Professional staff perspectives on the NBA’s corporate social engagement in River City Public Schools are characterized by nuanced understandings and ideological tensions, rather than stark binary absolutes. This ideological complexity on corporate philanthropy stands in sharp relief to what much of the existing literature on partnerships says about corporate participation in the public sector. This literature tends to view
corporate philanthropy as either corporate do-gooding beneficence or as something that awards disproportionate benefits to capitalist interests. This dichotomous either/or logic is depicted in Figure 4.1 below.40
The first, more dominant discourse of corporate altruism “draws on an old and rich heritage, grounded in notions of noblesse oblige,” (Godfrey, 2009, p. 701). This tradition aims to redirect privately accumulated wealth back into the public good. As Andrew Carnegie put it, those individuals with “enormous fortunes” bear clear social responsibilities “to promote the permanent good of the communities from which they have been gathered,” (Carnegie, cite in Godfrey, p. 701). Research on corporate
philanthropy from this broad stance focuses closely on understanding the conditions that may facilitate positive synergies in civil society through charitable contributions of economic, human and social capital (e.g. Frumkin, 2003; Hess 2005; Mosley-Eckert 2012; Porter & Kramer, 2006; Smith & Wohlsetter, 2006). Scholars in this perspective take an interest in promoting promising practices, continuous improvement, and “what works” in conducting corporate philanthropy in education.
Alternatively, in a second perspective, private sector participation is seen as an invention of capitalism to “greenwash”41 corporations through public relations
(Athanasiou, 1996; Beder, 2002; Laufer, 2003), or as a cunning tool to advance the course of privatization and corporate re-culturing within public education (e.g.; Apple, 2006; Boyles, 2002, 2005; Molnar, 2005; Saltman, 2000, 2005). Business ethics theorist Kallio (2007) has argued:
The fact that corporations pursue a responsible image has led, among others, to the phenomenon known as ‘greenwashing.’ Accordingly, it seems that many corporations have chosen the easy, though risky, path and artificially tried to
This second cluster of scholarship draws on more counter-hegemonic theories of corporate engagement. Research from this position focuses on the profit-oriented motives of corporate philanthropists, as well as negative synergies produced in often unequal power relations across the public and private sectors. This research illuminates how asymmetries of power are framed in popular culture and public discourse, and how corporate philanthropy operates politically in schools (Ball, 2009; Giroux, 1999; Lipman, 2011; Saltman, 2010). However, the existence of greenwashing as an industry practice does not mean that all corporations engage in it. “The presence of economic and political forces prepared to devote considerable resources to shape the 'meaning of greening' to suit their own interests" (Levy, 1997, p.136) does not mean that corporate philanthropy can be simplistically reduced to the mere construction of image or brand.
Figure 4.1: Do-Good vs. Capitalist Benefits? Oppositional Discourses on Corporate Social Engagement in Education
Dominant discourses on corporate social engagement in education (“Do Good”)
Non-dominant discourses on corporate engagement (Capital Accumulation) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as
altruism and charity in the public sector -Philanthropy serves altruistic intentions of the very rich who feel compelled to give back, or exercise discretionary
responsibilities in society.
-Market-based orientation, i.e. corporate philanthropy is tertiary, optional, and subjugated to firms’ profit-making functions.
-Emphasis on the positive stories of corporate philanthropy
CSR as Greenwashing
-Assumes critical orientation attuned to subtle manipulative uses of
philanthropy in public relations (PR). -Offers a view into the hidden dark sides of corporate philanthropic behavior.
-May over-estimate the exploitative motives and under-estimate the positive effects of corporate philanthropy.
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) as altruistic collaboration on social problems -Focus on ascertaining institutional forms, benefits, & challenges of implementing PPPs.
PPPs as privatizations or creeping corporatizations of public education -Emphasis on power dynamics of PPPs, i.e. works for whom and is it just?
Though research tends to emphasize the advantages.
-Poses technical questions that might illuminate and enhance organizational efficiencies, i.e. what works?
-Limited accounting for often asymmetrical, socio-political dimensions (power
imbalances) that may be reflected in partnerships.
-A blind eye to potentials for negative synergy.
-Direct focus on intentional,
unintentional, and more hidden costs and consequences arising from
partnerships with for-profit and private sector organizations.
-Tendency to see everything as political and provide limited insight on
pragmatic questions of improving school practices in/with PPPs.
-Overly romantic images of schools and perpetually bleak images of corporate engagement, i.e. blind eye to positive synergies in corporate philanthropy.
Going into my interviews, I initially anticipated finding that people’s views would fall relatively neatly into either the left or the right side of the figure above. I assumed I would mainly find that people either viewed the Cobras’ school relationships as
motivated by charitable, altruistic intentions or regarded these relationships as motivated by business, profit interests. However, in contrast to the essentialized Either/Or logic in the literature, research participants displayed nuanced Both/And thinking about the Cobras’ engagement. District administrators, school leaders, and teachers are informed and consenting professionals who acknowledge the business-oriented goals of corporate philanthropy, and also make the most of its charitable hand out.
Schools understand that business benefits can influence the shape of corporate giving. But staff frame these non-educational motives positively, provided that the corporate brand meets some minimal ethical benchmarks for K-12 education (which everyone says the Cobras does), and provided that the corporate activity is seen as representing altruism and charity. As a counter-example of these basic conditions, the McDonalds and Coke corporations are considered unfit to partner with River City Public
Schools, primarily because of the junk food industry’s role in the obesity epidemic, which disproportionately affects children in these schools. One teacher said, “I would not want McDonalds running programs and putting up their logo in the school, or Coke or Pepsi for that matter…because we need to promote healthy lifestyles with kids. It would send the wrong message” (T3.S1).42
In the sections that follow, research participants describe the Cobras as a
respected and beloved brand displaying its charitable intentions when engaging schools by helping address the problem of school dropout, motivating student achievement, or enriching school technology resources, for example. At the same time, brand/product placement, fan/consumer development, and public relations are unmistakable business- oriented goals of these school-to-corporate arrangements. No one in the study regarded these business integrations as ultimately objectionable. Staff and students openly consume and support the NBA brand and the Cobras organizational movements both on the playing court and in the schools. However, a handful of participants, who are also fans, find aspects of these for-profit ventures in schools troubling. Two educators raised questions about the broad socio-economic conditions surrounding the team’s
philanthropic initiatives, saying:
Whatever they’re giving, whatever little it is that they’re giving back to the community, they are writing it off in tax dollars. In the meantime, who’s really making out? I mean, I think that the people like (Cobras Community Relations Director) who are running it really care. But the high up people on top, even in the district, they’re more about the money and the politics, not the education… I see it hurting our kids. I see that really hurting our kids from the inner city. (Coach, C1.S1)
At some point, somebody should ask, what are we really doing Stay in School for? Are we doing it to engage children more in their learning? Or is it more about looking good for the media… like creating an appearance of tackling the dropout problem. (Teacher, T2.S3)
The profitability of professional sports stems partly from strong community ties of commercial consumption, which in the long run may reinforce social dynamics that “keep poor people poor and rich people rich” (C1.S3). Public-private partnerships in sport philanthropy may thus at once replenish scarce schooling resources and generate marketing opportunities for business growth. Therefore, as Lipman (2011) and others have argued, PPPs can be seen as part of a larger “historically-generated state strategy to manage the structural crisis of capitalism and provide new opportunities for capital accumulation” (Lipman, p. 6; see also Ball, 2007; Burch, 2009). In River City, the commercial aspects of corporate philanthropy are often normalized as positive,
commonsense displays of local pride in local culture that fluidly cross the boundaries of the otherwise dichotomous discourses of altruism and the market. Part IV next explores the complexities and contradictions that surface in these both/and views of corporate engagement in education by examining professional basketball fandom and stardom.