The Flint water crisis, which began in 2014, is widely regarded as a textbook example of structural racism and injustice. This teaching case provides a close examination of the building blocks of the catastrophe, some all-too-familiar in American history and others, more particular to the time, place, and circumstance of Flint in the 2010s. The case begins by tracing the economic and racial history that made Flint especially vulnerable to the crisis, then describes the string of decisions that resulted in the dangerous contamination of city tap water, followed by the battle by residents of Flint (and later, by outside allies and scientific experts) to force official government recognition of the disaster followed by changes to the city water system. The voices of the Flint residents are featured, alongside the decision-makers. The first section of the case summarizes the intertwined events, familiar to students of American racial, urban, and industrial history, that led once-booming Flint to become financially strapped and majority-Black. It describes the nature (and criticisms) of Michigan's evolving Emergency Management system. It explains the Flint water system and the reasons behind the fateful choices both to change the source of Flint's drinking water and to bypass standard safety precautions in making that change. The case then details the battle by local residents to force government officials to recognize and address the contamination of the drinking supply amid a cascade of devastating revelations about bacteria, carcinogens, and high lead levels in the water. The case ends in October 2015, with the announcement by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder that Flint would be re-connected to its previous safer and pricier water source, Detroit's Lake Huron system.
In 1994, Antanas Mockus, an unlikely politician and former President of the prestigious National University of Colombia, became Bogotá's first independent mayor, bringing with him a unique vision of harmonious citizenship. The city's new leadership under Mockus, unlike in the past, included academics and researchers, who helped create a raft of new initiatives designed to align public behavior with the rule of law, through education and positive peer influence-or what was known as "citizenship culture." In his first year, Mockus addressed two big issues plaguing Bogotá, deadly traffic and violence, by using unconventional methods like hiring mimes to control traffic and restricting the sale of alcohol during certain times of year. Mockus later tackled the culture of lighting fireworks-a popular symbol of celebration in Colombia-which typically killed or injured hundreds of adults and children annually. In December 1995, at the beginning of the Christmas celebration season in Bogotá, Mockus faced a difficult decision. An eight-year-old boy had severely burned two of his fingers by lighting fireworks. Earlier that year, Mockus had arrived at a compromise agreement to allow limited sale of fireworks even though the number of fireworks-related injuries had risen steadily in recent years. The incremental approach required fireworks vendors to sell only to adults and to educate their customers about proper use. But if a single child in Bogotá was injured as a result of fireworks during the 1995 Christmas season, a full ban would come into effect. Part A of the case profiles Mockus's campaign for mayor and details the events that led up to the ban on fireworks. It traces how Mockus and his team tried to facilitate social change on fireworks by using a combination of public education, laws and moral pressure.
"In 1994, Antanas Mockus, an unlikely politician and former President of the prestigious National University of Colombia, became Bogotá's first independent mayor, bringing with him a unique vision of harmonious citizenship. The city's new leadership under Mockus, unlike in the past, included academics and researchers, who helped create a raft of new initiatives designed to align public behavior with the rule of law, through education and positive peer influence-or what was known as "citizenship culture." In his first year, Mockus addressed two big issues plaguing Bogotá, deadly traffic and violence, by using unconventional methods like hiring mimes to control traffic and restricting the sale of alcohol during certain times of year. Mockus later tackled the culture of lighting fireworks-a popular symbol of celebration in Colombia-which typically killed or injured hundreds of adults and children annually. In December 1995, at the beginning of the Christmas celebration season in Bogotá, Mockus faced a difficult decision. An eight-year-old boy had severely burned two of his fingers by lighting fireworks. Earlier that year, Mockus had arrived at a compromise agreement to allow limited sale of fireworks even though the number of fireworks-related injuries had risen steadily in recent years. The incremental approach required fireworks vendors to sell only to adults and to educate their customers about proper use. But if a single child in Bogotá was injured as a result of fireworks during the 1995 Christmas season, a full ban would come into effect. Part A of the case profiles Mockus's campaign for mayor and details the events that led up to the ban on fireworks. It traces how Mockus and his team tried to facilitate social change on fireworks by using a combination of public education, laws and moral pressure.
"The Mosquito Network" describes the appointment and work of Ray Chambers, a retired private equity entrepreneur, as the United Nations' Special Envoy for Malaria. The A case covers the modern history of efforts to combat malaria and the beginnings of Chambers's involvement in the cause. The B case picks up after Chambers's appointment to the UN and describes the efforts made by Chambers and his partners and collaborators to achieve the audacious goal of eradicating deaths from malaria in sub-Saharan Africa in a decade's time.
Supplement to case KS1191. "The Mosquito Network" describes the appointment and work of Ray Chambers, a retired private equity entrepreneur, as the United Nations' Special Envoy for Malaria. The A case covers the modern history of efforts to combat malaria and the beginnings of Chambers's involvement in the cause. The B case picks up after Chambers's appointment to the UN and describes the efforts made by Chambers and his partners and collaborators to achieve the audacious goal of eradicating deaths from malaria in sub-Saharan Africa in a decade's time.
On January 31, 2012, The Associated Press released what would soon become a major news story, writing: "The nation's leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women. The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams." The article cited "newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities" and referenced a congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood as the key reason for the change. Planned Parenthood accused Komen of "bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists." Planned Parenthood's president Cecile Richards said, "It's hard to understand how an organization with whom we share a mission of saving women's lives could have bowed to this kind of bullying. It's really hurtful." The controversy roiled the nation, drawing politicians, activists, the press and supporters of both organizations into a painful battle that pitted one venerable women's health organization against another. Each organization appealed to its constituents-using the mainstream press and social media outlets-to support their position: Komen leaders emphasized the importance of administering high quality grants to direct service providers; Planned Parenthood claimed that women's health was being jeopardized for the sake of political expediency. Social media outlets were flooded with messages largely supporting Planned Parenthood and castigating Komen, which capitulated after four days of social and mass media criticism and reversed its funding decision. This case explores the power of social media to drive social change by asking students to consider the effect of a well-managed social media campaign as well as the cost of inaction in a social media driven environment.
This case describes a health care town hall meeting that was derailed by vocal protesters. The case was designed for a very specific teaching purpose: to discuss a variety of alternatives to the tried and true town hall meeting format which, the sponsoring professor believes, is not only quite vulnerable to disruption, but is not a terribly effective or democratic way to involve the public in local decision making, to begin with. Underlying the case is a belief that those who organize public engagements should be deliberate about: 1) the purposes of a public meeting: what a public meeting aims to do 2) the strategy of recruiting participants: who participates 3) the organization of discussion and decision making 4) the extent to which conclusions of the meeting will influence policy or public action The case itself provides a lively starting point for the conversation by describing how a modest Tampa meeting about local health care was overtaken by opponents of national health care reform. The case also provides as context background about the decision by Democrats in 2009 to sponsor health care town hall meetings across the country, in an effort to boost public support for health reform-an effort that was subverted when the meetings became the target of large, vocal, anti-health reform protests. HKS Case Number 1939.0