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

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

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

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:

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

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

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project (AALDP) are calling on the University of Wisconsin-Madison to end its investigation into the registered student organization Animal Advocacy, arguing the university’s inquiry into flyers promoting a beagle rescue campaign violates the First Amendment.

In a June 25 letter addressed to Interim Chancellor Eric Wilcots, FIRE asserts the university is investigating the student group over constitutionally protected political speech after members distributed flyers advertising an event related to Ridglan Farms, a Wisconsin breeder of dogs for experimentation. According to the letter, university officials alleged the flyers may have encouraged criminal activity because they included a QR code linking to additional information about the campaign.

According to FIRE’s letter, Animal Advocacy members posted flyers reading, “Help Save 2,000 Beagles, Return to Ridglan Farms, April 19th, 2026,” alongside a QR code directing readers to additional information about the campaign. FIRE states the linked materials included information about a previous beagle rescue effort as well as suggestions for legal forms of advocacy, including joining the student organization, signing petitions, donating, sharing information on social media, and contacting lawmakers and regulatory agencies.

The Google document linked by the flyer stated, “On March 15th, 100 activists rescued 22 beagles from animal abuse at Ridglan Farms, a beagle breeding and experimentation center. Now, over 2,000 people have committed to returning to Ridglan Farms to rescue the remaining 2,000 beagles. Now is when we need to ACT.”

The document also included a link to a blog post by animal rights activist Wayne Hsiung. In the post, Hsiung wrote, “Rescuers will descend on Ridglan Farms from all directions and use every nonviolent means to breach the facility walls and rescue the dogs. If the police illegally attempt to stop us, we will shield one another from their attempts to hurt the dogs, and pressure them to enforce the law and protect the dogs.” Hsiung also said, “There are only around 400 deputies in Dane County (including those serving in jails and not on patrol) and 800 spaces for inmates in Dane County jails. If we can mobilize 2,000 rescuers, they can’t arrest and jail us all.”

According to FIRE’s letter, university officials informed Animal Advocacy that the organization was under investigation because the flyers allegedly “solicited others to enter Ridglan Farms and remove animals from the property” and therefore may have violated Wisconsin laws concerning solicitation to commit burglary and the unauthorized release of animals. The letter also states that an administrator warned the organization the flyers appeared to be “soliciting or encouraging individuals to participate in criminal activity.”

In an email to The Madison Federalist, FIRE Strategic Campaigns Counsel Amanda Nordstrom said the university is mischaracterizing the student organization’s advocacy. “Political speech does not lose protection simply because it discusses civil disobedience, links to an activist’s account of past events, or urges people to get involved in a contentious cause,” Nordstrom said. She added that the flyer “pointed people to information about animal welfare concerns and advocacy opportunities. That is classic political speech, not criminal solicitation.”

Nordstrom also told The Madison Federalist that “a student group’s flyer does not become punishable simply because it links to controversial material or to someone else’s description of unlawful conduct.” She added that “students have a First Amendment right to share information, criticize institutions, and direct people to outside sources about matters of public concern,” and said, “Universities cannot discipline students merely because their advocacy points readers toward controversial ideas or activists.”

When asked whether FIRE would pursue litigation if the university ultimately disciplines Animal Advocacy, Nordstrom declined to comment on potential legal action. “FIRE’s immediate goal is for UW-Madison to do the right thing: end this investigation and make clear that Animal Advocacy will not be punished for its protected expression,” she told The Federalist. “I can’t comment on the potential for litigation, but we’re exploring all our options at the moment and will keep the public apprised of any further FIRE advocacy.”

Nordstrom also argued the case reflects a broader issue affecting campus speech. In an email to The Federalist, she said, “This case fits a broader and troubling pattern: universities too often respond to impassioned political advocacy by investigating the speakers first and asking First Amendment questions later.” She added that “students should not have to wonder whether a flyer, a QR code, or a link to controversial commentary will trigger a conduct investigation. That kind of chilling effect is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to prevent.”

Animal Advocacy President Jackson Ray defended the organization’s actions in an email to The Madison Federalist. When asked why the group distributed the flyers, Ray said, “Because there were 2,000 beagles that deserved better lives.” He added that “Free speech is a foundation of activism that allows ordinary people to fight cruel and powerful institutions.”

Ray said he was not surprised but saddened that UW-Madison had chosen to investigate the organization. Responding to allegations that the flyers encouraged illegal activity, Ray said, “The First Amendment is not a gray area, we were within our rights, and we were solely advocating for political action.”

Looking ahead, Ray said he hopes the investigation leads to greater protections for student expression. In closing his response, he said, “I hope that UW-Madison chooses the right thing and we see a new university in which students’ voices are amplified not silenced.”

The AALDP also criticized the university’s investigation. In an email to The Madison Federalist, Litigation Fellow Steffen Seitz said, “The reputation of universities as bastions of dissident speech is not without basis. But it is also true that university administrations often embrace particular dissident speech only after the fact—acting repressively at the time, while embracing dissidents only after their cause has been shown to be on the right side of history.”

When asked whether his organization has seen an increase in universities disciplining student activists involved in animal rights advocacy, Seitz told The Madison Federalist that it has not. However, he said, “While we have not seen an increase in discipline against animal rights advocates on university campuses, we suspect this is because we haven’t seen many campus animal advocates organizing adjacent to direct action campaigns like the Ridglan effort. Were that to increase, it is possible—perhaps even likely—that there would also be an increase in university repression.”

The Madison Federalist contacted UW-Madison spokesperson John Lucas on June 26 seeking comment on the investigation and sent follow-up questions regarding the university’s rationale for opening the investigation, its interpretation of the First Amendment, and the status of the case. As of publication, the university had not responded.

FIRE’s June 25 letter requests that UW-Madison respond by July 9 confirming that it will end its investigation of Animal Advocacy and refrain from imposing disciplinary sanctions on the student organization.

READ MORE FROM THE MADISON FEDERALIST:

Crony Capitalism and the Chicken Industry

FIRE President Greg Lukianoff: UW-Madison ‘Can Do Better’ on Free Speech

How Will the Next Chancellor of UW-Madison be Selected?

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.

The report “Faculty Ideology: Measuring faculty viewpoint diversity using campaign contribution data” examined more than 100,000 faculty members at 55 prominent universities, including UW-Madison. The study concluded that faculty donors have become increasingly one-sided in recent years.

It also found that UW-Madison faculty are more politically active and concentrated than a majority of other universities analyzed. “UW-Madison faculty are a bit more likely to donate than other faculty in the analysis, and they are less ideologically diverse than many of the schools in the sample,” said author David Primo in an email to The Madison Federalist. Primo is a professor of political science and business administration at the University of Rochester.

UW-Madison ranked near the middle of the schools analyzed regarding the level of ideological diversity found among university faculty, with the 23rd lowest. Peer institutions such as the Ohio State University and the University of Iowa exhibited greater levels of ideological diversity among politically active faculty compared to UW-Madison, while the University of Illinois and the University of Michigan exhibited less.

“UW faculty who donate to campaigns look similar to schools like Stanford, [the University of] Chicago, and Georgetown in terms of ideological diversity,” Primo said.

The university has taken many steps toward increasing viewpoint diversity on campus in the last two years. “UW–Madison has hired or is exploring hires in units including, but not limited to, public affairs, political science, law, history and economics, whose areas of expertise include conservative political thought, classical economic theory, and classical liberalism,” said university spokesman John Lucas in an email to The Federalist.

Last year, the university launched the Wisconsin Exchange, an initiative to promote pluralism and ideological diversity on campus. The Exchange has since awarded grants to student and faculty-led projects, launched a postdoctoral fellowship program, and hosted events. FIRE president Greg Lukianoff spoke at an Exchange event in March. “Dissent is essential for understanding the world as it is,” he said during a moderated conversation with former chancellor Jennifer Mnookin.

Lucas said Deliberation Dinners, the Discussion Project, and the new office of First-Generation and Limited-Income Services demonstrate the university’s “commitment to the value of diversity in all its forms, including diversity of thought, perspective, identity and background.”

Furthermore, “The university has continued to actively work with its external fundraising partner, the Wisconsin Foundation and Alumni Association, to secure the philanthropic gifts [required] to fund additional endowed faculty chair and professorship positions in disciplinary areas related to conservative thought itself.” The university agreed to create this position in a deal with the Wisconsin legislature in 2023.

The FIRE report matched the faculty members to campaign contribution records contained in the Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections, which contains hundreds of millions of federal, state and local political contributions. The study focused on faculty members in undergraduate-facing departments and excluded positions such as medical school faculty.

Using these records, researchers assigned a “CFscore,” which is an ideological measure based on patterns of political giving. The methodology allows researchers to compare faculty donors, political contributors and elected officials on the same ideological scale.

According to the study, the median faculty donor scored approximately -1.0 on the report’s ideological scale. This score is comparable to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The report also found significant differences across academic disciplines. According to the study, faculty in the humanities were the most left-leaning. Business faculty were the least left-leaning, but those who made political contributions still generally leaned to the political left. Primo wrote that the least ideologically diverse and most left-leaning fields were among the most politically engaged.

The report acknowledges several limitations to its methodology. Primo noted that some faculty members may be reluctant to donate because campaign contributions are public and could reveal their political views. The report also notes that campaign contributions are only one way of measuring ideology and may not capture the political beliefs of faculty who do not donate.

“I hope the report prompts students, faculty, and administrators to think seriously about what these findings mean for teaching, research, and open inquiry on college campuses,” he told The Federalist.

Subscribe now

READ MORE:

Survey Finds Overwhelming Ideological Imbalance Among UW-Madison Faculty

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

Chancellor Mnookin’s Stable Leadership Will Be Missed

This article was originally published by The College Fix.

By Ryan Dy-Liacco

A law school faculty fellowship for “candidates of color” is open to all applicants, the University of Wisconsin-Madison told The College Fix in response to questions.

The William H. Hastie Fellowship offers “aspiring scholars” $75,000 per year for two years so they can focus on building up their academic profile. Among its most prominent graduates is Kimberlé Crenshaw, who pioneered Critical Race Theory.

A listing on ProFellow, a database for graduate students, suggests non-white people will be favored during the process.

“The two-year law school Fellowship reflects a commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and especially encourages applications from candidates of color and other underrepresented communities in the legal academy,” the description states.

This differs from the current description on the university’s website, which reads:

The Fellowship reflects the Law School’s commitment to creating opportunities for people who might not otherwise have the chance to become law professors. It began as an effort to address discrimination and the lack of diversity in the legal academy.

Reached for comment, the school says its own website “accurately describes the William H. Hastie Fellowship, which is open to all qualified candidates, as the description clearly states.”

“The listing from ProFellow does not accurately list the criteria for the program,” Jennie Broecker, the associate director of communications for the law school, told The Fix on May 15. “We are requesting that ProFellow remove or correct the information on their website.”

The ProFellow description still lists the “candidates of color” preference as of May 26, when The Fix checked.

The school has included racially discriminatory language in recent history. In February 2023, the law school described the program as “a leader in guiding and increasing opportunities for lawyers of color and other underrepresented communities to become law professors.”

However, ProFellow’s description appeared verbatim on UW’s own official website as recently as September 2023—less than three years ago.

Archived versions of the Hastie Fellowship webpage show that the “especially encourages” language was consistent from at least 2020 through September 2023. This time frame means that, in the past, UW used a racially discriminatory description longer than it has used the current race-neutral one.

The language is reflected in its selection of fellows.

A College Fix examination of all previous fellows found that the UW-Madison Law School has never accepted a white male candidate into the program.

Of the 48 unique fellows selected over the program’s 53-year history, 47 identified as or were identifiable as minority candidates — only one, a white woman who served from 2022 to 2024, was not a person of color.

A civil rights attorney criticized the university’s use of racially discriminatory language.

“I see this as trying to pay lip service to the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] guidance that encourages employers to post jobs widely or to encourage diverse candidates to apply,” Shawna Bray told The Fix via a phone interview.

“I do think it crosses a line when it says, ‘especially encourages,’” Bray, general counsel with the Center for Equal Opportunity, said. This wording “raises a red flag,” Bray said, “and it’s probably why they seem to have deleted it.”

Several recent Supreme Court cases may have contributed to the change in language.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard struck down race-based considerations in college admissions as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment in a 2023 decision. Two years later, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services affirmed federal civil rights law applies to members of majority groups as well as minorities.

“Ames clarified what has always been true under the Civil Rights Act, which is that you cannot discriminate against the majority any more than you can discriminate against a minority,” Bray said.

She said the Supreme Court allowed for a “little carve-out” for racial discrimination in higher education, which then people “mistakenly” believed “also applied to employment decisions,” Bray said.

“That was never okay. Never allowed. Never legal.”

Hastie Fellowship began as DEI hiring initiative

The Hastie Fellowship’s racial focus was not incidental—it was its original purpose. Since its founding, the program’s mission has always been to increase minority representation in the legal academia.

Confirmed this in a 2013 Wisconsin Law Review article, “The Hastie Fellowship Program at Forty: Still Creating Minority Law Professors,” the program’s mission has always been to increase minority representation in the legal academia.

The author, Thomas Mitchell, was a Hastie Fellow in 1994–1996 and former faculty chair of the Hastie Fellowship Committee.

He wrote that Professor Jones created the program in 1973 “[t]o provide advanced legal training to exceptional minority students to quality [sic] them for, and encourage them to undertake, the teaching of law.” Professor Jones’ autobiography shows that the program’s original name was “The William H. Hastie Minority Teaching Fellowship Program.”

As Mitchell writes, “By his [Jones’] actions, he showed us what it means to be a law professor who makes a real difference within and outside of the academy.”

Undergraduates at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have been required to take a course in “Ethnic Studies” to graduate for decades. While the university has updated its general education requirements to reflect a new system-wide policy, “Ethnic Studies” has been retained under a new name: “Civics and Perspectives.”

This fall, Civics and Perspectives course offerings include “Intersectionalities, Self Awareness, and Social Actions for Social Change,” “Mental Health, Self-Awareness, and Social Justice: Working in Diverse Communities,” “The Politics of Education Injustice in the US,” “Race, Intersectionality, and Equity in Education,” “Diversity, Oppression, and Social Justice in Social Work,” and “Buddhism and Anti-Racism.”

In July 2025, the Wisconsin State Legislature approved Act 15, which required the UW System to ensure that general education credits can transfer between UW institutions. The system established six Core General Education categories in response, but let individual universities decide what counts toward them.

While every University of Wisconsin institution had some form of an ethnic studies requirement, it was not formally included as one of the six categories. However, UW-Madison, UW-Milwaukee, UW-Parkside, and others opted to map them into the Civics and Perspectives category.

“UW-Madison mapped its prior general education categories to the Core General Education categories defined by the Universities of Wisconsin and designated courses based on those criteria,” director of public affairs Gillian Drummond told The Madison Federalist via email. The university did not change its graduation requirements, it only shifted its existing requirements to fit under the new categories. Students who enrolled prior to summer 2026 are not subject to the changes, and they will continue to follow their individual institutions’ older general education requirements.

“Courses that meet the Civics and Perspectives definition may be given that designation,” Drummond said. UW-Madison’s Core General Education Requirements policy, which has been approved by the Faculty Senate, defines Civics and Perspectives as:

Instruction designed to increase understanding of the circumstances, conditions, experiences, cultures, literatures, arts and contributions of persistently marginalized racial or ethnic groups in the United States that equip students to respond constructively to issues connected with our pluralistic society. Students in these courses learn to draw connections between historical and present-day circumstances and consider perceptions and cultural assumptions when examining questions and making decisions.

The determination of which courses count toward Civics and Perspectives “will follow existing governance processes and are currently being reviewed by the ad hoc committee that was formed to address Act 15 core general education requirements,” according to Drummond.

While this is separate from the Ethnic Studies Subcommittee, it has reached many of the same designation conclusions. In Summer 2026, there are 54 Ethnic Studies courses and 54 Civics and Perspectives courses – 52 of them overlap. In Fall 2026, there are 159 Ethnic Studies courses and 147 Civics and Perspectives – 144 of them overlap. This count is based on the Course Search and Enroll application, which double-counts cross-listed courses.

The Civics and Perspectives description contains nearly identical language to the university’s description of Ethnic Studies. However, Ethnic Studies courses have more extensive goals. These include ensuring “that students can identify and question the racial power dynamics that undergird social and political institutions” and challenging “students to think about their own racial and ethnic identities in relation to others.”

Courses do not need to be entirely focused on race or ethnicity to satisfy the requirement. Classes such as “Women and Gender in the U.S. Since 1870” and “Introduction to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer+ Studies” also count toward it.

“Civics and Perspectives courses explore different perspectives and experiences to help develop critical thinking, writing, ethical reasoning, cultural literacy, and communication skills that employers have consistently told us they value,” Drummond said.

WHAT DO STUDENTS LEARN IN ETHNIC STUDIES/CIVICS AND PERSPECTIVES COURSES?

The Madison Federalist obtained the syllabi for the courses that satisfied the Ethnic Studies requirement in 2025 or spring 2026 via an open records request. The content of the syllabi revealed ideologically lopsided readings, controversial assignments and language that suggests some instructors view the classroom as a platform for their political views.

Even courses with innocuous names are filled with progressive ideology. In the nursing course “Culturally Congruent Practice,” students must complete an “action-oriented” essay that “is an opportunity for you to practice STARTING THE CONVERSATION about a social justice issue in real life.” They also must write about a “self-defining experience” associated with their race. Students can also earn three extra credit points for completing a “social justice event reflection.”

In “Culture, Language, and Communication,” students had to complete a “cultural self-assessment” and “consider how others view the different aspects of your identity, as well as how your cultural and social identities influence your view of others, especially others with different levels of ability.”

Students are asked to write about their own identities in many of the courses. In “Black Research Approaches: Qualitative Methods and Collaborative Praxis,” students must write a “positionality statement” that “illustrates both your multiple identities and how those identities intersect with the research you want to do/are already doing with Black communities.” In “Race and the Developing Child,” students “will reflect and write up their own racial, ethnic, and cultural story.”

In “Multiculturalism and Social Justice”, students completed an “Intersectionality and Your Identity Project” worth 20 percent of their grade. In it, they gave a class presentation where they “reflect on how power shapes the various aspects of your identity, including gender, class, sexual orientation, race, age, and ability.” In another assignment, students must identify how they “will continue to engage with issues of social justice after this class.”

In “Dimensions of Latin@ Mental Health,” students complete a #MySocialIdentity project where students give a presentation to discuss “your racial and/or ethnic identity, what factors contribute to your worldview, who you feel most comfortable around, suspected blind spots about how you think about race or ethnicity, and experiences that have influenced your identity within your own racial or ethnic group.”

While it is difficult to precisely determine the degree of ideological lopsidedness, prominent conservatives are rarely included in course materials. For example, one work by Thomas Sowell is used in “Race, Ethnicity and Black Population Health in the United States,” but he is otherwise missing from the reviewed courses. Other notable scholars such as Glenn Loury and Heather Mac Donald are entirely absent.

Meanwhile, Nikole Hannah-Jones of The 1619 Project is cited in “Dimensions of Latin@ Mental Health,” “African American History since 1900,” “Black Education Studies: Blackness in U.S. Public Schools,” “Introduction to the City,” and “Inequality, Race, and Public Policy.”

Feminist writer bell hooks is cited in “Introduction to Theatre for Social and Cultural Awareness,” “Asian American Feminisms,” “Theorizing Intersectionality,” “Women in Ethnic American Literature,” “Introduction to African American Studies,” “Artistic/Cultural Images of Black Women,” “Multiculturalism and Social Justice,” “Art and Visual Culture: Women of the African Diaspora and Africa,” “Black Women’s Political Behavior,” “Race, Sex, and Texts,” and “History of Race and Inequality in Urban America.”

“Anti-racist” scholar Ibram X. Kendi is also cited in “History of Race and Inequality in Urban America,” as well as “Youth, Education, and Society” and “Black Campus Fictions.”

In many of the syllabi, instructors use language that suggests they view the classroom as a place for activism. “Introduction to Theatre for Social and Cultural Awareness” refers to students as a “community of scholar-artist-activists” who “will develop tools to apply to the practice of theatre in a variety of fields (acting, directing, design, scholarship) as well as tools for community engagement and advancing awareness and equity in everyday life.” The land acknowledgment in “Immigration, Education, and Equity” says “we will regularly engage with decolonial theories” and help “grow social action.”

The syllabus for “American Indian Women” vows to “promote decolonial practices in our classroom” and says decolonization is a “guiding principle in American Indian and Indigenous Studies.” “Race, Ethnicity, and Inequality in American Education” permits the use of generative artificial intelligence in a limited capacity, but warns that AI “replicates the prejudices and violences that shape our societies, particularly the white supremacy and colonialism that this course seeks to disrupt.”

In “Social Work in American Indian Communities – The Indian Child Welfare Act,” students are told in the syllabus that making certain arguments will result in a failing grade. It says, “Zero points will be given for responses that do not demonstrate understanding of ESR Learning Outcomes. For example, responses that clearly indicate ‘the past has not affected present day circumstances regarding race and racial inequities in the U.S.’” The syllabus for “Introduction to Language and Ideology” says, “We will approach these questions in an anti-racist framework, showing that perceptions towards certain English varieties are grounded in bias against certain demographic groups and not in linguistic facts.”

In “Latina/Latino/Latinx History,” students answer questions such as “How have queer people, sex workers, and men that have sex with men been excluded by immigration law and their communities on both sides of US-Mexico border?” One of that course’s learning outcomes is to “build an intersectional critical lens of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and class as it relates to Latinx/e communities.”

While Ethnic Studies/Civics and Perspectives is impossible to evade, students can easily receive a passing grade if they choose the right class, as many instructors gave the overwhelming majority of students full marks in their courses.

In Fall 2025, 85 percent of students received As in “Youth, Education, and Society” and “Jazz in 20th Century America,” according to Madgrades. Nine out of 10 students in “Race, Ethnicity, and Inequality in American Education,” “Inequality, Race, and Public Policy,” or “Race, Intersectionality, and Equity in Education” received an A. In “Anthropology and Education,” every single student received an A.

Stephen Macedo, a professor of politics at Princeton University, spoke about his newest co-authored book, “In COVID’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us,” at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on May 4 in a lecture hosted by the Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy. Macedo discussed the policies surrounding COVID-19 and how they reflected institutional dysfunction in the United States during the pandemic.

Macedo began by recalling early events of the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 and the fears felt by many. He explained the need for an “honest and critical” assessment of the policy decisions that were made. He referenced uncertainties and fears that contributed to the urgency early in the pandemic, many stemming from overwhelmed hospitals and climbing mortality rates.

According to Macedo, there were decades of pre-COVID pandemic planning studies conducted on the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as border closures, mask mandates and school closures. Macedo cited one particular study from the World Health Organization (WHO) from November 2019 that emphasized the low quality of evidence and effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

“Some measures were not recommended in any circumstances, including the most severe pandemic, and those measures included contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry and exit screening, and border closures, things we all did with short order under COVID,” Macedo said.

Macedo also referenced additional pre-pandemic research from institutions such as Johns Hopkins University and the United Kingdom, which also warned about the limited evidence surrounding non-pharmaceutical interventions.

“It almost certainly will not be possible to contain or eradicate a new virus in its country of origin or on arrival to the UK. The expectation must be that the virus will inevitably spread, and that any local measures taken to disrupt or produce the spread are likely to have very limited or partial success at a national level, and cannot be relied upon even as a way to buy time,” Macedo said, citing a UK study from 2011.

Policymakers failed to acknowledge the lack of scientific evidence available, according to Macedo. He noted that billions of people were subjected to lockdowns within a matter of weeks, a response he argued was unprecedented given the lack of evidence backing these measures.

“By early April 2020, half the world’s population, 3.9 billion people, were living under some form of lockdown,” Macedo said.

Macedo also pointed out the role of political polarization in shaping the pandemic policies in the United States. He explained that Democratic states implemented stricter and longer restrictions during the pandemic, while Republican states were more likely to lift restrictions earlier. He suggested that these differences weren’t linked to measurable public health outcomes, but rather reflected broader political divides that influenced decision-making.

Macedo also argued that “truth-seeking” institutions, including science, journalism and universities, did not appropriately consider dissenting perspectives during the pandemic. He described this as a failure within these institutions, as differing viewpoints were often discredited or dismissed.

“Under the influence of polarization and politicization, we argued that disagreement was prematurely moralized and dissent was treated intolerantly,” Macedo said. He believed these institutions need to prioritize viewpoint diversity moving forward.

Macedo also highlighted the negative effects of pandemic policies in early education, noting “unprecedented drops in student learning in both reading and math, reversing roughly two decades of progress.” He also argued that prolonged school closures during the pandemic contributed to a loss of trust in educational institutions, pointing to the increase in school choice programs in Republican states.

“Chronic absenteeism rates doubled, now at one third of K-12 students nationwide, and losses greater in high-poverty districts, and for black and Hispanic students,” Macedo said.

Subscribe now

Beyond early education, there have been depressed rates of church attendance and volunteering, depopulation in business districts and large drops in mass transportation use, according to Macedo. He also noted negative effects on our social fabric, including increased mental health consequences and loneliness, especially in places with stricter lockdowns. Macedo said these outcomes make up a set of social costs that weren’t considered in early pandemic decisions.

Macedo concluded his lecture by emphasizing the importance of reflection moving forward, asserting the need for more openness, humility and tolerance of differing viewpoints in policy and public discourse.

Rev. Patrick Gilger, an assistant professor of sociology at Loyola University Chicago, gave a lecture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School on April 6 about the “Birth of the Modern Catholic Self” and the role the Jesuit order played in bridging the divide between secular and spiritual concerns.

Gilger began his talk by discussing his first encounter with Jesuits when he was 17 years old at Creighton University, and at the time, he was not Catholic. “These people on campus, my fellow students, weren’t faking it or being posers,” Gilger said. “They were real people … with a combination of integrity and authenticity.” He describes the Jesuits he met as having a holy sense of competition. They were “integrated people living in a disintegrated world” through “spiritual direction and spiritual exercises.”

When Gilger first arrived at Creighton, he did not know how to pray, but he got the chance to learn. “At first I felt silly sitting there trying to talk to what felt like nothing,” he said. While in novitiate - the training to enter the religious order - Gilger and his fellow brothers learned Ignatian spiritual exercises that were written by St. Ignatius of Loyola, and he gave specific instructions for talking directly with God. These exercises taught them to live and see the events of the gospel through imagination and prayer. Over time, Gilger came to appreciate prayer, and under the influence of the Jesuits, he became a novice after four years.

“What is spirituality?” Gilger asked. He explained that it is “a style of life in the world built upon organizing thoughts, behaviors, producing experience based on the trinity resurrection, orienting us to achieving certain goods.”

Gilger built on this definition by discussing the great spiritualities, especially to the five main orders: Benedictines, Franciscans, Jesuits (Ignatians), Carmelites, and Dominicans. The spiritualities are “the infinite coming into relation with the finite” because humans cannot fully grasp God’s message.

All of the big five spiritualities would emerge at different times. The Benedictines emerged during the adoption of Christianity in Rome, the Franciscans during the growth of European markets, and the Jesuits and Carmelites during the democratization of information. This was near the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and the general religious revolution.

Gilger explains that the Ignatian spirituality came to be “God’s gift and answer to the question of modernity.” It gave a way to build a modern self while still being Catholic, which was the central dilemma during that time.

There were four main revolutions that Gilger discussed. The first was the religious revolution, which led to the privatization of religion. The second is the scientific revolution, which introduced new various ways of thinking and the democratization of knowledge. The third is the Industrial Revolution, which led to capitalism and made people even more restless and anxious about the world around them. Lastly, the political revolution split the Church and state, leading to the rise of democracy and the changing experience of the modern world.

All of these revolutions made people more individualistic and led them to dream of building and controlling the world, according to Gilger. These movements fundamentally transitioned people from a “porous self” to a “buffered self,” which are philosophical states coined by philosopher Charles Taylor.

A porous self is “open to spirits, superstitions, enchanted forests, and fairy tales,” and it seeks spiritual protection through the Church or other religious methods. The buffered self is in control of their own life and shielded from the spiritual world. Gilger explains that we are now buffered selves because the world is now, as Gilger said, “disenchanted”.

Both Ignatius and Gilger believed that there can be an “individual and traditional” Catholic. The modern Catholic self shares similarities, but it does not consider itself autonomous. It is aware of a lack of action and of the collaboration required with the spirits moving through it. Ignatius was crucial in forming a faithful modern Catholic self, and he refined the spiritual directions and exercises to be suitable for a modern world so humans could be “imitating the conduct of the master.”

During the time Ignatius was writing, many spiritual directors were spreading new ideas beyond the monasteries to people in the cities. Ignatius worked to systemize what was already established by taking classes and reading books under the guidance of a spiritual director, while also tailoring it to the person undergoing the exercise.

Gilger explained how Ignatius helped make the exercises accessible outside of hierarchy, but he also had to deal with many new problems in the modern world. He said Ignatius “made the process of the spiritual exercises, now a triadic relationship between God, the director, and the directed, thereby strengthening the exercise and the effect. The director is not just controlling experiences, but they are to be adapted to the person and the moment.”

Gilger explained that around the time of Vatican II, the Spiritual Exercises in the modern Catholic Church were done in groups rather than individually. After that, the exercises began to address people’s specific desires and became more of a self-help manual, not the radical change it had been before.

Now, people are seeking stable ground, avoiding conflict, and offering critiques of order and agency. Gilger says this was resolved by Ignatius long before these modern problems emerged, and now the problem is the divides in the internal structure of Roman Catholicism. He believed both worlds are needed to be a modern Catholic self.

Gilger concluded by saying that directors should act like a pointer on the balance when the directee communes with the Holy Spirit. He told the audience to “act against temptations, to break the balance” and “be unafraid of what we will find.”

Parishes across the country are experiencing a large increase in young adults converting to both Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. This trend has been seen in Madison, as Saint Paul’s Catholic Student Center and nearby Orthodox parishes have reported recent surges in conversions.

While some profess that this is a sign of a “religious comeback” in America, others are skeptical about how strong this religious wave really is. To get a better sense of the increasing number of converts to Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity in Wisconsin’s second-largest city, perspectives and data from both religious communities must be taken into account.

The Madison Federalist interviewed the staff involved in the Order of Christian Initiation of Adults (OCIA) program at Saint Paul’s, located near the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s campus. Saint Paul’s serves both students at UW-Madison and other young professionals in the area, so the staff said the number of people in their OCIA program has greatly grown over the last few years.

In the past, Saint Paul’s confirmed around 10 to 29 people into the Catholic Church every year. This year, they reported over 100 confirmations. The OCIA program has been breaking new records in confirmations every year since 2023. In 2025, they recorded more than 80 confirmations, and in 2024, more than 70.

Saint Paul’s staff explained that a large reason behind the increased confirmation numbers is that “it really comes down to travel sports.” Due to the increase in travel sports participation, they reported that around half of those confirmed each year were raised Catholic, but delayed their confirmation. The other half of the people in the OCIA confirmation program are converts to Catholicism. Around half of these converts are typically coming from a Protestant background, with the exception of a few converting from Orthodox Christianity. The other half of converts are those coming from non-Christian backgrounds, which have included individuals raised atheist, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim.

Many young adults in their program express a yearning for community and structure in their lives. The staff described this as a sign of the “loneliness epidemic” often experienced by Gen Z. While the staff said they have been noticing more young men becoming interested in Catholicism, conversions have generally been evenly split between the sexes. A staff member also pointed out that most female converts come from another faith. Another common theme among all of their converts is that they are “looking for something beautiful and true.”

While they are seeing an increase in people interested in the Catholic faith and the Church’s history, they are skeptical that increased confirmation numbers are a sign of a comeback of traditional Christianity, because many data points do not take into account the number of people disengaging with the faith each year.

The staff said they believe the “Catholic comeback in America” is “overstated,” especially due to the high number of people who left the faith during the COVID-19 era. Despite people leaving Catholicism, they hope to finally see more people coming into the church, which used to be scarce. From their experiences, converts are less likely to leave the Church in the future than those raised in the faith.

The staff members also believe that many people are being drawn to Catholicism from popular conservatives in public and media discourse, most notably Vice President JD Vance. In addition, they consider social media content — ranging from apologetics to Catholic influencers — to be a large factor that is drawing young people into the Church.

There are three Orthodox churches currently located in Madison. Fr. Gregory Jensen at Ss Cyril & Methodius Orthodox Church, located south of UW-Madison’s campus, reached out with an article he had previously written about young adult conversions, particularly concerning young men.

Jensen’s article, “Men Flocking to Orthodoxy: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” was published last year, and he said that there is not “enough data to support the idea that this is a mass movement.” The Orthodox Church in America largely serves immigrant communities and their children and will likely remain as a small fraction of the population.

Despite his claim, he wrote that there is increasing interest in liturgical tradition among young people, particularly young men, who have primarily not been raised Orthodox Christian. For those drawn to the Orthodox Church, he rejects the idea that it is the “masculine church,” as many women during the Soviet Union remained steadfast in their faith during a time of persecution.

Fr. John Chagnon at St. Ignatius of Antioch Orthodox Christian Church paints a slightly different picture. “We too have experienced the surge of young people, but also others coming in,” Chagnon said.

Significant portions of his congregation consist of former evangelical protestants and former atheists. He said that he used to be an Anglican pastor before converting to Orthodox Christianity. While most of their converts come from a protestant background, there have been a few converts from Catholicism over the years.

The number of converts flocking to St. Ignatius has been interesting to him since the church does not partake in “sheep stealing.” They only provide an option to those who seek them out. Additionally, teens as young as 15 and 16 years old have shown interest in conversion, whereas most converts are between the ages of 18 and 35.

Chagnon said that he prefers to take a more individualized approach for each convert, so chrismation and baptism dates can vary. This month, they will have around 15 to 20 people entering the Orthodox Christian faith.

The church has seen some young women converting to the faith, but the majority of their converts have been young men, especially those who are single. “Some of the young guys coming in have been so into their video and digital world – that it is hard for them to have actual relationships [with others],” Chagnon said.

He believes many of their converts come to them due to experiences with the Orthodox faith online, which can be both good and bad. Their young adult converts have reported a feeling of “emptiness” without a faith that adheres to tradition, instead of trying to appeal to current culture.

“Tradition is not the worshipping of ashes, but the passing on of fire,” and people are drawn to the “steadiness of the Orthodox Church,” Chagnon said. While Orthodox Christians are currently still a sliver of Wisconsin’s population, there is growing optimism about the future of the Orthodox Church in the state.

While it may be too early for some to describe this as a true religious revival, there are certainly shifts happening among young people in our society. Despite those raised in the Catholic or Orthodox faith slowly disengaging with traditional Christianity each year, Chagnon believes that the COVID-19 pandemic was a strong reminder of our own mortality, and it likely led more people to search for a deeper meaning in their lives.

Subscribe now