A REPORT PUBLISHED BY POLITICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES DELIBERATE DIFFERENCES Progressive and Conservative Campus Activism in the United States by Pam Chamberlain PRA POLITICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES ABOUT POLITICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES Political Research Associates (PRA) is an independent, nonprofit research center that exposes and challenges the Right and larger oppressive movements, institutions, and forces. PRA provides accurate applied research and useful analytic tools to inform and support progressive activism that promotes equality and justice. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Pam Chamberlain is a researcher at PRA. Political Research Associates 1310 Broadway, Suite 201 Somerville, MA 02144 Tel: (617) 666-5300 Fax: (617) 666-6622 [email protected] www.publiceye.org August, 2004 © 2004, Political Research Associates ISBN: 0-915987-18-x When referencing this document, we recommend the following citation: Chamberlain, Pam. Deliberate Differences: Progressive and Conservative Campus Activism in the United States. Somerville, Mass.: Political Research Associates, 2004. Design by Hird Graphic Design Cover photos by: top, Lonny Shavelson/www.photowords.com. and bottom, Jim West, Impact Digitals Acknowledgements eliberate Differences: Progressive and Conservative Campus Activism is a publication of DPolitical Research Associates (PRA). In every sense, this report has been a collabo- rative effort from its inception. Jean Hardisty, President Emerita of PRA, originally con- ceived the Campus Activism Project as an extension of earlier PRA work on conservative campus groups. The PRA staff team—Nikhil Aziz, Chip Berlet, Shelly Harter, Tom Louie, Namorya Nelson, and Palak Shah—all lent their creativity, talent, and careful attention to the many stages of the project. Chip and Nikhil, in particular, contributed to our understanding of social movement theory and its application to campus activism. Interns Sarah Finn, David Foster, Lyle Pannell, and Elena Williams tirelessly offered their capable minds and hearts to the project in many ways. Our new Executive Director, Roberta Salper, joined us in midsummer in time to help with the proofreading. An active advisory committee reviewed concept papers and drafts and joined other experts in pro- viding contacts and feedback to the staff. Its members are listed on p. 60. We are grateful to the scores of students, faculty and staff who gave their time so generously to be interviewed. Although honoring their anonymity prevents us from listing their names, without their candor and insight, this report would lack much of its substance. Nella Van Dyke generously offered us the use of her database on activism at U.S. colleges as a basis for creating our sample of colleges. Sabine Frezier and Myra Marx Ferree shared with us their understanding of the nuances of social movement theory. Our invaluable contacts at our sample schools, including Walda Katz Fishman, Ed Haley, Jyl J. Josephson, Karen Lederer, Charlene Martin, Mamta Motwani, Chris Otis- Skinner, Kyrsten Sinema, Eileen Stewart, and Michael Wiseman, provided inroads into administrative and student organizations, helped identify potential participants, and welcomed us to their campuses. We thank Debbie Hird for her skillful design assistance and Elly Bulkin for her useful editorial help. Without the financial assistance of the Ford Foundation, this report would not have happened. The foundation’s help has enabled us to provide the first edition of this report free to any interested reader. We welcome comments about this report. Your feedback is a central part of mak- ing PRA’s work more useful for everyone. Please contact Pam Chamberlain at [email protected]. Contents Executive Summary . .1 I. Introduction . 5 Definitions . 5 Why Focus on Campuses? . 6 Historical Background . 7 What Is Campus Activism? . 10 Using Social Movement Theory . 11 Our Approach . 12 II. Findings. 13 1. On every campus small numbers of students are energetically engaged in activist work. 13 2. Conservative and progressive students approach activism differently. 15 3. Political mentors are absent from campus. 22 4. Students are responding to issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation as they perceive them on campus. 24 5. Debate is unpopular on campus. 28 6. Using resources, mentors and incentives, national political organizations successfully influence campus groups. 32 7. A ‘leadership pipeline’ exists on both the Left and the Right. 35 8. Centrist students are not actively recruited by either conservatives or progressives. 39 III. Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Study . 42 IV. Appendices . 45 A. A Review of Literature on Campus Activism . 45 B. Sample Interview Guides and Questionnaires . 52 C. Methodology . 56 V. End Notes . 61 VI. Resource Directories . 65 VII. Bibliography . 78 Progressive and Conservative Campus Activism in the United States Executive Summary colleges and universities have a long tra- The goals of the PRA Campus Activism Project U.S. dition of political activism. They are cen- were: ters of intellectual activity in which concentrations of young people live in close proximity and can Goal 1: To produce a rounded picture of: experience new ideas and constructs about the political and social conflicts and tensions on world. The public expects that our campuses will campus; the campus activism directly erupt from time to time in response to national and related to these tensions; and their impact international crises, but many are surprised when on democratic principles and campus prac- they do. tices, such as tolerance, openness, and Today’s common wisdom is that conservative dialogue. students are more effective on campuses than pro- gressives, since conservative organizations provide Goal 2: To describe and analyze: the nature, more financial support and organizational assis- goals and ideology of the programmatic tance to students than do progressive groups. To work conducted on campus by national con- what extent is this true? Political Research servative and progressive organizations; Associates (PRA) conducted a study of campus their effect on campus culture; and the types activism in the United States in 2003. We wanted to of organizing being done on campus by know how politically involved today’s college stu- conservative and progressive students and dents are. What issues are student activists using to faculty. mobilize their peers? Who influences the direction of campus activism? And what happens to activists Goal 3: To assess the comparative effective- once they graduate? ness of conservative and progressive groups Using the tools of social movement theory, PRA in advancing their agendas on campus and examined both conservative and progressive cam- recruiting, after graduation, student pus activists and their organizations and observed activists with leadership potential to their the impact of the social movements from the larger competing social movements. society on student groups at eight representative schools. Such a comparative analysis provided a way for us to observe the relative influence of the two Project staff compiled an advisory committee of major social movements on the range of political experts on the study of campus activism, conducted activity on these campuses. an in-depth literature review, chose eight represen- tative schools, identified key student leaders, and faculty and staff, interviewed 86 individuals on- campus during 2003, and received completed ques- tionnaires from 20 interns or young staffers. We held a colloquium on a draft of this report for a select group of advisors and incorporated many of their recommendations into this final version. POLITICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 1 DELIBERATE DIFFERENCES Our findings are summarized as follows: ing freedom of speech and diversity. Progressives, however, share no such common message; instead, Energetic college students all over the coun- they usually generate multiple issue-based mes- try are engaged in campus-based activism, sages from their various organizations. They but their numbers are small. describe a common feeling of fragmentation. Although both conservative and progressive We were interested in the level of tensions students organize on campus, the sum total of between activist groups that traditionally disagreed activist students is small compared to the overall on hot-button topics. The war in Iraq and the affir- student population. Progressive organizations out- mative action court cases created a focus for both number conservative groups by a 4:1 ratio, with a conservative and progressive activists. range of issue-specific groups being the norm for progressives and a single, general conservative Political mentors are absent from campus. organization the core of conservative campus Virtually all the student leaders we interviewed strength. According to the Higher Education described themselves as arriving at college with Research Institute at UCLA, almost equal numbers their politics already developed. For the most part, of first-year students identified as progressive and their political mentors were their parents or teach- conservative in 2003: 27% as progressive, and 23% ers. Both conservative and progressive students as conservative. Perhaps just as relevant is the fact expressed disappointment that they could not find that 50% of first-year students label themselves similar mentors on campus, especially from the fac- independent or unaffiliated. ulty. In turn, the majority of the faculty we inter- Campus activists are confronted with the chal-