To the editor,

Now that the controversial funding deal brokered by Wisconsin Assembly leader Robin Vos was accepted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Board of Regents, should taxpayers question why $200 million biennial tax dollars are contributing to a new campus engineering building? Or why the diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies were a negotiating strategy? 

As an attendee and graduate of private colleges, I’ve paid little attention to what the state sends to UW System schools, but I’ve long wondered what public universities do with their state and private contributions. The proposed engineering building is projected to cost $350 million and apparently $150 million was pledged by private donors.  

But how many of us know that UW-Madison sits on a $3.45 billion endowed investment fund? Yes, billion. The UW Foundation directors of that fund determine not only how it’s invested but how much of its money is used annually for things other than making more money.  

As its 2022 Endowment Report states, “The spending policy distributes 4.5 per cent of the endowment’s market value over the previous 16 quarters.” Part of last year’s $165.5 million was dedicated to supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).  

Spending included a Dean’s scholarship for a minority student, efforts to increase diversity admissions in the veterinary college, and a MacArthur Fellowship for a faculty member whose research examines the dynamics between U.S. empire, race and decolonization. Some would interpret that as historical oppressed/oppressor studies.  

The 2022 Report states committing something to expanding the engineering campus. Is that the donor pledged $150 million mentioned above or not?  

Regardless, my question remains, “Why are taxpayers funding any of that cost when Gov. Evers promoted the building as a long-term investment to draw in more engineering students, especially when our public schools are complaining of poverty?” 

Structuring an endowment fund with restricted spending percentages based on investment returns makes long term sense, but is UW-Madison’s fund restricted to only certain categories of spending? Must it always distribute the money according to strict proportions? Will it cover unprojected campus finishing costs? Perhaps our assemblymen can clarify that.  

As for DEI related expenditures, social justice worriers forget that politically conservative and moderate taxpayers might prefer their taxes to be spent on needs, not desires. UW System president Jay Rothman acknowledged on X that diversity and inclusion are the system’s core values, but decision makers are open to changing how some of the positions in question can better benefit student retention and graduation. 

Is one UW-Madison administrator for every four undergraduates a functional necessity? Since 2019, according to analysis from The College Fix, that ratio includes the addition of two associate deans for DEI, an office of Inclusion Education in student affairs, 100 DEI staffers and 19 diversity officers who make over $100,000 per year. These hires apparently have done nothing to reverse serious campus mental health issues.  

Some taxpayers believe that without academic merit as the primary admissions and financial support consideration, DEI industry policies result in no identifiable or measurable educational and social outcomes except modified student demographics and administrative growth. And, that a university asking for millions of taxpayer dollars while protecting over $3.4 billion in investments is outrageous.  

This Wisconsin conservative agrees. 

Donna Okeefe

Town of River Falls