A controversial state budget deal hammered out last year for the University of Wisconsin system stoked criticism from all sides — from its original proposal, initial rejection, and eventual passage — according to nearly 1,000 pages of emails, text messages, and other communications The Chronicle received in response to an open-records request.
At one point, the turmoil that followed the failure to pass a deal in December that had been brokered between the system and leaders of the Republican-controlled Legislature left Jay O. Rothman, the system’s president, doubting his credibility to lead.
The final deal, which released $800 million in state funds in exchange for concessions on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts across the state’s 13 public universities, came after months of pressure from Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of the state’s Assembly. Vos has called DEI — which he says stands for “division, exclusion, and indoctrination” — “the single most important issue” in the nation.
Rothman and Jennifer L. Mnookin, chancellor of the flagship in Madison, threw their weight behind the deal as a compromise that would provide long-delayed salary increases approved in the state budget, as well as funds for several major campus building projects. In exchange, the system pledged to realign at least 43 DEI positions and back other Republican-led initiatives, including a direct-admissions program. The flagship in Madison also consented to axing a program that sought to hire more diverse faculty members, while agreeing to raise funds for a new position that would focus on “conservative political thought, classical economic theory, or classical liberalism” at the university.
But the compromise didn’t go over smoothly at first. In a surprise vote, the system’s Board of Regents initially rejected the deal in a 9-8 vote. As pressure from Republican lawmakers mounted, the regents reversed their position three days after the first vote.
Here’s what the controversy looked like on the inside.
Initial Backlash
Backlash from students, Democratic legislators, and other members of the general public flooded Rothman’s and the regents’ inboxes ahead of the first vote, many urging them not to support the deal. Some of the letters forwarded to the regents were titled: “Opposing Disheartening Plans to Cut DEI Funding”; “I stand with diversity”; “Non-support”; and “please reject the devil’s bargain.”
Others sent personal pleas. “I am extremely disheartened to hear of news that the UW System is entertaining a deal with the Legislature that will gut diversity, equity, and inclusion jobs and funding for the University of Wisconsin system,” one student wrote in an email. “I urge the UW Regents and President Rothman to reject these negotiations and be a strong advocate for our DEI programs.”
Another writer was even more pointed. “Would you really trade my humanity for a building?” wrote a UW-Madison employee, adding that “playing by these illegitimate rules is not the look.”
Rep. Greta Neubauer, the Democratic minority leader of the state’s Assembly, sent the Board of Regents a petition with over 1,100 signatures opposing the deal. “We cannot allow Republican Legislators to use our students and university system as political pawns,” Neubauer wrote in the email with the petition.
Shock at the Deal’s Failure
While the opposition resounded in the messages before the vote, the fact that it fell apart appeared to come as a shock nonetheless.
“This has been more of a shit show than a dairy farm ever has,” Cris Peterson, a regent who voted for the deal, wrote to Rothman.
“You were cut off at the knees Saturday by our leadership,” Peterson continued, apparently referring to Karen Walsh, the board’s president, and Amy Bogost, its vice president, who were among those who voted against the deal. “I don’t know what the heck happened. But you’re getting knee replacements tomorrow.”
In several messages to regents and others after the deal was initially rejected, Rothman expressed concerns about his credibility to lead the system. In a text to Edmund Manydeeds III, a regent, Rothman wrote, “To have the president and vice president vote against a resolution I recommended makes my situation really challenging.”
In response to one message from Jim Kreuser, a regent, Rothman wrote that he was “pretty sure” about what he needed to do next. “Not happy about that,” he continued, “but I just lost my credibility to lead.”
“I understand,” Kreuser responded. “Tonight Grey Goose it is.”
“Or earlier!” Rothman responded with a smiley face.
Some text messages following the flopped vote also capture what appears to be Walsh, the board’s president who voted against the deal, expressing willingness to take another look at the proposal.
The day after the failed vote, Rothman told Walsh it was “a tough day for both of us.” Walsh immediately apologized for what happened: “We were under so much pressure, as you know.” After proposing a meeting with Rothman, Walsh wrote: “I believe there is a path.”
In response to an inquiry about the text message, Walsh told The Chronicle that the pressure surrounding the initial proposal was “unprecedented,” as was the nature of the deal with Vos. The board, she said, received the finalized terms of the proposed deal just 24 hours in advance of the first vote. Walsh noted that the vote against it was not a “referendum” on Rothman’s leadership or credibility, but rather a reflection of the fact that the board had such little time to consider the final proposal.
In text messages after the failed vote, several regents and other system personnel expressed support for Rothman and his leadership. Rob Hutton, a Republican state senator who leads the committee on universities and revenue, sent Rothman a message of encouragement on Dec. 12: “I doubt you signed up for this. We need you in that role.”
“It has been an ‘interesting’ journey,” Rothman replied.
Still, the deal seemed to be on shaky ground even as it barreled toward a second vote. “I am fine and at peace with whatever happens,” Rothman told Ashok Rai, a regent, the day before the second vote.
Walsh said the board reviewed the proposal with fresh eyes the second time around and was ultimately comfortable enough to support it. “Was it an easy decision? No, it wasn’t,” she said. “But I think we came to the right one.”
Final Support
After the deal passed, Rothman received many expressions of support for making the best of a difficult situation — and clearing the way for faculty and staff raises.
“You and your team are to be commended for masterfully including such significant investments for UW, while reaching a reasonable compromise on a very dicey political issue,” wrote Bon Wikenheiser, the executive director of the Institute for Business & Entrepreneurship, which is a part of the university system.
Some faculty members extended gratitude as well, like a lecturer at UW-Parkside who commended Rothman for making “the best deal possible.”
“You’ve achieved what appears to be a beneficial and sensible compromise with the Speaker,” another professor wrote. “I’m very excited about it and very excited about our future.”
But other messages voiced a wariness about the precedent set by the deal with Vos and the Republican-controlled Legislature, in a state that has a notorious history of politicized battles over higher-education funding.
“Your reversal of a vote to defend the university from political encroachment was a real failure of courage and principle,” wrote one alumnus in an email addressed to the two regents who flipped their votes, before apparently taking aim at Vos. “You were rolled by a seedy little man with an axe to grind and whom you’ve invited back for more.”
Two of UW-Madison’s top donors, John P. Morgridge — the former chief executive of Cisco Systems — and his wife, Tashia Morgridge, expressed a similar view before the deal was approved. In an email to Mnookin, Madison’s chancellor, and Rothman, the couple said they supported the deal and understood the compromise that the leaders reached. But they worried about what would come next.
“We can understand the concern of some that this may be only the first step in the restrictions the legislature will impose,” the Morgridges wrote. “It is up to all of us to make sure that this does not happen.” (Disclosure: The reporter for this article previously worked for the Morgridge Center for Public Service.)
Both Mnookin and Rothman gave their assurances: The deal would not, they pledged, become a “slippery slope.”
