Occupy Duke: Pasts and Futures

1. Occupy Duke: Pasts and Futures Casey Williams Lucas Spangher

2. The Origin of Species:A Qualitative Analysis of the Causes of Occupy Duke Casey Williams

3. Introduction

4. 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?

5. Method • Primary Data: • Interviews • Michael Oliver, Student in OD • Anastasia Karklina, Student in OD • Michael Hardt, Professor in FIS • Physical Data: • Emails • Documents, Pictures

6. Successes and Failures

7. Endowment Transparency at Duke: a Qualitative Analysis and Assessment of Strategies Lucas Spangher

8. Background: Deductive/Philosophical Framework • Transparency of an organization allows for more third-party scrutiny • Organizations in scrutiny will behave more in accordance with the current goals of society • Duke’s endowment is closed Fighting for a transparent endowment at Duke will increase responsibility of investments

9. 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]

10. 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?

11. 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. Likelihood of agreeing to interview • 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 [3]

12. Material Review 1. Research/Formal Verification of Issue [3]

13. Tradition of Inquiry 2. Selection of Comparison School

14. 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

15. Results • Duke’s Recent Endowment Transparency June 2009 Sept 2008 Meetings with Brodhead fail Meetings with DSG begin [1] “Direct Action” begins and ends [2] Meetings with Brodhead fail [2] 6 campus groups sign on, begin written campaign [5] Alvarez. Robel, others launch movement [1] Demonstrations and petitions started, 300 signatures [1] Chronicle Editorial written, sparks student outrage [4, 7] DSG loses interest [1] Sources: [1], [2], [4]

16. Results Sources: [5], [6], [7] • Dartmouth Endowment Transparency June 1986 Nov 1985 Shantytown erected in Dartmouth’s campus [6] Dartmouth conservatives sledgehammer shantytown [7] Meetings with Brodhead fail 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] BOT votes to divest and open investments [7] 2 sit-ins with President [5] 2 sit-ins with President Students raise awareness about $63 million in Apartheid [5] Shantytown ordered unoccupied, students link arms and are arrested [5]

17. 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]

18. 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, PanHellformally decline to support Duke’s push; vs. BDU, SDS, Students against Sweatshops, etc. [2] • Dartmouth: “clear and present danger” of racist administration

19. 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

20. 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

21. Results • General Model of Campus affairs Better performance increases future performance Increase in public image “increases alumni donation” [8] Public image: “Entity becomes its own body of criticism and praise”[9] Financial Base: “structures pertaining to capital” [2] Possible ave for interven. The higher earning an institution, the “more it is valued” [2] ?

22. Sub Strategies

23. 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]

24. Action Plan • Start out Cooperatively • Req. deadline • Attack the Economic Feedback Loop • Alumni Donations • Powerful Sponsors • Involve the Students • Parent sponsors, etc. • Direct Action and Public Attention • Compromise

25. Appendix: Arguments against • Economic Returns • Closed Securities and Hedge funds • “Critical Mass” of viewers needed • Practical Value

26. 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

27. 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

28. [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.