tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/koch-brothers-12965/articlesKoch Brothers – The Conversation2020-01-10T13:47:22Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1293092020-01-10T13:47:22Z2020-01-10T13:47:22ZWhy some public universities get to keep their donors secret<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309164/original/file-20200108-107219-wa0q1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Charles Koch Foundation had a say in some GMU faculty hires. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Images Group via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In April 2018, the public learned that <a href="https://apnews.com/0c87e4318bcc4eb9b8e69f9f54c7b889">George Mason University</a> had let the <a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-george-mason-will-take-the/243414">Charles Koch Foundation</a> have a say in the hiring and review of faculty. The revelation confirmed long-held suspicions that Virginia’s largest public university was susceptible to pressure from wealthy people who make big donations to a foundation that solely exists to support the school. </p>
<p>The news also raised more questions. For example, how was the school able to conceal the <a href="http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/gmu-president-calls-for-review-of-financial-donor-agreements/article_14ad0920-4fae-11e8-ae7e-8760dbb94979.html">strings-attached gift agreements</a> for years? Do other <a href="https://splc.org/2010/10/access-to-university-foundation-records/">public universities have similar arrangements</a>, in which donations flow not to them, but to affiliated foundations? </p>
<p>Most importantly, do these foundations give donors a legal right to shape a public institution of higher education without <a href="https://splc.org/2010/07/using-the-tools-of-the-trade/">public oversight</a> if they so choose?</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://www.jjay.cuny.edu/faculty/alexa-capeloto">journalist-turned-professor</a> who researches the tension between privatization and the public’s right to know, I can tell you the vast majority of public colleges and universities <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2015.1078617">have separate foundations</a> that exist to receive and manage their private donations. And unless state lawmakers do more to address the transparency status of these foundations, I’m concerned there are few ways to detect the kind of influence allowed at George Mason. </p>
<p><iframe id="3ogih" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/3ogih/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The George Mason case</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/transparentGMU/">Transparent GMU</a>, a student advocacy group formed in 2013, had tried for years to access the Koch agreements under <a href="https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/virginia-freedom-of-information-act/">Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act</a> (VFOIA). The group suspected that George Mason might be trading academic influence for Koch dollars.</p>
<p>An agreement forged in 2008 for a <a href="http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/florida-state-university-koch-grant-supports-free-enterprise-critics-cry-foul">$1.5 million donation</a> with strings attached from the Charles Koch Foundation to Florida State University caused a <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/07/25/koch-foundation-pledges-make-future-grant-terms-public-critics-want-know-more-about">public outcry</a>; Florida State later <a href="https://foundation.fsu.edu/about/press-releases/president-thrasher-comments-koch-foundation-gift">changed its policies</a>.</p>
<p>Transparent GMU’s VFOIA requests were denied on the basis that the George Mason University Foundation possessed the agreement records and, as a private entity, did not have to share them. </p>
<p>The group <a href="http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/students-take-gmu-to-court-over-koch-brothers-million-in/article_93778250-ba6f-11e7-9fcf-3b19f2a5cac0.html">sued the foundation</a> in 2017. Transparent GMU argued that because the nonprofit accepts, disburses and administers funds for the sole benefit of a public university, it <a href="https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/opinions/cl-2017-7484-transparent-gmu-v-gmu-et-al.pdf">should be subject</a> to VFOIA requests just like the university.</p>
<p>More than a year later, while the case was still pending, the university released the agreements and <a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-george-mason-will-take-the/243414">acknowledged</a> that allowing donors to influence faculty decisions “falls short of the standard of academic independence we should expect in every gift.” </p>
<p>In the wake of the scandal, in May 2019 the university revised <a href="https://universitypolicy.gmu.edu/policies/gift-acceptance-policy/">its gift acceptance policy</a>. The university now accepts conditions attached to a private donation in writing, which makes them <a href="http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/gmu-to-make-all-future-gift-agreements-public/article_6df08690-78db-11e9-b175-67c32eea5f07.html">part of the public record</a>. The Charles Koch Foundation also announced that it will now <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/07/25/koch-foundation-pledges-make-future-grant-terms-public-critics-want-know-more-about">make public</a> all multi-year agreements with colleges and universities.</p>
<p>But Transparent GMU ultimately lost its court challenge. In a unanimous decision that leaves no path for appeal, the <a href="http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1181375.pdf">Virginia Supreme Court ruled</a> Dec. 12 that as a privately held corporation with its own bylaws, the George Mason University Foundation is not a public body. Therefore, it’s not obligated to disclose records. </p>
<h2>State by state</h2>
<p>Unless it’s related to the federal government, public information access is regulated state by state under <a href="https://www.nfoic.org/coalitions/state-foi-resources/state-freedom-of-information-laws">individual Freedom of Information laws</a>. <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-guide/">Each state defines in its own way</a> what constitutes a public body, public records and public meetings. </p>
<p>Only Nevada explicitly defines university foundations as governmental entities under its <a href="https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-239.html">public records act</a>. A handful of other states, including <a href="https://splc.org/2015/09/shaking-the-foundation/">Colorado, Georgia and Minnesota</a>, have laws dictating that foundations disclose certain financial records while still remaining private. In most cases, <a href="https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-396.html#NRS396Sec405">even in Nevada</a>, donor identities remain confidential.</p>
<p>Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act applies to public agencies, bodies supported wholly or principally by public funds, and entities “of the public body created to perform delegated functions of the public body.” </p>
<p>The state Supreme Court cited the Webster’s dictionary definition of the word “of” in deciding the George Mason foundation wasn’t a product “of” the university, even though it <a href="http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1181375.pdf">exists to support that school</a>, pays the majority of the president’s salary, operates on campus, is part of the GMU website and staff directory, and is considered a “component unit” in university accounting. </p>
<p>“Had the General Assembly intended the unreserved inclusion of nonprofit foundations, that exist for the primary purpose of supporting public institutions of higher education, as public bodies under VFOIA, it could have so provided, but it has not,” <a href="http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1181375.pdf">Justice Cleo Powell wrote</a>. “Policy determinations of this nature are peculiarly within the province of the General Assembly, not the judiciary.”</p>
<h2>California case</h2>
<p>Courts in other states have followed the same logic. In 2001 a <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/90/810.html">California appellate court</a> found that the California State University, Fresno Association, a nonprofit that operates the university’s commercial enterprises, wasn’t a public agency under the state’s <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=7.&chapter=3.5.&lawCode=GOV&title=1.&article=1.">Public Records Act</a> (CPRA).</p>
<p>The court looked at the language of the law, weighed it against the spirit of transparency, and saw a puzzling gap.</p>
<p>“We are fully cognizant of the fact that our conclusion seems to be in direct conflict with the express purposes of the CPRA ‘to safeguard the accountability of government to the public,’” Justice Rebecca Wiseman wrote. “The Legislature’s decision to narrowly define the applicability of the CPRA, balanced against its sweeping goal to safeguard the public, leaves us scratching our judicial heads and asking, ‘What was the Legislature thinking?’”</p>
<p>But courts don’t act as super-legislatures to determine the wisdom or propriety of statutes, she continued. “The rewriting of a statute is a legislative, rather than a judicial function, a practice in which we will not engage.”</p>
<p>Ten years later, California <a href="https://afscme3299.org/2011/09/07/governor-brown-signs-afscme-3299-transparency-bill-sb-8/">passed a law</a> that makes university foundations’ financial records, contracts and correspondence subject to public disclosure. </p>
<p>Under the <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division=9.&title=3.&part=57.&chapter=14.&article=">Richard McKee Transparency Act of 2011</a>, donors can remain anonymous unless they receive something in exchange that’s worth more than $2,500 or a no-bid contract within five years of the donation, or if they attempt to influence university curriculum or operations. </p>
<p><iframe id="lGZry" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/lGZry/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Pending in Virginia</h2>
<p>Following the George Mason court decision, <a href="http://www.davidbulova.com/">David Bulova</a>, a Democratic Virginia state delegate from Fairfax County, where the university’s main campus is located, introduced <a href="https://www.npr.org/local/305/2019/12/19/789722429/virginia-democrats-want-more-transparency-in-university-donations">two related bills</a>. Both would preserve the private status of foundations that support public universities while also imposing new transparency requirements on them.</p>
<p>One, <a href="http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB510">introduced Jan. 4</a>, would make the amount, date, purpose and terms of a public-university donation subject to FOIA, and only grant donor anonymity if the donor requests it and does not set conditions related to academic decision-making.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB1529">second proposal</a> follows George Mason University’s lead. It would make universities accept in writing any terms or conditions placed on a donation and then provide that document upon request.</p>
<p>If those bills become law in Virginia, they could serve as good models for legislators in other states. Efforts to define university foundations as public entities <a href="http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?171+sum+SB1436">usually go nowhere</a>, but states can require more transparency of private organizations that are so clearly enmeshed with public institutions.</p>
<p><em>This article has been updated to clarify that Florida State changed its policies after a controversial gift.</em></p>
<p>[ <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=expertise">Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day.</a></em> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129309/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexa Capeloto does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There’s no law forcing George Mason University’s allied foundation to make the public university’s donor deals public.Alexa Capeloto, Associate Professor of Journalism, John Jay College of Criminal JusticeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1044522018-10-29T10:39:29Z2018-10-29T10:39:29ZMoney in elections doesn’t mean what you think it does<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242489/original/file-20181026-7059-1vsmlw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Money in politics? Somebody's got to pay for those signs.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/2016-Election-Florida-Voting/30ff377c698843de8319ffa28b590c51/144/0">AP/John Raoux</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Money is indispensable in American electoral campaigns. Without it, candidates cannot amplify their message to reach voters and it’s harder to motivate people to take interest and vote. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, a <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/">May 2018 Pew survey</a> revealed a bipartisan 70 percent of respondents said individual and group spending in elections should be limited. </p>
<p>But does the American public understand the actual role played by campaign spending?</p>
<p>I’m a <a href="https://polisci.ufl.edu/suzanne-robbins/">political scientist who studies American politics</a>. Here are the answers to fundamental questions that voters should ask about the role of money in elections.</p>
<h2>How much do elections cost?</h2>
<p>Running for federal office is expensive. According the <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/2016Report/CFIGuide_MoneyinFederalElections.pdf">Campaign Finance Institute</a>, the cost of winning a U.S. House seat in 2016 was over US$1.5 million. All told, approximately $816 million was spent by 723 major party candidates for the U.S. House. </p>
<p>The average amount a House candidate spent in 2016 was $1.2 million. However, there’s a lot of variation depending on what type of candidate you are. </p>
<p><iframe id="inHfG" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/inHfG/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Republicans and incumbents, for example, spent more on average than challengers and those running in open-seat contests in 2016. In fact, the average challenger spent less than half a million dollars, or about one-fourth the amount an incumbent spent. </p>
<p>Those figures don’t include money spent by parties and outside entities to influence the election. Federal law dictates that groups, parties and individuals – including the groups known as <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php">super PACs</a> – can make what are called <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/independent-expenditures-nonconnected-pac/">“independent expenditures”</a> for or against a candidate, so long as they do not coordinate with the candidate. </p>
<p>Spending from the major parties and super PACs in House and Senate races more than tripled between 1998 to 2016, growing from $267 million to $978.6 million. </p>
<h2>Can money buy an election?</h2>
<p>Money is necessary for a candidate to be competitive, but it doesn’t ensure success. </p>
<p>A lack of money can eliminate less capable candidates, but having money does not guarantee that a particular candidate’s message will resonate with the voters. As Campaign Finance Institute researchers <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/18-03-08/CFI%E2%80%99s_GUIDE_TO_MONEY_IN_FEDERAL_ELECTIONS_%E2%80%93_2016_IN_HISTORICAL_CONTEXT.aspx">Michael Malbin and Brendan Glavin write</a>, “If voters do not like what they are hearing, telling them more of the same will not change their opinion.” </p>
<p>So how does money matter?</p>
<p>Money can affect which candidates run. Specifically, early money – or money raised before the primary – matters especially in this regard. </p>
<p>Candidates can prove their viability by raising significant sums before the first advertisements air. Landing some big donors before the first advertisements or primary allows candidates time to build campaign infrastructure. Insiders refer to this as the “invisible primary.” Media stories on the invisible primary for the 2020 presidential election are <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/386823-invisible-primary-has-already-begun-for-dems">well underway</a>. </p>
<p>Money matters more for challengers than it does for incumbents. Decades of political science research demonstrates that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/upshot/a-campaign-dollars-power-is-more-valuable-to-a-challenger.html">more a challenger spends, the more likely he or she is to win</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Money helps get citizens engaged in elections.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hand-holding-white-loudspeaker-dollars-flying-382771240?src=8rDe_E4BPJZsKG_57JP1FA-1-7">Shutterstock/ImageFlow</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That’s because incumbents have many advantages, not the least of which is name recognition and free media. So, challengers must spend more to overcome the obstacles they face, from name recognition to formidable incumbent war chests meant to scare off a challenger. Unfortunately for challengers, those barriers are high enough that they rarely raise enough money to compete.</p>
<p>Yet money does not guarantee a victory. Simply looking at the average <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/bigspenders.php?cycle=2016&display=A&sort=D&Memb=S">amount spent by winners and losers</a> obscures the fact that many races have no real competition. </p>
<p>In 2016, winning incumbents far outspent their challengers, but the winners in open seat contests spent nearly the same amount as their opponents, while those incumbents who lost outspent their winning opponents half of the time. </p>
<p><iframe id="He1Eq" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/He1Eq/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In short, incumbents who spend more than their opponent in contested races are more likely to be the candidates who are vulnerable and lose. </p>
<h2>Does money buy influence?</h2>
<p>Money matters in the most competitive races, open seat races that have no incumbent and those with high profile candidates. More money will be spent by the candidates in these races, but also by those who would like to influence the outcome. </p>
<p>One concern that is often expressed is that winners answer to their donors and those organizations who support them. </p>
<p>Since 2010, the role of outside money, or money from super PACs and political nonprofits, has raised alarms <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/12/secret-money-funds-more-than-40-percent-outside-congressional-tv-ads-midterm-elections/777536002/">in the media</a> and from <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/in-tight-senate-races-dark-money-backs-dems-hammers-gop/">reform groups</a>. </p>
<p>Some assert that self-financed candidates or those candidates who can demonstrate widespread support from small donors can allay concerns about the potential influence of donors on candidates and elected officials.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/outvscand.php?cycle=2016">Center for Responsive Politics</a> notes that outside organizations alone have outspent more than two dozen candidates in the last three electoral cycles and are poised to outspend 27 so far in 2018. </p>
<p><iframe id="SfYcu" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/SfYcu/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>However, it’s not always clear how useful that spending is: The <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/the-incredibly-dumb-political-spending-of-2012">2012</a> election provides many examples. </p>
<p>Billionaire Republican donor <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/sheldon-adelson-donor-republicans-219598">Sheldon Adelson backed a super PAC</a> supporting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich after Gingrich was no longer a viable presidential contender. It extended the Republican presidential primary at a time when Mitt Romney could have been raising money and consolidating support for the general election. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html?utm_term=.f1618de12dd4">libertarian, conservative PAC Americans for Prosperity</a>, founded by the Koch brothers, often ran ads at odds with the Republican message. Other outside groups poured money into races that simply were not winnable. </p>
<p>By 2016, it appears that super PACs were spending for more calculated effect, focusing on competitive races. In addition, much of that “outside money” comes from the super PACs associated with the two main parties. </p>
<p>For example, in <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/outside-spending?cycle=2016&id=CA07&spec=N">California’s 7th congressional district</a>, outside groups spent approximately $9.1 million, in roughly equal amounts between the incumbent, Democrat Ami Bera, and challenger, Republican Scott Jones. The vast majority (85.7 percent) of the outside spending came from party organizations – the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Congressional Leadership Fund and House Majority PAC – not from interest groups. Bera won re-election with 51.2 percent of the vote. </p>
<p>Some candidates use their own money for their campaigns to avoid appearing indebted to donors. </p>
<p>For example, wealthy Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott has given his current U.S. Senate campaign <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/candidates?cycle=2018&id=FLS1&spec=N">$38.9 million dollars – 71.3 percent of all funds raised</a>. </p>
<p>But self-funding does not resolve the democratic dilemma of responsiveness. </p>
<p>First, <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/11/6/1332017/-Self-Funded-Candidates-The-Track-Record">Daily Kos</a> found that most self-financed candidates lose – and the more they spend, the more likely they are to lose the election. Generally, the only exceptions are candidates like Rick Scott, who already hold elective office. </p>
<p>Second, this way of improving responsiveness is limited because it effectively precludes anyone but the wealthy from holding office.</p>
<p>Small donors seem like a democratic solution to wealthy donors dominating election giving. Several recent campaigns – Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Barack Obama and now Donald Trump – have created effective small-donor fundraising machines. </p>
<p>More small donors means <a href="http://prospect.org/article/small-donors-may-soon-be-only-way-fight-big-money">more widespread support, at least in theory</a>, but that theory has limitations. </p>
<p>Small donors are not yet giving enough to counter big money. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/campaign-finance-fundraising-citizens-united/504425/">In fact, the share small donors contribute relative to big money is declining</a>. </p>
<p>Moreover, political science doesn’t yet know enough about who small donors are – whether they are economically representative of the U.S. as a whole or even if they are <a href="https://psmag.com/news/the-people-who-finance-political-campaigns">more ideologically motivated to give, contributing to polarization in politics</a>.</p>
<h2>What’s so good about money?</h2>
<p>Yes, incumbents can amass huge war chests to scare off opponents, and money can be most effective in competitive races. All that extra spending translates into additional advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts. </p>
<p>In the end, what does that mean? </p>
<p>It means more information about the candidates and issues for voters, increased interest in the campaign and increased voter turnout. </p>
<p>That’s good for democracy.</p>
<p>Focusing on the putative evils of money diminishes the importance of other things that may help or hinder a candidate. Other major elements that can influence the outcome of a campaign: candidates who face national political and economic tides and local political concerns; candidates who choose to challenge formidable incumbents; and many candidates who simply aren’t viable. </p>
<p>It’s easy to see a correlation between winning and fundraising because money flows to likely winners and competitive races. </p>
<p>But, as scholars like to say, correlation is not causation. In the world of politics and campaigns, money is meaningful. It just may not mean what, and as much as, most people think it means.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104452/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Robbins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Is money the root of all evil in politics? It’s easy to see a correlation between winning and fundraising – money flows to likely winners and competitive races. But correlation is not causation.Suzanne Robbins, Assistant Professor of political science, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/961802018-05-25T10:46:04Z2018-05-25T10:46:04ZWhat’s wrong with secret donor agreements like the ones George Mason University inked with the Kochs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220368/original/file-20180524-117628-1nln6x8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Students and faculty members have protested arrangements GMU made with donors.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Koch-College/d2d16e3ada484ca48482b3728b687947/1/0">AP Photo/Matt Barakat</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>George Mason University President Ángel Cabrera <a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-george-mason-will-take-the/243414">acknowledged this month</a> that his school gave the Charles Koch Foundation “some influence” over hiring and evaluating faculty as it accepted <a href="https://apnews.com/0c87e4318bcc4eb9b8e69f9f54c7b889">millions of dollars for its free-market research center</a>, the Mercatus Center.</p>
<p>This <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/george-mason-president-some-donations-fall-short-of-academic-standards/2018/04/28/bb927576-4af0-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html?utm_term=.593194635c2b">news rankled the academic world</a>, but it perhaps didn’t come as a surprise. Many scholars saw this as just the latest revelation of strings-attached giving with an ideological slant – another encroachment on <a href="https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure">the sacrosanct idea</a> that teaching and research at universities, especially public ones like George Mason, must be immune from outside influence.</p>
<p>Cabrera himself admitted that the Koch agreements with the Northern Virginia school “fall short of the standard of academic independence we should expect in every gift,” but as a <a href="https://www.jjay.cuny.edu/faculty/alexa-capeloto">journalist-turned-professor</a> who has <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10811680.2015.1078617?needAccess=true&journalCode=hclw20">researched dozens of similar scenarios</a>, I think transparency is a bigger issue than academic freedom.</p>
<h2>Fundraising foundations</h2>
<p>It is George Mason’s <a href="http://fasterfarther.gmu.edu/george-mason-university-foundation-inc/">fundraising foundation</a>, not the school itself, that accepts and manages donations, including <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/us/koch-donors-george-mason.html">an estimated US$50 million</a> since 2005 from the Charles Koch Foundation and other foundations tied to <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/122915/koch-brothers-americas-2nd-wealthiest-family.asp">the billionaire industrialist</a> and his brother, David. </p>
<p>When a student-led group called <a href="https://getconnected.gmu.edu/organization/transparent-gmu">Transparent GMU</a> sought copies of the Koch gift agreements under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act, the foundation said it was not subject to such requests because it <a href="http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/gmu-student-lawsuit-challenges-privacy-influence-of-public-university-donors/article_8da92c8a-4a60-11e8-8c17-635deab723b2.html">operates independently</a>, according to coverage in the Fairfax Times, a local newspaper.</p>
<p>Foundations that raise, spend and invest private support for public universities have become staples of higher education in the last 40 years. They <a href="https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/how_university_foundations_try_to_avoid_public_scrutiny_and_what_reporters_can_do.php">often refuse freedom of information requests</a>, claiming that transparency laws governing their affiliated schools do not apply to independently operated <a href="https://www.case.org/Browse_by_Professional_Interest/Institutionally_Related_Foundations/Foundation_FAQs.html">501(c)(3) nonprofits</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220369/original/file-20180524-51121-lcptf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220369/original/file-20180524-51121-lcptf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220369/original/file-20180524-51121-lcptf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220369/original/file-20180524-51121-lcptf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220369/original/file-20180524-51121-lcptf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220369/original/file-20180524-51121-lcptf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220369/original/file-20180524-51121-lcptf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220369/original/file-20180524-51121-lcptf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A sign on George Mason University campus in Virginia’s Fairfax County.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/collections/58688349?verification_code=f178c9c1475c84bbccc2831dc1e2e868">John M. Chase/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A thin veneer</h2>
<p>Yet public-university foundations exist solely for the benefit of state-sponsored institutions, and they do work that the schools previously handled themselves. Furthermore, as <a href="https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/statesupport">state support for higher education has dried up</a>, this kind of giving has increasingly funded such essentials as <a href="https://www.agb.org/blog/2014/01/23/survey-results-the-changing-role-of-foundations-infographic">administrators’ salaries</a>, <a href="http://www.splc.org/article/2010/10/access-to-university-foundation-records">academic programs, campus construction projects and scholarships</a>.</p>
<p>That’s why the Student Press Law Center calls these foundations “<a href="http://www.splc.org/article/2010/10/access-to-university-foundation-records">public bodies cloaked in a thin private veneer</a>.”</p>
<p>The Governmental Accounting Standards Board, an independent private-sector organization that sets accounting and financial reporting standards, <a href="http://www.gasb.org/cs/ContentServer?c=GASBContent_C&cid=1176156743989&d=Touch&pagename=GASB%2FGASBContent_C%2FGASBNewsPage">considers the foundations to be “component units”</a> of public universities for three reasons. First, they fundraise for specific schools. Second, those schools get most of that money. Third, schools count on that revenue.</p>
<p>A few states, like <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-brown-signs-bill-requiring-university-disclosure-2011sep07-story.html">California</a>, <a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.getsnworks.com/spl/pdf/ts_foundations.pdf">Colorado and Nevada</a> have laws on the books mandating at least some financial transparency from university foundations. Courts in states like <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-college-of-dupage-foia-appeal-ruling-20170509-story.html">Illinois</a>, <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1433071.html">Iowa</a>, <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ky-supreme-court/1439464.html">Kentucky</a> and <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/State_ex_rel._Toledo_Blade_v._University_of_Toledo_Foundation">Ohio</a> have found them to be public bodies or at least to be doing public work.</p>
<p>In most states, however, the foundations and their records are generally presumed to be private. </p>
<h2>Transparent GMU’s lawsuit</h2>
<p>The GMU Foundation is in court and the news because <a href="http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/gmu-student-lawsuit-challenges-privacy-influence-of-public-university-donors/article_8da92c8a-4a60-11e8-8c17-635deab723b2.html">Transparent GMU sued</a> when its records request was declined, arguing that because the foundation conducts business on behalf of a public university, it should be considered an arm of the school and therefore subject to the state’s freedom of information law. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/01/koch-agreements-george-mason-gave-foundation-role-faculty-hiring-and-oversight">The activist group wants to learn</a>, among other things, which anonymous donor ponied up $20 million alongside the Koch Foundation’s $10 million to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/us/koch-brothers-antonin-scalia-george-mason-law-school.html">rename George Mason’s law school</a> after the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. </p>
<p>The university <a href="http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/donor-agreement-between-the-mercatus-center-and-george-mason-university-to-fund-a-faculty-position/2930/">did share some of the Koch agreements</a> with the media, but not until after it was sued.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.unkochmycampus.org/">Activists</a> and <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/09/12/15495/koch-foundation-proposal-college-teach-our-curriculum-get-millions">journalists</a> have long monitored Koch higher education donations because of the <a href="https://www.charleskochfoundation.org/our-giving-and-support/higher-education/list-of-supported-colleges/">scope and breadth</a> of their giving, which totaled about <a href="http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-no-pay-to-play-at-state-universities/article_5c5db998-e72f-54f4-8b66-920b6b9f521b.html">$150 million between 2005 and 2015</a>, according to media reports. Still, the concern should extend beyond the Kochs to cover transparency for all gift agreements of whatever political hue.</p>
<p>Consider what happened when <a href="https://www.cato.org/people/john-allison">John Allison</a>, an avowed fan of author and libertarian icon <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-should-we-make-of-paul-ryans-fondness-for-ayn-rand-49933">Ayn Rand</a>, led BB&T. The U.S. bank offered colleges and universities grants averaging $1.1 million, usually with the stipulation that they design a new course incorporating Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”</p>
<p>BB&T also demanded that grantees create faculty positions, centers, speaker series and scholarships as part of a “Moral Foundations of Capitalism” program. </p>
<p>Accounting scholar S. Douglas Beets <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9244-4">identified at least 63 schools</a> that took this deal. But he had to <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/16/new-paper-details-extent-bbt-banks-ayn-rand-inspired-grant-program">scour local news stories and press releases</a> to find them. If open records laws automatically made all such agreements public, he would not have had to do all that sleuthing.</p>
<h2>The driving issue</h2>
<p>In short, I see no way to safeguard academic freedom without transparency. All the conditions embedded in gift agreements related to public colleges and universities should be brought to light, in my opinion. </p>
<p>It would be great to include private schools as well, but they by definition are private entities not subject to sunshine laws.</p>
<p>Foundations often <a href="http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-uconn-foundation-transparency-0227-20150226-story.html">cite the need</a> to respect donors’ privacy because exposure might discourage giving, but I and <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jle34&div=33&id=&page=">other researchers</a> have not seen any evidence to support that connection.</p>
<p>If names must be protected, the next best thing might be having objective third parties like state auditors vet these agreements. That way, any potential conflicts of interest or undue influence could more systematically come to light. The <a href="http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-ed-uconn-foundation-transparency-20150115-story.html">Hartford Courant suggested</a> this approach in an editorial supporting a bill that would have made the UConn Foundation subject to Connecticut’s freedom of information law. The <a href="https://ctmirror.org/2016/05/03/the-basics-uconn-foundation-transparency-bill-wins-final-passage/">legislature has since forced the foundation to be more transparent</a>, though it is still not subject to that law.</p>
<p>Once courts and state governments do more to resolve the question of whether university-linked foundations are subject to disclosure requirements, the public might finally see whether their state schools are offering academic influence to all big donors – not just the Koch brothers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96180/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexa Capeloto does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When public universities and their foundations take large sums of money from political and strategic philanthropists, they can’t safeguard academic freedom unless there’s some transparency.Alexa Capeloto, Associate Professor of Journalism, John Jay College of Criminal JusticeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/757442017-04-27T01:52:38Z2017-04-27T01:52:38ZShould the giving styles of the rich and famous alarm us all?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166891/original/file-20170426-2855-1x9ncqk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tech billionaire Sean Parker and his wife Alexandra Lenas Parker are among today's youngest and most ambitious donors.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Sean-Parker-and-the-Parker-Foundation-Celebrate-/88d8cc0ff84c4830afb422ce39674157/6/0">Rich Fury/Invision/AP Photo</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1890, pioneer photojournalist Jacob Riis published a book, “<a href="http://www.bartleby.com/208/">How the Other Half Lives</a>,” portraying the squalid lifestyles of the immigrant groups flooding into the slums of New York City. In “<a href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/533633/the-givers-by-david-callahan/9781101947050/">The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age</a>,” writer, publisher and think-tank founder David Callahan examines a vastly different group, the ultra-wealthy, and how they are using their fortunes to try to change the world. These rich Americans are nowhere near as numerous as the people Riis profiled, nor do their donations account for more than a small share of the <a href="http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/record-373-25-billion-given-u-s-charities/">nearly US$375 billion</a> Americans gave to charity in 2015. Nonetheless, Callahan sees their philanthropy as creating problems for American civic life and democracy, just as many feared the 19th-century immigration wave was doing.</p>
<p>Callahan maintains that the problem of big philanthropy is not its ideological leanings, but its power to shape the public’s agenda. Through their giving, he argues, the ultra-wealthy wield political clout as outsized as their financial influence. That, correspondingly, diminishes the ability of those less well-off – which is to say, most people – to have an effective say in how they are governed. </p>
<p>As someone who has worked for, researched, taught and written about foundations for several decades (as well as received a few foundation grants), I am not surprised by this argument. However, I do believe that Callahan exaggerates the influence of philanthropists, and gives too little credit to the public’s ability to chart its own course.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166645/original/file-20170425-12658-1j8hzjb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166645/original/file-20170425-12658-1j8hzjb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166645/original/file-20170425-12658-1j8hzjb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166645/original/file-20170425-12658-1j8hzjb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166645/original/file-20170425-12658-1j8hzjb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1056&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166645/original/file-20170425-12658-1j8hzjb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1056&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166645/original/file-20170425-12658-1j8hzjb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1056&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are today’s wealthiest donors too powerful?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://knopfdoubleday.com/2017/03/21/media-center-givers-by-david-callahan/">Knopf</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Countless bromides</h2>
<p>To be sure, Callahan finds much to admire among these mega-donors. They are committed to giving away most of their fortunes in their lifetimes, instead of forming perpetual foundations like John D. Rockefeller and other early 20th-century philanthropists. Many are successful entrepreneurs, not heirs. They are willing to take risks with their funds to solve seemingly insoluble problems, such as fixing inner-city schools or wiping out diseases. They are, for the most part, skillful, persistent, pragmatic and self-effacing, open to joining forces with government, business and other philanthropists to achieve their goals.</p>
<p>But he also finds much to criticize. </p>
<p>He expresses many concerns over the giving patterns of conservative donors, such as the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch and computer programmer turned hedge fund innovator Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah Mercer. Progressive mega-donors, like former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and the former Bay Area banker <a href="http://www.sandlerfoundation.org/">Herb Sandler</a>, do not emerge unscathed. Nor does the Silicon Valley charitable class, including Bill Gates, Sean Parker, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin and other tech titans. </p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p><iframe id="8v9zy" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/8v9zy/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p>In making such criticisms, Callahan is by no means breaking new ground in looking at philanthropy.</p>
<p>In 1936, two decades after <a href="http://rockefeller100.org/exhibits/show/evolution-of-a-foundation/1913-1928">Rockefeller established his foundation</a>, an educator named Eduard C. Lindeman produced an investigation of foundations. Titled “Wealth and Culture,” it concluded their interlocking boards sought to preserve the “status quo” to the advantage of their wealthy donors and directors. </p>
<p>Over the years, a steady stream of articles and books along similar lines has followed, mostly memorable for catchy titles such as “<a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/2344-no-such-thing-as-a-free-gift">No Such Thing as a Free Gift</a>” and “<a href="https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/narcissism-and-philanthropy-by-gerald-freund/">Narcissism and Philanthropy</a>.” Other efforts have painted philanthropy in a better or more neutral light, such as Claire Gaudiani’s “<a href="http://www.clairegaudiani.com/Writings/Pages/TheGreaterGood2003.aspx">The Greater Good</a>” and Zoltan Acs’ “<a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9964.html">Why Philanthropy Matters</a>.” But much of the defense of foundation philanthropy has taken the form of countless bromides, emanating from grant-making organizations and their leaders.</p>
<p>In his classic history, “<a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo5959111.html">American Philanthropy</a>,” Robert H. Bremner identified this ambivalence when he wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“But on a deeper level there is something about philanthropy that seems to go against the democratic grain… We expect rich men to be generous with their wealth, and criticize them when they are not, but when they make benefactions, we question their motives, deplore the methods by which they obtained their abundance, and wonder whether their gifts will not do more harm than good.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>“The Givers” is the latest example of this angst.</p>
<p>Callahan worries that the overreach of today’s mega-donors could spark a backlash that might obstruct giving for less controversial things like the arts and food pantries. But no signs of that risk appear on the horizon. </p>
<p>In the half-century after the establishment of the Rockefeller Foundation, Congress launched several investigations of what philanthropists were up to, <a href="http://www.capdale.com/the-1969-private-foundation-law-historical-perspective-on-its-origins-and-underpinnings">culminating in legislation in 1969</a> that foundation leaders often decried as “punitive.” In the subsequent five decades, lawmakers have occasionally held hearings, without passing any major legislation, notwithstanding the growing prominence of philanthropy in American life.</p>
<h2>Stubborn complexities</h2>
<p>Lawmakers may be failing to rein in mega-donors because they don’t share Callahan’s concerns about their leverage. One example he uses to illustrate how today’s philanthropists are trying to control public services is Mark Zuckerberg’s offer of $100 million to Newark, New Jersey, to change its school system. Yet, as Dale Russakoff shows in “<a href="http://www.hmhco.com/shop/books/The-Prize/9780547840055">The Prize</a>,” her account of what transpired, much of this money paid back wages for school employees. After several years, little change had occurred, though lots of consultants were hired and meetings with public officials and interest groups held. Whatever else money might buy, its influence in education (and other policy areas) is usually limited, if not offset altogether, by the stubborn complexities of American politics.</p>
<p>In any case, given the threat to American democracy he sees, Callahan’s own recommendations are surprisingly modest. His call for greater “transparency” about where philanthropic dollars are going is one that foundation leaders have long championed and made strides toward achieving, despite a variety of arguments for privacy. Ending tax deductions for political activity by philanthropists is another suggestion. But apart from the difficulties of defining and impartially judging such activity, this proposal would not end the influence of the ultra-wealthy – only make it more expensive.</p>
<p>Callahan would also like to turn philanthropy into a more regulated industry, complete with its own government agency providing oversight. Yet, the history of such agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, is not encouraging. Too often, they have wound up being “captured” by those they are <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3003160?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">supposed to supervise</a>. </p>
<p>Callahan ultimately acknowledges that to keep the ultra-wealthy from using philanthropy to affect the public’s agenda, the government would either have to intervene in its management (for example, by requiring publicly appointed trustees) or prevent the accumulation of so much wealth in the first place by taxing the rich more. </p>
<p>To control the giving of the rich and famous, Callahan seems to suggest, it must be taken out of their hands.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75744/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leslie Lenkowsky has received funding from many foundations, but none recently and not from the donors who are the major figures in The Givers, the book discussed in this article.
Lenkowsky is affiliated with the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, which itself receives support from many foundations, including several mentioned in The Givers, including Gates and Atlantic Philanthropies. This funding does not benefit him directly.</span></em></p>In ‘The Givers,’ author David Callahan warns that today’s mega-rich philanthropists wield too much political clout. He may be exaggerating their power and lowballing the public’s own strength.Leslie Lenkowsky, Senior Counsellor and Professor Emeritus of Practice in Philanthropic Studies, Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, IUPUILicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/330392014-10-22T05:27:36Z2014-10-22T05:27:36ZColorado curriculum kerfuffle showed activism can beat vested interests<p>Students in Jefferson County, Colorado, popularly known as JeffCo, have learned an important civics lesson about their power to influence policy. In late September, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/-sp-colorado-ap-history-curriculum-protest-patriotism-schools-students">hundreds of students organized</a> to oppose the JeffCo school board’s attempt to restructure the district’s history curriculum. As a result, on October 3 the school board <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/us/after-uproar-colorado-school-board-retreats-on-curriculum-review-plan.html?_r=0">decided to back down</a>, although students are still dissatisfied with its conservative majority. Their efforts reflect a consistent theme in US history: that peaceful resistance has an important place in democracy.</p>
<p>At issue was a proposal by a conservative school board member to create a “review committee” to assess the district’s US history curriculum. In general terms, the proponent of the committee believed recent revisions to the <a href="http://advancesinap.collegeboard.org/english-history-and-social-science/us-history">Advanced Placement history curriculum</a> (which occurred at the national level) did not portray the US in a good light.</p>
<p>But the proposed review committee had a particular task that students found problematic. Specifically, the committee would ensure that history materials promoted, among other things: “patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights”. It would also prohibit the adoption of materials that condoned civil disorder, social strife and disregard of the law. </p>
<h2>Peaceful opposition</h2>
<p>The school board engendered precisely the reaction they wanted to prevent: civil disobedience. In reaction to the proposal, hundreds of students left their high schools, taking to the streets to protest the review committee. Broadly speaking, students contended that the proposal was part of a larger plan to “whitewash” history. The result would be a glossy portrayal of the nation that would conveniently overlook defining struggles for equality.</p>
<p>It is worth noting that political activism was the most effective route for the students to challenge the proposal. Had students sued, they would have lost. The school board did not act on any proposal, so parents and students did not suffer any injury that courts could have remedied. In other words, the students were wise to exercise their free speech rights in the court of public opinion, rather than a federal courthouse.</p>
<h2>Symbol of a larger struggle</h2>
<p>This issue should not be seen in isolation. Rather, it reflects continuing struggles in education policy that are being played out across the nation. JeffCo is a microcosm of these debates. Indeed, in the course of the last few months, controversy has developed around almost all areas of contested policy at the national level. These <a href="http://co.chalkbeat.org/topics/jeffco-public-schools-interrupted/">include</a> the use of test scores in evaluating teachers, the role of unions in education, different forms of teacher compensation, and control over curriculum.</p>
<p>But the protests in JeffCo reflect something else: the collision of outside interests with local grassroots political activism. The recent election of several conservative members to the board <a href="http://action.americansforprosperity.org/app/write-a-letter?0&engagementId=47748">has been linked</a> to a larger efforts by a national interest group, <a href="http://americansforprosperity.org/">Americans for Prosperity</a>, with close ties to the influential Koch Brothers. </p>
<p>The billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch have devoted considerable resources to promoting their conservative agenda at the national level. <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=465AB626-A4C2-41F6-8790-0A41197593F4">More recently</a>, they have focused on local elections and policy formation. For the moment, the power of outside influences may have met their match in the form of students who actually attend the schools where the policies would take effect. </p>
<h2>Youth democratic spirit</h2>
<p>In <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21">Tinker v Des Moines</a>, the seminal 1960s case concerning student First Amendment rights, the US Supreme Court cautioned that our children are not “closed-circuit recipients” of “official” knowledge. </p>
<p>In that case, the Supreme Court was asked if school officials violated the First Amendment by disciplining students for wearing black armbands to school. In finding that in fact they did, the Court recognized that the vitality of democracy depends on the ability of our youngest citizens to think independently and transfer their rights into political action. When young people disagree with the government, they should know how to translate that sentiment into action. That’s exactly what happened in JeffCo.</p>
<p>At the risk of being too optimistic, these events offer encouraging signs. To begin with, young students empowered themselves. They used their constitutionally guaranteed right to speak. To be sure, the school board did not completely scuttle the plans for a committee, but they have reconstituted the proposal to include a broader base of people reviewing the curriculum. </p>
<p>At the moment, this has not appeased the teenage students, some of whom cannot vote. The students are <a href="http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/10/11/jeffco-students-at-rally-flirt-with-recall-effort/#.VD683-fzjoo">currently discussing</a> whether they will attempt a recall election of the conservative school board members. A <a href="http://kdvr.com/2014/10/11/jeffco-students-continue-protests-against-changes-to-ap-curriculum/">recent rally</a> attracted the attention of the state’s lieutenant governor, Joe Garcia.</p>
<p>These events may also reflect the limits of outside, non-local interest groups based in Washington DC on local issues. As local policy may be more transparent and subject to focused public attention, especially when compared to what transpires in Washington DC, the influence of outside organizations may be reduced. That could be one explanation, at least so far, of why the school board proposal was thwarted or, at the least, came to public light.</p>
<p>No matter how this story ends, JeffCo students have learned the most valuable lesson of their public schooling: they can influence their government. With all due respect to the teaching profession, no class experience could have simulated this lesson.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33039/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Paige does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Students in Jefferson County, Colorado, popularly known as JeffCo, have learned an important civics lesson about their power to influence policy. In late September, hundreds of students organized to oppose…Mark Paige, Assistant Professor, UMass DartmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.