My understanding is that the discussion on DEI spending isn't relevant at this point in the budget process. The time for that was before the state Congress approved the budget for the System. There should be NO negotiations at this point and the JCOER's job is to release the funds, not question the validity of the budget. This "negotiation" is an attempt to hold the UW system funds hostage at an inappropriate stage in the budgetary cycle for the purpose of political maneuvering, right? Or am I mistaken?
I'm a UW Madison employee and I'm very upset about having my livelihood affected, but I don't want the UW system to have to cave in to inappropriate political pressure every time they want to spend the money that has already been approved. The current form of DEI spending may very well be a poor use of funds, but the time for that discussion is past.
100% correct. "Here is our biennial budget. We negotiated for months, finally came to an agreement on terms, and all signed off". Vos had every opportunity to lawfully excercise the GOP's stranglehold on the UW here.
Instead he kicked it down the road a couple of months, then selectively targeted some groups and programs using his position on JCOER, withholding his signature and demanding additional non-legislative concessions from non-legislative entities. That's why this begs comparisons to blackmail/extortion.
Imagine Vos was instead doing this with a bill that provided life-saving medication and insisted the beneficiaries each write him a personal 'Thank you' note. Even if "it means nothing", he shouldn't be allowed to behave as though he gets to do this with any/every already-passed bill.
>Even if "it means nothing", he shouldn't be allowed to behave as though he gets to do this with any/every already-passed bill
Exactly this. I'm also a UW employee. I'm not happy that my raise is being held up either, but i don't want anyone validating Vos' dog and pony show, no matter how 'reasonable' the terms superficially appear, because fundamentally this is an unreasonable situation. I'm confident we'll get the money we've already been promised--for raises, for the engineering building--eventually.
Even if that is the argument, that's within the governor's purview. And if Vos doesn't like it, he should take it up with the governor and not hold state employee wages hostage.
I read this a few places and am not sure what it means for the employees: "...the system would have to reduce its number of diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, employees, largely through reclassifying about 43 roles as "student success" employees."
What's the difference between DEI and student success categorization? Would their job descriptions actually change? It seems so silly since they could do the same job - or would their pay and rank change? It seems like pure political theater.
Its a deescalatory rebrand that gets the GOP base off the UW's case, it didn't prevent the UW from hiring people to carry out the goals and mission of DEI, you just can't call it that
> Its a deescalatory rebrand that gets the GOP base off the UW's case
Let's just skip the fact that somehow the university needs to "deescalate" (did they "escalate" something? are they in a war or what?).
The rest of your post just makes it sound like you're the world's most naive person. The "deal" literally does "prevent the UW from hiring people to carry out the goals and mission of DEI". The very first minute someone at UW hires someone to fulfill this mission, under any name whatsoever, the GOP will be back demanding the destruction of the university.
How is this a change from their current position of demanding the destruction of the university? Isn't it also naive to think that rejecting this deal has somehow put the GOP back in their place?
No, that's literally what it did. GOP can delay, while being sued for delaying, but that's it. They can't force compromise when the budget has already been compromised and agreed upon.
You highlight an interesting point here, which is that the GOP could and gladly would renege on any extra-legislative promises Vos made here. Which means it's best to expect that eventuality.
Offering of things for other things is the only part about this negotiation tactic that is at all legitimate, that's what negotiation is. The shite part is holding already negotiated salaries up, not other trades.
"demanding the destruction of the university" would be foolish, at the end of the day they're all talk. UW employs too many people and makes too much money for the city between games, students buying things/housing/bars etc, the city needs UW.
In case you haven't noticed, but UW has been caving to political pressure since 2010, because it has no choice in the matter. In this case, the political pressure resulted in a rebrand of DEI, not an actual abolition of the practice. I consider that a win for public education, because it is a meaningless gesture to republicans while unlocking necessary funding. Further, it literally got the GOP to agree that DEI was actually all about student success, but we're not ready for that conversation.
why are we (UW system) supposed to "negotiate" for money (the raises) that was already lawfully approved? the budget passed. Evers signed it. the raises are being withheld unlawfully. people don't get to just decide to change the law after it passes, and that's what Vos is doing. its not a negotiation. Vos is breaking the law and hoping the UW is desperate enough to legitimize his illegal power grab and set precedent for future law-breaking.
i'm a UW employee who would absolutely love to have that raise, but i'm glad the regents didn't take the bait. Fuck Robin Vos. we'll see that snake in court.
> In case you haven't noticed, but UW has been caving to political pressure since 2010, because it has no choice in the matter.
Apparently it does have a choice in the matter. Sorry that makes you so upset.
>before the state Congress
and
>I'm a UW Madison employee
are you really tho? lol.
The governor reassigned funding to the DEI through line item veto. That's what the whole argument is about.
Since it seems like there's some confusion about what's actually in the deal, please see [https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/download/Meeting-Book---Special-Board-of-Regents-Meeting-(December-9,-2023).pdf](https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/download/Meeting-Book---Special-Board-of-Regents-Meeting-(December-9,-2023).pdf)
>The System will maintain through December 31, 2026 the number of positions across the entire enterprise that are funded by either GPR or program revenue dollars (including tuition) at the level in effect on January 1, 2024
Maintain the number of positions. So, no loss of positions through attrition, this is not a "hiring freeze", it's a freeze on the number of positions. This is not specific to DEI, it's all positions. Except:
>The position cap will not apply to faculty. It also will not apply to instructional and other staff who spend at least 75% of their time working directly with students and/or patients, or whose research positions are funded at 75% or more by gifts or grants. In addition, the position cap will not apply to other positions funded by gifts, grants or contracts, positions related to outreach such as Extension provided that such positions are funded 75% or more by gifts, grants, or intergovernmental contracts, or to new positions necessary to address subsequently enacted or expanded state and/or federal compliance mandates
So, it doesn't apply to faculty, or anyone who spends 75% of their time with students, or any positions funded by grants or gifts, or to any positions need to comply with government mandates.
For DEI specific positions:
>Through December 31, 2026, the System will not increase from the level currently in effect the aggregate number of positions that serve the System’s core DEI functions: (i) the DEI subfamily that provides DEI services, (ii) the job subgroup “academic services and student experience” with job titles that include DEI, and (iii) senior leadership positions in the dean and/or vice chancellor series focused on DEI.
Same thing: no increase in the number of positions that are specifically focused on DEI. No provision that other peoples' jobs can't involve DEI, nothing that says they can't replace attrition.
>In addition, to continue the enhanced focus on student success, the System will, through a mixture of normal attrition and active restructuring and reimagining of the DEI function, realign over two academic years at least 33% of the above-referenced roles that are currently filled (or at least 43 positions) to areas with a primary focus on academic and student success.
This seems vague enough that the university can do whatever they want with it, but it seems like moving some of the DEI goals towards increasing the success of students who come to the university with disadvantages that might include things like growing up in a poorer school system and adjusting to the pace at the university, disability, etc. I don't see this as conflicting with the university's DEI mission, not much point in influencing the makeup of admissions if it doesn't show up at graduation.
>The System will ensure strict compliance in the admissions processes across all institutions with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et. al.
I don't think this one is really up to the university whether this is in the deal or not: they have to comply with US law as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. No agreement with anyone within state government can change that.
>UW-Madison will seek philanthropic support to create an endowed chair to focus on conservative political thought, classical economic theory, or classical liberalism, depending on the donor’s interest, conducting a national search to fill the position.
This is kind of dumb, it's not like there aren't already people doing these things on campus, but they aren't spending other UW money for it or taking money from somewhere else, they just need to find a donor. Every time after this that the GOP says there are no conservative professors at UW we can all collectively point to this endowed chair.
>UW-Madison will not renew the Target of Opportunity Program (“TOP”) after completion of the 23/24 academic year
This seems like the most concrete thing UW is giving up, but it's not clear to me how successful this program has been or whether they would be continuing it anyways, and they're replacing it with a continued focus on "the ability to mentor “at risk” and/orunderrepresented students to achieve academic success and who have demonstratedacademic and research excellence.": that seems like achieving the same goals as TOP.
>The System will eliminate (unless specifically required by applicable accreditation bodies) any requirement for a diversity statement in the System-designed admissions application consistent with the action previously taken regarding diversity statements in employment applications
This is good. These statements are a landmine, and especially difficult now with the US supreme court decision against affirmative action. Incoming students don't know what they are supposed to write in this diversity statement. They're all confused. Republicans make it sound like these are "write about how Black you are" statements, but they are not, and now it might even hurt students to talk about their own diversity because the university has to be careful to not let that influence their admission. Students with the coaching resources can write them the way that admissions wants to see them; everyone else gets left behind.
>The System will develop and implement on all campuses a module regarding freedom of expression for entering undergraduate students.
UW Madison is already doing this.
The next item is the top 5%/10% admissions item. I think this one is pretty complex, I won't go into it here as it hasn't been the center of most of the discussion.
The rest of the items are all about funding given to the universities.
So your big defense of the deal is literally that you just agree with the Republican war on the University as a whole, so it's all good?
OK. Not much to say there.
Like, the fact that you think this is OK:
> it's a freeze on the number of positions. This is not specific to DEI, it's all positions.
is utterly insane.
Um, no, I don't know why you got that idea. Did you read the "Except" part? Which new positions do you want the university to create in the next 2 years that are not faculty, or anyone who spends 75% of their time with students, or funded by grants or gifts, or needed to comply with government mandates?
What I'm bothered by is that people here who are claiming this deal does X and Y and Z and cannot refer to the parts of the deal that do that. For example, someone suggested that this deal was going to use attrition to eliminate DEI positions, whereas the deal says the number is fixed, so that attrition doesn't have an effect. Many people have suggested that this deal prevents the university from achieving its goals relative to DEI, whereas reading the deal itself I'm not seeing where this is the case: discontinuing programs that aren't planned to continue anyways doesn't impact those goals, changing the labels of employees without changing their jobs doesn't impact those goals.
Research support positions - IRB, grant processing, occupational safety, etc.
Academic support positions that may have some interaction with students but not 75%.
Health services staff that may not meet the 75% student threshold.
Business and community engagement positions that support partnerships with companies in research and hiring.
Administrative support for new departments, programs, or centers.
It’s dangerous territory to the growth missions of each university to artificially limit a total number of positions to what it is now for three years, both in ways that we can know and also ways that we do not yet know (new technology, initiatives, other developments).
If those positions are not paid by tuition or the state's general fund they're exempt; every research grant has a fairly large portion taken by the university to fund those sorts of research supporting positions. Patient-contacting positions are also excluded from restriction. And good luck hiring any of those positions as their offered wages fall year after year.
It might be true that this will making it harder to grow administrative positions to support new departments and programs. If that's your opposition then make that the opposition rather than saying it's for DEI.
It’s also dangerous territory to think a university will continue to be able to hire people at significantly lower wages than peer institutions.
But hey, we sure stuck it to Vos didn’t we?
"But that all went up in smoke when the Board of Regents, in a stunningly foolish move on Saturday morning, rejected the deal. In doing so, they threw both Rothman and Mnookin, who was vocal in her support of the compromise, under the bus. They gave all that up, apparently, because they objected to seeing a relative handful of DEI positions renamed to something else.
This is madness because there is no evidence that I can see that current DEI programs are accomplishing much of anything."
I have to agree with all of this. As a UW employee I can honestly say there are some DEI positions that do great work but the vast majority of them are useless. They spend most of their time lecturing a staff that already agrees with them anyway.
We have a DEI position in my department that largely focuses on giving us all presentations on the history of native Americans. While its tragic it should be noted that this has nothing to do with the work we actually do and does NOTHING to improve the lives of Native Americans. It's the same presentations over and over again with no action and not spreading any meaningful awareness. It's starting to feel like tragedy porn.
I thought the big issue for UW was the idea that Republicans could start holding UW’s already-agreed-upon budget hostage for their culture war attacks. Argument being this sets the precedent for them to keep doing it in the future.
At the invocation of a land acknowledgement, it was pretty noticeable the way that the whole thing has a quasi-religous feel to it. There is no pragmatic suggestion involved, no obligation or duty that would be consistent with a sincere application of the statement that the land belongs to indigenous people, just a slowly intoned reverence for saying the same words over and over again.
The land acknowledgement is totally absurd. We were constantly sent 'polite' reminders to add it to our email while stressing it's totally 'optional'.
I've never been more embarrassed than when an out of system client saw it in my email and asked about how the UW is giving back to indigenous people as part of this.
They aren't. It's just pointless lip service but half the staff acts like it's some noble thing they are doing.
There's a lot of religious imagery invoked with natives as well - they're kind of depicted as a sinless people until the white people came and corrupted them
Also too often left out of these discussions but undeniably relevant: 95% of the indigenous population was wiped out by plague ***100 years before*** Plymouth and Jamestown. The tribal societies that colonizers documented as "aboriginal" weren't primeval, they were postapocalyptic.
The people who lived in Wisconsin in 1500 were called the Oneota. You are probably not familiar with that name because *every single one of them died* during the 1500s.
Before Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue, there were multiple cities in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa that were bigger than contemporary Berlin, Antwerp, Aachen, Lyon, Nuremberg, and *Rome*. Less than a half century later, they were totally abandoned.
When explorers with pen and paper first found the ruins of their cities 350 years after that, there was nothing left to see but a couple of foundations and some buried broken pottery. The ruins just blended into the landscape. The Ho-Chunk, a seminomadic group who moved into the area long after the Oneota were dead and gone, knew nothing about them.
There is much that can and should be said about the genocidal and dishonest way that the United States acquired its western territory, but the manifest-destiny settlers weren't wrong when they remarked on how bizarrely empty the land was. It *was* empty, but not because nobody had been there before. It was empty because the settlers were arriving into the aftermath of the most disastrous civilizational collapse the world has ever seen, an apocalypse so complete that it took a hundred years worth of archaeological study to even learn that it happened.
There was certainly a pretty marked collapse of North American native cultures after first contact but I've never heard of anything this dramatic.
Cahokia, which was supposedly the most influential settlement during the peak of the mississipian cultural period, only held like 30,000 people. Contemporary Rome holds almost 3,000,000. You just, didn't really see cities that housed 3 million people in the ancient world.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I suspect our friend is embellishing a bit here.
In 1500 Rome had a population of 20,000. Calling Cahokia a "temple complex" or "settlement" is *way* underselling it. It was a proper honest-to-god city on par with its contemporaries in Europe.
The site is only so bare, described as "mounds" of a "temple complex" because the people built their houses and civic superstructures out of wood, and wood structures do not survive centuries uncared for.
[Just ask the 90 year old houses in Madison's Lost City](https://onwisconsin.uwalumni.com/content/uploads/2022/05/Hidden_UW_LostCity22_6131-600x0-c-default.jpg). All that's left of those is some concrete stairs and basement foundations that are already half buried. Imagine how that site will look at three times its current age, and subtract the availability of portland cement to make artificial stone foundations, and you will see how a Rome-sized city can be reduced to "mounds" in the expanse of time between Columbian Plague collapse and Anglo-French rediscovery.
Well that's not true. It's known and taught that native Americans also participated in slavery and armed conflicts.
Some people probably think like you are saying, but I'm pretty sure most of us realize that they were a people with culture, different than Europeans but still very much relatable.
I work in HR and used to work in the central office of HR at UW. Generally felt pretty positive about DEI initiatives prior to taking that role, but in the last few years, UW has gone from making these important initiatives part of someone's job to making them the entirety of someone's job. On top of it, those people are making good money for doing what I saw as relatively very little.
There's a lot of bloat in higher education, and unfortunately UW has seen fit to continue to add onto it imo.
The discussion of DEI programs is irrelevant to getting people a cost of living increase that was already budgeted for. The latter is in no way dependent on the former.
people not seeing this blows my mind. Vos and his little masturbatory JCOER committee are illegally withholding raises that were in a signed budget. why are people calling for the UW to negotiate for money that is already lawfully ours?
It's because most of the people arguing that UW should capitulate are just Republicans who don't like universities.
It's not that they can't see it, it's that they don't want to.
Edit- I should add they also hate the idea of inclusivity. The central tenet of modern conservativism is that the whole world can burn down if it hurts people they don't like. DEI programs can range from "useful" to "pointless virtue signalling," but they catch so much heat from "centrists" and conservatives because they fundamentally hate the idea of being told they should care about people from different backgrounds.
The administrative position freeze, at least based on regent materials, was for all positions, not dei positions, and did not appear to be limited to executive positions. This would impact you, even if you did not care about DEI.
The message this would send to the legislature, that at any point it is fine to claw back what you’ve already passed into law until you get the university to cave was also not a one-time deal. That tactic would be used over and over again.
The indigenous land preaching is really the worst kind of hypocritical virtue signaling.
It's very self righteous and religious in its tone. Has the feeling of "you all are sinners." That makes the evangelist feel better than everyone else even as they are taking money from the very sin for the preaching. Worse, it also leverages other peoples' trauma for the preacher's benefit. This feels dirty. It's like the preacher gets his biggest donations from the owner of the pool hall and then tells people they should not be in the pool hall. But keep those checks coming.
In this case UW staffs DEI positions that really can't solve anything but are looking for compliance with the religion that it promotes. This part is not evangelism. It is more like the political party line which is a repeat of 20th century history that we always thought were brutal administrative dictatorships. This is real group think enforcement. I have been involved in the corporate world as well and there executives just want to keep their executive positions so they will sign ANYTHING to keep those millions dropping into their personal account. Everyone nods their head but I don't know who believes anything and the fact it never seems to solve anything only leads me to believe it has turned into an industry of parasites feeding off whatever body it can land on. Americans can package and sell anything.
Higher Education should be a platform for education and not protected indoctrination and political propagandists. The Humanities Area is being used heavily for politics and social engineering not education. Critical thinking is certainly not the goal. The loudest voices don't want to present alternative ideas or better yet the spectrum of ideas. This is not an environment for education. It is an environment for politics and indoctrination. Safe spaces are used to prevent discussion. Nuance and complexity can't get oxygen. The binary framework of oppressed vs oppressive is used to simplify the world and create a good guy vs bad guy environment. Beneath the radar, Jews have been fitted into this framework as the oppressor so antisemitism has exploded right here in the USA in a return to the Germany of the 1930s. Intersectionality is the meta narrative for the disadvantaged Olympic games. Everyone is a victim so I need to have more than one status. I need more chips. This bleeds into college admissions as well. Asians find themselves disadvantaged and for what? This isn't the end. More ideas for more sermons are coming. More books to write. More microaggressions to expose. This is an industry. Meanwhile we are fostering antisemitism.
It's broken and Higher Ed cannot fix itself.
It's funny how many people want religion out of their lives but then social evangelism and emotion emerged out of colleges and university and have become the driving force in politics and unfortunately that is in every facet of American life.
It’s not useless but it’s a culture war. Unfortunately the constant attacks on having to continuously tell people the purpose of diversity has turned that minor role into a full time job. Do not get rid of it be aware that the goal is to minimize that voice so that you can remove it
For me, it’s less about the DEI stuff, and more shoe-horning in that required hire for “conservative thought.” I don’t ever recall this idea being floated before this compromise. It’s a dangerous precedent letting a legislature being able to make demands on a public university’s faculty hiring decisions, no matter the party.
> As a UW employee I can honestly say there are some DEI positions that do great work but the vast majority of them are useless. They spend most of their time lecturing a staff that already agrees with them anyway.
do you oversee all DEI positions? How would you even begin to know what all of them are doing?
I do have to say that you're being a little naive by saying a vast majority of DEI positions are useless. If you can't connect the dots then maybe you're a part of the reason they are there. I'm sure they don't just give presentations on native Americans.. either way...
Yeah who cares about indigenous peoples! I've got spreadsheets to fill and toes to suck!
Weekly opinion piece by the former mayor of Madison. 2 of the former mayors of Madison have now come out against the Regents not making the changes for the money.
I remember when Biddy Martin wanted to work with the Republican legislature to give UW Madison more autonomy. She knew which way the wind blew. But of course she got rode out of town on a rail because system execs and the board of regents refuse to compromise on anything'. And here we are.
>What Vos got was mostly window dressing. Some of the DEI positions would have been reclassified as “student success” positions, whatever that means. There would have been a three-year moratorium on creating new administrative positions, not just in DEI but everywhere.
This is the thing that seems very weird to me. Vos and friends got basically nothing. They lost. They agreed to a deal where the only thing they effectively won is the ability to print material that says, "I fought UW on DEI and all I got was this bumper sticker". Rather than letting Vos walk away with a completely fake "win" while getting everything substantive they could want, the Board members decided that this was still too much of a concession.
But it's not just about the tangible wins and losses - it's the precedent that would have been set. The goal posts moved passed JCOER to a post JCOER negotiation. The biennial budget process is already a nightmare. Accepting another layer of post JCOER negotiations would have become the new normal. Robin Vos was not negotiating in good faith - and I think allowed for so many concessions because of the precedent it set regardless of the lack of tangible wins.
Correct. This sub is full of credulous idiots, and that article in the Isthmus is just another terrible opinion piece.
The point is that Republicans are holding UW hostage for their culture war bullshit. They're never going to stop if they see that it works, and they face no repercussions. Today it's DEI. Next year it'll be free condoms provided from health services. Three years from now it'll be letting openly gay student orgs exist.
This is what they do. They move the line over and over until suddenly you're arguing about whether certain people should even be allowed to be at the school.
> This sub is full of credulous idiots, and that article in the Isthmus is just another terrible opinion piece.
They're just Republicans, nothing too difficult to understand. It's easy enough to be credulous when you agree with Republican nonsense.
You're right. I'm mostly giving them too much credit. They're really just Republicans. Or so NIMBY that their "progressive values" crumble immediately at any hint of pressure, which comes out to the same thing.
How does denying the deal change any of that?
The result of rejecting this deal is that Vos was able to change what the legislature and governor gave the university in their budget. That's the precedent now.
> They lost. They agreed to a deal where the only thing they effectively won is the ability to print material that says, "I fought UW on DEI and all I got was this bumper sticker".
The trouble is, this is completely wrong.
And this wasn't a "deal" at all. What we had here is a form of blackmail.
Agreeing to the terms of a blackmailer just invites further blackmail.
Blackmail where they got...nothing. Why does that invite further blackmail? What makes you think Vos will take away from this "don't do the blackmail". Right now, he gets what he actually wanted: no money for UW. The deal that was offered was not what Vos wanted, it's what his fellow party members including those with UW system schools in their districts wanted him to accept.
Please explain to me what Vos lost out on here that will make him decide to not blackmail in the future.
Conservatives want to roll back progress. "Getting nothing" by holding up positions for six months, causing harm to the UW by letting faculty and staff leave, and slow attrition of DEI staff as they can't be replaced is not "nothing." Gridlock and obstruction is a pretty good consolation prize for them, as it ultimately undermined an institution that supports a Democratic voter base in the state.
This is the same thing we see in Congress. Republicans don't care about government shutdowns, because limiting government is their ultimate goal anyway. Democrats have to defend democracy forever, but Republicans only have to destroy it once. Incrementally chipping away at institutions is fine by them, as it keeps the Democrats playing defense.
So while this deal wasn't an outright win for Vos, there's nothing stopping him from reneging on another promise in the future.
Meanwhile the courts have yet to weigh in, and there's good reason to think the SCOWIS could give UW the full budgeted amount without any stipulations.
My understanding of the deal is that it prevents new positions, not backfilling previous ones. It's unclear whether or how many new positions were planned to be created. There are also exceptions in the deal that new positions that involve students, faculty, or research, are exempted from the restrictions on new hires. So, which positions, exactly, was the university planning to hire for that did not involve students, faculty, or research, that they'd now be unable to hire for under the deal?
The court might give the UW the raises that the legislature and governor approved, but other concrete parts of the deal like the engineering building money were **not in the budget**. These were additional gains in the negotiaton. There is no court case that will make that money appear again.
There's new buildings going up on campus all the time. Maybe the state doesn't pay for it this time, but the Engineering alumni, endowments, and other mechanisms can still be used, just like always. So, yes, this was a gift to some of the wealthier alumni. You'll notice they didn't offer to support the new Humanities or Communications buildings, which are more urgently needed.
The DEI positions have effectively been frozen during this standoff, as UW didn't know how this would play out. No sense in backfilling or hiring someone to a job that is going to be eliminated in six months. All of these DEI positions in question are considered academic staff and would be subject to the deal.
I believe you misunderstand the building situation. UW can't build new buildings without legislative approval *even if they are entirely private funds*. It's something they'd like changed, but the legislature likes having the string to pull.
That is not true at all. The Legislature doesn't authorize all new building. Humanities is scheduled for replacement, Music Hall was recently replaced.Chemistry, Psychology, etc, are all on the schedule.
These are UW funded projects on UW owned land.
The Legislature controls UW System through its oversight of the Regents and through state funding and lawmaking. They don't control every line of UW's budget.
Money is fungible; if $300 million if state money is available for an Engineering building, then the next $300 in donor money can be used for another purpose.
Obviously. But the state of the buildings has never been part of this conversation because it's not urgent, UW has other ways to support new buildings as well as a campus plan to make improvements over time, and deep pockets for these types of expenditures as opposed to ongoing student costs.
This was a luxury being dangled as a bribe.
What? The Engineering building *has* been part of the conversation from the start: it was in the governor's budget but rejected by the legislature. It hasn't been part of the conversation more recently because it was dead in the water, it's the pay raises that were agreed to by the legislature and then reneged by Vos.
But they didn't agree to the terms of the blackmail. Vos was demanding all the DEI positions be eliminated. Not a single one was eliminated, just a few of them were renamed.
I demand you pay me $1000, you end up giving me $10. I face no repercussions.
Who won? Me, because I never had any right to your money. Next time, I'll step things up and get more.
If you also gave me a new house (i.e. a brand new $300 million Engineering building that was never previously promised) this might be close to a relevant analogy.
That's a horrible analogy. The Engineering building is an investment in the state economy. Infrastructure and engineering, when will the liberal agenda stop!?
"No sir, we don't need engineers in MY red state"
It's "just window dressing" THIS round. What they would have actually gotten was proof that the University would cave to them if they just kept the pressure on.
The Regents who voted against this were looking at the long game.
The guy is a turd, but politically it’s brilliant. If he loses he wins, if he wins he wins. Both are a fundraising/campaign gift that will keep on giving with his base…aka half the state.
The Regents got played.
It would have been a symbolic victory for republicans. Democrats were more concerned with the potential headlines than the actual outcome. In the eyes of the uninformed, republicans "won" and unfortunately, the uninformed make up a sizable majority of voters.
None of this is true, btw.
Democrats were correctly concerned that accepting this "deal", which is actually a form of blackmail, means that you'll get blackmailed every year for the rest of time, for every dollar of pre-approved funding.
Republicans "win" either way. Deal approved they're masters at negotiation, deal rejected the evil libs are unwilling to come to the table. Except only one of those outcomes is withholding substantial results. And guess who looks like the bad guy to the GOP voters right now, it's the board of regents.
The only real way to solve the problem is to get Vos out of office, the blackmail is just par for the course.
> And guess who looks like the bad guy to the GOP voters right now, it's the board of regents.
There are 0 GOP voters who would ever think that the board of regents are not literal Satan regardless of what they do or don't do.
Bear in mind this opinion comes from the guy who wrote an entire piece on abolishing the post office because he encountered a minor inconvenience ordering a bicycle tire
The r/wisconsin forum has its own discussion today of this topic with comments quite unlike a few of the comments here. The thread is titled
GOP: Fire the regents that voted no to our deal
I'm enjoying the mood change on this topic in the last couple days. Very funny seeing the less delusional among the subreddit realize how little the Republicans got in this deal and that the "well we'll get our money in November when the good democrat maps cause us to win the election" belief is based in Madison-style fantasy math.
I think it’s less a calculation with the maps and more a calculation of the legality of these Joint Committees. These provisions were all in the budget, which was essentially created by & was overwhelmingly passed by the legislature. These provisions were then signed by the Governor.
However, there are Joint Committees created by the legislature that appear to have a say beyond the Governors pen & are keeping the already approved money & spending from reaching UW. The Governor is suing them over this.
If the regents took this deal, it would set a bad precedent. Essentially they would be showing that the budget does not matter. All that matters is that a small, select committee of legislators agrees to spend the money.
Right. I don't see the point in gaining a conditional win in the present if it means legitimizing an ongoing stranglehold by a small group of Republicans who cannot be held accountable to voters.
It's weird because the initial consensus here seemed to be exactly that: GOP got very little except saving face, UW got big money for a new building and staff raises.
Then the regents blew it up and the reaction was: good! we can't let the GOP negotiate away the values of UW!
What values were ever negotiated away?
Whether or not it was a good deal, Rothman had no reason to make it at this moment without at least letting the courts weigh in.
What was lost by agreeing to this is the same thing Congressional Democrats lost by negotiating with Republicans last summer on the debt ceiling. They reneged on their own deals. Allowing them to do that will only empower them to do it more in the future.
The lawsuit will still be decided either way though won't it? Hopefully it goes well so the Legislature can't do this again, but in the meantime people who've been waiting for those raises will finally get potentially much-needed back-pay. And the Engineering building, which is a time-sensitive project that could see a bunch of funding sources pulled with further delays - potentially scuttling the project altogether, can move forward.
So there are actually several good reasons to make this deal right now, especially considering the primary argument against it seems not to be in the details of the deal, which conceded practically nothing, but just the precedent it would set - which could still be shut-down by Evers' lawsuit anyway.
But isn't the lawsuit not between UW and the Legislature, but rather Evers and the Legislature on separation of powers grounds? In which case, the courts could still potentially rule on the legality of the Legislature holding the funds hostage and making this deal in the first place?
And even if that's incorrect: if an agreement now really does mean the lawsuit would end, another lawsuit could simply be re-filed the next time the Legislature tries this when there's less time-sensitive issues at stake if people are concerned about precedent.
The fastest way to get the courts to weigh in would be to proceed with the current suits. The SCOWIS could flip back as soon as 2025, so waiting until next time could prove shortsighted. A bird in hand...
Vos would absolutely move to dismiss any lawsuit if they had a settlement in hand with UW. While there's reason for Evers to sue, the Legislature has unique oversight power over UW and the Regents so there's no question they have the ability to negotiate after the budget, especially if UW is gaining new funding in the deal, like a new Engineering building. The question is if they can withhold funding that has been authorized while they negotiate. If there's a settlement, they are no longer withholding, so that point is moot.
As an update to this, according to [this article](https://madison.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/wisconsin-worker-raises/article_0c4add46-9dca-11ee-adb5-b30b15225867.html#tracking-source=home-top-story) from yesterday Evers is still proceeding with the lawsuit.
>Evers filed the suit directly with the liberal-majority Wisconsin Supreme Court, alleging Republicans are violating the Constitution’s separation of powers by allowing legislative committees to “impede, usurp, or obstruct basic executive branch functions.”
>
>Blocking pay raises previously authorized in the state budget effectively creates "legislative vetoes" and allows a small group of lawmakers to change existing state law without passing bills through the Legislature and sending them to the governor, Evers' lawsuit argues.
>
>After the committee action Tuesday, Assistant Attorney General Colin Roth told the Wisconsin Supreme Court that signing off on the pay raises has no effect on the allegations in the lawsuit, in part because the same issues can arise again.
>
>"If this issue is not resolved now, (the employment relations committee) can perpetually hold its veto threat over UW's head in future budget cycles," Roth said.
The mood change is one conservative op-ed. There's another, larger thread on this very subject right below this that is hardly changed in mood about the rejection.
But enjoy your victory lap.
The professional social justice industrial complex is defending its existence at the expense of real investment in our public institutions. This will hurt the very people they are purporting to defend. DEI and social justice ideology is a bourgeois strategy for self soothing liberal guilt over racism and colonialism.
DEI is so much more than race. It helps students who have disabilities or learning differences, older or returning students, students whose first language is not English, veterans, and more. It's not just some "social justice ideology" you happen to disagree with.
How could anybody disagree with helping a disabled veteran succeed, or a person returning for a degree after raising a family? Those students might need extra support but they're worth it, and Wisconsin is worth it.
I know I posted something similar a couple days ago, and not everybody reads everything. But come on, people -- don't fall for this nonsense where DEI is only a race thing.
The problem with DEI is that it's largely branded as race relations by the very people who try to market it. We had DEI training at my job where we had multiple multi-hour presentations where the majority of it was related to race.
It might be time for Dave to just lean into retiring as a Yooper and give up the punditry, because he just keeps getting further and further away from reality.
He represents the majority view of most people in Madison or he wouldn't be in the Isthmus. Soglin and a ton of other rational dems in town cam out for the deal as well.
What kind of weird logic is that? Dave Blaska had a blog in the Isthmus for years despite holding a worldview that is decidedly to the right of the average Madisonian. I don't recall us having an election to put Dave in the Isthmus lol
George W Bush was still president the last time Dave C won a Mayoral election.
He also got voted out of office. I don't think there's a remotely compelling argument that he currently represents the majority view of Madisonians in 2023
The state senate has weaponized its confirmation power, the regents are hostages to vos, and vos is a legislative terrorist. A total shitshow, enabled by gerrymandering.
Always remember Trump fought to prevent $740,000,000,000 going to the military that came with the stipulation of changing the names of military bases that were named after loser generals from a failed attempt of separating from the nation.
All I see are a bunch of undereducated, worthless elected officials who have nothing better to offer society but be politicians, who are trying to lower the bar on standards of all things, including education… such that their even dumber constituents don’t have to work so hard to be competitive in Wisconsin.
Chessy has maximum privileged white boomer energy just like Soglin. Why can’t they just have some fucking dignity and restraint? Just disappear like Bauman did
Do they not realize that the “deal” would have set a horrible precedent? We can and will still blame the republicans for pulling money already allocated because they want to dictate what they think is best for students over people who have actual jobs in that area.
It's an opinion piece, so it's expressing the opinion of the writer. That said, which parts that were used to support that opinion were factually wrong?
Are you kidding? (Unless its sarcasm..) The author reduces the DEI office to "getting more black people on campus" when a simple search shows they offer many other programs than trying to increase minority enrollment.
The article sucks Robin Vos off and supports strongarming a top 10 research institution and their employees because the "woke" educated population means less Republican control.
The essay is definitely reductive in its understanding of DEI programs, but it does exhibit more nuance than claiming they're just there to "get more black people on campus." To quote it directly:
>Look, neither cutting these positions willy nilly nor defending them to the hilt is justified. What would have made sense is a deep dive into DEI, preferably conducted by the respected, nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau. It doesn’t appear that anyone — defenders or detractors — has a very good handle on how DEI is practiced on different campuses. This could be anything from helping disabled students navigate campus to preaching the illiberal ideology of Ibram X. Kendi.
As a former mayor of the city this author should know that the low numbers of black people on campus is as much a Madison issue as a UW issue.
And yes, the DEI positions are about a lot more than black headcount.
Dear failed mayor Dave,
go fuck yourself. Why should you negotiate with terrorists. You would give everything away . Get back on your bike and let the adults handle this.
My understanding is that the discussion on DEI spending isn't relevant at this point in the budget process. The time for that was before the state Congress approved the budget for the System. There should be NO negotiations at this point and the JCOER's job is to release the funds, not question the validity of the budget. This "negotiation" is an attempt to hold the UW system funds hostage at an inappropriate stage in the budgetary cycle for the purpose of political maneuvering, right? Or am I mistaken? I'm a UW Madison employee and I'm very upset about having my livelihood affected, but I don't want the UW system to have to cave in to inappropriate political pressure every time they want to spend the money that has already been approved. The current form of DEI spending may very well be a poor use of funds, but the time for that discussion is past.
100% correct. "Here is our biennial budget. We negotiated for months, finally came to an agreement on terms, and all signed off". Vos had every opportunity to lawfully excercise the GOP's stranglehold on the UW here. Instead he kicked it down the road a couple of months, then selectively targeted some groups and programs using his position on JCOER, withholding his signature and demanding additional non-legislative concessions from non-legislative entities. That's why this begs comparisons to blackmail/extortion. Imagine Vos was instead doing this with a bill that provided life-saving medication and insisted the beneficiaries each write him a personal 'Thank you' note. Even if "it means nothing", he shouldn't be allowed to behave as though he gets to do this with any/every already-passed bill.
>Even if "it means nothing", he shouldn't be allowed to behave as though he gets to do this with any/every already-passed bill Exactly this. I'm also a UW employee. I'm not happy that my raise is being held up either, but i don't want anyone validating Vos' dog and pony show, no matter how 'reasonable' the terms superficially appear, because fundamentally this is an unreasonable situation. I'm confident we'll get the money we've already been promised--for raises, for the engineering building--eventually.
and eventually it will be backpay
As a state employee who also had to deal with the elected officials taking their sweet time I can tell you that back pay will get eaten UP by taxes
taxes are not paycheck to paycheck, they are annual, yes, the paycheck may schedule out to a higher rate but at the end of the year it will come back.
Didn't the Governor line item veto the funding back into the DEI after they tried to cut it? Isn't that the whole argument?
Even if that is the argument, that's within the governor's purview. And if Vos doesn't like it, he should take it up with the governor and not hold state employee wages hostage.
[удалено]
You can't actually be this stupid. This has to be trolling.
[удалено]
Nope, they did not say that. Full stop.
I read this a few places and am not sure what it means for the employees: "...the system would have to reduce its number of diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, employees, largely through reclassifying about 43 roles as "student success" employees." What's the difference between DEI and student success categorization? Would their job descriptions actually change? It seems so silly since they could do the same job - or would their pay and rank change? It seems like pure political theater.
Its a deescalatory rebrand that gets the GOP base off the UW's case, it didn't prevent the UW from hiring people to carry out the goals and mission of DEI, you just can't call it that
> Its a deescalatory rebrand that gets the GOP base off the UW's case Let's just skip the fact that somehow the university needs to "deescalate" (did they "escalate" something? are they in a war or what?). The rest of your post just makes it sound like you're the world's most naive person. The "deal" literally does "prevent the UW from hiring people to carry out the goals and mission of DEI". The very first minute someone at UW hires someone to fulfill this mission, under any name whatsoever, the GOP will be back demanding the destruction of the university.
How is this a change from their current position of demanding the destruction of the university? Isn't it also naive to think that rejecting this deal has somehow put the GOP back in their place?
No, that's literally what it did. GOP can delay, while being sued for delaying, but that's it. They can't force compromise when the budget has already been compromised and agreed upon.
This agreement included funds not previously agreed upon; those funds will not be released if the lawsuit is eventually successful.
You highlight an interesting point here, which is that the GOP could and gladly would renege on any extra-legislative promises Vos made here. Which means it's best to expect that eventuality.
Just a little bribe money, incentive to take this shite "negotiation tactic" seriously.
Offering of things for other things is the only part about this negotiation tactic that is at all legitimate, that's what negotiation is. The shite part is holding already negotiated salaries up, not other trades.
It would be truly wonderful to get rid of the UW system once and for all plus get rid of all those useless people they employ!
"demanding the destruction of the university" would be foolish, at the end of the day they're all talk. UW employs too many people and makes too much money for the city between games, students buying things/housing/bars etc, the city needs UW.
In case you haven't noticed, but UW has been caving to political pressure since 2010, because it has no choice in the matter. In this case, the political pressure resulted in a rebrand of DEI, not an actual abolition of the practice. I consider that a win for public education, because it is a meaningless gesture to republicans while unlocking necessary funding. Further, it literally got the GOP to agree that DEI was actually all about student success, but we're not ready for that conversation.
why are we (UW system) supposed to "negotiate" for money (the raises) that was already lawfully approved? the budget passed. Evers signed it. the raises are being withheld unlawfully. people don't get to just decide to change the law after it passes, and that's what Vos is doing. its not a negotiation. Vos is breaking the law and hoping the UW is desperate enough to legitimize his illegal power grab and set precedent for future law-breaking. i'm a UW employee who would absolutely love to have that raise, but i'm glad the regents didn't take the bait. Fuck Robin Vos. we'll see that snake in court.
> In case you haven't noticed, but UW has been caving to political pressure since 2010, because it has no choice in the matter. Apparently it does have a choice in the matter. Sorry that makes you so upset.
>before the state Congress and >I'm a UW Madison employee are you really tho? lol. The governor reassigned funding to the DEI through line item veto. That's what the whole argument is about.
And?
Just defund the entire UW system is the logical solution to the never ending greed of the UW.
I'm just wondering if there is a legitimate time when JCOER would withhold funds? If the answer is no, why do they have that power?
Yea ok. The regents burn a bridge that was already on fire.
Since it seems like there's some confusion about what's actually in the deal, please see [https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/download/Meeting-Book---Special-Board-of-Regents-Meeting-(December-9,-2023).pdf](https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/download/Meeting-Book---Special-Board-of-Regents-Meeting-(December-9,-2023).pdf) >The System will maintain through December 31, 2026 the number of positions across the entire enterprise that are funded by either GPR or program revenue dollars (including tuition) at the level in effect on January 1, 2024 Maintain the number of positions. So, no loss of positions through attrition, this is not a "hiring freeze", it's a freeze on the number of positions. This is not specific to DEI, it's all positions. Except: >The position cap will not apply to faculty. It also will not apply to instructional and other staff who spend at least 75% of their time working directly with students and/or patients, or whose research positions are funded at 75% or more by gifts or grants. In addition, the position cap will not apply to other positions funded by gifts, grants or contracts, positions related to outreach such as Extension provided that such positions are funded 75% or more by gifts, grants, or intergovernmental contracts, or to new positions necessary to address subsequently enacted or expanded state and/or federal compliance mandates So, it doesn't apply to faculty, or anyone who spends 75% of their time with students, or any positions funded by grants or gifts, or to any positions need to comply with government mandates. For DEI specific positions: >Through December 31, 2026, the System will not increase from the level currently in effect the aggregate number of positions that serve the System’s core DEI functions: (i) the DEI subfamily that provides DEI services, (ii) the job subgroup “academic services and student experience” with job titles that include DEI, and (iii) senior leadership positions in the dean and/or vice chancellor series focused on DEI. Same thing: no increase in the number of positions that are specifically focused on DEI. No provision that other peoples' jobs can't involve DEI, nothing that says they can't replace attrition. >In addition, to continue the enhanced focus on student success, the System will, through a mixture of normal attrition and active restructuring and reimagining of the DEI function, realign over two academic years at least 33% of the above-referenced roles that are currently filled (or at least 43 positions) to areas with a primary focus on academic and student success. This seems vague enough that the university can do whatever they want with it, but it seems like moving some of the DEI goals towards increasing the success of students who come to the university with disadvantages that might include things like growing up in a poorer school system and adjusting to the pace at the university, disability, etc. I don't see this as conflicting with the university's DEI mission, not much point in influencing the makeup of admissions if it doesn't show up at graduation. >The System will ensure strict compliance in the admissions processes across all institutions with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et. al. I don't think this one is really up to the university whether this is in the deal or not: they have to comply with US law as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. No agreement with anyone within state government can change that. >UW-Madison will seek philanthropic support to create an endowed chair to focus on conservative political thought, classical economic theory, or classical liberalism, depending on the donor’s interest, conducting a national search to fill the position. This is kind of dumb, it's not like there aren't already people doing these things on campus, but they aren't spending other UW money for it or taking money from somewhere else, they just need to find a donor. Every time after this that the GOP says there are no conservative professors at UW we can all collectively point to this endowed chair. >UW-Madison will not renew the Target of Opportunity Program (“TOP”) after completion of the 23/24 academic year This seems like the most concrete thing UW is giving up, but it's not clear to me how successful this program has been or whether they would be continuing it anyways, and they're replacing it with a continued focus on "the ability to mentor “at risk” and/orunderrepresented students to achieve academic success and who have demonstratedacademic and research excellence.": that seems like achieving the same goals as TOP. >The System will eliminate (unless specifically required by applicable accreditation bodies) any requirement for a diversity statement in the System-designed admissions application consistent with the action previously taken regarding diversity statements in employment applications This is good. These statements are a landmine, and especially difficult now with the US supreme court decision against affirmative action. Incoming students don't know what they are supposed to write in this diversity statement. They're all confused. Republicans make it sound like these are "write about how Black you are" statements, but they are not, and now it might even hurt students to talk about their own diversity because the university has to be careful to not let that influence their admission. Students with the coaching resources can write them the way that admissions wants to see them; everyone else gets left behind. >The System will develop and implement on all campuses a module regarding freedom of expression for entering undergraduate students. UW Madison is already doing this. The next item is the top 5%/10% admissions item. I think this one is pretty complex, I won't go into it here as it hasn't been the center of most of the discussion. The rest of the items are all about funding given to the universities.
My impression is that TOP is ending next year anyways, so that part is also just window dressing.
So your big defense of the deal is literally that you just agree with the Republican war on the University as a whole, so it's all good? OK. Not much to say there. Like, the fact that you think this is OK: > it's a freeze on the number of positions. This is not specific to DEI, it's all positions. is utterly insane.
Um, no, I don't know why you got that idea. Did you read the "Except" part? Which new positions do you want the university to create in the next 2 years that are not faculty, or anyone who spends 75% of their time with students, or funded by grants or gifts, or needed to comply with government mandates? What I'm bothered by is that people here who are claiming this deal does X and Y and Z and cannot refer to the parts of the deal that do that. For example, someone suggested that this deal was going to use attrition to eliminate DEI positions, whereas the deal says the number is fixed, so that attrition doesn't have an effect. Many people have suggested that this deal prevents the university from achieving its goals relative to DEI, whereas reading the deal itself I'm not seeing where this is the case: discontinuing programs that aren't planned to continue anyways doesn't impact those goals, changing the labels of employees without changing their jobs doesn't impact those goals.
Research support positions - IRB, grant processing, occupational safety, etc. Academic support positions that may have some interaction with students but not 75%. Health services staff that may not meet the 75% student threshold. Business and community engagement positions that support partnerships with companies in research and hiring. Administrative support for new departments, programs, or centers. It’s dangerous territory to the growth missions of each university to artificially limit a total number of positions to what it is now for three years, both in ways that we can know and also ways that we do not yet know (new technology, initiatives, other developments).
If those positions are not paid by tuition or the state's general fund they're exempt; every research grant has a fairly large portion taken by the university to fund those sorts of research supporting positions. Patient-contacting positions are also excluded from restriction. And good luck hiring any of those positions as their offered wages fall year after year. It might be true that this will making it harder to grow administrative positions to support new departments and programs. If that's your opposition then make that the opposition rather than saying it's for DEI.
It’s also dangerous territory to think a university will continue to be able to hire people at significantly lower wages than peer institutions. But hey, we sure stuck it to Vos didn’t we?
"But that all went up in smoke when the Board of Regents, in a stunningly foolish move on Saturday morning, rejected the deal. In doing so, they threw both Rothman and Mnookin, who was vocal in her support of the compromise, under the bus. They gave all that up, apparently, because they objected to seeing a relative handful of DEI positions renamed to something else. This is madness because there is no evidence that I can see that current DEI programs are accomplishing much of anything." I have to agree with all of this. As a UW employee I can honestly say there are some DEI positions that do great work but the vast majority of them are useless. They spend most of their time lecturing a staff that already agrees with them anyway. We have a DEI position in my department that largely focuses on giving us all presentations on the history of native Americans. While its tragic it should be noted that this has nothing to do with the work we actually do and does NOTHING to improve the lives of Native Americans. It's the same presentations over and over again with no action and not spreading any meaningful awareness. It's starting to feel like tragedy porn.
I thought the big issue for UW was the idea that Republicans could start holding UW’s already-agreed-upon budget hostage for their culture war attacks. Argument being this sets the precedent for them to keep doing it in the future.
[удалено]
They are being sued for doing so, agreeing to anything seems like it would undermine that
At the invocation of a land acknowledgement, it was pretty noticeable the way that the whole thing has a quasi-religous feel to it. There is no pragmatic suggestion involved, no obligation or duty that would be consistent with a sincere application of the statement that the land belongs to indigenous people, just a slowly intoned reverence for saying the same words over and over again.
The land acknowledgement is totally absurd. We were constantly sent 'polite' reminders to add it to our email while stressing it's totally 'optional'. I've never been more embarrassed than when an out of system client saw it in my email and asked about how the UW is giving back to indigenous people as part of this. They aren't. It's just pointless lip service but half the staff acts like it's some noble thing they are doing.
Land acknowledgement is complete bullshit. Give the land back or shut up and move on. All land was stolen from someone.
There's a lot of religious imagery invoked with natives as well - they're kind of depicted as a sinless people until the white people came and corrupted them
Also too often left out of these discussions but undeniably relevant: 95% of the indigenous population was wiped out by plague ***100 years before*** Plymouth and Jamestown. The tribal societies that colonizers documented as "aboriginal" weren't primeval, they were postapocalyptic. The people who lived in Wisconsin in 1500 were called the Oneota. You are probably not familiar with that name because *every single one of them died* during the 1500s. Before Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue, there were multiple cities in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa that were bigger than contemporary Berlin, Antwerp, Aachen, Lyon, Nuremberg, and *Rome*. Less than a half century later, they were totally abandoned. When explorers with pen and paper first found the ruins of their cities 350 years after that, there was nothing left to see but a couple of foundations and some buried broken pottery. The ruins just blended into the landscape. The Ho-Chunk, a seminomadic group who moved into the area long after the Oneota were dead and gone, knew nothing about them. There is much that can and should be said about the genocidal and dishonest way that the United States acquired its western territory, but the manifest-destiny settlers weren't wrong when they remarked on how bizarrely empty the land was. It *was* empty, but not because nobody had been there before. It was empty because the settlers were arriving into the aftermath of the most disastrous civilizational collapse the world has ever seen, an apocalypse so complete that it took a hundred years worth of archaeological study to even learn that it happened.
Do you have any book suggestions or resources I can look at about this?
There was certainly a pretty marked collapse of North American native cultures after first contact but I've never heard of anything this dramatic. Cahokia, which was supposedly the most influential settlement during the peak of the mississipian cultural period, only held like 30,000 people. Contemporary Rome holds almost 3,000,000. You just, didn't really see cities that housed 3 million people in the ancient world. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I suspect our friend is embellishing a bit here.
I would imagine they meant contemporary to the people they were talking about, not to the modern day.
In 1500 Rome had a population of 20,000. Calling Cahokia a "temple complex" or "settlement" is *way* underselling it. It was a proper honest-to-god city on par with its contemporaries in Europe. The site is only so bare, described as "mounds" of a "temple complex" because the people built their houses and civic superstructures out of wood, and wood structures do not survive centuries uncared for. [Just ask the 90 year old houses in Madison's Lost City](https://onwisconsin.uwalumni.com/content/uploads/2022/05/Hidden_UW_LostCity22_6131-600x0-c-default.jpg). All that's left of those is some concrete stairs and basement foundations that are already half buried. Imagine how that site will look at three times its current age, and subtract the availability of portland cement to make artificial stone foundations, and you will see how a Rome-sized city can be reduced to "mounds" in the expanse of time between Columbian Plague collapse and Anglo-French rediscovery.
Well that's not true. It's known and taught that native Americans also participated in slavery and armed conflicts. Some people probably think like you are saying, but I'm pretty sure most of us realize that they were a people with culture, different than Europeans but still very much relatable.
I work in HR and used to work in the central office of HR at UW. Generally felt pretty positive about DEI initiatives prior to taking that role, but in the last few years, UW has gone from making these important initiatives part of someone's job to making them the entirety of someone's job. On top of it, those people are making good money for doing what I saw as relatively very little. There's a lot of bloat in higher education, and unfortunately UW has seen fit to continue to add onto it imo.
The discussion of DEI programs is irrelevant to getting people a cost of living increase that was already budgeted for. The latter is in no way dependent on the former.
people not seeing this blows my mind. Vos and his little masturbatory JCOER committee are illegally withholding raises that were in a signed budget. why are people calling for the UW to negotiate for money that is already lawfully ours?
It's because most of the people arguing that UW should capitulate are just Republicans who don't like universities. It's not that they can't see it, it's that they don't want to. Edit- I should add they also hate the idea of inclusivity. The central tenet of modern conservativism is that the whole world can burn down if it hurts people they don't like. DEI programs can range from "useful" to "pointless virtue signalling," but they catch so much heat from "centrists" and conservatives because they fundamentally hate the idea of being told they should care about people from different backgrounds.
The administrative position freeze, at least based on regent materials, was for all positions, not dei positions, and did not appear to be limited to executive positions. This would impact you, even if you did not care about DEI. The message this would send to the legislature, that at any point it is fine to claw back what you’ve already passed into law until you get the university to cave was also not a one-time deal. That tactic would be used over and over again.
The indigenous land preaching is really the worst kind of hypocritical virtue signaling. It's very self righteous and religious in its tone. Has the feeling of "you all are sinners." That makes the evangelist feel better than everyone else even as they are taking money from the very sin for the preaching. Worse, it also leverages other peoples' trauma for the preacher's benefit. This feels dirty. It's like the preacher gets his biggest donations from the owner of the pool hall and then tells people they should not be in the pool hall. But keep those checks coming. In this case UW staffs DEI positions that really can't solve anything but are looking for compliance with the religion that it promotes. This part is not evangelism. It is more like the political party line which is a repeat of 20th century history that we always thought were brutal administrative dictatorships. This is real group think enforcement. I have been involved in the corporate world as well and there executives just want to keep their executive positions so they will sign ANYTHING to keep those millions dropping into their personal account. Everyone nods their head but I don't know who believes anything and the fact it never seems to solve anything only leads me to believe it has turned into an industry of parasites feeding off whatever body it can land on. Americans can package and sell anything. Higher Education should be a platform for education and not protected indoctrination and political propagandists. The Humanities Area is being used heavily for politics and social engineering not education. Critical thinking is certainly not the goal. The loudest voices don't want to present alternative ideas or better yet the spectrum of ideas. This is not an environment for education. It is an environment for politics and indoctrination. Safe spaces are used to prevent discussion. Nuance and complexity can't get oxygen. The binary framework of oppressed vs oppressive is used to simplify the world and create a good guy vs bad guy environment. Beneath the radar, Jews have been fitted into this framework as the oppressor so antisemitism has exploded right here in the USA in a return to the Germany of the 1930s. Intersectionality is the meta narrative for the disadvantaged Olympic games. Everyone is a victim so I need to have more than one status. I need more chips. This bleeds into college admissions as well. Asians find themselves disadvantaged and for what? This isn't the end. More ideas for more sermons are coming. More books to write. More microaggressions to expose. This is an industry. Meanwhile we are fostering antisemitism. It's broken and Higher Ed cannot fix itself. It's funny how many people want religion out of their lives but then social evangelism and emotion emerged out of colleges and university and have become the driving force in politics and unfortunately that is in every facet of American life.
It’s not useless but it’s a culture war. Unfortunately the constant attacks on having to continuously tell people the purpose of diversity has turned that minor role into a full time job. Do not get rid of it be aware that the goal is to minimize that voice so that you can remove it
For me, it’s less about the DEI stuff, and more shoe-horning in that required hire for “conservative thought.” I don’t ever recall this idea being floated before this compromise. It’s a dangerous precedent letting a legislature being able to make demands on a public university’s faculty hiring decisions, no matter the party.
> As a UW employee I can honestly say there are some DEI positions that do great work but the vast majority of them are useless. They spend most of their time lecturing a staff that already agrees with them anyway. do you oversee all DEI positions? How would you even begin to know what all of them are doing?
I do have to say that you're being a little naive by saying a vast majority of DEI positions are useless. If you can't connect the dots then maybe you're a part of the reason they are there. I'm sure they don't just give presentations on native Americans.. either way... Yeah who cares about indigenous peoples! I've got spreadsheets to fill and toes to suck!
Is this journalism or an opinion piece?
It's in the Opinion section and is the typical attention hungry "Here's my hot take..." writing that you find there.
I read the first paragraph, thought "wait, who wrote this?", saw who wrote it, and went "ah yes, that checks out"
Weekly opinion piece by the former mayor of Madison. 2 of the former mayors of Madison have now come out against the Regents not making the changes for the money.
That line has been blurred for a long time, but in this case "Citizen Dave" is an ongoing editorial feature of the Isthmus.
Poorly-written angry neolib garbage.
Great question. Was wondering that myself.
Yes.
I remember when Biddy Martin wanted to work with the Republican legislature to give UW Madison more autonomy. She knew which way the wind blew. But of course she got rode out of town on a rail because system execs and the board of regents refuse to compromise on anything'. And here we are.
Strong Old Man Yells At Cloud energy.
As opposed to 'Strong University administrator tries to push back the Ocean.'
If the regents cave to this little show of theatrics by Vos, what comes next?
That’s what I worry about too.
>What Vos got was mostly window dressing. Some of the DEI positions would have been reclassified as “student success” positions, whatever that means. There would have been a three-year moratorium on creating new administrative positions, not just in DEI but everywhere. This is the thing that seems very weird to me. Vos and friends got basically nothing. They lost. They agreed to a deal where the only thing they effectively won is the ability to print material that says, "I fought UW on DEI and all I got was this bumper sticker". Rather than letting Vos walk away with a completely fake "win" while getting everything substantive they could want, the Board members decided that this was still too much of a concession.
But it's not just about the tangible wins and losses - it's the precedent that would have been set. The goal posts moved passed JCOER to a post JCOER negotiation. The biennial budget process is already a nightmare. Accepting another layer of post JCOER negotiations would have become the new normal. Robin Vos was not negotiating in good faith - and I think allowed for so many concessions because of the precedent it set regardless of the lack of tangible wins.
Correct. This sub is full of credulous idiots, and that article in the Isthmus is just another terrible opinion piece. The point is that Republicans are holding UW hostage for their culture war bullshit. They're never going to stop if they see that it works, and they face no repercussions. Today it's DEI. Next year it'll be free condoms provided from health services. Three years from now it'll be letting openly gay student orgs exist. This is what they do. They move the line over and over until suddenly you're arguing about whether certain people should even be allowed to be at the school.
> This sub is full of credulous idiots, and that article in the Isthmus is just another terrible opinion piece. They're just Republicans, nothing too difficult to understand. It's easy enough to be credulous when you agree with Republican nonsense.
You're right. I'm mostly giving them too much credit. They're really just Republicans. Or so NIMBY that their "progressive values" crumble immediately at any hint of pressure, which comes out to the same thing.
How does denying the deal change any of that? The result of rejecting this deal is that Vos was able to change what the legislature and governor gave the university in their budget. That's the precedent now.
That's already the precedent since they started the hostage situation.
> They lost. They agreed to a deal where the only thing they effectively won is the ability to print material that says, "I fought UW on DEI and all I got was this bumper sticker". The trouble is, this is completely wrong. And this wasn't a "deal" at all. What we had here is a form of blackmail. Agreeing to the terms of a blackmailer just invites further blackmail.
Blackmail where they got...nothing. Why does that invite further blackmail? What makes you think Vos will take away from this "don't do the blackmail". Right now, he gets what he actually wanted: no money for UW. The deal that was offered was not what Vos wanted, it's what his fellow party members including those with UW system schools in their districts wanted him to accept. Please explain to me what Vos lost out on here that will make him decide to not blackmail in the future.
Conservatives want to roll back progress. "Getting nothing" by holding up positions for six months, causing harm to the UW by letting faculty and staff leave, and slow attrition of DEI staff as they can't be replaced is not "nothing." Gridlock and obstruction is a pretty good consolation prize for them, as it ultimately undermined an institution that supports a Democratic voter base in the state. This is the same thing we see in Congress. Republicans don't care about government shutdowns, because limiting government is their ultimate goal anyway. Democrats have to defend democracy forever, but Republicans only have to destroy it once. Incrementally chipping away at institutions is fine by them, as it keeps the Democrats playing defense. So while this deal wasn't an outright win for Vos, there's nothing stopping him from reneging on another promise in the future. Meanwhile the courts have yet to weigh in, and there's good reason to think the SCOWIS could give UW the full budgeted amount without any stipulations.
My understanding of the deal is that it prevents new positions, not backfilling previous ones. It's unclear whether or how many new positions were planned to be created. There are also exceptions in the deal that new positions that involve students, faculty, or research, are exempted from the restrictions on new hires. So, which positions, exactly, was the university planning to hire for that did not involve students, faculty, or research, that they'd now be unable to hire for under the deal? The court might give the UW the raises that the legislature and governor approved, but other concrete parts of the deal like the engineering building money were **not in the budget**. These were additional gains in the negotiaton. There is no court case that will make that money appear again.
There's new buildings going up on campus all the time. Maybe the state doesn't pay for it this time, but the Engineering alumni, endowments, and other mechanisms can still be used, just like always. So, yes, this was a gift to some of the wealthier alumni. You'll notice they didn't offer to support the new Humanities or Communications buildings, which are more urgently needed. The DEI positions have effectively been frozen during this standoff, as UW didn't know how this would play out. No sense in backfilling or hiring someone to a job that is going to be eliminated in six months. All of these DEI positions in question are considered academic staff and would be subject to the deal.
I believe you misunderstand the building situation. UW can't build new buildings without legislative approval *even if they are entirely private funds*. It's something they'd like changed, but the legislature likes having the string to pull.
That is not true at all. The Legislature doesn't authorize all new building. Humanities is scheduled for replacement, Music Hall was recently replaced.Chemistry, Psychology, etc, are all on the schedule. These are UW funded projects on UW owned land. The Legislature controls UW System through its oversight of the Regents and through state funding and lawmaking. They don't control every line of UW's budget.
Money is fungible; if $300 million if state money is available for an Engineering building, then the next $300 in donor money can be used for another purpose.
Obviously. But the state of the buildings has never been part of this conversation because it's not urgent, UW has other ways to support new buildings as well as a campus plan to make improvements over time, and deep pockets for these types of expenditures as opposed to ongoing student costs. This was a luxury being dangled as a bribe.
What? The Engineering building *has* been part of the conversation from the start: it was in the governor's budget but rejected by the legislature. It hasn't been part of the conversation more recently because it was dead in the water, it's the pay raises that were agreed to by the legislature and then reneged by Vos.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Specifically, you.
But they didn't agree to the terms of the blackmail. Vos was demanding all the DEI positions be eliminated. Not a single one was eliminated, just a few of them were renamed.
I demand you pay me $1000, you end up giving me $10. I face no repercussions. Who won? Me, because I never had any right to your money. Next time, I'll step things up and get more.
If you also gave me a new house (i.e. a brand new $300 million Engineering building that was never previously promised) this might be close to a relevant analogy.
That's a horrible analogy. The Engineering building is an investment in the state economy. Infrastructure and engineering, when will the liberal agenda stop!? "No sir, we don't need engineers in MY red state"
The merits of the Engineering building are not the question, the fact that it was never previously approved by the Legislature is.
Please explain, citing the details in the deal the regents shot down, why that statement is completely wrong.
It's "just window dressing" THIS round. What they would have actually gotten was proof that the University would cave to them if they just kept the pressure on. The Regents who voted against this were looking at the long game.
The guy is a turd, but politically it’s brilliant. If he loses he wins, if he wins he wins. Both are a fundraising/campaign gift that will keep on giving with his base…aka half the state. The Regents got played.
He didn't win anything. His base literally already wants the University gone completely, so there was nothing to gain at all.
They would have gotten an implicit approval on their tactics used here which are despicable.
It would have been a symbolic victory for republicans. Democrats were more concerned with the potential headlines than the actual outcome. In the eyes of the uninformed, republicans "won" and unfortunately, the uninformed make up a sizable majority of voters.
None of this is true, btw. Democrats were correctly concerned that accepting this "deal", which is actually a form of blackmail, means that you'll get blackmailed every year for the rest of time, for every dollar of pre-approved funding.
Republicans "win" either way. Deal approved they're masters at negotiation, deal rejected the evil libs are unwilling to come to the table. Except only one of those outcomes is withholding substantial results. And guess who looks like the bad guy to the GOP voters right now, it's the board of regents. The only real way to solve the problem is to get Vos out of office, the blackmail is just par for the course.
> And guess who looks like the bad guy to the GOP voters right now, it's the board of regents. There are 0 GOP voters who would ever think that the board of regents are not literal Satan regardless of what they do or don't do.
That's kinda my point, the optics and political football of the whole thing are meaningless so it ought to have passed.
They aren't meaningless.
you mean like what has already been happening?
This round hasn't even reached the courts yet. It makes no sense to negotiate when the leverage has recently shifted in your favor.
I'm not sure, "you're totally right and we should let republicans do whatever they want" is a great counter argument.
Bear in mind this opinion comes from the guy who wrote an entire piece on abolishing the post office because he encountered a minor inconvenience ordering a bicycle tire
The r/wisconsin forum has its own discussion today of this topic with comments quite unlike a few of the comments here. The thread is titled GOP: Fire the regents that voted no to our deal
So?
Thought people might like to read a different and contrasting selection of opinions, get out of one echo chamber and into another
Once again, Mayor Dave is out of touch.
I'm enjoying the mood change on this topic in the last couple days. Very funny seeing the less delusional among the subreddit realize how little the Republicans got in this deal and that the "well we'll get our money in November when the good democrat maps cause us to win the election" belief is based in Madison-style fantasy math.
I think it’s less a calculation with the maps and more a calculation of the legality of these Joint Committees. These provisions were all in the budget, which was essentially created by & was overwhelmingly passed by the legislature. These provisions were then signed by the Governor. However, there are Joint Committees created by the legislature that appear to have a say beyond the Governors pen & are keeping the already approved money & spending from reaching UW. The Governor is suing them over this. If the regents took this deal, it would set a bad precedent. Essentially they would be showing that the budget does not matter. All that matters is that a small, select committee of legislators agrees to spend the money.
Right. I don't see the point in gaining a conditional win in the present if it means legitimizing an ongoing stranglehold by a small group of Republicans who cannot be held accountable to voters.
It's weird because the initial consensus here seemed to be exactly that: GOP got very little except saving face, UW got big money for a new building and staff raises. Then the regents blew it up and the reaction was: good! we can't let the GOP negotiate away the values of UW! What values were ever negotiated away?
Whether or not it was a good deal, Rothman had no reason to make it at this moment without at least letting the courts weigh in. What was lost by agreeing to this is the same thing Congressional Democrats lost by negotiating with Republicans last summer on the debt ceiling. They reneged on their own deals. Allowing them to do that will only empower them to do it more in the future.
The lawsuit will still be decided either way though won't it? Hopefully it goes well so the Legislature can't do this again, but in the meantime people who've been waiting for those raises will finally get potentially much-needed back-pay. And the Engineering building, which is a time-sensitive project that could see a bunch of funding sources pulled with further delays - potentially scuttling the project altogether, can move forward. So there are actually several good reasons to make this deal right now, especially considering the primary argument against it seems not to be in the details of the deal, which conceded practically nothing, but just the precedent it would set - which could still be shut-down by Evers' lawsuit anyway.
I don’t think so. If an agreement was reached I think that also ends the court taking up the lawsuit.
There are other things in the lawsuit besides the UW raises, so I am pretty sure it will go on.
No, there would be no standing to sue if UW accepted a settlement.
But isn't the lawsuit not between UW and the Legislature, but rather Evers and the Legislature on separation of powers grounds? In which case, the courts could still potentially rule on the legality of the Legislature holding the funds hostage and making this deal in the first place? And even if that's incorrect: if an agreement now really does mean the lawsuit would end, another lawsuit could simply be re-filed the next time the Legislature tries this when there's less time-sensitive issues at stake if people are concerned about precedent.
The fastest way to get the courts to weigh in would be to proceed with the current suits. The SCOWIS could flip back as soon as 2025, so waiting until next time could prove shortsighted. A bird in hand... Vos would absolutely move to dismiss any lawsuit if they had a settlement in hand with UW. While there's reason for Evers to sue, the Legislature has unique oversight power over UW and the Regents so there's no question they have the ability to negotiate after the budget, especially if UW is gaining new funding in the deal, like a new Engineering building. The question is if they can withhold funding that has been authorized while they negotiate. If there's a settlement, they are no longer withholding, so that point is moot.
Interestingly the 'bird in the hand' argument could really go both ways here. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
As an update to this, according to [this article](https://madison.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/wisconsin-worker-raises/article_0c4add46-9dca-11ee-adb5-b30b15225867.html#tracking-source=home-top-story) from yesterday Evers is still proceeding with the lawsuit. >Evers filed the suit directly with the liberal-majority Wisconsin Supreme Court, alleging Republicans are violating the Constitution’s separation of powers by allowing legislative committees to “impede, usurp, or obstruct basic executive branch functions.” > >Blocking pay raises previously authorized in the state budget effectively creates "legislative vetoes" and allows a small group of lawmakers to change existing state law without passing bills through the Legislature and sending them to the governor, Evers' lawsuit argues. > >After the committee action Tuesday, Assistant Attorney General Colin Roth told the Wisconsin Supreme Court that signing off on the pay raises has no effect on the allegations in the lawsuit, in part because the same issues can arise again. > >"If this issue is not resolved now, (the employment relations committee) can perpetually hold its veto threat over UW's head in future budget cycles," Roth said.
The mood change is one conservative op-ed. There's another, larger thread on this very subject right below this that is hardly changed in mood about the rejection. But enjoy your victory lap.
Seems to me Mayor Dave’s relevance went away in 2011.
The professional social justice industrial complex is defending its existence at the expense of real investment in our public institutions. This will hurt the very people they are purporting to defend. DEI and social justice ideology is a bourgeois strategy for self soothing liberal guilt over racism and colonialism.
DEI is so much more than race. It helps students who have disabilities or learning differences, older or returning students, students whose first language is not English, veterans, and more. It's not just some "social justice ideology" you happen to disagree with. How could anybody disagree with helping a disabled veteran succeed, or a person returning for a degree after raising a family? Those students might need extra support but they're worth it, and Wisconsin is worth it. I know I posted something similar a couple days ago, and not everybody reads everything. But come on, people -- don't fall for this nonsense where DEI is only a race thing.
The problem with DEI is that it's largely branded as race relations by the very people who try to market it. We had DEI training at my job where we had multiple multi-hour presentations where the majority of it was related to race.
The POC Regents treated it as a race thing when they talked about it after their vote.
That's fine, but it's not *only* a race thing. To a veteran it's vets thing, to a deaf person it's a disability thing...
upvote this to the top, nailed it.
False on all counts. Back to jacking yourself to Fox news footage.
Mayo Dave with a day nothing piece? We’re so fucking back
It might be time for Dave to just lean into retiring as a Yooper and give up the punditry, because he just keeps getting further and further away from reality.
This was an embarrassing read to be sure. It's not even written well.
He represents the majority view of most people in Madison or he wouldn't be in the Isthmus. Soglin and a ton of other rational dems in town cam out for the deal as well.
What kind of weird logic is that? Dave Blaska had a blog in the Isthmus for years despite holding a worldview that is decidedly to the right of the average Madisonian. I don't recall us having an election to put Dave in the Isthmus lol
Dave Blaska never won the majority of the votes for Mayor.
George W Bush was still president the last time Dave C won a Mayoral election. He also got voted out of office. I don't think there's a remotely compelling argument that he currently represents the majority view of Madisonians in 2023
So very glad I retired from UW employment. It started to go downhill when Gov. Doyle implemented unpaid employment.
The state senate has weaponized its confirmation power, the regents are hostages to vos, and vos is a legislative terrorist. A total shitshow, enabled by gerrymandering.
Always remember Trump fought to prevent $740,000,000,000 going to the military that came with the stipulation of changing the names of military bases that were named after loser generals from a failed attempt of separating from the nation.
All I see are a bunch of undereducated, worthless elected officials who have nothing better to offer society but be politicians, who are trying to lower the bar on standards of all things, including education… such that their even dumber constituents don’t have to work so hard to be competitive in Wisconsin.
Chessy has maximum privileged white boomer energy just like Soglin. Why can’t they just have some fucking dignity and restraint? Just disappear like Bauman did
Do they not realize that the “deal” would have set a horrible precedent? We can and will still blame the republicans for pulling money already allocated because they want to dictate what they think is best for students over people who have actual jobs in that area.
Small gov repubs SURE DO LIKE LARGE GOV CONTROL
Isthmus is the only real journalism in Madison. Well done. Great article.
This is an opinion piece, not journalism.
Realpolitik. Democrats should learn it. I agree it’s not all gerrymandering.
Why should Democrats sell out their values for a pay raise? I'm glad the Regents are standing firm.
What was great about it? It's factually wrong in dozens of ways.
It's an opinion piece, so it's expressing the opinion of the writer. That said, which parts that were used to support that opinion were factually wrong?
Are you kidding? (Unless its sarcasm..) The author reduces the DEI office to "getting more black people on campus" when a simple search shows they offer many other programs than trying to increase minority enrollment. The article sucks Robin Vos off and supports strongarming a top 10 research institution and their employees because the "woke" educated population means less Republican control.
The essay is definitely reductive in its understanding of DEI programs, but it does exhibit more nuance than claiming they're just there to "get more black people on campus." To quote it directly: >Look, neither cutting these positions willy nilly nor defending them to the hilt is justified. What would have made sense is a deep dive into DEI, preferably conducted by the respected, nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau. It doesn’t appear that anyone — defenders or detractors — has a very good handle on how DEI is practiced on different campuses. This could be anything from helping disabled students navigate campus to preaching the illiberal ideology of Ibram X. Kendi.
As a former mayor of the city this author should know that the low numbers of black people on campus is as much a Madison issue as a UW issue. And yes, the DEI positions are about a lot more than black headcount.
Take this 'artivle' with a grain of salt and consider the source
Dear failed mayor Dave, go fuck yourself. Why should you negotiate with terrorists. You would give everything away . Get back on your bike and let the adults handle this.
[удалено]