« No Bull Diversity Summit | Main | No Bull Diversity Summit-Large Group Notes »

April 27, 2004

No Bull Diversity Summit-Small Group Notes

The No Bull Diversity Summit—April 27, 2004

Small Group Discussions
"The question remains: What are today's young activists dreaming about? We know what they are fighting against, but what are they fighting for?"
— Robin D. G. Kelley, Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination (7-8)

The prompts:

[1] Tell a story about a time when a diversity discussion really worked in a classroom and/or a time when it didn't
[2] What is the student's role?
[3] What is the teacher's role?
[4] How does what happens on the campus/in the dorms affect what happens in classrooms and vice versa?
[5] What advice would you like to give teachers (and students)about participating in diversity discussions and projects?

Anne Fitzsimmons:
I took notes in the group led by Jennifer Wingard. Our group was made up of three WP teachers - Jennifer, Jeff Simmons and me; four fraternity members (two who had taken an African American Studies class); two students from Jeff Simmons's 205 class; Pedro Luna, an academic counselor in the Office of Supportive Services; and a student who identified as LGBT.

Several times one student argued that Syracuse is reactive rather than proactive when it comes to addressing diversity and bias-related incidents. He suggested several things: that all faculty receive diversity training; that faculty be held to more stringent requirements for building diversity into the curriculum (he provided one example of a lame gesture to diversity in his design class: he was asked to "research" Japanese designers and keep a journal, but he was never invited to share what he discovered with the rest of the class); and that tenured faculty be evaluated on the quality of their teaching.

Students provided examples of the lack in course offerings across campus. A student who was in the architecture school her freshman year said that not a single teacher covered non-European designers and buildings (other than the pyramids). Another said that LGBT course are offered so erratically that it's a struggle to find them and enroll in them. That same student also critiqued the Newhouse model of inviting students to cover diversity issues in a "unit": one semester students write stories about LGBT issues; another semester they cover some other marginalized group on campus.

We spent some time debating the issue of international TAs, and (not surprisingly) this was the moment when even the most enlightened students retreated: if their grades and performance are at stake, they're less eager to consider diversity and globalization. Students argued that TAs have to be proficient in English, and have to be able to explain things to the class. But they were reluctant to consider their own roles in the exchange - that is, the importance of trying harder, taking more time, being compassionate. Earlier a student had passionately stated that "You have to seek out diversity!" which is a wonderful call to action; but there was still a resistance to "seeking out" diversity when it came to international TAs.

Jennifer asked students to offer examples of what they thought students AND teachers should learn about and do, and the responses are as follows:

Becky Howard:
The group had five undergraduate students, four graduate students, one staff member, and two faculty. The students did almost all the talking, though at the end I went around the group and asked everybody for one piece of advice that they would give either students or teachers in response to your last prompt. The group member' answers to that question are compiled below.

Three things that I found especially valuable from our small-group discussion:
(1) one student made a strong argument for diversity discussions in writing classes to be derived from popular culture (such as the film Higher Learning) or campus life (such as the blackface incident).
(2) The most painful stories were about teachers' racist classroom moves.
(3) Classroom space should be made in which students can be brave enough to make mistakes and feel uncomfortable.

Other recommendations include:

How do you do classroom discussions?

Advice to teachers: keep trying, even if you're only speaking to the converted. Learn to listen. Have a starting-point, from a book or a campus incident. Recognize what will be hurtful to others. Incorporate diversity through real-life incidents or popular culture (e.g. Higher Learning), not through books; this issue is relations, not history. Acknowledge that students have a life outside the classroom. Create a space in which people are comfortable with being uncomfortable. You can't define words like diversity and minority, but you have to be as inclusive as possible. Celebrate difference.

Advice to students: exercise forgiveness and patience. Speak your mind. Take control of classroom situations. Be real; be able to say "nigger" and understand why it makes African Americans uncomfortable. Become personally invested. You don't always have to speak up in class; you can find other avenues for engaging the issues outside the classroom, e.g., with the teacher. Don't be afraid to say the wrong thing. Celebrate difference. Cynicism & dismissiveness are defensive moves. Move away from diversity as a way of correcting ignorance. Take responsibility for what you already know, and push others to take responsibility for what they know. Take risks; be courageous enough to make mistakes.

Carol Lipson:
A number of my students cited bad experiences in classrooms in which discussions of diversity issues became ugly and hurtful. Students also cited really good examples - some political science courses, and some social work courses. In these cases, teachers were adept at creating atmospheres in class that enabled open discussion. The students began to think about what roles teachers played in these negative and positive experiences. One strand of thought came out clearly - that teachers needed to allow student discussion to open up, even beyond comfort zones. This might involve some periods of silence before students would move in to undertake and push difficult discussions beyond trite levels. They strongly felt that students needed to be given the space to speak, encouraged to speak.

Another strand came out clearly too - that teachers should not just ignore it when hurtful things get spoken, and should not just let that lie. That had happened in some of their bad-experience classes. Several students pointed to one teacher whom they found particularly successful in encouraging open, substantive discussion on issues of diversity: Dan Holliman, who teaches a course on "Race and Politics." They described his approach as encouraging students to present their points of view, but within the framework of reasoned argument. Students in his classes need to be prepared to back up what they say if asked - to provide grounding for their positions. According to the students, Dan models this well himself, and the students learn to follow his example; they felt that his classes well exemplify open discussion of difficult issues.

Students also felt that there should be reflective 'discussion' about the discussions. This might happen in writing during class time, or in electronic chat settings. They felt strongly that students needed to develop a sense of how what they say affects others, and how what teachers say or don't say affects students.

They also recommended that issues of diversity should be taken up everywhere, not just in writing courses.

They were strangely non-receptive to the question about the interconnections between academic life and nonacademic life.

Dana Harrington:
In regard to the first question, one student told a story about a classroom experience in which the classroom environment turned hostile and broke down into accusations. The topic was affirmative action, and when differing opinions were expressed in ways that turned accusatory and judgmental, the teacher did nothing, so things escalated 'out of control.' Students in the group suggested the need to establish ground rules for discussion and for the teacher to intervene when such rules were broken - to acknowledge the tensions in the room, and to SLOW things down so that tempers and emotions don't take over the classroom.

In light of this conversation, students in the group also stressed the importance of teachers not becoming obsessed with 'protecting' everyone in the classroom or worrying too much about students being offended in the classroom. They thought that it would be impossible for someone NOT to be offended at some point. But the way to deal with this is not to avoid particular topics, but to acknowledge up front that people may be offended in discussions but it's important to try and recognize what language (and ideas) offends people and try and talk through discussions. All acknowledged that this was very hard to do. There was also discussion on how important it was to allow topics to be discussed from a variety of perspectives without instant judgment.

What I found most surprising were the responses to Question 4. No one saw any connections (or would admit to seeing any) between what happens in classrooms and what happens in the dorms/larger campus. They seemed to read this question very literally. Those that talked said they just didn't continue classroom discussions outside the classroom and saw no connections.

A few students also discussed the issue of double standards. A female student said that she was currently writing a paper in an education class that addressed spousal abuse where the female was the abuser. She suggested that it was even more difficult to have classroom discussions around such sensitive issues that seem to flip the script.

In relation to concrete suggestions for classroom practices, one sophomore student suggested that one way to address diversity in the classroom (especially in the freshman year) was to have students write about where they come from - their home town and area, their high school, etc.) and to leave off their names and mix up the papers and then have students randomly select and read the papers out loud to the rest of the class. She thought this was a way to get at the range of diverse experiences represented in the classroom and to broaden people's conceptions of what diversity is.

David Nentwick:
One writing teacher in the group shared a story of classroom discussion addressing diversity gone awry. After reading a short story that took as its subject "being an Other," the teacher found herself looking to the students of color in the room to "represent." It was agreed that such an approach has the effect of perpetuating stereotypes, placing undue attention/pressure on individuals to speak, putting them on the spot and more likely making them want to hide from view rather than speak from experience.

One thing that really struck me as we talked in our group: individuals have their entire world view, their sense of their place in it, and their identity at stake when they are asked to express themselves in public. It is very risky and difficult for people to open themselves to the possibility of change that comes with this kind of risk-taking. At the same time, it was clear that the group shared the view that the only way to break down stereotypes and truly address difference is through understanding; through the ability of people to express their experiences and for others to "step inside them," to stand in the shoes of another and understand their world.

Students expressed a desire for other students to take responsibility for not letting racist/sexist/homophobic remarks "pass" in class discussions. Teachers, they remarked, have the responsibility to facilitate student learning by creating and maintaining the conditions for pointed, respectful discussion. Students in the group advocated for the value of writing in that it provides people the opportunity for reflection on their own words and the words of others; writing provides a critical distance that can give way to a more "reasoned" or "calm" expression of views. However, writing *does no good* if it remains on the page. Thoughts, feelings, views, arguments, etc., must be voiced in conversation. There was unequivocal agreement on this last point.

"Diversity" should be integrated into students' academic life across the curriculum. When asked how often classrooms offer opportunities for the kind of discussion we agreed was necessary, four out of five students replied that their courses did not provide such opportunities. I was reminded of a conversation I had at 4Cs in San Antonio with a writing teacher from MIT, who expressed his engineering students' ardent desire for the opportunity to discuss the ethical, social, political implications of the work they do. Clearly, if SU is to "value diversity" as a "core value," then ongoing dialogue must take place around ways for as many teachers as possible to create opportunities in their coursework to engage questions and problems of difference.

Last, another classroom scenario: a student argued that without the "civilization" of Africa by Europeans, native Africans would probably have killed each other off or died from other causes that various technologies have been able to address. Other students responded to the other student by saying "How can you be so ignorant?"

We discussed how this kind of back-and-forth presents opportunities for both "sides" to be investigated to uncover underlying assumptions, beliefs, knowledges, etc. Teachers must be able to realize these moments as just such opportunities, and facilitate discussion, and not "police" the exchange (e.g., teachers should not intervene by saying, "Hey, don't accuse people of being ignorant" without offering a "because" and without an eye toward continuing a conversation). I remarked that I *do* believe that teachers have some responsibility in the classroom to "teach" good conversation/discussion practices, to help students learn how to respond without attacking each other; not to "bracket" their immediate reactions/feelings, but rather to learn how to engage in discussion so that it is not closed down and so that it moves forward.

Students in our group unanimously said, "The summit was great!"

Karen Oakes:
Here are some of the student reactions from the group I sat in on (with Steve Thorley). In general, the students:


One student in our group proposed reading different SU student publications in writing classes, and several others endorsed this idea, saying that we have to bring the student community and its concerns into the classroom if we expect (desire?) that classroom discussions will spill over into their community.

I really appreciated hearing from students on this topic - they had much of value to say. It truly inspired me to think about incorporating some new pieces into my courses.

Maureen Fitzsimmons:
Our group's conversation started with some bad experiences in students' classes. The main story told was about a discussion of Michael Moore's "Roger and Me," in which the instructor could not control the side conversations, many of which included racist terms.

There was some discussion as well of a so-called "double standard," particularly around the notion that minority comics, for example, can do and say things that white comics "could not get away with." This led to a discussion of what it means to be "racist" and what comprises a "racist comment." The talk about "racism" and what it means led one student to comment that the issues students are asked to take up in class discussions are too "big" and therefore the discussions seem pointless. One student said he didn't know what he was supposed to do about these big issues that were discussed in some of his classes, and that frankly, he had come to college so he could have a career and some day start his own business, support his family, etc. But when someone said that these so-called big "issues" would apply to him in that life - e.g., who would he hire, would he offer health insurance, would he participate in his children's schooling? - it was if a light bulb went off for every member of the group. The students agreed that if they have a clear sense of the implications for their own lives, then the conversations might be very meaningful and worth participating in.

The group then talked about ways to make these kinds of class discussions happen in a classroom. Everyone agreed that students need to take responsibility for the conversation, but it was easier if everyone had to say something and if the instructor called on the student rather than waiting for volunteers. Also the questions the instructor asked should be varied, so that students would be able to do more than simply agree or disagree with what had already been said. It was also important, the students said, for the teacher to be a person in the conversation, not simply a "proctor" leading the conversation but never revealing herself or committing herself to any viewpoint, even as she asks students to take this risk.

Students seemed willing to talk about these issues, not only in the summit but in class as well. But they want teachers to recognize the risk inherent for students in taking positions publicly. One student referred to my reading of the rules at the beginning, particularly the part about giving speakers the benefit of the doubt until you are sure you understand what they are trying to say. All the students agreed that students do not give each other the benefit of the doubt in class discussions and that what they say is always taken personally. Setting up ground rules, like we did for the summit, could help mitigate that, but it won't eliminate it.

Maureen Puetzer:
First of all, congratulations for a fantastic session. As one of my students said, I hope that there are many more sessions like this one.

A few lingering impressions from the group I was in:

One student expressed frustration and helplessness to do anything about furthering understanding, implementing good practices, etc., related to diversity. He wants to start a business, be successful, etc., and sees no way to spend a lot of time on this topic. When another member mentioned how he could participate by his hiring practices, working conditions and atmosphere, work ethic, etc., the student immediately saw these possibilities for his participation, and he became excited. The problem did not seem insurmountable.

I think we can learn from this response. While we are trying to expose the complexities of diversity, let us not make it so huge that it doesn't seems approachable in practical, everyday ways.

Students really responded to personal experiences - personalizing experiences had a strong effect. Students wanted to respond to them.

Having a safe space to say what students really feel is extremely important. We need to let them know that they are not being judged, that they and we are all in this discussion together to discover information and insights.

On the other hand, one student mentioned to me after the session that she really is discouraged by teachers who accept all opinions equally, don't challenge or redirect students' biases or misinformation in any way.

Students really get turned off by lack of really substantive reactions by their teachers. How to encourage responses and then to be able to challenge them is a tricky bit. Maybe if we adopted Martin Luther King's approach in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," we could have more meaningful discussions.

Posted by mryonker at April 27, 2004 03:00 PM

Comments