A state Senate committee put off taking action despite threats from lawmakers to fire unconfirmed members of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents after two regents shared more details Thursday about the decision to fire former UW President Jay Rothman. 

While the regents were legally prevented from sharing specific details about the firing, they said, they described their sense that Rothman moved too slowly to act on pressing issues including developing a UW policy on artificial intelligence.

The UW Board of Regents voted unanimously in a virtual meeting Tuesday to fire Rothman, who had refused to leave his position voluntarily. The decision took effect immediately and the the search for the next leader has already begun. Rothman, who will get six months of severance pay, told the Associated Press after the vote that he was “blindsided” by the ousting but wasn’t going to challenge it.

Republican lawmakers had come to the defense of Rothman after the news broke about the effort to oust him. Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) said lawmakers should reject the regents’ nomination if they fired Rothman without cause. The Senate Technical Colleges and Universities committee quickly scheduled Thursday’s public hearing and executive session on the consideration of the nominations of the ten unconfirmed Gov. Tony Evers’ appointees, including Bogost and Nixon. 

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) said at the start of Thursday’s meeting that the decision required an explanation.

“Transparency is the foundation of public trust, and when decisions are made without explained justification, it further erodes confidence, not just to the Board of Regents, but in the institution itself,” Hutton said, adding that lawmakers could provide oversight of state entities. “We are faced with a sudden leadership shake-up at risk, creating instability at a time when the chancellor turnover is high and our flagship university is losing its CEO.”

Regent President Amy Bogost and Regent Timothy Nixon said that Rothman had been told about the changes the regents wanted to see. Their decision to let him go, they said, was not made lightly and came after he failed to make those changes. They also said that his decision to take his complaints public was harmful to the UW system.

Bogost has served on the Board for the last six years, including as president since 2024. Nixon has served as a regent for the last two years. Neither has received a confirmation hearing, which has become standard procedure for the Republican-led Senate, which has left most Evers appointees unconfirmed. 

Until the meeting, the regents hadn’t given any additional details about the decision to fire Rothman, other than that the decision came after an annual review was conducted by Bogost and that Rothman was “not without notice” and the process was not “sudden.”

Evers stood behind the regents’ decision in a statement released during the meeting, saying the choice was their and that they decided to make a leadership change, “nothing more, nothing less.” 

“Republican lawmakers should resist their temptation to turn this into a political conversation, because it isn’t one,” Evers said. “The UW Board of Regents is not supposed to be an extension of any politician or political party. The Regents are responsible for doing what’s best for our UW System, and they should be able to do their jobs without political interference from elected officials.” 

Evers also warned it would be a “mistake” if the lawmakers used it as an opportunity to fire people and that that would “jeopardize our continued bipartisan work this session.” 

“It’s pretty simple: I trust that the Regents are doing what is best for students, faculty, staff, and our UW System — lawmakers should, too.”

At the start of the hearing, Bogost told lawmakers that she would be as transparent with them as she legally could. 

“President Rothman knows exactly what he is doing. He is a sophisticated professional who understands that personnel matters are confidential,” Bogost said. “The confidentiality surrounding his evaluation was not arbitrary… It is what law requires and is what our obligation is to these universities, and yet, President Rothman, who understands all of this, has chosen to use that constraint as a shield — making public statements, he knows I cannot deny, and framing a narrative he knows I cannot correct.” 

Rothman was a Milwaukee lawyer and CEO of the law firm Foley and Lardner before being chosen to serve as the UW president in 2022.

Bogost told lawmakers that she would also be willing to walk the committee through the details of the conversations held in closed session with Rothman and the decision to fire Rothman if he waived his confidentiality.

Sen. Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska) asked why Bogost thought he hadn’t waived his confidentiality. 

“I believe that his objective is to be able to get his narrative out and be one-sided…He knows the truth, and he understands what this is all about, and we were hoping that he would move on,” Bogost said. “To do the media circuit that he’s on denigrates our wonderful universities, and that makes me really sad, because I know that he worked tirelessly for the universities, and I really was hoping to celebrate his past accomplishments… it’s unfortunate that he’s taking that path.”

Before firing Rothman, the regents had offered him the opportunity to resign. Rothman refused, saying he hadn’t been given clear reasoning for his firing and that he thought he had accomplished a lot during his tenure as president.

Nixon also said offering at-will employees the option to leave voluntarily is standard procedure within the UW system and in private businesses. As an example, he noted former Gov. Tommy Thompson, who served as interim president of the system between 2020 and 2022 and voluntarily stepped down from the position. He also noted James Langdon, who, according to WisPolitics, wrote in an email that Rothman fired him in a similar way from his position as vice president of administration. 

Nixon added that the same practice applies to corporate CEOs, who are routinely let go by companies that don’t want to harm their brands. “You try not to have these public blow-ups, alright,  and so nothing here in my mind [is] unusual, and not only that, it follows UW practice.”

In a statement, Rothman said his recent evaluation from Bogost was “overwhelmingly positive.” However, during the hearing, Bogost said that when giving reviews it is typical to “give at least four positives to every negative,” which is what happened with Rothman. 

“He was very disheartened by those… I was surprised. These were things that we tried to work on. It was not sudden,” Bogost said. “Mr. Rothman knows that it was ongoing situations that we had many discussions with him about.”

Bogost said there is not an evaluation document, but that she took notes and delivered the evaluation in person to Rothman.

Bogost said Rothman was the right person to lead the UW system as it sought to deal with a tough financial and operational situation. During his time as president, Rothman oversaw the “right-sizing” of campus budgets and the closure of campuses. Nixon said when it comes to other accomplishments Rothman has touted, he is “a bit like the rooster crowing and then taking credit for the sunrise after.”

As the UW system is addressing other pressing issues, the regents said Rothman was too slow to act. 

Nixon noted that U.S. News and World Report ranked the 50 most innovative universities in the U.S., and the only Wisconsin school on the list was Marquette University. 

“Thank God, one higher education institution in the state has made the list,” Nixon said. “Change is not Mr. Rothman’s strong suit, yet change is what we desperately need.”

Nixon said there was a “lack of urgency” coming from Rothman, adding that coming from a law background he tends to move deliberately to ensure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed. 

As an example, Nixon said the regents started asking for a system-wide policy on artificial intelligence in November, but they still had not received one. 

“We can’t take a year and six months to decide and think about every single issue. This is no different than moving on to a new quarterback — no matter what you thought of the previous quarterback or what they did,” Nixon said. 

Nixon said he had also spoken with Rothman about reassigning some of the over 500 employees who work for the UW system administration to campuses, but there had not been changes. 

Sen. Rachael Cabral Guevara (R-Fox Crossing) thanked Nixon for giving the committee some concrete reasons for its decision  rather than staying in the “gray zone.”

The regents said that the timing of the decision was partly the result of state budget negotiations and the implementation of the state budget. In the most recent state budget, the UW system received a boost in state funding, which came as a result of negotiations between Evers, Democratic and Republican lawmakers and advocacy efforts from UW stakeholders. Republican lawmakers had initially sought a cut to the UW budget. 

At the end of Thursday’s hearing, the committee delayed its vote on whether to recommend confirming the nominees.

Hutton told reporters afterwards that there was more information the senators needed to consider and it would have been “premature” to vote. He said that he wants to see more documents related to Rothman’s evaluation and hear from more of the regents. 

“Based on some of the information we requested from the board president, really thought that was beneficial to receive that information, let the committee go through that a little bit more, maybe ask some additional questions before we go to exec[utive session],” Hutton said, adding that Bogost was “very willing” and “cooperative” when it came to providing information. 

Hutton said that there would need to be a conversation with the Republican caucus leadership on whether the full Senate, which has adjourned for regular session work, will come back to take a long-delayed vote on the regents’ nominations.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Update: This story has been updated with new information. 

The University of Wisconsin system Board of Regents is planning to meet on Tuesday to consider terminating UW President Jay Rothman, who has refused to resign under pressure from regents.

In a statement on Monday provided by a UW spokesperson, Regent President Amy Bogost said the decision is “about the future.” She noted that the regent president is responsible for an annual performance review of the system president and over the last several months she met with UW stakeholders including, regents, chancellors and other members of UW communities. She said the results were shared with Rothman. 

“President Rothman was not without notice, nor was this process sudden. The Board has engaged with President Rothman in good-faith discussions over the past several months,” Bogost said. “At a time of profound change in higher education, this decision is about the future. The Universities of Wisconsin must be led with a clear vision that both protects and strengthens our flagship, supports our comprehensive universities and ensures we are meeting the evolving needs of our students, workforce and communities across all 72 counties.”

The Board of Regents plans to meet on April 7 at 5 p.m. to consider terminating Rothman, according to a meeting notice. The regents will first meet in closed session and may then reconvene in open session regarding matters taken up in closed session, including voting where applicable.

Bogost said they would be meeting “to consider next steps with that responsibility firmly in mind.”

Rothman wrote in letters, first reported by the Associated Press last week, that the regents had lost confidence in his leadership and were telling him he needed to resign or be fired. He said he hasn’t been given any clear reasons for why they are pushing him out, but just that “each Regent has his or her own perspective on the matter.”

The Board last met in closed session on April 1 to discuss “ongoing personnel matters.” In a statement, Bogost said the Board “is responsible for the leadership of the Universities of Wisconsin and is having discussions about its future” and that they “don’t comment on personnel matters.”

State leaders have responded to the news that the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents is seeking to oust Rothman. 

Gov. Tony Evers, who previously sat on the Board when he served as state schools superintendent, did not take a position Monday morning on whether Rothman should be ousted.

“[Rothman] works for the board and if the board is dissatisfied, they have the right to do this,” he told reporters. “It’s their call.” 

Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, have been critical of the lack of clarity around the effort.

Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), who chairs the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee, said in a statement on April 2 that he was troubled by the reports, saying that the “lack of transparency is unacceptable.”

“President Rothman deserves to know exactly why the Board has lost confidence in his leadership,” Murphy said. “I am concerned that the push to oust him may actually stem from his strong support for free speech and open inquiry on our campuses — core principles that must be defended in higher education. The Board owes Wisconsin taxpayers, students and families a full explanation. They should provide specific reasons or stand down from this effort.”

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) and Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevera (R-Fox Crossing), who lead the Senate Universities and Technical Colleges committee, said in a statement on April 3 they were concerned the regents were trying to avoid public scrutiny and noted the news broke heading into the holiday weekend.

“If the Regents will not tell the public why they are making such a significant move, the public will be left to assume this is the latest example of backroom politics dictating how the Board of Regents is overseeing the UW System,” Hutton said. “Instead of secretive maneuvering, they should be focusing on reducing their bureaucracy, consolidating more of the struggling two-year campuses, instituting reforms that align with the needs of Wisconsin employers, and making higher education more affordable for all Wisconsin students.”

Rothman, who was an attorney in Milwaukee and CEO of the law firm Foley and Lardner, was selected by the UW Board of Regents in January 2022 to be president. He was chosen after the UW system did not have a permanent leader for two years. In the position, he is responsible for overseeing the vice presidents and chancellors who run the systems campuses, including flagship UW-Madison. 

While it’s unclear what prompted the push to pressure Rothman to resign, he has once floated the idea of resigning in 2023 while working on a deal with Republican lawmakers. 

Rothman agreed to an anti-diversity deal lawmakers demanded in exchange for releasing previously allocated funds for building projects and staff cost-of-living adjustments. Under the terms of the deal, the UW system schools changed their approach to diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI). Regents initially rejected the deal, then reversed their decision. 

During his tenure, Rothman has worked to secure funding from the state Legislature, which has often been hostile to the UW system, worked to bring pro-Palestinian protests on campuses to an end, implemented a direct admissions program for eligible in-state high school students and has overseen the closure of campuses and brought in third-party advisors to address financial pressures facing campuses as well as rebranding the system from the UW System to the Universities of Wisconsin.

Rothman argued in his letter that there are also to-do list items that make it a bad time for him to leave, including finding new chancellors for UW-Madison and UW-Eau Claire as well as establishing priorities for the next state budget.

“I understand that, as you indicated on Saturday, the Board may act to terminate my employment, which the Board is empowered to do,” Rothman wrote. “If, however, the full Board would like to discuss this matter with me in either an open or closed session, I would welcome the opportunity to participate in such a meeting.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman says that the Board of Regents is trying to oust him from his position — and he is refusing to go as he says he has not been given any clear reasons for their loss of confidence in him.

In a letter first obtained by the Associated Press dated March 26, Rothman said he met with Regent President Amy Bogost and Regent Vice President Kyle Weatherly in a meeting they requested. Rothman wrote that he was “surprised” that during the meeting they “indicated for the first time and without any prior discussion or notice that an unidentified majority of the Board of Regents had lost confidence in my leadership despite all that my team and I along with our universities have accomplished to move the Universities of Wisconsin forward.”

Rothman, who was an attorney in Milwaukee and CEO of the law firm Foley and Lardner, was hired by the UW Board of Regents in January 2022. He was chosen after the UW system did not have a permanent leader for two years.

In the letter, Rothman said Bogost and Weatherly did not give reasons for the regents’ conclusion or the lack of confidence in him, but that “each Regent has his or her own perspective on the matter.” 

“You did not provide any tangible reasons for the Board’s determination. It also appears that whatever conclusions were reached, the concerns were vetted without the benefit of any recent in-person or even virtual meeting of the entire Board,” Rothman wrote. “From a Board governance and leadership perspective, I find that to be extraordinarily difficult for the Board to defend; as a person who reports directly to the Board, I am profoundly disappointed.

Rothman wrote that he was given three options for his departure: announcing his resignation and retirement in the near future with an effective date at the end of this calendar year, which he said was the Board’s preferred path; resigning at any time with 120 days notice and the Board terminating his employment if he didn’t resign.

Bogost said in a statement that the Board “is responsible for the leadership of the Universities of Wisconsin and is having discussions about its future.”

“We don’t comment on personnel matters,” Bogost said. 

In his letter, Rothman provided a list of 37 accomplishments throughout his tenure. The list includes obtaining the largest increase in funding from the state Legislature in the last 20 years; engaging with “third-party advisors to evaluate and assist the universities in addressing financial headwinds and improving operational efficiencies”; implementing a direct admissions program for eligible in-state high school students; continuing the tuition promise program by securing private funding; and rebranding the system from the UW System to the Universities of Wisconsin. 

“If the foregoing list is not sufficient evidence of my leadership in driving bold and transformative change, I really do not know what is. Since to date you have not provided any substantive reason or reasons for the Board’s finding of no confidence in my leadership, I am not prepared, as a matter of principle, to submit my resignation. In light of the current circumstances, I do not believe my resignation at this time is in the best interests of either the Universities of Wisconsin or the state of Wisconsin,” Rothman wrote. 

During his tenure, Rothman has overseen the closure or dramatic downsizing of at least eight UW branch campuses and has also sought to work with the Republican-led Legislature, which has often appeared hostile towards the UW system. 

In 2023, Rothman negotiated a deal on university system diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI) and funding with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), both of whom are now retiring from the Legislature. Under the deal, which was initially rejected by regents, Rothman got funding for building projects and staff cost-of-living adjustments — which lawmakers had already approved but were holding back as a bargaining chip — while Republicans got cuts to UW DEI initiatives. 

In 2024, Rothman also responded to student pro-Palestinian protests by defending the actions of police officers on campus and saying encampments would be gone eventually.

While Rothman appears confident in his achievements, not all UW stakeholders have been happy with his leadership. AFT-Wisconsin President Jon Shelton said in a statement that even without the details of the reported “loss of confidence,” the union supports the Board’s action. 

“President Rothman’s tenure has been defined by his unwillingness to listen to the stakeholders that truly define our campuses: on everything from our faculty, staff, and students’ commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion to UW System Administration’s disastrous efforts to impose a general education curriculum on our campuses instead of simply implementing a universal credit transfer policy last December as required by Act 15,” Shelton said. 

“We are encouraged by the Board’s recent actions,” Shelton added. “We will gladly work with them moving forward to ensure any UW system president fights to uphold the values that has made the UW System great.”

Rothman wrote that there are also to-do list items that make it a bad time for him to leave, including finding new chancellors for UW-Madison and UW-Eau Claire as well as establishing priorities for the next state budget.

“I understand that, as you indicated on Saturday, the Board may act to terminate my employment, which the Board is empowered to do,” Rothman wrote. “If, however, the full Board would like to discuss this matter with me in either an open or closed session, I would welcome the opportunity to participate in such a meeting.” 

In a second letter to Regents Ashok Rai and Jack Salzwedel dated April 1, Rothman wrote that in a separate conversation, they also provided no reason for the request for his departure. 

“Similar to Regent President Bogost, you indicated that you could not offer any reason at this time. In fact, you said that topic would be discussed at the upcoming meeting of the Board,” Rothman wrote. 

The Board of Regents met in a closed special meeting on April 1 in the evening to discuss personnel matters. 

“Unfortunately, I am left to conclude that any basis for a Board finding of no confidence in my leadership will be, at best, an after-the-fact rationalization of a decision that clearly has already been made without the benefit of any recent meeting of the Regents and despite all the successes and transformative accomplishments during my tenure as President,” Rothman wrote in the letter to Rai and Salwedel. “I am not prepared, as a matter of principle, to submit my resignation at this time.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed Republican bills Friday that would have limited state agencies’ rulemaking abilities, prohibited “rights of nature ordinances,” eliminated “race-based” programs within the University of Wisconsin system and allowed for telehealth care providers with licenses from out of state to practice in Wisconsin. 

Bills to limit rulemaking rejected

A set of bills that sought to limit agencies’ rulemaking abilities were also vetoed. Republican lawmakers introduced the legislation, called the “Red Tape Reset,” alongside the Wisconsin  Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative legal advocacy group. 

SB 275 would have required agency scope statements, which are necessary to start the rulemaking process, from being used for one proposed rule and would have set a six-month expiration period for the use of a scope statement for an emergency rule. 

SB 276 would have allowed those who have challenged the validity of an administrative rule to receive attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid. 

SB 277 would have implemented a seven years expiration date on all administrative rules unless a rule is adopted again through an agency process. 

SB 289 would have required agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations.

The bills were introduced in light of recent decisions by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that have limited lawmakers’ ability to oversee the rulemaking process, including by blocking rules indefinitely.

“The Legislature asks me, in effect, to undo this decision, enabling the Legislature to go right back to indefinitely obstructing the People’s Work and returning state government to inaction, delays and gridlock,” Evers said in his veto message for SB276. “I decline to do so.”

Rights of Nature prohibition

Evers also vetoed SB 420, which would have prohibited local governments from passing ordinances protecting the rights of nature. GOP lawmakers introduced the measure after Green Bay and Milwaukee pursued symbolic ordinances meant to protect the rights of bodies of water to be kept clean. It is a concept that originates from provisions in constitutions of some South American countries and Native American tribes such as Wisconsin’s Ho-Chunk Nation.

Evers said that he objected to lawmakers “continued efforts to restrict and preempt local control across our state” and GOP lawmakers’ failure to acknowledge that “climate change is affecting our Wisconsin way of life…” and efforts to “make it even harder for Wisconsin to respond to and mitigate the effects of our changing climate.”

“I have always believed the state should be a partner in — and not an obstacle to — the important work our local partners do every day,” Evers said. “ I trust our local governments and the Tribal Nations of Wisconsin to know best how to address environmental concerns within their communities and how to protect the natural resources that are vital to local health, economies and quality of life.”

UW free speech penalties

SB 498 would have barred UW campuses from being able to prohibit speakers from campus and prohibited the establishment of “free speech zones” among other actions. Republican lawmakers supportive of the bill said the goal was to protect free speech and academic expression.

Violations of the provisions in the bill could have resulted in financial penalties including a two-year tuition freeze for more than one penalty on a campus within a five-year period. 

The UW system already implements a policy that establishes its commitment to freedom of speech and expression along with some accountability measures including conduct and due process mechanisms to address violations.

This was the second iteration of the bill. The idea was first developed by Republicans after a controversial survey of UW campuses, which had an average response rate of 12.5%, found that a majority of students who responded said they were afraid to express views on certain issues in class.

Lawmakers introduced the proposal this legislative session just six days after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, saying it was just one example of conservatives having their voices silenced on college campuses. 

Evers said in his veto message that he disagrees with lawmakers’ attempts to interfere in the day-to-day operation of the state’s higher education system. 

“Students, faculty and staff across university and technical college campuses in Wisconsin continue to discuss diverse ideas and perspectives, engage in thoughtful and difficult discussions with each other, grapple with complex issues and challenges, navigate conversations with people who have different experiences and backgrounds, and hear from other students, as well as faculty and staff, who have viewpoints from across the political spectrum,” Evers said. “I have no doubt this will continue to be the case on our campuses — as it should — so long as Republican lawmakers remain unable to inflict their radical and purely ideological agenda on higher education institutions across Wisconsin through legislative efforts like this.”

Evers also vetoed SB 652, which sought to eliminate “race-based” programs offered through the state’s higher education system, including the minority teacher loan program and minority undergraduate grants, by refocusing the programs to focus on “disadvantaged” students. The bill defined the term “disadvantaged” as applying to people who have “experienced any unfavorable economic, familial, geographic, physical or other personal hardship.”

Evers said he objected to lawmakers trying to create “new censorship rules that are designed to police language on our higher education campuses and ultimately prevent our state’s higher education institutions from acknowledging students come to our college campuses with unique and diverse backgrounds, experiences, and needs.”

The bill is part of GOP lawmakers’ attempts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts throughout the state.

Another bill related to the UW system, SB 532, was also vetoed. It would have prohibited UW institutions from charging students additional fees for exclusively online courses.

“If lawmakers sincerely cared about the soaring costs of higher education for students on Wisconsin campuses, they would have approved any number of the countless measures and investments I have proposed over my tenure to ensure the University of Wisconsin System can survive and thrive without having to frequently rely on raising tuition or increasing various fees for students and families,” Evers said.

GOP health care bill vetoed 

SB 214 would have allowed out-of-state health care providers to provide telehealth care services in Wisconsin if they possess a credential as a health care provider issued by another state. 

Lawmakers who supported the bill said it would help Wisconsin by increasing the number of health care providers able to help Wisconsinites. Evers said in his veto message, however, that he was concerned about allowing providers to practice in Wisconsin if they are licensed in another state that has lower standards.

“[The bill] fails to address the fundamental concern I have that out-of-state licensing requirements may not be as rigorous and thorough as the standards we have in Wisconsin,” Evers said. “I object to having out-of-state health care providers potentially bypass the high standards we have for instate licensed health care providers to protect patients and families.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• Eve Galanter created the Wisconsin Civics Games as a way to get high school students civically engaged.
  
• The quiz-show style contest first held in 2019 has been coordinated by the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, and has grown annually. 
  
• The competition has gotten to be such a large endeavor that WNA leaders asked the Universities of Wisconsin to take the reins. 
  
• The contest fits with the university system’s strategic plan, and Galanter is excited to see how the games expand in the coming years. 

It’s been nearly a decade since Eve Galanter, a retired teacher and reporter in Madison, read the news story that led her to start a statewide competition to get high schoolers excited about government. 

Galanter, now 84, had just read a Wisconsin State Journal article headlined “All three school board incumbents running unopposed.”

“I looked at that and I thought, ‘Are they really doing such a fabulous job, or is no one interested? Does no one have any idea what might be involved in being on a school board or a city council or a village or town board?”

Running unopposed is a modern norm in some Wisconsin public offices. Across the state’s 10 most populous counties, less than a quarter of races for county board supervisor were contested in 2020, according to an analysis by the Wisconsin Policy Forum.

Studies show a growing number of people in the United States and across the world can’t answer basic questions about how the government works. U.S. schools cut back on civics education decades ago. In Wisconsin, students can graduate high school without taking a single course on the subject, though they must pass a civics test.

For two years Galanter mulled ways to get more Wisconsinites interested in running for local office. She settled on a quiz game where high school students across the state would test their knowledge of democracy and rights for the chance to win college scholarships.  

“If people understood how government worked, then surely they would be more interested in public service as a future occupation,” said Galanter, who served on the Madison City Council, ran former U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl’s Madison office and used to open all her public presentations with the same line: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

In 2018, she pitched her idea to the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, a membership organization of the state’s papers, figuring their publications could get the word out across the state.

The association agreed, and the Wisconsin Civics Games were born. Soon staff were making plans for regional playoffs and a state final at the Capitol where members of the winning team would each receive $2,000 in scholarships. 

Since then, teams from 76 high schools have competed, and interest continues to grow. This year’s regional playoffs, held in April, drew 205 students — twice as many as the first year. 

The competition has grown so much, in fact, that it’s too big for the five staff members of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association to handle. They’re now handing the reins to the Universities of Wisconsin, which has sponsored the event since its inception.

“It needs to continue to grow, but … it’s a really big project,” said Beth Bennett, executive director of the association. “We just needed to find a home for it where somebody could take it to the next level.” 

The games will be overseen by the university system’s Wisconsin Institute for Citizenship and Civil Dialogue, which will soon become the Office of Civic Engagement, said Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman. Separately, that office will host civic education workshops for teachers across the state over the next three years, funded by a $1.1 million grant through the U.S. Department of Education’s American History & Civics Seminars program.

“This is consistent with our strategic plan focusing on freedom of expression, civil dialogue and really having students learn more about civics, which is important to our state and our nation,” Rothman said of taking the lead on the games. “So we are really excited about this opportunity.”

‘A republic, if you can keep it’

In preparation for the first Wisconsin Civics Games, Galanter pulled out a legal pad and began jotting questions. “What are the five freedoms identified in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?” “In 1982, Wisconsin was the first state to outlaw what type of discrimination?”

By the time she was done, she had over 100. 

Then she called school principals across the state to urge them to field teams. She contacted presidents of University of Wisconsin campuses to ask them to host playoffs. 

When students began registering, she looked up their local legislators to encourage them to congratulate the constituents and send them a Wisconsin Blue Book. She even wrote to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to ask her to speak at the finals.

“Her scheduler said that she was busy for the next several years,” Galanter said with a laugh, but the Justice agreed to send a letter congratulating the contestants.

“I strongly believe that the future of our nation depends upon your ability to practice democratic principles as thoughtful, informed citizens and public servants,” Sotomayor wrote. 

Sotomayor went on to recount the story of Benjamin Franklin leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787, where he had just helped draft the new U.S. Constitution. 

“Benjamin Franklin was asked what sort of government he and his fellow framers had created. Dr. Franklin famously replied, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’ By working to expand your civic knowledge in preparation for this tournament, you have begun the important undertaking of keeping our republic strong and vibrant,” Sotomayor wrote.

Galanter knew the games were a success when she overheard a comment from a participant at one of the regional playoffs that first year.

“One of the students said, ‘I’m going to go home and tell my parents about this,’” Galanter recalled. “I just thought that was the most wonderful thing: that they were so excited and wanted to share this opportunity.” 

The need for civics education persists today, though studies suggest Americans may be getting more knowledgeable. Each year, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania asks Americans about the Constitution and the government. In 2022, just 47% could name all three branches of the U.S. government and a full 25% couldn’t name one. Three years later, 70% of Americans could name all three, and just 13% couldn’t name one.

New home, same games

Galanter recently filled a box with the materials and questions she’d prepared for past games and sent it off to Rothman.

“I am so excited that the Universities of Wisconsin will be taking the games to yet a higher level,” Galanter told Wisconsin Watch. She hopes the fact that the universities already have connections with high schools statewide will mean more students will hear about “the opportunities to undertake keeping our republic strong and vibrant.”

The behind-the-scenes shuffling won’t change things for contestants. Teams interested in the 2026 games can register for free through March 1 to compete and receive study materials. Regional playoffs will be held online April 8-9, and the finals, which are open to the public, will be held on May 1. For more information, visit wnanews.com/wisconsin-civics-games.

But while no changes are planned for the 2026 games, at least one could be coming in the future. When the games returned in 2022 after a two-year hiatus during the COVID-19 pandemic, the regional playoffs moved online. Rothman hopes they might eventually return to UW campuses. 

“I’m sure, as things go along, we will look for ways to continue to improve and upgrade the competition, but it’s a terrific competition today,” said Rothman, who attended the finals in May. 

“You see the engagement of those high school students, and you talk to them and you find out what their future plans are and the amount of work that they have put in, along with their faculty advisors,” Rothman said. 

“You can see it in those students’ eyes: They’re going to be active and engaged in their communities going forward, and that’s good for all of us.”

How a Madison woman’s question sparked a growing statewide civics contest is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.