Case Study: Divest DU
By Sarah Steck

When:

January 2014- present day

Where:

The University of Denver, Denver, CO, 80210

Practitioners:

• Divest DU Core Team- Kengo Nagaoka, Lilly Goss, Lori Scott, Claire Hassler, Danny Brown, Carly Leroy, Tina Payne, and Callyn Gonzalez.
• Chancellor Rebecca Chopp and the Board of Trustees
• Task Force on Divestment-  Dr. Jim Griesemer, Cappy Shopneck, and Craig Harrison
• International fossil fuel divestment campaigns

Further insight:

• Divest DU Report
• Divest DU 2015-16 Annual Report
• April 14th 2016 BOT Presentation Transcript
• Why Divest? Report
• DU Clarion Articles
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram
• YouTube

Contributed by:

Sarah Steck

Back in 2014, a small group of frustrated students from the University of Denver called out to the rest of the student body, staff, administration, professors, alumni, and contributing donors to organize in order to fight the school's investment in fossil fuels. They came together, forming the official activist student organization Divest DU, to point out the contradictions existing between the university's mission statement and their investments, demanding their actions change to become aligned with their mission statement.

The University’s mission statement claims it to be a “great private University dedicated to the public good.” However, their actions do not reflect this as they continue to invest their endowments into the fossil fuel industry that harms the state of our planet. Their investments work to support the main source of carbon emission that is a major contribution to climate change, according to the scientific consensus. The club stated, “It is immoral for our school to be presenting itself as a champion of environmental sustainability while it profits from climate destruction.”

One challenge that Divest DU faces is that the University is a private institution, meaning its financial records are not forced to be made available to the public by law, as we see with public universities. The school’s refusal to to release this information works to disadvantage Divest Du because they are unable to present quantitative facts that portray the impact these investments have on the university and environment. Furthermore, these facts would attract more people to get involved because it reveals the significance of the issue making it a reality, which increases the call for action, thus strengthening the power of the movement. Lilly Goss, a core member of the group, elaborated on this idea, explaining that education is the most important thing with activism because you need to know in order to act, open up the discussion, polarize campus, and push them to feel something. One of the goals of Divest DU emphasises this need for knowledge; transparency, achieved by students overlooking the process of divesting, banning investment in the top 200 fossil fuel entities and reinvesting in things that reverse the environmental damage done by fossil fuels.

Why it’s working:

The movement’s will to fight has been significantly increased by Trump’s administration. His actions, in comparison to Obama’s, are working to support climate change denial and corporate America. The number of members participating has grown as the environment is threatened since the recent election. Divest DU’s position has also reached over 1,700 signatures. Although there has not been any divesting, Goss described that Divest DU is making progress through the increase of participation that demonstrates the topic being open up for discussion. She continues to say that the formal, graduated president said this year more progress has been made than all other years combined.

Why it’s not working:

The group has a rather large social media presence, which is good for organizing and exchanging information. However, the presence has resulted in more slacktivism. This can be seen in the ratio of petition signatures and people showing up to the rallies and other events. Divest DU has achieved over 1,700 signatures, however the average meeting size is only 30 and the largest crowd at an event was just over 125. The slacktivism leads to less people advocating at events, which is detrimental to the group's force, as having less people increases the likelihood of and severity of punishment for rowdy behavior. This ultimately makes the movements events easier to ignore and keep the fossil fuel investments.

In addition, chancellor Chopp and her board of trustees claim that the profit from these investments goes towards things such as scholarships, which allow students from lower income families to be less affected by the coast. Therefore divestment could potentially harm the opportunities the university offers to low income students.    

Key tactics:

Some of the tactics Divest DU uses are disruptive rallies, protests, walkouts, and disruption of opponents gatherings, or “march ins.” These events call upon the board of trustees and the university’s chancellor, Rebecca Chopp to divest in order to protect our futures. At these events the organization presents facts about climate change, the actions of Trump’s administration, and give personal insight. This past January, Divest DU, along with 40 other universities nationwide, walked out in protest. This event was organized by the Fossil Fuel Divestment Student Network, showing how this global issue can be battled through local action and local goals.

Another tactic used is artistic vigil displayed on the “free speech wall.” Students painted “you said no but we won’t stop,” “put your $$$ where your mouth is,” and “@ chancellor Chopp.” here they balance art with message, demonstrate their experience, and call out to a specific person to address their demands.

A new tactic Divest DU uses that is not in Beautiful Troubles is Inside Man.  According to Goss the group has a strong relationship with someone on the board of trustees, which determine whether or not the school will divest. This tactic is helpful because it provides a middleman between the two, thus helping the organization's points maintain validity, and not go ignored by the power hierarchy of the board of trustees. In addition, having an inside man allows Divest DU to get insight into the perspectives of board, allowing them to adjust their approaches as they see fit.  

Key principles:

A key principle executed by Divest DU is bringing the issue home. This is done by making a far away, global issue feel smaller by addressing it locally and setting achievable, smaller goals. This increases participation because it makes it personal, raises the hope that the movement can achieve its goals and people feel that their contributions make a difference.    

Another key principle is choosing tactics that support your strategy. Divest DU demonstrates a campaign made up of related, interconnected tactics that have a specific target, are planned far in advance and are advertised via social media.. They host events where they meet their target head on, such as presentations to the board, and also events such as rallies that are meant to call upon the public to take action.

A final key principle is taking leadership from those most impacted. Divest DU explains it is their generation that will experience more negatives effects of climate change, thus they believe the choice should be up to made by them, as they are the future.

Beautiful Trouble – Jeff Chang – Case Study

 https://www.google.com/search?q=jeff+chang&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidrvTu2aDUAhUj4IMKHbC8B9AQ_AUICygC&biw=1600&bih=878#imgrc=IXBn2k093hbUgM:

Imagined Communities

New Principle: Make the Art Good

Where: USA

When: 90’s –now

Practitioners – Artists

Contributed By – Morgan Carter

            “The art must be good” are the words announced confidently by Jeff Chang, renowned author of books discussing race, culture, and the arts. He attended University of California Berkeley, University of California Los Angeles, and is now the Executive Director of the Institute for Diversity in the Arts at Stanford. In addition, he has written the books Can’t Stop Won’t Stop, Total Chaos, Who We Be, and We Gon’ Be Alright. This case looks into the formation of communities and how best they are promoted and sustained. Movements and communities are sustained through validation as well as through the creation of “good art”

            Much of his work focuses on race relations as well as the Hip-Hop era, and the intersection of those two themes. “Imagined Communities” is the idea of groups of people feeling united and connected to one another in a sense of community that is not as much seen as it is felt. The media offers a way to form these imagined communities; avenues like “Black Twitter”, first brought nation-wide outrage to the murder of Trayvon Martin.

            In addition, imagined communities can be formed by hip-hop, which is a large focus in much of his work. The idea perpetuated by these mediums is that there need to be support for these communities. In the words of Chang, preaching to the choir is just part of the job. “So what” if sometimes the audience is not always outside of the expected crowd? The point is to make the works, the art, available and accessible so that anyone can benefit. If the audience ends up being the same people, who cares? It is necessary for people to enjoy these pieces. This is seen in the Hip-hop movement, which was originally started as an art form for young and oppressed Black people in the 90s. Hip-hop became a form of returning power to the people in the form of cultural power and expression.

            The Principle created through this implementation of imagined communities through media and reaffirmation is “Make the Art Good”. Jeff Chang believes that the art has to be good. If the art is not good, the message will be completely lost, muddled, and unimportant; the only way to truly have the art recognized and appreciated is if the craft is good. Chang used examples such as the Yes Men, who are very funny, Hip-hop, which is great music, and his book, which had to be well-written in order to be recognized at all.

Principles Used Here: Know Your Cultural Terrain, Consider Your Audience, Balance Art With Message

Know Your Cultural Terrain:

            Imagined Communities function because they capitalize on bridging and connecting bonds, especially on a cultural basis. The Principle discusses the need to understand and know cultural terrain in order to better connect, and imagined communities are in existence because of this exact idea.

Consider Your Audience:

            Imagined Communities work based on the community. The formation and creation of communities is key. However, this is done based on the audience. There must be commonalities to tap into, similar grievances, and aligning passions as well.

Balance Art with Message:

            When asked, Chang specifically mentioned how he saw this principle. While the message is critical, so is the art. They must both be good and important in order to reach audiences and be viewed as valid and noteworthy in the social conversations.

As an additional note, I would love to have this submitted! 

Morgan Carter

Landmarks Illinois "Save Prentice" Case Study

Case Background

            In 2007, Northwestern wanted to demolish Prentice Women’s Hospital, a building owned by the University that was built in 1975.  The hospital was designed by renowned modern architect, Bertrand Goldberg, and was an example of the brutalism avant-garde style.  While the layout of the facility was exceptional for carrying out hospital duties and patient satisfaction, the style of the building received a lot for public backlash for being aesthetically unappealing.  Here is a picture of it:

            Many residents of Chicago took issue with Northwestern’s plans to build an entirely new hospital—primarily environmentalists, tax-payers, and architect buffs—but Landmarks Illinois took over as the group that would lead the fight to protect the building.  They first built a strong media campaign through the use of press releases and social media pages, which later got them national news attention with the New York Times.  Lisa Dichierra, whom I interviewed, was a huge help in using the media to gain public attention.  Landmarks hired three architectural firms to prove that Northwestern could use this building for all of the purposes they desired.  Later they formed multiple partnerships, including coalitions with Preservation Chicago and the international organization Docomomo, from which they received funding for their campaign.

The huge attention this case received encouraged the mayor to force city-planning groups to evaluate the building, something Northwestern had completely avoided before.  They were able to landmark the building; however, the city soon revoked it.  Lisa said it was ultimately a case of power; Northwestern and the city were going do what they desired no matter how much attention was brought to the issue.  The city justified it to the public saying, “It was for the greater good of the city of Chicago.” However, the attention this media campaign, “Save Prentice,” received put a check on the city.  Landmarks made them look bad by proving nothing was wrong with the building, and it would be a complete waste of tax money and resources to build this project. They put negative attention on the city for how they handled the situation, and made it public through the media.  The government is now much more hesitant when Landmarks gets involved because they do not want to look corrupt or receive the same national public dissent.       

Key Tactics at Work

Direct action is the tactic that was most effective for Landmarks and they used direct action in a number of ways to put pressure on Northwestern and the city.  By creating a strong social media campaign and getting press releases into the right hands, Landmarks was able to get the attention of the New York Times to document a piece on the issue at hand.  The campaign continued to grow after teaming up with big organizations that helped with funding.  A lot of burden was put on the city because of the national attention it received.  The power dynamics shifted because the public was putting pressure on them and Landmarks made the city look corrupt. 

Later they formed a protest rally with leaders of all of the coalitions speaking over microphone outside of Prentice.  Hundreds of people showed up with signs to protest.  Here is a picture of a teacher at Northwestern during the rally:

Creative petition delivery is another important tactic used by Landmarks.  A major exhibition for Bertrand Goldberg at the Art Institute occurred, and Landmarks formed a petition gathering where they handed out pamphlets and protested the demolition of Prentice Women’s Hospital.  This tactic was extremely helpful in building public dissent because it informed people who were interested in architecture that this building would be demolished, and it was a sure-fire way to get a lot of signatures. Here’s a photo of one of the posters from this event:

One of the creative tactics Lisa used that is not mentioned in Beautiful Trouble was rallying nostalgic women who were treated by the hospital, as well as kids to protest.  She said the building held a special place in her heart because she gave birth to her two children at Prentice, and she knew many other women who felt this way too.  Lisa got her girlfriends to engage in protest with their young kids outside the building.  Here are a few examples of this: 

This use of creative protest made more of the public sympathetic to the cause: when young kids are protesting, it captures the public’s attention and sympathy even more so.  It makes the city look more heartless to the public eye for going through with their plans to rebuild Prentice.  This campaign was effective because of the array of different groups that it bothered, including environmentalists, taxpayers, architects and people who enjoy architecture, as well as people that were treated by the hospital.  They were angry because they proved the building was full functioning, and saw the new project as a waste of money and resources.  Lisa was able to find young moms that were nostalgic for their experiences at the hospital.  They were then able to plan a kid-involved protest.  The city looked like a joke even more then they did previously because of this event in my opinion.

Key Principle at Work

            This case speaks to the idea that protest movements, while often unsuccessful in achieving main goals, are important because the attention they build.  By putting the city and Northwestern University under the spotlight for their flawed plans to demolish and rebuild Prentice Women’s Hospital, Landmarks Illinois put a check on the city for future benefit.  Chicago is now much more hesitant when Landmarks gets involved because they had such a successful protest, and they do not want the same public backlash that they received in 2007.  While the city continued through with their plans to rebuild the hospital because of their power over Landmarks, the organization placed power over the city through their campaign.  This speaks to the struggles of activism, but also the hidden gradual progress that protest can make.  While they failed to protect Prentice Women’s Hospital, they now have more success and the city is more cooperative with them.