Come Talk About It

Come talk about it: using Intergroup Dialogue to process in the post-election haze

 A few days after the last month’s presidential election, students, faculty, staff and executives crowded into a campus meeting room.  They came in response to a simple message sent over social media, “Come talk about it.”  People sat on the floor and pressed against the walls.  As the facilitator, I provided the following ground rules.            

1.       Each speaker has two minutes to say how they have been personally affected by the election.  You can start with “The election has affected me this way.”  Try to use “I statements.”

2.       Do not refer to others’ comments or represent a larger group.  Talk about your personal experience. When finished, pass the microphone to someone else. 

3.       Participants listen attentively without responding – no applause, boos, amens, etc. 

4.       The dialogue in this space is private.  Our stories are not to be shared outside of this room unless we agree to do so.  Please put away phones.

Like most campuses across the country, ours is reeling with the outcome of the recent presidential election. Located in mid-town Manhattan, John Jay College is a campus comprised of predominantly minoritized students across race.  It’s a Hispanic Serving Institution that includes thousands of first generation, immigrant, and Dreamer students who are alarmed by the rhetoric of the in-coming presidential administration. 

In addition, the college’s law enforcement focus means we have many current and future police, FBI and military members who may have voted, like the majority of law enforcement nationally, for Donald Trump.  In this complicated environment, our community has responded in a number of ways: faculty are conducting teach-ins; students are organizing shows of protest and solidarity; our president has included his name on a statement signed by college presidents nationwide to support the protection of DACA students.   

Amid these valuable responses, though, we also needed a way to talk to each other in a different way.  We needed to be able to share our personal shock, pain and dissenting voices in a safe space. As many across the political spectrum have noted, the last election season has revealed our national inability to listen, understand and empathize with each other.

Listening, understanding and empathizing are exactly the goals of Intergroup Dialogue (ID), from which the above ground rules above were adapted.  ID was initially developed at the University of Michigan’s Program on Intergroup Relations and is used at intergroup centers and programs throughout the nation. Intergroup Dialogue is effective when trying to bring together a cross-section of the community because it is designed to build dialogue among people of differing views and experiences. 

The form of ID we used is only a single and modified component of a larger program.  It is not about argument, action, or organizing.  The structure allows for the maximum number of speakers, flattens status, and focuses on listening and understanding rather than on responding.  Participants speak only for themselves, honestly and from the heart, and listeners bear witness without demonstrating judgment.  There is no citing of data or research and there is no debate, all of which are the coins of the realm in academia, but can make the less prepared or experienced in our community feel silenced. ID privileges personal experience and personal stories.  Everyone has a story, so everyone can participate as an equal. 

For our campus, ID achieved many of its goals:  in just an hour, dozens of our community members were able share their stories.  Frequently heard voices emerged alongside those that are rarely or never heard.  Without sharing the contents of the comments, I can say that the experience was heart wrenching, surprising, elucidating and certainly gave each person in the room insight into what individual members of our college are experiencing at a personal level, from family conflict, to personal endangerment to hopefulness.   

I’m also aware that there were voices who were missing because they felt unsafe to “out” themselves -- Trump supporters as well as the undocumented to name a few.  With time and continued dialogue, these voices may eventually feel able to come to the circle.  We also know that many have found smaller, less public clusters where they feel safe to express their views. 

If you are looking for a way to have difficult but civil dialogues on your campus, about the election or any other topic, Intergroup Dialogue may be an effective method for your campus to begin.  Understanding ourselves as a community is a necessary precursor to action as a community, and ID helped us take a step toward understanding.   

For more information about Intergroup Dialogue here is a good place to start: https://igr.umich.edu/article/national-intergroup-dialogue-institute

Lynette Cook-Francis is Vice President of Student Affairs at John Jay College and Co-Chair and faculty for the NASPA Region II Mid-Managers Institute.