UW-Madison Lecturer Under Fire for Sending Partisan Email to Former Students

A University of Wisconsin-Madison lecturer is under fire after sending an unsolicited, highly partisan email to former students—drawing scrutiny from a state senator and prompting broader questions about professionalism and political neutrality at publicly funded institutions.

The email, which spans eight pages, was written and distributed by Noah Stengl, a lecturer in UW-Madison’s Department of Political Science. According to Stengl’s own biography, he has been in this role since August 2024 and previously served as a teaching assistant at the university from 2020 to 2022.

The letter was brought to the attention of Sen. Patrick Testin after a concerned parent forwarded it to his office. The parent’s child had taken one of Stengl’s classes, and the letter reportedly arrived at the end of the semester, after grades had been submitted. The senator, who represents the Stevens Point area, did not mince words in his response.

“It is downright disturbing that a UW-Madison faculty member would be this politically tone-deaf to send his former students such an unprofessional letter that goes well beyond the scope of his position,” Testin said. “It’s unfortunate that my office received this letter after we passed the 2025-27 state budget where the Universities of Wisconsin got a $256 million increase for staff salaries and wage hikes. This should serve as a cautionary tale as we put together future budgets for the Universities of Wisconsin.”

The contents of the letter are expansive and politically charged. In it, Stengl asserts that the United States is being governed by what he characterizes as an authoritarian regime under former President Donald Trump. He makes a number of sweeping claims, including that the administration has violated constitutional rights, repressed marginalized populations, undermined due process, and fueled chaos for political gain.

Stengl also accuses Trump of “governance by stupidity,” claiming that policies enacted without clear rationale are part of a deliberate strategy to avoid accountability. Among the examples he cites are increased ICE activity, controversial deportations, and the militarization of law enforcement. He argues that these measures disproportionately impact non-citizens and communities of color and likens them to patterns seen in authoritarian governments throughout history.

The letter continues with speculation about the future, including the possibility that Trump could attempt to remain in office beyond 2028 and fundamentally alter the U.S. constitutional order. Stengl suggests that this transformation could extend to major tech companies, alleging that a second Trump administration could pressure platforms like Apple to disseminate political messaging through devices and apps. He also warns of potential censorship in the arts and academia.

Throughout the letter, Stengl calls on his former students to resist what he sees as an emerging authoritarian state. He emphasizes the importance of “solidarity” over “political friendship” and urges his readers to commit to what he calls “collaboration for collective efficacy.” He describes this approach as a democratic model grounded in mutual obligation rather than shared ideology, arguing that cooperation, not competition, should be the foundation of civic life.

While the letter makes clear that these are Stengl’s personal views, its unsolicited nature and length—combined with its placement in a post-semester email to students—have raised eyebrows among both parents and elected officials.

Critics argue that the message blurs the line between academic discourse and political advocacy, especially given that it was sent outside the context of a classroom and after the conclusion of formal instruction. The concern, they say, is not about restricting personal expression but about ensuring that public universities remain environments where students are not subjected to unsolicited political messaging from faculty.

Testin’s response reflects a growing tension between academic freedom and accountability in higher education. While university professors and lecturers have the right to hold and express political opinions, the question in this case centers on whether Stengl’s actions were appropriate, given his role and the method of communication.

The senator noted that the state legislature had recently approved a significant funding increase for the Universities of Wisconsin, including raises for university staff. He suggested that incidents like this one could influence future funding decisions, especially if they become indicative of a broader pattern of partisanship in publicly funded classrooms.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison has not released a public statement regarding the letter or whether any internal review is underway. It is unclear at this time whether the university was aware of the email before it was reported.

This incident comes amid a broader national conversation about political expression on college campuses, the boundaries of faculty speech, and how to navigate free speech in educational settings without crossing into coercion or indoctrination.

For many students and families, the episode raises fundamental questions: Where is the line between personal opinion and professional conduct? Should instructors be using their university platform to deliver partisan messages—especially after a course has ended and when grades are no longer pending?

In an academic environment that should foster open dialogue and diverse viewpoints, critics say unsolicited, ideologically one-sided communications—particularly when coming from instructors in positions of authority—can chill free thought rather than encourage it.

As lawmakers look toward the next biennial budget and debate future allocations for the university system, this episode may become a flashpoint in ongoing discussions about the role of politics in public education.

Noah Stengl has not responded publicly to the criticism.