Occupy Duke: Pasts and Futures Casey Williams Lucas Spangher.
-
Upload
charlotte-keller -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
0
Transcript of Occupy Duke: Pasts and Futures Casey Williams Lucas Spangher.
Occupy Duke: Pasts and Futures
Casey WilliamsLucas Spangher
The Origin of Species:
A Qualitative Analysis of the Causes of Occupy Duke
Casey Williams
Introduction
Questions
• What was the origin and motivation behind Occupy Duke?
• What are the differences between Occupy Duke and OWS?
• In what way do these difference shape the story of the movements?
Method
• Primary Data: – Interviews • Michael Oliver, Student in OD• Anastasia Karklina, Student in OD• Michael Hardt, Professor in FIS
– Physical Data: • Emails • Documents, Pictures
Successes and Failures
Endowment Transparency at Duke: a Qualitative Analysis and
Assessment of Strategies
Lucas Spangher
Background: Deductive/Philosophical Framework
1. Transparency of an organization allows for more third-party scrutiny
2. Organizations in scrutiny will behave more in accordance with the current goals of society
3. Duke’s endowment is closed
Fighting for a transparent endowment at Duke will increase responsibility of investments
Background
• Duke Endowment: “perverse but clever move” [2]– As stated in Philanthropy Journal, “Six years ago, three-
quarters of the foundation’s assets were tied to Duke Energy,….the foundation now has 16% of its assets in power company stocks.” [4]
– The Herald Sun chronicles a protest against this [5]. – “Duke Energy was raising the power rates something
like 25 or 27 cents; something substantial in Durham, which is full of poor folk who can’t afford it.” [3]
Research Questions
• What role can campus activism play in increasing the transparency of Duke’s endowment? – What factors impact administrator’s decisions?– What specific strategies will work best at Duke?
i.e., How can we most efficiently make Duke’s endowment transparent?
Tradition of Inquiry
• Mixed Methods: Material Review, Interviews, minimal use of quantitative data
• Epistemology: Assume that there is a reality that is imperfectly understood. Constructivist perspective.
[3]
READ: The reality is more perfectly understood by some
then others, and that those are the ones that are least
likely to talk to me. Understanding of reality
Like
lihoo
d of
ag
reei
ng to
in
terv
iew
Material Review
1. Research/Formal Verification of Issue
[3]
Tradition of Inquiry
2. Selection of Comparison School
Interviews
• Duke– Robel: Current Harvard
PhD student in EOS, former Duke Activist
– Alvarez: graduating Duke Activist
– Capps: Director of Sustainability
– Williams: Student involved in Occupy
– McDaneils: Professor involved with endowment
• Dartmouth– Carey: Professor of
Political Econ– Kerr: Director of
Sustainability– Hammond: Manager
of Dartmouth Endowment
– Szykpo: Campus Farm– Karen: ECO
NVivo9 used to code and systematically analyze all interview transcripts and external docs
Results
• Duke’s Recent Endowment TransparencySept 2008 June 2009
Alvarez. Robel, others launch
movement [1]
6 campus groups sign on, begin written
campaign[5]
Meetings with DSG begin [1]
Demonstrations and petitions
started, 300 signatures
[1]
Meetings with
Brodhead fail [2]
Meetings with
Brodhead fail
“Direct Action”
begins and ends [2]
Chronicle Editorial written, sparks student outrage [4, 7]
DSG loses interest [1]
Sources: [1], [2], [4]
Results
• Dartmouth Endowment Transparency Nov 1985 June 1986
Students raise
awareness about $63 million in Apartheid
[5]
Shantytown erected in
Dartmouth’s campus [6]
Dartmouth conservatives
sledgehammer shantytown [7]
Response: classes
cancelled, students call for expulsion,
30 hour student
occupation of Student
Building, LA Times,
NYTimes, etc.; Schools is seen as promoting
racism. Massive
international outcry [6]
Shantytown ordered
unoccupied, students link arms and are arrested [5]
Meetings with
Brodhead fail
BOT votes to divest and open
investments [7]
2 sit-ins with
President
2 sit-ins with
President [5]
Sources: [5], [6], [7]
Themes
• Those with experience in activism at Duke seem less likely to trust Duke’s administration to be responsive to students – “[From 1 to 10 with 10 as perfectly receptive,
Duke’s admin is a] 2, 3 maybe? I don’t have much faith in the administration’s willingness to actually do stuff.” [1]
– “President Brodhead is an [explicative]. I think that, in today’s climate, taking [social] approach would be a waste.” [2]
Themes
• Comparison of the two cases:– Neither featured students prominently involved
with mainstream campus culture initially• ‘Dartmouth Committee to Beautify the Green Before
Winter Carnival’ [6]• DSG, DCR, PanHell formally decline to support Duke’s
push; vs. BDU, SDS, Students against Sweatshops, etc. [2]
– Dartmouth: “clear and present danger” of racist administration
Strategies at Duke
• What worked at Dartmouth: ‘Critical mass’ of students that brought outside attention; University looked repressive– “Huge amount of public scrutiny. [Student
outrage] was alive and kicking”. [5]– “Public Media attention created huge pressure for
the administration and the trustees”. [6] • Based on a chance event out of control of the
student activists
Strategies at Duke
• Administrative Responsiveness– Duke
• “From 1 to 10 with 10 as perfectly receptive, [Duke’s administration] is a 2, 3 maybe?”[3]
• “I don’t have much faith in the administration’s willingness to actually do stuff” [2].
– Dartmouth• “I find the administration to be very unresponsive. I'd probably give
it a 3 or 4 or something” [14]. • “I’m on Dartmouth’s ACIR [Academic Council for Investment
Responsibility]…They listen intermittently to the student’s recommendations.” [6].
– State Schools
Results • General Model of Campus affairs
?
Financial Base: “structures pertaining to
capital” [2]
Public image: “Entity becomes its own
body of criticism and praise”[9]
Increase in public image “increases alumni donation” [8]
The higher earning an institution, the “more it is valued” [2]
Better performance increases future performance
Possible ave for interven.
Sub Strategies
Strategies at Duke
• Favor behind the scenes work – “[Direct action] can wait until you’ve exhausted all
of the behind the scenes work” [1]– “There is really no broad interest in doing anything
that could hurt the endowment” [1]– “Sadly, capitalist powers [are controlling the
administration]” [2]– “I think it would be important to target a group of
alumni and show that you have powerful stakeholders behind you” [1]
Action Plan
1. Start out Cooperatively 1. Req. deadline
2. Attack the Economic Feedback Loop1. Alumni Donations2. Powerful Sponsors
3. Involve the Students 1. Parent sponsors, etc.
4. Direct Action and Public Attention 5. Compromise
Appendix: Arguments against
1. Economic Returns 2. Closed Securities and Hedge funds 3. “Critical Mass” of viewers needed 4. Practical Value
Limitations
• Inexperience with interviewing in the beginning of the study and a greater experience with interviewing towards the end of the study
• Not enough range of data: no students at Dartmouth or professors at Duke
• Small number of interviewees
Appendix• Node Structure
– Endowment • Closed business structure• Familiar• Not familiar
– B.O.T.• Returns• Environmnetal
– Strategies (activism)– External Factors
• Barriers• Social• Economic• Opportunities
– Duke– Dartmouth
[1] A Robel, spoken interview. March 23, 2012, Skype. [2] G Alvarez, spoken interview. March 12, 2012, Skype. [3] AASHE STARS, http://stars.aashe.org.[4] Duke Chronicle, “Endowment Transparency”, November 2008.[5] R Kerr, spoken interview. March 29, 2012, Skype.[6] LA Times. Various articles from 1986 regarding Dartmouth Apartheid Era Shantytowns[7] BC Vancouver Times, Dartmouth Controversy over Demonstrations[8] J Carey. Spoken Interview. March 27, 2012, Skype.