The Work of Dialogue Doesn’t Happen on a Stage: Reflections from Stanford Inter-Group Dialogue Team

Sometimes today's polarized political climate makes real dialogue impossible. We feel so divergent or disconnected, that any movement forward seems impossible.

This sentiment is as true today as it was two years ago when, fueled in part by nationwide attention to police killings of people of color and high profile sexual assault cases, we started to notice that students on Stanford’s campus weren’t hearing each other’s perspectives. For a number of reasons, they were unwilling or unable to engage in dialogue across difference.

There was a great deal of pain and grief from students with marginalized identities who felt devalued by their peers and by the institution. Some students perceived that University administrators were unresponsive towards the brutality in the news and viewed the administration's encouragement of ‘dialogue’ as a postponement of action on grievances raised by students. Meanwhile, a hierarchy of activism evolved, where some students believed that to be a “real activist” meant to engage in direct protest action, while discounting the contributions of others in the activist community who opted for different strategies.

For the Inter-Group Dialogue (IGD) Team at Stanford University, one of our roles is to create safe space for dialogue across Student Affairs with intentions of collaboration and coalition. Division-wide discussions around social identities and the impact diversity has on our work is at the team’s core. 

Given the campus climate in that tumultuous period two years ago, how could we effectively “dialogue” across difference? Many of us were experiencing the same trauma and grief as our students, so we had to ask ourselves: How can we practice effective dialogue when we feel another’s perspective is a direct affront to our personhood?

At the beginning 2016, an opportunity arose for IGD to take the lead to plan and execute the inaugural Sally Dickson Lecture Series on Diversity, Inclusion and Reflection.

The stage was set: a panel of four prominent speakers who had taken different pathways to activism would meet with students during the day regarding activism and support, then come together in the evening as a panel to engage in spirited conversation regarding their different approaches to public service through activism. The panel discussion itself was driven by student-generated questions.

Despite the commonality that all panelists were activists dedicated to social justice issues, their differing viewpoints on what that meant generated creative tension during the program. They challenged each other to reflect on the value of activism in their work, whether it was through engaging in civil disobedience, creating art, working at YouTube, or organizing a political action committee. The audience – which was comprised of students, administrators, staff and faculty – witnessed how the panelists worked through their opposing perspectives with patience, respect, and intentional listening. Through their example, the campus community could see that dialogue and action are complementary, not antithetical; that understanding others’ perspectives is a sign of strength, not a concession of defeat.

While the event was successful, such a forum can only present a performance of “dialogue” – the real work of dialogue doesn’t happen on a stage. The large event served as a foundation for the IGD team to build upon: create opportunities on a regular basis for the community to come together and engage in meaningful dialogue with one another in smaller settings. This event was not an end; it was the beginning. 

In order for staff to effectively support and work with students, it is vital for us, in our roles as educators, to be thoughtfully inclusive and to bring our identities to bear on our work. How do we create space and opportunities for colleagues to bring our whole, authentic selves to our work? How can we stay true to our convictions and also engage across difference? How do we support each other when it all feels too hard? What it comes down to is this: Dialogue is a daily practice. Some of the mechanisms the members of the IGD team have developed to create opportunities for this daily practice include: 

·    hosting Monthly Brown Bag sessions for staff that focus on different identity-related topics

·    organizing social justice-themed Reading Clubs

·    assisting with diversity trainings for Student Affairs staff 

In the wake of a toxic presidential election season and in the midst of a rising wave of hate crimes, we find ourselves coming full circle to the tense climate of the past two years. How do we celebrate people being open to changing perspective in a political environment that encourages doubling-down on an entrenched point of view? How can we ensure that our students have the skills and moral compass to challenge and push back against a world that seems out of alignment with the values of equity and justice? 

One of the most critical lessons learned through IGD’s efforts is that tension through dialogue can be healthy, even though it can also be challenging in the moment. Leaning into the tension is how we learn and grow together.

As the end of another year is upon us, we continue to ponder and reflect on the work of inter-group dialogue. As always, we sit with more questions than answers, we practice critical curiosity, and we hold space for the hard, daily work of being in community across difference. We welcome sharing of thoughts and experiences from your campuses!

Authors: 
Joann Wong, Program Assessment and Data Analyst, Haas Center for Public Service, Stanford University & Spencer Atkinson, Program Manager, Residential Education, Stanford University