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.