I've worked on a number of campaigns that could be considered "astroturfing", i.e. where a few wealthy individuals/foundations fund a professional organizing drive, funding local "grassroots vendors" do specific, contractually bound work on whatever policy folks are funding. I worked on campaigns meant to help the passage of the ACA, Dodd-Frank, and a few other things, so I'm used to seeing the hallmarks of something that's coordinated in ways that indicate an "astroturf" campaign. I know we're supposed to act like this is something only done by the Koch Bros, but every side does it, in this day and age.
So, I've gotta say that this "Occupy Ivy League and other Elite Colleges for the Environment" campaign is just really poorly done. If you want to know why I think feel the need to say something, follow me across the Cheeto.
So, the campaign that has been posting various diaries on the Great Orange Satan, and I appreciate that they are engaging with this community, but your campaign is hella whack.
Also, for those that may question whether or not this is spontaneous, or part of a coordinated campaign... for those that don't know, the students at Harvard are not alone. Our local version of this campaign went public about a week ago, when students began demanding that Washington University(in St. Louis, MO, not WA state) divest from Peabody Coal. Peabody Coal is one of the world's biggest dirty energy companies, and happens to have a corporate headquarters, here in Gateway to The West. In fact at elite universities, across the country, folks are organizing, to help build a better and more sustainable future.
I'm glad some of the big funders are investing in student organizing, but the way they are going about it is an interesting window into the bizarre nature of our current consultant class.
1. Due to some peculiarities, it can be easier to organize affinity groups, at these elite universities. Unfortunately, these advantages can also be weaknesses, in campaigns meant to sway public opinion.
- Due to the fact that these campuses attract the children of our entire nation's elite, they often have a MUCH higher percentage of students that are not from the local community. This means that the students themselves are more centrally located and accessible, compared to commuter schools, like our community colleges and many state "satellite campuses." It makes it a lot easier to organize on these campuses, because you're not trying to track down a bunch of folks that commute to school, and mostly work at least part, if not full-time. It's also that the case that these schools have fewer "non-traditional" student, meaning that they have fewer people that are going back to school, later in life. Non-Traditional students are often even harder to organize , compared to younger commuter students, due to the fact that they are more likely to have greater familial responsibilities.
- Unfortunately, this also means that the students in these institutions are also less-likely to have deep ties to the community. For organizing to be truly successful, there has to be a "tie-in" to the local community, which help a campaign spread, organically. Since these students have less familial and long-standing social relationships, in their city, these campaigns often stay localized, on the elite university's campus, instead of spreading to the larger community. This means that they have limited impact on our communities' larger political conversation, which is what the money was supposed to pay for, at least in theory.
- It is hard to see how these strategies could possibly lead to a larger movement. Which should force us to ask, what is the actual goal? Is it to grow an organic, diverse, and dynamic environmental movement, or to attempt to get enough wealthy children to bug their rich parents, so that their parents use their political donation money to push legislators to the left, or is the goal to grow a democratic movement? If their goal is to help grow the movement, then it is unfortunately that much of the upper echelons of our progressive and Democratic advocacy organizations(and the major funders) are graduates of these elite universites, and, therefore, don't recognize that this form of "organizing" does little to actually build an organic, widespread, and diverse environmental movement. In fact, funding these activites may be counterproductive, as it is directing organizing and educational resources to a cohort that mostly understands climate change, while there is little done to distribute this information in working-class neighborhoods, where it could have a greater grassroots impact.
2. Whoever the funders are, you need to understand that we want to save the planet, not listen to you pitch mutual funds. I'm not claiming that was the goal of the diary, but when I read it(on the rec list), I was like, "Wait, was that really just product placement?" Maybe it wasn't, but it really seemed like advertising, for a mutual fund run by a company who's foundation is funding the organizing drive. Let's say that's totally not the case, but that still means that there was a media strategy meeting where someone said, "You know what will fire up the troops? A new NRDC-approved mutual fund!"
Ugh
So, I know you've spent a ton of cash and are in the middle of the campaign, so it's tough to switch gears. That being said, if the goal is to actually build an organic, diverse, and dynamic environmental movement, fire your consultants. If you think you're paying for real movement building, your not. If the goal is to just "move the needle" of elite opinion, carry on.