Multiversity Race/Ethnicity Dialogue
Facilitator’s Curriculum
Created by:
The Collaborators of the Multiversity Intergroup Research (MIGR) Project
Research supported by the W.T. Grant and Ford Foundations.
This is the curriculum for the race/ethnicity research dialogue. The gender
curriculum is virtually identical simply substituting the language of ‘gender’ in
place of ‘race/ethnicity.’ There are some different readings for the two dialogues
and both reference lists are included on the CD.
Authorship/Copyright
All materials remain property of their respective author(s) and institutions, and may only
be used with permission and proper citation of their source.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 1 of 90
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Multi-university Intergroup Dialogue Research Project is indebted to many people for their
contributions to this curriculum. Our collaborators worked tirelessly to create the fine-tuned
product that is presented here. It was developed over a 2-year period of small group committee
work as well as full team meetings with collaborators from all ten institutions involved in
conceptualizing the project. While the curriculum draws heavily from the four longest-running
programs (The University of Michigan, The University of Massachusetts-Amherst, The
University of Washington, and Arizona State University), all of our collaborators, including the
University of Illinois who subsequently dropped from the research project, were important
contributors to the success of the curriculum. We have included below a reference list of
articles, exercises or curricula that were utilized in the development of the curriculum. We are
grateful for the wisdom and expertise of the authors, many of whom are colleagues on this
project or in the wider dialogue community. In addition to the work of our collaborators we are
thankful for Kristie Ford who compiled and edited the first version of this curriculum.
Within the text of the curriculum, we have done our best to acknowledge broadly the sources
from which we utilized materials. However, others of our collaborators had a hand in piloting the
curricula, which led to changes in the final curriculum. For example, the University of CaliforniaSan Diego, Occidental College and the University of Texas-Austin were new dialogue programs
at the outset of the research. They graciously tested the curriculum and provided detailed
information about what worked and what changes were needed. The University of Maryland
provided expertise in adapting a co-curricular dialogue program to a credit-bearing one. Though
you will not see them cited within the curriculum, all of their feedback, piloting, and experience
was invaluable to the product we share now. It led to a stronger curriculum that has since been
found to be highly effective in increasing intergroup understanding, fostering intergroup
relations, and promoting intergroup collaborations.
The development of the curriculum was one of the most challenging and rewarding aspects of
the multi-university collaboration. All institutions used the four-stage dialogue model presented
here and emphasized the same general concepts (such as, dialogic engagement,
understanding socialization and social identity, thinking about inequality and privilege). But, we
all did it in slightly different ways. One particularly important discussion revolved around the role
of action in the dialogue: Is dialogue itself a form of action? How do we encourage students to
think about or create action beyond the dialogue-setting? Whereas some programs (e.g.,
University of Washington) had students actually work together across identities as part of their
dialogue course, others (e.g., Arizona State University) talked about the importance of alliances
without engaging any beyond-the-dialogue-setting group application. Through our deliberations,
we developed the Intergroup Collaboration Project which asks students to attend to both the
process of their intergroup dynamics as well as the content of their project to address racism or
sexism in their lives, thus allowing them to act on both their dialogue process and content skills.
Other highlights of our intensive collaboration are evident in a curriculum that attends to:
• sequential development and strategic placement of educational activities
•
inclusion of relevant and contemporary readings to strengthen the content in dialogues
•
an accessible curriculum for facilitators with a variety of skills and experiences to use
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 2 of 90
•
crafting session agendas that fit into (or could be adapted to) the varied number and
length of sessions at the participating institutions
References
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1997), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A
sourcebook. New York: Routledge.
Intergroup Relations Center (IRC) at Arizona State University (2000). Unpublished dialogue
curriculum. Tempe, AZ.
Nagda, B. A. (2001). Creating spaces of hope and possibility: A curriculum guide for intergroup
dialogues. Seattle, WA: IDEA Center, University of Washington.
The Program on Intergroup Relations (IGR) at the University of Michigan. (2004). Process
Content Outline for Standard Dialogues. Ann Arbor: Unpublished manuscript.
Schoem, D., & Hurtado, S. (Eds.) (2001). Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative democracy in
school, college, community and workplace. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Schoem, D. Frankel, L., Zuniga, X., & Lewis, E. (Eds.) (1993). Multicultural teaching in the
University. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Zúñiga X., Birgham, E., & Kiem, K. (2005). Educ 395z, Exploring differences and
Common ground: Web of Racism/ Sexism/ Heterosexism/ Gender Oppression Activity.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Zúñiga, X. & Cytron-Walker, A. (2003). Intergroup Dialogue: Exploring differences and common
ground. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Zúñiga, X., Cytron-Walker, A., and Kachwaha, T. (2004). Dialogue across differences.
Unpublished Curriculum. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B.A., Chesler, M. and Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup Dialogue in
higher education: Meaningful learning about social justice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zúñiga X., & Shlasko, D. (2004). Educ 395z, Exploring differences and common ground:
Action Project Assignment. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 3 of 90
TABLE OF CONTENTS
How to Use this Curriculum
4
STAGE I: Group Beginnings
Session 1
7
Session 2
13
Session 3
21
Session 4
30
STAGE 2: Learning about Commonalities and Differences
Session 5
37
Session 6
44
Session 7
51
STAGE 3: Hot Topics
Session 8
59
Session 9
66
Session 10
72
STAGE 4: Envisioning Change and Taking Action
Session 11
77
Session 12
82
Session 13
88
HOW TO USE THIS CURRICULUM
The Multiversity curriculum is designed to provide facilitators with both the “how” and “what/why” of
facilitating the dialogues. Each stage and session provides you, the facilitator, with ‘background’
notes for you to keep in mind, as well as step-by-step instructions for the scheduled exercises. It’s not
a script; so don’t just read it aloud to your group! Find ways to put your own voice into it, and to tailor
it to your participants. However, we do need all groups to stick with the sequencing and activities
indicated in the curriculum. These are well-tested at the project schools, and will allow us to compare
the participants and facilitators across several different institutions.
READINGS
The referenced readings are included in your course reader. (These and some additional ones are
posted on the Resource Website, see below.)
MATERIALS
Almost every session uses some type of handout or exercise material, which will be provided by your
site coordinator. Be sure to ask your site coordinator in order to get them well in advance!
Using the session descriptions
The “brain” symbol provides a quick indication each time the rationale behind a particular
exercise is given. This isn’t necessarily something you’ll share with participants, but is
very helpful for you to know so that you can blend the activity into the overall goal and flow
of the session, and can make decisions “in the moment” to keep the dialogue moving in the
intended manner.
The “apple and book” symbol designate “teaching notes” with background information
and/or suggestions for you and your co-facilitator. This could be an explanation of why
the particular exercise or concept is being used, or a ‘heads up’ on potential struggles
you and/or the participants may face with the issue at hand. In either case, the intention is for
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 4 of 90
these notes to help you understand the bigger picture goal and process at work, and/or be better
prepared to engage the topics.
The “book” symbol indicates a great opportunity to connect the activity and concepts to
one or more of the readings for this session. While not every connection is explained
in this way (watch for many other connection opportunities), these points can help you weave in
their out-of-class readings.
The “writing symbol” calls attention to the weekly writing assignments, whether
journals/logs and/or papers.
Overall Notes
•
•
•
Some session outlines do not account for a full 120 minutes, and may leave additional
time, which can and be used in large group dialogue in order to provide maximum benefit
to your participants. If your session is longer, proportion time according to your needs.
As always, times indicated are approximate; think of them as indicating the relative
emphasis and time that specific activities should be given. Don’t stop good dialogue just
because “time’s up,” but don’t let things go on and on if you have more things to get to.
Never read the curriculum to the participants – don’t treat the tips, hints, or even
checklists as a script. While you need to cover everything, and get to as many of the
points and items as possible, each group may cover them in different ways.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 5 of 90
STAGE ONE
Sessions 1, 2, 3 & 4
Group Beginnings
The goal of this stage is to create and nurture an environment that prepares participants to
actively participate in an educational experience encouraging learning and dialogue across
differences from a social justice perspective. Open, constructive, interactive communication; risk
taking, deeper reflection about one’s own social identities and location in society; and
perspective-taking form the bases of the more demanding intergroup work to come. Those
comfortable with traditional “didactic” models of education may find peer education and active
questioning challenging. This stage emphasizes the following goals/outcomes:
LEARNING GOALS
Content Goals
• Clarifying the meaning of dialogue vs. debate
• Exploring the concept of interactive communication (and active listening)
• Exploring the meaning and impact of social identities for self/others
Process Goals
• Taking the perspectives of others
• Clarifying the meanings of social identity/multiple identities
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Content Outcomes (Research)
• Comfort with intergroup communication
• Normalization of conflict
• Understand multiple social identities and their positions in society
• Recognize similarities and differences within and between groups
• Understand how others view one’s identity groups
• Thinking actively about self, others, and society
• Empathic skills and motivation to understand the perspectives of others
Process Outcomes (Research)
• Taking the perspectives of others
• Clarifying meanings of social identity/multiple identities
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 6 of 90
STAGE I – SESSION 1
Orientation: Introducing and Creating an Environment for
Dialogue
This session has one primary goal – to encourage immediate dialogue among participants. We
try to accomplish this by introducing participants to one another so that they begin to feel greater
interpersonal comfort and by identifying a few key features of dialogue through a description of
the syllabus and how the dialogue communication mode differs from debate.
Time management is critical in this session. Should you feel pressed for time after participants
complete the survey, we suggest you spend a few minutes on why it is important to talk about
race/ethnicity so you can have sufficient time for the “dialogue vs. debate” brainstorm.
LEARNING GOALS
Session 1: Content Goals
• Clarifying the meaning of dialogue vs. debate
Session 1: Process Goals
• Getting to know each other
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Session 1: Content Outcomes (Research)
• Comfort with intergroup communication
Session 1: Process Outcomes (Research)
• (None)
AGENDA OUTLINE
(105 minutes total)
Activity
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
Title
Welcome and Overview of Course and Syllabus
Pre-Dialogue Survey administration
Mini-Cultural Chest Introductory Exercise
Main Activity
1.1.4 Demonstrating Difference between Dialogue and
Debate
Closing and Assignment
Time Needed
15”
45’
20”
20”
5”
Materials needed
Syllabus copies
Pre-test survey instrument
Blank nametags and markers, as appropriate
Definitions of “Dialogue” and “Informed Dialogue” on newsprint or handout
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 7 of 90
Copy of Berman’s Comparison of Dialogue vs. Debate Handout
Copy of Bohm’s Building Blocks of Dialogue handout
Readings Assigned
• None
GENERAL NOTES
Goals/Themes/Concepts: In addition to setting the stage, getting to know each other,
clarifying goals, expectations and concerns, and distinguishing between dialogue and
debate, we also include defining intergroup dialogue, describing some dialogic skills (e.g.
active listening, as part of the “Distinguishing Dialogue and Debate” activity).
Facilitators’ Role: The role of a facilitator is to welcome and motivate participants,
communicate enthusiasm, outline clear goals and expectations for the overall experience,
actively direct the group process and model an organic, respectful, and participatory learning
process. Facilitators should also actively model clear and open communication, invite
participants to actively listen to one another and to check for mutual understanding, and
promote a climate of safety and inclusion in the group. We find it helpful, especially for the
first session, to provide refreshments or bring music to foster a more relaxed atmosphere.
Group/Participant Development Issues: This type of dialogue is emotionally, practically, and
intellectually challenging and may provoke anxiety and lack of confidence for some
participants. Hence, building the capacity for dialogue through skill building and small group
activities is crucial during early sessions of a dialogue group.
To provide a more solid foundation of what constitutes dialogue and intergroup
dialogue in this first session, briefly review Berman’s (1993), Comparison of Dialogue
and Debate Handout right after the Dialogue and Debate brainstorm. You may want to
also motivate participants to carefully review this reading in preparation of the upcoming session.
As you wrap up the Dialogue and Debate segment, we recommend you spend some time going
over David Bohm’s Building Blocks of Dialogue Handout, which are described in detail in
Linda Tuerfs’ reading. We have found Bohm’s conceptualization very valuable in helping dialogue
participants appreciate the importance of the following dialogic skills: suspension of judgment,
deep listening, acknowledging assumptions, and reflection and inquiry. You may want to add:
“voicing one’s feelings, views, and experiences” as the fifth building block of dialogue.
SESSION 1.1 LESSON PLAN
1.1.1 Welcome and Overview of Course and Syllabus (15”)
Rationale: This introduction welcomes participants to the course and highlights several
important points including course requirements and expectations, the structure and goals
of dialogue curricula, and information about the multi-campus research project. This introduction
can play an important role in framing the course as content and process based, as experiential
and reflective, as reading, thinking, feeling and writing, and as more than merely “impulsive talk.”
Framed effectively, the overview can prepare participants to approach the course as an important
exercise in diverse democracy.
Summarize course objectives and requirements, and attendance policies on newsprint (or on the
board) to help everyone, particularly visual learners, navigate the main elements of the course
syllabus effectively. Keep in mind that participants may come to the first session eager to jump
into hot topics. It’s useful to provide an overview of the semester and explain the importance of
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 8 of 90
group building and skill building, as a way to respond to participants who want to have difficult
conversations right away.
You may want to refer to the FOUR STAGES OF INTERGROUP DIALOGUE when you
explain the course outline.
Procedure: Welcome participants to the course; provide them with materials to
make name tags as you briefly review the written syllabus, highlighting the
following points:
• Course Structure: The dialogue curriculum will take participants through four
stages:
Creating an environment for effective dialogue
Situating the dialogue by learning about commonalities and
differences within/between groups
Exploring conflicting perspectives through “Hot/Controversial” topics
Moving from dialogue to action as we bring the course to a close
•
Course Goals: Note that each session is associated with specific goals.
The primary goals of this session are to:
Clarify the meaning of dialogue vs. debate
Get to know each other
•
Course Expectations & Assignments: Be sure to mention (at this point,
try to mention briefly, inviting complex questions after class) that there
are four graded “assignment types”:
Informed participation
Reflective journals
Intergroup Collaboration Project (ICP) (For the ICP, they will be
placed into groups of approximately 4 other people to complete a
project related to the dialogue topic.)
Final reflection paper
•
Course Logistics:
Clarify grading responsibilities (which may vary by institution and/or
assignment).
As appropriate, remind participants that the dialogue course is part of
a multi-site collaboration on intergroup dialogues. Let them know
they will be completing a consent form that outlines data collection
and their rights as subjects. You may want to mention that data will
inform us about the effectiveness of the program.
1.1.2 Pre-Dialogue Survey Administration (45”)
Procedure: Refer to instructions/script provided with survey instrument.
1.1.3 Mini-Cultural Chest Introductory Activity (20”)
Adapted from Motoike & Monroe, no date; Nagda, 2001.
Procedure:
1. Inform participants that each group member will now talk about some
thing that they have and keep with them, that is representative and
important to them pertaining to their race. They may have the item on
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 9 of 90
them (ask them to show it) or it may be something they have at home
(in this case, ask them to describe it for others).
2. Have them talk about its significance to them (why they have and keep it)
and their identity as their race/ethnicity; and how their identity provides
motivation to participate in this dialogue.
3. One or both facilitators should share first to model type of item,
connection to race/ethnicity, appropriateness and brevity.
4. Participants then take turns sharing, either in a round robin format or
more of a "popcorn" (random) sequence.
1.1.4 Demonstrating Difference between Dialogue and Debate (20”)
Adapted from Nagda, 2001; Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha, 2004; University of
Michigan IGR Process Content Outline, 2004.
Rationale: This activity forms the core of this session. Our primary goal is to help
participants get involved in the dialogue immediately while hearing about key dialogic
concepts. Encouraging participants to reflect on differences between the two modes of
communication may help them formulate a wider range of potential distinctions: verbal, non
verbal, cognitive, affective, disciplinary, modes of inquiry, gender, process, as well as content.
The activity lends itself to both group and individual levels of analysis. Some contributions may
focus on how “dialogue” generates a different classroom environment from “debate”; others may
begin to think about how their own personal communication style will interact with “dialogue.”
Self-awareness about general communication style can promote deeper understanding about
likely strengths and challenges as we practice/hone dialogue skills. This activity also permits
participants to practice intergroup communication and active listening in the group without fear of
criticism.
Procedure:
1. Distribute Berman’s Comparison of Dialogue vs. Debate handout that contrasts
dialogue and debate.
2. Encourage participants to remember a time they were in a discussion that went well
and a time they were in a discussion that did not go well. Have students briefly
brainstorm:
• What features characterized the “better”, more energized exchanges – the honest,
open, deep ones?
• What features characterized the “poorer” group sessions – the flat, silent, maybe
even destructive ones?
3. Then ask participants to count off by 1, 2 to make two groups. One group will role-play
dialogue; one group will role-play debate.
4. After the groups are composed, ask each group to read and discuss the handout for
differences between dialogue and debate. They should also discuss their responses to
the brainstorming above.
5. Then, give each group the same topic. It can be any topic you think will be interesting
to the participants, for example, in the race dialogue, “Interracial dating,” or in the gender
dialogue, “Date rape.”
6. Ask one group to role-play a discussion that turns into a debate about the pro and con
arguments of the topic. What are the features that make it a debate?
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 10 of 90
7. The other group is to develop a role-play dialoguing about the topic for five minutes.
What are the key elements that make the role-play a dialogue? All members of the
dialogue group should participate.
Debrief
Process what the participants observed about the two role-plays and what specifically is
required to dialogue instead of debate. Be sure to discuss the features that make the first
role-play a debate and the other a dialogue. What can the participants take away from this
exercise to help them stay in dialogue mode throughout the semester? Refer back to this
discussion when you create guidelines for participation in the next session.
Debriefing Tips & Questions…
•
•
•
•
•
•
Try to clarify what is meant by debate, dialogue, and informed dialogue by integrating
participants’ contributions – if need be – with some of your own. Prepare participants to
think about dialogue as a classroom culture that invites perspectives and styles and that
may pose personal challenges where process and content are concerned.
One danger in this activity is getting overly intellectual, and failing to connect the ideas of
dialogue, debate, and intergroup dialogue to participants’ lived experiences. One way to
avoid this pitfall is (as in the suggested procedure) to ask participants to remember a time
they were in a discussion that went well and a time they were in a discussion that did not
go well. Ask them to think about not only what those discussions looked like, but also
how it felt to be in those discussions.
Let participants know that in order to foster informed dialogue about gender we will rely
on activities to encourage individual and group reflection, discuss assigned readings to
broaden our individual and collective perspectives, and ask questions to stimulate
conversation and dialogue.
Communicate that we're here to learn from each other, talk about taboo subjects, ask
difficult questions, expose conflict, and take risks.
Acknowledge that in this process, we'll make mistakes, not necessarily find easy
answers, and may not completely satisfy all expectations.
If time permits, it would be helpful to share these definitions (you might provide these on
a handout or have them ready to post on newsprint):
Dialogue is a process of reciprocal, active, and committed communication that
supports participants to: (a) voice and listen to each other’s thoughts and feelings, (b)
ask questions and to probe one another to foster deeper levels of understanding.
Informed Dialogue encourages participants to seek multiple perspectives and
sources of information to deepen the process of dialogue. Participants are asked to
tell their stories, to develop a shared language, and situate their perspectives and
experiences in larger historical, social, cultural, political, and economic contexts.
Don’t forget that dialogue and especially intergroup dialogue may be a very new idea
and experience for many participants. Therefore it may be useful to review Bohm’s
(1990) Four Building Blocks of Dialogue (cited and discussed in Tuerfs’ 1994
article) as well as talk about the value of participatory, non-banking education (as in Freire,1998
edition).
1.1.5. Closing and Assignment (5”)
Reading Assignment: Instruct participants to complete reading assignments listed in
syllabus, and to purchase course reader if they have not already done so.
•
•
•
Bidol, P. (1986). Interactive Communication.
Berman, S. (1993). A Comparison of Dialogue and Debate.
McCormick, D.W. (1999). Listening with Empathy
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 11 of 90
•
•
Weiler, J. (1994). Finding a Shared Meaning: Interview with Linda Tuerfs.
Ford, C.W. (2000). Develop cross-cultural communication skills.
Reflective Journal/Log Assignment: Direct them to the journal assignment
in the syllabus:
Write a thoughtful 2-3 page journal that explores some of your hopes and concerns about
participating in a race/ethnicity dialogue. Specifically, reflect on the four questions below and
draw on the assigned readings as you craft your responses. Be sure to draw on the readings
as you consider your responses:
• Tell us about what interested you about this particular intergroup dialogue. What are
your primary hopes and concerns about inter-racial/ethnic dialogue? (You might
consider some of the more general issues about communication, such as comfort
with speaking, trusting others, dominating conversations; as well as issues
specifically related to dialoguing about race/ethnicity).
• What have been your previous experiences in talking about race/ethnicity issues with
others? How did it make you feel? Why do you think you felt that way?
• As you may have sensed now, a lot of learning in intergroup dialogues comes
through talking about our own and listening to others’ personal experiences, feelings,
and perspectives. What is your sense of comfort in sharing personally in groups like
our dialogue? What areas would you like to see yourself grow in such a learning
experience?
• What about the group, other members and yourself will allow you to participate
effectively in the intergroup dialogue? In other words, what will best facilitate your
ability to share your thoughts and experiences and to “listen” to the thoughts of
others you may find inspiring, challenging or unsettling?
You may have to clarify answers to the following questions:
• How do we expect students to incorporate the readings (e.g., formally, informally) into
the journal assignment?
• Will the number of readings used be counted?
• Must the students answer every question (and every part of every question) in order
to receive full credit?
Closing: Invite participants to offer one word that describes their feelings at the end of this
first session.
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
______________________________________________________________
Notes for Session One:
•
The explanation for Demonstrating the Difference between Dialogue
and Debate in the introduction was adapted from Nagda, 2001.
•
The Facilitators’ Role, the Group/Participant Development Issues, the
Link to the Readings in the General Notes, and the majority of the
Debriefing Tips & Questions from Demonstrating Difference between
Dialogue and Debate activity were excerpted and adapted from
Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha, 2004.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 12 of 90
STAGE I – SESSION 2
Setting a Climate for Dialogue: Normalizing Voicing One’s
own Feelings and Perspectives, and Conflict
Session goals are to continue the process of helping participants become increasingly
familiar with and comfortable dialoguing among group members. Shared hopes and fears
illustrate commonalities and differences within the group concerning the race/ethnicity
dialogue. They also provide an opportunity to practice dialogue skills, in particular, active
listening. And finally, perspective taking and conflict normalization are introduced as
participants reflect on personal needs and challenges as they voice and hear difficult
thoughts and feelings about racism and brainstorm about the type of guidelines needed by
the group to dialogue effectively about a challenging topic. Students’ journals should have
helped them address some of these issues intrapersonally. Now they share them.
LEARNING GOALS
Session 2: Content Goals
• Explore hopes and fears for dialoguing about race/ethnicity
• Explore basic elements of interactive communication, and practice active listening skills
• Identify guidelines for group process
Session 2: Process Goals
• Getting to know each other (continued)
• Continue to create a climate for dialogue across differences
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Session 2: Content Outcomes (Research)
• Comfort with intergroup communication
• Normalization of conflict
Session 2: Process Outcomes (Research)
• Taking the perspectives of others
AGENDA OUTLINE
(90-95 minutes total)
Activity
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
Title
Welcome, Review Agenda, Housekeeping, and
Icebreaker
Main Activities
1.2.2.1 Hopes and Fears
1.2.2.2 Active Listening about Hopes and Fears
1.2.2.3 Brainstorming Guidelines
Transition: comfort zones and learning edges
Closing and Assignment
Time Needed
15”
15”
30”
20”
5-10”
5”
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 13 of 90
Materials needed
Index cards
Active Listening Definitions on Newsprint
Bidol handout on Interactive Communication
Pair-Share Questions on Newsprint
Newsprint and Markers for Guidelines Brainstorm
Personal and Social Identity Wheel handouts
Social Identity Groups handout
Readings Assigned
•
•
•
•
•
Bidol, P. (1986). Interactive Communication.
Berman, S. (1993). A Comparison of Dialogue and Debate.
McCormick, D.W. (1999). Listening with Empathy
Weiler, J. (1994). Finding a Shared Meaning: Interview with Linda Tuerfs.
Ford, C.W. (2000). Develop cross-cultural communication skills.
GENERAL NOTES
Risk Level: Uses mostly low-risk and some medium-risk activities. Guidelines for dialogue
follow hopes and fears because the guidelines will hopefully address some hopes and
fears. You can also acknowledge and normalize that these conversations often bring up
emotional reactions.
Facilitators’ Role: Since the design relies on a set of structured activities to sequentially
support group building and skill building, the facilitators actively lead and guide these
activities. In this role, the facilitators communicate enthusiasm, guide the group process,
and introduce key concepts. They also model listening and respectful communication.
We recommend creating smooth transitions between segments to help participants make
connections between the activities.
Making Links to the Readings: Linking this session to the previous session will help
contextualize for participants the value of developing guidelines for dialogue and
practicing dialogic skills. You may want to ask participants to summarize some of the
distinctions made between dialogue and debate, to recall Bohm’s Four Building Blocks
of Dialogue building on Linda Tuerfs’s article, and to share some highlights of the Hopes
and Fears discussion before brainstorming the Guidelines for Dialogue.
SESSION 1.2 LESSON PLAN
1.2.1. Welcome, Review Agenda, Housekeeping, and Icebreaker (15”)
WELCOME AND AGENDA REVIEW
Rationale: Welcoming participants re-establishes the tone for the dialogue session. An
introductory activity offers participants another opportunity to learn each other’s names
and to get acquainted with each other.
Procedure
1. Welcome participants and affirm their decision to participate in this
dialogue.
2. Take attendance.
3. Collect journals from last week.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 14 of 90
4. Remind participants that main goals of intergroup dialogue are to
facilitate voicing opinion, listening, and mutual understanding even
when there are disagreements and conflicts, and to encourage solidarity
as they bridge differences, and form meaningful relationships among
people from different social groups.
5. Make explicit that everyone's contribution is welcome, valuable, and
necessary
6. Review agenda and goals for session two.
ICEBREAKER (see list of suggested ice breakers on facilitator resources website)
Procedure
• Pick an interactive activity that helps people share their name and get
acquainted in a personal or fun way (for example, a name game, a round
that asks participants to talk about their favorite piece of clothing, or a low
risk common ground activity).
1.2.2. Main Activities (3): Hopes & Fears, Active Listening, and
Brainstorming Guidelines
Three main activities are included in this session, however, each focuses on creating an
effective environment for dialogue and each flows naturally from the preceding one. We begin
with an exercise that puts the group’s hopes and fears anonymously out in the open, then we
move to an active listening activity that asks participants to share some dimensions of these
hopes and fears in dyads, and we end with a brainstorming session during which participants
generate a set of guidelines that they believe will help them work productively across
difference. While there is a lot to accomplish, participants should be prepared to identify
important themes fairly easily since they have already written a journal about this issue. More
importantly we hope that the active listening exercise will help the group think deeply about
what members need to move more quickly and effectively to a space where they can talk
honestly about hot topics. Please work to integrate readings into the debriefing sessions if
participants do not make these connections.
1.2.2.1 HOPES AND FEARS (15”)
Adapted from Nagda, 2001; Zúñiga & Cytron-Walker, 2003; Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, &
Kachwaha, 2004; University of Michigan IGR Process Content Outline, 2004.
Rationale: To allow participants to express, safely, what they hope to gain from and
what they fear in participating in an intergroup dialogue on race/ethnicity. Since this
activity also helps participants learn about others’ hopes and fears it has the capacity to
provide perspective taking (others may have different fears or concerns), to normalize anxiety
about intergroup communications (many may have similar concerns), to introduce into the
dialogue some of the race/ethnicity linked conflict we know exists in society, and to challenge
participants to reflect on the behavior and attitudes needed for effective dialogue.
Procedure: Today’s activities will help us think about how to have more
powerful dialogues about important topics while remaining aware of and
working with our hopes and fears. We begin by safely sharing some of our
hopes and concerns about a race/ethnicity dialogue.
1. Pass out index cards to participants, one per person.
2. Remind participants that their homework from last session was to
think and write about their hopes and fears for the dialogue.
3. Ask them to think about what they wrote in their journals, and to now
write down, anonymously, some of the hopes they have for the
dialogue on one side of the card and some of their fears on the other
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 15 of 90
side. They can briefly write (words, phrases), as many of each as
they have.
4. Collect, shuffle, and redistribute the cards.
5. Ask each participant to read the card they have starting with either
hopes or fears.
6. In the interest of time, ask participants to distill their MOST
ESSENTIAL feelings into 30 seconds. Have a timekeeper during the
round.
Debriefing Tips & Questions…
The debriefing is important for the creation of a dialogue-appropriate environment. It has
the capacity to introduce participants to some commonly shared sentiments in addition to
the differences that are likely to exist within the group. Participants who reflect on
connections between what they and others wrote may be in a better position to
perspective take and to begin to identify specific ways they will try to meet personal
challenges to dialogue. Since we will be discussing hopes and fears in all activities, you
may want to raise only two general questions that generate group-level reflections, for
example:
•
•
•
Were there any common themes you noticed in our fears?
Were there any common themes you noticed in our hopes?
What connections can be made to your readings?
Wrapping Up & Making Connections…
In wrapping up this activity, highlight some of the patterns that came up, and validate
people’s hopes and fears for dialoguing across race/ethnicity. Sharing your own hopes
and fears could be valuable here.
1.2.2.2. ACTIVE LISTENING (30”): 1 PAIR SHARE
Adapted from Nagda, 2001; Nagda & Zúñiga, 1993; Zúñiga & Cytron-Walker, 2003;
Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha, 2004; University of Michigan IGR Process Content
Outline, 2004.
Rationale: To provide an opportunity for participants to talk about their responses to
the hopes and fears activity, to encourage people to begin to name and normalize
conflict by identifying and processing “hot buttons” responses through the practice of active
listening skills, and to help participants form important links between their experiences, the
activities, and the readings.
Procedure: With the class’ hopes and fears in mind, we want to move to
another level of communicating. We’d like you to pair up with someone in the
class you don’t know well to talk about and listen to each other’s hopes and
fears about race/ethnicity dialogues using active listening. Please be
honest, but don’t feel you need to share anything you are not ready to share.
What is active listening? What does it entail?
1. Post definitions of speaker, listener, active listening, paraphrasing, and
feedback on newsprint on the wall and/or give students the Bidol
handout. Briefly define active listening, comment on the role of
paraphrasing and feedback in interactive communication and the roles of
1
For a shorter design of the active listening activity refer to the 1.2 resource guide in the
Supervisor Coaching Guide.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 16 of 90
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
the speaker and listener. Let participants know that we are going to
practice these skills as we talk about our hopes and fears.
Ask participants to pair up with someone they do not know well for this
activity and who represents a different group in the dialogue – for
race/ethnicity, dyads would consist of a White and a student of color.
Explain that each member of the pair will take a few minutes to speak
without interruption while the other member actively listens, and then
they will switch.
Post and briefly read the following list of “hopes and fears” questions on
the wall:
o What types of things are hard for you to voice in classes? What
happens to you in these situations? What do you need from
others to voice your thoughts and feelings about race/ethnicity?
o What types of things are hard for you to hear when it comes to
topics of race/ethnicity? What needs to happen so that you are
able hear and respond constructively to them?
o How do you feel about and respond to conflict? To emotion?
What would you like to be able to do better? How might our class
help this happen?
Ask each participant in the dyad to select one set of questions he/she is
comfortable addressing and to take one minute to think about and jot
down any thoughts about them.
Then ask participants to decide who will go first and face each other.
The speaker will speak for two minutes without interruption. The listener
will listen actively without interrupting.
At the end of two minutes, the listener will take one minute to paraphrase
what he/she heard the speaker say (both content and emotions). The
listener should ask clarifying questions where necessary, for another
minute or so.
The speaker will confirm whether or not the listener paraphrased
correctly – both content and emotions. Depending on the time available
for the exercise, encourage pairs to work on accurately capturing the
overall message rather than the more specific details/nuances.
Next the participants will switch roles and repeat the exercise.
Time each four-five minute period and signal when time is up.
After both people have had the opportunity to be the speaker and
listener, ask the pairs to talk for two minutes each about what it was like
to do this activity and what they learned about how to hear and respond
to people’s hopes and fears.
Debriefing Tips & Questions…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What was it like to listen without verbally engaging with the speaker?
What questions or comments did you want to ask the speaker as they were
speaking? Why?
What was it like to speak continuously for two minutes without interruption or
comments? What was it like to receive acknowledgement from listener?
How does this communication style differ from the communication style you are used
to? What does this mean for your participation in the dialogue?
How did you feel sharing some of your emotions? Some of your hot buttons? Some
of your challenges?
How do you feel about conflict? How does this shape your response to it?
Any final thoughts about the value of listening, paraphrasing, or interactive
communication, especially as they are related to hopes and fears, to hot buttons, to
conflict?
What does this mean for our group?
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 17 of 90
•
How might specific themes in the readings help us respond to these fears?
(Consider Bidol and Tuerf’s).
It is important to keep in mind that active listening is a communication style that most people
think of as easy but find more difficult than expected. Note that the activity may be
challenging for people and that race/ethnicity, and other aspects of peoples’ identities and
backgrounds heavily influence communication skills. The point of this activity is not to say this
is the only or best way to communicate, but to emphasize it as a method that is particularly
useful in IGD.
1.2.2.3. DEVELOPING GROUP PROCESS GUIDELINES BRAINSTORM (20”)
Adapted from Zuñiga, Cytron-Walker & Kachwaha 2004; Zúñiga & Cytron-Walker, 2003;
University of Michigan IGR Process Content Outline, 2004.
Rationale To help participants integrate the previous two activities, bring (at least
temporary) closure to the climate setting session, and establish a setting in which
dialogue can occur. We can become better citizens when we can imagine how it feels to be in
all sorts of different roles that make up society and the world.
Procedure: We’ve talked about our hopes and fears for the dialogue – our
own and those of others in our group. You’ve written a journal about this as
well. You’ve also read about dialogue, interactive communication, and
empathy. We’ve also talked about how natural it is for us to fear conflict. But
conflict is normal and here we have an opportunity to work with it.
1. So now we’d like you to think about the type of classroom setting you
think we need in order to dialogue about race/ethnicity issues. Let’s
brainstorm for a few minutes to develop classroom guidelines that will
allow us to have open, respectful, informed dialogue.
2. It might be helpful to think about Bohm’s Building Blocks of Dialogue
(suspending judgment, identifying assumptions, deep listening, and
reflection and inquiry). How might these building blocks help us generate
group process guidelines that help us realize our hopes and alleviate our
fears?
3. Invite participants to brainstorm concrete/specific guidelines.
4. Write participants’ suggestions on posted newsprint.
5. Ask participants to clarify meaning. Each person will interpret the
meaning of these guidelines differently; therefore it is helpful to
encourage participants to clarify what “confidentiality” or “sharing air
time” looks like for them as a way to begin to clarify needs and
expectations for interacting in the dialogue group.
6. Encourage a dialogue about guidelines that appear to conflict each
other.
7. Tell participants the guidelines will be posted during every session and
there will be time to revisit the group guidelines next week and as
needed in the future.
8. If time runs out, you could have a participant volunteer to be a moderator
and continue the group guidelines creation over email.
Guidelines are important because they: clarify needs and expectations, link expectations to
particular behaviors, create a safe space for dialogue, help facilitators assess the
concerns/safety issues/group dynamics issues participants might bring, and can be used
throughout the semester. Some needs/concerns may contradict each other (e.g., some
people want “no interrupting” and for others interrupting is a culturally acceptable part of
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 18 of 90
engaged conversation). Throughout brainstorm/discussion, work to encourage active
listening, asking questions, and working to understand each other…
“Curse Words” often become a question … people feel very strongly both ways.
Facilitators should think ahead about what kind of classroom norms around curse words
they’d be comfortable with, and how they might address any concerns about it.
“Safety Issues” often become a concern in this activity. Help participants to articulate
what exactly “safety” looks like in a group. Stress that everyone has the right to feel safe,
but this does not mean we will all feel comfortable all the time. A thoughtful conversation
about safety and comfort in the dialogue group can build a very strong foundation for
engaging in authentic dialogue.
1.2.3. Comfort Zones & Learning Edges (5-10”)
Adapted from Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha 2004; University of Michigan
IGR Process Content Outline, 2004.
Rationale: To help participants begin to develop a language to help them name their
emotional responses during controversial conversations about race/ethnicity. It will be
valuable to briefly present the following two concepts, if they haven’t come up earlier in the
conversation: comfort zones and learning edges.
Procedure: As you wrap the previous activity, it would be helpful to also
briefly introduce two concepts – comfort zones and learning edges– as they
can be helpful in supporting participants’ understanding of their own and
others reactions in dialogues across differences. You may want to post the
concepts on newsprint before reviewing them. Giving examples from your
own experience would be really valuable for participants.
• Comfort Zone: We are inside our comfort zones when discussing
topics or engaging in activities that are familiar and do not cause us
to become upset (Griffin, 1997).
• Learning Edge: The boundaries of our comfort zone are our learning
edges. When we find ourselves at the limit of our comfort zone, we
are in the best place to expand our understanding, take in a different
perspective, and broaden our awareness. Learning edges are often
signaled by feelings of annoyance, anger, anxiety, surprise,
confusion, or defensiveness (Griffin, 1997).
1.2.4. Closing and Assignment (5”)
Reading Assignment: Instruct participants to complete reading assignments listed in
syllabus.
• Tatum, B. D. (2003). The complexity of identity: “Who am I?”
• Enrico, D. (1995). Bridges: How I Learned I Wasn’t Caucasian
• Grover, B. (1997). Growing up white in America?
• Rodriguez, R. (1991). Complexion.
• Wong, N. (1995). When I was growing up.
• Schnur, S. (1995). Blazes of Truth.
Reflective Journal/Log Assignment: Direct them to the journal assignment
in the syllabus:
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 19 of 90
This assignment involves two steps. (1) The first step is to fill out the two Identity Wheels
provided by the facilitators; and (2) write your journal assignment responding to the following:
Reflecting on the last session, How do you feel about the Group Guidelines discussed in
class? Are there any guidelines that you may see as being particularly new or difficult for
you? If so, how? How can the facilitators/group support you?
Looking ahead to the next session:
• We are going to be thinking and talking about identities. In preparation, introduce yourself
by answering Tatum’s question, “Who am I?” using at least two aspects from your
personal identity wheel and two aspects of your social identity to introduce yourself. Be
sure to focus on the social group categories and themes discussed in the readings as
you address the following questions:
• As you read the articles for this week, what struck you the most? What spoke to you and
what did not speak to you in how you identify yourself?
• How do you think your social group memberships have influenced how you see yourself?
And how others see you and treat you on campus?
Closing: Invite participants to share one word that describes how they are feeling about
today’s learning.
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
______________________________________________________________
Notes for Session Two:
•
All three bullet points in the General Notes section; the rationale and
the directions for the procedure of Hopes and Fears activity; the notes
to facilitators and the directions for the procedure in the Active
Listening activity; the notes to facilitators highlighting the use of “curse
words” and “safety issues” in Developing Group Process Guidelines
activity; and the directions in the Comfort Zones & Learning Edges
activity were excerpted and adapted from Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, &
Kachwaha, 2004.
•
Part 2 of the Procedure in Developing Group Process Guidelines
Brainstorm, was adapted from Nagda, 2001.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 20 of 90
STAGE I – SESSION 3
Group Building and Exploring the Centrality and Complexity
of Identity
This session prepares participants for dialogue across and within social identity groups. We
introduce and distinguish between personal and social identity, a distinction which some may
find challenging. Both are important dimensions of the self and they work together to shape
how we see the world. However, in intergroup dialogues we find value in acknowledging that
we do not interact solely as individuals but also as members of social identity groups based
on socially constructed categories. Race and ethnicity are examples of this. Since
participants are more familiar with personal identity, we recommend spending adequate time
exploring the breadth and impact of social group affiliation as well as its complexity including
multiple identities, intersectionality, salience, and importance. The small group work in this
session highlights cross cutting ties, helps us see some of the similarity and diversity within
and between groups, and continues relationship building.
LEARNING GOALS
Session 3: Content Goals
• Exploring personal and social identities
• Clarifying concepts such as social group categories, social identity, saliency, worldview,
race & ethnicity, etc.
Session 3: Process Goals
• Getting to know each other (continued)
• Applying the group process guidelines
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Session 3: Content Outcomes (Research)
• Understand multiple social identities and their positions in society
• Recognize similarities and differences within and between groups
• Understand how others view one’s identity groups
Session 3: Process Outcomes (Research)
• (None)
AGENDA OUTLINE
(100 minutes total)
Activity
1.3.1
1.3.2
Title
Welcome, review goals, ground rules, agenda,
housekeeping & ice breaker
Main Activities
1.3.2.1 Personal Identity Wheel
Time Needed
10”
30”
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 21 of 90
1.3.3
1.3.4
1.3.2.2 Social Identity Wheel
ICP Meeting
Closing and Assignment
30”
15”
15”
Materials needed
Group’s Guidelines (to be posted weekly)
Definitions on Newsprint: Personal Identity, Self-view, Self Esteem
Definitions on Newsprint: Social Identity, Social Group, Social Group Membership, Social
Group Identity, Saliency, Worldview
ICP Presentation Guide Handout
One Facilitator’s Testimonial (model)
Readings Assigned
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tatum, B. D. (2003). The complexity of identity: “Who am I?”
Enrico, D. (1995). Bridges: How I Learned I Wasn’t Caucasian
Grover, B. (1997). Growing up white in America?
Rodriguez, R. (1991). Complexion.
Wong, N. (1995). When I was growing up.
Schnur, S. (1995). Blazes of Truth.
GENERAL NOTES
Goals/Themes/Concepts: This session explores the centrality of social group affiliation
and the difficulty and complexity of the language we use to define and describe our social
identities. To support participants in these explorations, we distinguish between our
personal identities (who we are as individuals) and our social identities (our collective
identities within the context of the social groups we belong to based on socially
constructed categories. These include race, ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic class).
By examining the two as distinct aspects of their identities, participants can not only
become more aware of both their personal and social identities, but also gain an
increased understanding of the impact of social categorization on in-group and out-group
dynamics on college campuses. We also use the additional concepts worldview and
saliency to deepen and extend our conversation about personal and social identity.
Risk Level: The design relies on low and medium-risk interactive activities to encourage
participants to gradually take stock of their own experiences, step outside their comfort
zones, and actively explore the meaning of personal and social identities across and
within group boundaries.
Facilitators’ Role: The role of the facilitator in this session is to review key concepts, give
examples from his or her own experiences or the readings, actively lead structured
activities, address emerging questions or concerns and communicate and model the
value of listening in intergroup dialogue.
Group/Participant Development Issues: Be conscious that some of the activities may
elicit reactions that push people’s “hot buttons.” As emotions run high, the communication
process may speed up. We recommend using active facilitation techniques when the
energy level in the room interferes with participants’ ability to listen and ask questions, or
if participants are too caught up in responding to or challenging what has been said.
Making Links to the Reading: The concepts of group membership, social group identity
and multiple social identities may be new to participants, and some may resist these
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 22 of 90
categories. Participants may also need to clarify the meaning of social categories listed
in the social identity wheel (race, ethnicity, class, gender, etc.).
• If you have enough time, some discussions based on the readings may help to make
links between activities or between this session and the previous session. Using
quotes from readings or discussions questions like the ones listed in the resource
section can serve as conversation starters for exploring a theme more deeply with
the group.
• For facilitators in a tight time frame, it might be useful to have little notes to help them
also integrate the readings in smaller ways. For example, when the discussion turns
to saliency in the debriefing, you may want to ask participants, “which if any of the
readings speak to these issues” (and give some examples).
o NOTE: Even if you don’t have time to use the reading guide provided, you
should still look for opportunities to draw insights from the readings into the
conversation as appropriate.
SESSION 1.3 LESSON PLAN
1.3.1. Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, and Housekeeping (10”)
Procedure: Facilitators should go over the guidelines and leave time for
participants to ask clarifying questions and/or amend the guidelines based on
their thoughts since the previous session.
1. Take attendance.
2. Collect journals from last week.
3. Review session goals.
4. Review the agenda and note that the agenda will help us achieve today's
goals.
5. Encourage participants to link readings to activities and dialogue, noting
that an approach that intertwines the two deepens reflection and
learning.
6. Do an ice breaker of your choice.
1.3.2. Main Activities (2): Personal & Social Identity Wheels (60”)
Two main concepts define this session: Personal & Social Identity Wheel. In combination
with the readings these activities help participants think more deeply about their identities as
individuals with unique qualities and preferences and as members of multiple social groups.
Ideally they also help participants begin to think more critically about the relationship between
personal, community and social identity.
1.3.2.1. PERSONAL IDENTITY WHEEL
Adapted from Alimo and Treviño, Arizona State University IRC curriculum, 2000; Zuñiga,
Cytron-Walker & Kachwaha, 2004.
Rationale: This activity stimulates personal sharing about similarities and differences
of experience. Keep in mind that it may also elicit strong reactions from participants
who find it hard to separate their individual identity from their social group identities. It is
important to encourage people to work hard to focus on personal identities at this time.
Procedure:
1. Briefly introduce the concept of personal identity, using examples from
your own experiences. For example, you could talk about how your
decision to become a dialogue facilitator was influenced by your own
personal identity (values, hobbies, leadership experiences, and so on).
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 23 of 90
2. Highlight that an individual’s personal identity – how we see and feel
about ourselves – is influenced by a wide range of factors including
our personality, family of origin, birth order, academic or social interests,
values, self-esteem, etc. In dialogue our personal identity will influence
our willingness to enter into difficult or emotionally charged
conversations, or how we engage with silence or conflict.
3. Divide participants into groups of three by asking the group to count off.
4. Review the following definitions (below are posted on newsprint):
o Personal Identity – our identities as individuals, including our
names, personal experiences, traits, skills, characteristics, selfview, and self-esteem
o Self-view – how one sees the self
o Self-esteem – individuals’ positive or negative evaluations of
themselves, based on how they see themselves (adapted from
Allison, 2002)
5. Ask participants to take 3 minutes each to share (three of their choice)
responses from their Personal Identity Wheel in their small groups.
6. Bring everyone back together to debrief the activity.
Debriefing Tips & Questions…
•
•
•
What were some of your reactions to this activity?
What similarities and differences came up in your groups?
What personal qualities came up in the readings? Are these qualities related how we see
“others”?
To conclude the conversation, make sure to link the ideas raised in this activity with the
concepts of personal identity, self-view, and self-esteem.
Helpful Hints…
This activity will stimulate personal sharing about similarities and differences of experience. It
may also elicit strong reactions from participants who find it hard to separate their individual
identity from their social group identities. Facilitators should acknowledge this difficulty and
emphasize that we often experience our personal and social identities as inseparable, yet it is
useful to separate them conceptually in order to explore different facets of our own and
others’ identities.
1.3.2.2. SOCIAL IDENTITY WHEELS
Adapted from Alimo and Treviño, Arizona State University IRC curriculum, 2000; Zuñiga,
Cytron-Walker & Kachwaha, 2004.
Transition: Mention that while our unique personal identities are an important aspect of who
we are, many of our interactions are not solely based on our identities as individuals. Instead,
they are based on our identities as members of socially constructed identity groups like race
and ethnicity. Together these identities help us see the world from different perspectives as
the next activity shows us.
Rationale: This activity helps participants think more deeply about the various groups
to which they belong, their salience (may differ across contexts), inter-connectedness,
and multiplicity. The testimonials, or personal narratives, add nuance and complexity to social
identity by addressing biraciality, adoption, fear, stereotyping, ingroups, and outgroups. They
raise questions about “how best” to “deal” with race/ethnicity in a structured society where
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 24 of 90
“difference” is devalued. Finally they should compel readers to grapple with some of the
comments written by the diverse authors.
Procedure
1. Ask participants to stay in the same small groups as we explore social
group identities.
2. Prepare them for this initial intergroup exchange by confirming that for
most, open interactions like these are rare, but that this is critical for
reflective dialogue.
3. Post definitions of the following concepts on the wall:
• Social Identity – One’s sense of oneself as belonging to a
particular social group (Harro, 2000)
• Social Group – A collection of people who share a range of
physical, cultural, or social characteristics within one of the
categories of social identity (Harro, 2000)
4. Ask if they had any questions from the Social Identity Groups Handout
(available on Resource website).
5. Have participants take out their completed Social Identity Wheel.
6. Briefly address any questions that arise about categories by first asking
other participants in the group what they think, then further clarifying if
needed. For example:
• What’s ability? If the handout said “disability” would you know what it
was asking for? Speak to the broad range of differing abilities that
exist: physical (mobility, visual, hearing, health/illness, environmental
influences like allergies), cognitive (learning differences and
difficulties), developmental, and emotional.
• What’s class? Wealth and associated status – speak to the level of
variation present in the U.S. What is the difference between race and
ethnicity?
7. Let participants know they have 5 minutes each in their small groups to
share their answers in the center of the social identity wheel in relation to
their on-campus experiences OR have some people share in the large
group.
NOTE: This activity can surface some tensions between participants along lines of
privileged or targeted identities, or the salience (or lack thereof) of the particular identity
that the group is focused on (e.g., students of color may lose patience with White
students for whom race/ethnicity is not salient). If emotions run high during debriefing:
remind people to listen actively, ask questions, avoid assumptions, and suspend
judgment.
Before and/or after the activity it may be necessary to flesh out the definitions of
some of the social group terms, (e.g., gender, race, socio-economic status, ability).
Facilitators should be prepared to explain even those that are not salient with regard to
the group’s overall topic. (Just because you’re facilitating about race/ethnicity, doesn’t
mean you won’t have to explain the difference between sex and gender).
Targeted identities are usually more salient than privileged identities. (That’s part
of what privilege is). If this comes up in the debriefing, it is a useful moment to talk about
privilege. Link what has come up during this discussion with the assigned readings.
Debriefing
Debrief the activity after 15 minutes by drawing on a few questions, making sure that your
debriefing links themes common to the readings:
•
How did it feel to fill out the social identity wheel, especially the questions in the middle
of the wheel?
•
In what ways did your experience differ as you filled out the two wheels?
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 25 of 90
•
Are these social identity categories important to us? How? Why/why not? When?
Under what conditions?
In what ways did the readings prepare you to think about how your social identities
shape some of your views about yourself as well as others? Does sharing an identity
with an author shape your emotional connection to the essay? Why or why not? If yes,
in what ways? If no, how did the essay make you think differently about your own social
identities?
Who defines these social identity categories?
How does the “observability” of a social identity impact group members’ treatment?
Which of your social identities are more salient on campus? Which social identities are
not salient for you on campus?
•
•
•
•
Characteristics of Social Identities
Review characteristics of social identities, asking for examples of each characteristic:
•
Multiple: We have many simultaneous identities; an example for me is…
•
Interconnected: We are all our identities; no single one describes us completely.
•
Change: Are these identities fixed through our lives? Some are; some (e.g., class,
nationality) may change.
•
Choice: Did we choose all our identities? Some (religion, occupation); some not
(ethnicity, age).
•
Observable: Can we see/hear all these identities in people? Some we can observe (or
think we can); some are not visible or audible.
•
Salient: Are we always aware of all our identities, all the time? No, there are some
identities we do not think about consciously (are not salient) to us; for example, we may
not think daily about being U.S. citizens until we travel outside the country.
Saliency of Social Identities
•
What are situations where these less salient identities do come out?
•
What feelings come up when one these identities becomes salient to you? Often are
feelings of discomfort/difference around the identity, and/or pride.
Saliency vs. Importance
• Salient social identity – a group identity or group identities that an individual is
conscious of in terms of affect and cognition. This saliency is highly situationally
contextual and generally heightened in a context where one feels to be an
underrepresented numerical minority within a majority context. However, the lasting
impact of this awareness or saliency is extended for those whose minority status
situationally coincides with larger societal context of minority status.
o “Saliency” of social identity should NOT be equated with “importance” of
identity.
o A particular identity might or might not be salient (noticeable to you), however
it might be very important to your experience (but out of conscious
awareness) or to others’ experiences of you.
o Others may respond to you based on their perspective of what your identity
means to them and to you.
o Some identities become salient or important based on the social and
situational context.
o Provide examples of when a social identity might become salient (e.g., when
one is a minority in a particular situational context).
o Provide examples of when a social identity might be important (e.g., when
one has had an encounter that makes an identity more important).
•
Sample situations for saliency
o An ethnic minority participant entering a predominantly white classroom.
o A female participant walking into the weight room at the gym.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 26 of 90
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A re-entry participant participating in the orientation programs aimed at
younger participants.
A participant from a low socio-economic status not being able to afford
fraternity/sorority dues.
A participant in a wheelchair discovering that the room where his/her
participant organization chose to meet is not accessible.
An American Indian participant being told that he/she cannot perform a
religious ceremony because candles and incense are forbidden in residence
halls.
A heterosexual couple attending a dance where the crowd is predominantly
gay/lesbian.
A man enrolls in a Women’s Studies course.
A white student is placed in a group project with three students of color.
A student from an upper-class background witnesses his roommate
struggling with finances.
Transition/Closing: Throughout the semester we will continue to explore aspects of our social
identities. Our multiple identities (e.g., as a Black, heterosexual woman – facilitators can use
themselves as examples) all affect how we interact with the world as individuals and as
members of these groups. Next week we’ll be sharing our testimonials. Facilitators should
now model a testimonial. A testimonial is a story about your life. Be as personal as you feel
comfortable being. Remember that your depth and openness will model the expectations for
the dialogue participants. This is a meaningful exercise for many participants as some may
have never shared their story and had it validated by others. As such, please set the tone
and expectation of active listening, meaningful engagement, and in-depth personal sharing.
1.3.3. Intergroup Collaboration Project (ICP) Meeting (15”)
Adapted from Zúñiga, X. & Cytron-Walker, A., 2003; Zúñiga & Shlasko, 2004.
Rationale: In this session we make time for participants to meet one another and
begin discussions about how they will work across difference and form alliances as
they collaborate on a project important to all. A sense of efficacy and effective movement into
stages three and four may be enhanced if we can create structures that require participants
to work together on a project of mutual interest.
Procedure
1. Alert participants to the notion that they are now going to have their first
Intergroup Collaboration Project (ICP) team meeting…which means that
they will now learn who their teammates are for this assignment.
2. Note that the facilitators tried to take great care and consideration in the
construction of these teams. The team assignments were also made to
create as diverse groups as possible, based on the folks in this
dialogue…as the title implies, we are looking to create a space for you all
to work on a project across group differences.
3. Reveal the assignments on the Newsprint and read them off.
4. Post the “ICP First Meeting Agenda” Newsprint.
5. Invite the ICP groups to circle up in the room and ask them to discuss
the 5 points listed on the agenda.
6. While the groups meet, indicate that you will be available for questions.
Participants may have lots of questions. It may be necessary to take
these outside of class, as participants may also want to avoid
relationship building at this point.
7. If the group energy is around answering some specific questions, do so.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 27 of 90
8. Eventually stop answering questions, and invite them to contact you
after they have met tonight. Invite the group to begin their meeting by
following the outline.
9. Also invite them to focus on relationship building and the generation of
ideas, but to not leave before scheduling their 2nd meeting.
Post this agenda:
I.
Introductions
II.
Review of the ICP assignment
III.
Hopes and Fears of the ICP
IV.
Generation of project ideas
V.
Schedule next meetings
Offering support to the ICP Groups
In order to support the work of the ICP groups, each facilitator should identify themselves as
a resource to them (in a casual way) while the groups are wrapping up their discussion.
• Decide with your co-facilitator which groups you will “connect” with (you both will know
best how to choose).
• During the last 5 minutes or so, approach each of your groups while they are still
meeting.
• Share with the group that if they need one of the facilitators to be a resource – for
whatever reason, to call upon you. (e.g., “My contact info is on the syllabus…”).
• Ask the group if they have their next meeting scheduled yet (if no, invite them to do so
now; if yes, praise accordingly!)
• Quickly move to your next group(s) and do the same…
Hopefully, participants will take advantage of this, somewhat, personal invitation of support,
should they need it. It would be a good idea to check in with folks in these groups again as
the dialogue proceeds for the next few sessions.
1.3.4. Closing and Assignments (15”)
Reading Assignment: Instruct participants to complete reading assignments listed in
syllabus:
• Collier, E.M. (1994). Arab-Americans: Living with pride and prejudice.
• Tan, C. I. (1994). Thinking about Asian oppression and liberation.
• Madrid, Arturo, (2004). Missing people and others: Joining together to expand the circle.
• Levine, Judith. (1994, March/April). White Like Me.
• Raybon, P. (1996). Prologue.
• Alvarez, C. (1993). El hilo que nos une/The thread that binds us: Becoming a Puerto
Rican woman.
• Staples, B. (2005). Just walk on by: A Black man ponders his ability to alter public space
Reflective Journal/Log Assignment: Write a 2-3 page journal reflecting on
the last intergroup dialogue session and thinking ahead to the next session.
•
•
•
In reflecting on the last session:
How is it for you to see yourself through both a personal and social identity perspective?
Were you struck or surprised by anything in your own wheels?
How was it for you to share your wheels and listen to others? What were some
similarities you were able to draw with others? What were some differences? How does
belonging to your social categories influence and shape your behavior toward others –
those who “share your” group memberships as well as those who do not?
How do you feel about your sense of comfort and trust in the group?
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 28 of 90
In preparation for the next session:
• Testimonials are a way of conveying our own stories, in our own words. You read a
number of testimonials in the readings for the previous session. In the next session, we
all will be sharing our own testimonials in class. We would like you to write your story in
preparation for the next session. Be sure to incorporate the readings as you address the
following questions:
o Tell us about your understanding of yourself as a person of your
race/ethnicity. What have you experienced regarding your race/ethnicity
identity? How does this affect the person you are today? What are some
feelings or emotions that come up as you think about how and what
influenced your race/ethnicity identity over time?
o Pick one other social identity (other than your race/ethnicity identity) that is
also important to the way you think about yourself. For example, it could be
your gender, class, sexual orientation, religion and so on. What is this
identity and how does that affect the person you are today? What are some
feelings or emotions that come up as you think about how and what
influenced understanding this identity over time?
Closing: Advise participants to speak spontaneously since this encourages honest reflection
and active listening, and invite each participant to share:
• One feeling or thought about today.
• One question you will continue to think about.
• One thing you learned that really touched you or made you think today
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
______________________________________________________________
Notes for Session Three:
•
The concepts of the Personal Identity and Social Identity Wheels were
developed by Jesús Treviño at Arizona State University and adapted by
Craig Alimo for the University of Maryland. However, the majority of the
directions for the procedures of the Personal and Social Identity Wheels
including the majority of the General Notes, and the Helpful Hints in the
Personal Identity Wheel activity were adapted from Zúñiga, CytronWalker, & Kachwaha, 2004.
•
The directions for the procedure of The Intergroup Collaboration Project
Meeting were adapted from Zúñiga & Shlasko, 2004.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 29 of 90
STAGE I – SESSION 4
Sharing Stories, Noticing Commonalities and Differences in
Experiences
This session offers participants an opportunity to explore the role of culture in others lives as
well as their own– through readings (theoretical and personal narratives) and through the
creation of their own testimonials. By exploring how people see themselves, how they believe
others see them, and by listening to the stories of others, participants witness commonalities
and differences and enhance group cohesion. The readings allude to generational distance,
assimilation, and universality and difference in values. Facilitators can model connections
between reading themes as they describe their own social identities through the stories in
their testimonials (in previous class) to promote honesty, complexity, and critical thinking
about social identity and culture.
LEARNING GOALS
Session 4: Content Goals
• Exploring the meaning of one’s social identities
Session 4: Process Goals
• Voicing and sharing the significance of one’s social identities
• Actively listening to each others stories
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Session 4: Content Outcomes (Research)
• Understanding how others view one’s identity groups
• Thinking actively about self, others, and society
• Empathic skills and motivation to understand the perspectives of others
Session 4: Process Outcomes (Research)
• Sharing personal experiences
AGENDA OUTLINE
(90 minutes total)
Activity
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
Title
Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, Housekeeping and Ice
Breaker
Main Activity: Testimonials
In-class Reflection Paper #1
Closing and Assignment
Time Needed
5”
70”
10”
5”
Materials needed
Group’s Guidelines (to be posted weekly)
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 30 of 90
In-Class Reflection Paper #1 instructions, handouts, and pens/pencils
Information about University’s counseling services (Each institution to provide brochures
or a handout of their own).
Anytime people share personal stories there is a possibility that it will raise difficult issues
for participants. It is important to know that counseling services exist and where and how
to access them.
Readings Assigned
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Collier, E.M. (1994). Arab-Americans: Living with pride and prejudice.
Tan, C. I. (1994). Thinking about Asian oppression and liberation.
Madrid, Arturo, (2004). Missing people and others: Joining together to expand the circle.
Levine, Judith. (1994, March/April). White Like Me.
Raybon, P. (1996). Prologue.
Alvarez, C. (1993). El hilo que nos une/The thread that binds us: Becoming a Puerto
Rican woman.
Staples, B. (2005). Just walk on by: A Black man ponders his ability to alter public space
SESSION 1.4 LESSON PLAN
1.4.1. Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, and Housekeeping (5”)
Procedure
1. Welcome participants.
2. Take attendance.
3. Collect journals from last week.
4. Review session goals and agenda, noting how it will help us achieve
goals.
5. Briefly review last week’s concepts and themes, in particular personal
identity, social identity, multiplicity, and salience.
6. Do a quick ice breaker of your choice.
1.4.2. Main Activity (1): Testimonials (70”)
Adapted from University of Michigan IGR Process Content Outline, 2004.
Rationale: The previous session focused on participants exploring social identity
memberships. Having read other testimonials, this session will create an opportunity
for participants to tell their own stories. Finding one’s own voice and narrative can be a
powerful experience in understanding the self in relationship to others who have both
commonalities and differences to you. One part of dialogue is giving participants the chance
to bring their experiences into the classroom as a legitimate and authentic process of
learning.
By creating the space and environment in which each participant can share their own
story, facilitators and other participants have the opportunity to create a stronger learning
community in which risks can be taken and experiences affirmed. This process can bring
individuals in the group closer together as a group and serve as a way to commit to the colearning process in real ways by listening and accepting each other’s stories.
Procedure
1. Have participants sit in a circle if not already doing so.
2. Explain that each participant will now share their testimonials, tell their
own stories.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 31 of 90
3. Make sure everyone understands that they are free to tell or not tell any
parts of their stories. Creating an open environment in which
participants feel able to take risks and be supported and not judged is
critical to this process. Everyone else in the circle should be listening
attentively to the person sharing. During the process, we should affirm
the sharing and risk-taking without judging what is being said.
4. Before starting, give the group a few minutes to collect their thoughts
about how they will explain their testimonial. Encourage participants to
review their testimonials (from their journals/logs) but then simply talk
from their own words about their own story.
5. Explain that because our stories are important and can be quite involved,
we want to make sure that everyone has a chance to share. Therefore,
while someone is speaking, the person sitting to their right will have an
automatic timer with an alarm, which will signal the end of that person’s
time after ~4 minutes. (This way it’s the alarm, and not another person
who “stops” the story—no one has to feel guilt about stopping.)
6. Given the time constraints, suggest to participants that it may be best to
begin with the most difficult or important part of their stories so that they
do not miss sharing it.
7. Finally, have the facilitator who did not model testimonials the previous
session to begin with her or his testimonial to demonstrate the depth and
openness of sharing permitted and affirmed within the dialogue session.
8. Have each participant share in turn.
Helpful Hints…
Participants may want to ask questions after each testimonial. However, encourage
them to listen attentively and jot down any questions they may have, to ask the other
person during a break or after class. Remind them that people may decide not to
answer questions or discuss their testimonials further.
Time permitting, you may want to ask each participant to start by mentioning how the
preceding person’s testimonial touched him/her.
IF TIME: Sharing in dyads
1. After everyone has finished sharing with the large group, break into
dyads and allow several minutes for each participant to share their
thoughts and feelings with one other person.
2. Once participants have paired up, explain that each person in the dyad
will have several minutes to speak and that they can decide who will go
first.
3. One of the facilitators should time their interactions to allow an equal
time for each to share (2 minutes for the first, and then 2 minutes for the
second).
ENDING
1. After returning to the large group (if you had time to share in dyads),
affirm participants’ participation in the session.
2. As important personal issues may have surfaced for the first time during
this session, hand out the information about the University’s Counseling
Services and explain how they can access these services.
3. Thank the group for their stories and their willingness to share.
Debriefing
Facilitators should look for opportunities to connect testimonials and stories
with readings if participants fail to do so.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 32 of 90
You can do so by asking, for example, “which, if any, of the readings speak to some
of the things people shared today?”
Among possible debriefing questions are:
• What was it like to look for items to write your story?
• What was it like for you to share your testimonial with the group?
• What did you learn about each other? How was it for you to hear others
talk about the importance of their social identities?
• Did you notice any similarities?
• How significant was intersectionality for people? What does this suggest
to you? How is it shaping your own understanding of identity – in
particular for this dialogue?
Transition: To wrap-up the activity, highlight commonalities; point out the
complexities of identity and the concept of visible/invisible identities.
Comment also on the value of getting to know people rather than rely on
stereotypes or misinformation.
1.4.3. In-class reflection paper (10”)
At the end of the main activity’s debriefing, the first “in-class reflection paper” is scheduled.
Participants should be given 5 minutes to complete the paper.
Procedure
Handout reflection sheets and pens/pencils
Instructions to Participants
1. We would like to give you an opportunity to reflect on the thoughts and feelings you are
having. Please take five minutes to write down these thoughts and feelings on these
sheets.
• We ask that you be completely honest in your answers. You should NOT put your names
anywhere on the paper, so that what you write will stay anonymous.
• What you write will not be graded. We will collect the papers at the end to give to the
research team that is looking at the different types of experiences people have in the
dialogues.
Instructions to the Facilitators
If there are questions about spaces at the bottom, please explain space is provided for
participants to indicate the name of the activity, their identification number, and today’s date.
This is so the researchers can see whether dialogue participants have similar or different
experiences in the dialogue. This is the only demographic information we are asking from you
at this time so that your answers can remain anonymous.
Please be sure to collect all of the in-class reflection papers and turn in to the main
dialogue office or your instructor/supervisor’s office.
1.4.4 Closing and Assignments (5”)
Reading Assignment: Instruct participants to complete reading assignments listed in
syllabus.
• Harro, B. (2000). The Cycle of Socialization.
• Tatum, B. (1997). Defining racism: Can we talk.
• Tanno, Dolores (2004). Names, narratives and the evolution of ethnic identity.
• Kivel, P. (2002). Costs of racism to White people.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 33 of 90
•
•
•
Fletcher, B. (1999). Internalized Oppression: The enemy within.
Gioseffi, D. (Sept./Oct. 1999). Beyond Stereotyping.
Thompson, C. (2000). Can White heterosexual men understand oppression?
Remind students that the proposal for the ICP is due next session.
Reflective Journal/Log Assignment: Direct participants to the journal
assignment.
Write a 2-3 page journal that addresses the following questions.
1) In reflecting on the last intergroup dialogue session:
• How did you feel about sharing your story and listening to others’
testimonials?
• What stories were most striking to you or affected you emotionally most
intensely? What stories were you able to connect with easily? What
stories were you not able to connect with easily? What are some
similarities and differences that emerged among the many stories?
• How has your understanding of your own story changed or not changed
after sharing and listening to others’ stories?
2) In looking ahead to the next session:
• Re-read the testimonial you had written in conjunction with the article, Cycle of
Socialization by Harro. What have been key influences in your own socialization as a
racial/ethnic being? What are some critical incidents or influences that have affected your
story?
• Define, in your own words, what the terms privilege and oppression mean to you. Draw
on Tatum for this portion of the journal. Consider how your socialization as a member of
your racial group may relate to your analysis of power and privilege. How have you been
socialized to think about systems of privilege and oppression? Or, how have you been
socialized not to think about them?
• Be sure to draw on 2-3 readings to discuss specific links between your socialization and
power as a member of your racial group.
Be prepared to share as much of this assignment as you are comfortable doing next week.
Helpful Hints…
If participants are troubled by the instruction to write definitions assure them that the
importance of this activity is not to ensure that everyone agrees on the meaning of each term,
but for participants to think about the different ways these terms can be used and defined.
The tension that many feel about particular definitions merely needs to be acknowledged and
respected, rather than a shared interpretation agreed on. Clarifying the meaning of these
terms may reduce future misunderstandings.
Closing: Select one of the following questions (or something comparable), to have
participants share in a round robin:
•
One feeling or thought about today.
•
One question you will continue to think about.
•
One thing you learned that really touched you or made you think today.
Advise participants to speak spontaneously since this encourages honest reflection and
active listening.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 34 of 90
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
______________________________________________________________
Notes for Session Four:
•
The rationale, procedure, and debriefing for the Testimonials exercise
were adapted from the University of Michigan IGR Process Content
Outline, 2004.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 35 of 90
STAGE TWO
Sessions 5, 6 & 7
Learning about Commonalities and Differences
Stage II locates the discussion of social identity within the context of social systems and
institutional oppression. This allows participants to begin to struggle with the impact of
institutionalized racism on self and others and, hopefully, to think about racism as more than
isolated acts of malice between individuals.
In this stage we build on all primary goals/outcomes associated with stage one as we add
new targets.
LEARNING GOALS
Content Goals
• Clarifying the distinction between prejudice, discrimination, and oppression
• Exploring the meaning of one’s social identities and locations in systems of oppression
• Examine and consider the impact of socialization on our lives and the lives of others
• Learning about differences and commonalities
Process Goals
• Exploring differences and commonalities constructively
• Applying the group process guidelines
• Self-reflection of one’s own experiences with prejudice, discrimination, and oppression
and sharing of related personal experiences
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Content Outcomes (Research)
• Comfort with intergroup communication
• Normalization of conflict
• Understand multiple social identities and their positions in society
• Recognize similarities and differences within and between groups
• Understand how others view one’s identity groups
• Thinking actively about self, others, and society
• Empathic skills and motivation to understand the perspectives of others
• Understanding structural inequality
• Understanding support of policies related to intergroup relations and inequality
Process Outcomes (Research)
• Taking the perspectives of others
• Clarifying meanings of social identity/multiple identities
• Clarifying meanings of social identities and societal power/status of own social identity
group
• Engaging with emotions
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 36 of 90
STAGE II – SESSION 5
Socialization & Caucus Groups
LEARNING GOALS
Session 5: Content Goals
• To explore what we learned growing up as members of specific social identity groups
• To use the cycle of socialization as a framework for exploring how privileged and targeted
groups are socialized in our society
• To explore cost/benefits or advantages/disadvantages of one’s own social group
membership
• To explore similarities and differences within our own caucus groups
Session 5: Process Goals
• To share and listen to each others perspective and ask questions
• To increase participants’ awareness of their social identities and how they play a role in
the systems highlighted in the web of oppression activity
• Clarifying meanings of social identities and societal power/status,
advantages/disadvantages of social identity group membership
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Session 5: Content Outcomes (Research)
o Recognize similarities and differences within and between groups
o Thinking actively about the self, others, and one’s identity group(s)
Session 5: Process Outcomes (Research)
o Engaging with emotions
o Clarifying meanings of social identities and the societal power/status of own social
identity groups
AGENDA OUTLINE
(100 minutes total)
Activity
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
Title
Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, and Ice Breaker
Main Activities
2.5.2.1 Cycle of Socialization
2.5.2.2 Caucus Groups
Closing and Assignment
Time Needed
10”
30”
50”
10”
Materials needed
Group’s Guidelines (to be posted weekly)
Cycle of Socialization Handout
Caucus group questions on newsprint for each group
Markers
One break-out room in addition to meeting room
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 37 of 90
Readings Assigned
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Harro, B. (2000). The Cycle of Socialization.
Tatum, B. (1997). Defining racism: Can we talk.
Tanno, Dolores (2004). Names, narratives and the evolution of ethnic identity.
Kivel, P. (2002). Costs of racism to White people.
Fletcher, B. (1999). Internalized Oppression: The enemy within.
Gioseffi, D. (Sept./Oct. 1999). Beyond Stereotyping.
Thompson, C. (2000). Can White heterosexual men understand oppression?
GENERAL NOTES
The design uses medium to high-risk activities to set the context for the caucus group
conversation. We start by inviting participants to reflect upon early messages and
experiences with race/ethnicity and racism at home, in school, at places of worship, and in
the media, and to explore what it means to be a member of a specific social identity group.
While the design emphasizes the exploration of the consequences of oppression, it also asks
participants to identify ways to challenge oppression at the individual and social identity group
levels.
The bulk of this session takes place in identity caucus groups. Caucus groups
offer participants a place to bring up questions, unfinished thoughts, and conflicting feelings
about race/ethnicity in a more intimate small group setting. They also provide a safe space
for exploring issues of internalized dominance and oppression with people who may share
similar experiences and concerns.
Caucus groups are very powerful, but also sensitive, especially for members of
agent groups. Participants are often resistant to breaking into caucus groups. They may be
thinking and feeling, “we’re in this class to get to know each other, why are we being split
up?” Assure them that we will come together during the next class and rejoin the larger group
so that there can be some positive experiences and learning by being with one’s own group.
Also let them know that intragroup discussions are appropriate, even necessary for effective
intergroup action.
The facilitators should discuss their collective goals with one another prior to the
session. Map out the individual and collective goals for the caucus group activity - what does
the facilitator of the People of Color caucus group want to invite participants in the group to
explore? What does the facilitator of the White caucus group want to invite participants in the
group to explore? Do the goals of the facilitators converge in any way? Given that you only
have 50 minutes, what goals could be distinct and what goals could be overlapping? What is
realistic? Among the things you should think about and be prepared to address are:
•
•
•
•
What if a participant decides not to join one of the caucus groups? How will the
facilitation team deal with this?
What if someone whom people think identifies as White goes to the people of
color caucus or vice versa? Facilitators should try to assess what the
participant’s reasons are for not joining either group. Explain to the participant
that the exercise is designed so that the participant would most benefit from
joining the group that closely resembles how he/she is viewed in society.
Participants may look to facilitators to “lead” when the group gets quiet. This is an
excellent time for facilitators to demonstrate small group leadership. It is
important, therefore, to anticipate possible scenarios ahead of time and plan
accordingly.
Once in caucus groups, participants may not want to speak. One way to start
getting people talking is to do a round dealing with reactions, thoughts, or
feelings regarding being split into caucus groups. If silence occurs again, it may
be for many reasons. Participants may be thinking they want to be in smaller
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 38 of 90
groups, they may feel uncomfortable, or it may be something else. One possible
technique is to say, “I notice there is a lot of silence. I’m wondering what this is
about?”
There are many reasons why this activity provokes strong feelings on participants from
privileged and targeted social identities, particularly in a race/ethnicity dialogue group. Some
participants may feel a sense of loss or frustration because of the friendships and
relationships forged so far. Still others may feel anxious about their feelings of shame, guilt,
pain, or anger associated with issues of race/ethnicity. Making room to talk about peoples’
feelings can be a valuable opportunity for exploring why people feel the way they do. This
conversation can bring issues of socialization and social identity home for many participants.
Since the caucus group is designed to help participants grapple with their own socialization
as “White” or “people of color,” facilitators will probably need to actively encourage
participants to examine some concrete ways they were taught “how to be” or embody a
particular social identity. Given that participants bring different levels of awareness and
knowledge, and varying degrees of readiness to openly engage in this type of conversations,
the facilitators may need to actively probe for examples and meaning. Facilitators can use
personal struggles with recognizing privilege or denying difference to help the group be “real.”
Within the caucus groups, it is important to encourage everyone to speak, to
support and validate people’s emotional reactions and self-disclosure, and to ask difficult
questions to deepen the conversation. Because oppression can cause silence and
disconnection, invite participants to break their silence by voicing questions and concerns,
and by establishing connections with others in the group. Challenge participants to delve
more deeply into the dynamics of privilege and oppression in their personal lives, and to
identify ways to address the impact of oppression.
Other Important Notes on Caucus Groups…
Transition: Explain that in the next presentation, the group divides into caucus groups to
explore the personal impact of race/ethnicity and racism in a more intimate environment.
Acknowledge that this is a unique opportunity for each social identity group to grapple
with questions, concerns, and issues related to the homework. Acknowledge that this
arrangement may seem contradictory to our larger purpose of dialoguing across
difference and that some people may feel uncomfortable dividing into groups. Validate
participant’s feelings and explain that during and after the experience there will be
opportunities to talk about their feelings and the usefulness of this exercise. Explain how
the next section will help to prepare them to deepen the conversation both in caucus
groups and in the large group dialogues to come.
Facilitators’ Role: Facilitators use dialogue skills and their own social identity awareness
to facilitate the caucus groups. In the caucus group dialogue, your role is to facilitate
communication in the group, to probe for clarification, and to invite participants to ask
each other questions. Breaking the silence that results from racism can be emotionally
challenging for participants from both privileged and targeted groups. If silence becomes
a pattern in your group, you may want to ask participants to talk about what might be
some of the reasons behind this pattern. Personal examples from facilitators really help
participants understand how targeted and privileged identities are influenced by the
system in place, while personal examples from participants can help them to reflect on
their socialization and experiences.
Group/Participant Development Issues: The caucus group experience supports
participants in having the opportunity to talk honestly about race/ethnicity and racism with
people from their own identity group, something most people never have the opportunity
to experience. This can be uncomfortable and unnerving for some people especially
when the goal of dialogues is to talk with people from all groups. The purpose of this
experience is to help people feel safe to talk about their race/ethnicity identity in depth
and to hear multiple differences within their identity group. It is also supposed to help
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 39 of 90
participants recognize issues that exist within group (guilt about white privilege, not
feeling privileged when part of the dominant group, the false belief in the universality of
being “woman,” etc.). Although the caucus group experience is often hard for people, it is
also eye-opening and rewarding. Facilitators need to work to support differences of
experience and perspective while also challenging dominant narratives and false beliefs
SESSION 2.5 LESSON PLAN
2.5.1. Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, and Housekeeping (10”)
Procedure
1. Take attendance.
2. Collect journals from last week and the ICP assignment.
3. Review session goals and agenda, noting that the agenda will help us
achieve today’s goals.
4. Do a quick ice breaker.
2.5.2. Main Activities (2): Cycle of Socialization & Caucus Groups (80”)
2.5.2.1. THE CYCLE OF SOCIALIZATION (30”)
Adapted from Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha, 2004; University of Michigan IGR
Process Content Outline, 2004.
While reviewing the Cycle of Socialization, we recommend that facilitators prepare a brief
visual presentation using examples from their own lives to illustrate key aspects of the cycle.
In selecting your examples, try to balance conscious as well as unconscious aspects of the
cycle. Use concrete examples from everyday life, relevant to both privileged and targeted
groups. You may also want to use examples related to your gender socialization when talking
about race/ethnicity, partly to highlight that while our gender training is fairly overt and
consistent for both girls and boys, the same pattern doesn’t apply to racial/ethnic groups. The
racial/ethnic demographics of people’s neighborhoods and schools have a strong influence
on an individual’s racial/ethnic identity formation. The presentation of the Cycle of
Socialization becomes tangible and real for participants when facilitators work together by copresenting the main points and sharing personal stories from their own lives. If there is
enough time, invite participants to share stories and to give examples from their homework
assignment.
The Cycle of Socialization is used as a conceptual framework to explore issues of social
identity (e.g., identity formation, privileged and targeted social identities, pride, internalized
dominance, internalized oppression, individual resistance to socialized roles in systems of
oppression) and issues related to power relations at the system level (e.g., group privilege,
social power, access to resources). We find this framework helpful to both support and
challenge participants to gain a deeper understanding of how we all learn to “fit” in our social
world through a systematic process of socialization in “how to be” each of our social group
identities (Harro, 2000; Tatum, 1997). Since the process of socialization is often more overt
for members of targeted groups, we think it is important to devote most of this session to
caucus group conversations to encourage intragroup dialogue about similarities and
differences of experience within each social identity group participating in the dialogue.
However, we also recognize the impact of multiple social identities and locations within
intersecting systems of oppression in these conversations.
Rationale
• To introduce the concept of the cycle of socialization and illustrate how it
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 40 of 90
•
•
works in our lives.
Help participants understand how their cycles intersect, reinforce, contradict other
cycles.
Help participants understand that both a larger aggregate cycle and smaller, more
personal cycles exist and that the impact of one or both may be more saliently
known, felt, supported, or interrupted at different points in our lives.
Procedure
1. Distribute the Cycle of Socialization Handout.
2. Facilitators should briefly model how they have been affected by the
cycle of socialization and in the process encourage a natural dialogue
within the group about how to make sense of what our social identities
mean. Each facilitator can help bring the cycle to life by linking core
experiences to different parts of the cycle. Take care to do this in no
more than 5 minutes.
3. Have participants get into four equal size (predetermined mixed identity)
groups. Assign each group a portion of the cycle (first socialization,
institutional and cultural socialization, enforcements, and results). Ask
each group to reflect on their journals and to brainstorm some of the
ways they have been racially socialized around that particular stage in
the cycle for 10 minutes. Write examples on newsprint. Put up newsprint
on wall for sharing with larger group. Then a member from each group
should take one or two minutes to report out to the larger group some of
their experiences and insights from their discussions.
4. Large group debriefing should allow participants to think about their
racial socialization process vis-à-vis the entire Cycle. Facilitators should
focus on similarities and differences of how people were socialized
around these various identities. Where possible encourage direct links to
the readings and to last week’s session.
5. Be sure to select examples that highlight collusion or ways that we resist
racism.
6. Discuss as a large group the last stage of the socialization process
(direction for change).
2.5.2.2. CAUCUS GROUPS (50”)
Adapted from Arizona State University IRC curriculum, 2000; Nagda, 2001; University
of Michigan IGR Process Content Outline, 2004; Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha,
2004.
Rationale: To offer participants an opportunity to discuss within identity groups issues
that emerged from the Cycle of Socialization; and to discuss within groups, the impact
of racism.
Procedure
1. Inform participants that we will now be spending time in caucus groups – small groups of
only people of color or white people, to explore the experiences particular to that group.
2. Invite people who identify as white to go to room “#” with the assigned facilitator. Note:
The privileged group is asked to leave the room.
3. Caucus groups will have 40 minutes for this discussion, and 10 minutes for wrap-up and
prep for fish bowl (which will occur next week). Five to seven minutes before the end of
the caucus group, invite participants to free-write about their reactions to the discussion,
and to identify something they would like to report back to the large group.
4. Begin all caucus group discussions with “here and now” questions, capturing the
responses on newsprint (have each question pre-printed on newsprint to facilitate the
process and save time):
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 41 of 90
•
•
“How does it feel to be identified as a member of this group?”
“How do you feel about dividing up into caucus groups?”
Each caucus group should discuss the questions listed below (as appropriate):
White People’s Caucus Group
Preliminary Questions:
We discussed some of the messages we were taught about being white growing up
(e.g., family, school, neighborhood, places of worship, media). What has been the
impact of that socialization on your life? Consider some of the costs and benefits.
What do you like about being white? If that is a difficult question to answer, share
why.
When have you felt good or proud to be white? What is the relation you see to the
socialization process in talking about this?
Are there any questions you would like to ask other white people in this group about
what it is like for them to be white? Do they have different socialization patterns? If
so, what are some of the commonalities and differences amongst the group?
Conversation Extenders:
What is easy or difficult about being a white person in this society or on campus?
How are you being hurt by racism?
It’s easy to think of racism as an individual’s action against people of color by
racist/white supremacist white people… In what ways has the cycle of socialization
affected your thinking about this, if at all?
How can we use our common and different experiences and awareness to resist or
challenge the system of racism? What benefits and costs can you associate with
resistance?
People of Color’s Caucus Group
We discussed some of the messages we were taught about being a person of color
growing up (e.g., family, school, neighborhood, places of worship, media). What is
the impact of that socialization on your life? Consider some of the costs and benefits.
What do you like about being a person of color? If that’s a difficult question to
answer, share why.
When have you felt good or proud to be a person of color? And what is the relation
you see to the socialization process in talking about it?
Are there any questions you would like to ask other people of color in this group
about what it is like for them to be people of color? Do they have different
socialization patterns? If so what are some of the commonalities and differences
amongst the group?
Conversation Extenders:
What is easy or difficult about being a person of color on this campus?
How are you being hurt by racism?
It’s easy to think of racism as an individual’s action against people of color by
racist/white supremacist white people… In what ways has the cycle of socialization
affected your thinking about this, if at all?
How can we use our common and different experiences and awareness to resist or
challenge the system of racism? What benefits and costs can you associate with
resistance?
2.5.3. Closing and Assignments (10”)
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 42 of 90
Bring the caucus group who left back into the room. Explain that there is value and learning
being in an intragroup setting. Explain that the next class period will be devoted to
discussion of the caucus groups and practicing active listening and perspective taking.
Reading Assignment: Remind participants of readings assignments for next session:
• Hitchcock, J. (2001). Colorblindness, personified.
• Williams, L. (2000). Chapter 2: Little things in the school: Why all the Black kids sit
together.
• Martínez, E. (1995). Beyond black/white: The racisms of our time.
• Edgington, A. (2000). Moving beyond White guilt.
Reflective Journal/Log Assignment: Select at least one question from
each of the bullet points below to address fully in your 2-3 page journal. Be
sure to select insights from at least two of the readings from this lesson that
help illuminate your experience of the caucus group.
•
•
•
•
How did it feel to break into caucus groups by social identity group lines and why
do you think you felt this way? What are some of the differences in attitudes,
experiences, and feelings you noted among people of your own identity group?
How has this caucus group experience influenced or changed the way you think
about your own identity group and other identity groups?
While you were listening to experiences of others in your group, what was one
thing they said that stayed with you and made you think more about racism?
How have you personally and members of your identity group been affected by
racism at the interpersonal and institutional level (e.g., family, schools,
neighborhood, workplace, college campus, media, legal system, etc.)?
How do you think you are hurting from racism or benefiting from white privilege?
In what ways do you see yourself maintaining the system of racism? In what
ways are you resisting the system of racism?
How have your conversations in the caucus groups affected your understanding
of the need for undoing the impact of racism or challenging racism?
Closing: Select one of the following questions (or something comparable), to have
participants share in a round robin:
• One feeling or thought about today.
• One question you will continue to think about.
• One thing you learned that really touched you or made you think today.
Advise participants to speak spontaneously since this encourages honest reflection and
active listening.
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
______________________________________________________________
Notes for Session Five:
•
The Cycle of Socialization exercise draws heavily from University of
Michigan IGR Process Content Outline, 2004.
•
The majority of the General Notes, the design rationale, procedure and
discussion questions for the Caucus group were excerpted and
adapted from Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha, 2004.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 43 of 90
STAGE II – SESSION 6
Fishbowls
Fishbowls are opportunities for honest, reflective speaking and listening. In a fishbowl
structure each social identity group alternates sitting in the inner and outer circle. Participants
often feel that this activity sets the stage for open discussion. This activity can be considered
a high risk, yet, if structured well, it can provide a wonderful structure for active listening
across race/ethnicity lines. This session can also highlight and integrate important intergroup
dynamics.
LEARNING GOALS
Session 6: Content Goals
• To continue exploring the meaning and impact of social group identity on self and others
• To identify similarities and differences within and across social identity groups
Session 6: Process Goals
• To actively listen and take the perspective of others
• To ask questions
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Session 6: Content Outcomes (Research)
• Understand how others view one’s identity groups
• Develop empathic skills and motivation to understand the perspectives of others
Session6: Process Outcomes (Research)
• Taking the perspective of others
AGENDA OUTLINE
(105 minutes total)
Activity
2.6.1
2.6.2
2.6.3
2.6.4.
Title
Welcome, Review Goals, Ice Breaker
Main Activities
1.6.2.1 Revisit Caucus Groups
1.6.2.2 Fishbowls and large group discussion
In-class reflection paper #2
Closing and Assignment
Time Needed
5”
20”
60”
10”
10”
Materials needed
Group’s Guidelines (to be posted weekly)
Newsprint with Fishbowl questions
In-class Reflection Paper instructions, handouts, and pens/pencils
Hot Topics handout #1
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 44 of 90
Readings Assigned
•
•
•
•
Hitchcock, J. (2001). Colorblindness, personified.
Williams, L. (2000). Chapter 2: Little things in the school: Why all the Black kids sit
together.
Martínez, E. (1995). Beyond black/white: The racisms of our time.
Edgington, A. (2000). Moving beyond White guilt.
GENERAL NOTES
Facilitators’ Role: The facilitator’s role is to be part of their identity group. When in the
inner circle, model active listening by asking questions, paraphrasing, and inviting
elaboration. Encourage participants in the inner circle to share their thoughts, feelings,
and experiences, and to ask each other questions. The facilitator in the outer circle keeps
track of time, takes notes on emerging themes, and asks for the “I heard” paraphrasing
statements from the participants in the outer circle.
Group/Participant Development Issues: It may be difficult for participants to identify or
articulate their observations about group dynamics, and some participants may continue
to perceive this section to be a “waste of time.” Hopefully at this point, they understand
the importance of talking about the talk, and are moving to be better able to consider both
content and process.
Making Links to the Readings: Harro’s Cycle of Socialization (in session 5) and
Sherover-Marcuse’s Alliance Building Frameworks (in session 11 readings) serve as
conceptual guides for this design. Breaking the cycle of socialization requires learning to
name and claim how each of us has been taught to fit privileged and targeted roles within a
particular system of oppression. Breaking the cycle also involves learning to voice some of
the challenges we face with people “like us” and “different from us,” …and begin to take some
responsibility for resisting one’s cycle of socialization. This task does not only involve
breaking old patterns of knowing, being, and doing but also weaving new ties with people that
can support our path toward self-empowerment (Sherover-Marcuse). Relying on an alliancebuilding framework, we find valuable that participants identify ways they can support one
another in this co-learning process. This process can support ally relationships as well as
build bridges across and within lines of difference.
Participants might resist the fishbowl activity because it divides the group again (even
though we know it helps the group come back together). Highlighting the value of gaining
a shared understanding of the similar/different issues facing members of each social
identity group in the dialogue might be helpful. You could also remind participants that
while in “theory” we all may know what it is like to be a “white” or “nonwhite,” it is
important for all of us to hear how the people in this dialogue experience their social
identities, and attend to what they have to say to us. Normalizing participant resistance
might be another option. Participant resistance can also reflect organic group
development issues (conflict stage).
Working with “privileged” and “targeted” social identity issues: Facilitators will need to
actively invite participants to talk about “positive” (pride, likes) and “negative” (dislikes,
guilt, self-hatred) aspects of their social identities, and help contextualize the type of
energy expressed in the fishbowl by each group.
Concerns about airing “dirty laundry” in front of other group(s): Facilitators should
support participants to know that they have a choice about what they want to share in the
group; not everything that was discussed in the caucus meeting need come up in the
fishbowl. Yet, also remind them of the value in sharing your perspective/experience with
others in order to develop a common understanding.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 45 of 90
SESSION 2.6 LESSON PLAN
2.6.1. Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, and Housekeeping (5”)
Procedure
1. Take attendance.
2. Collect journals from last week.
3. Review session goals, and note that the agenda will help us achieve
today's goals.
4. Do a quick ice breaker
2.6.2. Main Activities (2): Revisit Caucus Groups & Fishbowls (80”)
2.6.2.1. REVISIT CAUCUS GROUPS (20”)
Procedure
1. Get into caucus groups to briefly revisit last week’s discussion.
2. Explain the fishbowl procedure and ask the group to identify highlights
from last week’s conversation they would like to share in the fishbowl.
You may start by asking them to share any reflections that came up for
them as they did their reflective journal assignment. If folks feel a bit
anxious, you may also want to share with them “general” fishbowl
questions that you and your co-facilitator have developed for this
session.
2.6.2.2. FISHBOWLS (60”)
Adapted from Arizona State University IRC curriculum, 2000; Nagda, 2001; Schoem,
Zuniga, & Nagda, 1993; Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha, 2004;
Rationale: The main purpose of the fishbowls are to provide a space for developing a
shared understanding of the issues that are important to each social identity group in
the dialogue before moving to Stage III, to specifically address “hot topics.” Building on
the work done during the previous session’s caucus groups, participants have an opportunity
to practice active listening and speaking their truth in ways that may further push boundaries
and comfort zones.
Procedure:
Post the Fishbowl questions which may include:
• Debriefing the caucus group experience
o What was easy or difficult about meeting in caucus groups last week?
o What are some highlights of your caucus group conversation that you would
like to share with other social identity group?
o Are there any after-thoughts you would also want to share with your group
and the other group?
• Extending the conversation:
o As you think and feel about what it is like to be a member of your social
identity group,
i. What is easy or difficult about being a member of your social identity
group?
ii. What are some of the costs or benefits of being a member of your
identity group in your personal and social life?
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 46 of 90
Fishbowl Directions
• Each group will alternate sitting in the inner circle and the outer circle.
• In the first round, one social identity group will sit in a circle, facing inwards so that
they can see other members of their identity group. The “outer” group consisting of
members of the other social identity group will be seated around the inner circle
where they can see and hear the discussion in the inner circle.
• To begin, ask people who identify as white to move to the inner circle. (The privileged
group often has the opportunity for the “last word” on many issues. To reverse the
prevailing social dynamics, the white people should typically go first. However, it is
always helpful to take into account what is going on in your particular dialogue before
making this final decision). The white co-facilitator should move to the center with the
participants and facilitate the process. The facilitator in the inner circle asks the
questions of the group.
• Each group will have about fifteen minutes to address questions among themselves.
• The outer circle remains silent.
• When time is up, the facilitator in the outer circle will ask members of the outer circle
to verbally acknowledge one thing they heard from the inner circle (but not make
further comment or response). Clarify that these statements should be a paraphrase
(repeat of what was said), not an interpretation of what was said or a response to
what was said.
• Have groups switch places and repeat the exercise.
Debriefing
After both rounds are complete, bring the whole group back together, and ask:
• What were your reactions to this activity?
• What was it like to be in the inner circle?
• What was it like to be in the outer circle?
• What did you learn from this activity?
• How are we doing as a group?
• What are some ways we have implemented dialogue skills?
• How did your own race/ethnicity impact this dialogue session?
• Were there any particular dynamics or tensions during this session or previous
sessions that are affecting your ability to participate fully?
2.6.3. In-Class Reflection Paper (10”)
At the end of the main activity’s debriefing, the next “in-class reflection paper” is scheduled.
Participants should be given 5 minutes to complete the paper.
Procedure
Handout reflection sheets and pens/pencils
Instructions to Participants
• We would like to give you an opportunity to reflect on the thoughts and feelings you are
having. Please take five minutes to write down these thoughts and feelings on these
sheets.
• We ask that you be completely honest in your answers. You should NOT put your names
anywhere on the paper, so that what you write will stay anonymous.
• What you write will not be graded. We will collect the papers at the end to give to the
research team that is looking at the different types of experiences people have in the
dialogues.
Instructions to the Facilitators
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 47 of 90
If there are questions about spaces at the bottom, please explain space is provided for
participants to indicate the name of the activity, their identification number, and today’s date.
This is so the researchers can see whether dialogue participants have similar or different
experiences in the dialogue. This is the only demographic information we are asking from you
at this time so that your answers can remain anonymous.
Please be sure to collect all of the in-class reflection papers and turn in to the main
dialogue office or your instructor/supervisor’s office.
2.6.4. Closing and Assignments (10”)
Reading Assignment:
• Pincus, F. (2000). Discrimination comes in many forms: Individual, institutional, and
structural.
• Pharr, S. (1997). Common elements of oppression.
• Johnson, A. (2001). We’re in trouble.
• Lorde, Audre (1996). There is no hierarchy of oppression.
• Collins, P. H. (2000). Toward a New Vision: Race, Class, and Gender as Categories of
Analysis and Connection.
• Kivel, P. (2002). What is Whiteness?
• McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.
Hand out Hot Topics assignment #1 and explain how it works.
•
•
•
Reflective Journal/Log Assignment: Write a 2-3 page journal that
addresses the following:
• How did it feel to share your caucus group experience in the
fishbowl/large group today? Why do you think you felt this way?
What are the most striking things you noted about the other group’s fishbowl? How did
their fishbowl conversation make you feel?
What are some of the differences and similarities you noted during the fishbowls between
your identity group and people of the other identity group? How do you make meaning of
these similarities/differences?
How have your conversations in the caucus groups and the fishbowls deepened (or didn’t
deepen) your understanding of racism and its impact on different groups?
How have your conversations in the fishbowls affected your understanding of the need
for undoing the impact of racism or challenging racism?
How has your understanding of what it takes to have a meaningful and genuine dialogue
about racism developed so far? Are there ways you would like to see the dialogue go
deeper?
Closing: Select one of the following questions (or something comparable), to have
participants share in a round robin:
• One feeling or thought about today.
• One question you will continue to think about.
• One thing you learned that really touched you or made you think today.
Advise participants to speak spontaneously since this encourages honest reflection and
active listening.
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 48 of 90
_____________________________________________________________
Notes for Session Six:
The General Notes and the directions for the Fishbowl activity were excerpted
and adapted from Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha, 2004.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 49 of 90
PREPARING FOR STAGE III HOT TOPICS
Please remember that the “hot topics” are intended to help achieve the goals of Stage III.
PLEASE RE-READ THE STAGE III GOALS, OUTCOMES, AND RATIONALE, PRINTED ON
THE PAGE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SESSION 7. The focus of this stage is on learning how
to use conflict and group/individual differences in ways that contribute to social justice. This goal
of “learning to stay in dialogue when in conflict” is more important during this stage than is
“teaching” participants about the details of the specific hot topics.
How to Select your Hot Topics
• While participants at their institution generate the specific topics for each session, the
structural level for the first two sessions is common across institutions: the interpersonal
(in session 8) and the institutional (in session 9). The half of the third session is left open
for each specific group, if needed, to revisit or go deeper on a previous topic, to address
residual issues and resistance from course to date, and/or to add a final, especially
salient issue for that specific campus context.
• In choosing your topics, please consult with your site supervisor, and please read ahead
to be aware of the activities involving the topics in Sessions 8, 9, and 10.
• Consider the frequency that various issues were suggested by your participants, and
choose topics that seem to engage the members of your dialogue.
• Select topics that seem likely to produce genuine differences of opinion, even conflict,
among your participants. Don’t choose topics that interest them, or on which they seem
mostly to agree.
• Consider the availability of good readings/handouts about the topics. Please see below
for guidelines about selecting readings.
• Importantly, consider the likelihood that you and your co-facilitator can facilitate the topics
without being unduly triggered by your own emotions and reactions. If conflict breaks out,
we as facilitators may experience our own strong feelings, and these may interfere with
our ability to serve the participants. Do we believe that we can stay in “facilitator mode”
with this hot topic?
Guidelines for Selecting Readings/Handouts for Hot Topics
• Readings should support differences, not resolve them. That is, the readings should
include facts and/or testimonials-experiences that reflect “both” sides of the issue. The
readings should not favor one side over the other. The readings should strengthen the
likelihood that the participants will permit their honest conflicts to surface, and therefore
give them the opportunity to learn how to “stay in dialogue” even when there is conflict.
• At the same time, the readings should offer the participants facts that help them test their
opinions against reality. The readings should permit conflict to rest on informed and
accurate information. Around some “hot topics” (e.g., abortion) persons may sometimes
feel and believe very strongly based on factual errors. Care should be taken that the
readings permit the hot topic discussions to reflect accurate data, and that the
discussions do not become exchanges of misinformation.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 50 of 90
STAGE II – SESSION 7
Understanding Systems of Oppression/Privilege
LEARNING GOALS
Session 7: Content Goals
• Clarifying terminology (prejudice, discrimination, oppression, racism)
• Identifying examples of privilege and oppression
Session 7: Process Goals
o Exploring commonalities and differences within and across social identity groups
constructively
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Session 7: Content Outcomes (Research)
• Understanding structural inequality
• Understanding support of policies related to intergroup relations and inequality
Session 7: Process Outcomes (Research)
• Clarifying meanings of social identities and societal power/status of own social identity
group
AGENDA OUTLINE
(95 minutes total)
Activity
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.7.4
2.7.5
Title
Welcome, Review Goals and Agenda, Ice Breaker
ICP Group Time
Main Activity: Web of Oppression/Privilege
In-class Reflection Paper #3
Closing and Assignment
Time Needed
5”
20”
55”
10”
5”
Materials needed
Group’s Guidelines (to be posted weekly)
Newsprint and markers
Web of Oppression/Privilege set
Levels and Types of Oppression Handout
In-Class Reflection Paper instructions, handouts, and pens/pencils
Stage III hot topics assignment 2 handout
Readings Assigned
•
•
•
•
Pincus, F. (2000). Discrimination comes in many forms: Individual, institutional, and
structural.
Pharr, S. (1997). Common elements of oppression.
Johnson, A. (2001). We’re in trouble.
Lorde, Audre (1996). There is no hierarchy of oppression.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 51 of 90
•
•
•
Collins, P. H. (2000). Toward a New Vision: Race, Class, and Gender as Categories of
Analysis and Connection.
Kivel, P. (2002). What is Whiteness?
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.
SESSION 2.7 LESSON PLAN
2.7.1. Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda (5”)
Procedure
1. Take attendance.
2. Collect journals from last week.
3. Review goals and agenda, noting how agenda will help us achieve today's
goals
4. Do a quick ice breaker
2.7.2. ICP Group Time (20”)
Adapted from Zúñiga, X. & Cytron-Walker, A., 2003; Zúñiga & Shlasko, 2004.
Rationale: In order to allow the group to focus on the web of oppression for this
session, start this session by allowing the Intergroup Collaboration Project (ICP)
groups to meet for the first 20 minutes of class. The remaining time will be dedicated to the
web of oppression.
Procedure
During this check in, allow participants to continue to organize themselves
and to keep on task for completing their ICP by session 11. Remind them
that the Journal entry due on session 11 needs to be written after the ICP is
completed.
ICP Support:
In order to continue to support the ICP groups, it may be helpful to “poke your head” into the
groups while they start to do a quick process check. This is intended to be a quick check in,
but if there are more dynamics that require your attention, instruct the group that you’d like to
quickly check in with the other group and that you will be “right back.” Ask the group:
• How are things going?
• Are all members of their ICP group participating in the completion of the project?
• Do they have their next meeting scheduled yet? (If no, invite them to do so now; if yes,
praise accordingly!)
• Quickly move to your next group(s) and do the same…
Hopefully, the groups will be doing well…but be prepared to spend some time with the
group if they need assistance. It may be necessary to reconnect with the group at the
conclusion of this session, if necessary.
2.7.3. Main Activity: Web of Oppression/Privilege (55”)
Adapted from Arizona State University IRC curriculum, 2000; Zúñiga, Birgham & Kiem,
2005; Zúñiga & Cytron-Walker, 2003.
Rationale: To illustrate the systemic nature of discrimination, derogation, and
oppression against some social identity groups and of consequent privilege for others
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 52 of 90
in modern U.S. society (as opposed to individual acts). To illustrate the consequences and
impact of being an ally.
The web helps demonstrate how different social groups are served/privileged or
disempowered/targeted based on their social and cultural status in society. It also depicts the
inherent interconnectedness of people and social institutions/systems of advantages. And it
demonstrates that we are all implicated and that the cost of oppression affects all of us.
The web also helps us apply multi-level analyses to challenging oppressive dynamics as
it includes individual and institutional action.
Facilitators can keep these definitions in mind as they proceed with the web:
Discrimination: Actions and/or policies that have a differential negative effect on people from
targeted social groups (such as women or people of color). (Pincus, 2000) (See also individual
discrimination, institutional discrimination, and structural discrimination)
Individual discrimination: Refers to “… the behavior of individual members of one
racial/ethnic/gender group that is intended to have a differential and/or harmful effect on the
members of another race/ethnic/gender group” (Pincus, 2000, p. 186). (See also discrimination,
institutional discrimination, structural discrimination.)
Institutional discrimination: The “policies of the dominant race/ethnic/gender institutions and the
behavior of individuals who control these institutions and implement policies that are intended to
have a differential and/or harmful effect on minority race/ethnic/gender groups” (Pincus, 2000, p
186). Examples of institutional racism include companies that as a matter of policy do not hire or
promote people of color, or real estate firms that do not show homes in certain areas to people of
color. Examples of institutional sexism include schools that fund men’s athletics better than
women’s athletics, or companies that only hire women for subordinate positions and don’t
consider them for promotion. (Pincus, 2000.)
Prejudice: “[A]ttitudes and beliefs involving a tendency to prejudge people, usually negatively and
usually on the basis of a single personal characteristic (such as race, sex, religion, hair length,
etc.) (Farley, 1996, p.13). Or, “[a] set of negative personal beliefs about a social group that
leads individuals to prejudge people from that group or the group in general, regardless of
individual differences among members of that group” (Goodman & Schapiro, 1997, p.118).
Prejudice often leads to discrimination. (See also individual discrimination, stereotypes.)
Oppression: A system of relationships among social groups in which “one social group, whether
knowingly or unconsciously, exploits another social group for its own benefit” (Hardiman &
Jackson, 1997), resulting in “vast and deep injustices” (Young, 2000, p. 36). Oppression operates
through individuals’ conscious and unconscious attitudes and behaviors, media and cultural
stereotypes, institutional practices, hierarchical power structure, and competition for resources
(Young, 2000).
Procedure
1. Spread the Web on the floor in the center of the room, and have
participants form a circle around it.
2. Have a participant take hold of loose end and pick up the Web. (If too
few participants they can hold multiple ends; if too many participants,
they should share or watch).
3. Ask participants what the rope reminds them of (e.g., web, net, grid, etc.)
4. Ask each holder to choose an attached label, and read it aloud. Hand
each the corresponding card, and have him/her read its example aloud.
5. Repeat around the web until all labels and matching example cards have
been read.
6. Ask what these examples are about (e.g., racism against people of
color).
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 53 of 90
7. Ask whether they have heard these examples before. Whether these
examples exist and are “out there” in society – not to say we support
them, just that they're "out there." Can they think of other examples that
target people of color around these label groups?
Discussion Questions: While most people will admit they’ve heard these or something
similar, resistance will show immediately as someone talks about how some have
changed, and/or how there are jokes, etc. against white people too. It is important to
acknowledge that some things are changing, in some places, in some ways – but even if
they merely recognize the individual items, they still exist in some form. It is also
important to acknowledge that there are “white trash” jokes, etc.; however, use these
points to transition into discussion:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Why are these examples presented in this format? Why a web? How are they
connected? They add up to bring/keep people of color down and to bring/keep white
people up.
Discuss how the individual pieces connect. (For example, whites can also be targets of
mistreatment, particularly at the individual and interpersonal level, but when we look at
the broad systemic nature of the problem, “whites as a social group” are not subject to
the same treatment as “people of color as a social group.”)
If people of color are the target/object of each of these pieces, what affect does the
web/system have on them? (Demonstrate how it literally prevents someone from moving
freely.)
Who supports this system? White people and people of color. (Discuss how whites are
traditionally blamed for racism and how people of color also collude in the system too).
How can we stop supporting it? Let go of the system. Stop participating in jokes, media,
etc.
o Ask participants what is different about, for example, a black person making
jokes about a white person, as opposed to the other way around (that is, a white
person, or at least white people as a group, have a historical and continuing
power to actually harm people of color on a broad scale, whereas the reverse is
not the case). Also, point out the role of intersections. There are jokes about poor
white trash because of classism, not because they’re white. And, point out the
different purposes jokes serve. Sometimes they function to put other people
down. Other times they function to relieve the stress and hopelessness of
oppression. For example, there are plenty of derogatory jokes about the
President, but that doesn’t make him an oppressed minority, it makes him a
powerful and scary person who we make jokes about because we don’t know
what else to do.
Let’s say one or two of us stop participating (or let go), what happens to the system?
Weaker, but still supported by many.
What happens to those who resist? Are criticized by those still in it. Ostracized. Their own
racial identity is questioned.
What are some specific examples of how white people and people of color will receive
pressure to conform (enticement to return and/or punishment for letting go)?
Are there costs for white people (or other agent/privileges groups)? Yes: white people
have a harder time having authentic relationship with people of color, they may be afraid
of how people of color view them, etc. HOWEVER, these are costs of the greater
privileges and freedoms – NOT equivalent/equal to oppression.
Debriefing Tips…
Participants may feel hopeless at this point, since discussion has indicated that it’s
difficult if not impossible to escape the system(s) entirely. Ask about, and acknowledge
these feelings.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 54 of 90
In order to let the “hopelessness” (i.e., challenge posed by the system) sit with
participants, this might be a good place to TAKE A BREAK, mindful of any participants
who have been particularly hard hit by the exercises.
After the web exercise, many feel drained, emotional, angry, hopeless, and
guilty. Attend carefully to this. Below are several points – you cannot make
them all, BUT select those related to the class character and comments. The
readings are easily applied – whether they are Pincus or Lorde – see the example
questions included below but be creative and consider ways to incorporate other
readings as well. Their messages are vital to the health of the discussion.
•
•
•
•
If previous discussions have included introduction of levels of prejudice/oppression
(individual, intergroup, institutional, societal/systemic), discuss how different
examples are parts of different levels. For example, jokes may be interpersonal, while
laws are institutional. Yet all support the larger, integrated system. How do the
articles help you with this question? OR Pincus discusses individual, institutional, and
structural discrimination. What are these and how do all three apply to the web of
oppression/privilege? (Pincus and Pharr)
There are a number of such systems of privilege/oppression: racism, sexism,
colorism, heterosexism, classism, ageism, ableism, etc. Imagine multiple overlapping
nets, some catching us or holding us down (our target identities), and some holding
us up (our agent identities). One question as an example: Lorde states, “there is no
hierarchy of oppressions.” What does she mean and do you agree with her? How
does this relate to our thinking about these multiple overlapping nets? (Lorde,
Pincus)
More accurately, there are interconnecting systems – the intersection of our multiple
identities complicates our treatment/contribution to the various systems. (Not simply
adding up target and agent identities to see what our “net” oppression/privilege is.)
For example, a woman of color has a different experience than whites (men and
women) and men of color; a lesbian has a different experience with systems of sex
and sexual orientation oppression than does a gay man. Our multiplicity of identities
means that our experience will vary from those who do/don’t share our constellation
of identities (social positions in the systems).
So we see how a person of color and a white person might experience that system
differently but how about a man of color and a woman of color? Or a gay white man
and a straight man of color? Etc. How does McIntosh’s article help us understand
these interconnecting systems, particularly racism and sexism? (Lorde)
The web/system is one of both oppression (against target group) and privilege (for dominant/
agent group); that it serves different groups differently is important to show the inequity of it.
AND, it also shows that we all have costs and responsibilities to challenge.
Transition: At the same time, what does the constructed/piecemeal nature of the
systems tell us about resisting or changing it? Since they are constructed by individual,
institutional and other acts, they can be de- and re-constructed by the actions of
individuals, groups and organizations. The small change of the individual is still important,
and stresses the need to build cooperative resistance through co/alliances.
• Pass out Levels & Types of Oppression Handout and discuss.
2.7.4. In-Class Reflection Paper (10”)
At the end of the main activity’s debriefing, the next “in-class reflection paper” is scheduled.
Participants should be given 5 minutes to complete the paper.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 55 of 90
Procedure
Handout reflection sheets and pens/pencils
Instructions to Participants
• We would like to give you an opportunity to reflect on the thoughts and feelings you are
having. Please take five minutes to write down these thoughts and feelings on these
sheets.
• We ask that you be completely honest in your answers. You should NOT put your names
anywhere on the paper, so that what you write will stay anonymous.
• What you write will not be graded. We will collect the papers at the end to give to the
research team that is looking at the different types of experiences people have in the
dialogues.
Instructions to the Facilitators
If there are questions about spaces at the bottom, please explain space is provided for
participants to indicate their identification number and a research code assigned to them.
This is so the researchers can see whether dialogue participants have similar or different
experiences in the dialogue. This is the only demographic information we are asking from you
at this time so that your answers can remain anonymous.
Please be sure to collect all of the in-class reflection papers and turn in to the main
dialogue office or your instructor/supervisor’s office.
2.7.5. Closing and Assignments (10”)
As you bring the session to a close, link next week’s focus to today’s session. Let participants
know where the dialogue is going next by highlighting the readings and the journal
assignment.
Remind students that their ICP Progress Report is due next session along with their journal.
Reading
• Leas, Speed B. (1982). Surfacing Submerged Conflict
• 2 Facilitator provided readings
• 2 participant selected readings
• Inform participants of the topic for next session: ___________________________
(relationship/interpersonal level)
• Provide them with copies of the 2 common readings on that issue, and instruct them
to find 2 readings on their own related to the issue. The readings should offer two
differing opinions/ perspectives on the topic.
o
Reading can be a newspaper or magazine article, book
chapter/excerpt, substantial website on the issue, etc. Encourage them
to go beyond the first few suggestions returned by Google or other web
search engine, and not to simply find dictionary definitions and
encyclopedia entries! Elaborated opinion columns, documented facts,
etc. are all acceptable.
o
If they have an opinion/position on the issue, find one that supports
and one that disagrees with or challenges that opinion/position. If they
have no opinion, find readings that offer two differing perspectives (from
one another) on the issue.
Reflective Journal/Log Assignment: Write a 2-3 page journal that
addresses the following:
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 56 of 90
•
•
•
•
•
Examine first your emotional response to the web of oppression. How did this
activity make you feel? Why do you think it made you feel that way?
What was the most striking fact you learned during the Web of Oppression?
How did the Web of Oppression activity support or challenge your understanding of
privilege and oppression, in particular as a member of your racial/ethnic identity
group? Did you observe any patterns in class members’ reactions to the Web,
particularly with respect to their racial/ethnic identity groups?
How can we use our common and different experiences and awareness to resist or
challenge the web of racism? What benefits and costs can you associate with
resistance or dismantling the web?
In just a few sentences, what are your feelings about the hot topic planned for
discussion in the next session?
Closing: Select one of the following questions (or something comparable), to have
participants share in a round robin:
•
One feeling or thought about today.
•
One question you will continue to think about.
•
One thing you learned that really touched you or made you think today.
Advise participants to speak spontaneously since this encourages honest reflection and
active listening.
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
_____________________________________________________________
Notes for Session Seven:
•
This exercise was first conceptualized and tested at Arizona State University, and the
Procedure for the Web of Oppression was excerpted from Arizona State University
IRC Curriculum 2000. However, the Rationale, definitions, discussion questions,
notes facilitators and debriefing tips for the Web of Oppression activity were
excerpted from Zúñiga, Brigham and Kiem, 2005.
•
The definitions listed for the Web of Oppression activity were excerpted from Farley,
1996; Goodman & Shapiro, 1997; Hardiman & Jackson, 1997; Pincus, 2000; and
Young, 2000.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 57 of 90
STAGE THREE
Sessions 8, 9 & 10
“Hot Topics”
Adapted from Arizona State University IRC curriculum, 2000; University of Michigan IGR
Process Content Outline, 2004.
Stage III shifts the dialogue focus from group building and awareness-raising around
race/ethnicity concepts and issues, to sustained inquiry of and dialogue about recurring
topics of intergroup conflict. We are shifting from the skill-building and knowledge-gaining of
previous sessions, to a more intentional focus on the practice of dialogue skills.
The content outcomes are not ignored during this stage, as participants engage
in open dialogues about “hot topics”— conflicting social issues that commonly cause
controversy in conversations about race/ethnicity, and racism. The selected “hot topics”
encourage participants to develop an increased understanding about the impact of cultural
differences, social norms, institutional policies, and unequal access to resources on
race/ethnicity relations.
While participants at their institution generate the specific topics for each session,
the structural level for the first two sessions is common across institutions: the interpersonal
(in session 8) and the institutional (in session 9). The final/third session provides an
opportunity for the group to explore a level/topic further or an additional one, while also
beginning the transition toward applying the skills and knowledge in the action of the
intergroup collaboration project.
LEARNING GOALS
Content Goals
• To examine how personal/group socialization influences our perspective, feelings, and
behaviors regarding real life issues
• To discuss real life, controversial topics
Process Goals
• Learn how to stay in dialogue even when groups differ
• To learn how to use conflict in a way that deepens understanding
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Content Outcomes (Research)
• Skills in dealing with conflict
• Empathic and perspective-taking skills
Process Outcomes (Research)
• Engaging with conflict
• Dialoguing about conflict
• Mutuality of influence
NOTE: The goals and outcomes for this Stage are constant across all 3 sessions; there are
no additional session-specific goals. The significant differences between sessions 8, 9, and
10 are the focus shift from interpersonal/relationship to institutional, and the specific topics
selected by participants. Please keep the overall stage goals in mind for each of the next 3
sessions.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 58 of 90
STAGE III – SESSION 8
Hot Topic #1: Interpersonal/Relationship Dialogue
In the selection of today’s topic from those brainstormed by participants, facilitators should
have selected or combined topics dealing with interpersonal interactions, with various
relationships among people of different race/ethnicities. It is important to be clear on these
groupings with participants, so that they not focus on institutional or societal levels; today is
about person-to-person interactions.
Specifically important for today’s topic is being clear that “relationship” is more
than heterosexual romantic relationships (what many people mean by the term
“relationship”). While such relationships are one example, there are also same-sex romantic
relationships, and many other types of relationships and interactions: parent-child, sibling,
larger family; teacher/participant, classmate; platonic friendships; supervisor/supervised,
colleague/co-worker; etc. In our dialogue, we want to explore how our identities and social
systems impact our interaction in a variety of relationships. The topic should be framed in and
facilitators should model this broad range of human interactions.
Conversations about cross-race/ethnicity relationships elicit a wide range of
thoughts and feelings as well as conflicting perspectives and experiences. While some
participants might be looking at the issue from a purely interpersonal level, other participants
might take a more systemic or historical perspective. Although some participants may not
consider cross-race/ethnicity relationships to be a controversial issue, it is an issue that has
historical significance, even today. Some participants may be knowledgeable about this
history and others may feel that it is irrelevant to today’s issues. Your task is to ensure that all
points of view are heard and to support participants in challenging their preconceived notions
about cross-race/ethnicity relationships and interactions.
Keep in mind that we are concerned with both the content of the dialogue, as well
as the dialogue itself. Keep this in mind throughout facilitating the session to make sure there
is time for the “Dialogue about the Dialogue.” The focus of this stage is on learning how to
use conflict and group/individual differences in ways that contribute to social justice. This goal
of “learning to stay in dialogue when in conflict” is more important during this stage than is
“teaching” participants about the details of the specific hot topics. This part of the session is
when participants can voice their true feelings about what they are experiencing in the room;
how issues they are discussing are affecting their interactions and how their multiple social
identities are intersecting to complicate the process. This is where the dialogue often “gets
real” for people. Be aware of this and prepare yourself to facilitate a more emotional session.
AGENDA OUTLINE
(100 minute total)
Activity
3.8.1
3.8.2
3.8.3
3.8.4
Title
Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, and Housekeeping
Starter: (Un)common Ground
Main Activities
3.8.3.1 Large Group Dialogue
3.8.3.2 Dialogue about the dialogue
Closing and Assignment
Time Needed
5”
15”
50”
20”
10”
Materials needed
Group’s Guidelines (to be posted weekly)
Copies of readings for next week (1 set per participant)
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 59 of 90
Prepared list of statements for (Un)common Ground Activity (take from student
questions from Stage III Assignment #2)
Readings Assigned
•
•
•
2 topic-readings assigned by facilitators
2 topic-relevant readings found by participants
Leas, Speed B. (1982). "Surfacing Submerged Conflict."
SESSION 3.8 LESSON PLAN
This session is designed to explore the breadth and depth of interracial/interethnic
relationships. Often college participants associate “inter-racial/inter-ethnic relations” with
dating relationships between men and women (as opposed to same-sex or platonic
relationships), and often within a Black and White framework (ignoring other interracial
couples). Therefore, broadening the focus and scope of these relations is very important.
This session supports participants in closely analyzing personal experiences, attitudes, and
behaviors with relationships as well as cultural messages that inform attitudes and behavior.
This session also supports participants in communicating across differences through the use
of more challenging dialogic methods.
3.8.1. Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda and Housekeeping (5”)
Procedure
1. Take attendance.
2. Collect journals from last week.
3. Remind participants that today is the start of the “hot topics” sessions,
where we will explore some of the topics that we find most difficult to talk
about, either because we have never talked about them before, or we
haven’t had very good experiences when we have tried to have these
types of conversations.
4. Review goals and outcomes, session outline, and logistics.
5. Be very explicit in revealing the Process Outcomes and Process Goals,
because it may be challenging for participants to believe that conflict can
have positive outcomes. Particularly as we enter the Stage designed to
introduce intentional conflict, name and allow some discussion on that
shift:
• Process Outcomes: Engaging with conflict; dialoguing about
conflict; and mutuality of influence
• Process Goals: Learn how to stay in dialogue even when groups
differ; and learn how to use conflict in a way that deepens
understanding
6. Make an explicit connection between previous dialogues and today’s hot
topic. Remind participants that they suggested the topic/theme
themselves, that everyone read the same process-focused reading, and
that we all have something to share on the topic, whatever our
experience and opinions.
Starter: (Un)Common Ground (15”)
Rationale: This exercise is variation on a low-risk version used at various institutions
and organizations, to help build connections among participants as a low risk, often
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 60 of 90
introductory activity to help name the “obvious” similarities among group members (apparent
gender, age, race, etc.) and to bring out those less obvious (religion/faith, sexual orientation,
etc). 2 Here, we apply the same structure to flesh out both similarities and differences, toward
our goal of introducing conflict in the dialogue setting.
Helpful Hints…
Both facilitators should participate fully, even if one is taking lead on this activity – stepping in
on those statements that genuinely apply to them. In fact, it’s probably best to begin with
several statements you know at least one of the facilitators will step in on – to set the tone.
As an introduction to the statement generation we will ask them to do for Session 9, we ask
the facilitators to model the variety, depth (appropriate risk level), and sincerity of
statements/question this week. Therefore, based on the items they offered in Session 6
(when generating the hot topics to begin with), the facilitators will compile a list of statements
that will be used in the activity. For example:
• If the hot topic is pornography: Step into the circle if you own or use pornography.
• If the hot topic is romantic relationships: Step into the circle if you would not date
someone of your own race/ethnicity. Or, Step into the circle if your family or friends would
be upset if you married a person of the same race/ethnicity.
• If appropriate to the hot topic, I feel more confident if my professor (physician/my child’s
teacher) is male than female.
• If appropriate to the hot topic, I rarely go to parties/ join organizations where my
race/ethnicity is in the minority.
Set-up:
You need an area where the participants can form a comfortable, standing circle with nothing
in the center. (Participants should be free to step into and gather in the center of the circle).
Procedure
1. Introduce this activity by explaining how we are going to begin to explore
experiences with interpersonal/relationship levels of privilege and
oppressions around race/ethnicity through the TOPIC(S), as selected by
the group.
2. Ask participants to move their chairs or move to new space for the
activity, and to gather in a circle facing inwards. While they do not need
to be shoulder-to-shoulder, the circle shouldn’t be too porous – too great
a distance between participants can be a defense mechanism.
3. Explain that you are going to read some statements that relate to the
TOPIC. Describe how, after each statement is read, those who identify
with that statement – those for whom it is true, should step into the
center of the circle. They will be asked to see who similarly identifies
(those standing in with them), and those who do not (those remaining on
the outside).
4. Model an example by making a statement that you know will apply only
to yourself and some of the group (i.e., some will remain on the outside).
Step into the circle, and invite those who also identify to join you. Instruct
them to “take a look at those in the circle with you. [pause]. Take a look
at those who are not. [pause]. Thank you, step back into the circle.”
5. Advise the group that this is a silent exercise, like the fishbowl, and so
they should refrain from commenting on who moves when, etc.
2
For another example, see the write-up by Susie Mitton (2000) from the Social Justice Education
Concentration, School of Education, University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 61 of 90
6. Read each statement from your prepared list, repeating the “step in,
look at who’s in, at who’s out, thanks” script for each.
7. On any items that seem to strike the group particularly strongly (gauge
the non-verbals), ask 1-2 people if they’d like to ask a question of
someone else in the group. They should NOT comment on their own
place/movement, but direct the QUESTION at someone else.
8. Once your list is done, ask the group if anyone has any additional topicrelevant statement they would like to add. The catch is that they can only
offer those for which they would step in for (no baiting others!).
9. Follow the above process for the remainder of the time you’ve allotted
and/or you feel there is rich enough basis for a dialogue.
10. Have the group return to the dialogue space and retake their seats to
debrief.
3.8.3. Main Activities (2): Dialogue & Dialogue about the Dialogue (70”)
3.8.3.1. LARGE GROUP DIALOGUE (50”)
Procedure: Once the group has retaken their seats, debrief the activity,
their reaction to it, etc., using these and other appropriate questions.
1. First, begin with process-based debriefing questions:
• What did you notice? What stood out for you in the activity?
• How did it feel to step into the center? How did the number of people
who stepped in with you affect that feeling, if at all?
• What was it like to remain on the outside of the circle when others
were stepping in?
• In either case, what pressures, if any, did you feel to move or
remain? Impact of others’ perceptions on our thoughts, actions,
honesty…
• We instructed you to engage this activity silently, for the most part.
Were there any statements or step-ins that were challenging for you?
Did anyone wish to explain why they stepped in, or did not? Did
anyone want to ask someone else why they did or didn’t?
• We did allow a few people to ask others questions. They were not
allowed to comment on their own actions, but only to ask others.
What was that restriction like for those who did speak?
• If there was laughter, gasps, or other noticeable reactions by any
members of the group to a statement or person’s stepping in, ask
about it. I noticed that the statement about XYZ got a reaction from
the group; why was that? Why the particular reaction? For those who
stepped in, what was it like to step in to that reaction?
2. Second, shift to a more content-based discussion, addressing specific
questions or issues that were part of the dialogue starter. Ask for specific
examples:
• What statements were more challenging?
• How does your position/perspective influence your interaction with
others? What opportunities and challenges do they present when
talking with other people who have similar/different perspectives?
• How did the positions of others impact on your ability to “stay in
dialogue”? When was this hardest and when easiest?
• (When) Did you feel not completely free to express your real
opinion? When do you think others may likewise have distorted
some of their real feelings?
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 62 of 90
•
•
•
•
Were there any surprises? For example, was anyone surprised
when someone did or did not step in, challenging our expectations
about that person? What does this say about our perceptions of the
issue, the position, people who hold that position, our groupmates
themselves?
How did different identities/experiences bring people to
similar/different conclusions and opinions?
How did similar experiences/values/identities bring people to
different conclusions and opinions?
How do these complexities impact our interactions with people who
we think are like us? With those we think are not like us? This is the
big relationship question, so dig!
3.8.3.2. DIALOGUE ABOUT THE DIALOGUE (20”)
Adapted from Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha, 2004.
Today’s meta-dialogue allows us the chance to reflect on how we dialogued about this first
hot topic. Hopefully, the issue itself provided a wealth of interesting, passionate, and
engaging interactions – we shared, were challenged and learned. AND, we also engaged the
issues to practice our dialogue skills – to see how well we could engage constructively with
one another, even when the topic got tough. Therefore, we want to spend a few minutes
reflecting on how we interacted today.
Be sure to link in the process reading for today, Surfacing Submerged Conflict!!
Helpful Hints…
Particularly in this first session, it may be difficult for participants to “shift gears” off the topic
(content) and onto the dialogue (process). A clear and explicit transition from facilitators is
critical; reminders and guides back to the process focus may be necessary if participants slip
back into the topical focus.
The Dialogue About the Dialogue provides an opportunity for the group to reflect on the
dialogue process. It may be difficult for participants to identify or articulate their observations
about group dynamics, and some participants may perceive this section to be a “waste of
time.” However, this opportunity for reflection is important in order to address any underlying
issues in the group. Addressing group dynamics can be an intense, emotional experience, so
be prepared to support and challenge the participants. Remind the group that dialoguing
across difference can occur only when we are honest about what is really going on for us,
what we are choosing not to say, how and why we are affected by what other people say,
and how the process is working or not working for us. If there are particular behaviors or
dynamics that you have observed during this or other sessions, encourage participants to
reflect on them.
Make sure that you’ve saved enough time to get into this discussion, as it would be
problematic to skim through it for shortness of time!
Rationale
• To reflect upon the dialogue process
• To bring out concerns or tensions in the group
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 63 of 90
Procedure
In the large group, ask some of following questions, allowing time for
participants to answer:
• How are we doing as a group? What are your criteria for answering this
question? Is “doing well” being comfortable, or being honest, or….?
• What are some ways we have implemented our dialogue skills? What
are some of the ways in which we have failed to use our dialogue skills?
• We allowed some people to ask questions of others – not to comment on
their own, but to inquire about others’. What were those questions like?
Some may be very accusatory or defensive-making, like “How could you
possibly stand there”? Were all the questions inviting of understanding?
If so, how so? If not, why not?
• What were some of the challenges you specifically or we as a group
faced in engaging these issues in a dialogue format? Temptation is to
debate. Our opinions/conclusions/positions can have strong emotions
attached; staying in “common understanding” mode can be difficult when
those positions are challenged, and the attached emotions surface.
• How did your race/ethnicity impact your participation in the dialogue?
• Were there any particular dynamics or tensions during this session or
previous sessions that are affecting your ability to participate fully?
• What, if anything, created conflict within the group today? How did you
feel about that and how did you handle that? What learning opportunities
did the conflict provide, and did you take advantage of them? How
comfortable were you with the conflict? Help them to recognize that
comfort may come differently around conflict for different people, and
discomfort connects to learning and growing (learning edges, comfort
zones, hot buttons from Stage I).
• What if anything created internal conflict or tension for you?
• How would this discussion have been different in our caucus groups?
Our fishbowls? Etc, as opposed to in the full group?
3.8.4. Closing & Assignments (10”)
Reading Assignment
• Tell participants that the topic for next week is __________________ (institutional issue).
• Provide them with copies of the 2 common readings on that issue, and instruct them to
again find 2 readings on their own related to the issue. Note that the same criteria apply
for these as last week.
• Finally, instruct them to re-read the McCormick reading on Empathy (from Session 2).
•
•
Reflective Journal/Log Assignment
Write a 2-3 page journal reflecting on your experience of the last dialogue
session. Do refer to the readings your group used in discussing the particular
issues.
What moments were most rewarding for you during this week’s dialogue, and what
specific emotions did you feel? What moments were most difficult for you during this
dialogue, and what specific emotions did you feel? Be as specific as you can, and share
why you felt as you did.
How did the group engage with the topic? Did you notice any differences by
race/ethnicity? How were feelings and emotions expressed? Does this expression of
emotions and feelings, especially those related to conflicts or disagreements, help or
hinder intergroup dialogue?
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 64 of 90
•
•
•
How did the dialogue about this particular topic affect or not affect your understanding of
the topic? Did it expand your understanding, and how? If not, why?
Have you shared your thoughts about this topic with people outside of your intergroup
dialogue? What have these discussions been like? What more would you like to know
about this particular topic?
In just a few sentences, what are your feelings about the hot topic planned for discussion
in the next session?
Within the next 3 days, each participant should email the facilitators 4-6 questions on next
week’s hot topic: An opinion, fact, belief, argument, etc. Consider the types of statements that
were offered today by facilitators, and offer similar ones.
Reminder…
However, remember that next week’s issue is institutional/structural, not interpersonal like
today’s; the statements should address that level of action/interaction. For example, “I plan to
actively campaign for race/ethnicity equity, equal pay for equal work.” Not “I seek out friends
of differing race/ethnicity identities as a way to educate myself and others.”
Closing: Have participants name one challenge they faced and one insight they gained
through today’s discussion. (These can be as widely interpreted as they like; could be
internal, interpersonal or more overall with the class/dialogue.) This is the facilitators’ chance
to get a sense of how they’ve reacted to the hot topics format.
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
Facilitator: TO DO in Preparation for Next Week: Before the next session, facilitators
should connect with one another to review the submitted statements for next week. These
statements should be reviewed and some selected for use in next week’s starter activity (see
Session 9 write up); as needed, facilitators can add statements and adapt submissions.
_____________________________________________________________
Notes for Session Eight:
•
The introduction, notes to facilitators regarding cross-racial (and cross
gender) relations, the rationale and procedure, and the notes to
facilitators for the Dialogue about the Dialogue activity were excerpted
and adapted from Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha, 2004.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 65 of 90
STAGE III – SESSION 9
Hot Topic #2: Institutional Level Dialogue
AGENDA OUTLINE
(100 minute total)
Activity
3.9.1
3.9.2
3.9.3
3.9.4
3.9.5
Title
Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, and Housekeeping
Starter: Gallery Walk
Main Activities
3.9.3.1 Large Group Dialogue
3.9.3.2 Dialogue about the dialogue
In-class reflection paper #4
Closing and Assignment
Time Needed
5”
20”
40”
15”
10”
10”
Materials Needed
Group’s Guidelines (to be posted weekly)
Pre-printed Statements (already submitted)
Paper for Statements submitted today
Masking tape
Markers
In-class Reflection Paper #4 instructions, handouts, and pens/pencils
Copies of readings for next week (1 set per participant)
Readings Assigned
•
•
•
2 topic-readings assigned by facilitators
2 topic-relevant readings found by participants
To have re-read the McCormick reading on Empathy (from Session 2).
SESSION 3.9 LESSON PLAN
3.9.1. Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, and Housekeeping (5”)
Procedure
1. Take attendance.
2. Collect journals from last week and the two individual readings.
3. Remind participants that today we are continuing our dialogue of the “hot
topics,” where we will explore some of the topics that we find most
difficult to talk about, either because we have never talked about them
before, or we haven’t had very good experiences when we have tried to
have these types of conversations.
4. Review goals and outcomes, session outline, and logistics. As in session
3.8, reiterate the goals regarding conflict learning and dialogue.
5. Introduce overall topic for today, reminding participants that they
suggested the topic/theme themselves, that everyone read the same
process reading, and that whatever our opinion on the issues, we all
have experience to share today.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 66 of 90
3.9.2. Gallery Walk (20”)
To engage today's topics, we employ a kinesthetic experience where participants will
physically move around and review statements relating to the institutional topic. Some of the
discussion will also be in the Intergroup Collaboration Project (ICP) groups, to give them
additional time to connect and work with this group.
Rationale
• To introduce conflict through differing opinions.
• To clarify thoughts and feelings connected to TOPIC.
• To encourage participants to take risks while communicating about how TOPIC
impacts them.
• To explore similar and different viewpoints and perspectives.
Set-up: You will need to be able to post statements and the participants will need to be able
to mill about the room to read the posted statements. If at all possible, pre-post some
statements so as to save "hanging up" time during the session itself.
Be sure to pre-read all statements/questions sent in by participants for this
activity. While not wanting to censor any (the point is challenge and conflict!), you should
screen out duplicates, off-topic items, and grossly inappropriate content/wording. Make sure
to pick statements that elicit conversation on a wide range of perspectives on your particular
campus.
Procedure
1. Participants were to email facilitators 4-6 questions regarding today's
topic; and facilitators should have pre-screened and selected a variety of
these for use in today's session. The selected statements, and any
additional ones facilitators wanted to add, should be written/printed in
large (easily legible) letters and posted around the room.
2. Remind participants that today we'll be discussing the institutional topic
of _______. Last week was interpersonal/relationship; today we focus on
institutional and large social systems.
3. Based on the readings, current events, and additional thoughts on the
issues, invite participants to take a moment and largely, legibly write any
additional statements for use today. They could consider writing down
"the hottest aspect of this issue for me is: __________" or "what
bothers/intrigues me most about this issue is _________."
4. Mix up these new contributions (so that it's not clear who contributed
what) and add them to the gallery already posted on the wall.
5. Invite the group to take a few moments to quickly wander the room and
review the posted comments/questions.
6. Help the group spread out and cover the gallery as quickly as possible,
so that they don't all start at the same place.
7. Instruct them that the walk itself is to be silent – no speaking.
8. Once the group has quickly reviewed the gallery, instruct them to break
into their ICP teams and sit down together.
9. Invite them to discuss their initial reactions with the groupmates. Did we
agree or disagree, like or dislike what we read? The small groups should
focus on the issues and the comments on the walls.
10. Begin the dialogue in these small groups, being sure to mingle among
the groups to get a sense for the discussions and to help them stay on
task.
11. After about 10 minutes, bring the large group back together to share out
and continue the discussion.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 67 of 90
3.9.3. Main Activities (2): Dialogue & Dialogue about the Dialogue (55”)
3.9.3.1. LARGE GROUP DIALOGUE (40”)
As with last session, engage participants in dialogue about the topic and issues raised today.
In the large group, we want them to talk both about the comments and the issue itself, AND
their reaction to what others shared. Go beyond agree/disagree, to what underlies the
opinions, reactions, etc.
The idea here is to dig beyond the pro/con/indifferent position (a lá debate) to the
underlying conclusions, the reasons for those conclusions, the source and impact of those
positions/opinions. Challenge all participants to do more than just acknowledge items on the
wall, but to really take a position or have an opinion and discuss what lies behind it.
We want more than shallow/superficial/easy opinions and reactions. We want to
really challenge participants to reveal and interrogate how they came to those positions/
perspectives about the issue itself AND about other people's comments. This allows others to
ask clarifying questions about the reasons and process, rather than just arguing with the
opinion itself; it allows us to recognize the human experience leading to the opinion,
regardless of our agreement with it. It is important to have participants connect to the stuff
“behind” the opinion, and to consider how that shapes their interactions with others.
Be sure to link in the 2 common readings for today, and invite them to make
connections and contributions from the readings they found as well.
The Gallery itself and Personal Reaction:
• Which comments or themes stood out to you? Why did those strike you? What about
them?
• What was your reaction to the statements/comments/questions? Push for both
intellectual and emotional reactions....
• To what degree did you see your opinion, concerns, thoughts reflected in the
gallery? Different, even contrary, thoughts?
Reaction to Others:
• Discuss how you reacted to the opinions and reactions voiced by your groupmates or
others in the room.
• What values does your opinion represent for you? What values inform/underlie your
position?
• What can you surmise or assume about others based on their opinions and
reactions? What thoughts came to mind about what the authors of certain statements
must be thinking, feeling, believing, etc? What might others assume about you based
on your comments and reactions?
• How does your position/perspective influence your interaction with others? What
opportunities and challenges do they present when talking with other people who
have similar/different perspectives? If your values/position match the master
narrative, this connects you to the social power structure.
• How did the opinions and reactions of others impact on your ability to “stay in
dialogue”? When was this hardest and when easiest?
• How did this activity feel?
• When did you feel pinched, angry, shamed, hopeful, hopeless, worried, guilt, irritated,
etc.?
• What did you notice in the group?
• What was hard? What was easy?
• When did you feel not completely free to express your real opinion? When do you
think others may likewise have distorted some of their real feelings?
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 68 of 90
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What statements were more challenging?
Were there any surprises?
How did you come to your opinion/position/conclusion? Were they challenged? Did
they change?
What experiences helped shape your perspective, feelings, and conclusion?
What of your racial identity (among others) may have impacted that development,
and how?
How did different identities/experiences bring people to similar/different conclusions
and opinions?
How did similar experiences/values bring people to different conclusions and
opinions?
What impact does this complexity have on our interactions with people who identify
and/or think like we do? Who identify and/or think differently?
3.9.3.2. DIALOGUE ABOUT THE DIALOGUE (15”)
Adapted from Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha, 2004.
For detailed facilitation instructions review the explicit rationale, goals, objectives, and
procedures articulated in session 8.
Procedure: In reflecting on the group dialogue process of today, we also
have the opportunity to compare how the group process has changed
compared to last session. So in addition to the questions offered for the
meta-dialogue in session 3.8, incorporate the following inquires:
• What, if anything, did people do or notice that was done differently
than last week?
• In addition to the different subject matter, how did any changes in
how people dialogued change the discussion?
Helpful Hints…
In order to address both process and content issues, push participants to engage with
specific differences/commonalities of understanding, in the large as well as the small group.
3.9.4. In-class Reflection Paper (10”)
At the end of the main activity’s debriefing, the next “in-class reflection paper” is scheduled.
Participants should be given 5 minutes to complete the paper.
Procedure
Handout reflection sheets and pens/pencils
Instructions to Participants
• We would like to give you an opportunity to reflect on the thoughts and feelings you are
having. Please take five minutes to write down these thoughts and feelings on these
sheets.
• We ask that you be completely honest in your answers. You should NOT put your names
anywhere on the paper, so that what you write will stay anonymous.
• What you write will not be graded. We will collect the papers at the end to give to the
research team that is looking at the different types of experiences people have in the
dialogues.
Instructions to the Facilitators
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 69 of 90
If there are questions about spaces at the bottom, please explain space is provided for
participants to indicate the name of the activity, their identification number, and today’s date.
This is so the researchers can see whether dialogue participants have similar or different
experiences in the dialogue. This is the only demographic information we are asking from you
at this time so that your answers can remain anonymous.
Please be sure to collect all of the in-class reflection papers and turn in to the main
dialogue office or your instructor/supervisor’s office.
3.9.5. Closing and Assignment (10”)
Reflective Journal/Log Assignment *
Write a 2-3 page journal reflecting on your experience of the last dialogue
session. Do refer to the readings your group used in discussing the particular
issues.
•
•
•
•
•
What moments were most rewarding for you during this week’s dialogue, and what
specific emotions did you feel? What moments were most difficult for you during this
dialogue, and what specific emotions did you feel? Be as specific as you can, and share
why you felt as you did.
How did the group engage with the topic? Did you notice any differences by
race/ethnicity? How were feelings and emotions expressed? Does this expression of
emotions and feelings, especially those related to conflicts or disagreements, help or
hinder intergroup dialogue?
How did the dialogue about this particular topic affect or not affect your understanding of
the topic? Did it expand your understanding, and how? If not, why?
Have you shared your thoughts about this topic with people outside of your intergroup
dialogue? What have these discussions been like? What more would you like to know
about this particular topic?
In our next session, we will have some time to discuss issues that have been remaining
or go deeper into some issues. In just a few sentences, are there any issues (either
topics or dynamics of our dialogue process thus far) you would like us to address in the
open time for our next session?
Let participants know that in the next session, they will be spending some time in ICP groups,
and so should give some thought to their action topics and details before then, to make the
most of that time to prepare for their presentations in Session 11.
Closing: As we head into our last formal hot topic session, it is a good day to have
participants conclude with thoughts on where they are going forward. So, rather than
reflecting so much back on the day or previous days, have each share a dialogue
challenge/intention they hold for next week. (These should be process-focused, as they don’t
yet know the topic (content) for next session’s dialogue).
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
_____________________________________________________________
Notes for Session Nine:
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 70 of 90
•
The rationale and procedure for the Dialogue about the Dialogue
activity used in session 9, and described in detail in session 8, were
adapted from Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, & Kachwaha, 2004.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 71 of 90
STAGE III – SESSION 10
Open Session & ICP prep
AGENDA OUTLINE
(100 minutes total)
Activity
3.10.1
3.10.2
3.10.3
3.10.4
Title
Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, Housekeeping, and
Ice Breaker
Open Session
ICP group time
Closing and Assignment
Time Needed
5”
45”
40”
10”
Materials needed
Group’s Guidelines (to be posted weekly)
Newsprint and markers
Action Continuum Handout
Readings Assigned
•
No common readings. If a final hot topic is to be covered, participants and/or facilitators
should bring readings.
SESSION 3.10 LESSON PLAN
3.10.1. Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, and Housekeeping (5”)
Procedure
1. Take attendance.
2. Collect journals from last week (that includes copies of their 2 chosen
readings if a third hot topic was chosen)
3. Review goals and outcomes, session outline, and logistics.
4. Introduce overall topic for today (whether third hot topic they chose or a
topic the facilitators have chosen).
5. Review group guidelines as appropriate.
6. Do a brief ice breaker.
3.10.2. Open Session (45”)
Rationale: Realizing that different groups will have reacted differently to the hot topics
discussion, this half-session is unstructured, to allow facilitators to provide dialogue
opportunity as needed by their group. This time should be used 1) to revisit/go deeper
on a previous topic, 2) to address residual issues/resistance from course to date, and/or 3) to
add a final, especially salient issue for that specific campus context.
Procedure: Depending on the intended use for today’s time, have the group
provide a quick summary of the previous discussion you wish to revisit,
specifically focusing the group to issue or question to begin with. Allow the
group to resume the dialogue using questions from the write-ups of Session
8 or 9, for example. OR
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 72 of 90
•
•
Introduce the group dynamic issue as a topic itself—in a sense making
the dialogue about the dialogue, into today’s topic. Consider using the
debriefing questions from Sessions 8 and/or 9 to engage the issue. OR
Provide a quick introduction of the new topic for the group to cover.
Consider using a brief starter activity such as those used in Session 8 or
9 to begin conversation. Keep in mind that your time is shorter today,
the participants have not prepared or pre-read for this topic and that you
still need to have time for dialogue about the dialogue!
3.10.3. ICP Presentation Guidelines and Group Time (40”)
Adapted from Zúñiga & Shlasko, 2004
Procedure
1. Hand out the Action Continuum. Remind participants that they saw this
several weeks ago (in session 7).
2. Share with participants that although this continuum may not be new, it
can be helpful for them as they wrap up their Intergroup Collaboration
Project (ICP) and plan for next week’s group presentation. The
continuum is just one model of thinking about challenging oppression,
and promoting diversity and social justice.
3. Distribute copies of the ICP Presentation guidelines, if not included in the
original assignment (handout or syllabus). Review the details.
4. During this check in, allow participants to continue to organize
themselves and to keep on task for completing their ICP before session
11.
5. Instruct the participants to think about:
• 2-3 critical ideas they want to share in their presentation to the group
•
Present their project in an informative, creative way involving all
members
•
Present both the action(s) they took and their learning from it
ICP Support:
In order to continue to support the ICP groups, it may be helpful to “poke your head” into the
groups while they start to do a quick process check. This is intended to be a quick check in,
but if there are more dynamics that require your attention, instruct the group that you’d like to
quickly check in with the other group and that you will be “right back.” Ask the group:
• How are things going?
• Are all members of their ICP group participating in the completion of the project?
• Do they have their next meeting scheduled yet? (If no, invite them to do so now; if
yes, praise accordingly!)
• Quickly move to your next group(s) and do the same…
Hopefully, the groups will be doing well…but be prepared to spend some time with the
group if they need assistance. Reconnect with the group at the conclusion of this
session, if necessary.
3.10.4. Assignment & Closing (10”)
Reading Assignment: Remind participants to bring their course reader for session 11. In
particular, they will need their copy of the “Alliance” poem by Judit. Next week’s readings
include:
• Anzaldúa, G.E. (2000). Allies.
• Sherover-Marcuse, R. (2000). Working Assumptions and Guidelines for Alliance Building.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 73 of 90
•
•
•
•
•
Judit. (1987). Alliances.
Hopkins, W. (1999). I'm a Straight White Guy – So What's Diversity Got to Do with Me?
Piercy, M. (1980). The Low Road.
Ayvazian, A. (2004). Interrupting the Cycle of Oppression: The Role of Allies as Agents of
Change.
DeMott, B. (1996). Reflecting on Race.
•
Reflective Journal/Log Assignment
Write a 2-3 page journal that addresses the following:
• How was the last intergroup dialogue session for you? What
were you struck by the issues raised in the dialogue? How did the session affect your
sense of the group?
The next dialogue session will involve presentations about the Intergroup
Collaborative Project (ICP). We would like you to reflect on your group project.
Please draw upon the readings for Session 11 to exemplify the dynamics of your
experience planning for the Intergroup Collaboration Project (ICP) with your group
members.
• How do you feel about the action project you have implemented?
• How do you feel about how your small group has engaged in working
together on the project? How would you characterize your contributions to
this overall project? How would you characterize the contributions of your
team members to this overall project? What factors hindered or supported
your ICP group efforts? Be concrete in your examples.
• What were the salient group dynamics in your ICP group? Any dynamics
specific to working across different social identity groups? How about
dynamics between people of the same social identity group (like your own,
for example)? Do you see any similarities and/or differences between your
ICP group and the dialogue group as a whole?
Closing: In round-robin/popcorn style, invite each participant to share three words to
describe their feeling on the process: their role in the dialogues today and with dialogue as a
skill for engaging challenging topics.
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
_____________________________________________________________
Notes for Session Ten:
•
The directions for the open session including the procedure of the
Intergroup Collaboration Project Presentation, Group Time, & ICP
Preparation, were adapted from Zúñiga & Shlasko, 2004.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 74 of 90
STAGE FOUR
Sessions 11, 12 & 13
Envisioning Change and Taking Action
One of the main challenges in intergroup dialogues on college campuses is to move the
group from dialogue to action. Therefore, it is important to provide a structure that supports
participants to consider ways to “walk the talk.” In this session, we will invite participants to
consider action that promotes relationships across lines of difference, diversity, and social
justice through an exercise entitled “Cycle of Liberation.”
LEARNING GOALS
Content Goals
• Understanding intergroup collaboration
• Identify micro/macro level interventions
• Understand individual and collaborative action
• Cycle of Liberation
• Closure and continuance
Process Goals
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ability to assess risks and resources
Critically evaluate a range of interventions for social change
Encourage movement to engagement with action
Negotiating relationships across difference
Choosing battles wisely / being wise about the battles that you choose
Honoring where people are in their racial identity development as well as honoring where
they are in relation to taking action, and where they might be in the future
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Content Outcomes (Research)
• Understanding multiple social group identities and their positions in society
• Recognizing similarities and differences within and between groups
• Understanding how others view one’s identity group(s)
• Thinking actively about the self, others and society
• Understanding structural inequality
• Comfort in intergroup communication
• Motivation/skills in bridging differences
• Emotional empathy (emotions in perspective taking)
• Empathic skills and motivation to understand the perspectives of others
• Normalization of conflict
• Skills in dealing with conflict
• Citizenship in a diverse democracy (educating others, educating self, working with others
to create change, interest in politics, thinking critically about current events and own role
in society)
• Promoting inclusiveness (reducing unconscious prejudice, interrupting stereotypes and
discrimination, talking with people across difference, interacting with different groups of
people)
• Support of policies related to intergroup relations and inequality
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 75 of 90
Process Outcomes (Research)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Group-relevant controversial issues
Sharing personal experiences
Taking the perspective of others
Engaging with emotions
Clarifying meanings of social identities and the societal power/status of own social
identity groups
Participating in experiential activities
Reflecting through writing
Level of comfort with silence
Integrated v. segregated seating patterns
Level of involvement in group activities
Tolerance for different styles
Mutuality of influence
Group display of and dealing with emotions
NOTE: The journal assignment in Session 11 is the first half of the letter to myself,
which they are to bring with them to class in Session 12. The letter is completed in
Session 12. Students will need to bring a stamped, self-addressed envelope to Session
12. There are no regular journal assignments after Session 10.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 76 of 90
STAGE IV – SESSION 11
Envisioning Change and Action Planning
One of the goals of our intergroup dialogues is to foster the connection between dialogue and
action. The Intergroup Collaborative Project (ICP) is designed to help students make that
connection. In Session 11, the small groups that have been working on their ICPs will present
their actions and learning to others in the dialogue group. The presentations, we hope, will
lead to seeing the varied possibilities of taking action and a dialogue about the strategies,
rewards, and challenges of working together in alliances across differences.
LEARNING GOALS
Content Goals
• Understanding intergroup collaboration
•
Understanding self motivation for change
•
Apply our learning of power dynamics of racism to other manifestations of oppression
•
To reflect on how social identity and oppression effects intergroup collaboration
Process Goals
• Encourage exploration of moving from awareness and dialogue to action
• Negotiating relationships across similarities and difference
• To consider intent and impacts of actions across and between social groups
•
To identify actions to undo privilege and oppression
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Session 11: Content Goals (Research)
• Citizenship in a diverse democracy (educating others, educating self, working with others
to create change, interest in politics, thinking critically about current events and own role
in society)
Session 11: Process Goals (Research)
o Group display of and dealing with emotions
AGENDA OUTLINE
(100 minutes total)
Activity
4.11.1
4.11.2
4.11.3
Title
Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, Housekeeping, and
Ice Breaker
Main Activity: ICP presentations
Closing and Assignment
Time Needed
10”
80”
10”
Materials needed
Group’s Guidelines (to be posted weekly)
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 77 of 90
Copy of the “Alliance” poem by Judit (for participants who may have forgotten their own
copy)
Readings Assigned
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anzaldúa, G.E. (2000). Allies.
Sherover-Marcuse, R. (2000). Working Assumptions and Guidelines for Alliance Building.
Judit. (1987). Alliances.
Hopkins, W. (1999). I'm a Straight White Guy – So What's Diversity Got to Do with Me?
Piercy, M. (1980). The Low Road.
Ayvazian, A. (2004). Interrupting the Cycle of Oppression: The Role of Allies as Agents of
Change.
DeMott, B. (1996). Reflecting on Race.
SESSION 4.11 LESSON PLAN
4.11.1. Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda and Housekeeping (10”)
Procedure
1. Take attendance.
2. Collect journals from last week.
3. Facilitate an ice breaker to energize participants.
4. Reflect on the past week: Allow time for participants to share their
reactions and thoughts from last week. This is an opportunity to transition
from hot topics to taking action, from conflict to coalition, from inquiry to
action.
5. Introduce goals and agenda: Emphasize that this week focuses on what
can be done individually, and together, to undo racism and other
manifestations of oppression. Supporting and collaborating with each
other within and across difference is a critical element of taking action
and creating social change.
4.11.2. Main Activities (2): ICP Presentations & Processing (80”)
Adapted from Zúñiga & Shlasko, 2004.
PRESENTATION OF INTERGROUP COLLABORATION PROJECT (60”)
•
•
•
•
Rationale
• To reflect on our collective experiences engaging in the ICP.
To share your project and what you learned from it (individually and collectively).
To help participants understand the challenges they may face in taking action against
racism and ways to work with these challenges.
To examine group dynamics and how identity influences “real-life” collaboration on
this project.
To apply the words and concepts from the readings to their ICP work.
Procedure:
Set the tone for the discussion.
• Affirm that taking action is both rewarding and challenging, and how much we can learn
from each other.
• Explain that there will be lots of time for sharing and a time for dialogue afterwards.
• Invite any clarifying questions as the ICP groups share their actions.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 78 of 90
When not presenting:
• Remind participants that we will be actively using our knowledge of the readings.
• Invite them to pick out of the ICP presentations where the following concepts are
identified in the presentation: Awareness, Alliance Building, Action and Empowerment
• This will be addressed after all the groups have shared their projects.
For the presenting groups
Limit each group to 12-15 minutes. If necessary, use your time keeping device here.
Each group should cover the following points:
• What did your group do?
• How did your group decide what to do?
• What role did each of you play?
• How did each of you react to the actual action that your team did?
• How did the people around you react (friends, family, and strangers, people who were
affected by the action, and others in your ICP group)?
• What were the choices you made as a group-- “safe” choices and “risk-taking” choices?
• What were the rewards and risks of your action?
• What are the lessons you derived in working as a team?
Repeat above for all of the groups. (This initial presentation portion of the ICP processing
should last approximately 60 minutes. The quicker this initial presentation phase happens,
the more time to dialogue and debrief below).
PROCESSING OF INTERGROUP COLLABORATION PROJECT (20”)
General Debriefing: After each group has shared, debrief around the following questions or
questions that emerge in the group.
• After completing the task for the project, what sort of emotions and thoughts did you
have?
• What would have happened if you hadn’t taken on the project – for yourself, for others?
• What did you learn from listening to other’s actions?
• Thinking beyond the particular action, what are the advantages and disadvantages of
challenging racism?
• Would you do this project again? If so, how would you change it in the future?
• What are your next steps as revealed in this project to becoming an effective bridgebuilder and advocate for social change/justice?
Reading Reflection:
• Invite participants to recall how we asked them to note how the readings were
represented in the ICP presentations.
• Ask participants to now recant and recall what, specifically, they saw in the presentation
that reflected some of the concepts in the readings for this week and last week.
• Specifically ask them to reflect on: Awareness, Alliance Building, Action and
Empowerment
Helpful Hints…
•
•
Be sure to “trouble” the question of who “us” is when we discuss intervening or not
intervening.
Be sure to ask a follow up question if you feel participants are looking to “get off the
hook” and/or make excuses/justification for not taking action.
More Specific Debriefing:
Debrief specifically about alliance building and working across differences.
o What do we need to sustain our work in interrupting racism?
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 79 of 90
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
What commitments can we make to each other to continue our work and support
each other?
How can white people be allies to people of color? How can people of color support
whites doing anti-racist work?
How do white people support anti-racism among white people?
How do people of color work to support each other in interrupting horizontal
oppression and internalized oppression?
How can people of color and white people work together in ways that do not replicate
racism or other oppressive dynamics in society?
How do we use our learning about racism and interrupting racism, and extend it to
other forms of oppression, such as sexism, heterosexism, able-ism, ageism,
classism, and others?
How do we work to affect institutional change?
4.11.3. Closing and Assignments (10”)
Reading Assignment: Remind participants about the reading for next session. Also, remind
participants to bring their course reader next session. In particular, they will need their copy of
Harro.
• Harro, B. (2000). The Cycle of Liberation.
• McClintock, M. (2000). How to Interrupt Oppressive Behavior.
• Kivel, P. (2002). Democratic, anti-racist multiculturalism.
• Orloff, L. E. (1997). Is racism permanent?
• Sethi, R. C (1997). Smells like racism: A plan for mobilizing against Anti-Asian bias.
Reflective Journal/Log Assignment
This week’s journal assignment differs a bit from past assignments: we ask
you to compose a letter to yourself. Like writing your own testimonials earlier
in the dialogue, this letter serves as a testimonial of your learning in
intergroup dialogue and identifies some personal goals or hopes beyond dialogue. This is a
letter to yourself and can be private if you wish. Of course, you will be welcome to share
anything that you want from your letter with the class during our last dialogue session. Like
the other journals, this letter (including both parts below) should also be about 2-3 pages in
length.
Since the letter is to you from you, we hope you will be creative and honest with it. There are
two parts to the letter.
•
Part 1: Please complete and bring to Session 12. The first part is a personal reflection on
your most important learning in the dialogues so far. We invite you to look back to where
you were at the beginning of the intergroup dialogue and think about where you are now.
What stands out for you? Describe 1-2 learning points or lessons from the intergroup
dialogue that you do not want to forget. What made them important to you? What do you
hope people have learned from or about you? You are welcome to use your previous
journals to remind yourself of your important learning points.
•
Part 2: The second part, a look into the future, will be written in class in session 12,
continuing from the first part. What are some ways in which you see yourself applying
your learning to your life on campus and the larger community? What specific events,
conversations, or relationships have inspired you to continue to work (or not) toward
liberation? How would you like to sustain your learning?
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 80 of 90
Bring the letter and a self-addressed, stamped envelope to class on Session 12.
After completing the second half of the letter in class, you will place it in the envelope.
Your facilitators will collect all the letters, and mail them to you about 3-6 months later.
Closing
• Invite participants to take out their readers and turn to the “Alliance” poem by Judit. Hand
out your extra copies to those who didn’t bring their reader….
• Have the participants take turns in reading the poem.
• After reading it, you can ask participants for any reflections on the poem or their
intergroup dialogues as a whole. How do you understand this poem now? How is it
similar or different from what you may have understood the first time you read it? What
are some connections between the poem and our learning today?
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
_____________________________________________________________
Notes for Session Eleven:
•
Directions for the Procedure of the Intergroup Collaboration Project
Presentation activity, Envisioning Change and Action Planning, were
adapted from Zúñiga & Shlasko, 2004.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 81 of 90
STAGE IV – SESSION 12
Alliance Building and Action Planning
This session will continue to build on the Intergroup Collaboration Project experience. Two
conceptual organizers will be used to further students’ understanding and thinking about
action: a) Cycle of Liberation as a conceptual framework to illustrate the process by which
people learn to interrupt their own Cycle of Socialization and begin joining personal, group,
and collective empowerment; and, b) Spheres of Influence that helps situate the
participants’ action in particular spheres and fosters dialogues about actions in other spheres.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Content Goals
• Understanding intergroup collaboration
•
Understanding self motivation for change
•
Identify micro/macro level interventions
Process Goals
• Encourage exploration of moving from awareness and dialogue to action
• Negotiating relationships across similarities and difference
• To identify actions to undo privilege and oppression
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Session 12: Content Goals (Research)
• Citizenship in a diverse democracy (educating others, educating self, working with others
to create change, interest in politics, thinking critically about current events and own role
in society)
Session 12: Process Goals (Research)
o Willingness to be involved in group activities
o Level of involvement in group activities
o Mutuality of Influence
AGENDA OUTLINE
(100 minutes total)
Activity
4.12.1
4.12.2
4.12.3
4.12.4
Title
Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, Housekeeping, and
Ice Breaker
Main Activities: Action Continuum, Spheres of Influence,
Cycle of Liberation and Letter to Myself
In-class reflection paper #5
Closing and Assignment
Time Needed
10”
70”
10”
10”
Materials needed
Group’s Guidelines (to be posted weekly)
Newsprint and markers
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 82 of 90
Action Continuum Handout
Spheres of Influence Handout
In-class Reflection Paper #5 instructions, handouts, and pens/pencils
Handout: Cycle of Liberation
Readings Assigned
•
•
•
•
•
Harro, B. (2000). The Cycle of Liberation.
McClintock, M. (2000). How to Interrupt Oppressive Behavior.
Kivel, P. (2002). Democratic, anti-racist multiculturalism.
Orloff, L. E. (1997). Is racism permanent?
Sethi, R. C (1997). Smells like racism: A plan for mobilizing against Anti-Asian bias.
Session Notes
At the beginning of the session, acknowledge that the structure and content of this session
represents a shift from the style of previous sessions. The role of the facilitators is to support
and help participants tap into their passion for social justice and identify action steps in their
sphere of influence. Remember that some participants will be more ready and committed
than others to take action for social justice. Some participants may be ready to “change the
world,” while others may want to focus on learning more about racism. Though some
participants will be ready to begin planning an educational program or an intergroup dialogue
in their residence hall, others may want to begin with interpersonal action, such as
interrupting offensive behaviors exhibited by friends or strangers. For some participants,
taking part in the dialogue experience was an important first step in taking action. Emphasize
that every type of action is important, and that taking action against injustice is not easy.
Encourage participants to continue interrupting the cycle of socialization in their spheres of
influence.
GENERAL NOTES
The Spheres of Influence help people focus on where they can take action. Additionally, you
may find that many of the examples students cite during their reflection of the ICP and in
general, may be focused on interpersonal level interactions and actions/interventions. Keep
this in mind and be sure towards the end of the session, if it has not been addressed, that
you are engaging students in thinking about institutional forms of action that can be made.
There is some structure built into this design for such a task, but hopefully it will not be
necessary as students may address this sooner. Let this part of the dialogue be “organic” in
that regard and go with it! Feel free to use the prompts towards the end of this design to
move this conversation along.
Also, it is important in this session to emphasize the readings in the beginning of class. Invite
the students during this class to intentionally use language and definitions from the readings
and apply it to what we are discussing today. Share with them that part of the ICP
presentations, both for the teams presenting and for everyone else in the class, is to actively
articulate the words and concepts from the readings.
SESSION 4.12 LESSON PLAN
4.12.1. Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda and Housekeeping (10”)
Procedure
1. Take attendance.
2. Facilitate an ice breaker to energize participants.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 83 of 90
3. Reflect on the past week: Allow time for participants to share their
reactions and thoughts from last week. This is an opportunity to
transition from inquiry to action.
4. Introduce goals and agenda: Emphasize that this week focuses on what
can be done individually, and together, to undo racism and other
manifestations of oppression. Supporting and collaborating with each
other within and across difference is a critical element of taking action
and creating social change.
Helpful Hints…
Additional Talking Points:
• The session is about sharing and dialoging about the Intergroup Collaboration
Project (ICP), and carrying our learning and action further.
• The group will therefore spend time reflecting on their learning and showing each
other appreciation.
4.12.2. Main Activities (2): Cycle of Liberation & Spheres of Influence;
Letter to Myself (70”)
Adapted from Nagda, 2001; University of Michigan IGR Process Content Outline,
2004; Zuniga, Cytron-Walker and Kachwaha, 2004;
•
•
•
•
Rationale:
• To reflect on the participants’ experiences engaging in the ICP
To facilitate the movement of participants from dialogue to action, individual and group
To utilize the Action Continuum to invite participants to identify the location of their ICP
and their personal location in the range of actions that stop oppressive behavior
To identify action steps in one’s Sphere of Influence
To use the Cycle of Liberation as a conceptual framework to illustrate the process by
which people learn to interrupt their Cycle of Socialization and begin joining personal,
group, and collective empowerment.
Procedure
1. Explain, Throughout this dialogue we have talked about how we are socialized and how
the prejudices we hold are rooted in our socialization. However, even though we cannot
be blamed for our socialization, we are not relieved of taking responsibility for our actions.
We need to look closely at our own behaviors in relation to our socialization and how we
interact with each other on campus and in society. Are we teaching misinformation and
biased behaviors? Are we active perpetrators or bystanders of oppressive behavior? Are
we actively trying to bring greater justice in our sphere of influence?
2. Hand out copies of the Action Continuum and invite the participants to identify the
location of their ICP on the Continuum. Ask the participants what they would have
preferred to do had they not been working with others on their projects. In what way, if
any, how does this relate to their place in the Cycle of Socialization?
3. Hand out copies of the Cycle of Liberation.
4. Explain that the Cycle serves as a model to think about how to take action and to break
the Cycle of Socialization.
5. Review the Cycle of Liberation, using examples from your own life for the different
categories: Self; Close Friends and Family; Social, School and Work; Community. Make
sure to identify your motivations for taking action.
6. Ask participants to brainstorm specific examples of the categories in the cycle.
7. Explain that another way to take action is to think of where we have influence and identify
actions we might take within each of our spheres of influence.
8. Hand out the Spheres of Influence worksheet and ask participants to fill in the actions
they can take in the four different spheres. Briefly introduce the notion of the Spheres of
Influence model as a metaphor that we will be visiting and revisiting throughout today’s
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 84 of 90
session. The Spheres of Influence depicts the number of levels where we have choices
and the abilities to make social change. It moves from the very local and very specific to
larger systems and social infrastructures. We would like to invite the participants to join
us in envisioning what can be…
Notes to Facilitators
At this point in the dialogue, many participants have reached the point at which they want to
challenge injustice in society. The Cycle of Liberation is a model of a successful way to do so,
and the spheres of influence help people focus in on where they can take action. When going
through the cycle of liberation we recommend using personal examples of individual and
collective action. If participants have a difficult time thinking about personal possibilities, ask them
to describe the actions of famous people, or of everyday people. Examples that speak of
courage, passion, common sense, and survival help to illustrate what motivates people to take
action. It is important to stress that someone can enter the Cycle at any point, and that most
people repeat parts of the Cycle. The spheres of influence help participants to break down what
may seem like a daunting task—deciding where to start taking action. Remember that
participants are in different places in regards to what actions they are ready to take. Offer a range
of examples of action in order to help them recognize their willingness and capacity for taking
action.
Letter to Myself (allow 10 minutes)
Ask participants to write the second part of the letter to myself, continuing from the first part and
answering the following questions: What are some ways in which you see yourself applying your
learning to your life on campus and the larger community? What specific events, conversations,
or relationships have inspired you to continue to work (or not) toward liberation? How would you
like to sustain your learning?
Collect sealed addressed envelopes containing letters to myself (both first and second parts).
Affirmation Closing: Appreciate the work that the participants did both in terms of today’s
session and all the work they did to work up to this day! Offer the following quote to read as a way
to close out the class:
By the pastor Martin Niemöller
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
4.12.3. In-class Reflection Paper (10”)
At the end of the main activity’s debriefing, the next “in-class reflection paper” is scheduled.
Participants should be given 5 minutes to complete the paper.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 85 of 90
Procedure
Handout reflection sheets and pens/pencils
Instructions to Participants
• We would like to give you an opportunity to reflect on the thoughts and feelings you are
having. Please take five minutes to write down these thoughts and feelings on these sheets.
• We ask that you be completely honest in your answers. You should NOT put your names
anywhere on the paper, so that what you write will stay anonymous.
• What you write will not be graded. We will collect the papers at the end to give to the
research team that is looking at the different types of experiences people have in the
dialogues.
Instructions to the Facilitators
If there are questions about spaces at the bottom, please explain space is provided for
participants to indicate the name of the activity, their identification number, and today’s date. This
is so the researchers can see whether dialogue participants have similar or different experiences
in the dialogue. This is the only demographic information we are asking from you at this time so
that your answers can remain anonymous.
Please be sure to collect all of the in-class reflection papers and turn in to the main
dialogue office or your instructor/supervisor’s office.
4.12.4. Closing and Assignments (10”)
Explain what will happen next week: A Celebration of our Learning.
Let the group know you are finished and share your excitement about the closing session. Ask
participants to bring a snack to share with one another next week. Let them know there will be
music. Note to facilitators: bring food, too!
Share with the participants that we will be celebrating each other as well! Invite participants to do
the following:
• Think about each person in the group and what they contributed to your learning
• We will invite you during our next session to write some of these appreciations down…so
think about the “gifts” you have received during our time together…
Readings Assignment: No readings for next week.
Reflective Journal/Log Assignments: Remind participants that Final
Reflection Papers are due ___________________________, in lieu of any
journal.
Closing
• Invite participants to form one last circle for today.
• Also invite participants to use one word to share a feeling they have as they leave this
session today.
• Proceed around the circle until everybody shares in the room.
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 86 of 90
_____________________________________________________________
Notes for Session Twelve:
•
The Session Notes and the directions for the Procedure and Notes to
Facilitators of the Cycle of Liberation and Spheres of Influence Activity
were excerpted and adapted from Zúñiga, Cytron-Walker, &
Kachwaha, 2004.
•
The sequencing of this session and the constructs discussed draw
heavily from Nagda, 2001.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 87 of 90
STAGE IV – SESSION 13
Celebrating our Learning
LEARNING GOALS
Session 13: Content Goals
• Closure and continuance
Session 13: Process Goals
• Post test
• Institution specific course evaluations
• Other closure activities
• To share individual participant learning throughout the intergroup dialogue session
• To celebrate our collective learning and journey!
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Session 13: Content Outcomes (Research)
• Promoting inclusiveness (reducing unconscious prejudice, interrupting stereotypes and
discrimination, talking with people across difference, interacting with different groups of
people)
Session 13: Process Outcomes (Research)
• Level of involvement in group activities
• Group display of and dealing with emotions
AGENDA OUTLINE
(100 minutes total)
Activity
4.13.1
4.13.2
4.13.3
4.13.4
Title
Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, Housekeeping, and
Ice Breaker
Main Activity: Participant Affirmation
MIGR post-survey administration
Institution/School-specific course evaluation
Time Needed
5”
40”
45”
10”
Materials needed
Group’s Guidelines (to be posted weekly)
Newsprint paper (10-20 sheets cut in half)
Markers
Tape
MIGR post-test survey instrument (The Research Survey)
Institutional course evaluations
Food, music, and boom box
SESSION 4.13 LESSON PLAN
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 88 of 90
4.13.1. Welcome, Review Goals, Agenda, and Housekeeping (5”)
Procedure
1. Take attendance.
2. Introduce the session.
• This session is intended to pull together our different learnings and
discover the similarities and differences in our experiences.
• You have shared many stories over the course of the dialogue.
• Today is a day to reflect on our stories and to celebrate where these
stories have brought us over the course of the dialogue
3. Remind participants that final reflection papers are due _____________.
4. Share learning objectives.
5. Do a brief ice breaker.
4.13.2. Main Activity (1): Participant Affirmation (40”)
Nagda, 2001; University of Michigan IGR Process Content Outline, 2004.
A group activity that affirms the journey that the group has taken together in which each member
speaks about a contribution someone else has made to their learning. Write affirmations about
each other on posters on the wall (half a newsprint for each person).
Rationale: These affirmations remind people of the profound value of intergroup dialogue.
Material Preparation
• Newsprint (cut in half): 10 – 20 sheets depending on group size
• Set up boom box with reflection music
• Set out food
Procedure
1. Pass out a half-sheet of newsprint per person.
2. Have each participant write their name on half a sheet of newsprint and tape
it on the wall.
3. Ask participants to move around the room and write a positive comment on
everyone’s posters.
o What do they appreciate about the person?
o What did you they learn from the person?
o What is something positive you felt about each person?
Debriefing
Debrief (5”) if time permits:
• Invite participants to share some “highlights” from their posters – perhaps one they were
touched by.
• Make some general comments to wrap up the activity.
• Thank them for their participation!!
• Ask participants if they have anything they want to say that was brought up by the activity.
4.13.3. MIGR POST-TEST SURVEY ADMINISTRATION (45”)
Procedure: Follow provided MIGR survey administration instructions.
4.13.4. INSTITUTIONAL COURSE EVALUATION (10”)
Procedure: Follow institution specific administration instructions.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 89 of 90
Helpful Hints…
•
•
If course evaluations require instructor/facilitator to leave the room, please do them AFTER
the survey instrument, as you will likely need to be present to answer questions for this.
Make sure to leave the room clean!!
Facilitators please complete weekly Feedback Form!! ☺
Additional References
Farley, J. (1996). Prejudice: Its forms and causes. In Majority/Minority Relations (pp. 1316). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Paulo Freire (1998 edition). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Goodman, D., & Shapiro, S. (1997). Sexism curriculum design. In M. Adams, L.A. Bell, &
P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 110140). New York: Routledge.
Griffin, P. (1997). Introductory module for the single issue courses. In M. Adams, L.A.
Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook
(pp. 61-81). New York: Routledge.
Harro, B. (2000a). The cycle of liberation. In M. Adams, W.J. Blumenfeld, R. Casteñeda,
H.W. Hackman, M.L. Peters, X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social
justice: An anthology on racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism,
and classism (pp 463-469). New York: Routledge.
Harro, B. (2000b). The cycle of socialization. In M. Adams, W.J. Blumenfeld, R.
Casteñeda, H.W. Hackman, M.L. Peters, X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity
and social justice: An anthology on racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, heterosexism,
ableism, and classism (pp 9-14). New York: Routledge.
Motoike, P., and Monroe-Fowler, M. (n.d.). Cultural chest. Mimeograph. Ann Arbor:
Program on Intergroup Relations Conflict and Community, University of
Michigan.
Pincus, Fred L. (2000). Discrimination Comes in Many Forms: Individual, Institutional,
and Structural. In M. Adams, W.J. Blumenfeld, R. Casteñeda, H.W. Hackman,
M.L. Peters, X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An
anthology on racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and
classism. (pp. 31-35). New York: Routledge.
Young, M. I. (2000). Five faces of oppression. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R.
Castañeda, H.W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for
diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, anti-Semitism, sexism,
heterosexism, ableism and classism (pp. 35-49). New York: Routledge.
MIGR Race/Ethnicity - Page 90 of 90