany was not surprised by the endorsement. Tiffany represents Wisconsin’s seventh congressional district.

“It’s no surprise that a faculty that directs nearly 99 percent of its political contributions to left-wing candidates and causes is endorsing the open socialist in this race,” Tiffany told The Federalist. “They’re supporting the candidate whose Marxist ideology aligns with their own and whose agenda protects the higher education bureaucracy rather than the students who are forced to pay higher tuition year after year.”

UFAS supports Hong’s proposal to repeal Act 10, a collective bargaining law passed by the Wisconsin state legislature in 2011. A Wisconsin Legislative Council memo described the legislation as “eliminating collective bargaining with respect to hours and conditions of employment for municipal employees who are not public safety employees.”

“Act 10 stripped public employees of fundamental workplace rights and weakened their ability to advocate for fair pay, benefits and working conditions,” Hong told The Federalist. “Repealing Act 10 would restore those rights to educators, nurses, university employees and other public servants. Strong unions benefit all working people. When workers can negotiate for better wages, safer workplaces and family-supporting benefits, they raise standards throughout the labor market and strengthen their communities.”

Act 10 has long been opposed by Democrats because it weakened many labor unions. However, Republicans maintain support for the legislation, arguing that it saves taxpayer money.

“Repealing Act 10 would increase taxes by roughly $2 billion every year, forcing Wisconsin families to shoulder an even heavier tax burden,” Tiffany said. “Our state is already among the highest property tax states in the nation. Repealing Act 10 would push the dream of homeownership even further out of reach for graduates and accelerate the exodus of our best and brightest to lower-tax states with more opportunity and freedom.”

Affordability, especially for college students and young adults, has also become a key issue for both campaigns.

According to Hong, “Students would also benefit from my broader affordability agenda, including affordable housing and healthcare, stronger public transit, and better wages and workplace protections for student workers.” One of the ways Hong suggests to support this plan is through a progressive tax code. Her website states that she will cut property taxes by 44 percent while raising taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

“My commitment to fully funding Wisconsin’s public universities and technical colleges would most directly benefit students,” Hong said. “We should treat public higher education as a public good and ensure every student can receive a high-quality education without taking on crushing debt.”

Tiffany has been critical of recent tuition hikes for UW System students. He told The Federalist, “The biggest challenge facing many college students today is finding a path to success without being buried by rising costs, and that’s exactly what my agenda addresses. I’ll start by freezing tuition for Wisconsin students, making it easier to earn a degree without taking on even more debt.”

“I’ll lower taxes, end the 400-year property tax hike, and make Wisconsin more competitive so businesses create more good-paying jobs for graduates,” Tiffany said. “I want Wisconsin to be the land of opportunity for our graduates, not a place they feel they have to leave to build a better future.”

The primary is on August 11 and the general election is November 3. Tiffany faces longshot candidate Andy Manske in the Republican primary. In the Democratic primary, Hong is contending against former lieutenant governor Mandela Barnes, state Sen. Kelda Roys, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, and former secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Administration Joel Brennan.

Subscribe now