Wisconsin voters will decide this November whether to amend the state constitution to prohibit governmental entities from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

The Wisconsin Prohibit Government Discrimination or Preferential Treatment Amendment applies to public employment, education, contracting and administration, including the Universities of Wisconsin and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. While DEI has been a highly controversial issue in state and national politics, the question has particular importance for our campus and its financial priorities.

The UW System spent an estimated $40.2 million in fiscal year 2023 to 2024 on offices with job duties pertaining to DEI, according to a 2025 report by the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau. The audit cautioned that its cost categories overlap and cannot be added together to calculate a single total for DEI spending. It also reported that institutions listed 1,263 DEI-related activities from January 2020 through April 2024, of which 403 focused on students.

The audit raises serious questions about whether these programs are delivering enough value for students and taxpayers. The audit’s activity list included research examining whether states with female governors had fewer COVID-19 deaths than states with male governors.

It also included a Graduate School workshop, “Niceness Is Not Anti-Racism: How White Aspiring Allies Can (and Must) Step Up Their Game.” The workshop intended to encourage white allies to think more deeply about allyship. Both in-state and out-of-state students in the UW System should expect greater transparency and accountability for the money that supports their education.

Students at UW–Madison and across Wisconsin have an opportunity to weigh in at the ballot box this November. By voting yes on AJR 102, voters can limit race and sex-based preferences in public institutions and press university leaders to prioritize student-centered spending.

The premise behind diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education is to improve access and outcomes for students who have faced barriers. While socioeconomic mobility and investment in education are important, the UW System has used DEI too often to justify expenditures that favor administrative interests over the education of the disadvantaged students they claim to help.

UW–Madison announced in July 2025, that it would sunset its Division of Diversity, Equity & Educational Achievement as a freestanding division and move many of its functions into other units. Then-Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin said scholarship-linked student support programs would continue, with academic support moving to the Division for Teaching and Learning and financial support programs moving to the Office of Student Financial Aid.

For that reason, it is important for voters to consider AJR 102’s specific language, which would prohibit governmental entities from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, color or national origin. Supporters argue that this would close loopholes that allow identity-based preferences to persist; that remains a central question for voters.

Despite repeated efforts by lawmakers to reduce DEI-related bureaucracy in the UW System, the broader challenge is institutional continuity. UW-Madison is now led by Interim Chancellor Eric Wilcots after Mnookin’s departure in May. The Board of Regents, the Legislature and the chancellor’s office can change hands. These transitions can alter policy direction and weaken accountability for earlier decisions. Wisconsinites have a chance to set a constitutional standard through this amendment, which supporters say would protect taxpayers and students from unnecessary spending.

AJR 102 does not use or define the term “DEI.” The 2025 audit found that the UW Board of Regents and UW System administration did not require a systemwide definition of DEI, and institutions implemented related activities differently. The audit also found that institutions did not centrally track the total amounts spent specifically to implement those activities.

This lack of consistent definitions and tracking makes meaningful oversight difficult. The proposed constitutional amendment would require UW System officials and lawmakers to follow its restrictions on discrimination and preferential treatment. It would not, by itself, prescribe a budget or eliminate every student-support program.

Financial responsibility is not just about cutting expenses. It is also about choosing which programs, infrastructure and resources are worth investing in. The amendment does not expressly ban financial aid, first-generation access, tutoring or mentorship programs, though programs that use protected characteristics as eligibility criteria could face legal scrutiny.

The UW System and UW-Madison can expand access by directing more resources toward programs based on financial need and academic support. At a time of tuition increases and budget constraints, students have every right to demand that their tuition and public funding directly support their education.

Students have historically voted at lower rates than older adults, but that can change this year. Regardless of politics or party affiliation, voting on the Wisconsin Prohibit Government Discrimination or Preferential Treatment Amendment on Nov. 3 is an opportunity to decide how Wisconsin’s public institutions should approach equal treatment, accountability and student spending.

Subscribe now

Javier Cardozo is a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

I lived in Venezuela for my first 23 years, where I saw the effects of socialism every day. With widespread poverty and crony elections, Venezuela is the perfect example of what happens when you try to implement socialist policies and ideas in a country. That is why I am so concerned about socialism coming to the United States.

I sadly see that many Americans who condemn the situation in Venezuela do not understand what went wrong. Socialist policies and political repression destroyed our economic system, causing the migration crisis that pushed out almost 8 million Venezuelans — including me. But at the same time, progressives want to implement the very same policies here.

Venezuela’s history with socialist ideas is longer than what some people presume. In 1958, Venezuela entered a democratic era where two parties shared power. But every decade after that moment, the Venezuelan public started to believe more strongly that the state had the duty to redistribute wealth, especially the income produced by the petroleum industry.

Those ideas gave power to a state that intervened a lot in the market and society. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, Venezuela had problems with inflation, poverty, and corruption, as well as the feeling that neither of the two main parties was able to resolve the country’s problems.

Many people at the time decided to give an opportunity to an “outsider,” a revolutionary military leader who promised to change the country.

That military leader was Hugo Chávez. And change the country he did. Since the beginning of his regime, we have faced the biggest crisis since before independence.

He sold an idea that is appealing to many: that the situation in the country was the fault of capitalist elites, that the poor needed to be defended, and that forgotten minorities, such as indigenous tribes, needed to be supported by the state.

The Venezuelan regime decided to seize houses, farms, companies, and many other properties. It also established price and currency controls. Being rich was seen as a sin.

Chávez and his regime used social justice as a flag to attack whoever was considered an enemy of the regime. A common practice of the Venezuelan government was to seize or take control of farms and agricultural land from private owners. In some cases, the affected landowners were considered opponents of the government, whether because they had protested against a socialist politician or because the authorities portrayed them as greedy capitalists.

These actions were often justified in the name of social justice, food security, or the national interest. Landowners could lose control of their property while receiving inadequate or zero compensation. Moreover, transferring productive farms to the state did not guarantee that they would remain productive. In many cases, poor management, lack of technical expertise, and inadequate investment contributed to the deterioration of formerly productive agricultural properties.

The regime also bought the votes of millions through the “social missions.” It is true that Venezuela was — and is even more so now — a country with a significant lack of educational opportunities. The possibility of buying a house and equipping it was remote for many. The government decided to do something that was applauded at the time: use petroleum revenues to create social policies to “help” people in different areas of their lives.

What actually happened was that those social missions were an opportunity for regime leaders to steal millions of dollars. The educational quality of the educational missions was terrible and more oriented toward indoctrination than acquiring knowledge.

Houses and equipment were of poor quality, and many people were threatened that, if they decided to show any disapproval toward the regime, their houses could be taken away and the programs that provided them with groceries or other goods could be suspended.

Once you see that the politician who “paid” for your goods or services punishes you for doing something that he dislikes, you will understand that socialism is one of the biggest traps in history. It attracts people with the idea of compensating them for their suffering, but in the end, it always cripples them further.

When the state behaves paternalistically and takes money from the “evil capitalists” to give it to others, when the entrepreneur is seen as an abuser of the system who cannot be trusted, and when the government believes that it knows better than you, you are heading down the road to serfdom.

If you believe in socialist ideas, look at the example of my country. Venezuela is the perfect example of socialism. Millions of people were pushed into poverty under the flag of social justice and equality. We achieved equality, but it was equality of despair.

The United States is the country of freedom, where it is possible to grow and have a better life. Be careful, Americans, because the ideas that leftists want to implement here would break the country.

Subscribe now

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

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

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

Academic and research programs

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

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

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

University revenue and budget

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

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

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

Housing and the local economy

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Attack the argument, not the person

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

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

2. Hate the sin, not the sinner

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

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

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

3. Listen, not lecture

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

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

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

4. Educate, not berate

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

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

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

5. Speak the truth in love

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

READ MORE:

MAKING SENSE OF CHARLIE KIRK

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

UW-MADISON MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS DATA SHOW RACIAL DISPARITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

The University of Wisconsin-Madison has been a national leader in academic freedom for over a century, but the institution’s commitment to free speech has faced serious challenges throughout its history.

Wisconsin has often tried to be a bulwark for freedom of thought and speech, from the Board of Regents crafting the “Sifting and Winnowing” doctrine in 1894 to being the first college to willingly revise their restrictive speech code in 1999. But this history is not simple.

UW-Madison was the first college to willingly revise its faculty speech code, but it was also one of the first colleges to implement one in 1981. As higher education faces new institutional crises, reflecting on historical challenges and triumphs is informative for today.

This story begins in 1894. Professor Richard Ely gained fame on campus for his progressive ideas. He was a passionate supporter of organized labor and promoted government intervention to advance social reform. However, his ideas didn’t come without pushback. This eventually led to an investigation by the Board of Regents based in part on accusations that he was teaching students about socialism and other “pernicious doctrines.” However, in a triumph for free speech on college campuses, the regents exonerated Ely of all charges and their report made a much bigger statement.

“In all lines of academic investigation it is of the utmost importance that the investigator should be absolutely free to follow the indications of truth wherever they may lead,” the regents wrote. “Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.”

Those words, forever etched on a plaque at the entrance of Bascom Hall, serve as a reminder of UW-Madison’s continual vested interest in promoting freedom of thought. However, UW leadership have often failed to uphold the principles of the Sifting and Winnowing doctrine.

In October 1967, student opposition to the Vietnam War grew rapidly on campus. Many students were agitated by the university’s cooperation with the Dow Chemical Company and CIA in their efforts to recruit students.

The tension boiled over on Oct. 18, 1967. That morning, students began protesting at the Commerce Building - now Ingraham Hall - where student job interviews for Dow Chemical Company were held. The protest started out peaceful, but the scene soon turned ugly as students and police both became agitated.

There are variations in what witnesses say happened that day. The campus police stated that the protesters are the ones that first became violent while many students say that the violence started after the police started beating protesters.

The events of the October protest served as a rallying cry for college students across the country. UW-Madison was propelled into the national spotlight, and the events encouraged anti-Vietnam protests at colleges across the country. Many students believed that UW-Madison wasn’t doing enough to protect student speech, a sentiment that would continue into the 1980s and 90s, resulting from the creation of UW’s student and faculty speech code.

UW-Madison formally adopted its first faculty speech code in 1981. In 1989, after incidents of alleged discriminatory harassment at UW-Madison, the Board of Regents formally voted to enact a student speech code.

This speech code regulated all expressive speech that “created an intimidating or hostile environment” and was demeaning “the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual or individuals.”

The Board of Regents tried to address serious problems, but they created a student speech code that was so broad that it could regulate all disagreeable speech.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin ended up striking down the speech code in 1991 as being an unconstitutional regulation of student speech. Although colleges do have the right to regulate speech that incites immediate violence, they do not have the right to regulate all speech that is deemed intimidating or hostile.

UW-Madison’s stated goal for the speech code was to increase diversity on campus, but “the UW Rule does as much to hurt diversity on Wisconsin campuses as it does to help it,” according to the District Court. “By establishing content-based restrictions on speech, the rule limits the diversity of ideas among students and thereby prevents the ‘robust exchange of ideas’ which intellectually diverse campuses provide.”

Many on the UW-Madison campus believed that the university had ended all of their restrictive speech policies with the absence of the student speech code. However, the UW-Madison faculty speech code was still in effect. This code regulated expression that “debases the student on the basis of the student’s gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability” and wasn’t “germane to the subject matter of a course.”

It is difficult to define what is “germane to the subject of a course,” so the determination of what was permissible and what wasn’t would be left up to a committee hearing.

This ambiguity led to many investigations of things professors said during class. Lester Hunt, a professor of philosophy at UW-Madison, was investigated for using the term “Injuns” in class. A history professor at UW-Madison was investigated when they failed to use gender-neutral language during class. These professors weren’t ever found guilty of violating the speech code but those investigations had a chilling effect on campus.

Professors constantly worried about saying something that mildly offended someone for fear that they too would be investigated. UW-Madison revised the speech code in 1999 after pressure from the Committee for Academic Freedom and Rights.

The 21st century has seen how past battles over freedom of speech have taken a new shape. Students often feel the need to self-censor because they fear social backlash from their peers, rather than the university.

There have been some notable incidents on campus, including high-profile speaker disruptions and newspaper trashings. UW-Madison is still navigating the effects of the anti-Israeli encampment of 2024.

While the encampment was illegal, the line between legitimate demonstrations and unlawful protests was blurred. Students certainly have the right to speak out on campus, but those protests must follow state laws and university policies. The university made the noble decision to enact a policy of institutional neutrality in its aftermath, but questions still remain about the university’s decision-making process.

Today, too many students are supportive of censoring their peers and disinviting speakers they find controversial. Nuanced political debate is as important as ever during this time of negative partisanship, and it starts with university administrators protecting every student’s right to speak freely and promoting intellectual diversity on campus.

Programs such as the Wisconsin Exchange appear to be steps in the right direction, but as our campus’s history has shown, good decisions are often followed by bad ones.

Subscribe now

READ MORE FROM THE MADISON FEDERALIST:

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

Publish the Syllabi: UW-Madison Should Embrace Transparency

UW-Madison Should Abandon “Land Acknowledgements”

Tuition at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has been increased for the fourth year in a row. While there are legitimate criticisms for how this increase came about, the extra cost may be necessary.

On June 4, the UW System Board of Regents approved a two percent hike in tuition for students in the 2026-27 academic year. This represents a two percent increase for in-state students and a four percent increase for out-of-state students, along with a 2.4 percent increase in the segregated fee rate, according to the UW-Madison Bursar’s Office.

There are good reasons to be concerned about this increase. Tuition has already been raised multiple times in recent years. Just last year, the tuition was increased by five percent.

UW Board of Regents president Amy Bogost has been accused of misleading lawmakers in April about the regents’ consideration of a tuition increase. Less than two months later, she voted to increase it, along with most of the board. After the unceremonious ouster of former UW System president Jay Rothman, this did little to promote public trust in the regents. Kyle M. Weatherly was voted to succeed Bogost in June, but she is still on the board. Regent Timothy Nixon was the lone vote against the increase.

Student debt is higher than ever. More and more graduates are laden with debt that will follow them for decades and keep them from achieving their own goals, starting businesses, raising families, or enjoying a fulfilling life. The people who will suffer the most damage from this are low to middle-income students who don’t qualify for enough aid. These students will be forced to take on more debt and spend more time paying it off and being held back from enjoying the prime of their lives.

It is important to ask where this money will go, as much may very well be wasted on a bloated administration. The students of Wisconsin have a right not to be okay with increased tuition until they can be certain their funds are going to programs and infrastructure that will benefit them. In the past decade, the UW System has lost about 16,000 students. However, it has gained more than 2,000 non-faculty staff members. According to an estimate from State Senator Eric Wimberger, $750 million could be saved by cutting back on administrative bloat. While not every new position necessarily should be removed, a university losing students should not endlessly expand its bureaucracy.

While these legitimate concerns should not be ignored, the decision to increase tuition was not made lightly.

UW-Madison’s tuition is low compared to many peer institutions, according to a report from the Center for Research on the Wisconsin Economy. Despite scoring high in most college rankings, its tuition is in the bottom third of public members of the Association of American Universities.

Compared with many other states and schools, UW-Madison remains relatively affordable and offers an excellent return on investment.

The UW System employs over 41,000 people, and the fact is prices are rising: the cost of living grows every month, and more people than ever are struggling to pay the bills. It would seem fair to ensure that the hardworking faculty and staff of the UW System can continue to afford to live and provide their valuable services, knowledge, expertise, and all other facets of work that keep the UW System strong and provide world-class education to the people of Wisconsin.

Another important thing to consider regarding rising prices is the growing struggle of working-class families and lower-income households to send their children to a good university. Wisconsin ranks near the bottom of states in public funding for universities, so the tuition increase can be used to subsidize low-income students. This moves the burden of funding away from the lower-income households and onto richer native and out-of-state students.

With the recent uncertainties about federal funding, universities may need to find new funding sources for existing programs and infrastructure. Raising tuition, at least until conditions are clearer, would allow the UW System not only to preserve current initiatives but also to reduce its reliance on federal funds. Keeping big institutions running is not a cheap endeavor.

Higher education will become increasingly competitive as the college-age population continues to shrink for the foreseeable future. Universities form the building blocks of many important industries and drive innovation and growth across the public and private sectors. It is in Wisconsin’s best interest to continue attracting world-class students to its universities. There are great opportunities and incentives to increase the prestige and quality of Wisconsin universities to continue reaping their economic benefits and keep the UW System competitive with its peers. This effort will require large and long-term investments.

UW-Madison provides a world-class education, so it is not unreasonable to charge a premium for it. At the same time, the university must make cost-saving decisions when possible. Administrative bloat is one of the more serious – and solvable – problems it faces. While this tuition hike may be justified, the university should not rely on continued increases to fund an inefficient bureaucracy, and the Board of Regents must become more transparent.

Subscribe now

By Mike Nichols

This article was originally published by the Badger Institute.

Grade inflation continues unabated at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The average GPA for undergraduate students at Wisconsin’s flagship university increased to 3.48 in the fall 2025 semester — up from 3.28 just 10 years ago and close to the 3.5 midpoint between an A and B average, according to reports available from the Office of the Registrar.

Grade point averages are even higher in some academic disciplines. The average undergraduate GPA in the School of Education, which had more than 2,400 students, was 3.63 last fall. The average undergraduate GPA in the School of Pharmacy, which had only 40 students, was 3.75.

The school or college with the lowest average GPA last fall was Agricultural and Life Sciences, where the average GPA was 3.39.

The problem is not entirely new. A study by Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy in 2012, “Where A is ordinary: The evolution of American college and university grading, 1940-2009,” found that on average across a wide range of schools, 43 percent of all letter grades were an A, an increase of 28 percentage points since 1960 and 12 percentage points since 1988.

But the UW-Madison data suggests the phenomenon has grown worse.

Employers and graduate schools often have no way to know whether they are getting an excellent student or a mediocre one in this age of increasingly rampant grade inflation. A prospective employee with an ostensibly impressive 3.5 GPA may well, in fact, be a middling student.

Some Canadian universities, including the University of Toronto, solve that problem on transcripts by including class GPA averages for each course right next to the grade received by the individual. It is immediately apparent how an individual performed in comparison to peers in the exact same class.

That is “at least something to which they (UW-Madison officials) should give serious thought,” said Madison Professor Emeritus Donald Downs. “Absolutely.”

Downs said grade inflation began way back in the 1960s when some professors were wary of flunking students who could then be drafted into the military for service in Vietnam. Reasons for ever-increasing grade inflation, he said, are different today.

Even 10 years ago, when he stopped teaching, “giving a student a C was a tough thing to do,” he said. Students with low grades could cause trouble for a professor, he said, adding that he himself never experienced that. Student dissatisfaction, he added, might show up on evaluations.

There have been other forces at work as well, including a shift in how some universities and professors see their role. Downs cited a forthcoming book by Jonathan Alpert entitled “Therapy Nation” that will document the shift to a therapeutic mindset.

In a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal, Alpert noted that the number of students receiving accommodations on deadlines or tests due to a diagnosed impairment such as anxiety or ADHD or depression has surged.

“Recent reporting indicates that nearly 40% of Stanford undergraduates are registered for accommodations,” wrote Alpert. “Harvard reports roughly 21%, up more than 18 points over the past decade, with similar increases at Amherst and Brown.”

“Therapy was never meant to function as a governing model for companies and schools,” wrote Alpert. “But its language now substitutes for institutional judgment about standards, expectations and limits for student and employee behavior.”

Downs, a First Amendment scholar, says “political correctness has been replaced by emotional correctness.”

Questions submitted to UW-Madison Provost John Zumbrunnen were answered via an email from Gillian Drummond, the director of public affairs in the Office of Strategic Communication.

“The term grade inflation usually refers to a deliberate practice of course instructors awarding grades that are higher than merited by student academic performance. Over this time period, changes in academic policy, student experience and student support are more likely contributors to increasing undergraduate GPAs,” she wrote.

Drummond noted that a sharp increase in GPAs in 2020 was “was likely due to changes in COVID-era grading options that allowed students to not count certain courses in their grade point averages” and said that when the practice ended, GPAs returned to pre-pandemic levels.

GPAs increased from 3.279 in 2015-16 to 3.477 in 2020-21 before dropping to 3.392 in 2021-22 and then rising gradually to 3.483 last fall.

She added that the semester deadline to drop courses was extended during the pandemic as well and eventually became permanent, allowing more students to avoid completing the semester with a low grade.

A much higher percentage of freshmen are enrolling with prior college course experience, she said, which “may lead to stronger academic performance” and “more familiarity with academic support options.”

University of Toronto officials have long included course average grades on transcripts and are not the only ones to have at least thought of the idea. A Harvard University report is said to have noted that “recording the median grade for every course” on transcripts might help recruiters and “reduce the pressure students currently feel to take easily graded courses, since the benefits of doing so would be less.”

Professors still would have motivation to give higher grades to students who don’t really deserve them, but at least the façade of excellence attached to the kid with the 3.5 GPA would be revealed for what it is: an illusion.

Drummond did not respond to a question posed to Zumbrunnen about whether UW-Madison would consider including average course grades on transcripts next to individual’s grades.

Mike Nichols is the president of the Badger Institute.

The future of free markets in the United States is in danger, as support for capitalism among younger generations has fallen to an all-time low. According to a poll conducted by the Cato Institute in 2025, 62% of Americans aged 18 to 29 say they hold a “favorable view” of socialism. Perhaps even more troubling, 34% of young Americans say they hold a “favorable view” of communism.

This is a stark contrast from previous generations. Baby Boomers overwhelmingly hold a positive view of capitalism at 68%. Only 32% of our elder generation holds a positive view of socialism.

Many older Americans are baffled by the fact that so many Gen Zers could favor a system that has failed so horribly in the past. Baby Boomers and Gen X grew up during the Cold War, when socialist and communist ideologies spread across Eastern Europe and Asia. They witnessed, in real time, the authoritarianism, human rights abuses, and economic stagnation stemming from socialist policies that plagued entire countries.

When the Soviet Union fell on December 26, 1991, many thought that would be the end of the support for socialism and that free-market capitalism would dominate the Western Hemisphere for eternity.

However, the rising support for socialism among young Americans, the recent election of democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani in America’s biggest city, and the Democratic Party’s gradual embrace of policies once considered fringe, proved that hopeful sentiment wrong.

So, what happened? Why are the youngest Americans so pessimistic about their economic future and demand an overhaul of our free-market system?

Many older generations gripe that the reason why so many Gen Z are rallying against the capitalist system is due to a newfound sense of laziness and distaste for those who work harder than they do.

Ludwig Von Mises, a famous free-marketer and Austrian School economist, articulated this view in his book The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality.

Capitalism, he says, is a system in which everyone is given the opportunity to achieve the most desirable positions in society. However, these positions and wealth can only be attained by a few.

According to Mises:

“​​What makes many feel unhappy under capitalism is the fact that capitalism grants to each the opportunity to attain the most desirable positions which, of course, can only be attained by a few. Whatever a man may have gained for himself, it is mostly a mere fraction of what his ambition has impelled him to win. There are always before his eyes people who have succeeded where he failed.”

The result is that people feel dissatisfied as they see people who have worked hard and attained the things they wished for themselves. This feeling of resentment leads people to cast blame on the system rather than take responsibility for the way their life has turned out.

While this explains why some socialists have a distaste for capitalism, it certainly does not explain the bulk of people who are going further and further left. Nor does it help to explain why there has been a recent uptick for socialism in the last decade, as it is unreasonable to believe that an entire young generation has a newfound sense of laziness and jealousy.

The Gen Z socialists are right about one thing: our “free-market” economy is not doing well, especially when compared to previous generations.

Gen Z grew up during an interesting economic time, with some of their first memories of economic impact coming from the Great Recession, where they saw parents lose their jobs and their homes and struggle to afford basic necessities in a stagnant economy.

Then, as many Gen Z were finishing their education and beginning to look for full-time jobs, the Covid-19 pandemic hit, halting the economy to a stop.

The Covid economy was first marred by rapid job loss, then historically high inflation, followed by surging home prices.

The post-Covid housing market has made the dream of owning a home unattainable for many young Americans. In 1985, the median home price was $84,300, which was 3.5 times the median income at the time. In 2023, the average home price was $428,600, which is 5.3 times the median income.

There has been a growing sentiment that earnings have been stagnating. One commonly cited statistic is that real wages have only grown by 0.7% since 1973. CEO pay has also undoubtedly outpaced worker wage growth, with top CEOs now making 281 times the amount of an average worker.

However, while many members of Gen Z are correct that there is a sickness in our economy, they are misdiagnosing the disease and are attempting to prescribe a dangerous treatment.

Many ascribe the perils discussed above as being by-products of an overly-free capitalist market. Gen Z socialists say wages are stagnating and CEO pay is increasing as a result of a corporate oligarchy wielding power over workers, which free-market capitalism has bred and allowed to continuously grow.

Therefore, they say, the only solution is embracing a democratic-socialist system where aggressive wealth redistribution, emboldening the welfare state, and implementing extensive regulation can keep greedy corporations and the billionaire class in check.

However, this is not the case. The actual culprit behind the lagging economy is not an overgrowth of the free market, but rather an encroachment of government power and regulation.

The reason why home prices are more than 5 times the median income is almost entirely the result of money that was artificially pumped into the economy during the Covid-19 pandemic. From February of 2020 to February of 2022, the U.S. money supply increased by an unprecedented 40.4%. This, coupled with the Federal Reserve’s choice to bring mortgage rates to an all-time low, caused housing prices to soar 54.9% between 2020 and 2025.

Additionally, heavy government regulation on the housing sector left builders unable to keep the housing supply up with demand, further pushing prices up.

This stimulus check that drastically increased the money supply during Covid is also the reason why we haven’t seen any gains in terms of real wages since the start of the pandemic. Inflation ticked up to a 40-year high, climbing to over 8%.

Data from a non-partisan organization, the Hamilton Project, has found that real wage growth since 2020 has been flat due to high inflation eating up nominal wage gains. Furthermore, the lowest levels of wage growth occurred in low- to middle-income jobs.

Regulatory capture is also driving market consolidation and increased corporate power as large corporations have successfully lobbied and influenced government officials to shape regulations in their favor. This tends to hurt small businesses and reduce competition by creating large regulatory barriers that only large incumbent corporations can overcome.

Again, this is not the result of the free market at work but rather crony capitalism, which is a direct result of the government becoming even more intertwined with our economic system.

Many progressives also tend to overstate the degree of economic stagnation or the issues that come with rising inequality.

For instance, the statistic that real wages have only grown by 0.7% since 1973 is misleading. 1973 was a previous peak for real wages, a bit of an anomaly, so to speak. This statistic also uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to adjust nominal wage growth and put it into real terms. As a report from the American Enterprise Institute points out, using 1973 as a base year and CPI to measure real wages greatly underestimates real wage growth.

If you use 1990 as the base year, which was another business cycle peak, and use Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as the price index, real wages grew by 39% from 1990 to 2022.

Rising economic inequality is also often miscategorized and overstated. An article written by Senior Fellow Scott Winship points out that there are many issues with how think tanks calculate income inequality, such as the fact that they don’t take into account non-wage employee benefits or non-wage government benefits.

The Gini Coefficient (produced by the Congressional Budget Office), Winship argues, is a much better measure of income inequality, as it takes more factors into account. The Gini coefficient has only risen from 0.41 in 1989 to 0.43 in 2017. The Gini coefficient is 0 when everyone has the same income and is 1 when a single family has all of the income in a country.

Most of the growth in income inequality post-WWII actually occurred in the 1980s. Recent data has suggested that income inequality peaked in 2021 and has been dropping ever since.

Additionally, a piece on income inequality from the Hoover Institution points out that income inequality is not what we should be most concerned about. Rather, we should be looking at how many people are able to make their way out of poverty and have a good standard of living. According to the report, worldwide extreme poverty has fallen significantly in the past couple of decades, reaching an all-time low of under a billion people.

Moreover, the wealth that we are seeing concentrated among those in the top 1% is mainly driven by technological innovation. That technological innovation, which has flourished in the United States’ free-market system, has also translated to unprecedented growth within America’s middle class.

Winship’s article also highlights the massive growth that the middle and even lower classes have encountered in recent decades. “It is not the case that the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer, contrary to the ‘falling behind’ rhetoric,” he says.

The Covid-19 pandemic also left a lot of people in isolation, closed-off from outside human interaction and experiences. Many began to fill the void by scrolling on social media for hours on end.

While social lockdowns removed people from real-world conversation and political discourse, the social media algorithm was pushing out flashy political content from creators who had little credibility but a huge incentive to gain virality.

Much of the political content on platforms such as TikTok and Instagram was intentionally inflammatory, expressing radical views from both the left and the right. The more users engaged with this kind of content, the more the algorithms continued feeding it to them.

Being isolated from their classmates, neighbors, and community members, many members of Gen Z forgot what political views and conversations looked like in real life and became consumed by the political jungle on social media.

As a result, these online platforms began to normalize radical views, such as support for tearing down capitalism, and were rarely ever challenged due to the lack of face-to-face conversations.

This was especially problematic since social media quickly became the main source of news for many Gen Zers. The Genesis 2021 report showed that cellphone and social media usage surged during the pandemic, with 46% of adolescents saying they used their phone more than three hours a day, with 62% of this usage going to just TikTok. Additionally, 50% of Gen Z used social media networks as their daily news source as of 2022.

This only further fueled the echo chamber effect. Many young Americans were being presented with radical and sometimes even non-factual content that was being packaged up as “news.” With little outside influence, many turned towards socialism, thinking it was a legitimate and necessary step towards solving our nation’s economic and social perils.

Lastly, another reason why support for socialism may be rising among Gen Z has to do with their changing definition of it, or at least of what they think socialism could be.

This could help explain why a poll from 2019 done by Gallup found that while 49% of millennials and Gen Z had a favorable view of socialism, 83% still had a positive view of ”free enterprise.”

When many Gen Z say they advocate for socialism, they do not necessarily mean securing the means of production and having a centrally-controlled economy like in the Soviet Union. Rather, they just want things like higher taxes on the wealthy, universal health care, and universal childcare, among other things.

To them, “socialism” more commonly means the democratic-socialist policies commonly associated with Scandinavian-style welfare states than traditional Marxist theory.

Samuel J. Abrams, another senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, points this out in his op-ed titled Capitalism Isn’t the Enemy—What Young Voters Really Want. This can be seen with the many democratic-socialist politicians that Gen Z is rallying behind, such as Zohran Mamdani and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Neither ran on the platform to have an economy entirely controlled by a central, authoritarian government. Rather, they mainly advocate for things such as free health care, lower prices, and higher wages.

However, it is important to note that politicians like Mamdani and AOC have also advocated for more explicit socialist policies, such as government-run grocery stores and price controls, which can quickly lead to serious economic problems.

Venezuela is a prime example of this, where government overreach, corruption, and central planning all contributed to the rapid downfall of a once prosperous Latin American country.

Part of Gen Z’s shift in attitudes may stem from the fact that they are decades removed from the worst horrors of socialism, where the older generations watched the economic system play out in full scale during the Cold War.

Gen Z is too young to have been alive to witness the devastating effects of the Soviet Union and the communist bloc’s eventual collapse. They only read about it in school, where even then it is inadequately taught.

The reality is that preserving personal freedom and democratic institutions is very difficult when a government is allowed to endlessly expand its power in the name of economic justice and equality.

Additionally, “well-intended” policies that focus on government-run enterprises, central planning, and aggressive wealth redistribution can quickly slide into an all-out-socialist economic system like in the Soviet Union. Many of the “democratic socialists” of Generation Z have yet to learn that.

The growing support for socialism among Gen Z in the United States did not come out of nowhere, nor did it simply come from a sudden change in mindset. It was the result of changing economic conditions, social media radicalization, and a new attempt to package up socialist ideas as being compatible with a free and prosperous society.

Many young Americans feel pessimistic about their ability to achieve the same American dream that was promised to previous generations and are turning to socialism to address rising costs and inequality.

Gen Z needs to be better educated about the historic failures of socialism. We need to make sure that the future leaders of the world are willing to embrace the economic system that has brought more wealth and prosperity to this world than any other economic system in human history.

In order to restore Gen Z’s faith in free markets, we must ensure that every young American understands that the current economic issues that we face today are not driven by capitalism, but rather government overreach in the form of corruption, mismanagement, inflation, and crony capitalism.

In other words, they need to understand that the blame assigned to capitalism really belongs to the growth of socialism.

This article was originally published by the MacIver Institute.

This article was originally published by the MacIver Institute.

INTRODUCTION

In January of 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to restrict federal funding from being used to support gender transitions for individuals under 19. It mandated that federal funding not be used for puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or surgeries, and instructed federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid to deny coverage for these interventions.

The order also directed federal agencies to make sure that hospitals receiving federal funds were not using those resources to do gender-transitioning procedures on minors.

In response to this executive order, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, along with 14 other state attorneys general, signed onto a multi-state lawsuit challenging the policy.

But this is just one of over 40 lawsuits that Kaul has signed onto on behalf of Wisconsin since the beginning of Trump’s second term.

As these lawsuits continue to grow in number, so do questions about the scope of the attorney general’s power and whether this level of involvement in national political battles is what the state office was intended for.

THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & JOSH KAUL

The Wisconsin Attorney General’s role is to be the chief legal officer of the state. While the position was created in the Wisconsin State Constitution of 1848, the duties of the role are outlined in Wisconsin Statute § 165.25.

They appear before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, handle litigation for state agencies, and take part in other legal actions at the direction of the governor or legislature. The office also functions as legal counsel to state officials and provides guidance to district attorneys.

The attorney general serves for four years and is not subject to term limits. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul was originally elected in 2018, again in 2022, and will seek re-election against Republican candidate Eric Toney this fall.

Aside from the political lawsuits, Kaul’s tenure has not been without controversy.

In 2025, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Reporter Daniel Bice broke that Kaul had hired a new special assistant attorney role for environmental litigation whose salary is paid by the State Energy Environment and Impact Center at New York university law school. Controversially, the center was funded by Michael Bloomberg.

As MacIver’s Senior Fellow William Osmulski put it, “The State of Wisconsin got the lawyer for free. In exchange, SEIC got to use the authority of Wisconsin’s Attorney General to fight climate change. A quid pro quo.”

Taken together, these developments and the volume of lawsuits targeting a Republican federal administration have prompted concerns that the office is being used for political purposes.

In previous attempts to reign in the power of the attorney general, Wisconsin Act 369 was passed in 2017. Among other things, this legislation dictates that when the DOJ wants to discontinue or compromise a civil action, they must get approval from a state intervenor or the Joint Committee on Finance. It also requires that DOJ settlement funds are deposited into the general fund. This limited the attorney general’s ability to withdraw Wisconsin from lawsuits and increased legislative oversight.

While Kaul may not have been able to unilaterally withdraw Wisconsin from lawsuits filed by the previous conservative attorney general, it has not prevented him from signing onto a plethora of multi-state lawsuits against the current federal administration.

MULTI-STATE LAWSUITS

A multi-state lawsuit is any coordinated litigation between two or more attorneys general against the same defendant––typically the federal government and its agencies––over policies, regulations, or executive orders in federal district court.

It is not unprecedented for attorneys general of one party to co-litigate or sign onto lawsuits against the federal administration of the opposing party, but this tool has been used with increasing frequency since Trump’s first term.

In most of the coalitions that form these multi-state lawsuits, a few anchor states do the heavy lifting. These states usually draft the litigation, represent the coalition of states, and file the initial complaint. Often, the litigation is co-drafted by two or more states.

Democratic attorneys general in states like California and New York have been some of the most active in filing lawsuits against the Trump administration, with other major contributors including the AGs of Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington.

The Badger State, on the other hand, appears to take a more passive role. While Wisconsin filed a petition against the Environmental Protection Agency in 2025, in most other cases, the state joins as a sign-on plaintiff rather than serving as a lead plaintiff.

States do this because when multiple states join together, it strengthens and legitimizes their claim. It also increases the likelihood that a federal judge will issue a nationwide injunction, whether preliminary or permanent, preventing the federal government from enforcing a regulation or policy across the country.

To establish standing, plaintiff states must provide specific claims showing how the federal action harms their state. This is supposed to be evidence that the action harms residents, conflicts with state law, increases costs for the state, or exceeds federal authority, to name just a few examples.

It is difficult to know exactly how much Wisconsin taxpayers are spending on these lawsuits against the federal government. Wisconsin’s state budget and Department of Justice appropriations do not specify how much funding is allocated to individual cases. As a result, the public, which elects the attorney general, is left unaware of how much staff time and taxpayer money is being spent on research, filings, and coordination with other states in these lawsuits.

This raises an important question: if Wisconsin is repeatedly joining national litigation, what exactly is the state fighting for? Take a look at some of the major lawsuits Josh Kaul has signed-on to:

Birthright citizenship executive order— Kaul joined a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order denying citizenship to certain children born in the United States.

Blocking Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood— Kaul joined litigation opposing a federal provision cutting off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

Restriction of Medicare and Medicaid for Transgender Interventions on Kids— Kaul participated in a lawsuit challenging an HHS declaration and related proposed rules aimed at limiting federal money on transgender interventions.

$100,000 H-1B visa fee— In another case, Kaul joined a coalition contesting a new $100,000 fee on H-1B visa petitions.

Freeze of federal education grant funding— Kaul also joined a lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision to freeze various education grants.

Firings of federal probationary employees— Kaul joined a challenge to the administration’s termination of many federal probationary employees.

Dismantling of the Department of Education— Kaul participated in litigation opposing the administration’s effort to cut the Department of Education’s workforce to shut down the agency.

Dismantling of AmeriCorps— Kaul joined a lawsuit challenging the administration’s effort to scale back AmeriCorps.

SO… CAN HE DO THIS?

Short answer, yes. The authority to sue the federal government on behalf of Wisconsin comes from state law and legal precedent. The better question is whether he should be doing it.

In some cases, conservatives also sue the federal government to protect state sovereignty and individual liberty when they believe federal actions infringe on them. Lawsuits themselves are not unusual in recent years. What matters is whether they are being used to defend legitimate state interests or are primarily driven by ideology and the goal of obstructing federal policy. These cases cost taxpayers money and can divert time and resources away from state matters.

Kaul’s claim of protecting Wisconsin interests is doubtful given he participated in all of two lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency during the Biden administration, despite federal policies, such as vaccine mandates, that many conservatives argued challenged state authority and individual liberty. Today, when Kaul signs onto new lawsuits against the Trump administration, he often announces them jointly with Governor Tony Evers, reflecting his political and policy alignment.

Time spent suing the Trump administration is time not spent on crime-related legal support, protecting Wisconsin consumers, enforcing laws against public corruption, and other state-level legal priorities that directly and immediately affect Wisconsin residents.

The question is not whether the attorney general can sue––he can. The question is when should he? And at what cost? That is what voters deserve to know, because DOJ leadership is elected and funded by Wisconsin taxpayers. Those taxpayers will decide their next attorney general this November.

Subscribe now

Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin will leave the University of Wisconsin-Madison at the end of the spring semester to become president of Columbia University. Her time in office was not defined by dramatic reform, but rather, a series of measured decisions and political compromises that reflected the difficulty of leading a major public university in a deeply divided era.

Mnookin assumed the chancellorship in August of 2022 during a phase of mounting pressure on public universities. Amid political scrutiny, cultural division, and financial uncertainty, the role did not demand bold reinvention but rather careful navigation. Despite frequent (and often unfair) criticism from both progressives and conservatives, Mnookin provided a degree of stability that may only be fully appreciated in her absence.

Her tenure became most visible during the 2023 funding standoff with Wisconsin legislative Republicans. The eventual deal, which tied new funding to restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, was immediately controversial. The university agreed to restructure certain DEI positions and redirect resources toward other priorities, including faculty hiring and high-demand academic programs.

For critics on the left, the agreement represented a capitulation that weakened the university’s commitment to diversity efforts. For conservatives, the deal still did not go far enough. For others, it was a necessary compromise to break a political deadlock and secure funding without inviting deeper legislative intrusion into university affairs. Mnookin defended the deal as pragmatic, and whether it is seen as a concession or a strategy largely depends on how the role of a public university in a divided state is viewed.

A similar pattern emerged in her handling of campus protests, particularly during the wave of demonstrations related to the Israel-Hamas war in 2024. As encampments and protests unfolded at UW-Madison, university administration again faced criticism from all sides. Some argued Mnookin allowed disruptions to go on too long, while others believed the university acted too forcefully. However, the fact that her response was not fully satisfying to anyone reflected a leadership style that often aimed for balance, even at the cost of decisiveness.

Mnookin also made an effort, at least in principle, to address concerns about intellectual diversity in recent months. She supported free expression initiatives and welcomed a broader range of speakers to campus. While these efforts did not fundamentally reshape the university’s intellectual climate, they signaled awareness of the issues, something not all university leaders have been willing to acknowledge. The Wisconsin Exchange may end up being her most impactful legacy on campus, as long as support for the initiative continues.

Mnookin’s character also distinguished her in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. While many in academia– including at our own university– failed to grapple with the seriousness of his murder, she was not afraid to say his name. “What happened to Charlie Kirk was a tragedy. [...] College campuses should be one of the places within society where ideas are explored and bump up against each other,” she said. Condemning political violence may not be radical, but in the current context of higher education, it is.

Beyond these flashpoints, her time as chancellor was marked by continuity and a comfortable rise in rankings. UW-Madison remained academically strong, continued investing in research and STEM fields, and avoided the kinds of institutional crises that have defined leadership at other universities. In a moment when higher education has often lurched from controversy to controversy, Mnookin’s stable leadership carries its own weight.

Subscribe now

Perhaps the clearest way to understand Mnookin’s legacy was that she was not a transformative figure, but she was far from a disastrous one. She made compromises that frustrated many, avoided fights others wanted her to take, and rarely governed in a way that inspired strong enthusiasm. But she also kept the university functioning, intact and largely out of the national spotlight. In today’s environment, that may be more significant than it sounds.

Mnookin’s time at UW-Madison was not without flaws, but it was far from a failure. As the university transitions to new leadership, her reliable, cautious approach will be missed once it is gone. Meanwhile, Columbia will benefit from her steady hand.

Conservative icon and University of Wisconsin-Madison alumnus David Keene passed away on March 8, 2026, leaving behind a remarkable legacy on campus and within the conservative movement.

Keene was born on May 20, 1945 in Rockford, Illinois and grew up in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin. In high school, Keene became a conservative after being given a copy of The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich Hayek. He later went on to attend UW-Madison as a political science major before graduating law school at the same institution.

During his undergraduate years, Keene started a chapter of Young Americans for Freedom– a conservative organization founded at the home of William F. Buckley Jr. in 1960.

Later, Keene served as YAF’s national chairman, helping Buckley promote the organization, expand its popularity, and gain influence nationwide. As a Wisconsin alumnus, Keene’s efforts greatly impacted and improved opportunities for conservative college students, and he left a large impact on UW-Madison through his involvement in grassroots organizations.

Throughout his illustrious career, Keene worked for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Senator James Buckley. Keene was also a prominent conservative political activist and lobbyist, serving as chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU) from 1984 to 2011 and president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) from 2011 to 2013.

In addition to promoting conservatism on college campuses, Keene was a major force behind the liberty movement through his involvement with the ACU and NRA. Keene expanded his political career to be one of the prominent promoters of modern conservatism and libertarianism. He promoted individual freedom and limited government involvement in both the economy and individuals’ lives through his organizations.

Conservative fiscal ideology and libertarian principles promoted by Keene gained major government backing throughout the late 20th and early 21st century. Through his work on the campaign and as chair of the ACU, Keene helped secure 12 years of conservative control in the federal government under the Reagan and Bush administrations. Both were strong promoters of free speech, laissez faire economics, and tough on crime rhetoric, all of which Keene stood for.

Later conservative victories in the 21st century were also driven by Keene’s advocacy in groups such as the NRA, leading to huge libertarian wins for gun rights at the Supreme Court and in popular culture.

Among his many accolades, he was known for being an editor and columnist in The Washington Times. He wrote in the opinion section while being a staunch advocate for individual liberties and second amendment rights, and he was especially known for challenging progressive views on gun control.

Stephen Dinan, a journalist with The Washington Times, wrote in Keene’s tribute that he was a “towering figure in the growth of the modern conservative movement who was equally comfortable in the weeds of grassroots politics and in the corridors of power in Washington.”

Keene’s legacy continues to live on through UW-Madison’s YAF chapter, which actively works to discuss and promote conservative values. YAF’s national organization awarded Keene the Legends of YAF Distinguished Alumni Award in 2017 for his “lifelong commitment to freedom.”

YAF released a statement praising Keene, saying that his “dedication to advancing conservative ideas and encouraging young people to stand boldly for their beliefs leaves a lasting legacy.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now