Running Head: DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

Demands (Intersectional Council to University of San Diego):

Policy Analysis
Lallia Allali
Stephanie Barnes
Rachel Berry
David Emery
Michael Wahl
University of San Diego

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

2
Abstract

In November of 2015, University of San Diego (USD) students who identify as members
of underrepresented populations on campus (Black, Latina/Latino, LGBTQ) formed a coalition
named the Intersectional Council (IC), and requested immediate administrative action towards an
equitable campus. This was done by taking up the nationwide Demands movement, and by
presenting a list of demands to a panel being held on issues diversity and inclusion. This has
since been met with mixed responses. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the conflict between the Intersectional Council and the University of San Diego. This
will be accomplished by applying five analytic perspectives relevant to negotiation and conflict
dynamics: Chosen Narrative/Generational Trauma, Master-Slave Dialectic, ARIA framework,
Lifetraps, and Interest Based Negotiation. Rather than limiting consultation through only one
analytic lens, we believe that a thorough analysis will be accomplished by exploring the conflict
as applied in all of these perspectives. It is the hope of this paper that these perspectives will be
informative to both parties in moving forward in productive dialogue and real change.

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

3
Introduction

Identity-based and interest-based models of negotiation are of critical importance in

understanding this conflict, and elements of each are inextricably intertwined in an issue as
complex as that presented. There are multiple interested parties to consider, both named in the
negotiations, and unnamed as shadow constituencies. Each party holds identities, histories, and
narratives, which consciously and unconsciously influence their presence, behavior, and attitudes
in this conflict. This issue is interrelated to all elements of the conflict nationwide, and the
ensuing negotiations at USD. There are negotiations-behind-the-negotiations in these regards,
between lead parties on both sides. These shadow negotiations occur between the constituencies
of each party, as well as between individual representatives of the parties themselves. For
instance, constituents of the IC must be in negotiation with the larger parties whom they claim to
represent to be aligned in mission and purpose, and in an effort to aid the IC in their written and
social negotiations USD President Dr. James Harris has offered suggestions and resources in the
interest of productive dialogue.
The demands presented to the panel at USD, the information gathered directly from a
meeting with Dr. Harris, and the abundance of information surrounding the topic on a national
level make a compelling case for viewing this conflict as intensely identity based. The
Demands Movement across the country, beginning with student activists at the University of
Missouri, appears to have greatly influenced USD students in their identification of themselves
with students protesting at other universities. One illustration of this alignment with the larger
movement is in the way the IC presented the Demands, by disrupting a panel convened to
proactively address what was occurring nationwide. Considering the perceived homogenous
demographics at USD, and the historical rigidity of catholic institutions, it was reasonable to join

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

in the identity of the national movement in an attempt to gain recognition and advocate for the
minority students at USD. These multiple layers of parties and interests, identities and narratives,
create many negotiations configurations that attempt to address the complexities inherent in the
issues.
Chosen Narrative, Chosen Trauma, Generational Trauma
The African American community in the United States has been exposed to generations
of segregation, discrimination, racialism, race-based isolation and poverty. Members of this
community may have been victims of microaggressions, which are known as events involving
discrimination, racism, and daily hassles that are targeted at individuals from diverse racial and
ethnic groups (Michaels, 2010). As a collective phenomenon, the children and descendants of
African Americans who never lived or experienced the slavery traumatic stressor display signs
and symptoms of trauma (Braveheart, 2011).
Danieli (1998) and Rosenthal and Rosenthal (1980) state that trauma can be transmitted
and communicated generationally. The individuals who have witnessed the trauma may also
have Survivor Syndrome. The theory of Survivor Syndrome suggests that the effect of a past
trauma can be seen in generations far detached from the occurrence (Rosenthal & Rosenthal,
1980). This theory demonstrates that the descendants of African slaves struggle not only with
their own recent psychological issues only, but also their psychological concerns are impacted by
those of their ancestors (Rosenthal & Rosenthal, 1980). The African American historical trauma
can be manifested in internalizing the thoughts of the oppressor, spreading a cycle of self-hatred
leading to negative behaviors, and demonstrating emotions such as anger, hate, and violence that
can be targeted even towards members who look like them. This often leads to the mistrust of an
authority figure (Rich & Grey 2005).

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

The first request of the Black students at USD was demanding that Dr. Harris state
publicly Black lives matter. The use of the word demand in the nationwide movement
illustrates an internal activation of the Black students anger. It also reflects a deep cultural
connection with Black students nationwide. By adopting a common language, the students at
USD are confirming their shared generational trauma with students of color at Mizzou and across
the country. Anger and frustration were expressed in different situations throughout the process.
The divisiveness of the Black students committee separating into three different groups is the
result of the anger expressed through their interruption of the panel that Dr. Getz and other
faculty members were holding. Since the current events against the Black students, Dr. Harris
has sent emails to the USD community countering the discriminatory statements, personally
contacted the student leaders and attempted to foster a more positive relationship among
members of the USD community. Dr. Harris also expressed his willingness to meet with them,
listen to their concerns and negotiate the demands. The Black students, perhaps influenced by the
traumatic stressor of slavery, felt that they could not trust Dr. Harris and therefore requested a
public statement. Reflecting on the demands of the Black students, some of the requests are not
directly associated to the students life. In one example, the renaming of Serra Hall to a
designation chosen by a coalition of Native American students, staff and faculty. The students
never lived or experienced the forceful methods used by father Serra to convert the Native
Americans to the Catholic faith however, their ancestral history is very present in this issue.
Motivated by anger, anxiety and racial socialization, the Black Students at USD asked for
an increase in the percentage of Black faculty and staff of 10 percent in every academic
department by November 18th, 2020, 5 years from today, in addition to increasing Black
Students enrollment. Dr. Keisha Ross from the Missouri Psychological Association stated that

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

one of the symptoms of historical trauma is also discomfort around white people. However, Dr.
Ross argues, that there are positive facets that rise from historical trauma such as resilience and
the ability to become strong and successful. The Black students language in this demand is
strongly worded. In the Appendix (fig. 1) are the statistics for faculty at the University from 2010
illustrating consistent low figures for USD faculty. Though five years old, the statistics
demonstrate a significantly higher number of white faculty than any other race. The fact that the
demand included a time limit speaks to the force of the message the IC attempted to convey.
In the first demand, the IC expressed how Black lives have been the target of 400 years of
unabated brutality. It is interesting that the first demand of the Black students is not only linked
to the students struggles, but is also related to the trauma their ancestors witnessed. This
statement clearly indicates the power of told stories and chosen narratives because narrating is
related not only to the talk but also to the embodied talk that is explorable and analyzable as
multidimensional engagement (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Dr. Harris was asked to publically
state that Black lives matter. In this request the Black students are asking President Harris to
consciously recognize their ancestors.
This recognition of the past is also key to USDs narrative. The University of San Diego
is a Catholic university with its vision described in Church documents (OBrien, 1994). Hellwig
(2004) noting the diversity within the Catholic university community stated, because our
colleges and universities have various purposes, programs, and student bodies, it is very unlikely
that a particular institution will match all of these elements and indicators (pp. 115-116).
Understanding the university narrative, the demand to rename Serra Hall to a designation chosen
by a coalition of native American students, staff and faculty is hard to fulfill because Father

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

Junipero Serra was canonized by Pope Francis during his last visit to United States in September
23rd, 2015 (Bailey, 2015).
Similarly, the demand requesting support of the LGBT population by providing events
related to their concerns and building a gender-neutral bathroom in every building on campus is
not aligned with the Catholic tradition. Showing full support to the LGBT population while the
Vatican and many Catholic churches are still indecisive concerning this issue would be a radical
shift for a Catholic university.
It is evident that the recognition of the Black students struggles as historical and multigenerational layers of suffering requires much more than simply increasing the Black students
and faculty of color, presence and visibility on campus, and more than most of the traditional
strategies and procedures embraced by many universities for decades. It is impossible to detach
the present from the terrible institution of slavery and its lasting heritage. It is equally
impossible to imagine American universities existence without the immense impact of Black
student contributions.
Master-Slave Dialectic
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel originally proposed the Master Slave Dialectic in his
seminal work The Phenomenology of the Mind (1807). Within this, he put forth a progression of
conflict that explained some of the dynamics of oppression, freedom, consciousness, and selfactualization (Bulhan, 1985). A dialectic is a means of systematic reasoning through which two
opposing arguments or ideas seek resolution. In a Hegelian dialectic, this conflict is resolved by
one of these ideas being passed over to and preserved by its opposite (e.g., "Dialectic," n.d.,
para. 4). Kojeve stated that the Hegelian dialectic has been used in attempts to understand

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

conflicts, power dynamics, and relations of domination and subordination (as cited in
Hammer, 2005, p. 243).
Master Slave Dialectic in short:
Attempts to fulfill desire for consciousness through recognition of another, while
attempting avoiding reciprocation of recognition.
Conflict arises when recognition is not given
Both parties fight to subjugate one another,
The self who gains recognition becomes the master, the other becomes the slave
Through subjugation the slave loses fear of death and transforms self. In mastery, master
loses independence from slave
The slave if willing to fight and die for true freedom has the capacity for true self
actualization
In freedom, the slave may either undertake economic and other forms of cooperation and
may self actualize, or may engage in retro-oppression wherein the oppressed becomes the
oppressor

The master-slave dialectic is an appropriate lens for analysis of The Demands

movement at USD because of its relevance in understanding the dynamics of oppression, power
relations, and issues of identity. The two parties involved, USD and the IC, have a wide power
disparity as well as varied histories. The university is in a much higher position of power, being
the larger body of which the IC is a part, and derives from a history of the Catholic mission in
California, which is central to its identity. The IC on the other hand is comprised of students
whose self-identities are intertwined with the history and narrative of the oppressed populations
from which they come or with whom they identify.

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

Because of the impacts of generational trauma, chosen narrative, and the lived
experience of both the IC and the university, dynamics of subjugation are more likely to already
be impacting attitudes and behaviors. This, in conjunction with the positional power of the
university lends to elements of the master-slave dialectic pre-existing in the larger system.
The events at the University of Missouri and other student movements across the country
gained the recognition of their institutions, and have brought an additional awareness to the
pervasive inequality, racism, and classism extant in higher education. In the context of the
master-slave dialectic, the larger movements around the country served as a proxy bid for
recognition for the needs and voice (consciousness) of the IC members at USD. However, this
did not afford the IC the level of recognition from USD that they needed for consciousness to be
realized. This non-recognition was further exacerbated when the student group felt that they
were excluded from the panel, as described in the demands document in Appendix C. This lack
of recognition serves as the first stage of conflict in Hegels dialectic (Bulhan, 1985). Having a
need for further recognition, and also in an overt act of retro-aggression, student representatives
from the IC interrupted an open panel meeting held by Dr. Harris to discuss issues of minority
needs and how communities at USD would like to engage proactively with the nationwide
Demands movement.
According to Hegels model, this conflict leads to a challenge of submission where one
party fights to gain their recognition from the other with death being the ultimate consequence of
failing to submit. However, for the dominant party it is preferable not to actually kill the other
because if dead, he cannot be given recognition. He must leave him life and consciousness, and
destroy only his autonomy (Hammer, p. 243, 2005). In the case of the IC, interrupting the panel

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

10
and demanding the floor was simultaneously a bid for recognition as well as an act of retroaggression.
However, the panel fully ceded the floor to the IC as soon as they demanded it (C. Getz,
personal communication, December 06, 2015). By the estimation of some members of the panel,
this was a surprise to the IC. One panel member reported that it seemed to them as if the IC
members were expecting more of a fight for recognition from the panel. By choosing not to fight
the IC, and by exercising their authority to give up the floor, the panel (as representatives of
USD) demonstrated the power disparity and inherently gained the recognition of the group.
They did not fight the group because they do not have to. The university already had the
recognition of the group, and did not need to fight for it. By allowing them to speak their piece
freely, the university then had the choice (and the power) of what to do with the new
information.
Since the presentation of The Demands, the IC has not fully engaged representatives of
the university in dialogue according to Dr. Harris, who has made his own efforts to reach out to
IC members (J. Harris, personal communication, December 8, 2015). Dr. Harris has offered
various consultations to the IC with information that could be helpful in furthering their cause,
and in engaging positively in a negotiation. In the master-slave dialectic, this limited
engagement could be viewed as a continuation of the conflict stage, with the IC not engaging the
university so as not to give recognition. However, this also limits the ICs ability to be
recognized.
Another perspective within the master-slave dialectic is that the ICs disengagement was
an act of submission to the larger power of the university. In short, the ICs acts of
disengagement could be seen as a recognition that they were not fully prepared for the conflict

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

11
that they were intending to enter, and rather than be killed they chose to disengage, which
could be viewed as a form of submission. The university through its actions has effectively
given recognition to the group, while at the same time asserting that it will not patently submit to
their tactics/demands, therefore maintaining the power dynamic in the Universitys favor.
The Intersectional Council has made an overt and explicit demand for recognition
through their participation in the demands movement, and has issued a set of demands specific
to USD. Though it would be challenging for the IC to achieve sweeping acceptance of the
demands, numerous student groups nationally have demonstrated some level of efficacy in
achieving their objectives through the Demands movement. However what is being missed in
this case by the IC is that in cases of the greatest success at other universities, student groups
have moved past the conflict stages of dominance and submission, and the freedom-or-death
bid for freedom, and have engaged in cooperative dialogues that were well-founded and prepared
for.
By understanding the dynamics of the conflict through this frame, it is our hope that all
parties can better come to recognize the role that they play. In knowing where each seeks, gives,
and refuses recognition, each party can then choose how they would like to move toward a
reconciliatory cooperation in which both can be independent and whole. It is the caution of this
paper that each party seek to fully recognize the other, in lieu of the perilous dislocation of the
oppressor within (Bulhan, 1985, p. 127).
The ARIA Model and Importance of Identity
The ARIA model is a construct which seeks to understand how identity is both
consciously and unconsciously present in a negotiation. When an identity-based conflict is
present, it is critical to seek understanding of the identities of each party. Only through this

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

12
understanding can the parties move forward in ways that do not unintentionally derail progress.
Having a clear understanding of the identity-based side of this conflict requires recognizing how
the identities of the students and the university are present in the negotiations. This identitybased model is comprised of four elements: Antagonism, Resonance, Invention, and Action. The
elements do not necessarily occur in that order, and may present simultaneously.
The precursor to any negotiation must be the surfacing of a conflict for at least one party.
In the ARIA model this is the antagonism stage. This realization of a necessary battle is what
informs the initial coming together of a group around a common value. Thus, the issue is defined
and the first positions are voiced. The identity-based interests begin merging, sometimes
unconsciously with the interest-based ones, and the negotiation is introduced. In the case of the
national demands movement, the combination of an inexorable tide of wrongs, from the
recurring outright violence, to the chronic microaggressions resulted in the initial rising up. The
public statement of the refusal to accept this culture of unsafe academic institutions was soon
joined by group after group, including the USDs IC who identified with this rapidly growing
action. Primacy of identity correlates to the persistence of the identity, making it imperative to
understand what has informed the primary identities of the students. One example of identity that
is evident within the growing student movement is identification with the historic battle for civil
rights as well as recent rights movements like Black Lives Matter. The importance of identifying
as civil rights activists may have ignited students nationwide to join the demands movement, and
also may have influenced students at USD.
During the resonance process a group consciousness begins to emerge. Key values and
needs have been brought to the fore, and the group is coalescing around them. USD students
have taken on the identity of leaders in the national Demands movement, as evidenced by their

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

13
clear anticipation of resistance from the administration that many students at other institutions
have experienced. However, the responses of Dr. Getz and Dr. Harris should suffice to
demonstrating the willingness of the university to compromise and collaborate. Within the ARIA
framework, the presence of this willingness is imperative; it sends the message that all parties
seek to work toward a common outcome.
During invention, both parties seek to develop integrative options. The parties also have
a sense that not only are they in this together, but also that we are going to get out of this
together. The challenge in arriving at invention is the ICs engagement in any negotiation
process so far has largely been the delivery of the demands list. Demands are by their nature one
sided, and do not invite the other party to the table in collaborative development toward
integrative solutions. Dr. Harris preliminary offers to meet and speak with members of the IC
suggest a willingness on behalf of the University to work toward invention (J. Harris, personal
communication, December 8, 2015). Resistance and disengagement from the IC suggests that
perhaps from their side, they are not yet ready to find unity with the university. The university
appears to be willing to engage the students as evidenced by Dr. Harriss conduct thus far.
The action stage is the implementation of ideas and movements that have been mutually
decided upon in the previous stages. Continued commitment and presence to the quality of the
change is required by all parties. This stage also presents as motivational. Although initial
negotiations have concluded, parties must recognize that results come from continued
collaboration and work towards further deepening commitments on all fronts. The beginning of
the action stage in the current conflict requires a variety of student leaders to be willing to own
their identity, be present and informed in the unfolding negotiation process, and engage in good
faith conversations with the university in January. In the absence of a significant invention

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

14
stage, any actions taken on by either or both parties may not be fully realized and inherently selfconstrained.
The ARIA model illustrates the primary role that collective identity is playing in the
developing negotiation relationship between USD and its student leaders. It takes a real
commitment to forging mutually beneficial relationships to investigate the many ways in which
identity impacts these negotiations, but it is an investment that is necessary on both sides to
optimize the outcomes moving forward.
Interest-based Negotiation
The interest-based model of negotiation is based on values of long-term relationships,
mutual gain, and self-examination. This framework differs from traditional negotiation in several
ways. A primary difference is its emphasis on fostering mutually beneficial and collaborative
relationships for the long-term, as opposed to the short-term winner takes all mentality that
governs most traditional negotiations. The old framework encourages study of the opponent,
hoping that knowledge of the adversaries weak points will allow the negotiator to exploit a
vulnerability and emerge victorious. The new frameworks integrative bargaining model
counters tradition by seeking first for the negotiators to examine themselves. Only through a
critical look at their own models and narratives can each negotiator come to the table equipped to
dialogue effectively about fears, interests and options on both sides. Ultimately, this kind of
mindful negotiation will set up a mutually beneficial long-term relationship, boding well for
future meetings. The four main guidelines in interest-based negotiation are separating the people
from the problem, focusing on interests (not positions), generating a variety of possibilities, and
basing results an objective standard (Fisher and Ury, 1991).

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

15
The separation of the people from the problem is essential in the recognition of the other
party as us rather than other. Viewing the party members as people who hold values and
have needs and narratives of their own is key to accepting them as equals in the negotiation
relationship, and building an environment of trust and mutual respect going forward.
It is key to this framework to recognize the difference between positions and interests.
Stating a position is simple, Teachers want all students to wear blue and gray and Parents
believe that all students should wear a uniform are positions. Seeing interests is more difficult.
For example, the interests here could be that in a community looking to strengthen ties, blue and
gray are the school colors. Wearing them would foster community identification. Parents are
concerned about equity in school gear, and children being at a social disadvantage if they lack
the item-of-the-moment. There is a shared interest to be uncovered; both parties are looking for a
student body that loves and accepts one another as equal community members. Recognizing
interests creates options for parties to find shared ground and generate a variety of ideas to work
with as possible options.
When shared ground cannot be found, negotiators turn to the two things that can be
accomplished without the aid of the other party: alternatives, and Best Alternative to Negotiated
Agreement (BATNA). Although these pieces of the model are the least desirable, and
collaborative options are the ideal, it is important to enter the negotiation with a clear picture of
both. Knowing that there is still action, albeit alone, and knowing just how far one is willing to
go before stepping out of a negotiation are imperative to the success of the negotiation as a
whole. The negotiating power of a party is partly determined by how attractive is the option of
not reaching an agreement (Fisher, Ury, 1991).

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

16
Investing in an interest-based model is imperative in the journey towards recognizing and
valuing each other in negotiation. The willingness and ability to come forward with real needs,
fears and desires requires an uncommon vulnerability. Entering negotiation from this space can
create real, functional relationships of respect and mutual gain and foster a creative process
where multiple ideas are considered.
Having thus put forth the basic tenets of the Interest based model, please see Figures 1
through 5 in the appendix for an application of the Interest-based model to the conflict at USD.
Lifetrap Dynamics
Lifetraps, often identified as early maladaptive schemas (EMS), are patterns people
develop during childhood and adolescence as they experience the world. People then create
filters through which they interpret and react to all occurrences in life. These patterns can be
complicated to assess, let alone change. As stated on Lifetrapstest.com, when faced with a
lifetrap we tend to focus on similar feelings from childhood and get locked into behaviors
stemming from emotions. These traps are deeply rooted, and by engaging in them our locus of
control is challenged. Resultantly, we often overcompensate negative feelings with demands and
a need to control our environment and ourselves. According to the authors of
www.lifetraptest.com,

Lifetraps make us avoid or escape, surrender or

attack in our life situations. Our lifetraps also make
us take a life of pessimism; they bring worries and
fears to our lives that are not based on real life risks.
They make us jealous, possessive and suspicious
even in our closest relationships.

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

17

Below are explanations and examples of the five life traps most pertinent to this case.
Mistrust and abuse are lifetraps with expectations that people will hurt, cheat, lie,
manipulate, humiliate or take advantage of you. People who experience this lifetrap often live
behind a wall of mistrust to protect themselves. They are frequently suspicious of the intentions
of others and assume the worst of intentions. Histories of mistrust and abuse are addressed by
the IC in the first two demands of each section. (Appendix C)
Vulnerability is the lifetrap experienced when people do not feel safe in the world. These
fears are often excessive and unrealistic. People who experience this often let these fears control
their lives and pour excessive amounts of energy into insuring their own safety. This lifetrap
was evidenced in the coalition of different student groups who identified themselves as part of
the IC as each group gave up some of its individual power to be part of the larger collective.
They did this to ensure that their voice was heard in the common forum, rather than risk not
being heard as an individual group taking on the university by themselves.
Emotional deprivation is the lifetrap where there is a feeling that the need for love will
never be met adequately, and that no one truly understands how you feel. This lack of feeling
understood manifested itself in demands one through three in the education section of the ICs
demands. (Appendix C)
Social exclusion is the lifetrap where individuals feel isolated from the rest of the world
and different from others based on characteristics they cannot control. Individuals often reenact
rejections from their past because of their own feelings of inadequacy. Seven of the twelve
demands in the Campus Culture and Leadership section and half of the demands in the Education
section were examples of this lifetrap. Over eighty percent of the demands in the Admissions,

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

18
Retention and Support section of the demands were related to the ICs perceptions of social
exclusion occurring at the university. (Appendix C)
The Subjugation lifetrap can lead individuals to become totally unavailable as they exert
tremendous energy in fighting against their continued subjugation to others. People who suffer
from this life trap often sacrifice their own needs and desires for others out of guilt or fear of
being punished if they disobey or disagree with the dominant party. The creation of the IC and
the manner in which its members exerted tremendous energy entering the panel discussion was
evidence that the students involved wished to counteract this lifetrap. However, when ceded the
floor by a group receptive to their demands, the students from IC appeared flustered, surprised,
and unavailable (C. Getz, personal communication, December 6, 2015). Operating from the
subjugation lifetrap, the students had not have predicted an open forum and ensuing dialogue as
options presented by the faculty panel.
Conclusion
Much has happened in recent years, especially 2015, that has instilled fear and ignited
sparks of hate in our communities, and yet amongst us exists heartfelt and sincere hopes for a
future of peace. Our nation has a profound respect for religious, racial, and ethnic freedom. It
operates under a constitutional framework that fosters diversity and protects these freedoms. It is
saddening that these values are now threatened by hateful and divisive ideologies that seek to
find justification either in religion, race or nationality. There exists a great capacity to enlighten
our paths and fill ourselves with empathy, compassion, and forgiveness. There is so much that
can be done individually and collectively to further peace and healing and to promote values of
tolerance, freedom, and justice. It is our hope and intention that the multiple analytic
perspectives presented throughout this paper will serve in continuing to uncover avenues for

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

19
empathetic and courageous dialogue that can move all of us toward understanding and
resolution.

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

20
References
Bailey, S. (2015, September 23). Pope Francis is about to make Junipero Serra a saint during a
historic canonization today. Washington Post. Retrieved, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/23/pope-francis-willmake-junipero-serra-a-saint-during-a-historic-canonization-today
Bamberg, M. (n.d.). Who am I? Narration and its contribution to self and identity. Theory &
Psychology, 3-24.
Bulhan, H. (1985). Frantz Fanon and the psychology of oppression (1st ed., p. 299). New York,
New York: Plenum Press.
Davies, B., & Harr, R. (1990). Positioning: The social construction of selves. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 4363.
Degruy, J. (2005). Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome book.
Dialectic. (2015). In Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved December 8,
2015, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dialectic
Estaneck, S, M. James, M, J. & Norton, D, A. (July, 2013) Assessing Catholic Identity: A Study
of Mission Statements of Catholic Colleges and Universities
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.).
New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books.
Getz, C. (2015, December 6). Personal Interview.
Hammer, R. (2005). Patriarchal Family Terrorism and Globalization. In G. Fischman, P.
McLaren, H. Sunker, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Critical theories, radical pedagogies, and
global conflicts. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Harris, J. (2015, December 8). Personal Interview.

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

21
Maiese, Michelle. "Interests, Positions, Needs, and Values." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy
Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado,
Boulder. Posted: August 2004 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/interests>.
Spangler, Brad. "Integrative or Interest-Based Bargaining." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy
Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado,
Boulder. Posted: June 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/interest-basedbargaining>.

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

22

Appendix A
Fig.1
Total University of San Diego Full-time & Part-time Faculty by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2010

Faculty

Total

Race and

Hispanic

American

by

Faculty

Ethnicity

of any

unknown

race

Category

Asian

Black or

Native

Indian or

African

Hawaiian

Alaska

Americans

or Pacific

Native
Full

393 1

White

Male Female

Islander

27

32

305

212

181

Time
Part-

156.5

2.2

15.5

0.7

9.6

2.2

0.8

123.7

78.7

78.2

549.5

3.2

42.5

2.7

41.6

11.2

0.8

428.7

290.

259.2

Time
Total
Faculty

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

23

Fig. 2
Race/Ethnicity of Fall 2015 Students: Federal Reports
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino

Race

American Indian or Alaska

Undergrad

Paralegal Graduate

19%

34%

Undergrad

18%

Paralegal Graduate

Law*

Total

12%

18%

Law

Tota

<1%

0%

<1%

<1%

<1%

Asian

7%

9%

8%

14%

8%

Black or African American

3%

5%

6%

3%

4%

Hawaiian or Other Pacific

<1%

1%

1%

<1%

<1%

53%

48%

49%

57%

52%

6%

2%

3%

1%

5%

Native

Islander
White
Two or more races

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

24

Interest-based Model Application, Figures 3-7

Fig.3 Traditional (Positional) v Integrative (Interest-based)

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

25

This chart was derived from a more complex chart in Getting to Yes, Fisher and Ury,
1991.

Fig.4 Issue and parties

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

26

Fig.5 Interests

Fig.6 Options and alternatives

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

27
"Potential for integration(options) only exists when there are multiple issues involved in the negotiation. This is because the
parties must be able to make trade-offs across issues in order for both sides to be satisfied with the outcome. (Spangler,
2003)

Fig.7 Applied Model: BATNA and agreements

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

28
Appendix B
Recommended Reading
What You Should Know About The Experience Of Black College Students (The
Huffington Post)

Silent no more It's time to speak the truth and tell the stories too many refuse to hear
(Vox)

#StudentBlackOut Movement Demands Institutional Change in Schools (The Root)

Woodrow Wilson Cecil Rhodes and How We Deal with the Ugliness of History
(Washington Post)

University of Maryland president recommends changing name of Byrd Stadium, citing

legacy of segregation (Washington Post)

University of Maryland president Wallace Loh says he 'evolved' on Byrd Stadium

renaming (Testudo Times)
The Profound Emptiness of Resilience (New York Times Magazine)

The Long, Necessary History Of 'Whiny' Black Protesters At College (NPR)

Pope Francis is about to make Junipero Serra a saint during a historic canonization today
(Washington Post)

Who Gets to Organize a Protest? (Inside Higher Ed)

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

29
White Student Union challenges Black Lives Matter at University of Illinois
(Washington Post)
Student activists announce sit-in in President DeGioias office, call for name change to
Mulledy Hall (Georgetown Voice)

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

30
Appendix C
Concerned Students @ USD Demands
We, the Black Student Union, and our allies in PRIDE, the DARE Collective, other
equity-minded student-led organizations, and non-affiliated student activists at the University of
San Diego, stand in solidarity with the Black student activists of Mizzou, as well as those
organizing similar initiatives for complete equity at educational institutions across the nation.
We come to you today to voice our grievance over our exclusion from this panel and exclusion
from the planning of this weeks events related to issues of exclusion and inequality, that is,
Black students actions against aggressive racial oppression at Mizzou. One of the reasons why
the successful protests at Mizzou are important is because they were student-led initiatives.
Black students are, and have been historically, under-represented, ignored and abused within
academia. Black students at Mizzou reclaimed their space and their power at their educational
institution we, the Black Student Union at USD, will follow suit. The following is a list of
demands, drafted by a diverse group of students with the intention of remaining intersectional in
our construction of revolutionary change.
Campus Culture and Leadership
I.

II.

III.
IV.
V.
VI.

VII.

We demand that President James Harris publicly state that Black Lives Matter. We
demand that he do so without the clause All Lives Matter for though all lives do
matter, Black lives in particular have been the target of 400 years of unabated brutality.
Such a clause invalidates the struggle and full humanity of Black people.
We demand that the Center for Inclusion and Diversity, the United Front Multicultural
Center, and other centers on campus dedicated to diversity and social justice be radically
decolonized and student-run. This includes a reevaluation of the operations of these
centers, the nature of the support and funding they receive, and the extent to which they
achieve their professed intentions.
We demand that the universitys current mascot, Diego Torero, be replaced by a nonhuman mascot, as Diego Torero is a racist and derogatory caricature of Spanish men.
We demand more people of color, queer-identified people and women represented in
positions of administrative and student leadership.
We demand the active inclusion of cultural, LGBT and feminist student organizations in
the planning of campus events related to the concerns of these organizations.
We demand the increased visibility of existing Black and multicultural Greek life on
campus and ease of chartering for emerging chapters. We demand that representatives
from Black and multicultural Greek organizations be present at the Alcala Bazaar, USD
Greek functions, and other Greek events and operations.
We demand the creation of a comprehensive orientation on racial, gender, and queer
inclusion and diversity, mandatory to students, staff, faculty and administration and
maintained by a board comprised of students, staff and faculty from diverse, less
privileged backgrounds.

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

31
VIII.

IX.

X.

We demand that representatives from the universitys administration acknowledge the

colonialist legacy of Junpero Serra, who established the Catholic California mission
system that massacred the vast majority of native peoples in California. We demand that
Serra Hall be renamed to a designation chosen by a coalition of native students, staff and
faculty.
We demand that Yik Yak, an anonymous social media application, be banned from the
USD area, as it provides a platform for hate speech inflected with racism, sexism,
homophobia, transphobia, and, especially recently, islamophobia, amongst several other
bigotries.
We demand the installation of gender-neutral bathrooms in every building on campus.

Education
I.

II.

III.

IV.

We demand the increased employment of faculty of color and women faculty in every
academic department, in every school at USD. In particular, we demand a 10% increase
in the number of tenured Black professors in every academic department by November
18th , 2020, 5 years from today.
We demand the expansion of the Ethnic Studies department, which, in its current state,
fails to meet the educational needs of the campus. There are currently 4 full-time faculty
in the Ethnic Studies department. We demand that this number is tripled to 12 full-time
faculty by November 18th , 2020, 5 years from today. We demand a significant increase
in the number of Ethnic Studies courses provided each semester and the Ethnic Studies
events made available to the entire university.
We demand that an Ethnic Studies course be a core curriculum requirement for all
students. We also demand a rigorous reevaluation of the courses that currently fulfill the
core curriculums diversity requirement, led by a board comprised of faculty of color who
would be compensated for this service.
We demand the development of a Gender and Queer Studies department with at least 12
full-time faculty. We demand greater diversity in the honors program, in particular a
dramatic increase in the number of Black and Latinx honors students, within the next 3
years.

Admissions, Retention and Support

I.

II.

III.

We demand that the university strengthen its partnerships with high schools with large
populations of students of color, including, but not limited to: Lincoln, Mission Bay,
Garfield, Hoover, and Mar Vista, to promote the admission of more a more diverse group
of students to USD.
We demand that all statistics and promotional material for USD be reevaluated and
revised for accuracy, particularly in regard to the population of students, staff, and faculty
of color, by a committee of student and faculty representatives of color and third-party
statisticians.
We demand a rigorous revision of meal plan options, led by a diverse coalition of
students, to make them more accommodating to socioeconomically disadvantaged
students, commuter students, and students with alternative dietary needs. We also

DEMANDS POLICY ANALYSIS

32

IV.

V.

VI.

demand that the food prices on campus be more affordable. We demand that nutrition and
nourishment be accessible to all students.
We demand a reformation of the universitys distribution of financial aid, such that it is
significantly more accommodating for students of working- and middle-class
backgrounds. This reformation must include the following adjustments:
A. Students continue to pay the amount of annual tuition that they paid their first
year in the succeeding years of their education, unless the change in tuition is
advantageous to them, i.e., the cost of tuition lowers in the succeeding years.
B. Students awarded external scholarships will not have their financial aid, provided
by the university, diminished in any way. Outside scholarships and financial aid
awards will remain completely separate and one will not have bearing on the
other.
C. Students who live on campus will not have their financial aid diminished if they
choose to move off campus.
We demand that the university greatly increase the number of counselors of color in both
Career Services and Student Wellness. We also demand an increase in resources and
support groups for queer and trans students of color.
We demand that donors and patrons of USD have absolutely no monopoly upon the
politics, configuration and affairs of the university. The universitys recent history has
demonstrated how such inequitable power breaches the intellectual freedom that
educational institutions such as USD are required to defend and utterly corrupts
university administration.

Finally, we demand that the students involved in the implementation of these demands,
and the faculty and staff supporting them, do not suffer negative repercussions as they
engage in this process of systematic and cultural change.
The University of San Diego proclaims to be a Changemaker campus committed to creating
a diverse and inclusive community and preparing leaders who are dedicated to ethical
conduct and compassionate service. Changemaking must begin from within and we ask
that the university stand by its professed values now, by critically examining the
aforementioned aspects of the campus culture that are exclusionary, alienating, and
invalidating to its marginalized students. We, too, are USD, and out of revolutionary love
challenge the university to honor its commitment to justice through the immediate
observance of these demands, not only for the sake of our intellectual and personal
well-being, but for the sake of ethical integrity and the hope for the widespread liberation
of historically oppressed peoples.