Conversations on Difficult Subjects 

One key issue in discussions about social conflicts is the opportunity for students from different backgrounds to interact and to talk in settings that are conducive to thoughtful exchange about differences. Agree to discuss this topic in a way that does not make assumptions about any members of the class (including the instructor). Some individuals may feel more invested in or implicated by the issues (or others might assume they are).  Make sure no one is put on the spot, and recognize that students may have strong feelings and perspectives on the topic, and these feelings and perspectives may be unpredictable.

Recent critical analysis of common ground rules have resulted in a collective reconsideration of their role. This is because, too often, ground rules that are put in place, whether by an educator/facilitator or by participants, privilege the already-privileged groups in a dialogical experience. For example, in a dialogue about race, white participants will often support ground rules meant to keep anger out of the discussion–ground rules focused keeping them comfortable. When we consider who is protected by ground rules like “do not express anger,” it becomes apparent that, intentionally or not, they protect the participants representing privileged groups.

While I do not advocate dropping ground rules altogether; I do support the idea of seriously studying these issues and the possible ramifications of ground rules that might ultimately support the status quo by providing safety and comfort for those who, for the sake of their own learning, most desperately need to be made to feel uncomfortable. Consider opening this conversation within your class or workshop or among colleagues and challenge yourself to make sure that the discussions and dialogues you are setting up do not further oppress historically oppressed people.

Rethinking Ground Rules by Paul C. Gorski

If a goal of conversations about equity and social justice is to challenge current structures and assumptions, we must look closely at all guidelines we use in our classes and workshops, asking ourselves who they support and who, if anybody, they privilege. As such, many educators and facilitators have begun to rethink the idea of ground rules and ways they currently are implemented.

Handling Emotional Responses

Even within a well-planned and thoughtful discussion, statements can be made, and tones of voice used, that will cause emotional responses of anger, confusion, hurt, fear, surprise, or embarrassment.  Such moments can be called “triggers.”

Responses to triggers include the following:

  • Avoidance -Avoiding future encounters and withdrawing emotionally from people or situations that trigger us.
  • Silence -Not responding to the situation although it is upsetting, not saying or doing anything.
  • Misinterpreting -Feeling on guard and expecting to be triggered, we misinterpret something said and are triggered by our misinterpretation, not the words.
  • Attacking -Responding with the intent to lash back or hurt whoever has triggered us.
  • Laughing -Being overcome by awkwardness or tension and bursting out in laughter, which can be misinterpreted.
  • Launching asides or side conversations -Being unable to suppress commentary.
  • Internalizing -Taking in the trigger, believing it to be true.
  • Being confused -Feeling angry, hurt, or offended, but not sure why we feel that way or what to do about it.
  • Naming -Identifying what is upsetting us to the triggering person or organization.
  • Confronting -Naming what is upsetting us to the triggering person or organization and demanding that the behavior or policy be changed.
  • Startling with surprise -Responding to the trigger in an unexpected way, such as reacting with constructive humor that names the trigger and makes people laugh.
  • Using discretion -Because of the dynamics of the situation (power imbalances, fear of physical retribution), deciding not to address the trigger at this time.

Discussion Ground Rules

  • Listen actively — respect others when they are talking.
  • Speak from your own experience instead of generalizing (“I” instead of “they,” “we,” and “you”).
  • Do not be afraid to respectfully challenge one another by asking questions, but refrain from personal attacks — focus on ideas.
  • Participate to the fullest of your ability — community growth depends on the inclusion of every individual voice.
  • Instead of invalidating somebody else’s story with your own spin on her or his experience, share your own story and experience.
  • The goal is not to agree — it is to gain a deeper understanding.
  • Be conscious of body language and nonverbal responses — they can be as disrespectful as words.
  • Respect one another’s views.
  • Criticize ideas, not individuals.
  • Avoid blame, speculation, and inflammatory language.

Statement of Participation

To pass this class, you must complete all of the readings, assignments, view all of the films, and participate in all of the discussions. The works (books, films, music, paintings, sculptures, etc.) we are considering in this class are a reflection of contemporary life. Discussion and consideration of these materials is required to pass this course. If you are unable to consider this content academically, feel free to enroll in another course.

References

CRLT. (2014). Guidelines for discussion of racial conflict and the language of hate, bias, and discrimination. Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.crlt.umich.edu/publinks/racialguidelines

Gorski, P. (2014). Guide for setting ground rules. Critical Multicultural Pavilion – Awareness Activities. Retrieved from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/activities/groundrules.html

Griffin, P. (1997). Introductory module for the single issue courses.Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook, Maurianne Adams, Lee Ann Bell, and Pat Griffin, eds. New York : Routledge, pp. 78-79.