A year ago students and i held a climate protest to ask Duke’s administration to be more transparent and engaged about their climate commitment and endowment (in terms of carbon emissions). We camped for a week (i lasted longer than they did). In tents. We engaged with other students on the topic. Had a conversation with VP Steelman’s office (they gave me a tarp, i was quite damp). The Administration knew that this was happening prior to the event (but not 30 days). We did not fill out any permits nor did we make any official requests. We spoke freely and caused little to no harm, and perhaps some thoughtful engaged discussion. It saddens me we can’t do this anymore.
Hey Betsy, your note is important. The general policy has been in force for at least four decades—no disruptive protest. They (whomever they is) just decided that you were not disruptive. If a few students would have pitched tents about Hamas/Israel they would not have tolerated it. I think the reason they tolerated your protest was that our investment functions are quite opaque, we have a process that provides a modicum of a way to ‘protest’ and they can easily ignore. Maybe the real difference between your protest and some other is that they knew how yours was going to end. An encampment like at UNC last spring is far more unpredictable, or maybe predictably unpredictable in ways the admin cannot control and they would be likely to get heavy pressure from “all sides” whereas dealing with climate focused investment is old hat to them. I think that Duke needs to talk lots more about our general culture of dialogue and debate and that protest is a part of that, it shouldn’t be an isolated discussion.
A year ago students and i held a climate protest to ask Duke’s administration to be more transparent and engaged about their climate commitment and endowment (in terms of carbon emissions). We camped for a week (i lasted longer than they did). In tents. We engaged with other students on the topic. Had a conversation with VP Steelman’s office (they gave me a tarp, i was quite damp). The Administration knew that this was happening prior to the event (but not 30 days). We did not fill out any permits nor did we make any official requests. We spoke freely and caused little to no harm, and perhaps some thoughtful engaged discussion. It saddens me we can’t do this anymore.
Hey Betsy, your note is important. The general policy has been in force for at least four decades—no disruptive protest. They (whomever they is) just decided that you were not disruptive. If a few students would have pitched tents about Hamas/Israel they would not have tolerated it. I think the reason they tolerated your protest was that our investment functions are quite opaque, we have a process that provides a modicum of a way to ‘protest’ and they can easily ignore. Maybe the real difference between your protest and some other is that they knew how yours was going to end. An encampment like at UNC last spring is far more unpredictable, or maybe predictably unpredictable in ways the admin cannot control and they would be likely to get heavy pressure from “all sides” whereas dealing with climate focused investment is old hat to them. I think that Duke needs to talk lots more about our general culture of dialogue and debate and that protest is a part of that, it shouldn’t be an isolated discussion.
I know you are spending more time here than on your email. Just sent you a note that needs a bit of attention. Thanks, DS