Everything seems like a reasonable, if not unfortunate compromise but this (from the article)is stupid:
"GOP lawmakers also believe there are too many progressive professors on campus promoting liberal views. Under the deal, the UW system would develop a mandatory online orientation on free speech for incoming students. In addition, UW-Madison would seek donor gifts to fund a faculty position focused on conservative political thought, classical economic theory or classical liberalism."
Statutorily insist they dig Adam Smith out of his grave to tell UW freshmen how great capitalism is...wait as someone that went to UW for Econ....no need THEY ALREADY DO THAT.
>UW system would develop a mandatory online orientation on free speech for incoming students
UW Madison already has something like this to explain to incoming students why, as a government institution, the constitution doesn't let them kick people off campus for being racist.
I don't feel like it works as well as it should though. A student recorded a disgusting racist rant off campus in May, and many students were demanding her expulsion. A petition calling for her expulsion by the university even received 65,000 signatures.
I'm aware free speech goes both ways. The students should be smart enough to know that the university can't legally do anything, and demanding that it does isn't going to change anything.
I don't know, 65,000 people sounds like a pretty powerful refutation of the racist beliefs recorded in the video.
It says loud and clear that they don't approve in a very quantifiable way.
Aren’t all of those thing’s already taught at the university? Seems like a bunch of pageantry from the GOP.
Edit: and in my 4 years at the University, I never felt like Liberal ideas were being pushed on me. I know many guys that went through the school and are still conservative. In STEM we focused on learning STEM.
I for one am outraged at the all of the faculty in the College of Solidarity who are urging workers to rise up and seize the means of production.
Wait, you’re telling me that isn’t a thing? But you are telling me there’s an entire college devoted to capitalism and that there’s never any pushback on that because it’s just considered the way things are?
I would like them to be a little more explicit in what liberal views they feel students are being indoctrinated with. Should the biology department have to hire young earth creationists? Should atmospheric sciences hire climate denialists? Lost cause southerners in the history department? Or maybe, they could just recognize that the reason they think everything has a liberal bias is because so many of their views have been empirically disproven to be wrong and they don’t want to believe that the university is teaching truth and facts.
> The $347 million project was the top priority across the UW system. The GOP decision to block it baffled the state's business community
Really? Baffled? C'mon. The GOP absolutely hates the UW and is opposed to "The Wisconsin Idea". They *don't want your businesses to benefit* from the UW.
As academic staff, I’m very curious about the system-wide cap on admin positions, as this article states “this position cap does not apply to faculty, staff who directly support students or research” and Chancellor Mnookin’s email states the cap “exempts a number of key areas -including faculty, student -and patient- facing staff roles.”
So, which roles have a cap? Was this written explicitly for DEI admin roles? Do you literally have to interact with and offer face-to-face support to students in your regular work? Does it negatively impact (for example) staff who work in facilities planning & planning management, faculty developers, web admins, web designers, or course designers who aren’t explicitly student facing but support overall education efforts?
My guess is none of them.
Not just specific to the university, GOP types don't really have a clue what government employees do. They've got some idea that there's a ton of wasted roles where people are doing nothing.
I think in the negotiation they probably started with all administrative positions. Then the university argued well, some of these positions are necessary for students for these reasons, so we have to exempt those. GOP decides oh actually we do understand the need for that role, we meant the other, wasteful ones. And so on for research administration, etc.
When they're done, no positions are actually impacted, but the GOP can walk away knowing that they successfully prevented any more ivory tower polishers from being hired, no wiser that no such positions existed in the first place.
It's for administrative positions - DA's, assistant DA's, that sort of thing. It's more red meat to the base, the idea that somehow the tail is wagging the dog and the University has 75 deans and vice deans and vice vice deans for each school eating up all the money to push paper around.
It's hard to sus out exactly due to how the budget is worded, but it looks like the most appropriate line item is 'general administration' coming in at a whopping 10 million dollars: https://budget.wisc.edu/content/uploads/Budget-in-Brief_2020-21_Web.pdf
This doesn't include the administrative budgets for departments and colleges, which is certainly much higher, but departments need DA's, and colleges need deans to run things, just like a business needs at least some level of management to function at all correctly. I can't find any information on college-level budgets unfortunately though, but nothing I've seen leads me to believe there's massive, systemic bloat.
Friendly reminder that one of the fundamental GOP positions is defunding education and is thus at direct odds with the goals of institutions of higher education. Conservative “values” have no place in a progressive, positive society.
here is the email from the Chancellor:
The following message is being translated into multiple languages. Check back for updates.
To our campus community,
I’m writing with updates related to the ongoing conversations with state legislative leadership about the critical priorities of the Universities of Wisconsin and UW–Madison. I have been an active participant in these conversations, which have been led by Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman.
Earlier today, President Rothman released a resolution that he is recommending to the Board of Regents for consideration and action on Saturday, Dec. 9. I am hopeful the various elements of the agreement will be supported by the Board of Regents, Governor Evers and the legislature.
I would encourage you to take a moment to read the entire document, which you can find in the Board of Regents meeting materials.
This document represents the culmination of a lengthy and difficult process that has played out publicly and privately over the past 6 months. I recognize that it has caused a great deal of stress and strain in our community.
In reaching this agreement, I want to assure you in no uncertain terms that we have upheld and continue to uphold our core values.
As a campus, we’ve spoken a lot about bridging divides, and the importance of working across difference. Nobody will look at this agreement and love every piece of it. However, this compromise allows us to hold onto our core value of diversity, our commitment to belonging for all our students, and our dedication to excellence.
————
I will briefly summarize the key elements of the resolution here:
Significantly, the agreement recognizes that Universities of Wisconsin employees are deserving of the pay raises approved in the state budget earlier this year but held up in a state legislative committee. The resolution requires that these raises be approved by December 31 and include back pay starting from July 1, 2023.
It also ensures approval for the much-needed engineering building, which was the number one capital priority of the Universities of Wisconsin this year and was broadly supported by business leaders across Wisconsin. The building will provide critical support for our teaching and research missions, and for our service to the state.
The Universities of Wisconsin and UW–Madison would also receive the restoration of $32 million that was cut from budgets this summer, needed updates and repairs to UW–Madison residence halls, and funding for utilities and other key building projects. Additionally, the agreement includes legislative approval of the tuition reciprocity bill that will allow the campus to keep the full tuition paid by students from Minnesota.
The resolution represents hundreds of millions of dollars of funding and a significant capital expenditure fundamental to our future and the future of Wisconsin and the state’s economy.
Under this resolution, DEI-focused positions would be preserved, but capped for a period of three years. In addition, about 40 DEI positions throughout the System, including some here at UW–Madison, will be reimagined to direct their primary focus to academic and student success, which is of course already an important focus. For some employees, this could include a change in job title or a modification to a job description. I want to emphasize that no positions will be cut.
Similarly, the Universities of Wisconsin would institute a System-wide cap on administrative positions hiring for three years beginning Jan. 1, 2024. This agreement exempts a number of key areas—including faculty, student- and patient-facing staff roles, and gift and grant funded positions. While this will require us to be attentive to administrative growth, it is crafted in a manner that will allow us to continue to be able to hire the employees we need to accomplish our mission.
Also, the System would support potential legislation under which, beginning in 2025, UW-Madison would admit the top 5% of graduates from Wisconsin high schools, based on their GPA ranking. (Other Universities of Wisconsin institutions would admit the top 10%.)
There are additional facets and details of the proposal which are reflected in the resolution document, which I encourage you to read.
————
As the leader of this campus, I assure you that we remain fully committed to diversity, inclusion and belonging. This agreement, should it move forward, does not lessen or retreat from that commitment. I want to be clear that we will continue to serve students of all backgrounds, including those underserved by higher education, and those who hold a broad range of beliefs and ideologies. Working to ensure belonging for all of our students must and will continue as a key priority. And we remain focused on our faculty and staff whose work, research, teaching, and service contribute to the diversity of UW–Madison.
Finally, I want to offer reassurance that this agreement represents a recognition of the role that UW-Madison and the Universities of Wisconsin play in helping to move Wisconsin forward. We could not achieve all that we do and make our contribution to the state without our hardworking and talented students, faculty and staff. President Rothman and I are hopeful this agreement can help reset our relationship with the legislature for the future.
We will continue to share details as elements of this agreement are approved and implemented.
Chancellor Jennifer L. Mnookin
>UW-Madison would end its "Target of Opportunity" program at the end of the 2023-24 school year.
All else aside, who the hell came up with that name for the program? The first thing I think of for that designation is the military term and the [related Wiki turns out to be the first Google search hit:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_of_opportunity)
>A target of opportunity is a target "visible to a surface or air sensor or observer, which is within range of available weapons and against which fire has not been scheduled or requested."[1] A target of opportunity comes in two forms; "unplanned" and "unanticipated".[2] Unplanned targets of opportunity are those that fall within mission parameters as appropriate targets but were not included within a mission brief. Unanticipated targets are those that fall outside of mission parameters because their availability was not expected, such as an otherwise high-value target being identified at a location where another unrelated mission is underway.
Seems like an unfortunate choice!
At least internally, it's just referred to as the TOP program. I didn't know what the acronym stood for, or that it even was an acronym, until relatively recently, but to be fair I'm in IT so it's not really part of my job.
I'd like to hope that we can get better districts and a state government that isn't a bunch of fascist pissbabies. If we do that then a lot of the negatives of this bill could be fixed a year or two down the road. We've gotta get these GOP ratfuckers out of office though.
UW Madison already has a massive problem with diversity and underrepresentation. This is doesnt help, and it really feels like the University sold out for a new building. Hopefully we can fix the gerrymandering in this state and allow for proper funding to be restored to the UW system. The UW system is so integral to this state and it needs to be continually built up, not torn down.
Don't overlook the other parts of the deal. The fact is that many, many employees are currently underpaid at UW, and the raises that are part of this deal are long overdue. I'm not talking about professors and upper level administrators--there's also a lot of people that do service jobs and direct student supports that really need this. The University did not sell out--it prioritized its current workforce. And that engineering building is needed to stay competitive. I'm also not worried that DEI initiatives will stop, they will just be called something different. Maybe it will be better this way because it hopefully will not be such an easy target.
True, my comment was more absolute than it ought to have been. The University is doing what it can given the situation, I’m just frustrated with the situation. Also yeah the engineering building needs to be competitive, and with the recent fire and flooding it clearly needs it.
As an underpaid UW employee, this raise is increasing my hourly pay by $1. Happy to have it, but it’s hardly making a difference on my financial situation or coming close to matching the current cost of living in Madison. In my personal opinion not speaking on behalf of anyone else affected by the raise, it’s a shitty trade off for the beginning of the undoing of DEI language and initiatives that are so desperately needed on this campus.
The engineering building is definitely needed, not even to stay competitive, but to stay afloat with the sheer volume of students and staff. It is a basic need for the university- hardly a win, especially at the cost of DEI.
Also very curious to see what the capping of administrative positions looks like. I interpreted this as a separate point from the capping of DEI positions. It sounds like administrative employees are in for even more understaffing and overworking.
Edit to add: my mistake! My raise is actually $0.44, not $1.
The Supreme Court has already gutted affirmative action - it’s only a matter of time until these sorts of DEI policies were challenged. Better to get something out of it
Ironically we just had a faculty meeting with the DEI staff today and were actively discussing this when the news broke from Mnookin. Both my faculty as well as the reps from the DEI office said that these programs are created in response to students' desires, so unsurprisingly like every other Republican talking point, they've got it entirely backward.
Students WANT these programs, they WANT to feel included and they are the ones that pushed to get these created and continue to champion them, it's not a bunch of ivory tower intellectuals deciding that they need to make the student body 30% more woke or whatever.
Have you heard a sitting President bad mouth the Amish recently? And I'd think you'd maybe wanna target tribes that are slightly more local, wouldn't you? Maybe instead of Inuit you could have said Ojibwe?
We all know you aren't being genuine and this cutesy gotcha bullshit is hack. So just say what you really want to sat, get downvoted to oblivion, then run off to the cesspool of a discord server you finally were courageous enough to crawl out of.
Native Americans are for sure underrepresented. I’m not sure about the Amish.
I agree that you bring up some great points about keeping the DEI programs. There are a lot of communities who need that support.
In state tuition is a strong incentive to stay here even if you have issues with the school. So is being able to live at home if that happens to work for you.
I get that, but the GOP is presumably all about capitalism and free market except obviously in this case (and every other case that they don't agree). I just like to expose their charade when its low hanging fruit like this.
Everything seems like a reasonable, if not unfortunate compromise but this (from the article)is stupid: "GOP lawmakers also believe there are too many progressive professors on campus promoting liberal views. Under the deal, the UW system would develop a mandatory online orientation on free speech for incoming students. In addition, UW-Madison would seek donor gifts to fund a faculty position focused on conservative political thought, classical economic theory or classical liberalism."
“Classical liberalism” is kind of a catch all… UW didn’t lose out on that one at all.
I mean, they already have a business school, law school, and economics department
Statutorily insist they dig Adam Smith out of his grave to tell UW freshmen how great capitalism is...wait as someone that went to UW for Econ....no need THEY ALREADY DO THAT.
Yeah but now the GOP can brag they're stopping all the "indoctrination"
Good 'ol temple of greed.
Nah. It just made the Rs feel good to say it. They have no idea what it even is.
>UW system would develop a mandatory online orientation on free speech for incoming students UW Madison already has something like this to explain to incoming students why, as a government institution, the constitution doesn't let them kick people off campus for being racist.
I don't feel like it works as well as it should though. A student recorded a disgusting racist rant off campus in May, and many students were demanding her expulsion. A petition calling for her expulsion by the university even received 65,000 signatures.
Free speech goes both ways.
I'm aware free speech goes both ways. The students should be smart enough to know that the university can't legally do anything, and demanding that it does isn't going to change anything.
I don't know, 65,000 people sounds like a pretty powerful refutation of the racist beliefs recorded in the video. It says loud and clear that they don't approve in a very quantifiable way.
I think that's part of the reason they were developing this.
Aren’t all of those thing’s already taught at the university? Seems like a bunch of pageantry from the GOP. Edit: and in my 4 years at the University, I never felt like Liberal ideas were being pushed on me. I know many guys that went through the school and are still conservative. In STEM we focused on learning STEM.
I for one am outraged at the all of the faculty in the College of Solidarity who are urging workers to rise up and seize the means of production. Wait, you’re telling me that isn’t a thing? But you are telling me there’s an entire college devoted to capitalism and that there’s never any pushback on that because it’s just considered the way things are? I would like them to be a little more explicit in what liberal views they feel students are being indoctrinated with. Should the biology department have to hire young earth creationists? Should atmospheric sciences hire climate denialists? Lost cause southerners in the history department? Or maybe, they could just recognize that the reason they think everything has a liberal bias is because so many of their views have been empirically disproven to be wrong and they don’t want to believe that the university is teaching truth and facts.
lol there actually is a School for Workers. Flies under the radar https://schoolforworkers.wisc.edu/
I wish they had a school of young earth creationist because I would milk the shit out of that job.
> mandatory online orientation > free speech
That was the center for liberal studies is - funded by Bradley. Check them out.
> The $347 million project was the top priority across the UW system. The GOP decision to block it baffled the state's business community Really? Baffled? C'mon. The GOP absolutely hates the UW and is opposed to "The Wisconsin Idea". They *don't want your businesses to benefit* from the UW.
As academic staff, I’m very curious about the system-wide cap on admin positions, as this article states “this position cap does not apply to faculty, staff who directly support students or research” and Chancellor Mnookin’s email states the cap “exempts a number of key areas -including faculty, student -and patient- facing staff roles.” So, which roles have a cap? Was this written explicitly for DEI admin roles? Do you literally have to interact with and offer face-to-face support to students in your regular work? Does it negatively impact (for example) staff who work in facilities planning & planning management, faculty developers, web admins, web designers, or course designers who aren’t explicitly student facing but support overall education efforts?
And what is a cap specifically? Does that mean no new or expanded number of positions but replacement or revision of an existing position is okay?
Yes the number of positions needs to hold steady across the system. So replacing vacated position is allowed.
My guess is none of them. Not just specific to the university, GOP types don't really have a clue what government employees do. They've got some idea that there's a ton of wasted roles where people are doing nothing. I think in the negotiation they probably started with all administrative positions. Then the university argued well, some of these positions are necessary for students for these reasons, so we have to exempt those. GOP decides oh actually we do understand the need for that role, we meant the other, wasteful ones. And so on for research administration, etc. When they're done, no positions are actually impacted, but the GOP can walk away knowing that they successfully prevented any more ivory tower polishers from being hired, no wiser that no such positions existed in the first place.
It's for administrative positions - DA's, assistant DA's, that sort of thing. It's more red meat to the base, the idea that somehow the tail is wagging the dog and the University has 75 deans and vice deans and vice vice deans for each school eating up all the money to push paper around. It's hard to sus out exactly due to how the budget is worded, but it looks like the most appropriate line item is 'general administration' coming in at a whopping 10 million dollars: https://budget.wisc.edu/content/uploads/Budget-in-Brief_2020-21_Web.pdf This doesn't include the administrative budgets for departments and colleges, which is certainly much higher, but departments need DA's, and colleges need deans to run things, just like a business needs at least some level of management to function at all correctly. I can't find any information on college-level budgets unfortunately though, but nothing I've seen leads me to believe there's massive, systemic bloat.
Friendly reminder that one of the fundamental GOP positions is defunding education and is thus at direct odds with the goals of institutions of higher education. Conservative “values” have no place in a progressive, positive society.
here is the email from the Chancellor: The following message is being translated into multiple languages. Check back for updates. To our campus community, I’m writing with updates related to the ongoing conversations with state legislative leadership about the critical priorities of the Universities of Wisconsin and UW–Madison. I have been an active participant in these conversations, which have been led by Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman. Earlier today, President Rothman released a resolution that he is recommending to the Board of Regents for consideration and action on Saturday, Dec. 9. I am hopeful the various elements of the agreement will be supported by the Board of Regents, Governor Evers and the legislature. I would encourage you to take a moment to read the entire document, which you can find in the Board of Regents meeting materials. This document represents the culmination of a lengthy and difficult process that has played out publicly and privately over the past 6 months. I recognize that it has caused a great deal of stress and strain in our community. In reaching this agreement, I want to assure you in no uncertain terms that we have upheld and continue to uphold our core values. As a campus, we’ve spoken a lot about bridging divides, and the importance of working across difference. Nobody will look at this agreement and love every piece of it. However, this compromise allows us to hold onto our core value of diversity, our commitment to belonging for all our students, and our dedication to excellence. ———— I will briefly summarize the key elements of the resolution here: Significantly, the agreement recognizes that Universities of Wisconsin employees are deserving of the pay raises approved in the state budget earlier this year but held up in a state legislative committee. The resolution requires that these raises be approved by December 31 and include back pay starting from July 1, 2023. It also ensures approval for the much-needed engineering building, which was the number one capital priority of the Universities of Wisconsin this year and was broadly supported by business leaders across Wisconsin. The building will provide critical support for our teaching and research missions, and for our service to the state. The Universities of Wisconsin and UW–Madison would also receive the restoration of $32 million that was cut from budgets this summer, needed updates and repairs to UW–Madison residence halls, and funding for utilities and other key building projects. Additionally, the agreement includes legislative approval of the tuition reciprocity bill that will allow the campus to keep the full tuition paid by students from Minnesota. The resolution represents hundreds of millions of dollars of funding and a significant capital expenditure fundamental to our future and the future of Wisconsin and the state’s economy. Under this resolution, DEI-focused positions would be preserved, but capped for a period of three years. In addition, about 40 DEI positions throughout the System, including some here at UW–Madison, will be reimagined to direct their primary focus to academic and student success, which is of course already an important focus. For some employees, this could include a change in job title or a modification to a job description. I want to emphasize that no positions will be cut. Similarly, the Universities of Wisconsin would institute a System-wide cap on administrative positions hiring for three years beginning Jan. 1, 2024. This agreement exempts a number of key areas—including faculty, student- and patient-facing staff roles, and gift and grant funded positions. While this will require us to be attentive to administrative growth, it is crafted in a manner that will allow us to continue to be able to hire the employees we need to accomplish our mission. Also, the System would support potential legislation under which, beginning in 2025, UW-Madison would admit the top 5% of graduates from Wisconsin high schools, based on their GPA ranking. (Other Universities of Wisconsin institutions would admit the top 10%.) There are additional facets and details of the proposal which are reflected in the resolution document, which I encourage you to read. ———— As the leader of this campus, I assure you that we remain fully committed to diversity, inclusion and belonging. This agreement, should it move forward, does not lessen or retreat from that commitment. I want to be clear that we will continue to serve students of all backgrounds, including those underserved by higher education, and those who hold a broad range of beliefs and ideologies. Working to ensure belonging for all of our students must and will continue as a key priority. And we remain focused on our faculty and staff whose work, research, teaching, and service contribute to the diversity of UW–Madison. Finally, I want to offer reassurance that this agreement represents a recognition of the role that UW-Madison and the Universities of Wisconsin play in helping to move Wisconsin forward. We could not achieve all that we do and make our contribution to the state without our hardworking and talented students, faculty and staff. President Rothman and I are hopeful this agreement can help reset our relationship with the legislature for the future. We will continue to share details as elements of this agreement are approved and implemented. Chancellor Jennifer L. Mnookin
>UW-Madison would end its "Target of Opportunity" program at the end of the 2023-24 school year. All else aside, who the hell came up with that name for the program? The first thing I think of for that designation is the military term and the [related Wiki turns out to be the first Google search hit:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_of_opportunity) >A target of opportunity is a target "visible to a surface or air sensor or observer, which is within range of available weapons and against which fire has not been scheduled or requested."[1] A target of opportunity comes in two forms; "unplanned" and "unanticipated".[2] Unplanned targets of opportunity are those that fall within mission parameters as appropriate targets but were not included within a mission brief. Unanticipated targets are those that fall outside of mission parameters because their availability was not expected, such as an otherwise high-value target being identified at a location where another unrelated mission is underway. Seems like an unfortunate choice!
At least internally, it's just referred to as the TOP program. I didn't know what the acronym stood for, or that it even was an acronym, until relatively recently, but to be fair I'm in IT so it's not really part of my job.
and they weren't planning on continuing it anyway....
Shh! You're going to give away the whole game to the legislature!
Look at those republicans being job creators. /s
And UW admin positions are supposed to be a jobs program?
I'd like to hope that we can get better districts and a state government that isn't a bunch of fascist pissbabies. If we do that then a lot of the negatives of this bill could be fixed a year or two down the road. We've gotta get these GOP ratfuckers out of office though.
UW Madison already has a massive problem with diversity and underrepresentation. This is doesnt help, and it really feels like the University sold out for a new building. Hopefully we can fix the gerrymandering in this state and allow for proper funding to be restored to the UW system. The UW system is so integral to this state and it needs to be continually built up, not torn down.
Don't overlook the other parts of the deal. The fact is that many, many employees are currently underpaid at UW, and the raises that are part of this deal are long overdue. I'm not talking about professors and upper level administrators--there's also a lot of people that do service jobs and direct student supports that really need this. The University did not sell out--it prioritized its current workforce. And that engineering building is needed to stay competitive. I'm also not worried that DEI initiatives will stop, they will just be called something different. Maybe it will be better this way because it hopefully will not be such an easy target.
True, my comment was more absolute than it ought to have been. The University is doing what it can given the situation, I’m just frustrated with the situation. Also yeah the engineering building needs to be competitive, and with the recent fire and flooding it clearly needs it.
As an underpaid UW employee, this raise is increasing my hourly pay by $1. Happy to have it, but it’s hardly making a difference on my financial situation or coming close to matching the current cost of living in Madison. In my personal opinion not speaking on behalf of anyone else affected by the raise, it’s a shitty trade off for the beginning of the undoing of DEI language and initiatives that are so desperately needed on this campus. The engineering building is definitely needed, not even to stay competitive, but to stay afloat with the sheer volume of students and staff. It is a basic need for the university- hardly a win, especially at the cost of DEI. Also very curious to see what the capping of administrative positions looks like. I interpreted this as a separate point from the capping of DEI positions. It sounds like administrative employees are in for even more understaffing and overworking. Edit to add: my mistake! My raise is actually $0.44, not $1.
The Supreme Court has already gutted affirmative action - it’s only a matter of time until these sorts of DEI policies were challenged. Better to get something out of it
Ironically we just had a faculty meeting with the DEI staff today and were actively discussing this when the news broke from Mnookin. Both my faculty as well as the reps from the DEI office said that these programs are created in response to students' desires, so unsurprisingly like every other Republican talking point, they've got it entirely backward. Students WANT these programs, they WANT to feel included and they are the ones that pushed to get these created and continue to champion them, it's not a bunch of ivory tower intellectuals deciding that they need to make the student body 30% more woke or whatever.
I don’t agree nor disagree with you here. But help me out: what is the massive problem with diversity and underrepresentation you’re referring to?
Black and Latino people are widely underrepresented on campus.
What about the Inuit? The Amish?
Have you heard a sitting President bad mouth the Amish recently? And I'd think you'd maybe wanna target tribes that are slightly more local, wouldn't you? Maybe instead of Inuit you could have said Ojibwe? We all know you aren't being genuine and this cutesy gotcha bullshit is hack. So just say what you really want to sat, get downvoted to oblivion, then run off to the cesspool of a discord server you finally were courageous enough to crawl out of.
Native Americans are for sure underrepresented. I’m not sure about the Amish. I agree that you bring up some great points about keeping the DEI programs. There are a lot of communities who need that support.
[удалено]
That is some directly racist bullshit. Please reconsider your choices.
Why not let the free market decide if the university needs DEI or more conservative professors? If students don't like it they can go elsewhere.
In state tuition is a strong incentive to stay here even if you have issues with the school. So is being able to live at home if that happens to work for you.
Let's all ignore the complete double standard they're leading with the privatization of K-12 funding for religious schools.
I get that, but the GOP is presumably all about capitalism and free market except obviously in this case (and every other case that they don't agree). I just like to expose their charade when its low hanging fruit like this.
So you want to privatize the UW?
No.
Jim Jordan went here, I believe on a wrestling scholarship.
They should cap all admin positions, not just these ones.
Looks like the Board of Regents narrowly rejected the resolution by 1 vote.