Editor’s note: Letters to the Editor and open letters reflect the opinions, concerns and views of University of Wisconsin-Madison students and community. As such, the information presented may or may not be accurate. Letters to the Editor and open letters do not reflect the editorial views or opinions of The Daily Cardinal.
As faculty at a leading academic institution, we have a professional and ethical obligation to ground our opinions and public statements in evidence – not emotion, ideology, or personal sentiment. On April 7, the UW-Madison Faculty Senate failed this fundamental standard when it passed Resolution 3215 “Concerning the May 1, 2024, Police Violence Against Protesters on UW–Madison Library Mall.”
This resolution asserted that “faculty of color, particularly women,” were “disproportionately” affected by injury, detention, and arrest during recent protests. There are no probative data supporting this claim; in fact, the available data contradict it. To credibly claim disproportionality, we must know the gender and racial composition of the faculty who were present that morning. Such data are discoverable, yet no effort was made to obtain or analyze them. Furthermore, arrest records indicate that of the 34 individuals taken into custody, 20 were females and 14 were males. This gender distribution does not support an inference of gender-based targeting. Similarly, 27 identified as White, 4 as Black or African American, and 3 as Asian or Pacific Islander. This racial distribution also does not support claims of targeted action against racial minorities. Although racial identity may be perceived or experienced in complex ways, the assertion of racially motivated violence must rest on concrete and legally meaningful evidence, not on subjective interpretations of “people of color,” a term that, while valuable in broader social discourse, lacks a precise legal definition and is inadequate as the basis for allegations of targeted misconduct.
Moreover, the portrayal of the protest encampment as entirely peaceful is incomplete. The encampment occurred on a background of several threatening incidents on campus that academic year, including a rock being thrown at a Jewish student who had attended a vigil marking one month after the brutal violence in Israel that occurred on October 7, 2023. There have been numerous incidents of verbal harassment targeting Jewish and pro-Israel campus community members; one necessitated police escorts to assure their safety. Just three days after October 7, a speaker at a student rally on the library mall called for the “liberation of Palestine by any means necessary,” a terrifying statement in the shadow of the worst violence against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. According to the Chancellor’s statement on May 1, 2024, “we have witnessed disturbing accounts of people not affiliated with the campus coming into the [encampment] area, attracted by the encampment, and engaging in confrontational and other inciteful behaviors.... The presence of non-community members, including, reportedly, several highly aggressive individuals, is one of the predictable harms of an encampment like the one illegally staged on our campus and is one of the reasons we chose to act today.” According to the Acting Chief of the UW-Madison Police Department’s report to the University Committee, 9 of the 34 individuals arrested—more than 25%—were not affiliated with the university in any way. The presence of external actors challenges the narrative of “peaceful protest” and casts doubt on the nature and purpose of the demonstration. While the resolution condemned “police violence against protesters,” it remained silent on acts of violence committed by protesters themselves, including injuries sustained by at least three police officers that day. Condemning violence is a matter of principle; doing so selectively signals bias, not ethical consistency.
The resolution also mischaracterized the administration’s actions, claiming that police were summoned “despite student offers to negotiate.” This language ignores the well-documented, good-faith efforts of the Chancellor and university leadership to engage constructively before involving law enforcement. These efforts included several requests to remove the illegal tents, distribution of printed warnings, and offering to meet with protest organizers once the tents were removed from campus grounds. The resolution presented a selective and misleading narrative
that omitted critical facts and context. We simply cannot move forward as a campus community by issuing condemnations or assigning blame based on incomplete or inaccurate narratives.
In passing this motion, the Faculty Senate not only endorsed unsubstantiated claims but also exposed a deeper structural problem with the state of our system of shared governance. Faculty governance depends on robust, informed, and accountable participation. Of the 234 faculty senators, fewer than 60% voted on this, the most consequential resolution of the academic year. Moreover, only 28% of faculty participate in annual committee elections, highlighting the extent to which current faculty governance structures lack broad representation. Sadly, we have observed that too few of the faculty who engage with faculty governance—including some elected to committees or as senators—critically evaluate evidence or demonstrate a clear understanding of their responsibilities under UW–Madison Faculty Policies and Procedures and the relevant Wisconsin statute. Decisions too often are based on “vibes”—intuition, emotion, or political alignment—rather than data and deliberation. This is a failure not just of process, but of principle.
Although this resolution does not represent all or even most faculty, its approval damages our credibility as an academic body. It highlights how shared governance falters when faculty disengage or substitute feelings for facts, which undermines our legitimacy. We must ask: how can the Chancellor consider us as serious partners in shared governance when we fail to uphold our obligations under that very framework? We urge a renewed commitment to collaboration, academic integrity, and constructive engagement in campus governance, especially when addressing issues as complex and emotionally charged as protest and free expression.
James H. Stein, MD
Robert Turell Professor of Cardiovascular Research
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
Chad Alan Goldberg, PhD
Martindale-Bascom Professor of Sociology
University of Wisconsin–Madison
