Context:

UW–Madison publicly rebuked its student government for passing an allegedly illegal resolution calling for a boycott of Israel, citing state law that bars government entities from adopting policies that fund discriminatory causes. The university notes that attorneys advised ASM not to pursue such a boycott, but the guidance was ignored, highlighting tensions over investment policy and free student input. The resolution frames university holdings as supporting apartheid and militarized violence, while the administration argues the action would violate the law and undermine shared governance. The dispute points to broader questions about convening, speech, and policy direction on campus, with a forward outlook on how investment discussions will proceed within legal boundaries.

Dive Deeper:

• The resolution passed on a Wednesday and claimed that UW’s investments in companies with Israel ties violate state anti-discrimination law due to alleged apartheid, genocide, and militarized violence; the claim centers on impacts on groups defined by race, gender, religion, disability, and socioeconomic status.

• University attorneys had previously informed ASM that state law prohibits government agencies, including universities, from adopting policies that include a boycott of Israel, but the guidance was not heeded prior to passage.

• The university described the school’s leadership as attempting to restrict participation from Jewish and pro-Israel students during discussions on the proposed legislation, and cited an online chat that allegedly used an antisemitic term to refer to those students.

• UW–Madison’s statement framed the situation as a matter of governance and legal compliance, arguing that resolutions calling for unlawful actions do not warrant engagement and that student input can be valuable when it aligns with legal constraints.

• ASM leadership is acknowledged as having been counseled on illegality, yet the resolution was approved, underscoring a clash between student activism and institutional legal boundaries.