Although frank talk on race calls for structured dialogue, lest anyone think “structured” means “straightjacketed,” it’s quite the contrary. Once you’ve agreed to ground rules for respectful dialogue, it actually frees people up to say what’s really in their minds and hearts. Within the structure, everything can come out. Structure is your friend when it comes to discussion about highly sensitive issues. Without ground rules and competent facilitation, you’re likely to generate heat without light and the discussion is almost guaranteed to be unpleasant and end with people feeling dissatisfied or worse.
Here’s a sample set of ground rules similar to those I’ve used many times:
· Create an atmosphere of respect by welcoming others’ perspectives and not personally attacking anyone.
· One person speaks at a time; everyone will get plenty of chances.
· It’s a dialogue, not a debate. We’re listening to learn where others are coming from, not to refute each other. We know we will disagree and that’s fine. We “agree to disagree.”
· Share “air time.”
· Be discrete after a session. If someone reveals something very personal about themselves or their family, don’t repeat what they said after the session with their name attached.
In the posting by Ernie, the discussion seemed largely about the shortcomings of black people and black culture in he United States and complaints about race discussions themselves. While posters were openly and honestly expressing their anger and frustrations, it is not the kind of dialogue to increase mutual understanding, break inaccurate stereotypes and build trust and better relationships – even friendships – across racial barriers that I think Mr. Holder had in mind. Again, while he called for frank discussions, Holder unfortunately did not help us out by suggesting how. That is what I’m doing here.
The dialogues I organize typically bring together groups of 20 with approximately equal numbers of people of color and whites. Ground rules like the aforementioned list are proposed, discussed and agreed upon by the participants. They meet for at least four sessions, guided by two co-facilitators of different backgrounds themselves. e.g. a white facilitator paired with a black facilitator who prepare the sessions together beforehand. Various experiential topics are introduced. People discuss how they grew up, how they formed their attitudes toward people of other races and ethnic backgrounds, what their lives are like now, etc. Four sessions with the same group, usually meeting once a week for two hours, gives people enough time to develop a level of trust so they can go beyond the superficial level. They are able to discuss lifelong hurts, angers, questions and frustrations they have often kept to themselves or only talked about with people of their own group.
What makes a successful dialogue on race possible is the ground rules, the facilitation and good session agendas that allow people to talk about what they need to talk about and not get mired in arguments or long, unfocused digressions. Although some will say, “talk is cheap,” dialogue like this is not for the faint-hearted. Some participants may be eager to do a brain dump of their pet gripes or hijack the discussion in other ways but the facilitators don’t let them. They have to be patient and reasonably respectful. Because the ground rules have been accepted at the beginning, it’s relatively easy for the facilitators to keep order and allow everyone eventually to say what they need to say. It works. That is not say there aren’t uncomfortable moments or that sparks don’t fly occasionally. There are, and they do. But it’s kept under control and those moments are often a good sign that people are challenging not only others’ assumptions but their own. After a powerful dialogue session, people can leave the room literally buzzing for quite a while on the way home. We’ve seen new friendships, across race and ethnicity, form in some dialogue groups that have endured for years.
I have hoped that Obama’s election will stimulate interest across the country in exploring the divisions we still have, the social segregation that Eric Holder talked about, and yes, the injustices and discrimination that persist. I assure you that an effective dialogue need not be about angrily pointing fingers at each other or calling each other names. It does depend, however, on coming into a dialogue with the willingness to listen more than talk and that can take courage.
Sounds like a good program.
City-Wide Dialogues on Boston’s Ethnic & Racial Diversity has had about 1300 Boston residents participate over the past few years. I was a co-founder. The program is currently being reorganized but I believe you can still register at the website for future dialogues when they are scheduled.
<
p>Personally I lead dialogues as an independent consultant in the areas of Civic Engagement in Changing Communities, Community-Police Relations and in health care environments, such as efforts to heighten awareness of, and reduce racial disparities in health status and health care.
<
p>
…I’ve never really figured out what these dialogues about race suggested from time to time are supposed to address or accomplish. Even if Jefferson himself did not consider this statement to cross racial lines, I take very literally the self-evident truth “that all men[sic] are created equal”. As such it goes without saying that they should be equal before the law and I personally try very hard to not notice race. Occasionally, I’m so successful (if I do say so myself!) that if you were to ask me the race of a person I encountered earlier in the day I actually don’t even remember, that’s how unimportant it is. This isn’t to say that certain race-based policies like affirmative action should not be debated, but for the most part good public policy is good for everybody, or at least should be, even if happens to disproportionately help one race based on current circumstances. I look forward to be primarily on the listening end if for no other reason than I don’t know what there is to say.
… thanks for your willingness.
<
p>These dialogues are not public policy discussions. They are vehicles to build relationships between people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. On one level, they help prepare people to have the public policy discussions by increasing communication and trust between people of different races. Often the elephant in the room of such discussions is the lack of understanding, communication and trust between people of different backgrounds. In a very diverse city and society, this hampers our policy debates.
<
p>Although you “personally try very hard to not notice race,” race is still a factor in our society’s institutions, notwithstanding the Obamas and Oprahs. One can easily document disadvantaging discrimination purely on the basis of race in housing, education, employment, health care, law enforcement and the court system. That’s not to say that much progress hasn’t been made but there is still a ways to go.
<
p>
I think this is exactly where we want to get, i.e. for people of all colors to be able to say what you say in the box above.
But I’d like to note something. I think there needs to be some venting of racial misgivings and thoughts of shortcomings. I think that it’s not only allowed, but even encouraged for minorities to express their misgivings with whites. Granted, whites have done a lot to deserve it. But for a dialogue to occur, I think you need to express the things that the other races do or are associated with that bother you. This allows there to be discussion about which of these things are merely stereotypes, or which are legitimate concerns.
<
p>Of course, I think that the most important part of this discussion isn’t that a problem associated with a race isn’t really due to race, but rather the socioeconomic status that makes up the majority of people in that race. It’s no accident that minorities have higher rates of abortion but are typically poorer than whites. I don’t really know where I’m going with this comment.
I agree with the idea that socioeconomic status is what this is often really about, while certainly acknowledging the statistical (though by no means absolute) correlation between race and class. I don’t like the idea of what “races do” because races per se cannot do anything. Individuals have free will and are responsible for their actions, so as soon as you say, “I don’t like it when blacks/whites do…” you are already generalizing more than I think is appropriate. One example that really gets to me is when a black student who does well academically is criticised by fellow black students for “acting white” as if one race is supposed to do well and another race is supposed to do poorly. That kind of thinking is a disservice to all concerned.
In the list of sample dialogue ground rules I provided, I omitted one that speaks directly to what you just enunciated, Christopher:
The point is, exactly as you say, to avoid generalizing about a whole group.
<
p>In response to JoeTS above, expressing one’s misgivings is OK and expected in a dialogue on race but it’s not the centerpiece. No getting up on a soapbox to do a lecture. The emphasis is more on people sharing their personal thoughts, feelings and experiences than on expounding on how “that group” acts.
The concept that a race can “do things” is a myth that must be dispelled. I have seen this concept in many places, in many discussion forums. Behavior is not a trait of a race, period.
Unfortunately some of the members of my particular group failed to come to each session, so we never were able to build the kind of trust hubspoke mentioned. Still, it was a useful and interesting experience.
<
p>We did an exercise on the first night which I found particularly useful. Everyone starts by standing side by side on a line, then you take steps forward or back depending on how you answer such questions as ‘have you attended college? has anyone in your family ever been murdered? by the end of the exercise, most whites are ‘in front’ and most minorities are ‘behind’. the point of the thing (imo) is to illustrate that to understand the roots of our collective problem, we have to understand how pervasive, multi-faceted and cumulative the experience of racism and economic injustice is.
<
p>just a non-critical comment on what Christopher said about about sometimes not remembering someones race. i always remember. race, ethnicity and class are just some of the apparent traits i register for everyone i meet, along friendliness, cuteness, sense of humor, height, boorishness, smell, and all the million other cues we pick up on without hardly noticing. i hope to never treat someone poorly or make assumptions because they are of a particular race, etc. but race, ethnicity and class are solid parts of most peoples identity, so i don’t ever want to ignore or erase that information from my mental slate.
…I would add that although it is a fond wish that we could be a colorblind society in terms of fair treatment, respect, equal opportunity and inclusion of all, we are not there yet. We need to be aware of who gets advantages and disadvantages solely based on their skin color (I recognize not everyone agrees with this proposition and it bears discussion too).
<
p>I concur with you, Laurel, that “race, ethnicity and class are solid parts of most peoples identity” and it’s fine to be aware of them. The problem is when these categories divide us and keep us mistrustful and resentful of each other. If that’s the case, we need to address it through honest, respectful communication, not through accusations or avoidance.
<
p>BTW, we later learned to “overbook” the dialogue groups to ensure a decent turnout and a good mix of diversity!
fwiw, actually, i’ve noticed that i do the opposite of avoidance. that is, i tent to treat the non-white person in the group (because i’m almost always surrounded mostly by whites) with extra friendliness. call it white guilt, call it personal affirmative action, call it fear of being thought of as racist, call it a desire of one minority person (i’m gay) to connect with another, it is what i do and it is as knee-jerk with me as racist epithets seem to be with some others.
If the warmth is genuine, it’s usually appreciated, even if it’s an extra effort. Do you find that to be true?
all i know is no one has ever tuned their back in disgust. i’m not sure whether my hightened efforts are even evident. i hope not, actually. i don’t want anyone to think they’re being singled out, even if it is for extra friendliness. that can cause its own discomfort, in a perverse way.
to err on the side of the “better angels of our nature” and let the chips fall where they may – to mix a metaphor and a literary allusion.
a nice person.
I treat rveryone the same. Except those that may need a little more niceness, I give it.
I just went over to the EB3 diary you linked to, and was not too surprised to learn that the discussion started with the apparent assumption that the conversation is defined as Black v White. This in itself is an indication to me in how far we have to go as a country. “We” in the USA aren’t just black or white, and bigotry takes on many forms besides racism. I have always thought that tensions could be eased if the conversation was broadened and the old b/w conflict placed into a larger context.
an ugly racial incident in school. The incident upset many students, prompting them to seek discussions with faculty and administrators. After quite a bit of dialogue, it became apparent that many of our students did not understand the biological origins of skin color. This realization was a bit of a surprise to many of the us, since much of this information is covered in school. Students, it seemed, had failed to truly internalize the information. Further discussion with students revealed that they believed misconceptions about race and skin color contributed towards the marginalizing of our minority students. Eventually they came to the conclusion that some sort of intervention was needed to educate the student body on the origins of skin color. About 30 students worked together and came up with a program, based on the work of Spencer Wells and The Genographic Project, that both instructed students on the population genetics of skin color and celebrated their own particular shade of skin and global origin. A survey of students after the program revealed that students did NOT understand the why of their skin color prior to the program and did NOT understand, fully, that we are all African in origin. They also did not understand that race is a social construct, not a biological construct. Students left the auditorium comparing the color of the forearms, talking about skin color, nose shapes, hair textures, etc. Overall, the student and faculty feedback was excellent, indicating the program, which took about 2.5 hours, was helpful.
<
p>A meaningful dialogue about the social construct of race cannot be had without making sure that everyone understands the facts. There is no reason to suspect that adults are any more informed on this subject than the average high school student, so a purely cultural approach to dealing with issues of race, in my view, would be incomplete.
You remind me of something when you say:
I agree with you that adults need to engage in these discussions too. During organizing meetings to explain the dialogues, more than once I have heard an adult say, “You should do this with the kids because it’s too late for us adults. We’ve already formed our attitudes and aren’t going to change. The kids are more open-minded.” I see that kind of statement as a cop-out, another way of avoiding taking a look in the mirror and being willing to question our shop-worn assumptions about things. Plus, adults are role models. When they opt out, kids see that their parents don’t place value on engaging in dialogue on difficult topics.
there’s a kernel of truth here. When Obama was elected, many of us had a hard time impressing on kids why the election of a black man was a big deal. They really don’t have the contextual experience. We see this sort of shoulder-shrugging “I don’t get it. So what?” with same sex marriage.
<
p>So to the extent that the adults who make this observation are, indeed, evading personal responsibility, they are right about kids. As for the role model aspect, kids have a way of putting their parents in perspective, especially when they get into their late teens. At this point developmentally, they are more likely to invest in their own personal experiences and observations of multiple adults than in the perceptions of their parents. This is not to say that parental environment does not shape a child, but I’m not at all sure that parental bigotry has the legs one might suspect.
I like your line:
I must admit I’m having a hard time understanding what the students DID believe if they were not aware of the “biological origins” of skin color. I’m certainly no expert in the field, but I know it’s about levels of pigmentation and like other physical traits is genetic. When Lewis and Clark travelled west, among their party was Clark’s slave named York. Some Indians, having never seen a black man before, actually tried to “clean” York’s skin as if his color were paint that could be washed off. These students didn’t really think skin color is a choice, did they?!
that their own skin color is a function of climate, isolation, and time. They were fascinated by Nina Jablonski’s discussion (in the film they watched) regarding the lightening of skin, i.e., why white folks are white. This is not surprising, of course, since most of them are caucasian. Spencer Wells’ film Journey Of Man: The Story of the Human Species helped them tremendously with these concepts. They didn’t not understand, too, that their direct ancestors’ skin was black and that they were directly descended from a group of migrants who walked out of East Africa. They seemed to think that they were always “white,” no matter how far back in generations you went. Some also seemed to think there were separate, distinct “types” of humans. Fascinating stuff.
I knew that homo sapiens originated in Africa, but hadn’t really given much thought as to what their skin color was. There WERE distinct types of humans at one point, but only the sapien species (as opposed to homo erectus, homo neanderthalus, etc.) has survived. This is interesting to me on the principle of accumulating knowledge for its own sake, but it won’t change the way I interact with other races.
In the wake of the comments publicized during the recent campaign by Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, the United Church of Christ called upon its congregations (and everyone else) to engage in a sacred conversation on race in this country. The link will take you to resources provided by the UCC, which I think could be useful in other settings as well.
Thank you for sharing the link to the UCC guide. There are some differences in the Sacred Conversation on Race from the model I described but also these commonalities:
– careful planning by a committee
– lays out a rationale for doing such a program
– capable facilitation, with facilitator pairs recommended
– planned agendas and format
– ground rules
– participant surveys for evaluation
<
p>Some differences – the UCC guide has greater emphasis on:
– social action
– the integration of faith aspects into the dialogue, not surprisingly
– explicit exploration of cultural and institutional racism
<
p>Also, they may have all-white groups, which is OK, but our model assumes mixed groups.
<
p>In my quick once-over, I did not see whether their conversations had a fixed number of sessions or could be ongoing. Our dialogues usually have four or five facilitated sessions, after which the group may continue to meet on their own if they so choose.
…that the format model was intentionally left open to interpretation/adaptation. This is, after all, the UCC we’re talking about – an institution notorious for not wanting to insist that things be done a certain way:)!
You’re a great facilitator.