The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents unanimously voted to fire Jay Rothman from his position as UW president on Tuesday, April 7.

This decision followed a closed-door meeting with the Board earlier in the day. Rothman was asked last week to either resign or be fired, which he believed was not in the best interest of the UW System. He said the regents never gave a clear reason why he should leave.

Rothman began his tenure as the ninth president of the UW System in 2022. In that position, he oversaw 13 public universities across Wisconsin. The UW System serves 164,600 students and awards nearly 37,000 degrees each year.

“He worked hard to bring the best to the campuses, students, faculty, and staff,” the Board of Regents said in a statement following the firing. “Despite these accomplishments, based on the annual performance review and subsequent discussions, the Board has lost confidence in President Rothman’s ability to lead the UWs moving forward.”

A separate statement challenged Rothman’s claims that the removal was sudden and without clear cause. “President Rothman was not without notice, nor was this process sudden. The Board has engaged with President Rothman in good-faith discussions over the past several months,” the statement said. “At a time of profound change in higher education, this decision is about the future. The Universities of Wisconsin must be led with a clear vision that both protects and strengthens our flagship.”

Rothman’s firing has left Republican lawmakers furious. State Rep. Dave Murphy responded before the Board’s decision and said the “lack of transparency is unacceptable.”

“The Board owes Wisconsin taxpayers, students, and families a full explanation,” Murphy said.

Republican State Sen. Patrick Testin released a statement on X. “Make no mistake about it, the firing of UW President Rothman is a blatant partisan hatchet job,” he said. Rothman’s firing was him being “punished for not being liberal enough.”

Republican State Sen. Rob Hutton also responded in a statement, saying the Board of Regents were “distracted by politics and unable to concentrate on addressing the big picture challenges.”

“Instead of focusing on major structural and curriculum reforms throughout the entire system, the Regents seem determined to stray into backroom maneuvering that further diminishes the reputation of the UW brand,” Hutton said.

Governor Tony Evers, who previously served on the board, did not take a position. “It’s their call,” he said.

Chris Patton, the vice president for university relations, will temporarily serve as acting executive-in-charge. The Board of Regents said it has “immediately moved forward in its work to identify the successor.”

Rothman’s exit comes just months after University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin was announced as the next president of Columbia University.

Subscribe now

Last month, the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the La Follette School of Public Affairs hosted Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), as part of the recently-launched Wisconsin Exchange. In a conversation titled “For Me, but Not for Thee: Free Expression in Higher Education,” Lukianoff joined Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin to examine the changing role of universities amid a challenging campus climate.

FIRE has become a leading watchdog for free speech on college campuses, tracking policies and incidents nationwide to ensure students and faculty can express controversial ideas without fear of censorship.

Partisan politics have increasingly infiltrated higher education. Both students and faculty often struggle to engage meaningfully and constructively with those holding differing political or ideological viewpoints. The Wisconsin Exchange program aims to counteract this trend by fostering dialogue among students of diverse identities and political backgrounds, promoting civil debate as a shared and necessary value.

Lukianoff’s commitment to free speech comes from familial experience. His father grew up under authoritarian rule in Yugoslavia and witnessed censorship firsthand.

Joining FIRE allowed Lukianoff to protect free speech more broadly, producing nonpartisan evaluations of institutional policies and actions.

Lukianoff opened with what he called his “elevator pitch” and declared that free speech is essential on campus. He argued that limiting civil discourse is not only a constitutional violation, but a practice that chills intellectual exchange.

He took an epistemic approach and explained that knowledge grows not only by discovering what is true, but also by being proven wrong. Exposure to differing opinions is essential for intellectual growth. “You have ideas in your head, you have inclinations, you have opinions, you have aversions; this is some of the most important data, some of the most important information in the world,” he said, emphasizing that growth and development can only emerge in the practice of dissent. On college campuses, this means engaging with uncomfortable ideas - not avoiding them - is essential to intellectual and personal growth.

He warned against seeing free speech as a one-way street. “It seems really tempting to want to punish the bad opinions or ignorant opinions of your enemy. But that’s a tool that works like poison gas. You think you’re destroying your enemy with it, but then the wind changes direction and it blows back on you.” He stressed that defending free expression requires defending the speech of all - even those with whom one disagrees.

Lukianoff acknowledged that FIRE has faced pushback from both sides of the political aisle. “It’s harder to find the people who just get it in their bones, who get it as a principle, and that just takes a lot more work,” he said. “It used to be that we would see more threats to free speech coming from the left, although plenty from the right. But it’s really been completely lopsided in the past year. The situation fundamentally changed.”

He also critiqued attempts to re-institutionalize campuses, noting that coercive faculty and excessive political homogeneity stifle intellectual diversity. Coupled with rising social media use and algorithm-driven platforms, society has become increasingly consumer-driven, a phenomenon that trickles down into individual expression. “We should be experimenting with different models of social media that create better environments for dissent,” Lukianoff said. “Social media for truth seeking… it may sound unrealistic, but it can be done.”

Echo chambers and algorithmic platforms create short-term social pressures, increasing self censorship among students fearful of social consequences. This dynamic, combined with institutional pressures and lingering campus restrictions, helps explain why UW-Madison, despite a 126-spot improvement in FIRE’s College Free Speech Ranking, still received an “F” for overall free speech. Surveys, policy analysis and documented interactions revealed that students continue to feel discomfort expressing their views. Mnookin expressed concern over the evaluation, but Lukianoff remained firm: “You still have 40 percent of your students saying that violence can be okay in some circumstances in response to speech. And you can do better. ”

Looking forward, Lukianoff emphasized that fostering free expression on campus requires more than policy changes or rankings - it requires cultivating a culture of intellectual curiosity, courage, and engagement. UW-Madison has begun taking steps to build this kind of community, striving to encourage robust debate rather than suppress it. As Lukianoff reminded listeners, the protection of free speech is not just a legal or institutional responsibility - it is a commitment to the core principles of democracy itself. Only by defending the right to dissent, welcoming differing viewpoints and fostering an environment where ideas can clash without fear can universities truly live up to the Wisconsin Idea of “fearless sifting and winnowing.”

For students and faculty alike, the challenge is clear: embrace debate, defend dissent and ensure the campus remains a place where ideas can collide without fear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE FROM THE MADISON FEDERALIST:

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

UW Grants Housing Accommodation to Jewish Student After Legal Threat

As Antisemitism Rises, New Campaign Confronts Hate On Campus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On campus, feelings about PROFS are mixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

Gubernatorial Election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UW-Madison Campus issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany spoke at UW-Madison on February 17th. Tiffany, a former state legislator now serving as the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin’s seventh congressional district, drew from his experience to discuss fiscal accountability, free speech, and student retention within the UW System.

Tuition Freeze and Funding

Tiffany’s immediate plans as governor would include implementing a tuition freeze in the first budget. This follows the recent $256 million budget increase and tuition hike across the Universities of Wisconsin. However, he couldn’t commit to reductions without more study, emphasizing UW-Madison’s importance to the state and its economy. While serving in the state legislature, Tiffany was part of a previous tuition freeze.

“Ultimately, the buzzword for me and my administration, if elected, will be accountability,” Tiffany stated. He also raised concerns over the growing number of administrative positions that are being funded across the UW system, relative to the number of students, emphasizing the need to direct more money to the classroom.

Tiffany mentioned this when discussing bonding authority for the UW System, which would give the university the ability to borrow independently for projects without state-level approvals. Tiffany preferred to have accountability for the UW System through the state legislature.

“At this time, I would not be willing to relinquish that authority,” Tiffany stated. Tiffany expressed willingness to engage with the UW to allow it, but he “would have to see things change here at the UW, especially on the fiscal side.”

Free Speech on Campus

Tiffany expressed concern about free speech on campus, citing UW-Madison’s free speech grade of F by FIRE. He highlighted a survey stat: “35 percent of students think that it’s okay to use violence to stop somebody from speaking. [...] That’s deeply disturbing.”

Tiffany advocated for statutory changes in the legislation while also emphasizing the Board of Regents’ role in the matter. He would question new regents about their stance on free speech and how they would protect it. He described the University of Chicago’s policy as “the gold standard” of what free speech policy should be.

While Tiffany believes the key to free speech on campus begins with the regents, he urged that it needed to be reinforced by UW leadership and faculty amid free speech suppression on campuses nationwide.

A ‘Wisconsin First’ Approach for Students

Tiffany pushed for prioritizing in-state students, stating, “We will have a Wisconsin-first stance with my administration.” He already introduced a bill federally in July that would require universities to work under the 65,000 H-1B visa limit, removing their current exemption from this limit.

Common criticisms of the proposal include that U.S. citizens are not trained well enough for such positions, to which Tiffany responded, “Isn’t that an indictment of the job that [universities] are doing? And so we are going to put the Wisconsin back in the UW.” While Tiffany does not want full exclusion from foreign nations and out of state, he stressed, “The UW System was set up for Wisconsinites.”

Tiffany said he has heard about more Wisconsin students going to SEC schools, attributing this to the more welcoming campus environment of southern universities. He hopes that by reforming campus free speech policies, the best and brightest will stay in Wisconsin.

In closing, Tiffany positioned UW-Madison as an “engine that drives Wisconsin’s economy,” but one needing reforms for accountability, freedom, and local focus to ensure it serves Wisconsinites first and fosters long-term growth.

Subscribe now

Following the announcement of Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin’s appointment as the president of Columbia University, the University of Wisconsin will now be in search of her permanent successor. Eric Wilcots, currently the Dean of the College of Letters & Science, was named the interim chancellor effective May 17.

While no timeline has yet been announced, UW System Board of Regents President Amy Bogost will likely name the Special Regent Committee, consisting of at least three regents, in the coming months. This will officially start the selection process. The Special Regent Committee will determine the qualifications necessary for a chancellor as it prepares a prospectus, or leadership profile.

Regent Edmund Manydeeds III, who served as the Regents President during the search resulting in Mnookin’s appointment, recalled in a phone interview with The Madison Federalist, “The first thing we had to do was just determine what we were looking for in the flagship.” Highlighting the importance of UW-Madison and everyone who takes pride in the university, he added, “We had to do what was in the best interest of the campus.”

UW System President Jay Rothman will work in conjunction with Bogost to appoint the Search and Screen Committee, which will actively comb through potential candidates. This committee, led by the Special Regent Committee, will include other regents as well as faculty, students, staff representatives, administrators, alumni, and community representatives. The diverse group will broadly represent the interests of the campus and community and will be dedicated to identifying and recommending the best candidates for the chancellorship.

The search process will also include listening sessions to provide staff, faculty, alumni, and students with the opportunity to share their input. “The input of campus stakeholders is extremely important to the search process and will carry a lot of weight as the committee meets with candidates and deliberates on this decision,” then Regent Vice President and current Board member Karen Walsh said during the last search’s listening sessions.

Manydeeds emphasized that the campus reaches out to the entire state by way of the Wisconsin Idea, including its medical program, extensions, and research upon which companies both within the state and nationally are dependent. He added that, through shared governance, everyone interested in the chancellor’s qualities should have a chance to voice their thoughts.

Based on the input received, the Search and Screen Committee will interview semi-finalists as they build a list of qualified individuals. These individuals will be recommended to the Special Regent Committee, which will decide who will be invited to continue in the selection process.

The Special Regent Committee will interview the finalists and schedule campus visits for Q&A sessions with the finalists that are open to the public. The committee and Rothman will recommend one of the candidates as the next chancellor to the Board of Regents, requiring the Board’s unanimous approval to confirm the candidate’s appointment.

Manydeeds recalled that there is always something that stands out in a successful candidate. With Chancellor Mnookin, it was her confidence, background, and prior success at UCLA, on top of doing her homework to understand what was important to the university and the state.

Until then, Wilcots will be at the helm of the university. Recent history would suggest that Wilcots may not be in the interim position for long. The previous interim chancellor, John Karl Scholz, served for just two months between Rebecca Blank and Jennifer Mnookin in 2022.

Subscribe now

However, considering the limited time ahead of the next school year, the situation more closely reflects David Ward’s two-year tenure as interim chancellor from 2011 to 2013. Similar to Ward before him, Wilcots has been with UW-Madison for over 30 years in faculty and leadership roles, providing much-needed stability at a consequential time for the university.

As the university looks ahead, Manydeeds pointed to the dedication and sacrifices of those involved in the search. “The people are going to take time from their lives and their businesses to help this campus find a really good chancellor,” he said. “People think that regents just go to meetings and rubber-stamp policies, and that’s essentially false. These people are all very successful. They’re not paid. They’re public servants, and they spend hours and hours trying to make sure that the system is the best system that we can have.”

“Knowledge only advances when ideas collide,” said former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels during his recent visit to the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

On Monday, February 16th, the La Follette School of Public Affairs hosted Daniels in Memorial Union as its Spring Spotlight speaker. Daniels criticized higher education for not promoting discourse to the fullest extent, and potentially not preparing students for the post-college world. Audience members included Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, and former Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle.

Daniels served as the Governor of Indiana from 2005 until 2013, before serving as President of Purdue University from 2013 until 2023. He previously served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

There are “way too many [colleges] with no diversity of viewpoint,” Daniels said as he emphasized how a large majority of college students ideologically tend to all think a certain way.

Daniels said that as President of Purdue University, he thought that college should be the laboratory for “the highest forms of self government, debate exchange, and compromises.”

He emphasized that the institution’s primary goal should be “preparing our best young people for citizenship in a free society.”

Daniels said Americans have “raised a couple generations of very fragile young people,” and that he thinks overly protective parents have caused students to be less accepting of opinions that may differentiate from their own. Daniels also mentioned how for years, universities were avoiding free speech and intellectual diversity concerns. This resulted in those problems going unresolved and trust in the institutions going down.

Daniels said that he is okay with the government cutting some federal funding if the universities fail to reach these open discussion values that go to promoting good citizenship. “To fail to actively foster a climate for a maximum openness of ideas,” Daniels said, “is to strike at the heart of the academic enterprise.”

When asked about the Trump administration’s approach to higher education, he had mixed opinions. Daniels said that he disagreed with some of the research funding cuts, specifically those related to medical research. However, he said some of the funding was “highly discretionary,” so he was not opposed to cutting certain projects. He said universities do need to be more fiscally responsible with their funds.

The best way to improve relations between higher education, policy makers, and the public, Daniels said, is to take a position of neutrality on all political issues. As President of Purdue, Daniels kept this notion of neutrality while also prioritizing affordability and freezing tuition at 2012 levels which reduced the cost of attendance. This approach as president of the university allowed Purdue’s admission rates to grow, and Daniels was ranked among the top 50 world leaders by Fortune magazine in 2015.

Daniels said there is a need for a more open debate on college campuses, as it is the best way to create effective citizens in a democratic society. He said he is confident that universities, including UW-Madison, are making reforms to promote a more inclusive environment for students who may feel uncomfortable sharing their views. Finally, Daniels believes that public confidence in our great institutions will not return until people see meaningful change in this area.

Subscribe now

Despite shuttering its central diversity, equity and inclusion division, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has preserved many DEI-focused offices, committees, and ideological statements on campus.

In July 2025, UW-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin announced that the Division of Diversity, Equity, and Educational Achievement would close. This decision came after a financial scandal involving former chief diversity officer LaVar Charleston, a legislative audit that found UW-Madison had failed to track DEI spending, a deal with the legislature to limit DEI programs, and new federal directives that threatened university funding.

However, many of UW-Madison’s schools and colleges have retained explicit commitments to DEI on their websites, including the Law School, the College of Letters and Science, and the School of Business.

The Law School’s strategic priorities include being a “campus and national leader in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, with an emphasis on racial and social justice.” This includes having “a senior leadership position dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion” and launching “anti-racism initiatives.” It also promises to “provide educational opportunities to faculty, staff, and students on what we can do to advance racial justice and develop a more inclusive and equitable learning environment.”

The College of Letters and Science maintains an Office of Inclusive Excellence and Organizational Equity and an Inclusive Excellence Committee. A message from Dean Eric Wilcots, who will become the Interim Chancellor of UW-Madison in May, says the college is “resolute in our commitment to access, diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging.”

The School of Business embraces “diversity, equity, and inclusion at our core.” It also maintains a Multicultural Center, which its director says “promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion and supports underrepresented students, particularly students of color.”

The School of Nursing’s “2026-2031 Inclusive Excellence Plan” is a 13-page document that defines inclusive excellence as “a framework that fosters a transformative environment valuing diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and mattering.” The School of Social Work’s website lists a similar “Strategic Plan for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”

The College of Agricultural and Life Sciences maintains an Equity and Diversity Committee that holds monthly meetings. It advises the dean on initiatives, including “recruitment and retention of minority students; minority student programs; retention programs for at-risk students.” It also performs “reviews of specific complaints of inequity.”

The School of Education maintains a Center for Community and Well-Being with six staffers, which operates the same office space as the school’s former Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. The school also has a Community and Well-Being Committee.

The Division of the Arts “commits to removing all oppressive systems and ideologies within our organization, which requires an equitable distribution of resources, shared power, and shifts in institutional practices that uphold white supremacy and other discriminatory ideologies.” It vows to center DEI in “all of our programming and practices.” It also references an Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access Committee, but it is unclear if it is still active.

The Information School’s website has a “Diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility and belonging statement” and references a DEIA committee. The school also offers the iSchool Diversity Internship Award, with selection criteria including “opportunities to increase diversity of representation in the field based on race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and/or (dis)ability.”

The School of Veterinary Medicine maintains a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Fund and a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Scholarship Fund. The School of Computer, Data, and Information Sciences lists multiple “Diversity and Inclusion Programs” on its website. The International Division has an “Equity and Diversity Collective” that advises its dean on DEI issues, and the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies maintains a Welcoming and Inclusive Nelson Committee.

Within the schools and colleges, various departments have maintained separate commitments to DEI. Dozens of them list diversity statements on their websites, including the departments of Integrative Biology, Psychology, Medieval Studies, and Dairy Science.

Departments that reference DEI committees on their websites include Agricultural and Applied Economics, Political Science, Anthropology, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Kinesiology, Geography, Geoscience, Botany, Plant Pathology, Communication Arts, Communication Sciences and Disorders, Pediatrics, Food Science, Anesthesiology, Physics, Nutritional Sciences, Computer Science, Genetics, Economics and Ob-Gyn. Some of the committee lists are outdated while others are current. UW-Madison did not respond to email inquiries from The Federalist to clarify which committees are active.

Some university-wide DEI initiatives similarly persist. For example, instructors are “strongly encouraged” to include a “diversity and inclusion” statement in their syllabi. Additionally, students are required to take an ethnic studies course to graduate.

As originally reported by The Federalist, the university created a new position called “special advisor for access and community” in April 2025. Percival Matthews, who previously directed the School of Education’s OEDI office, was selected for the role. Matthews co-authored a paper in 2024 that suggested mathematics education in the U.S. was racist and had a long history of inflammatory Facebook posts.

The university’s continued DEI practices have frustrated many Republicans in the state legislature. Rep. Dave Murphy, chairman of the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities, said UW-Madison is “absolutely not committed” to ending DEI in an emailed statement to The Federalist. In a subsequent phone interview, he said UW-Madison is “spending an awful lot of money” on DEI initiatives that get “no return on investment.” He believes “universities need to operate on merit, and fairness, and equality,” but DEI initiatives hinder this.

In 2023, UW-Madison agreed to realign some DEI positions and cap future ones in an agreement with the legislature. University director of public affairs Gillian Drummond told The Federalist, “UW-Madison has met and surpassed its share of the DEI reimagining commitment.”

However, Murphy noted the agreement also included a promise by the university to “seek philanthropic support to create an endowed chair to focus on conservative political thought, classical economic theory, or classical liberalism.” The most recent update to that search came in November, when Mnookin told The Federalist that the university had not yet raised the funds for the position.

In the months before the DDEEA’s closure, the division was embroiled in controversy after an internal audit found that its director, LaVar Charleston, “showed a lack of recognition and appreciation for the university’s responsibility to be sound stewards of state funding and the public trust.” This included handing out more than $200,000 in “lump sum awards” to DDEEA employees “without consultation.” A later audit by the state legislature found that the Universities of Wisconsin did not track millions in DEI spending.

Subscribe now

Drummond said UW-Madison has since “implemented additional controls for compensation adjustments, is conducting more frequent budget and financial reviews, added additional reporting relationships between divisions and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, and has new limits on carryover balances.”

In addition, the university paid Deloitte to audit its fiscal and budgetary controls, and the firm’s report “affirmed our policies are sound.” UW-Madison is “implementing some of Deloitte’s suggestions to foster additional shared accountability, further enhance policies and processes, increase training and transparency, and balance roles for central administrative units as well as those located within units, schools and colleges.”

At the time of the DDEEA’s closure, the unit had 98 employees. Seven of them have lost their jobs, but 91 are still employed by the university. According to The Center Square, nearly all of them have kept their same job titles– including nine whose job titles explicitly included “diversity” or “DEI.” Several of them have salaries in excess of $100,000. Notably, Charleston is still employed by the university.

Drummond told The Federalist, “Many former DDEEA employees were responsible for scholarship-linked student support programs, state, and federal required employee support or compliance functions, and institutional data collection. These types of programs continue to exist and are working to further broaden or revision programming within their new units.” She said the university “continues to engage in collaborative efforts across campus to reimagine programming in ways that enhance pathways to success for all UW-Madison students, faculty, and staff, and remains in compliance with applicable state and federal laws.”

In January, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed a Title VI complaint with the U.S. Department of Education alleging that UW-Madison offers at least 22 race-based scholarships. As a recipient of federal funding, UW-Madison must comply with Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

UW-Madison was also one of 45 colleges investigated by the Department of Education “for allegedly engaging in race-exclusionary practices in their graduate programs.”

While DEI initiatives have continued, the university has also launched the Wisconsin Exchange to “enhance viewpoint diversity at UW–Madison, to promote vigorous discourse and debate, and to intensify our campus culture of civil dialogue.” The Exchange will host speakers of various backgrounds starting this semester, including Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression CEO Greg Lukianoff.

While Murphy believes the Exchange signals that the university may take concerns about ideological diversity more seriously, he fears it could be “window dressing to placate legislators who complained about DEI.” He hopes that more right-leaning speakers will be brought to campus, but believes more “systemic” change is needed.

The Exchange’s current initiatives include Deliberation Dinners, Bridging the Divide, BridgeUSA and the Pluralism and Unity Advisory Council. The Exchange is also partnering with the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute to host a “Common Ground Forum” on campus. Mnookin told The Federalist she hoped there would eventually be a curricular dimension to the Exchange, including courses. A postdoctoral fellowship program “for those whose scholarship and teaching seek to understand or advance the practice of viewpoint diversity and pluralism” will also begin in fall 2026.

Although UW-Madison’s central diversity, equity and inclusion division was eliminated, the continued presence of DEI-focused offices, committees, statements and personnel across its various schools, colleges and departments indicates that DEI remains deeply embedded in campus life.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison recently ranked higher than Harvard or Yale in a national college ranking released by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank whose methodology differs significantly from traditional college rankings.

Out of 100 top universities evaluated by Manhattan Institute scholars John Sailer and Kevin Wallsten, UW-Madison was ranked 27th. This placed it on similar ground with Georgetown, Duke, and the University of Chicago.

The rankings were calculated using four main factors, each composed of multiple subcategories: educational experience (20 percent), leadership quality (20 percent), outcomes (40 percent) and student experience (20 percent).

UW-Madison scored particularly poorly in the educational experience category, with only 3.32 out of 20. The subcategories of curricular rigor and heterodox infrastructure contributed significantly to this low score, with scores of 0.15 out of 2 and 0.43 out of 13, respectively.

The faculty ideological pluralism subcategory also scored very poorly, being ranked in the bottom 15 percent of the 100 colleges. The Manhattan Institute explained that in the 2023-2024 election cycle, less than 2 percent of faculty campaign contributions went to right-leaning causes, while 98 percent went to left-leaning causes.

Student ideological pluralism was ranked in the top 25 percent, contrasting with the faculty’s. They cited “Political Balance of Student Ideological Identification” and “Political Balance of Student Organizations” as positive reasons for this score.

The university scored better in other categories, with a score of 13.45 out of 20 in leadership quality, 22.95 out of 40 in outcomes and a 10.96 out of 20 in student experience.

Many of the subcategories emphasize ideological diversity and free speech on campus, reflecting the Manhattan Institute’s stated values.

Although UW-Madison scored poorly in educational experience, its high overall ranking is largely explained by its performance in the outcomes category which carries the most weight in the ranking calculation. UW-Madison scored well on the value added to education and payback on education investment.

The quality of its alumni network ranked first among the 100 institutions in the ranking. The university also ranked 21st in the leadership quality category, largely because of UW-Madison’s support for free speech and resistance to politicization.

The Manhattan Institute provides a written description for each institution included in the ranking. In its description of UW-Madison, the Manhattan Institute highlighted what it described as a mixed record on free speech and ideological diversity.

The institute praised the university’s adoption of institutional neutrality and endorsement of the Chicago Principles, while also criticizing its “bias-response system,” which they claim does the opposite of what is intended. It pointed to survey data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) that showed limited confidence from students that the “administration would defend a speaker’s right to express views in a controversy over offensive speech.”

They explained how the school was ranked in the top 20 percent for political tolerance among students: “Students tell FIRE that they view illiberal attempts to disrupt campus speech as ‘Unacceptable.’”

They also wrote that “UW-Madison’s curriculum needs serious reform,” citing that the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) gave the school a D in its What Will They Learn? ratings. These ratings give schools a letter grade based on “how many of seven core subjects are required in the core curriculum or general education program.”

However, ACTA “identified one area of excellence on campus: the Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy, which sponsors speakers, colloquia, and an essay competition on themes of democracy and its core principles.”

Despite these criticisms and those for the lack of faculty ideological pluralism, the institute praised UW-Madison’s post-graduation outcomes, mentioning the strong alumni network and the short payback time for the cost of education.

In response, university spokesperson John Lucas said, “Though rankings should always be taken with a grain of salt, UW-Madison is glad to be recognized for its excellence across a wide range of traditional and non-traditional national rankings.”

When asked about the low score on ideological pluralism, Lucas pointed to the Wisconsin Exchange. “As you may already be familiar, Chancellor Mnookin embraces pluralism and created an entire campus initiative, Wisconsin Exchange, around promoting the concept with students, faculty and staff.” Lucas added, “It continues to be the university’s goal to have students learn in an inclusive environment that includes the widest range of backgrounds and viewpoints.”

Alex Tahk, a professor of political science at UW-Madison, said he finds the Manhattan Institute’s rankings “useful,” but emphasized that they have limitations and should not be treated as definitive. He noted that college rankings depend heavily on “what dimensions they’re trying to capture and how well they capture them.”

Tahk added that rankings like these often derive much of their value from sparking debate rather than providing authoritative evaluations, describing them as “conversation starters that are fun to talk—and argue—about.”

The University of Florida took the top spot in the rankings, followed by the University of Texas at Austin and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Regardless of debates over methodology, this ranking highlights UW-Madison’s strong post-graduation outcomes, alumni network and student political tolerance, while still pointing to areas where the Manhattan Institute thinks the university can improve.

University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin will assume office as president of Columbia University in July. However, when she leaves UW-Madison, so will Babcock Dairy’s “Mnookie Dough” ice cream.

Students on YikYak and other social media platforms expressed concern about the uncertain future of the popular flavor shortly after Mnookin’s departure was announced. The Madison Federalist can confirm that Mnookie Dough will eventually be discontinued, but students still have time to enjoy the flavor.

In an emailed statement, Babcock Dairy spokeswoman Bethany Jones said, “Once the transition to a new chancellor is made, we will continue our practice of developing a special flavor for that incoming leader, and that will replace the Mnookie Dough.”

After the publication of the article, she clarified that Mnookie Dough will be replaced “at some (distant) point in the future, but that is eventually. No time soon. We have no current plans to do so at the moment.”

Previous Babcock flavors named after UW chancellors included Bec-Key Lime Pie for Chancellor Rebecca Blank and Strawbiddy Swirl for Chancellor Biddy Martin. They were both discontinued after their namesakes’ tenure ended.

She continued, “We will make every effort to create an even better, more delicious new option for everyone who loves Babcock Dairy Ice Cream!”

Mnookie Dough will still be available at events for the Chancellor during her remaining time at UW-Madison and “will work with the next permanent chancellor on a new flavor, should they be interested.”

“We understand the concern, just like Chancellor Mnookin, Mnookie Dough Ice Cream will be a hard act to follow!” The change will not come quickly, as “we just learned of her announcement with everyone else.”

Mnookie Dough was first introduced in 2023. It consists of rich vanilla ice cream with chunks of cookie dough and swirls of fudge and caramel.

Customers can still purchase Mnookie Dough online and wherever Babcock Ice Cream is sold. Jones also said, “Ice cream recipes are retained; we have kept recipes dating back to 1951, and we bring the more popular feature flavors back from time to time.”

This article was updated to include additional comments from Jones clarifying the timeline of Mnookie Dough’s end.

Subscribe now