<!--StartFragment-->

An EAC Story: Creating Consciousness on Campus

By: Roslyn Weiss

Table Of Contents

Abstract and Methods

Foreword

Background: The Campus Climate Challenge

The University of Memphis Environmental Action Club

The Green Power Campaign

Goals

Organizational Structure and Values of the EAC

Building Community

The Campaign Heats Up: Round Two 

Round Three

Messaging

Challenges

Events

Working Within the System

Dealing with Setbacks and Obstacles

PR Team Dilemma 

In the Field: Grassroots Organizing in the Memphis Community

Media Analysis

Media Recap

Works Cited

 

Abstract and Methods

The Environmental Action Club at the University of Memphis organized a Green Power campaign, in order to decrease their school's dependence on unhealthy and unjust energy sources. The EAC, with no prior campaign experience rose to the challenge to make the U of M one of the largest purchasers of renewable energy in the Southeast. I was a core member of the EAC during our Green Power campaign and will trace the steps that we took fromSpring 2006 to Spring 2007, the challenges we faced, lessons we learned, and general group structure and organizing techniques that enabled us to accomplish our goals. I will be using email archives, interviews, and personal accounts of the campaign, as well as media coverage that we received to accurately detail our experience.

Foreword

This document is meant to serve as a guide for anyone who plans on embarking on the Campus Climate Challenge or any other campus campaign that requires a student referendum. It should also be understood that every institution is different.This manual documents the actions that created a successful campaign at the University of Memphis under a specific administration and in the context of the political and cultural climate of the time. My intention is that readers understand the process of the campaign and the strategies that our group found helpful as well as those strategies that were not. 

Background

The Campus Climate Challenge

In the late 1990s, prompted by a handful of separate universities that adopted student endorsed clean energy policies, the Energy Action Coalition formed to connect student organizations in an effort to unite and strengthen the youth clean energy movement. The Campus Climate Challenge is an umbrella label for the student led movement happening across the nation and the world. Over 500 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada have signed on to participate in the challenge. The Campus Climate Challenge focuses on student involvement in actively changing energy policies on campus with the ultimate goal of converting to 100% clean energy such as wind and solar(climatechallenge.org). The Campus Climate Challenge is leveraging students to become the leaders of a clean energy future. Tennessee universities have been stepping up to the challenge one by one. This is the story of the Campus Climate Challenge at the University of Memphis.

The University of Memphis Environmental Action Club

The University of Memphis Environmental Action Club (EAC) is a group of students dedicated to promoting environmental consciousness in our community through education and activism. The idea of the EAC originated in the fall of 2004. In the spring of 2005, a group of approximately 30 concerned faculty and students met to discuss environmental issues on campus.The most pressing concern that came out of the initial EAC meetings wasrecycling on campus or the lack thereof. Disorganization, lack of motivationand connection to a broader movement caused the EAC to stall.

We spent the remainder of 2005 filing paperwork to become a registered student organization. In order to gain official recognition oncampus a student group must have a minimum of 10 members, a faculty advisor, aworking constitution, and elected officers. If the Student Activities Council accepts all paperwork, the group is considered a registered student organization and is eligible for $400.00 per semester that can be spent oncampus for promotional materials and other supplies.

By thespring of 2006 various members of the EAC had become involved with the broader student movement for clean energy by attending a handful of regional conferences that dealt with issues of campus sustainability and renewableenergy. I was first introduced to the Campus Climate Challenge and the idea ofrunning a Green Power Campaign at the 2006 Environmental Sustainability and Compliance in Tennessee Higher Education conference held at Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee. A panel of students that had already completed successful clean energy campaigns from the University of Tennessee Knoxville, MiddleTennessee State University, and Tennessee Tech University met with less than 10 students from other campuses that had not yet embarked on the challenge,including members of the EAC. Another conference that had a significant impacton the direction of the EAC was the 2006 Southeast Student Renewable Energy Conference held at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.

This was a turning point for the EAC. After the conferences, the students who attended had a new vision for the potential impact and capability of the EAC. We were energized, empowered, and equipped with new connections with student organizers from the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE). Although recycling is still a part of our overall plan forsustainability at the University of Memphis, EAC focus shifted toward starting a Green Power campaign, which has lived up to its name: Campus Climate Challenge. It was not until the EAC became involved in the Campus Climate Challenge that we established a purpose, mission, and general core values. 

The Green Power Campaign

It did not take long for student organizers from SACE to get involved with the EAC Green Power Campaign. In fact, at our first group meeting following the Fisk conference, we had two representatives travel across the state to be involved in the conversation.

The campaign that was successful at other Tennessee Board of Regents universities was passed in the form of a student referendum endorsed by each school's Student Government Association (SGA) for an environmental fee. The fee that the EAC endorsed will be applied to all tuition paying students. Half of the fee funds the purchase of Green Power provided by the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Green PowerSwitch program and the remainder finances various sustainable projects on campus such as energy efficiency and recycling.

TVA's Green Power Switch program was designed to give individuals, businesses and institutions the option of paying extra in order toeconomically support renewable energy infrastructure. According to the TVA, the Green Power Switch plan is simply to harness the natural energy of the sun,wind, and the earth to create a practical energy source for everyday activities. The program was developed with cooperation between the TVA, local power distributors, and the environmental community (greenpowerswitch.com).

Green Power is purchased in $4, 150-kilowatt hour blocks. One block equates to about 12 percent of an average household's energyuse. The additional charge for green power is added to monthly utility bills.While the green power that is purchased may not be used directly by the entitythat signed up for it, the green power will be added to TVA's overall electricsystem as a part of their total power mix. Purchasers of Green Power arebasically offsetting the use of energy from traditional energy sources such as coal and nuclear. The three types of green energy endorsed by TVA's program are wind power, solar power, and recycled methane gas (greenpowerswitch.com).

The portion of the student fee that funds sustainability projects can be used in many ways. These projects are varied, but are all aimed at reducing the overall energy consumption of the university. Some examples of projects used at other schools are retrofitting light fixtures to use more efficient bulbs, replacing windows with models that do not transfer heat in and out of a building, rooftop gardens that would reduce the need for heating and cooling, and replacing outdated HVAC systems to more efficient models. Most buildings are a “gold mine of energy savings (Barrie). At the University of Michigan, efficiency projects were completed in 123 buildings on its campus. Projects included lighting upgrades, adjustments in mechanical systems, and efficient appliance procurement. As of 2005, the University of Michigan expects to produce $9.7million in annual energy cost savings (Rhodes-Conway, 5).

The EAC followed the model of other student groups that had organized successful Green Power campaigns at their universities. The first step that the EAC took was a random survey of 500(465 were used in final calculations due to invalidity) University of Memphis students and faculty in order to get an idea of the cultural climate concerning the environment and energy issues in general (see Appendix A for a copy of theoriginal survey). The question that was used in the formulation of our Green Power campaign was, How much would you be willing to pay for Green Power? We wanted to know if students were willing to pay more for renewable energy ingeneral and if so, how much? Those surveyed could choose from a list of dollar options or write in a number that was not provided on the survey. The results of our survey, which was completely disconnected from any sort of educational campaign about energy issues, were overwhelmingly positive. 84.52 percent of people surveyed were in favor of a fee increase. Including those surveyed who were not in favor of a fee increase for green power, the average amount thatpeople were willing to pay was $34.81. Not including those who were against afee increase brought the average up to $41.18.

Other universities that passed initiatives for green power fees were less than $10per semester. Taking this into consideration and also, the fact that 77% of students surveyed were in favor of a fee that was $20 or more, the EAC decidedthat a $20 fee for Green Power and efficiency would define our campaign.

The second step of our campaign was to write a bill that would be presented to the SGA, the governing body that has the authority to hold legitimate student referendums (see Appendix B for a copy of the SGA bill). The Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR), the governing body that must approve all student fees, has passed similar fees through student referenda that were administered by the SGA at each school. Again, we were using the successful formula of other student organizations doing the Campus Climate Challenge had used before us.  The Dean of students, who is also the SGA faculty advisor, advised the EAC to use the SGA as a mechanism for the vote because they are the student organization responsible for being therepresentative voice of the students. The EAC followed that advice and proceeded to write a bill that would be presented and voted on by the SGA. Thefirst bill that was presented to the SGA in spring 2006 was not passed. Thereasons given by SGA senators were varied. Basically, they felt that the EAC was unorganized and had not done enough research. At this point, many of the SGA senators had no idea what green power was and felt that they would be endorsing a fee, not just the vote. The EAC realized then that we were going tobe forced to work with a group that was unsympathetic to our cause. Confusion and miscommunication has been the standard operational procedure from thebeginning of the relationship between the EAC and the SGA.

The EAC took the first failed attempt of passing our bill as a learning experienceand utilized the time to research the impact that the fee would have, connectwith administrators, faculty, and students, and perfect the organizational skills needed to create a highly efficient student organization.

We began meeting with the assistant to the President of the University. This relationship has been crucial to our campaign because it allowed a dialogue between the EAC and the President and also helped our group morale. Through this relationship, the University of Memphis Sustainability Committee was formed. The committee consisted of the EAC, members of the President’s Council, Staff Senate, Physical Plant, and other faculty. The committee held semi-regular meetings to discuss concerns about sustainability on campus, provided an opportunity for the EAC to give updates on our campaign, and created a dialogue between the different groups about what sustainability is and what it means for our campus.

Goals

The EAC set several goals for the spring of 2007. Our primary goal was to hold a successful student referendum for green power. Secondary goals included recruitment, leadership building, alliance building,and continuing to have an active recycling committee. Recruitment, leadership building, and alliance building were things that we kept in mind during all ofour activities. Although we collected almost 3,000 email addresses during our campaign, it still was difficult to recruit new members that wanted to getreally involved in the organizing process. From what I have been told from the newest members of the EAC, it was hard to “break in” and really feel comfortable and accepted as part of the group. The fact that there were so few highly involved EACers functioning in such a tight knit community, may have contributed to keeping the group small, which was contradictory to what we were actually trying to do.

In the broader scheme of things the EAC's goal was to do our part to save our future or save the world.  These goals seem enormous, but we feel if every person steps up to do their part, then amazing and enormous changes can take place. 

Organizational Structure and Values of the EAC

Until the EAC began our Green Power campaign, we didnot have a functional organizational structure to speak of. Through the campaign, we were forced to develop an effective system of organization and decision making structure.

The EAC uses a non-hierarchical consensus based decision-making structure. This means that although the University requiresthat there be official leaders within the group, all of the core members have equal decision making capability and power. Acore member is someone who is highly involved in behind the scenes” planning for the group. The core group meets at least once a week to discuss events,strategy, media, and anything else that directly affects the group. There were several roles that were filled by core group members. Although the responsibilities shifted with changing circumstances, we generally decided throughout the course of a meeting what needed to be done (the agenda) and what tactic we would use in the given situation. Responsibilities were generally delegated evenly between about 5 to 7 people throughout the campaign. Every organizer contributed to the campaign according to their talents or skills. For example, artists created the visual elements of our campaign, while one of our members infiltrated the Student Government Association, serving as a direct link to the opposition. It is important to note here that our group never publicly discussed the SGA as being the opposition, although they are the entity that stood in our way throughout the campaign. We all assisted inlogistical work such as filling out required forms to reserve space, making appointments with administrators, and publicity such as posting fliers on campus and in the community.

Another important communication technique that the core group uses is a core listserve. The EAC uses Google groups which is a service provided by Google. All emails are shared information on the Google group. This system allows the group to communicate easily between meetings. Google groups are a great way to keep track of conversations, catch up with group happenings, and post pertinent information. During a campaign, new information that could change the whole course of the campaign happens everyday. The EAC found that efficiency in communication served as an invaluable advantage during our campaign. Many ofthe people or groups that stood in the way of our goals did not communicate efficiently; therefore we were almost always able to outwork our opponents.

  Being a member of the core group also suggests that you subscribe to the core values of the organization. Some of those values, or opinions that we can agree on include: 1) the world is interconnected. This means that everything that we do has an effect or many effects, be them positive, negative or both. 2) Werecognize that we are in a time of crisis and feel responsible for acting in an urgent manner to address this crisis (environmental, social, holistic).Civilization is holistically pushing the limits of existence and living in opposition to the natural systems that support us. 3) We feel morally obligated to act to challenge the status quo, which is unjust, oppressive and encourages ignorance and dissolution of community. 4) We understand that multinational corporations are making decisions that are going to affect our futures based on a profit motive and seek to hold them accountable for these actions. Some other principles that the EAC embraces include: opposing environmental degradation,recognizing the links between the environment and the community, supporting human and animal rights, opposing inequalities based on race, class, gender,sexual orientation, religion, or ability, and opposing imperialism and militarism.

Building Community

The members of the EAC became very close throughout our campaign. Although there were times when we were having 8-hour meetings for days in a row, we still made time for fostering our friendships. We shared meals together regularly, shared space at each other's homes, and engaged in activities totally unrelated to the campaign such as watching movies. The EAC really turned into a type of extended family for me. We openly discussed our feelings of frustration, fear, and anxiety throughout the campaign. Although this tight knit community may have contributed to a feeling of separation from the rest of the larger community, it was essential to keeping the group in tact through the hardest parts of the campaign.

 

The Campaign Heats Up: Round Two

The fall of 2006 was the EAC's first attempt at a full-fledged Green Power campaign. We held weekly educational activities to engage students in the campaign and to be a resource for anyone interested inlearning more. We showed a variety of energy related films such as Kilowatt Ours, an in depth look at where our energy comes from, the impacts of those traditional sources, and the current clean alternatives to those sources. A highlight of our campaign was hosting speaker, Dave Cooper, a traveling mountain top removal activist who shared the horrors and truths behind coal industry practices in Appalachia. The EAC also conducted several classroom presentations throughout the semester in order to increase student awareness about the issues and their ability to make a difference. We used each of these events as an opportunity to make new contacts.

While we were busy planning activities, we were also busy attempting to educate the SGA. We sent individualized invitations to each SGA senator inviting them to learn more about renewable energy. Not one SGA member attended our event.  A core member of the EAC even became an SGA senator in the hopes of bringing moreattention and credibility to the EAC's cause. She served as the sponsor of the EAC's Environmental Initiatives Bill(s). The EAC's original intention was to have an isolated vote in November of 2006. The SGA passed our bill on the conditionthat we wait until the Spring SGA elections to hold the vote. Seeing the voteas crucial and urgent, the EAC was highly disappointed but agreed to the amendment. The President of the SGA, unannounced to the EAC, later vetoed the bill, leaving the referendum off of the election ballot. The reasoning for this veto was never communicated to the EAC directly and can only be inferred from second hand information. It wasn't until the next semester that we became awarethat we still had to pass a bill through the SGA in order to conduct the vote.

Round Three

The spring of 2007 was supposed to be set aside for educating the student body about our campaign. The vote, to be held in conjunction with the SGA elections,was scheduled for April 3-5, 2007. However, since the vote was still not officially endorsed by the SGA, the EAC had to start again from scratch.  Thursday February 22, 2007 the SGA cancelled the meeting in which the senators would vote on an updated version ofthe EAC's bill, due to an away basketball game. The EAC's campaign continued without the reassurance of a vote. The following Thursday, the SGA failed to address any new business including the EAC's bill due to a lack of senator presence at the meeting.

At this point, the EAC is left with three weeks to promote a vote that was still unofficial. The EAC called for an emergency meeting with the SGA President and their faculty advisor. The main question on the minds of the EAC is, Why is our issue being ignored by the official representatives of the students? At this point the EAC felt a great deal of distrust in the system and the organization that is supposed to be the representative voice of the students.The EAC was advised to go forth with our campaign which consisted of flyers, articles, press releases, classroom presentations, movie showings, speakers, a parade, a website dedicated to the vote (www.voteYESforGreenPower.com)and a constant flow of emails to our list of interested students and faculty.  This is the point in thecampaign where messaging became one of our most tedious tasks (see messaging).

If a student referendum passes at the University level a fee proposal will then goto the TBR who will then decide, based on student recommendation and their ownset of political reasons whether to implement the proposed fee. The fee thatthe EAC endorsed would make the University of Memphis the largest purchaser of renewable energy in the southeast, which equates to purchasing approximately 18 million kilowatt hours of green power per semester, displacing approximately 32 million pounds of Co2 annually from the atmosphere. Our impact will be further compounded by the efficiency projects that aim to reduce our overall consumption of fossil fuels.

Thursday March 15, 2007 the SGA brought the EAC bill to the floor. About 50 students showed up in support of the initiative. The SGA senators struggled to understand the true implications of the bill. The SGA amended crucial elements of the bill such as the specific dollar amount recommended by the students, the proposed projects, and allocation of the fee. They justified their decision on the grounds of fairness surrounding the student's right to choose, however,their plan lacked a mechanism for choosing an amount for the fee. In response,the EAC created a petition for students who are in favor of the original bill including a $20 per semester fee to fund the purchase of Green Power and fund campus sustainability projects such as efficiency and recycling (see Appendix C for a copy of the petition).

In three weeks, over 2,500 students pledged support for a clean energy future and a $20 fee increase. A record-breaking student voter turnout overwhelmingly (69%) approved an environmental fee in the SGA elections. As noted before,the ballot question of the student referendum was too vague for any concrete decision to be made. There was no indication of how much students were willingto pay or what exactly they expected to pay for with the fee based on the question.

A special meeting for the SGA was called to discuss the recommended amount for the proposed environmental fee. Because there was no indication of an amount on the SGA ballot, the senate was left with only a couple of sources that suggest a specific sum for the fee. Because the SGA senate is supposed to represent the students, the EAC felt that the only legitimate source for information concerning a fee recommendation would be the student petitions. While only 1,600 students participated in the SGA elections, 2,520 students participated in the petition campaign.

Unfortunately, the SGA senate did not uphold their responsibility of representing their constituency: the student body. An amendment, explicitly based on a draft recommendation made by a Tennessee Board of Regents committee, limited the fee recommendation to $10. The SGA based their decision explicitly on pressure from administrators and the TBR to limit the fee to $10 per semester. The student voice was marginalized while the SGA senate attempted to uphold the status quo.

The EAC was left determined to stand up for the 2,520 students who explicitly asked for a $20 fee and a clean energy future. Our campaign shifted focus to the U of M administration and the TBR who will ultimately decide the amount. We met with the administrator who is responsible for submitting fee requests to the TBR. She acknowledged that the system was unfair, equating our frustration to theway she feels about her representatives. She was not in a position to speak outagainst the SGA. The EAC was forced to swallow our pride and sense of justice and accept the $10 fee as a bittersweet victory. After months of anticipation, the TBR approved the $10 per semester Sustainability Fee for the University of Memphis in their summer meeting June 28 and 29, 2007. Due to the possibility ofraising the fee over time, the EAC will keep the petitions as proof of the student's will.

Messaging

The fact that the relationship between the EAC and the SGA was so fragile was one of the most challenging aspects of our campaign (see challenges). This dysfunctional relationship resulted in constant changes in our campaign due tothe fact that the SGA had the power to make all of the official decisions for legitimizing our goals. One of the most important values that the EAC shared was that we should always be truthful to the student body about our campaign while communicating our message in an understandable way. This required a lot of quick thinking and quick acting, Before the EAC created VoteYESforGreenPower.com, we relied ontabling, flyers, and handbills, and the occasional Helmsman article (our campus newspaper) to get our message to the student body. Because energy is such abroad issue, it would take the average student a great deal of interest tounderstand all of the implications of out current practices. When presenting information to the student body in the form of handbills or flyers we generally included information on public health, such as the skyrocketing asthma rates inthe Memphis area, general environmental degradation caused by mountain topremoval coal mining, and less explicitly global warming. We also found that it was important to identify how the University currently derives its power, because that was not found to be common knowledge. Even before the vote was official, we included the dates of the vote and the SGA's web address. Although we were advised to advertise the vote before it was officially approved by theSGA, this became an issue for the EAC. The SGA, who values procedure and bureaucracy found it offensive that we had jumped the gun with our fliers.Our response was that we really had no choice; the vote would have been publicized only a couple of weeks in advance had we waited for SGA approval, which would have been inadequate. It ended up being a mute issue.

Our messaging to the SGA was focused less on the issues towards the end of the campaign. Although we attempted to educate them on the issues in the past, the message that we stuck with was that it is the SGA's duty to represent the student body, because the student body has asked for this vote, the SGA should honor their duty by allowing students to voice their opinion about student fees. We were careful to mention that the Senators themselves did not have to necessarily agree with the fee. They too would have the opportunity to vote for or against it. Other messages that we used with the SGA included making the University of Memphis a leader in environmental stewardship and also stressing the fact that most of the other major universities in Tennessee had already implemented or were in the process of implementing similar fees.

Messaging for the media required a different approach. Although the EAC was frequently frustrated with the SGA and administration, we intentionally stuck with a positive message for our campaign, typically not even mentioning the political power struggle on our campus. We wanted to communicate the positive effects that a new environmental fee would have in a way that the community could relate to. Again, as with our messaging technique for the student body, (which was also the target audience for most of our articles) we stressed the personal health benefits of having clean air and Memphis non-attainment air qualitystatus according to the EPA. Because the process of the vote and our campaign essentially changed over the course of the year, the media may have served to confuse the issue while also bringing more attention to our cause. It was difficult for the EAC toalways get the type of publicity that we wanted in the school newspaper. There was a key reporter who continually misquoted and confused the issues and adopted a "no new fees for students" stance, which was a major source of frustration for the EAC.

Challenges

I noted earlier that the EAC's weak relationship with the SGA was one of the most challenging aspects of the campaign. According to another core member,I agree with that statement, and I think that aclose second or a tie would be the time constraint and our smallness. Because we are a small group, we all became totally consumed with the campaign in terms of how much time and effort we each spent on it, which made it a difficult thing to sustain. It was, like Joy said, through our sheer grit and determination that the seven of us were able to organize this. If we weren't so determined, it would have been too big a thing to organize and implement (the vote I mean) in time for the deadline. I mean, we are totally amazing for pulling this off - even regardless of the administrative obstacles, it was hard and abundant work to educate the student body and turn out the vote.

There were abundant challenges faced by the EAC. We were constantly facing deadlines while also trying to juggle our personal lives and classes.

Another obstacle that the EAC faced whichwas not considered until after our campaign was over, was the general stigma surrounding environmentalists as middle class, white, tree-huggers who are more concerned with streams and forests than with human issues. People tend to see environmentalism as a niche issue, instead of an issue for everyone. One of the future goals for the EAC is to present environmentalism or at least our organization as part of an inclusive movement. The fact that there was a stigma surrounding our group was a major disadvantage when dealing with the SGA. They were busy trying to protect student's pocketbooks while the EAC was trying to protect the student's lives. The SGA didn't want to believe any of the information that we presented to them because they did not trust us and they did not like us. Senators and executive officers of the SGA openly expressed their disgust and annoyance with the EAC at meetings. There was even an instance where an SGA senator vandalized an EAC member's dorm. The hostility was definitely unnecessary, but we did not have time to gain their trust or friendship.  This was a major source of frustration and discouragement for the EAC.

Events

Events can be very important to a campaign. The EAC used our own events and also other organization's events to leverage community support for our cause. Not all of our events were a success, however. Some reasons for low attendance are planning an event when other big events are happening; lack of publicity, and the fact that many students work and cannot devote extra time to a “cause”. One technique that we used to get higher attendance at our own events was to suggest to our professors that they offer extra credit to students who attend. Advertising can be expensive and time consuming. Also, posting flyers can waste a lot of paper. By utilizing networking sites such as facebook.com and myspace.com, the EAC was able to invite hundreds of U of M students to an event with just a few clicks. When we did use paper to promote events, we tried to post them in high traffic areas. Also, just getting your professors to announce your event in class can be helpful (or just announce it yourself wherever you go!). Free refreshments are also a good way to lure students to events.

It can be a time consuming task to reserve space forevents. The bureaucratic circus values procedure over reason, therefore, I would suggest planning all or as many events as possible at the beginning ofthe semester so that your group can reserve a space or multiple spaces at one time. Be sure to consider what type of equipment (projectors, computers, etc) will be needed for each event.

Sometimes events had to be held in locations offcampus due to restrictive campus policies. For example, the University of Memphis has a food contract with Aramark, making it basically illegal for any student organization to provide food from another source. At one point in the semester I was interrogated by administrators concerning our food practices. Since the EAC was low on cash and proposals for school- sponsored food have to be submitted months in advance, we depended mostly on donated food and home made food for our events. The contract also conflicted with EAC values because the food provided was not organic, and is served on non-recyclable plates. If we were to make such special requests, the food costs would be way beyond our non-existent budget. Therefore, we held most meetings and many of our events off campus. We found that many environmentally conscious businesses such as local health food stores would gladly donate food for our events. Also, we found that some local bakeries give away or throw away all of the food that was not sold that day. For one event we were able to get enough bagels for 30 people to eat for three days for free!

Working Within the System

Throughout our campaign the EAC grew more aware of the oppressive forces that control everything that we do. We were faced with the truths of campus politics. People in positions of power that we had to deal with all had their own set of political, personal, and cultural issues that we had to maneuver around. In many cases, we felt as if we were being manipulated by people in power. One thing that I learned was not to take no for an answer.The EAC was told no about many things, but we found that persistence and willingness to communicate with the higher ups can lead to success. For example, one of our most exciting events was called intents week. The whole idea was for the EAC and anyone who wanted to join us would camp on campus during the most hectic part of the campaign, the week of the vote. Initially,the person who is responsible for reserving spaces blatantly denied our request. Considering the fact that she did not have enough power to authorize such an event, we had to seek special permission from the Dean of students. We were granted permission to camp for two nights and four days. This was not exactly what we wanted, but it ended up being a great success. Attempting to change campus policies forces an organization to work within the system. The EAC found through our campaign that the system is not easily challenged and is notfair. Personally, I have come to the realization through this campaign that “the system” is not something that I want to work to legitimize. However, I am glad that I was part of something that will bring positive changes to my alma mater for years to come.

Dealing with Setbacks and Obstacles

The setbacks and obstacles that we encountered throughout the campaign definitely took a toll on the EAC. At the peak, we were physically and emotionally drained. It was very important for us to serve as a support group for each other. We had to maintain our focus and not get wrapped up in negativity, which was an easy thing to do. We had to learn not to take encounters with the SGA personally. It was important for us to try to distribute tasks evenly so that people did not get burned out. We also had totake time to pat ourselves on the back for small victories. Many times, we presented the positive aspects of a situation to the public, while dealing with the negative aspects within the core group. It would have been easy for the EAC to bad talk the SGA to the newspapers and to students, but that would not have done us any good.

In the midst of these set backs, no matter how emotionally involved we had become; we had to think clearly and weigh all of our options. Creating a positive campaign though positive messaging helped the entire situation. Although there were oppressive forces acting against us and we were dealing with a lot of ignorance and political stress, we kept our minds collectively focused on our goals and the task at hand. I think this was amajor factor in making those goals a reality.

Negotiations with the SGA and administration proved to be some of the most stressful and difficult tasks. While in negotiations over the actual wording of the referendum and the amount of the fee, we had to avoid being coerced into something that would misrepresent the group or contradict our intentions for the fee. Because of political forces surrounding the student fee process and a bad business relationship between the TBR and TVA, selling some members of our administration proved very difficult. Our Dean of students insisted that our money would be better spent on efficiency. Of course the whole point of the green power campaign was to actually promote a new form of energy rather than continuing our dependence on energy primarily generated from coal. There was an obvious lack of faith in the supplier, even through the Green Power Switch Program is third party certified, meaning that they are held accountable for producing approved renewable energy with the money that is generated from the program. There was even a lack of faith in renewable energy within our administration. Our Physical Plant Vice president advised us to wait for hydrogen because solar is way too expensive right now. Of course he didn't understand the true costs of fossil fuel energy. We did not waste our time trying to convince the VP that he should reevaluate his concept of expensive energy. We did provide him with literature and move on to the people who actually have a say in which type of energy they want to buy: the tuition paying students. 

PR Team Dilemma

In the spring of 2007 the EAC was given an offer that seemed too good to be true; it was. An upper division public relations (PR)class would be taking on the EAC and our green power campaign as their semester project. The professor for the course explained that the EAC would act as if we were real world clients of a public relations company. We were in charge of approving any ideas that the PR teams came up with.

The first time the EAC met with the PR class we provided a detailed explanation of our general values and the status and goals of our campaign. We also explained that besides winning our campaign, we were also concerned with recruitment and group diversity. It seemed as if we were off to an ok start despite the blank stares that I was getting in response to my presentation.

I met periodically with a small group whose purpose was to assist the EAC with our campaign through outreach, media, and various gimmicks. I realized that the relationship was going to be difficult because, as I have explained before,when there is limited time to organize, there must be a system of communication that uses that time efficiently. We attempted to teach the PR team about consensus decision-making and the use of hand signals to make meetings more effective. It was interesting to me that these people were going to school to learn how tocommunicate with clients and the broader public, but there was almost no attempt made on their part to get to know their clients and understand their communication techniques.

For example, one idea that our PR team continued to push even after the EAC had disapproved it was using the little money that the EAC had in our school account to buy hundreds of plastic tie dye bracelets that say, "blue goes green." First of all, if the PR team had listened to our initial presentation they may have come to the conclusion that we probably wouldn't want to invest in hundreds of petroleum based consumer products that have little or nofunction as far as making our campaign goals a reality. The slogan itself, "blue goes green" was not approved by the EAC either. We preferred the slogan "make blue green" because it invokes a sense of personal responsibility and action rather than a passive sense that the U of M is already going green and there is nothing that you can do about it. This disagreement between the EAC and our PR team over the slogan ended up wasting an enormous amount of time for both parties. The following is an email exemplifying our PR team's unwillingness to represent our values:

Dear EAC,

We have decided to emailyou our plans for Green Day, the press release and why we stand behind our slogan Blue Goes Green.

Time is a crucial element in the world of pr, and our grade depends on this. We are already behind in getting everything approved by you to be submitted to Dr.Fischer.

We are here to work for you, but we need your cooperation and cannot delay any further with this campaign.

 We have discussed your various changes to the slogan and we all agree that

Blue Goes Green is not passive, Blue Goes Green is a positive statement meant to encourage everyone to join in as Blue Goes Green because we are optimistic that our campus will GO GREEN!

Blue Goes Green also sounds better for grammatical reasons with its alliteration and the imagery it invokes.

Make Blue Green is putting two colors together, which is confusing and awkward.

"Make" is not empowering-- it is demanding and this is NOT the impression we want the university to have about the EAC or the environment.

In the Tri State Summit,you expressed not wanting to be known as the "hippie club".

You have to be willing to work with us to present the EAC as a welcoming organization.

We believe that Make Blue Green or Help Make Blue Green is not the way to achieve this.

We look forward to working with you and we are all excited in Blue Goes Green becoming a reality for the U of M.

We ask that you review this information and send us your suggestions/questions as quickly as possible so this can be approved.

Sincerely,

The Green Team

All this email did was waste time and create hostility between the two groups. To make a long story short our PR team did not follow through with any of their plans except serving green pastries and fruit one day during the vote. Also, one of the most beloved environmental justice activists in our community, Doris Bradshaw, came to speak during the vote. While our PR team raffled off petroleum based consumer products as prizes, Doris spoke to an almost empty room about the dangers of consumerism, war, and racism  One thing that created a huge problem that day was the fact that one of the members of the PR team decided to use donated leather bracelets to promote the EAC and our events. No one in the EAC was informed about the use of leather bracelets and when several EACers spoke outagainst them, the girl continued to pass them out indignantly. Apparently promoting a corporation who markets animal suffering as fashion seemed like a good match with EAC values. This was the last day I ever communicated with our PR team. The EAC was incredibly disappointed and had wasted a lot of precious time and energy through this relationship. Ironically, waste was one of the main things we were trying to avoid. I think the moral of this story is that a group should not depend on any other group or people that are participating merely for a grade or for money. People can only be depended on if they really care about an issue. 

In the Field: Grassroots Organizing in the Memphis Community

The University of Memphis is a very diverse community with very unique energy. People are entrenched in their daily routines. Social segmentation and the fact that it is predominately a commuter campus have created a political climate that is largely apathetic and individual centric. Many students are more concerned about personal economic gain and or stability than the impact that they are having on our world. Green energy, despite some exposure on climate change in the media, has failed to make a widespread impression on the community. I credit this to the fact that we do not see the level of devastation required to supply our everyday energy needs with fossil fuels and the common assumption that energy resources are limitless. My experience speaking with thousands of students, over the course of the past two years, has exposed a general disconnect between daily actions and their consequences and aneed for increased public awareness and education about our current energy problems and solutions. It is important to note however, that the number of young people stepping up to confront the world's greatest problems is growing everyday. For the first time in U of M history, students organized a movement and made real changes because of an issue that is going to affect our collective futures. I was personally never before involved in any formal organizing, activism, or campaigning. Many of the students that got involved in our campaign were new to this type of activity as well. As long a new people are constantly discovering that they can create changes through action, there is hope.

Media Analysis

See Appendix for complete articles. 

Students teach elders a lesson

Commercial Appeal

This article was the green power campaign's firstmedia attention. At this time there were no obvious adversaries and thereporter focused on the positive aspect of student leadership. If the reporter was not completely sympathetic to the cause, he certainly was not against it, presenting the new fee as a sacrifice worth taking, at least according to Monica Brown and the other Tennessee universities who have already adopted a fee for renewable energy and sustainability. The idea that most students are strapped for cash is mentioned in this article and became an on going theme for the media.

Student group aims for green 

Laqueta Perry

Daily Helmsman September 27, 2007

The Daily Helmsman article, Student group aims forgreen, was the EAC's first exposure to the University of Memphis community specifically. Although no real controversy had come into fruition due to the newness of the campaign, the reporter still took the time to get a second opinion about a new student fee. According to one student, "I think it's a good idea, but I think they should allocate some of the existing tuition money," she said. "Because that's just more tuition that I will have to pay."  With rising tuition costs, this was a constant issue that was brought us in almost all of our media coverage.

The article did serve to give our group, our campaign, and our events some publicity. Also, it served to put our campaign in the context of the larger student movement. 

U of M may go green, with student vote Kendall Jones

Daily Helmsman February 22,2007

Kendall Jones, an open adversary of our campaign and the official reporter for the SGA, wrote this article. This was our first experience with Kendall, and we were a bit naive about how quotes can be used to confuse an issue. Most of the facts about our campaign were presented correctly in the article, although there was an emphasis on global warming,which was not the issue that we liked to focus on due to the fact that there is not overwhelming acceptance of its validity in our community. Also, people do not tend to see how global warming will affect their lives. I was misquoted inthe article, which was slightly annoying. I cannot know if this was intentional or if it was a typo, but it did serve to make me sound pretty ignorant.

The article then shifted focus to the Allen Fossil Plant, which is a very old and dirty coal burning plant located in Memphis near a low income African American community. Kendall took the time to get the opinion of the TVA (who owns the plant) about the pollution issue. The TVA spokesperson said, "At TVA, at all of our plants, we've taken an approach to reduce emissions as much as we can."  Yes, but the issue is that this plant burns coal and the life cycle of energy derived from coal is toxic and deadly. No matter how many precautions are taken at the plant, mountains and unique ecosystems still have to be destroyed to obtain coal in the first place. One aspect of articles that tend to confuse the issue is that there are only a couple of opportunities for someone to make a point. This leaves a large part of the issue uncovered. The reporter has the advantage of framing the issue to their liking, choosing the aspects ofthe issue that are covered and which aspects are left out.

Another feature of our media coverage that may have caused confusion is that green power may be referred to in many different ways. In this article, Kendall decided to use the term "reusable." The EAC never referred to green power as reusable. We did use the term renewable, wind and solar, and green energy. This may have not had much of an impact on our campaign, but it is just an example of how confusing this issue can be to someone who has not ever been introduced to the concept of renewable energy or how energy is derived in general. Personally, I think that understanding of various energy cycles should be a requirement for students.

The quotes from students not involved with the campaign follow the trend of previous comments. Their quotes expose the general confusion over energy. Afternoting that all of the other universities’ fees have not exceeded $10 per semester, one student said, "If they're charging $10 then (the University) needs to charge $10. What is the other $10 going towards?"  I think what this student may not have realized is that $10 doesn't cover the enormous consumption rate of the University. The extra $10 would mean twice the impact of the fee, twice as much green power, and a lot less coal.

Kendall went on to say that "some students aren't convinced that the $20 fee would do all the EAC said it would." A student said, "We don't see the benefit of our student fees now so why would you add $20 to it?" This seems completely out of context. If the student had any idea what our campaign was about, he would understand what the $20 was for. This article was also published before the height of our campaign. The fact that the EAC had to educate the entire student body about all of the implications of our energy use provided a lot of room for uneducated negative comments. 

Letter to the Editor Larry Henson

Daily Helmsman February 28, 2007

This was the EAC's first real negative press. The person who wrote the letter misunderstood the SGA's role in the whole decision making process, which is unfortunate because it was printed and probably added to others' confusion.

It was important for us to always be ready to correct this type of media. If a student based their understanding of our campaign on this letter to the editor, they would have the impression that the SGA is the body that decides if the U of M adopts a new fee. The crucial element left out of this letter is the democratic process and the fact that all students are invited to vote in this issue, the SGA would only be approving the vote in the in the meeting that thisman is referring to. And as a direct consequence of the previous article beingresponded to, global warming is presented as the primary issue of our campaign.We should have never participated in the original dialogue about globalwarming. We should have stuck to the issues such as health implications and thephysical environmental damage done by the coal life-cycle. The following is my response to this letter; it was never published. 

The SGA vote concerning the Green Power fee would not increase student fees directly.The SGA vote would only make it possible for a student-wide referendum to beheld this April, along with the SGA elections. All students would have the opportunity to vote on the initiative, which includes a $20/semester fee for green power and efficiency projects on campus.

Students who disagree with the fee would have equal opportunity to vote against the fee as students who support the fee. The reasons that the students have organized to propose this fee are not solely based on the science behind global warming (even though it is a widely accepted fact that the earth is warming due to burning of fossil fuels). Thereare a plethora of other social, health, and moral issues that drive our passion for green energy. For the cost of a large pizza, students have the opportunity to fight environmental injustice such as the horrors of mountain top removal coal mining, birth defects caused by toxins released during the burning of coal, widespread respiratory diseases such as asthma, and general environmental degradation. Even if students cannot be 100% sure that climate change is going to cause mass destruction in our lifetimes, there is no way to ignore that our current energy use is irresponsible. The University of Memphis is one of the largest energy consumers in our community and it is our moral obligation to ensure that we are not limiting the basic human rights of others through our consumption.

SGA bills left untouched  Kendall Jones

Daily Helmsman March 13, 2007

This article finally took the spotlight away from global warming and focused on the dysfunctional character of the SGA and the myriad of bills awaiting consideration. It brought attention to the fact that the EAC sponsored bill had been delayed multiple times. It also accurately reminded readers what our bill was proposing.

An interesting turning point in the article is when SGA President Meagan Ratliffis quoted saying," We really need to make a sound decision about the fee. We should really think about what the students want because this is their money." Just reading this quote rekindles so much frustration for me. First of all, this is where the confusion starts. The SGA presents itself as the ultimate decision maker in this whole process. This is not the case. The whole reason this bill was being presented to the SGA is so that the students could say what they wanted by voting yes or no for the fee. I don't know what she meant about making a sound decision. It is not her decision. Let the students say what they want. The article then moved away from the EAC issue and onto discuss the other not-so-pressing or precedent setting bills.

Letter to the Editor Sarah Trimble Kee

Daily Helmsman March 14, 2007

This is a response to "SGA bills left untouched."  This is a sarcastic display of discontent with the SGA as a whole. The person who submitted this letter had no association to the EAC, which made it even better because she presented the green power initiative as something that our SGA should be making a priority to address.

Students camping, campaigning, on campus Nevin Batiwalla

Daily Helmsman March 30, 2007

This article was the first real-time coverage of an EAC event. This was a light hearted and straight forward article, which did notinclude any negative comments about the EAC or our campaign. Actually, I was the only person quoted, a total of five times. There were a couple of aspects of the article that could have represented the EAC better. The reporter referenced "the group (the EAC), concerned about global warming." I guess he just assumed we were concerned about global warming, which is not necessarily untrue, but as I have explained before it is not the issue that we wanted to focus on. I was misquoted for the second time at the end of the article. He wrote,"I think it's interesting that there is so little complaint now that students have control over the fees." What I actually said was that I am surprised that students are not complaining over their lack of control over their student fees. I went on to explain that a campus wide referendum for a student fee was unprecedented in U of M history. 

 

The "Blue Goes Green"

Commercial Appeal April 1. 2007

This is an example of our PR team's failed attempt to communicate with the EAC about proper messaging. This three-sentence blurb probably did more to confuse people than to actually inform them. In particular, the part that says, "The balance [of the fee] will be used for campus energy products. Does anyone know what energy products are? Fossil fuels could be considered energy products as well as greenhouse gases. Read more about the EAC's relationship with our PR team in the PR team section.

 

SGA elections online, voters urged to log on  Morgan Greer

Daily Helmsman April 4, 2007

This article is of an informative nature about the online voting process. There is a brief mention of the EAC and the referendum that will be on the online ballot. The reporter was mainly interested in getting students opinions about online voting versus paper ballots, rather than their stance on any particular issue or candidate. There could have been a much better explanation about how the money would be used if the students approve the fee or what steps would follow after the student referendum. As with the majority of the articles written during our campaign, the information presented was narrow and tended to leave the reader with more questions than answers about the new student fee and green power in general.

 

M.A.D party wins SGA elections Kendall Jones

Daily Helmsman April 10, 2007

This article is a great example of SGA political "hype" and the unbalanced focus on personalities and affiliations rather thanissues. The idea of even having political parties in the SGA seems distracting to me because it takes away from the discussion of tangible issues. The majority of the article focused on the results of the election and petty grievances that each party filed against each other during the campaign. There was actually no concrete mention of any issue that any candidate or party was advocating. The short section about the results of the green power referendum was totally separate from the discussion of candidates. It's as if the candidates were not concerned about voicing an opinion about the referendum. The primaryfocus was on two fabricated groups of feuding students competing for titles,glory, and "political power."

The first sentence of the article is entirely misleading. It states that 19,900 votes were cast in the election, giving theidea that over 98 percent of students voted. Actually, 1,659 students (about 11 percent) participated in the elections, all of which voted yes or no for the referendum and even less voted in each category. The Presidential candidate ran unopposed. Again, this article lacked substance and insight primarily because the candidates had no real issues to speak of. Surprisingly, the reporter did not fit in a negative comment about the green power fee.

Oil, war and the environment Omar Baddar

Daily Helmsman April 11, 12007

This piece in the commentary section sought to bridge the gap between the anti- war, political reform, and environmental movements. Seeing each as a different leg of the same struggle. This columnist generally writes about US foreign policy, but in this piece highlighted campus policy,the need for SGA accountability, and functional democracy on a campus level.

There was a strategic "call to action" towards the beginning of the article, which encouraged all students who care about the environment, democracy, or SGA accountability to come support the proposal for a $20 per semester fee at the next SGA meeting. The day after this article was published was the day that the SGA would decide the amount of the fee to propose to the President's office. The hope was that they would base their decision on the overwhelming student approval of the fee and the more than 2,500 petitions for a $20 per semesterfee. Apparently members of the SGA did not read this article or are not compelled by the ideas of a healthy and safe environment, democracy, or accountability. This goes to show that even great media coverage may not be enough to sway the people that need to be swayed the most.

 

U of M students to pay green for green Tom Charlier

Commercial Appeal April 15, 2007

This article is a thorough and accurate depiction of the state of the University of Memphis environmental initiatives fee. Itexplains how students have led the movement for campus sustainability allacross the state of Tennessee. The fee approval process is explained in detail, starting with the student referendum, SGA recommendation, Presidential approval, and then on to the Tennessee Board of Regents, who ultimately make student fees official.

I was able to explain what students intend for the allocation of the funds: half for green power from the TVA's Green Power Switch program and half for on-campus sustainability projects. Our Dean of students was also able to put in a word about how he thinks, "some sort of mechanism would have to be developed for deciding exactly how the money would be spent.â" This is just a different way of saying he doesn't think a specific amount of the fee should be allocated for the purchase of renewable energy, which is the stance that he held from the beginning. Of course, the EAC already realized that a special committee composed of faculty, students, and non-voting staff would need to be formed upon the passage of the fee. That committee, as envisioned by the EAC, would review and approve projects for the half of the fee allocated to on-campus initiatives.The intent of the students is that the other half of the fee would be earmarked for renewable energy. This was our campaign stance and we feel that not using half of the money for the direct purchase of green power would be misleading.It will be interesting to see how the Dean of students will use his power in the future when this fee is actually in place.

Green voted in

Daily Helmsman April 25, 2007

In this very short blurb, part of a yearly recap of campus news, the writer almost got it right. Under the banner of the SGA ("the voice of the students since 1950") it states, "Students voted to pay a $10 fee to help the U of M become a "greener" school by purchasing energy from renewable sources."

Although a $10 per semester fee was the outcome of the whole process, it would have been more accurate to state that 69% of students who participated in SGA elections voted to raise their fees; an even greater number of students approved a $20 per semester fee, but the SGA upholding an uncanny allegiance to authority and the status quo, watered down the student intent resulting in a $10 per semester fee. 

 

Media Recap

  As I have learned through the participation in this campaign, interacting with the media can be one of the greatest challenges. It is a rare occurrence that a reporter will print the carefully planned message that you and your group intend to be published. There are a couple of things that an organization can do to get the right message out to the public. First, prep any person who will be talking to the media in order to present a simple, coherent, and consistent message. Secondly, become the media. As I have discussed before, facebook.com and myspace.com are great places to connect with people. Use blogs, flyers, and other literature to overpower any misinformation that is being printed in campus or local newspapers. Most importantly, talk to your community. It may be intimidating and at times it may seem that no one is listening, but if you don't speak up in real life face to face interactions, you may lose some vital support. Persistence is key. Don't let the opportunity of a captive classroom or a packed fraternity house meeting pass you by!

<!--EndFragment-->