Endowment Transparency at Duke:
a Qualitative Analysis and Assessment of Strategies
Submitted 4/23/2012
Lucas Spangher
Env 298
Dr. Charlotte Clark
Duke University
Note: The following study is not presented in a typical manner. Although it follows
traditional guidelines, it features a prolonged section on an action plan that is
intended to exist independently of the research paper. Therefore, although the
research paper without the action plan has a length of 15 pages (as required), the
addition of the action plan, unfortunately, makes it longer. This coupling—the
research paper and the action plan—is intended to be a resource for those wishing to
join in the push for endowment transparency starting next September.
The citations generally follow an MLA format, but have been represented in the text
as brackets with numbers in an effort to reduce space, decrease distractions, and
increase clarity.
1
Introduction
In the 1980’s, a movement to divest from South African holdings swept America’s
colleges. Duke, perhaps unsurprisingly, was among these institutions. In 1986, Duke’s students
“set up a mock jail, shantytown and demonstrations” on the walkway of the BC plaza [1]. The
newly elected President Brodie, “having little experience in the matter”, had the students and
faculty “arrested and brought in the country court” [2]. Massive student protest ensued, and a
vigil was held during a Board of Trustees (B.O.T.) meeting. Divestment from South Africa was
agreed on in a 31-7 vote [1].
This was, undeniably, a victory of sorts. Yet there is no rest for the weary. Only a couple of
years after the fight for South African divestment, the fight against open investment in Duke
Energy [2] began. This fight has grown and fallen throughout the years; the most recent
attempt to address the issue was in 2008 [3]. Presently, students are leading an effort to divest
from conflict minerals. As successful as the Apartheid divestment was, it was an attack of a
symptom rather then an underlying problem. This systemic problem, I claim, is a closed
endowment.
If we accept the following deductive premises, then it becomes logically apparent as to
why this is true. Our first premise is the following: (i) the more transparent an organization is,
the easier it is for a third party to observe its practices. This premise is definitional; it follows
from simple physical interactions. (ii) The more an entity is observed, the more it is likely to
behave in accordance to certain situational roles and rules. This premise is backed up by
centuries of empirical evidence; much of our economic system has built in levels of oversight
for this reason. An example of this is “Transparency International”, an organization that fights
for political transparency in order to “take action against corruption” [12]. (iii) Duke has a non2
open endowment. This premise is not a priori true, but if we examine evidence from the
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in High Education: Sustainability Tracing
Assessment and Ranking System (AASHE STARS), we can see that Duke’s endowment is clearly
non-open [27] (see Appendix).
From these premises, it follows that in order to increase what we would consider morally
just, we must increase the transparency of Duke’s endowment.
Research Question and Author’s Involvement:
I became interested in this initiative as a result of my involvement in Occupy Duke. As I
slept in the tents, participated in the teach-ins, and talked to the passerby, it seemed we were
promulgating some positive change. At the same time, I started talking to a group of students
who had led the thrust for endowment transparency prior to my matriculation at Duke. From
this, it appeared increasingly evident that our change was asymptotic. No matter how open to
our ideas the general student body could become, the fact that the Board of Trustees could be
heavily investing into massive international bodies seemed to me to make our effort somewhat
trivial.
One particular “symptom” caught my eye. Since the early 1920’s, there existed an explicit
ledger in the statement of investiture that required the managers of the Duke Endowment to
invest heavily in Duke Energy, which has historically been one of the U.S.’s least progressive
energy companies1. Although there was a push to divest in the late 80’s, “there exists evidence
[to suggest that] Duke is still invested in Duke Energy” [3]. In press releases, spokespeople of
1
For example, in 2002, researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst identified Duke Energy as “the
46th-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with roughly 36 million pounds of toxic
chemicals released annually into the air” [23].
3
the Duke endowment regularly allow that they are invested in Duke Energy2, and the Managing
Director of the Duke Endowment, Todd Walker, is the Director of Long Term Investments at
Duke Energy [23]. There are social as well as environmental issues at stake here. Socially, Duke
Energy is currently in the process of opening a new coal plant in downtown Durham, raising
prices in poverty stricken areas of Durham in order to pay for it3. Environmentally, we simply
can’t have more coal plants. However, although fighting for endowment transparency may
seem an indirect way to challenge this, it might be ultimately longer lasting and more
productive then fighting for just another statement of divestiture.
With this in mind, it behooves those interested in bringing about transparency to think
strategically [3]. Psychosocial experiments in areas such as groupthink have highlighted
phenomenon such as the “Bandwagon Effect”, the observation that people are more or less
likely to “jump on a cause” if they believe others are doing it too [26]. And so, I thought, for
parts of a movement that require a large number of participants, we need to succeed on our
first try. Since people generally do not support things they think will fail, an issue that has
failed in the memory of its audience is likely to not win again.
Thus, I believe that the following questions are uniquely pertinent for me to answer
before starting any activism. (i) To what extent can campus activism play a role in influencing
the B.O.T’s decision to make the endowment open? (ii) What factors shape administrator’s
motivation, and how prominently does student pressure figure in this; i.e., how well does the
As stated in Philanthropy Journal, “Six years ago, three-quarters of the foundation’s assets were tied to Duke Energy,
founded by James Buchanan Duke, who endowed the foundation in 1924….the foundation now has 16% of its assets in
power company stocks.” [24]
3 The Herald Sun chronicles a protest against this [25]. An interviewee of mine summed it up in the following: “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]
2
4
administration listen to the students? (iii) What specific strategies are most likely to work at
Duke?
Methods:
The epistemological framework with which I am approaching it is that of a Constructivist
perspective; I am assuming that there are real answers to these questions but that these can
only be partially understood. I also assume that experiential knowledge of the situation
increases understanding. Thus, a summative evaluation of case studies via mixed methods
analysis appears most useful. My analysis is fixed in setting and dealing with current events;
thus, “boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” [33], and case
study is perhaps most effective. This would consist of a material culture review and interviews
with different groups of people.
Of the Duke personnel, I was able to interview two student participants in the 2008 push
for transparency: although all interviewees have allowed used of their names, here I will call
them Alvarez and Robel. I spoke to a Duke student and a Duke professor involved in Occupy
Duke who have expressed interest in participating in a push for transparency; they are
Williams and Nelson. Finally, I was able to interview with the Director of Sustainability at
Duke, McDaniels.
As part of the summative evaluation, I determined that a comparative analysis of a school
that had successfully opened its endowment would provide a crucial perspective. Thus, a
selection of schools was considered, determined from AASHE STARS and the Sustainable
Endowment Initiative (SEI). STARS lists five schools that have achieved an open endowment,
and SEI lists seven. These numbers are beyond the scope of the research material for this class.
5
In order to determine which single campus to target, I considered other factors, amalgamated
from AASHE, SEI, and US News and World Report [27, 28, 29]:
Figure 1: Decision table for comparison schools
From this chart, the selection of a single school was accomplished. Bard and Oberlin were
eliminated as they are far from Duke in terms of rank, size, endowment size, and type.
Although Ithaca is closer in ranking, its endowment is much smaller then Duke’s. Between Yale
and Dartmouth, Yale is more similar to Duke in terms of type. Dartmouth, meanwhile, is more
similar to Duke in terms of rank and size of endowment. Upon further research, not a single
corroboration of Yale’s AAHSE listing of an open endowment could be found, via any news
source, endowment progress report, informational page, etc. While Dartmouth is not yet a
member of AASHE STARS, Dartmouth’s school newspaper, Endowment Report of 2012, and
Wikipedia article all corroborate that Dartmouth has an open endowment. Thus, Dartmouth
was selected as the optimal comparison to Duke.
Once I selected Dartmouth, I determined which individuals to contact from the following
three categories: administration/trustees, professors, and students leaders. Of these, I gave
preference to greater length of tenure at Dartmouth and greater relation to environmentalism.
Assuming non-responsiveness from a large portion of this list, I chose 5 student presidents of
environmental clubs, 7 professors in general areas of sustainability, and 9 administrators.
6
Of these subsets of Dartmouth personnel, I was able to interview two student activists:
Szykpo, the head of the Campus Farm, and Karen, the head of the environmentalist group
(ECO). Also, I spoke to a professor that does work in environmental politics. Carey. Finally, I
was able to interview with Dartmouth’s Director of Sustainability, Kerr.
All interviews were transcribed and analyzed through NVivo 9.2, a qualitative analysis
program that can systematically code phrases, words, or sentences to nodes of my design. The
node structure I devised as I transcribed the first three interviews and looked for themes, is
displayed in the Appendix.
Results
First, in the summative evaluation, I pieced together the storyline of the 2008 push for
endowment transparency at Duke. The main sources for this were the interviews of Robel and
Alvarez, student newspaper articles, and emails that Robel provided between himself and the
student government. (Figure 2):
January 2008
Sept 2008
January 2009
Figure 2: Timeline of the events comprising of Duke’s 2008 push for endowment transparency.
7
There was a significantly fast rise to prominence for the issue at Duke. “We got about a
half dozen groups fairly quickly”, Robel stated [2]. Then, talks with administration occurred
behind closed doors and failed. Following this, DSG started to pull out and with that, the
interest of the general student body seemed to fade (“It became clear to us that DSG wasn’t
really going to take this issue seriously” [2]). A brief period of Direct Action ensued. (Those
who participated request anonymity). During this phase, for example, a group of concerned
students staged an “Allen Fake In” by breaking into the administration’s offices during the
night, chaining the doors shut, and exiting, leaving a radio booming specific demands. No
tangible positive response was observed from the administration as a result of these actions.
I have pieced together a timeline of the events surrounding Dartmouth’s push towards
endowment transparency. This was done through the Kerr interview and analysis of LA Times
articles.
Figure 3: Timeline representation about the events leading up to Dartmouth's vote to open their endowment.
8
Dartmouth’s initiative started from a couple of motivated students, who successfully
erected and lived in a shantytown on Dartmouth’s campus. Although somewhat large, their
numbers were constant, and support for them was not growing [6].
However, Dartmouth then experienced a unique act: “The ‘Dartmouth Committee to
Beautify the Green Before Winter Carnival,’” took sledgehammers to the shantytown, arguing,
“The shantytown ‘does not constitute an allowable protest.’” [7]. Although no one was injured,
several of the structures were “destroyed” before policemen arrived. Major newspapers
reported this event. Then, with the world watching, Dartmouth’s administration made the
startling decision to waive disciplinary action on the attackers. There was international outcry;
the school was called “racist” and “bigoted” [7]. Numerous vigils, and sit-ins were staged.
Whereas the Apartheid protests were “about an issue not directly connected to Dartmouth’s
students”, the administration’s actions were seen as “directly threatening the free speech of
the students” [5] and attracted huge numbers. Following the demands of the protesters,
Dartmouth’s B.O.T voted to divest from their South African holdings and open their
investments.
There are two more historical narratives that I will also touch on. The first is Duke’s AntiApartheid Demonstration. The events are presented in my opening paragraph; in short, Duke
students protested against Apartheid investments until President Brodie ordered them
arrested. Then, massive sit-ins and vigils caused the B.O.T. to revote and divest. The second is
the Occupy Duke movement. As an active Occupier, I will draw upon my own experiences in
Duke’s small but prolonged protest against general corporate power structures.
Analysis:
Comparison of the Two Cases:
9
Perhaps the most prominent reason to discuss Dartmouth is to take a stab at the
question, “Can what works at Dartmouth work at Duke?” First, we must evaluate the similarity
in circumstances – the “surrounding scaffolds” [6] that helped these events to occur. In terms
of the student demographic, it is unclear to what extent the organizers of the Dartmouth
shantytown were a part of mainstream Dartmouth culture. However, based on my observation
of Occupy Duke, I claim that the initial shantytown occupants represented a relatively fringe
subset of Dartmouth. The parallels are clear: at a small, elite school like Duke with relatively
wealthy students who do not daily encounter the effects of workers discrimination and
political misrepresentation, few individuals have the direct impetus to become involved in a
physically and mentally taxing activity like Occupy Duke. It seems likely that the makeup of
students was similar at Dartmouth, whose students were not faced with the effects of
apartheid on a daily basis. Dartmouth’s violent counter group, after all, were preparing for the
“winter festival” [7], which was a large (and mainstream) campus celebration; at that point, the
shantytown was seen as being against mainstream campus enjoyment.
This is similar to Duke’s 2008 push for endowment transparency. Both of the students
that I interviewed self-admitted to not being part of a “varsity sport, mainstream selective
living group, or prominent campus group” like Duke University Improve (DUI), The Pitchforks
(a famous male a cappella group), or DefMo (a dance group) [3]. And neither were any other
students of the “the small group who started it all” [2]. The list of co-signers on the Endowment
Transparency editorial includes small, fringe-like groups of students such as “Duke for
Animals”, “Duke Students against Sweatshops”, and the LGBT focused group “Blue Devils
10
United”, but lack “National Panhellenic Society”, “Duke Student Government”, and “Duke
College Republicans” after all of these major normative campus forces declined to sign4 [11].
This shared quality goes beyond just the demographic of the students and the origin of
the idea, but the idea itself. Like the students, the idea was fringe and contrary to a mainstream
way of life. Thus, it took something other than the quality of the idea for Dartmouth’s protests
to catch on.
Ironically, it was the sledgehammer wielding counter protesters who probably allowed
for the adoption of the “shantytown occupiers’ ideals into mainstream culture” [6]. Upon
analysis, this appears to be the biggest difference between the Duke movement and similar
Duke movements like Occupy Duke and the Dartmouth movement. Dartmouth’s movement
had an element of “clear and present danger that all students could rally against” [6]. The
sledgehammers and subsequent administrative decisions represented a massive, unexpected
event that allowed the activists to paint the administration as being against the general student
interest “without simultaneously painting the activists as being against the collective interest”
[3]. In response, there was also a “huge amount of public scrutiny. [Student outrage] was alive
and kicking”. [5] As this indicates, “public media attention created huge pressure for the
administration and the trustees”. [6] Indeed, the “arrests and police involvement were a big
deal” [5]. Likewise, Duke’s Anti Apartheid Demonstration, had Brodie’s arresting of students
activists, which “really served as a catalyst for getting divestment passed through the Board”
[12].
But the most recent 2008 push for endowment transparency had neither of these.
Instead, it came under criticism from numerous sources for acting against the general
Generally, this seems to be the case of activist movements at these elite schools: those seeking proximal
change on their own university are rarely part of mainstream culture.
4
11
students’ interest of a healthily returning endowment. As one editorial writer said in the
Chronicle, “professional money managers might be better at managing money than 20something kids too blinded by saving the world to worry about the University’s financial
solvency” [13]. As most of my interviewers indicated, the issue quickly lost its relevance to the
general students in its abstraction.
Administration Responsiveness
One similar theme, it seems, is the general unresponsiveness of administration to changes
requested by the students. Administration at these elite schools was, for the most part,
disliked.
At Duke, the student activists were generally quite unhappy with the way the
administration had handled their initiative. As Robel said, “I think [the push of 2008] mainly
reflects the general powerlessness of students to affect policy change at the administrative
level at Duke”. When asked, he stated that “From 1 to 10 with 10 as perfectly receptive, [Duke’s
administration] is a 2, 3 maybe?” He followed up with, “I don’t have much faith in the
administration’s willingness to actually do stuff” [2]. Alvarez similarly stated, “President
Brodhead is an [explicative]. I think that, in today’s climate, bringing student pressure to the
administration would be a waste” [3].
At Dartmouth, too, there were mentions towards the administration as being inefficient
and unresponsive. As Szykpo said, “As far as the administration's attitude towards student
activism/etc, I find the administration to be very unresponsive. I'd probably give it a 3 or 4 or
something [if 10 were the most]” [14]. Kerr, Dartmouth’s Director of Sustainability, stated, “I’m
on Dartmouth’s ACIR [Academic Council for Investment Responsibility]…They listen
intermittently to the student’s recommendations.” [6].
12
However, Duke’s Director of Sustainability offered a different view. “I’m from two state
schools”, she started, “and I’m always impressed by the responsiveness of the senior staff. They
realize that Duke students are far more active than one might think from the outside.” [17]
Also, in a study entitled “Multiversity, University Size, Quality, and Student Protest”,
quantitative researchers present a finding that, after controlling for many factors such as
average intelligence and wealth of students, religiosity, and location, the number of protests is
most significantly affected by the size of the school. They attribute this to the increasing
inability for the administration to treat students as individuals as the size of the university
increases [34].
However, I suggest that these counters do not disqualify the evidence presented earlier.
There still is the possibility that Duke’s administration is inefficient and cumbersome.
Although somewhat sad, it simply might be the case that state schools, with 10,000’s of
students, might be even more inefficient and cumbersome. This certainly doesn’t mean that the
Duke Administration has nowhere to improve.
General Model
According to my interviews, I put together the following model on administrative
motivation:
13
(iii)
(v)
(ii)
(i)
(iv)
(vi) – ?
Figure 4: Interactions and Influences between main priorities of the administration; the big arrow indicates the
conclusion of the following section. (i) and (ii) are “priority loci”, discussed later; (iii) and (iv) are feedback loops
between the priority loci, and (v) and (vi) are feedback loops within the priority loci.
This model attempts to communicate the following. The main two “loci of priority” that
the interviewees’ responses indicated were the following: (i) concern about economic well
being of the school and (ii) the social well being of the school.
I entered the study believing economics to be the sole derivative of all motivation. One
can logically relate the desire to maintain public image to the institution desiring to maintain a
steady base on income. However, as an interview with Nelson illuminated, “Oftentimes, an
institution becomes its own public being. As its public image increasingly reflects on those
responsible for decision making, it becomes, through their desires, increasingly cognizant of its
social and continued social well-being” [15]. And this certainly seems the case. Although,
logically speaking, Duke could “reasonably expect to at least fill its 1987 class after the 1986
arrests” given admission trends [16] (and, because its endowment was closed, could
14
reasonably expect that its financial holdings would not be effected at all by the linkage), it still
reacted in a very sensitive manner to the public accusations made against the arrests.
So thus, there seem to be these two main priority loci as listed. My interviewees agreed
on the manners in which they affect each other positively and negatively. The more money an
institution makes, (iii) the better it tends to be looked on socially (“increases value”, [2]), and
(iv) vice versa (“increased alumni donation” [8]). There exists an obvious economic feedback
loop: (v) the more money an institution made one year, the more it can be expected to earn the
next year from the stock market. The social feedback loop (vi) was not as clear. If we assume
that ranking is a good proxy for social worth, then perhaps there exists a phenomenon in
which “the better a university is ranked, the more favorably the public sees it and treats it, and
so the better ranked it will be in the future” [16]. However, the time scale for this feedback
loop is likely to be generational, and so confounded by other factors that it may not be worth
speculating about.
Strategies for the Next Push
The model in Figure 6 leaves us with some clear action plans. We have the six following
options:
Priority Loci: (i) economics
(ii) public image
Feedback loops: (iii) economic  social,
(iv) social  economic
(v) economiceconomic
(vi) social  social.
Figure 5: Strategies, based on the model
15
In order to bring pressure on the university, the most explicit act one can do would be to
attack a priority locus directly; this is also possibly the hardest. Attacking (i) economics
directly would mean immediately detracting money from the University, and (ii) attacking
public image directly would be doing something that would make the University look negative.
Using the model to explain the case studies that we have talked about, it seems clear that the
Dartmouth’s Anti Apartheid Demonstration directly attacked the public image of the
university. This strategy can be called the “Critical Mass Strategy”, as it relies on a critical mass
of students [2].
To work, a Critical Mass Strategy seems to need the following three factors: a direct
narrative that can motivate the general interest, evidence for clear and present danger by the
administration against the students, and mass media attention. We have the first: Duke Energy
Narrative is appropriate enough. The other two seem to be outside of an activist’s control;
after all, the Dartmouth Shantytown occupiers couldn’t have anticipated an attack in the
middle of the night. This suggests that the Critical Mass strategy might be too chancy to risk.
Attacking (iii) and (iv) might be promising, but, ultimately, seem to me to be too abstract
and may too require many followers. It is hard enough to garner basic support for something
that has clear and direct effects, but to get one hundred people to devote time to hurting public
opinion in order to decrease Duke’s earnings years down the line would be extremely difficult.
Also, either option might run the risk of looking too calculating or complex for newcomers to
join in and participate, and so either would have to rely on a large core of dedicated
individuals. As my interviewees said, “don’t start with antagonism” [17], “don’t go the social
route” [2], and “don’t try to be too abstract or subvert the interest of the people” [3].
16
An easier alternative for our case might be to attack (v), the economic feedback loop. This
could theoretically be done in a very efficient manner. Utilizing a small base of supporters, one
can target a subset of powerful donors and ask for their support on putting pressure on the
institution by promising to stop their donations if the B.O.T. do not change an issue. This works
well for our scenario because we have a clear narrative that we can use to pitch, and the issue
of endowment transparency directly affects the money that donors give. In a sense, we have a
very clear and present danger already built in.
Action Plan
(I) Step One: Starting out Cooperatively.
Overwhelmingly, when asked for advice on strategies for accomplishing goals, the
interviewers argued in support of talking to the administration about what we want with a in a
friendly manner. “Establish a dialogue”, stated Robel [2]. “You want to make the effort to look
as though you’re willing to cooperate and work with the administration”, said McDaniels [17].
The best–scenario consequence of this is that it might result in the desired policy. “There are
starting to be talks in the administration about endowment transparency”, stated McDaniels.
Given the theme of an unresponsive administration, I don’t think the desired level of
responsiveness is probable. But that does not exclude starting ‘friendly-first’; as Robel says,
“You can always start cooperatively and then go to pressure, but not necessarily the other
way” [2]. Indeed, even after directly blasting the administration for not cooperating with them,
Alvarez states, “so far as you subvert the school process, you seem to be a fringe anarchist-type
cat” [3]. He suggests that if one starts out cooperative and is forced to resort to pressure, then
the administration looks to be more in the wrong. As my analysis of historical data indicated, a
crucial event in both Dartmouth’s and Duke’s Anti-Apartheid Demonstrations was an instance
17
where the administration seemed clearly against the student interest. Thus, it is in our favor to
start friendly towards the administration; to talk and meet with environmentally conscious
administrators, get them on our side, and take the message as high as it will go. As all my
research indicated, this would give us legitimacy in all perspectives.
(II) Step Two: Attack the economic feedback loop
As the evidence indicates, the ‘friendly-first’ strategy may fail to produce meaningful
results. This is an issue, as we are working with limited time. As Robel indicated, we “basically
want to do this in 9 months”. His rationale was the following: if the process lasted to the
summer, it could be severely compromised. There would be little guarantee that all
participants would remain on campus, and the agenda facing the administration would change.
Also, all seniors involved will have graduated.
So, we need to have set a date beforehand in which we will assess the progress that we
are making. Based on my analysis of the other events’ timelines, it appears as though the time
that it takes for administrative events to progress is rarely greater then a month. Thus, I
propose that, if we start on the second week of school, we wait four weeks before progressing
with step 2.
If progress is indeed stalling (i.e., if we fail to get a meeting with the B.O.T., or if responses
from administration are continually lukewarm), then we move onto the second phase. Here,
we will contact as many alumni donors as possible, asking them to consider withholding future
donations unless endowment transparency is provided.
This can be pitched quite nicely; the donors may not realize that unstipulated donations
“go to the endowment, instead of directly to immediate student welfare” [17]. The simple
question can be asked: “Are you comfortable with not knowing what institutions your money
18
is going to support?” This can simulate some sort of clear and present danger to the donors
(they may be in danger of unknowingly supporting a corporation they don’t agree with), which
might be very effective. It can then be followed up with the Duke Energy Narrative. Since an
alumni that is willing to be a donor is most likely philanthropic enough to be aware of social
and environmental issues, this narrative is likely to appeal to a broad array of donors. And,
because these can be described in terms of Durham residents, it has proximal impact that
provides another clear and present danger: Duke Energy might be directly effecting the
welfare of a city that alumni donors spent four years in. Thus, I believe that we have the tools
to successfully mobilize alumni donors against a closed endowment.
(III) Step Three: Involve the Students
If Steps One and Two fail, then we must leverage increasing pressure against the
administration. This is when it’s best to open the movement up to the general student
populace. The evidence indicates, though, that targeted use of the students is better then
general use, such as petition signing or general advocacy. The question that I wrestled with
was the following: how can we broaden the base of actors while at the same time focusing on
the economic feedback loop of strategy (v)?
Based on my participation in Greenpeace’s Student Activist Network Conference and
analysis of the data I collected, I believe that the following strategy is the answer: get the
students to leverage their payments to the university to our advantage. The student has no
power to withhold their tuition money from Duke, nor should this be on the table for us to ask
if we wish to maintain legitimacy. But the payers of the tuition have power to make requests
nonetheless. Therefore, for our third step, we get the students interested enough to pressure
their parents to make statements to the Board requesting endowment transparency. This can be
19
done via the same Duke Energy narrative as in Step Two. As organizers, we can facilitate the
communications between students, parents, and administrators by providing letters for
students to sign and make notes on, mailing them to parents, and providing sample text for the
parents to mail back to the administration [31]. I agree with Robel that physical “snail mail”
will make the loudest “statement” [3], and that scores of letters from parents requesting
endowment transparency might be substantially sway the Board’s minds. And in order to
inform the students, a full on written campaign, with editorial articles and mailing list
bombardments coupled with a physical present of tabling and flyering will be the most
expedient way to get support. As a newly accepted columnist for the Chronicle of 2012-2013, I
am in a position to spearhead this campaign.
(IV) Step Four: Direct Action and Public Attention
As a last resort and by early April at the latest (before exams get underway), we want to
have a drastic recourse that we can resort to. This is direct action. Having primed the student
population by garnering small participation from many people, we will be in a unique situation
to pull together vigils and protests. If we are at this point, we can pitch the notion that the
administration has ignored our written campaign and letters of concern, thereby providing a
clear and present danger by presenting the administrations responsiveness as minimal. Those
students who made statements will necessarily feel slighted, and thus, likely participate.
This must be also coupled with letters to public media and newspapers. If we have
reached this point, the movement will have become enough of a narrative to be of interest to
the public. And coupling media attention with ongoing protests seems to me to be the most
effective form. I speculate that the best feedback loop for successful vigils is providing a
definite sense of accomplishment, and focused media attention creates this.
20
Hopefully, all this will be enough to if achieve some bit of the change we would like to see.
Step Five: Compromise
If the desired result of complete transparency has not been achieved by the end of April,
it is in our best interest to compromise and allow some advancement on the issue. This might
open the way for increased action in the years to come.
Arguments Against an Open Endowment and Counters
The assumption that an open endowment would be generally beneficial was made early
on in my research due to its inherent logic. However, several responses I received point
towards arguments that might be used against transparency. Thus, it is very important to be
prepared for these arguments.
As mentioned in the comparative analysis, the first and foremost argument that the
students in 2008 experienced was “the endowment requires closed-ness in order to continue
to return”. Robel stated, “doing it in 2008 was the awful timing, as the endowment had just lost
a fifth of its value.” Any mention about investment responsibility might “compromise the
strategic advantage of the endowment” [2].
But this argument doesn’t coincide with factual evidence. First, Dartmouth achieved an
18.4% return on its open endowment last year [30], and Yale returned 21.4 % on its open
endowment [32]. By contrast, Harvard, Cornell, and Duke, which all feature closed
endowments, returned 24.5%, 21.4%, and 17% [32]. Second, in a world where holdings
change minute to minute, releasing quarterly reports of large holdings is “unlikely to make any
difference in performance” [13]. Third, much Duke family money is currently invested with full
transparency. As one response to an editorial entitled “Leave Investments to DUMAC” stated,
“90% of the Duke family money is invested transparently…. [According to] the annual reports
21
and tax return Form 990's of The Nanaline Duke (James B.'s widow) Fund for Duke University,
the Mary Duke Biddle Foundation (niece) and a foundation established by Mrs. Mary Duke
Biddle Trent Semans (grand niece), all are transparent. Have you heard the Trustees of any of
these institutions say they lost money because of accountability?” [13]. Fourth, many
prominent investors like Warren Buffet voluntarily publish their holdings every year [3]. If it
were truly damaging for them to do so, I find it unlikely that they would continue to publicly
disclose.
Another, argument against endowment transparency is that an open endowment might
be useless if the investments themselves are in closed firms. According to Kerr, “A lot of
Dartmouth’s investments are moving over to closed entities, like securities and hedge funds.”
[6]. However, I think that endowment transparency has practical value despite this. I find it
highly unlikely that, once an endowment is open, it will shift entirely to closed resources. I
claim that the social pressure of reducing transparency would preclude the possibility of this
occurring. Thus, some portion of the endowment will likely remain observable if it is opened
up.
A third claim is that the social good of an open endowment is realized only when a lot of
people consistently view it and comment on it. Many of the students that I emailed declined to
answer based on not knowing enough about the endowment to comment. In fact, one student
group president that responded directed me towards another member of the group who might
know more. Four of five professors apologized and said that they too did not know enough to
comment [18 - 22].
I grant that it is likely the general student populace will never examine the endowment.
But I claim that a large number of people scrutinizing the endowment is not needed. All that is
22
necessary to ensure social responsibility is couple of concerned students that can bring
discrepancies to the general population via the Chronicle and other online sources. The beauty
of an open endowment is that students can investigate based on their advocacy interest, and
most of the yearly endowment statement will likely be covered by the time the next year’s
statement comes out.
The holdings, also, have certain symbolic value that cannot be overstated. It means little
for a University to put money in green buses if it invests in dirty coal. An open endowment will
ensure that, wherever the money actually ends up, the message that the University sends
through its investments will, to the best of its knowledge, be in accordance with the image that
it tries to promulgate. As students of the University, we bear its name, and so these changes
directly affect and influence us. Thus, it is uniquely in our interest to demand an open
endowment.
Reflection on Positionality and Critique on Research
My research is by no means perfect. I was not an experienced interviewer, and I did not
have the time to interview many more people. Indeed, during the course of my study, I found
that I improved in the quality and succinctness of questions that I was able to ask, and was able
to get more out of the interviewers and keep them on focus.
What my study is generally lacking is voice from high up in administration to provide
counters to claims I make. I also target students that have had much contact with the
administration, and perhaps have an overly negative voice coming from students. As a student
activist myself, my positionality is one in which I have experienced bureaucracy, and, although
I tried not to, I subliminally may have presented the administration too negatively. If I were to
interview a different set of students I would probably have a completely different view.
23
If I were to repeat this study, I would consult often with someone of different
positionality than me. I would ask more targeted questions in the first interviews, and attempt
to provide a more balanced final product.
24
Appendix
Figure 8: A snapshot from Duke University's profile on AASHE STARS; note that "investment disclosure" is
empty, with 0 points.
–
–
–
–
–
–
Endowment
• Closed business structure
• Familiar
• Not familiar
B.O.T.
• Returns
• Environmental
Strategies (activism)
External Factors
• Barriers
• Social
• Economic
• Opportunities
Duke
Dartmouth
Figure 9: Node structure used in NVivo coding. During the course of the analysis, I relied heavily on
specific Text Queries for things like “administration” and Matric Queries between Categories like
B.O.T. and “External Factors”.
25
Citations
[1] Dodds, Ford, Grose, Jacobson, Levering, McCorcle, Salus, Shin, Techow, Turner. “A
History of Student Activism at Duke University, 1920-1994”. January 1995. Version 1.2.
[2] Robel, spoken interview. March 23, 2012, Skype.
[3] Alvarez, spoken interview. March 12, 2012, Skype.
[4] AASHE STARS, http://stars.aashe.org.
[5] Duke Chronicle, “Endowment Transparency”, November 2008.
[6] Kerr, spoken interview. March 29, 2012, Skype.
[7] LA Times. Various articles from 1986 regarding Dartmouth Apartheid Era Shantytowns
[8] BC Vancouver Times, Dartmouth Controversy over Demonstrations
[9] Carey. Spoken Interview. March 27, 2012, Skype
[10] “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”. Duke Chronicle. April 3, 2009.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/best-disinfectant
[11] Email Correspondence, Robel. April 3, 2012.
[12] Transparency International. “The Global Coalition against Corruption”
http://www.transparency.org/. Accessed 2012-04-08 17:43:03.
[13] Mulhern. Kevin. “Leave Endowment Management to DUMAC” November, 2009.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/leave-endowment-management-dumac
[14] Szypko, Robert. “Quick Question about Dartmouth Sustainability” Email
Correspondence. April 3, 2012.
[15] Nelson. Spoken Interview, March 29, 2012. In-Person.
[16] Williams. Spoken Interview, April 4, 2012. In-Person.
[17] McDaniels, Director of Duke Sustainability. Spoken interview. April 1, 2012. Phone.
[18] Dr. Howarth. “Question about Sustainability on Dartmouth’s campus” Email
correspondence. March 26, 2012.
26
[19] Michelle Sohn. “Question about Duke’s Endowment” Email Correspondence. March
29, 2012.
[20] Kapuscinsky, Anne. “Question about Dartmouth’s Endowment”. Email
Correspondence. March 22, 2012.
[21] ECO. “Question about Dartmouth’s Endowment” Email Correspondence. March 26,
2012.
[22] “Political Economy Research Institute Toxic 100” Study released May 11, 2006.
retrieved 15 April, 2012.
[23] The Duke Endowment Website, Staff Profile: Todd Walker.
http://www.dukeendowment.org/about-us/staff-todd-walker Accessed April 15, 2012.
[24] “Savvy Investing: The Duke Endowment Posts Growth.” March 8, 2000.
http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/archive/55101. Accessed April 15, 2012.
[25] Vaughn, Dawn. “Duke Energy Customers protest Rate Hike”. The Herald Sun.
December 19th. 2011. http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/16265882/articleDuke-Energy-customers-protest-proposed-rate-hike-?instance=homesecondleft. Accessed
April 15th, 2012.
[26] Colman, Andrew (2003). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. New York: Oxford
University Press. p. 77. ISBN 0-19-280632-7.
[27] General Website. www.aashe-stars.org. Accessed March 20th, 2012.
[28] General Website. www.sei.org. Accessed March 20th, 2012.
[29] General Website. www.usnews.org/education. Accessed March 20th, 2012.
[30] Office of Public Affairs. “Dartmouth Endowment Yields 18.4% Return in Fiscal 2011”.
Dartmouth Now. September 28, 2011. http://now.dartmouth.edu/2011/09/dartmouthendowment-yields-18-4-return-in-fiscal-2011/. Accessed April 12, 2012.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/09/yale-mit-duke-cornell-report-strong-investmentreturns-endowment-growth. Accessed March 20th, 2012.
[31] Notes from focus sessions. Greenpeace Student Network of Activism Conference.
Weekend of February 3rd, 2012.
[32] “Schools report Strong Investment Returns”. The Harvard News. 9.28.2011.
[33] Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.
27
[34] Scott, J. W., & El-assal, M. (2012). MULTIVERSITY , UNIVERSITY SIZE , UNIVERSITY
QUALITY AND STUDENT PROTEST: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY. Quality, 34(5), 702-709.
28