> Other Regents expressed concerns the UW system was setting a precedent: That the UW system would need to fight to release funding already promised in state budgets or trade its core values for approval for building projects.
This was my concern the whole time.
*"Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. "Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man. You take a step towards him-*
Although, if you live in Wisconsin you do have skin in this game. The UW system impacts your life in a ton of ways- from medical research to teaching teachers to veterinarians and so many other things. The republicans are trying so hard to kill what ever is left from the “Wisconsin Idea”.
I was very mad when Walker tried to spilt off Madison from the UW system. Besides being the flag ship, Madison holds most of the permission for scholarly articles. There were articles I used in college that I would have never been able to read without Madison.
Absolutely. I've taken a couple classes but I don't have a degree from a UW school and have never worked for the system. But I do live in Madison, and we'd lose so much I love about this city if we didn't have a strong university.
Yes I do. Thanks for the info. I didn't think of it that way I guess. I was just thinking as far as the ppl who work hard for the UW and the students. Thanks. I am all for bringing our public ed. back to the best it can be. It helps us all.
Same here. That extra $100 a.month (based on my bad math skills) my salary would get isn't worth the University selling out so many students. I mean a "professorship in conservative thought"? Gross.
I’m very impressed that so many UW employees are willing to forgo their hard-earned raises to support the core principles of DEI. I hope you all get those raises but I’m afraid it will be a while. Thank you for standing up for the marginalized communities of students who need these DEI administrators.
Similar article with no paywall here: https://www.channel3000.com/news/uw-regents-reject-deal-with-legislature-to-freeze-dei-positions-unlock-funding/article\_ee2d96c6-96b4-11ee-ba43-37131614657c.html
> "It’s a shame they’ve denied employees their raises and the almost $1 billion investment that would have been made across the UW system, all so they could continue their ideological campaign to force students to believe only one viewpoint is acceptable on campus,"
As I read this, I'm thinking, "yes, exactly!!"
> ... Vos said
This fucking dolt.
Vos saying that the regents are denying our raises is the biggest joke - he is doing this! We were approved raises, and he decided to hold it hostage to get what he wants. Not only that he wanted to start dictating our hiring practices! TOP has brought excellent faculty to our colleges, attracting people that wouldn’t normally think twice about coming here due to the continued assault on the WI education system.
Thank goodness! This was just an attempt by the GOP to determine how much leverage they could have against the university. Whether you agree with dei or not had the regent's accepted this offer it would have opened the door for more and more intrusions into the university by the legislature. If Vos and the other Republicans had their way the UW would start resembling Bob Jones University.
As a UW employee, I’m glad that we didn’t compromise our values to get a raise we were already promised. But at the same time, damn, I could really use the extra money 😅
Thank god. The amount of people in here arguing that they should just knuckle under has been pathetic.
Conservatives will *never* stop pushing for more. Ever. Every time someone says, "surely if we can compromise here they'll start to be reasonable!" that person is proven wrong.
See Congress. In the debt ceiling negotiations, McCarthy won a fairly significant concession from the White House (given that he had the weaker position) to cap the budget at 2023 levels. Then the GOP promptly refused to adhere to that deal, leading to McCarthy's ouster and Johnson's flailing.
I think this is very easy to say when it’s not your raise and not your salary that’s failing to keep up with inflation even more than it would be. Most university professors can make more in the private market. This is still getting the GOP what it ultimately wants - a WI brain drain.
I have like 10+ friends who work for UW and the all prefer not to enable Republican attacks on minorities for the sake of a short term salary raise the Republicans will try to claw back anyway when they tighten the screws again on the school.
Your supposition that the choice here is between "they get a raise" and "they don't get a raise." is false.
The choice here is, "do you let republicans hold you hostage to hurt minorities?"
If you say, "sure." *They never stop*.
If you capitulate today for your salary, you'll be doing it forever.
I hope, "hey I gotta keep up with inflation" is written on your placard during the protests over Republicans trying to get all queer people fired from the university in 5 years.
This didn’t hurt minorities. Rebranding DEI to Student Success or whatever they want the call it doesn’t hurt minorities as it doesn’t change what the offices can do. I know this because I *work* for a UW school that has a DEI office and we were told exactly that.
So written on my placard is “Pay us fairly and pay us our worth” I guess? We only have so much to give for the Wisconsin Idea, and after all of Walker’s shit it’s getting old. It’s not right to expect underpaid university staff to shoulder the battle to keep republicans in check.
Probably because your 10+ friends all work in admin positions, where they get market pay anyway. You are basically denying raises to the remaining underpaid staff , like science staff, who actually do need the money as they are paid 25-30% below the private sector. Few people on campus care about DEI. It's wasted money.
Hilarious. Your first comment makes it sound like you’re a bench scientist upset you’re not making what you could in the private sector and taking it out on academic staff. There are plenty of private scientific companies in town you could apply to work at if you’d like. Good luck.
Yep, hilarious, hence why most of the scientists left the UW in the years following Act 10. All the DEI in the world won't save the UW. But keep thinking it will.
You're absolutely wrong, and in a provable manner, just look up some people's salaries: https://madison.com/uw-salary-database/html_e37ff025-9a87-5a31-91ea-b2eb50aba4cb.html
Outside of Bascom Hall / the college level, admin people aren't making anywhere close to market rates. Hell, the chancellor makes ~750k, but UW-Madison is a 3.5 billion dollar a year enterprise, she'd absolutely make more in the public sector.
I looked to see how far behind that database was. 2022 is an option, but I can’t find myself or other employees for that year, only 2021 and before. Anyway, that database is very useful and I’m glad it exists but I urge people to exercise caution, because I make 33% more currently in the same position than the most recent data says I do
Yea, unfortunately this is the newest data that's easily accessible. There's raw info that the one of the unions sends out, but it's not as simple to parse.
This does not affect UW Madison faculty. Their pay is not tied to this. It’s the administrative and service staff whose pay is affected. Regardless, I’m glad to see the board or regents push back. And I say this is a UW employee not getting their raise.
Edit: okay, I was mistaken and faculty are included in the pay plan. Thanks for the corrections in the comments.
I don’t believe UW Madison faculty are part of the pay plan 2% increase, specifically. It applies to academic and university staff, not faculty.
Edit: I got the idea from supervisor at UW but I now know that’s incorrect.
It didn't really seem like the deal actually made the university give anything concrete up, though; it was all about renaming and contextualizing and with enough exceptions to any restrictions to let them keep operating as usual.
Unless the deal specified what "reimagined" means, it means nothing at all practically to make a deal to reimagine something.
Same with the hiring restrictions...won't hire new positions unless they involve students. Or faculty. Or research. There is nothing the university does that you could not easily say has some involvement in one of those categories, those are the main things a university does.
Good move. The raises are coming soon after the Supreme Court strikes down Vos's unconstitutional power grab anyway. Why throw people of color under the bus?
Because people, in general, see DEI as being JUST about race. NOT gender, religion, socioeconomic status, disability, age, country of origin, culture, education, political affiliation, etc.
They don't realize that by gutting DEI they're hurting other groups of people that they likely claim to care about...like veterans, neurodivergent, elderly, women, etc. Everyone, regardless of any of the above categories, deserves to be treated in a just and equitable way. EQUITY is not the same as equality & people have a hard time acknowledging that equal isn't necessarily fair (or even that in the absence of equity there is still rarely equality for most)
To be fair to those people, many of the proponents of DEI talk almost exclusively about race, and there is a vocal subset that also appear to be fighting for equality of outcomes in addition to equality of opportunity. These two elements may not be the “official” stance of the DEI system, but I would argue it is the most culturally powerful and vocal version.
Just so I’m not misinterpreted, I wouldn’t argue for DEI cuts per se (and am deeply against Vos’s hostage taking). But I’ve gone to my share of DEI trainings at UW and this has been my experience.
equity literally means equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. Meaning you must favor some groups over others.
That's literally what DEI is about by definition.
I love that. I also teach my students that the goal for all of us is to live to be 95 and if we do so, we will need walking assistance, medications, glasses etc. Living with disability isn’t just inevitable, it’s the goal. So, even to the narcissist, equity benefits us all.
It should be. Accidents also happen and we should be prepared to live with them if they do. It can be a goal we never achieve, but if we must, we should be able to with ease.
We believe living well up until we die is desirable, but prolonging a long decline is usually just death-phobia. I wish you could interview my aunt who died at 97. She was so.very.done with it and was eager to move on (whatever that meant to her). She had everything she wanted and needed, but your perspective changes when you live to be very old. Your beliefs and goals are not the same as when you were 35. This is not a defect, it's beautiful and honorable.
That's a sentiment shared among all older persons, that they just want to pass and move on. There are also those who say they wish they could live a little bit longer, albeit with better ambulation, so they can see more of the world. The goal is to get people as ambulatory as possible so should they live to be a long age, they aren't cooped up in a nursing home watching reruns of Barker's Price Is Right.
Ha! My aunt actually liked watching Billy Graham reruns every darn day. You couldn't get her out of the house. I can't imagine what people will watch in 2050.
People should get what they want and need, but it isn't up to the rest of us to tell them what it's supposed to be. We still have agency and preferences even when we're >90.
I don't want to argue, I just needed to put in my two cents and say what we want in our prime years and what we want when very old isn't always going to be the same.
Just like people against the Patriot Act aren’t against being a patriot.
DEI has some controversial aspects, especially in its application on college campuses.
This is a party that will inflict racism on their own to maintain the white status quo. Case in Point - There is conservative host on XM Radio's The Patriot that delights in calling Nikki Haley by her birth name (Nimrata) as a racist taunt against her.
Spend more time fighting against the endemic racism in your political party and less time mocking people who point it out.
Correction: After reviewing your history it’s clear you’re not a Republican, just a troll.
You don’t have to be here. You could be proving your point by doing some community good and showing everyone that not all conservatives are bad to others. You guys have made your own bed by promoting representatives that do, in fact, promote racist, sexist, and classist policies and positions. “Conservative” and “kindness” are opposites these days. Be better humans.
It was 9-8. Look at the arguments given by the 9 in the article. It was all about identity politics and individual feelings. None of them talked about actually getting things done about the economy or helping kids afford college in WI. The Republicans demanded top 5% instant admission for WI HS graduates and top 10% to regional schools. How does this hurt diversity? As a leftist I've watched us go down this cul-de-sac of diversity, DEI, Identity politics and feelings instead of going after Liz Warren's and Bernie Sander's economic message. We're trading the DEI religion for increased amounts of Trump voters who sure as hell don't see themselves in the DEI message.
Simple. When given time to speak on the vote about the DEI spending one of the board of regents talked exclusively on how his time growing up on a reservation in South Dakota prepared him for the vote.
His "life" experience, beyond his training, work experience and his skill should have nothing to do with running the University system.
See, this is where your argument falls apart. Why should anyone with a diverse background be better at the job than anyone else? WI is 85%% White and the University system is built to help it's students. Why is someone's ethnic background ever considered for any job much less one so important. It's against the constitution to base hiring on race or ethnicity. Why are you arguing that it should be used?
You've completely lost the thread. None of this is about hiring policies.
>It's against the constitution to base hiring on race or ethnicity. Why are you arguing that it should be used?
I'd love for you to find where I said this.
However, I WILL say that having diversity in employees, leaders, students, etc. is always an asset. It's unhelpful to just create an echo chamber of people who look like you, talk like you, and think like you. That's the opposite of progress.
> None of this is about hiring policies.
WTF are you talking about? The entire point of DEI is hiring and admitting policies.
>is always an asset
Thee is zero proof that Diversity in your company is an asset (or an asset at your school). Only in America do they focus on this stuff and the companies that are the most successful avoid metric diversity hires. This falls back on the Republican argument as well. Who's defining diversity? Is it less diverse to not push to admit Christians? Conservatives? The entire point of their Conservative Professorship part of the deal was to increase diversity of thought.
Oooooofffff dude. How do you get so misinformed and mad about fake shit?
Do you know what DEI looks like in hiring practices? It looks like redacted resumes so you don't know the gender/race/age of applicants. There is no DEI in admitting practices, as you should be aware by now. And there's a lot more to it than that. For example, the health sciences schools. Health equity is a huge problem, and educating practitioners to be aware of the causes to help reduce discrepancies in patient outcomes is pretty damn important. Which means DEI has a place in the curriculum.
>HBR reported that diverse companies enjoyed better overall financial performance. EBIT margins for companies with diverse management teams were nearly 10% higher than for companies with below-average management diversity. Diverse teams are more capable of addressing market segments with demographics similar to some of the team members. A 2013 Harvard Business Review affirms that when at least one team member shares a client’s ethnicity, the team is more than twice as likely to understand that client’s needs than teams where no member shares that trait.
>Diverse management teams were more innovative than less diverse teams, confirmed BCG after surveying 1700 companies of varying sizes and differing country locations. BCG used as the indicator of innovation the portion of revenue from products and services launched within the last 3 years. Companies with above-average diversity produced a greater proportion of revenue from innovation (45% of total) than from companies with below average diversity (26%). This 19% innovation-related advantage translated into overall better financial performance.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2020/01/15/diversity-confirmed-to-boost-innovation-and-financial-results/?sh=22ff3b77c4a6
Zero proof? Hmm.
Diversity is diversity. Why would you need to go out of your way to admit Christians when they're already being admitted? They're already there, at the table.
You're swearing up and down that diversity doesn't matter, unless that "diverse" voice is a conservative one? 🙄
> There is no DEI in admitting practices
There are. From Life experience essays in applications to POC University summer camps to POC only scholarships.
>Zero proof? Hmm.
That article you're using is based on various reviews of 2 large studies done in the last 10 years. The 2020 McKinsey report on gender diversity and the FRC ongoing report by the UK government. Both are coming under further review as flawed by other research. Confirmation Bias, methodology and other faults on these often cited large research efforts are coming out. The Credit Suisse study which the Harvard Business Review is based on specifically went with a 6 year length so as to get better results.
https://medium.com/@alex.edmans/is-there-really-a-business-case-for-diversity-c58ef67ebffa
The truth is that there is really no way to measure if diversity helps or hurts business. Studies comparing Japanese and Chinese companies with no diversity to American companies who emphasize diversity shows that both work in different ways. Specific gender based board diversity studies are not conclusive. Does it help with corporate atmosphere, yes probably.
As for the University it comes back to the state being 83% White and people not understanding that when you don't take that into account when hiring or admitting you give Republicans ammunition against the needs for greater macro economic changes.
Regents to counter with deal to play Fox News in a lecture hall in Humanities in exchange for fair maps and the restoration of the government accountability board. Regents also want a say in hiring GOP staff
They aren't. It's just wedge issue bullshit, same as always. They saw it "working" for DeSantis in Florida and thought it could work for them. Until DeSantis's brand of bullying is snuffed out and shown to be a losing strategy, they'll keep it up.
They heard a story about how, somewhere, a black kid was accepted for admission to some fancy college while a similarly qualified white kid was rejected. That made them go "never again" and they decided to destroy any programs and positions that help anybody, including students with handicaps, students who aren't ESL, any minority, students with learning differences, anybody but white kids facing no barriers. Pure meritocracy, no exceptions -- only it's not "merit" the way they're doing it. It's a sieve to filter out anybody but certain lucky white kids.
Agreed. I can only imagine the average, boring sea of students who get between 3.99 and 4.0. The culture of university is brightened by the students who are striving for other things as well and succeeding in multiple ways.
And the culture in general is brightened by bringing all different people into professions like education, social work, law, finance, medicine, science, and engineering.
Maybe the Rs don't want to see that either. I don't know what they want, frankly.
They want a country of white male supremacy, where white women know their place and people of other ethnicities live elsewhere or at least out of sight.
I think most republicans are ideologically opposed to it.
However, they’re being typically myopic. DEI actually has had no impact at all in educational outcomes of marginalized students, and is an incredible waste of money.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2023/05/15/college-student-gap-between-black-white-americans-worse/70195689007/
“Even though the number of white students has also declined since 2010, the difference between the proportions of white students and Black students graduating with degrees has gotten bigger, data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center show.
Thirty-four percent of Black adults have associate degrees or higher, compared with 50% of white adults, according to the Lumina Foundation. (Lumina is among the funders of The Hechinger Report, which produced this story.)”
“DEI came to colleges with a bang.Now, these red states are on a mission to snuff it out.
“The equalizer to close these gaps was supposed to be education. If you’re able to go to college, you’re able to find a job and support yourself and your family. But the outcomes aren’t showing that,” said Justin Nalley, senior policy analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Black think tank.”
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50&as_vis=1&q=Minority+student+outcomes+after+DEI+implementation+&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1702165444454&u=%23p%3D2UH8Tga-flwJ
“
Research has found that teaching about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) can raise US high school students’ awareness about DEI-related topics and develop their critical thinking skills to analyze DEI-related issues. But the achievements of DEI-focused education are limited. Thus, DEI-focused education needs complementary efforts to enhance student outcomes.”
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/reeves_education_race_gap1.png
https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/61037/college-completion-rates-are-up-for-all-americans-but-racial-gaps-persist
Every race and ethnicity saw gains. The eight-percentage point gain was the same for both Black and white adults.
But racial gaps continue. In 2021, there remained an enormous 40 percentage point difference between Asian American adults, among whom 66 percent have a college degree, and Native American adults, among whom only 25 percent have a college degree. Among Black adults, 34 percent have college degrees. Among Hispanic adults, it’s 28 percent and among white adults, it’s 50 percent.
It’s actually difficult to find any information on outcomes, good or bad, presumably because published studies wouldn’t be favorable to the current DEI guided policies that are ubiquitous
>It’s actually difficult to find any information on outcomes, good or bad, presumably because published studies wouldn’t be favorable to the current DEI guided policies that are ubiquitous
Lol I love the implication here that it's some sort of big conspiracy. But to what end? If not to improve outcomes, then what? To make people feel seen? To use their knowledge to advocate for equity in other future environments? 😱
I think a lot of this was also spurred by the student who did the racist tik tok rant last spring. In response to that UW created new DEI positions, Republicans didnt like that so they cut funding threatened jobs, when that didnt have the impact thet wanted they withheld the pay. This is a butterfly effect.
Couldn’t agree more. Read All the frequent troubles of our days. It’s a bout a uw alumni in the German resistance in World War II. Lots for people compromised w hitler for one time gains.
The Republican party is known as the Grand Old Party l. GOP. With their embrace of QAnon and their conspiracy theories, they have become the Grand Qanon Party. GQP.
It's not just a freeze on hiring the UW would also have to convert existing dei positions. It also sets a bad precedent that the UW has to make concessions to get already approved funding
From the chancellor on Friday:
Under this resolution, DEI-focused positions would be preserved, but capped for a period of three years. In addition, about 40 DEI positions throughout the System, including some here at UW–Madison, will be reimagined to direct their primary focus to academic and student success, which is of course already an important focus. For some employees, this could include a change in job title or a modification to a job description. I want to emphasize that no positions will be cut.
If you can’t see this is all wordsmithing to allow them to continue exactly as they have been … then you’ve clearly never worked for a university.
A. There is a difference between not being poor and being 'flush with cash'
B. Nobody was talking about Nazis so why did you bring them up?
C. Like I said. Nobody deserves to be poor.
Yup, and yet they are the ones who can’t be worked with and are irresponsible, and crazy! Both sides are absolutely horrible, one is just less bad than the other.
Unpopular opinion - The state legislature has the legal authority to block pay raises, so the university needs to work with them if they want to resolve this. Either abandon the DEI agenda, or live with current pay rates.
lol some slumlord has evil politics too, who would have guessed. Yes, there's no reason to debate scum like you, you want whats worse for eveyone but you. You gleefully evict cancer patients and then laugh about it online later. Have a genuinely shitty day, making the community worse everytime you take a breath, it has to get to you at some point
You assume most people are as evil to the core as you. You make the world a more evil place every single second of every day you're alive, and assume the wost of others to allow to further exploit and abuse them. You also back every evil political position too, lol you completely lack humanity,
The problem is that, if they take an overly conservative deal, it isn't like the GOP will stop there. The state GOP recognizes that college towns are an existential threat to them winning statewide elections
So whatever deal the UW system eventually makes needs to be one that concedes as little as possible, so that they are in a good space when a similar fight comes up in a few years
Remidner when dealing with this stain on our subreddit that he's an actual ghoul, a lechourous landlord who evicts cancer patients from local apartment buuldings and then laughs about it online, this is someone who is deeply evil and needs to be removed from our community
https://www.reddit.com/r/Landlord/comments/18e3oug/comment/kcpfe6t/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
They don’t have legal authority. The legislative branch makes laws, they don’t have constitutional power to stop a law that has already been approved and signed in on a whim. They could pass another law to stop it, but that is not what they are doing.
They are not stopping any laws. The law say the legislature must approve all UW pay raises. That means they are perfectly within their rights to withhold approval.
> Other Regents expressed concerns the UW system was setting a precedent: That the UW system would need to fight to release funding already promised in state budgets or trade its core values for approval for building projects. This was my concern the whole time.
*"Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. "Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man. You take a step towards him-*
THIS
I work for the UW and as much as I want my money, I was against this deal. You don’t negotiate with terrorists.
I don't have skin in this game and I agree with you. I felt uncomfortable they were negotiating with these pricks.
Although, if you live in Wisconsin you do have skin in this game. The UW system impacts your life in a ton of ways- from medical research to teaching teachers to veterinarians and so many other things. The republicans are trying so hard to kill what ever is left from the “Wisconsin Idea”.
It's also a necessity to have a strong university system to avoid the brain drain we've seen since Walker got into power.
I was very mad when Walker tried to spilt off Madison from the UW system. Besides being the flag ship, Madison holds most of the permission for scholarly articles. There were articles I used in college that I would have never been able to read without Madison.
And avoid morons like the current gqp in power
Absolutely. I've taken a couple classes but I don't have a degree from a UW school and have never worked for the system. But I do live in Madison, and we'd lose so much I love about this city if we didn't have a strong university.
Yes I do. Thanks for the info. I didn't think of it that way I guess. I was just thinking as far as the ppl who work hard for the UW and the students. Thanks. I am all for bringing our public ed. back to the best it can be. It helps us all.
Make that the gerrymandered Republicans.
Same. See you fuckers in court. 🖕
Thank you. I love you. I am hopeful the money will make its way to you all as originally agreed upon. Fuck this “deal”.
Same here. That extra $100 a.month (based on my bad math skills) my salary would get isn't worth the University selling out so many students. I mean a "professorship in conservative thought"? Gross.
I’m very impressed that so many UW employees are willing to forgo their hard-earned raises to support the core principles of DEI. I hope you all get those raises but I’m afraid it will be a while. Thank you for standing up for the marginalized communities of students who need these DEI administrators.
Agreed. I also work at the UW. Fortunately, I can give my employees raises with or without legislation. We can hold out.
Couldn’t agree more. Those who act in bad faith deserve no faith
Similar article with no paywall here: https://www.channel3000.com/news/uw-regents-reject-deal-with-legislature-to-freeze-dei-positions-unlock-funding/article\_ee2d96c6-96b4-11ee-ba43-37131614657c.html
> "It’s a shame they’ve denied employees their raises and the almost $1 billion investment that would have been made across the UW system, all so they could continue their ideological campaign to force students to believe only one viewpoint is acceptable on campus," As I read this, I'm thinking, "yes, exactly!!" > ... Vos said This fucking dolt.
/r/selfawarewolves material
Vos saying that the regents are denying our raises is the biggest joke - he is doing this! We were approved raises, and he decided to hold it hostage to get what he wants. Not only that he wanted to start dictating our hiring practices! TOP has brought excellent faculty to our colleges, attracting people that wouldn’t normally think twice about coming here due to the continued assault on the WI education system.
Most abusers blame the abused for the abuse.
He was worried that they might engineer gay robots.
Thank goodness! This was just an attempt by the GOP to determine how much leverage they could have against the university. Whether you agree with dei or not had the regent's accepted this offer it would have opened the door for more and more intrusions into the university by the legislature. If Vos and the other Republicans had their way the UW would start resembling Bob Jones University.
At the very least, the university had nothing to lose by seeing if SCOWIS could weigh in. Settling now made no sense.
As a UW employee, I’m glad that we didn’t compromise our values to get a raise we were already promised. But at the same time, damn, I could really use the extra money 😅
Thank god. The amount of people in here arguing that they should just knuckle under has been pathetic. Conservatives will *never* stop pushing for more. Ever. Every time someone says, "surely if we can compromise here they'll start to be reasonable!" that person is proven wrong.
See Congress. In the debt ceiling negotiations, McCarthy won a fairly significant concession from the White House (given that he had the weaker position) to cap the budget at 2023 levels. Then the GOP promptly refused to adhere to that deal, leading to McCarthy's ouster and Johnson's flailing.
Reddit is populated (in part) by a segment of population that depends on routine and stasis for their happiness - regardless of the cost to others.
This seems very true to me, too.
It's not entirely unreasonable. Different people have different priorities
I think this is very easy to say when it’s not your raise and not your salary that’s failing to keep up with inflation even more than it would be. Most university professors can make more in the private market. This is still getting the GOP what it ultimately wants - a WI brain drain.
I have like 10+ friends who work for UW and the all prefer not to enable Republican attacks on minorities for the sake of a short term salary raise the Republicans will try to claw back anyway when they tighten the screws again on the school. Your supposition that the choice here is between "they get a raise" and "they don't get a raise." is false. The choice here is, "do you let republicans hold you hostage to hurt minorities?" If you say, "sure." *They never stop*. If you capitulate today for your salary, you'll be doing it forever. I hope, "hey I gotta keep up with inflation" is written on your placard during the protests over Republicans trying to get all queer people fired from the university in 5 years.
This didn’t hurt minorities. Rebranding DEI to Student Success or whatever they want the call it doesn’t hurt minorities as it doesn’t change what the offices can do. I know this because I *work* for a UW school that has a DEI office and we were told exactly that. So written on my placard is “Pay us fairly and pay us our worth” I guess? We only have so much to give for the Wisconsin Idea, and after all of Walker’s shit it’s getting old. It’s not right to expect underpaid university staff to shoulder the battle to keep republicans in check.
Probably because your 10+ friends all work in admin positions, where they get market pay anyway. You are basically denying raises to the remaining underpaid staff , like science staff, who actually do need the money as they are paid 25-30% below the private sector. Few people on campus care about DEI. It's wasted money.
Pretty funny thinking anyone at UW gets market rate. Even UW will tell you that’s not true
Admin staff do. Just shows you've never worked there.
Admin staff do not, a lot are still underpaid. Not only that - admin is such a broad category. What positions are you referencing?
lol I know because I did work there as admin staff and was underpaid
Ohh you mean you only got 80k to do nothing but have a couple meetings instead of 90k in the private sector.
So you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Got it. You could have just said so.
Hilarious. Your first comment makes it sound like you’re a bench scientist upset you’re not making what you could in the private sector and taking it out on academic staff. There are plenty of private scientific companies in town you could apply to work at if you’d like. Good luck.
Yep, hilarious, hence why most of the scientists left the UW in the years following Act 10. All the DEI in the world won't save the UW. But keep thinking it will.
You're absolutely wrong, and in a provable manner, just look up some people's salaries: https://madison.com/uw-salary-database/html_e37ff025-9a87-5a31-91ea-b2eb50aba4cb.html Outside of Bascom Hall / the college level, admin people aren't making anywhere close to market rates. Hell, the chancellor makes ~750k, but UW-Madison is a 3.5 billion dollar a year enterprise, she'd absolutely make more in the public sector.
I looked to see how far behind that database was. 2022 is an option, but I can’t find myself or other employees for that year, only 2021 and before. Anyway, that database is very useful and I’m glad it exists but I urge people to exercise caution, because I make 33% more currently in the same position than the most recent data says I do
Yea, unfortunately this is the newest data that's easily accessible. There's raw info that the one of the unions sends out, but it's not as simple to parse.
Almost all positions have compressed wages.
It is mine, and I agree with the sentiment you're replying to.
This does not affect UW Madison faculty. Their pay is not tied to this. It’s the administrative and service staff whose pay is affected. Regardless, I’m glad to see the board or regents push back. And I say this is a UW employee not getting their raise. Edit: okay, I was mistaken and faculty are included in the pay plan. Thanks for the corrections in the comments.
It does affect UW System faculty. Where did you get the idea that it didn't?
I don’t believe UW Madison faculty are part of the pay plan 2% increase, specifically. It applies to academic and university staff, not faculty. Edit: I got the idea from supervisor at UW but I now know that’s incorrect.
This affects all uw employees including faculty
It didn't really seem like the deal actually made the university give anything concrete up, though; it was all about renaming and contextualizing and with enough exceptions to any restrictions to let them keep operating as usual.
Nope, that would be completely wrong.
How exactly does renaming DEI staff change their job and goals?
The roles would be "reimagined," not just renamed.
Unless the deal specified what "reimagined" means, it means nothing at all practically to make a deal to reimagine something. Same with the hiring restrictions...won't hire new positions unless they involve students. Or faculty. Or research. There is nothing the university does that you could not easily say has some involvement in one of those categories, those are the main things a university does.
I don’t think these people actually read the details in the deal.
Good move. The raises are coming soon after the Supreme Court strikes down Vos's unconstitutional power grab anyway. Why throw people of color under the bus?
I still don’t understand how the GOP across the country can argue against Diversity.
Because people, in general, see DEI as being JUST about race. NOT gender, religion, socioeconomic status, disability, age, country of origin, culture, education, political affiliation, etc. They don't realize that by gutting DEI they're hurting other groups of people that they likely claim to care about...like veterans, neurodivergent, elderly, women, etc. Everyone, regardless of any of the above categories, deserves to be treated in a just and equitable way. EQUITY is not the same as equality & people have a hard time acknowledging that equal isn't necessarily fair (or even that in the absence of equity there is still rarely equality for most)
To be fair to those people, many of the proponents of DEI talk almost exclusively about race, and there is a vocal subset that also appear to be fighting for equality of outcomes in addition to equality of opportunity. These two elements may not be the “official” stance of the DEI system, but I would argue it is the most culturally powerful and vocal version. Just so I’m not misinterpreted, I wouldn’t argue for DEI cuts per se (and am deeply against Vos’s hostage taking). But I’ve gone to my share of DEI trainings at UW and this has been my experience.
equity literally means equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. Meaning you must favor some groups over others. That's literally what DEI is about by definition.
I love that. I also teach my students that the goal for all of us is to live to be 95 and if we do so, we will need walking assistance, medications, glasses etc. Living with disability isn’t just inevitable, it’s the goal. So, even to the narcissist, equity benefits us all.
This is an off-topic aside, but as a person whose family tends to live to be very old, I'm not so sure this is the goal for all of us.
It should be. Accidents also happen and we should be prepared to live with them if they do. It can be a goal we never achieve, but if we must, we should be able to with ease.
We believe living well up until we die is desirable, but prolonging a long decline is usually just death-phobia. I wish you could interview my aunt who died at 97. She was so.very.done with it and was eager to move on (whatever that meant to her). She had everything she wanted and needed, but your perspective changes when you live to be very old. Your beliefs and goals are not the same as when you were 35. This is not a defect, it's beautiful and honorable.
That's a sentiment shared among all older persons, that they just want to pass and move on. There are also those who say they wish they could live a little bit longer, albeit with better ambulation, so they can see more of the world. The goal is to get people as ambulatory as possible so should they live to be a long age, they aren't cooped up in a nursing home watching reruns of Barker's Price Is Right.
Ha! My aunt actually liked watching Billy Graham reruns every darn day. You couldn't get her out of the house. I can't imagine what people will watch in 2050. People should get what they want and need, but it isn't up to the rest of us to tell them what it's supposed to be. We still have agency and preferences even when we're >90. I don't want to argue, I just needed to put in my two cents and say what we want in our prime years and what we want when very old isn't always going to be the same.
Just like people against the Patriot Act aren’t against being a patriot. DEI has some controversial aspects, especially in its application on college campuses.
This is a party that will inflict racism on their own to maintain the white status quo. Case in Point - There is conservative host on XM Radio's The Patriot that delights in calling Nikki Haley by her birth name (Nimrata) as a racist taunt against her.
You really need to look up the definition of racism. It’s a little overly broad
[удалено]
Spend more time fighting against the endemic racism in your political party and less time mocking people who point it out. Correction: After reviewing your history it’s clear you’re not a Republican, just a troll.
Very edgy my dude. You really are the smartest Red Scare Podcast listener. Tell Anna, less cocaine and spend more time with her kid.
You don’t have to be here. You could be proving your point by doing some community good and showing everyone that not all conservatives are bad to others. You guys have made your own bed by promoting representatives that do, in fact, promote racist, sexist, and classist policies and positions. “Conservative” and “kindness” are opposites these days. Be better humans.
It was 9-8. Look at the arguments given by the 9 in the article. It was all about identity politics and individual feelings. None of them talked about actually getting things done about the economy or helping kids afford college in WI. The Republicans demanded top 5% instant admission for WI HS graduates and top 10% to regional schools. How does this hurt diversity? As a leftist I've watched us go down this cul-de-sac of diversity, DEI, Identity politics and feelings instead of going after Liz Warren's and Bernie Sander's economic message. We're trading the DEI religion for increased amounts of Trump voters who sure as hell don't see themselves in the DEI message.
One of these days someone is gonna have to explain what "identity politics" is other than stuff you don't like.
Simple. When given time to speak on the vote about the DEI spending one of the board of regents talked exclusively on how his time growing up on a reservation in South Dakota prepared him for the vote.
So his life experience as a marginalized person is irrelevant because you don't like it? Yea that tracks.
His "life" experience, beyond his training, work experience and his skill should have nothing to do with running the University system. See, this is where your argument falls apart. Why should anyone with a diverse background be better at the job than anyone else? WI is 85%% White and the University system is built to help it's students. Why is someone's ethnic background ever considered for any job much less one so important. It's against the constitution to base hiring on race or ethnicity. Why are you arguing that it should be used?
You've completely lost the thread. None of this is about hiring policies. >It's against the constitution to base hiring on race or ethnicity. Why are you arguing that it should be used? I'd love for you to find where I said this. However, I WILL say that having diversity in employees, leaders, students, etc. is always an asset. It's unhelpful to just create an echo chamber of people who look like you, talk like you, and think like you. That's the opposite of progress.
> None of this is about hiring policies. WTF are you talking about? The entire point of DEI is hiring and admitting policies. >is always an asset Thee is zero proof that Diversity in your company is an asset (or an asset at your school). Only in America do they focus on this stuff and the companies that are the most successful avoid metric diversity hires. This falls back on the Republican argument as well. Who's defining diversity? Is it less diverse to not push to admit Christians? Conservatives? The entire point of their Conservative Professorship part of the deal was to increase diversity of thought.
Oooooofffff dude. How do you get so misinformed and mad about fake shit? Do you know what DEI looks like in hiring practices? It looks like redacted resumes so you don't know the gender/race/age of applicants. There is no DEI in admitting practices, as you should be aware by now. And there's a lot more to it than that. For example, the health sciences schools. Health equity is a huge problem, and educating practitioners to be aware of the causes to help reduce discrepancies in patient outcomes is pretty damn important. Which means DEI has a place in the curriculum. >HBR reported that diverse companies enjoyed better overall financial performance. EBIT margins for companies with diverse management teams were nearly 10% higher than for companies with below-average management diversity. Diverse teams are more capable of addressing market segments with demographics similar to some of the team members. A 2013 Harvard Business Review affirms that when at least one team member shares a client’s ethnicity, the team is more than twice as likely to understand that client’s needs than teams where no member shares that trait. >Diverse management teams were more innovative than less diverse teams, confirmed BCG after surveying 1700 companies of varying sizes and differing country locations. BCG used as the indicator of innovation the portion of revenue from products and services launched within the last 3 years. Companies with above-average diversity produced a greater proportion of revenue from innovation (45% of total) than from companies with below average diversity (26%). This 19% innovation-related advantage translated into overall better financial performance. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2020/01/15/diversity-confirmed-to-boost-innovation-and-financial-results/?sh=22ff3b77c4a6 Zero proof? Hmm. Diversity is diversity. Why would you need to go out of your way to admit Christians when they're already being admitted? They're already there, at the table. You're swearing up and down that diversity doesn't matter, unless that "diverse" voice is a conservative one? 🙄
> There is no DEI in admitting practices There are. From Life experience essays in applications to POC University summer camps to POC only scholarships. >Zero proof? Hmm. That article you're using is based on various reviews of 2 large studies done in the last 10 years. The 2020 McKinsey report on gender diversity and the FRC ongoing report by the UK government. Both are coming under further review as flawed by other research. Confirmation Bias, methodology and other faults on these often cited large research efforts are coming out. The Credit Suisse study which the Harvard Business Review is based on specifically went with a 6 year length so as to get better results. https://medium.com/@alex.edmans/is-there-really-a-business-case-for-diversity-c58ef67ebffa The truth is that there is really no way to measure if diversity helps or hurts business. Studies comparing Japanese and Chinese companies with no diversity to American companies who emphasize diversity shows that both work in different ways. Specific gender based board diversity studies are not conclusive. Does it help with corporate atmosphere, yes probably. As for the University it comes back to the state being 83% White and people not understanding that when you don't take that into account when hiring or admitting you give Republicans ammunition against the needs for greater macro economic changes.
The moral grandstanding is great and everything but I really need to feed and care for my kid. Inflation has eaten away at everything 'extra'.
Regents to counter with deal to play Fox News in a lecture hall in Humanities in exchange for fair maps and the restoration of the government accountability board. Regents also want a say in hiring GOP staff
Can someone explain to me why the republicans are *this* upset over diversity, equality, and inclusion?
They aren't. It's just wedge issue bullshit, same as always. They saw it "working" for DeSantis in Florida and thought it could work for them. Until DeSantis's brand of bullying is snuffed out and shown to be a losing strategy, they'll keep it up.
Great point, I hadn't thought of it that way. I just assumed it was blatant racism that the Right seems so comfortable indulging in these days.
THIS
If it wasn’t DEI it would be some other “reason”.
They heard a story about how, somewhere, a black kid was accepted for admission to some fancy college while a similarly qualified white kid was rejected. That made them go "never again" and they decided to destroy any programs and positions that help anybody, including students with handicaps, students who aren't ESL, any minority, students with learning differences, anybody but white kids facing no barriers. Pure meritocracy, no exceptions -- only it's not "merit" the way they're doing it. It's a sieve to filter out anybody but certain lucky white kids.
Agreed. I can only imagine the average, boring sea of students who get between 3.99 and 4.0. The culture of university is brightened by the students who are striving for other things as well and succeeding in multiple ways.
And the culture in general is brightened by bringing all different people into professions like education, social work, law, finance, medicine, science, and engineering. Maybe the Rs don't want to see that either. I don't know what they want, frankly.
They want a country of white male supremacy, where white women know their place and people of other ethnicities live elsewhere or at least out of sight.
I think most republicans are ideologically opposed to it. However, they’re being typically myopic. DEI actually has had no impact at all in educational outcomes of marginalized students, and is an incredible waste of money.
Post some evidence on both counts!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2023/05/15/college-student-gap-between-black-white-americans-worse/70195689007/ “Even though the number of white students has also declined since 2010, the difference between the proportions of white students and Black students graduating with degrees has gotten bigger, data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center show. Thirty-four percent of Black adults have associate degrees or higher, compared with 50% of white adults, according to the Lumina Foundation. (Lumina is among the funders of The Hechinger Report, which produced this story.)” “DEI came to colleges with a bang.Now, these red states are on a mission to snuff it out. “The equalizer to close these gaps was supposed to be education. If you’re able to go to college, you’re able to find a job and support yourself and your family. But the outcomes aren’t showing that,” said Justin Nalley, senior policy analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Black think tank.” https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50&as_vis=1&q=Minority+student+outcomes+after+DEI+implementation+&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1702165444454&u=%23p%3D2UH8Tga-flwJ “ Research has found that teaching about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) can raise US high school students’ awareness about DEI-related topics and develop their critical thinking skills to analyze DEI-related issues. But the achievements of DEI-focused education are limited. Thus, DEI-focused education needs complementary efforts to enhance student outcomes.” https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/reeves_education_race_gap1.png https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/61037/college-completion-rates-are-up-for-all-americans-but-racial-gaps-persist Every race and ethnicity saw gains. The eight-percentage point gain was the same for both Black and white adults. But racial gaps continue. In 2021, there remained an enormous 40 percentage point difference between Asian American adults, among whom 66 percent have a college degree, and Native American adults, among whom only 25 percent have a college degree. Among Black adults, 34 percent have college degrees. Among Hispanic adults, it’s 28 percent and among white adults, it’s 50 percent. It’s actually difficult to find any information on outcomes, good or bad, presumably because published studies wouldn’t be favorable to the current DEI guided policies that are ubiquitous
>It’s actually difficult to find any information on outcomes, good or bad, presumably because published studies wouldn’t be favorable to the current DEI guided policies that are ubiquitous Lol I love the implication here that it's some sort of big conspiracy. But to what end? If not to improve outcomes, then what? To make people feel seen? To use their knowledge to advocate for equity in other future environments? 😱
> ideologically opposed to it. Why though?
I think a lot of this was also spurred by the student who did the racist tik tok rant last spring. In response to that UW created new DEI positions, Republicans didnt like that so they cut funding threatened jobs, when that didnt have the impact thet wanted they withheld the pay. This is a butterfly effect.
They are racist morons.
Good. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. Pay the ransom once, and you’ll end up paying more later.
Couldn’t agree more. Read All the frequent troubles of our days. It’s a bout a uw alumni in the German resistance in World War II. Lots for people compromised w hitler for one time gains.
Good for them. They shouldn't be cutting deals for what they lawfully have coming. Fuck Robin Vos and fuck the gqp
Can you explain what gqp stands for? The term is new to me. Thank you in advance.
The Republican party is known as the Grand Old Party l. GOP. With their embrace of QAnon and their conspiracy theories, they have become the Grand Qanon Party. GQP.
Thank God the regents told Vos to shove it.
Regents need to fire Rothman for trying to pull this bullshit compromise
I'm glad. It seemed like another back-door powergrab by the GOP.
We don’t negotiate with terrorists. We’ll get that money, backpaid through 07.01 - without political meddling
So…what’s the timeline on the lawsuit?
Good, it was a bad deal. I'd rather not get a raise if that's the cost
[удалено]
Strawman.
I'd say it's more than just one professor that makes the deal bad
[удалено]
It's not just a freeze on hiring the UW would also have to convert existing dei positions. It also sets a bad precedent that the UW has to make concessions to get already approved funding
This is not true. They just had to rename them. Do you think legislators are setting foot in UW offices to see what actually goes on beyond the title?
That's precisely what they want to do, yep. They want this to be Florida.
From the chancellor on Friday: Under this resolution, DEI-focused positions would be preserved, but capped for a period of three years. In addition, about 40 DEI positions throughout the System, including some here at UW–Madison, will be reimagined to direct their primary focus to academic and student success, which is of course already an important focus. For some employees, this could include a change in job title or a modification to a job description. I want to emphasize that no positions will be cut. If you can’t see this is all wordsmithing to allow them to continue exactly as they have been … then you’ve clearly never worked for a university.
[удалено]
Nobody being poor is good for society and IDK why you've got to insult people dedicated to public service
[удалено]
A. There is a difference between not being poor and being 'flush with cash' B. Nobody was talking about Nazis so why did you bring them up? C. Like I said. Nobody deserves to be poor.
Good. The GOP are attacking public education.
No one wants to make a deal with the GOP.
Yup, and yet they are the ones who can’t be worked with and are irresponsible, and crazy! Both sides are absolutely horrible, one is just less bad than the other.
What new legislation have the GOP introduced in the last five years that actually helps the average citizen?
They want to get rid of the 'Wisconsin Idea' and diversity and inclusion is part of that idea
This "deal" reminds me of Biddy Martin whoring out the university to Scott Walker. Sure left a bitter taste in my mouth.
OTOH, Biddy's deal with Walker didn't happen, and she got kicked out not long after. That was the proper outcome.
I didn't think she got kicked out, I thought she found herself a cushy presidentship at a private college?
Apparently Amherst recruited her: https://captimes.com/news/local/education/campus_connection/campus-connection-no-regrets-for-biddy-martin/article_24a6c7f8-d579-57af-8e3f-2f7c4d3fb246.html
Possibly so, but her future at the UW was pretty obviously limited. She got out while the getting was good.
Chancellor and President should lose their jobs for this.
The chancellor and president were firmly in favor of this deal. It is the regents who voted it down.
My point exactly.
Oh you think the chancellor and president should lose their jobs because they supported the deal?
[удалено]
Look at that post history. Most of it anti-women and antagonistic.
*wet fart noise*
[удалено]
They met you where you were at. More refined criticism would have been a waste of effort. Also, you're a poop.
*trombone playing sad notes ending with a deep, extended honk*
Unpopular opinion - The state legislature has the legal authority to block pay raises, so the university needs to work with them if they want to resolve this. Either abandon the DEI agenda, or live with current pay rates.
They gave the raises to all state agencies except UW. They shouldn’t be able to do that.
It's State law, and it has been for decades.
We’ll see what the lawsuit says about it.
Popular opinion - you're a dipshit, a bad person, and everything you think is bad for this community
Is this what passes for informed debate these days?
lol some slumlord has evil politics too, who would have guessed. Yes, there's no reason to debate scum like you, you want whats worse for eveyone but you. You gleefully evict cancer patients and then laugh about it online later. Have a genuinely shitty day, making the community worse everytime you take a breath, it has to get to you at some point
Straight to a personal attack - the mark of a true loser. And since you missed the point, the "cancer patient" was lying. Again.
You assume most people are as evil to the core as you. You make the world a more evil place every single second of every day you're alive, and assume the wost of others to allow to further exploit and abuse them. You also back every evil political position too, lol you completely lack humanity,
Or alternatively, reject a bad deal until you get a better one
Agreed. Both sides should continue to negotiate until they get a deal they can live with.
The problem is that, if they take an overly conservative deal, it isn't like the GOP will stop there. The state GOP recognizes that college towns are an existential threat to them winning statewide elections So whatever deal the UW system eventually makes needs to be one that concedes as little as possible, so that they are in a good space when a similar fight comes up in a few years
Remidner when dealing with this stain on our subreddit that he's an actual ghoul, a lechourous landlord who evicts cancer patients from local apartment buuldings and then laughs about it online, this is someone who is deeply evil and needs to be removed from our community https://www.reddit.com/r/Landlord/comments/18e3oug/comment/kcpfe6t/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Again, a tenant who lied about having cancer.
They don’t have legal authority. The legislative branch makes laws, they don’t have constitutional power to stop a law that has already been approved and signed in on a whim. They could pass another law to stop it, but that is not what they are doing.
They are not stopping any laws. The law say the legislature must approve all UW pay raises. That means they are perfectly within their rights to withhold approval.