Mapping Conservative Networks to Mobilize Counter-Movements

• In Event: Thursday Roundtable Session 9:00 am
  In Roundtable Session: Advancing Critical Social Network Analysis to Address Issues of Equity in Education Policy and Politics (Table 35)

Abstract

In this paper, we use network ethnography and social network visualization (Ball & Junemann, 2012; Reckhow, 2012; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014) to uncover the politically conservative networks that are shaping education policy, state legislative agendas, and local education reforms that impact teaching and learning. Using recent anti-Critical Race Theory (anti-CRT) and anti-LGBTQ efforts as cases, we systematically map the financial resources and ideological messages within these networks to shed light on the actors who wield most influence but remain largely invisible to the public. Our goal is not only to understand their overall influence, however, but to create possibilities for disruption and the mobilization of counter-movements.

To do this, we take a prismatic view of conservative networks, assembling the material relations of conservative network funding streams, with the media and social media networks that support the flow of neoconservative educational agendas and ideas. Through the mapping of the anti-CRT and anti-LGBTQ networks, we connect those actors, theoretically and empirically, to already documented education policy networks related to reading policy, philanthropy, and educational reform (Author, in progress; Author, 2018; deMarrais et al., 2019) to highlight how multiple, overlapping networks support broader conservative goals.

This work builds on prior studies of the national landscape of conservative educational activism, including how foundations promote particular education reforms (Reckhow, 2012; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014; Scott & Jabbar, 2013); the role of dark money in conservative politics (Cunningham, 2021; MacLean, 2017; Mayer, 2017); the growth of conservative think tanks and astroturf groups (Ness & Gandara, 2014); and the relationship between non-profits, for-profits, and governmental entities in education policymaking (Au & Ferrare, 2015; Picciano & Spring, 2013).

As a start, we analyzed three years of the Koch Foundation’s 990 tax forms that identified their grantees. We found that the Koch Foundation provided funds to particular types of organizations: think tanks that operate as advocacy organizations promoting conservative views (e.g, Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute, Institute for Humane Studies), and organizations that function as networks (e.g., American Legislative Exchange Council, State Policy Network). These organizations in turn channel resources to astroturf groups, such as Moms for Liberty, and provide scripts for legislative action and social media campaigns. Through initiatives undertaken by the Council for National Policy and its Leadership Institute—also connected via Koch funding (Cunningham, 2022; 2023)—school board elections also become targeted with anti-CRT and anti-LGBTQ messages. While these initiatives appear to be disparate manifestations of individual concerns over educational futures, SNA of funding streams, summit sponsorships, and website references shows how these initiatives comprise a coordinated campaign to establish a neoconservative order: the Koch family’s longstanding commitment and long-term vision (MacLean, 2018).

This research bears important implications for mobilizing proactive countermovements. For example, visualizing the geographic networks of school board elections targeted by external conservative Political Action Committees (Henig et al., 2019; Reckhow et al., 2017) may predict where future anti-CRT and LGBTQ challenges could emerge. Similarly, understanding networked interconnections among various conservative and libertarian groups could empower activists and educators engaged in countering challenges such as book bans and anti-LGBTQ policies.

Authors

• Elena Aydarova, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• T. Jameson Brewer, University of North Georgia

• Joshua Childs, University of Texas at Austin

• Emily M. Hodge, Virginia Commonwealth University

• Danfeng Soto-Vigil Koon, University of San Francisco

• Cecilia Rios-Aguilar, University of California - Los Angeles

• Serena J. Salloum, Ball State University