Wisconsin State Senator Glenn Grothman wrote a column on his website detailing what he thinks of the selection of Biddy Martin as the next UW-Madison chancellor. Now before you assume that just because Grothman is a Republican writing about the UW that I disagree with everything he had to say, there was one point with which I agreed.
Grothman had this to say about the criteria used by the selection committee.
One requirement for the new Chancellor was that they had to be in favor of Affirmative Action – the policy of giving preferences to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and women. Well over half our state would be opposed to such preferences. This requirement essentially bans any conservatives or moderates from even being considered for the position.
I emphatically agree with that sentiment for two reasons. The first is that we should never require a chancellor agree with a specific policy. It would be acceptable to ensure that a potential chancellor agree with a goal of the UW, such as increasing diversity, but we shouldn’t be mandating that the incoming chancellor agree with a specific means on achieving that goal, such as affirmative action. It is unnecessary micromanaging that only serves to eliminate otherwise qualified and potentially desirable candidates who just happen to disagree about the best means to achieve a mutually desired end.
The second reason is that I think affirmative action is just about the worst possible way to attempt to achieve diversity and that we shouldn’t have it as a policy in the first place. (Debates over affirmative action are something I would love to engage at a later date, but I feel as if it would detract from the purpose of this post. I promise I’ll make a post about it at a later date)
And now, let the disagreeing begin.
Probably the most significant news out of Madison over the past month is the appointment of Biddy Martin as the new Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. Usually I hear from alumni and parents of students who are concerned that the Madison campus does not have enough money to be an effective first-class university. It always seemed to me that a more important question is what they’re doing with their money. This choice seems to me to be a big mistake on several grounds.
In his opening paragraph he seems to have sandwiched two off-topic sentences in between the two about Biddy Martin. The rest of the essay is about the selection of Biddy Martin. The need for the UW to prioritize spending is a classic argument made by our Republican state legislators, but pretty off-topic here.
Next Grothman gets to discussing his first reason for not liking the selection of Biddy Martin.
First, it’s important the chancellor stop the left-wing drift at the University campus. I have heard complaints from parents of students at several campuses that they think the universities are spending too much time indoctrinating their children in left-wing values and not enough time preparing them for a job in the real world. I’ve heard of concerns that it would be difficult to be hired as a professor or get tenure as a professor in many departments if they do not toe the left-wing party line. Students are afraid in some classes their grade will be affected if they don’t agree with their professor’s views.
Biddy Martin’s academic background appears to be very left wing. She was previously a Women’s Studies professor at Cornell. Many of you reading this column probably have never heard of such a department. I talked to a graduate of Women’s Studies from the Madison campus. She felt this department was about indoctrination. It was very anti-man (above all anti-man) but also anti-Christian and anti-American. The idea was that men, Christianity, and America have been holding back women. Another girl who took one class there said they read lesbian novels. I don’t even think there should be a Women’s Studies department much less that the new chancellor should have been a professor in one. Biddy Martin’s most recent book is Feminity Played Straight: The Significance of Being Lesbian. It doesn’t sound as if she is going to consider the left-wing drift at Madison a problem.
This is another argument straight out of the Steve Nass playbook. Claim that the UW doesn’t educate students anymore and all that goes on is left-wing indoctrination. I don’t like this argument because there is no way to substantiate whether or not any of the so-called indoctrination actually occurs. The politicians can talk about how they’ve heard about it from students all they want. There is no real way to substantiate how common it actually is or if it is increasing or decreasing. And if parents think that students are spending too much time being indoctrinated and not enough time being prepared for the real world, maybe they should have them switch out of majors like Women’s Studies and into ones like Engineering and Business. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out.
This also is proof of the impact that Nass’ distribution of that blog post had on other legislators. This sounds exactly like the original criticism distributed by Nass. I’ve already said plenty about why the subject areas she has chosen to study and her personal political beliefs have nothing to do with her ability to be the top administrator at UW-Madison, so I won’t bother repeating it. This attack does take it to a slightly new level though as it gets more personal by implying that because Biddy might have left leaning political views she will decide that she needs to impose them on students. There are plenty of teachers and administrators at all levels of education who manage to separate their political beliefs from their classrooms and policies. There are plenty that don’t, but he provides absolutely no evidence as to why Biddy would be one of the latter even though he has years of administrative achievements to choose from.
Grothman also levels a second criticism of Biddy Martin and to no one’s surprise, it continues on a familiar theme.
A second criticism of the University is that not enough graduates are filling jobs for Wisconsin businesses. We need more engineers, nurses, and graduates from the hard sciences – not degrees in psychology and sociology. The Chancellor at the University of Iowa has a PhD in cellular, molecular, and developmental biology. The Chancellor from Michigan has a PhD in biochemistry. Illinois’ Chancellor was the Dean of Math, Computer and Physical Science at Maryland and Purdue’s Chancellor was an internationally-recognized astrophysicist at NASA. Biddy Martin has bounced back and forth between Women’s Studies and German Studies where she focused on Feminism in Germany. Where would you want your child to go to school? How will these credentials help your son or daughter secure necessary career skills?
To summarize, Senator Grothman has two reasons why he thinks that Biddy Martin was a poor selection to become the next chancellor. Both of them stem from the subject areas in which she was a professor. All the research he needed to do in order to formulate both these reasons was provided courtesy of Rep. Nass. It’s a sad thing when even the author of the blog post that started this all says the conclusions he comes to through the gaps in his reasoning aren’t necessarily true.
This particular one is even more ridiculous than the first. He is implying that somehow our hard sciences will be hurt by having an administrator from the humanities. Does he not think that she is intelligent enough to realize the importance of the hard sciences? How is his UW Law degree any different? It’s certainly not any closer to an engineering degree than her UW degrees. She’s not going to be pulling funding from the College of Engineering to fund the Women’s Studies Department. Besides if these other schools chancellors are models by which we should be basing our chancellor selection on, it looks like the salary we were offering was a couple of hundred thousands dollars short. Purdue’s last top executive had a salary of almost $900,000. We’re hiring her to be an administrator, not to teach all of our classes.
Grothman had much more to say about the flaws in the chancellor selection process that I’m going to address tomorrow. Until then, I’d just like to remind you that there were a number of legitimate reasons why other candidates would have been a better selection than Biddy (all you really have to do is contrast Rebecca Blank’s resume with Biddy’s), but once again out state legislators don’t seem to be able to find any of them.
23 responses so far ↓
1 Mpeterson // Jul 3, 2008 at 7:10 am
Yeah, nice work.
The “indoctrination of students with left-wing values” part is interesting to me. I’ve asked, and Glenn can’t provide a single example of what he means — which tells me that, as usual, he doesn’t have any content for his remarks… merely the standard outlines from the neo-con playbook. Without the boogie man, the strawman, of “The Left” neo-conservatism wouldn’t exist at all.
Ironically, I regularly expose students to the most dangerous social and political ideologies ever crafted: I make them read Plato, Aristotle, and the Federalist Papers.
I suspect Glenn is one of those neo-cons who hates Tom Paine as well.
hiho
Mp
2 Bucky Joe // Jul 3, 2008 at 11:02 am
Aside from his usual neo-con rhetoric about “left-wing values”, I think Grothman actually makes some good points.
It’s pretty clear that Blank was the strongest candidate, and would have had instant credibility with the Legislature and business community. So, why wasn’t she hired? (The answer I hear is that the “chemistry” wasn’t right with leadership in Bascom. Yeah, well, given the leadership we have lately — maybe some different chemistry would be good?)
Also, the idea that the Chancellor “must” support affirmative action (which was loaded into the equation by the selection of a very PC search committee) is insane. That should not be a litmus test for Chancellor. “Sifting and Winnowing” all ideas, right?
Anyway, I’m worried about this campus…
3 Jon // Jul 3, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I’ve had mixed feelings over this whole chancellor search process. While I thought Biddy and Blank were far and away the best candidates, I agree with Bucky Joe in that Blank was the strongest candidate by far. Biddy does have the strong administrative background from cornell that one would expect for a chancellor of a large public university. That said, when personal beliefs come into play, such as affirmative action, it makes you wonder how much our leaders factor other “personal” beliefs into their choices. This sort of thing makes me uneasy about the choices our leadership makes.
And just so someone points it out, our previous chancellor did have a strong science background. Play station anyone?
4 NY Times piece on the shifting ideological views of college professors // Jul 4, 2008 at 1:22 pm
[...] Glenn Grothman on the selection of Biddy Martin [...]
5 Bucky Joe // Jul 4, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Hmmm…
I actually thought the only two qualified candidates were Blank (my top choice) and Malcuhy (my second choice). Personally speaking, I thought Sanefur and Martin were the politically correct choices, not the serious ones.
But when Mike Knetter, the Dean of the Business School, didn’t even make the short list, I knew that the search process was botched completely. Knetter is absolutely brilliant, and would have had instant credibility among the legislators, business leaders and faculty, staff & students.
But the committee botched the job, and now we’re all going to be paying the price, I fear.
(I’m hoping to be proven wrong, and there are some encouraging signs from Martin already. But she has, without doing anything herself, already mobilized a lot of people out there to fight against her. The key UW-distractors in the Legislature are just waiting to tear into her, I fear…)
6 Fearless Sifting // Jul 4, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I think that it’s pretty safe to say that the search committee wasn’t considering other people’s reaction to her selection. What various state legislators would think of the selection was something that I never considered at the time, but it’s becoming pretty apparent that it is a critical element to the UW-state legislature relations dynamic. Despite the fact that her background in Women’s Studies will make no difference in her ability to make decisions as chancellor, it already has made a huge difference in how she is perceived and will be dealt with by the state legislature.
7 Bucky Joe // Jul 5, 2008 at 9:29 am
How can the search committee *not* think about how the new Chancellor would be perceived by the Legislature, the business community, etc.?!
After the last several years, that should have been the #1 concern!!
Oh well, I hope Martin can pull this off. She is supposed to have great personal skills. She’s going to need them.
8 Democurmudgeon // Jul 7, 2008 at 9:09 pm
First, respondents here seem to think these Republican ideologues will be around forever. They won’t be.
Second, to pick a Chancellor based on whether they could get along with anti-public education conservatives is allowing your self to be bullied.
Third, affirmative action is an important and qualifying issue, despite what you might hear from the right wing, unless you think think racism no longer exists?
Nass wins if buy into any of these Republican frames, the ones they have repeated so often they almost sound possible. What ever you hear from conservatives, question and research. You will often find elements of truth mixed in with overwhelming fiction.
The final outcome of voucher schools/private schools will be major consolidations and buyouts where only a few education corporations will control subject matter and outcome. That’s capitalism.
I will be writing soon about Grothman’s cliched response to the UW’s pick. In fact, I’m surprized no one mentioned the predictable talking point response.
9 Elmer Fudd // Jul 8, 2008 at 7:58 am
But, Democurmudgeon, you’re assuming that the Republicans are completely wrong and have no point whatsoever. That’s flawed reasoning too, isn’t it?
While my politics are quite different, I happen to see the point that Nass and Grothman try to make sometimes:
- the UW often does have faculty who like to play at politics, instead of teaching and doing their research, especially in the social sciences and humanities; and the politics are very left-wing
- Martin was definitely not the most qualified person (in terms of creds and experience) to apply for the Chancellor job; Blank, Mulcahy, Knetter (who didn’t even make the finalist list) would have been more solid choices
- Selecting a Chancellor with a litmus test for Affirmative Action is crazy: not that AA is a bad idea (I happen to agree that it has done some good), but that any single policy litmus test is not wise (and the Chancellor doesn’t make these policies, the Regents do)
Sure, Nass and Grothman are both clowns and fall into the Republican cliche recycling trap every time. But they actually have a point, and we ought to listen to them. Just being smug, and thinking that somehow they’re dumb, or that UW folks are smarter than they are, is a very dangerous place to begin. (And that kind of behavior *exactly* confirms their points.)
- A UW faculty member
10 vbp // Jul 8, 2008 at 4:30 pm
- Martin was definitely not the most qualified person (in terms of creds and experience) to apply for the Chancellor job; Blank, Mulcahy, Knetter (who didn’t even make the finalist list) would have been more solid choices
This is an issue I would like to clear up because I see it being parroted about very irresponsibly. As the longest-serving second in command of perhap’s America’s most academically prestigious land grant university, it is not clear on its face why Biddy Martin is unqualified to be Chancellor of UW.
I say this as somebody who was duly impressed by Rebecca Blank, but had reservations about the fact that she has never led an academic unit larger than a few thousand students. This is a legimitate concern and one that too many of you seem too eager to paper over. Let us consider the following of the candidates we had to consider:
1) a Provost of an Ivy League University with a major land grant mission
2) a former Dean of a largely graduate-level Public Policy program with significant ties to the D.C. establishment
3) a longtime Dean and former interim Provost with significant working knowledge of all parts of UW and
4) a Research Administrator with professional roots at UW with a strong Research Portfolio (who mysteriously withdrew from the process, perhaps because he didn’t really want the job).
Let us contrast this with the finalists for this position back in 2000:
1) The incumbent Provost at UW, a former Graduate Dean, and College of Engineering Administrator
2) The Provost of a peer insititution in the Big Ten, as well as former Graduate Dean, and Ivy League Department Chair in Psychology
3) The Provost of an Ivy League insitution who had previously served as the longtime Dean of one of the most prestigious law schools in the country.
When you consider what experience set you typically look for in selecting the leadership of an institution as vast and as multifaceted as UW-a role that recquires you be adept at balancing the fundraising, research, development, planning, and policy aspects of the University-there was, the time around, only one candidate who’s EXPERIENCE SET (not her research output, her EXPERIENCE SET . . . I don’t know why so many people here believe that one’s academic career begins and ends with their PhD) touched and concerned every single one of these missions.
Much as I was impressed by Rebecca Blank, it is a huge step up from being dean of an autonomous school with 5,000 students to being Chancellor of a massive university that happens to be both the No. 3 Patent Holder in the Country. Going on personality alone is a major risk.
I had my doubts about Biddy at first, largely because I was concerned about whether she would be a good fit culturally for UW. As a gay man, I worried that she may be boxed in too easily by those detractors whose homophobia is at once fervently denied, and somehow always on display. But she knows this school, obviously, she knows the challenges of running a school this complex, and if you think that after going head to head with the New York State Assembly for several years that her Academic background is reason enough to disqualify her than I would suggest your no longer speaker to the qualifications to be Chancellor than to validation of your own particular worldview.
I traded emails throughout the Chancellor selection period with a (quite conservative) Biddy Martin enthusiast from Cornell who convinced me that she had the chops to go up against the State Legislature as well as bring in the money from Private Sources. She was admired and respected by students and faculty alike and you will be hardpressed to find anyone from Cornell who could speak ill of her.
All of this second-guessing of her experience and qualifications is really quite puzzling, especially in light of who her competition was.
11 Bucky Joe // Jul 8, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I think the concern, VBP, is that Martin has largely been an *internal* leader at Cornell (focusing on internal initiatives, working with faculty and Deans, etc.) rather than an *external* leader (who largely focus on the Legislature, donors, alumni, business leaders).
The two jobs — Chancellor and Provost — are very, very different in this regard.
So, frankly, I agree that Blank and Mulcahy were the best choices on the short list. They both had executive experience working with external constituencies, not just internal-university groups. No one doubts Martin’s ability to work with faculty — that’s where she shines — but many worry about her ability to work with donors, legislatures (clearly), business leaders, etc.
Also, I agree with the previous poster who thought the search produced a fairly uninspired short list.
So, I think the concerns about Martin — as a Chancellor — are still reasonable. She would be a fantastic Provost or Dean, to be sure, but I wonder about Chancellor / President. Again, these are very, very different jobs.
12 vbp // Jul 8, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Joe,
The OVERWHELMING majority of university presidents and chancellors in this country have served as Provosts at some point in time. If these jobs were somehow inconsistent, then perhaps you know something about running a university that nearly every presidential search committee in the country does not know. Even looking at the Big Ten, there are only a handful of chief executives who do not have Provost experience in their background (Henry Bienen at Northwestern, France Cordova at Purdue, and Michael McRobbie at Indiana). This is not to say that being a Provost makes you absolutely more qualified, but it does give lie to your suggestion that the Provost position is an irrelevant indicator of one’s qualification to run a university.
Yes, a Provost, by definition, is an internally-focused position but, contrary to popular myth (at least on this blog) has to do an awful lot of work with external groups like Legislatures, donors, alumni, etc. If Biddy Martin has indeed been a purely ïnternal” leader at Cornell, working myopically on issues of little important to the growth and development of a major university, I would have to ask you to produce proof.
Blank’s external qualifications were certainly worth noting, but these could also be viewed as merely making up for the lack of experience she has had actually managing large, multipolar, academic bodies. It is a unique and fascinating experience set, but not one that, on its face at least, is a slam dunk.
And while Mulcahy was a strong candidate, I belief it was this blog who said that UW already has a Vice Chancellor for Research, which is essentially what it sounded like he was running for. Again, a great Chancellor candidate will have experience touching and concerning every aspect of the leadership of a University. Blank and Mulcahy, for all their qualifications, only provided one piece out of the pie.
What I find troubling about most of this discussion is the very conclusory assertion that the longest-serving provost of a University as diversified as UW, much higher ranked than UW, and that, by every measure, should be UW’s model, is somehow unqualified per se to lead UW. This conclusion suggests to me one of two things: 1) a lack of understanding of what experience is typically seen as relevant to running a university or 2) that this really isn’t about Biddy Martin’s qualifications and that it’s more about who (and what) she is.
13 vbp // Jul 8, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Let me ask you all this: how many of these candidates have actually had to develop, let alone implement a financial aid waiver plan for students from lower income families? How many of them have actually had to manage university-wide budgets? How many of them have had to develop, let alone implement programs for Faculty retention? How many of them have had to develop capital campaigns? How many of them have had to work extensively with academic units and divisions outside of their own area of scholarly specialization? Most crucially, how many of them have had to take all of the above scenarios (and much much more) and balance them against one other, in a university in the most selective and competitive peer group on the planet? How many of them, while we’re at it, have even been considered for a university presidency before, let alone at Harvard?
Explain to me then how the one candidate who possesses all these qualities (in stark contrast to any of the others) is somehow unqualified to lead UW.
14 Bucky Joe // Jul 8, 2008 at 11:47 pm
You make a good point. I stand corrected on several issues.
However, I am still less-than-thrilled with the pool we had to work with. I would rather have seen candidates like Knetter (who didn’t even make the short list, while Sandefur did!?) and Blank — people who also have some real-world (not University) experience.
Martin has many strong attributes, to be sure. But, again, I worry that she was hired because of her charisma, not qualifications. Several people from Bascom have told me (off the record) that Blank was seen as the superior candidate — by far — but there was bad “chemistry” with other UW leadership.
Anyway, I’m supporting Martin, but am very worried.
And, of course, she has to deal with a bunch of rednecks who are going to use her personal life choices against her — as if this is relevant at all. Sigh.
Anyway, VBP, thanks for the good points. This is a good discussion.
And thanks to Fearless Sifting for this excellent forum!
15 Democurmudgeon // Jul 9, 2008 at 12:13 am
I think the Repubican legislators are taken way to seriously. It legitimatizes their attempts at destroying the UW. From some of the answers here, UW staff and all, it appears your not aware of what they are trying to do. And it’s not just in Wisconsin. Affirmative action is only one small part of what should be considered. I’ve posted my feelings on Glen Grothman’s sad display of idiocy. I call ‘em as I see ‘em. I have less tolerance and refuse to promote their agenda. I don’t work within their “frame,” I use my own.
http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/07/breaking-down-colleges-liberal-bias-its.html
16 Fearless Sifting // Jul 9, 2008 at 12:51 am
Democurmudgeon, you would have a valid point if the Republican legislators were anything but legislators. If we were discussing conservative talk radio hosts (or liberal bloggers) you would be completely correct. However, state legislators don’t gain legitimacy via discussions about them on blogs. They are inherently legitimate because of their elected office. Ignoring them and the power of their votes would only serve to feed their claims that the UW is comprised of a bunch of ivory-tower liberals. You may have the choice to decide that you don’t want to “work within their frame”, but for those of us who are tied to the UW, as both students and staff, we don’t have a choice. Using our own “frame” doesn’t do anything to stop Grothman and Nass from voting to cut our funding.
I also think you buy into the exact same logic about affirmative action that is critiqued on this blog. Just because one thinks that affirmative action is a good idea it does not automatically follow that support of affirmative action should be a rigid standard that would rule out potential candidates. I think that any kind of rigid standard of support for a specific policy would be a bad idea.
Bucky Joe, you’re very welcome and thank you (and vbp) for the great discussion.
17 vbp // Jul 9, 2008 at 9:11 am
I think a finer distinction has to be drawn between serving the public trust and turning higher education policy into a petty partisan skirmish in the culture wars. I think the frustration many UW supporters feel is that the State Assembly has shifted strongly in favor of the latter (in the body of just a handful of people). This is not to say that every grievance directed at UW must have some sort of nefarious partisan basis, but at the same time it’s not like this is the first time we’ve had to deal with Republicans on Capitol Square and our relationship with them has rarely ever been this vitriolic and adversarial.
Nass’ behavior in recent weeks with respect to this appointment (and the biographical fact that he clearly has a personal grudge against the entire UW system) has told me all I need to know that this is not about careful stewardship of state resources but about a partisan political agenda grounded in deep animus. Affirmative Action is just a sideshow; nearly every public university in the country supports it in principle and all struggle with what to do with in the coming decade. Recent SCOTUS decisions have pretty much given it a lifespan of fewer than twenty more years. Statements to Grothman’s effect are really nothing more than bloody shirt waving. If he were really serious about tackling the issues, he’d be talking about how to address the issue of access to underrepresented student groups without resorting to constitutionally questionable (and morally offensive) measures like race.
As for Biddy, nobody needs to think that she was the best candidate (I didn’t). But let no one say that she’s unqualified to hold the position or that she was less qualified to hold it than any of the other candidates. Blank had her attributes, but also her shortcomings, and let’s not pretend that chemistry doesn’t matter when you’re being brought in as an external candidate to lead a university like this.
As for Knetter (and to a lesser extent, Farrell) both are quite young and have been in their roles a few years. This is not to say that these were valid reasons for them not be considered, but obviously it plays a part when you look at the depth of experience of each of the other candidates, including Sandefur. Both have long futures in higher ed leadership awaiting them and I see either one (more likely Knetter) being a future Chancellor at UW.
18 Sam Clegg // Jul 15, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Democurmudgeon - I’ll also “call’em as I see’em.” Your astounding arrogance can only be indicative of somebody who is more concerned with promoting a partisan agenda than the welfare of the students at this university. I’m sorry we have to bite our fingers over every reaction Stephen Nass (Chair of the University and Colleges Comittee for the past legislative session) has regarding our university. Really, I am. But as Fearless Sifting notes, we don’t have the luxury of waving our hands dismissively at these Republicans (or Democrats or whoever).
Is it fair to critique Nass ojectively for going after one of the most critical economic engines in the state, one that also happens to educate thousands of students in the best possible fashion? Yes. Does it add anything to engage in absurd partisan hackery, shouting “wah wah wah, my ideology is better than yours so I don’t have to listen to the socially conservative monsters in my closet?” Probably not. I’m glad you can throw intellectual temper tantrums on blogs and feel like you have done your part in the great reconquest of Wisconsin for modern Liberalism or whatever, but your statements point to an utter lack of desire to understand Nass’ significance. More simply, the stupidity of your statements can only mean that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about and have no desire to learn.
19 Anonymous // Jul 23, 2008 at 10:02 pm
There’s a good quote in this interview -
http://cornellsun.com/node/30694
“DH: One of the things that is required of a provost, something that Biddy did extremely well, is the ability to keep their disciplinary background, that important piece of who they are, from determining the issues they push or the decisions they make. Biddy is a humanist, a German scholar and a gender scholar, but you wouldn’t know it from the initiatives she’s championed, and there are a range of them. The Life Sciences Initiative, for example, has nothing to do with her intellectual background. So that’s really important, that the provost represents all the University. It’s also important that the provost be listening as much as he or she is directing, so as to understand where the campus stands on a variety of issues.”
20 Fearless Sifting // Jul 24, 2008 at 12:37 am
Wow, that is good. I can’t think of a better response to Grothman’s 3rd paragraph.
21 n4th // Jul 25, 2008 at 7:31 pm
nice promotion of your site demo…too bad sam completely called you out on your bullshit so no one will visit it
on topic, I didn’t see what was so ‘idiotic’ about Grothman’s answers. But no one else thought that was the case so it was probably just demo.
22 UW-Madison becoming more conservative? // Aug 15, 2008 at 12:44 am
[...] becoming more conservative is the exact opposite of what Glenn Grothman asserted in his rebuking of the selection of Biddy Martin as chancellor. First, it’s important the chancellor stop the left-wing drift at the University campus. I have [...]
23 Nass is back at it, this time in the Badger Herald // Sep 2, 2008 at 9:58 am
[...] the main point made by Nass in the article is same old argument that Nass and his fellow state legislators have made before: and seem to use to justify every one of their anti-UW statements or actions: that UW-Madison is [...]
Leave a Comment