Bridget Turner Kelly
A facilitated sustained experience. It doesn’t have to be in a classroom. So it can just be a community of people. Usually, the intergroup part means that people come to it from different salient social identities and such that if you were having, you know, I just labeled myself as temporarily able bodied. And so if you’re having a Intergroup Dialogue on disability, you’d want people with different relationships to ability and also facilitators to have that as well. And I love the solution aspect of it in terms of not coming up with solutions, but deliberately working on actions that will help address some of the kind of complex problems that Intergroup Dialogue tries to focus on, like power, and privilege and systems of oppression.

Heather Shea
Welcome to Student Affairs NOW the online learning community for Student Affairs educators. I am your host Heather Shea. Today on the podcast I am thrilled to welcome four individuals with a variety of perspectives to join me in a timely conversation about facilitating Intergroup Dialogue. Before I introduce our panelists today, here is a bit about our podcast and sponsors. Student Affairs NOW is the premier podcast and learning community for 1000s of us who work in alongside or adjacent to the field of higher education and student affairs. We hope you’ll find these conversations make a contribution to the field and our restorative to the profession. We release new episodes every week on Wednesdays, and you can find us as student affairs now.com on YouTube or anywhere you listen to podcasts. Today’s episode is sponsored by Symplicity. A true partner Symplicity supports all aspects of student life with technology platforms that empower institutions to make data driven decisions. This episode is also sponsored by LeaderShape. Go to leadershape.org To learn how they can work with you to create a just caring and thriving world.

Heather Shea
As I mentioned, I am your host for today’s episode Heather Shea, my pronouns are she, her and her and I am broadcasting from the ancestral traditional and contemporary lands, the Anishinabek, three fires confederacy of Ojibwe, Odawa and Potawatomi peoples, otherwise known as East Lansing, Michigan, home of Michigan State University where I work. So let’s get into today’s conversation. Ximena, Mark, Bridgette Nina, thank you all so much for joining me today. I’d love to start off with some brief introductions, tell us a little bit about how you’re entering our conversation, your role, perhaps on your campus or in higher ed, and a bit about your path to working with campus initiatives around Intergroup Dialogue. And Ximena, we’re going to start with you,

Ximena Zúñiga
Ximena Zúñiga, she her pronouns and I’m calling from another tech land of Western Massachusetts. Um, my role, I’m a faculty member in the Social Justice Education program at UMass Amherst. And I’ve been going to his work for 30 plus years. So you’re saying that, and I’m very excited to be in this room with all these wonderful people.

Heather Shea
Well, thank you, who, together all of this group. So yes, thank you.

Bridget Turner Kelly
Thank you. Yeah, it’s a joy to be asked to be in a dialogue with all of you Bridget Turner Kelly, she her pronouns. I’m associate professor at the University of Maryland, which is on the stolen lands of the Piscataway people, I have been challenged by intrigued by blessed and joyful to be in the dialogue space for over two decades. And really looking forward to our conversation about the relevance of it today and our uses of it and what it means and how we operationalize it because I know it’s different from for all of us, probably, and I will pass it to Nina.

Nina Tissi-Gassoway
Hi, everyone, I’m Nina Tissi-Gassoway I use they them and she her pronouns. And I’m a professor of practice at UMass Amherst, in our social justice education program and higher education program. And I came to Intergroup Dialogue about 10 years ago, when I was a student in the Ph. D program at UMass and got to know about Intergroup Dialogue as a pedagogical practice, and it honestly changed my life and I have been really intrigued and you know, infatuated with Intergroup Dialogue ever since then, and I have done my dissertation research on it. And now teacher Intergroup Dialogue practicum course. So that is teaching our graduate students how to be Intergroup Dialogue facilitators. At the same time, they are co facilitating an undergraduate Intergroup Dialogue course.

Heather Shea
Wow, okay, that sounds amazing. Mark, you’re awesome.

Mark Kamimura-Jiménez
My name is Mark Jiménez, but I committed so using he him his pronouns. I am on the Osage Nation. Oh, two, Missouri, yeah. And aligning lands. And you know, what’s amazing is that, like some of the my introduction came, really at the University of Michigan. And in my first year there, I actually got to spend time with Ximena, during visiting or out of your own spattered guard, learning, you know, coming, coming and learning alongside us, but we’re really learning for me too. And I’ve integrated Intergroup Dialogue into many of the work much of the work that I do as an Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and my pathway in student life, and at Michigan, I was actually in one of the first graduate cohorts of participating inner group dialogue. And it was also something that I still remember to this day is a very reflective moment that we don’t often get as graduate students. And so most recently, though, we have begun to develop an Intergroup Dialogue program on our own campus called dxd or dialogue across difference and so we’ll talk a little bit about that as well.

Heather Shea
So let’s start with some basics, because I don’t want to assume everybody on the you know who’s watching today is familiar with Intergroup Dialogue. Bridgette, can you talk a bit about what it is how it’s practiced and why Student Affairs educators might want to utilize Intergroup Dialogue?

Bridget Turner Kelly
Yeah, that’s three the three part question right. So my colleagues can help me like don’t get all three parts, but um, A facilitated sustained experience. It doesn’t have to be in a classroom. So it can just be a community of people. Usually, the intergroup part means that people come to it from different salient social identities and such that if you were having, you know, I just labeled myself as temporarily able bodied. And so if you’re having a Intergroup Dialogue on disability, you’d want people with different relationships to ability and also facilitators to have that as well. And I love the solution aspect of it in terms of not coming up with solutions, but deliberately working on actions that will help address some of the kind of complex problems that Intergroup Dialogue tries to focus on, like power, and privilege and systems of oppression. And I think why it’s used how it first started from, as Mark said, from University of Michigan, and how it got to places where I’ve done it at University of Vermont. And now at the University of Maryland, we’re happy to just start an Intergroup Dialogue Center and my department. So I’m really excited that expanding, we’ll talk about later, I think how a lot of institutions or are looking for ways to have people talk across differences from different social identities, and particularly at a time when we are, as a society, I think, have our options of listening to only people that think like we do or come from the same backgrounds as we do. So how do we get people and colleges is as Michigan and all of the awards and different places where it’s kind of spread across the country have found that college is a time where people are most likely exposed to people who are from different social identities and come with different backgrounds and experiences. And so college is supposed to be a time of critical thinking, and developing ways to talk across differences and ways to be open to other perspectives and examine your own biases and prejudices and an Intergroup Dialogue is a container that really helps facilitate that. It’s one tool that helps us really, I think we’ve talked about it and diverse democracy. But I think Intergroup Dialogue is really a tool that helps us be the kind of institution we’re supposed to be, which is open to different ideas and listening to even ideas that we find a portrait so that we can understand where we’re coming from, and where the other person is coming from. And so listening for understanding is something that is a skill that can really be utilized with Intergroup Dialogue. And I think the final thing I’ll say about it is that sustained peace, and so it’s not something happened on campus, and we’re going to have a dialogue about it. That’s not it’s not a one time impact it has, as Amanda will talk about a little bit has, you know, discussions and ground rules and structures. As I said, it’s a container for how you do a sustained, you know, at least seven to 12 week experience with folks who come up, again, from different salient identities and how you hold that space, and invite people into the space consistently every week as opposed to being something that’s exclusive. And so just start there. Hopefully, I’ve made a dent in the three part question.

Heather Shea
Absolutely. Ximena, what would you add? Well, I

Ximena Zúñiga
think maybe a couple of things that I think we developed this within we were not thinking those ways, or perhaps not the way we were in this area of work in higher education. But I think I think a lot about a bit of a possibility, you know, we’re trying to imagine what’s possible, we’ll try and to learn together about what are some of the issues that are apt for us, and how we can enter. A also requires some advanced operation, people need to do some reading or writing beforehand, if this isn’t about throwing people in the middle. And I think we can also become very intuitive, like the way in which young people, young people have been socialized in different way, who, in the last five years, you know, we’re using social media more than anything to communicate, where we all need to develop the muscle of verbal communication. We seldom ask good questions. So I think there’s a lot I think today, the practice also has changed a little bit because we’re being challenged by the need to humanize micro spaces to bring them all in and to engage with difficult conversations. So I think I think I have with reasonably what we do in any bit of a different way. And we’re trying to blend you know, from Buber eyebrow to frayed and the hooks critical consciousness to thinking about systems and then moving to resistance. But also noting that at least somebody I think we have we have learned in the last 10 years is that for a long time we started with sort of binaries, oppression, liberation, now we’re trying to coordinate it to because we know that oppression always sits along persistence, people have been resisting oppression for centuries. So how we can uplift that to not just focus on, you know, on one or the other? So I do think that that’s, that’s easy. But that’s desperation. So I think I’ll have to add that and under score would breach it set about sustain. Yeah, these are sustained processes that are facilitated that require some advanced preparation. People need to read, write and think, ideally, before they come to the class, the classroom or the room, the space that the yearning. And also since this section is not just about binary compensation, I think, how do we bring multiple issues to the table and coordinate those and help people work along that? So I think that’s the way I think about it today. That’s the you know, it was hard to frame in those ways. 20 years ago, but I think today, I think our thinking has been moved by so many movements. And by the work of Bell Hooks, and Jimmy Brown, and so many people who are hoping I think, in a more micro way of Yeah. Perfect. So

Heather Shea
Mark Nino, what would you add anything to?

Mark Kamimura-Jiménez
I mean, I think that it is a challenge to get our, you know, when we think about about Intergroup Dialogue, that focus on understanding, I just just underlie that, as you know, times three, that that, I think, is essentially one of the biggest things that our students can gain from engaging in Intergroup Dialogue, because they can serve them in so many different spaces. But how we get to that space and how he build to that moment, becomes the challenge. And I think it also it, it’s also the path, the journey of college, right, I think we’re just talking about, you know, the reflective complexities of the college experience and all the that’s happening to you and around you in this space. I think it’s really telling that this is a journey of students. opportunity to understand not just the I think I understand the other people, they get to understand themselves, and so much deeper ways.

Nina Tissi-Gassoway
Yeah. And I would just echo, you know, along with what Bridget and Ximena said about, you know, how it’s, it’s a muscle, right, and it takes preparation, and it is it’s countered to so many norms, the way that our society functions now, dialog asks us to step out of our bubble, right, it asks us to engage and ask questions and not make assumptions, when those are the systems that our world operates on now, more than ever. And so it really is counter normative. And I think that that’s what makes it so powerful, and also so challenging sometimes.

Ximena Zúñiga
And I liked it piece about about the journey piece, I think Mark is we don’t value journeys in higher journeys, you know, it’s not something that we value. So we talk about it, but we don’t, we don’t hold your, you know, me. So I do think that there’s something there. And journeys are, you know, they’re not unclear. And I think the outcomes are not always easy to qualify. So I think that’s the other piece that I think we have struggled, we know from research that these works. But I think there’s much more what happens for people in these experiences. And I work with faculty who do this work and staff and undergrads and grad students, it takes time. So we don’t know at the end of the quarter, what happens for people is that it takes more than that. So I think that that’s also what’s challenging. It’s a journey here. And we don’t know even how to qualify that journey. And that’s how in higher ed, because you’re supposed to have evidence and clear markers. Right.

Heather Shea
by the time that they graduate. Right. Like we need to know that it had some kind of measurable effect. And yeah, sometimes five or 10 years later, that’s a whole nother episode, right? Yes. Yes. And how do we document student learning? But I am curious. So Ximena, you talked, you know, been doing this work for 30 years. And your approach kind of maybe originally was a four part approach. I’d love to hear how that evolved. And I believe you have a visual aid that we’re going to share with folks in our in our show notes.

Ximena Zúñiga
Yes, I’ll say that in a minute. But yes, I’m going to show you the slide, but you have to put in in simple terms. And in lay terms. Yeah. When we started to do this work, many of us came from A group work, women studies, ethnic studies, social psychology. So trying to call. And we knew that this had to be different than what we did in group work in social work, group work in social psychology, we’re working with instead when you’re listening to be different, but we have some intuition. So in that way, we start thinking about how do we do this? How do we bring people together to have conversations? And how do we scaffold the process? So I think that’s where the Forrester Wave came through is how do we scaffold this journey? How do we organize it? How do we bring people in? So and we time we have, you know, it has changed, for example, or no change at the beginning of the work for a long time, we put action at the end. And we started thinking, you know, this is a bit silly to assume that actions can happen at the end. And then we have to teach people how to think about action. So some of us is to try and start developing this intergroup collaboration project, let’s say 20 years ago, by stage two, so people start thinking about action planning and action taking earlier, because often students don’t even know how to do it, you know, they have not been exposed to plan actions for certainty. So I think the model has these four stages, but it shows is that some of us that, you know, have tweaked the model in order to expose participants to action planning early on, and to motivate, and maybe support people that we can all interact and create new possibilities. So how do we go? It’s not at the end only. Also notion of Alliance building has been been troubled by many people, what kind of Allah you know, you know, and I don’t want to get caught in the language. But clearly, that’s a

Heather Shea
whole nother episode two.

Speaker 1
But I think coming from a coalition or logic, you know, we’re trying to bring people together to think about action, knowing that they may need support from people like them, different from them. Whether it’s an alliance, and I sheep coalition, you know, that’s fine, that we can theorize about that, but in the the point is, you cannot do is work alone. So considering those points, I’m gonna screen share these. What I would say it’s a way of thinking. So today, the way I think about this, let me see how can you see it? Yes, can you? Okay? And I’m going to say our first two years of inter Intergroup Dialogue, we often think about intergroup as an Intergroup Dialogue, but I’ve done a lot of intergroup among women intergroup among people of color. intergroup about white people. Okay, so listen, it’s not always intergroup they’re integral yet. Any conversation? is integral conversation. A BiPOC conversation is an integral conversation. And all white women conversation is also an entire conversation about sexuality, about race about class, first generation it. So in a way, this intergroup interact. Dialogue is a bit of a myth, a myth, because the truth is, all conversations are, have an integrative nature, whether they’re intergroup, or intergroup. I think the key thing here is that we, when we buy the comparison, we try to have people from different groups in the conversation. So we move away from the only one. So we don’t want to have one person for one I then we try to, we try to make sure that we have a balanced composition. So people don’t feel alone, or feel like the only one. So first they use the way we think about it today, or I think about today is, you know, group beginnings. I think we all do. They’re building a learning community, to guidelines for you to find goals, getting to know each other hopes and concerns. So I find this distinction between dialogue and debate and discussion is that three different ways of communication that are different. And I think it’s important to clarify what you mean by what do we mean by that, and indeed, practicing some basic skills like active listening, and voicing, and exploring commonalities and differences. And I think we all probably do this a little bit differently. But the idea is how we invite students, participants, faculty and staff to think about their personal identity, social identity, and multiple identities, and how those may impact the conversation that they’re going to be having during this journey. And we do of course, affinity, affinity group conversation, we group conversation, and also expose people to think about Cisco systemically so they can look at this a system in place that’s really impacting all of us. In a way we’re all be victims of the system, whether we have privilege, or disadvantage. We’re all being put in this role. And as young people that is more more even more prevalent. So this is something I learned from my brother, you know, centering the youth experience thinking scene and these these students and people as people who were putting this system. And the goal here is how we learn to navigate the system anymore. The military way. And then indeed, we explore current and controversial issues. You know, we, some of us do three, four of the session we talked about immigration is issue, we talk about reproductive rights, we talk about climate change, maybe talking about race on campus microaggressions. McAfee mentions, that’s something that we have learned also lately is that we cannot just talk about microaggressions. We also have new about macro formation, we can talk about the agli, we’ll start thinking about, okay, how do you can’t do that. And I think for a long time, we’re so focused on teaching about oppression, that we didn’t balance the conversation with other elements. So I think for me, that’s really important. How do we balance it? From there, of course, at the end is where do we go from here, and how we celebrate our learning. So I think that’s the piece that and I think at UMass, we tend to do more than stage four, because in stage two people start thinking about these action projects. And we place people in, in trials reported to develop a project over four weeks, or five weeks. So they start thinking a lot about action taking. And people do all kinds of things, not be projects, that people plan, then to plan, an action plan. So that’s the way we scaffoldings. Indeed, the number of weeks and meeting time that you have will, indeed impact how you do. But the idea is you have to build, cobble together, build community development, core language, explore some basics around who we are people view us as members of groups, and then to explore some issues. And that’s important. Why because people practice what they’re learning in those conversations. And it’s a muscle, like Nina said, so you have to find ways to support developing muscle. So feel free to Yeah.

Heather Shea
I don’t remember how we will.

Heather Shea
Maybe they’ll have you stop screen sharing. And we’ll make sure we include this in our, in our, in our show notes for today. It’s such a great diagram.

Ximena Zúñiga
Let me add one thing. And I know for a long time, we were, you know, sent with coffee was and some of us do this. I don’t think I do that too much at UMass. And stage three was a lot of backstory in conflict. That was very much the Michigan model. I have walked away from that. Why? Because with the logic of essaypro be different than the way we were not centering conflict exploration in our program content. So I cannot, you know, we’re still dealing with conflict. But that’s not the focal point. Whereas in Michigan, for example, and other places, that’s the that’s the lingo they use to explain what they do and how they do it. So I want to say that I can different programs and different places of the country may reframe how they set up stage two and three, depending on who they’re working with. What’s our context? And also, now because of the pandemic, I think we also have tried to use more kind words to frame the attack, because people are scared to talk. So current issues more, more more easy to the Yes. That controversial issue, or complication. So I think language matters. And I think we need to think about how we frame this day year in context.

Heather Shea
Yeah, thank you. We’ve been, we’ve been having this conversation, we have a weekly call all of the folks who host episodes on the podcast, and we’ve been thinking about a variety of topics. And this one, I think, really, you know, is part of a larger series, you know, we’re thought about cultivating brave Spaces, we’re talking about bridging divides between Jews and Muslims. And Nina, I’m really struck about, you know, how maybe we might think about Intergroup Dialogue as a tool. You know, I think it’s one of the as we’ve talked earlier about one of the many tools potentially in the toolbox, but given the current kind of climate of, you know, political unrest, polarization attacks on dei work, you know, what are some of the ways that that campus administrators might identify this is one of the tools that They could use?

Nina Tissi-Gassoway
Yeah, you know, I think that it is definitely a tool that can be used to respond to help respond to so many different social political moments. And this is certainly one of them. And I think that, you know, like many other folks on the call, when events like the ones that are happening right now in the Middle East, or, you know, elsewhere around our world take place, I think there’s a sense of urgency to respond, and rightfully so. Right. Like, I know, there’s so much pressure that exists on upper level administrators, and students want an answer right now they want to see things, you know, we talked about seeing visible results, right, and not being able to, you know, necessarily see those right away. And so while they understand that, I know that Intergroup Dialogue may not be the thing that helps them do that respond in the urgent way in which they want to, because, like we’ve all said write dialogue is, is is a is a muscle that we need to build, right. And so we need to think about, how are we responding proactively in ways that might not help address this urgent crisis right now? Right, but once that will help us prepare for crisis season undoubtedly will come in the future. So how are we working to expand our campuses capacity for dialogue? How do we help build those muscles, right, and increase the amount of people on campus who have the muscles and in order to do these dialogue, or even to be in meaningful conversations with people who might think or are different than we are? And I don’t think right now that there are many people who have that capacity or willingness to do it, right. And so I think dialogue is powerful in that way, because it shows us how we can come together across difference. But I do think that there’s intentionality around Intergroup Dialogue being a sustained and not a one time thing, right. Like, as folks were saying earlier, dialogue also takes a willingness to engage, right. And so when some folks are in conflict, they’re willing to sit in a room and talk with each other. And that might be fear, like Amanda was saying that people are scared to talk, or it could just be that they’re angry, right, and maybe they don’t have the capacity right now to sit in a room. And if folks aren’t willing to talk, you can’t make them dialog. And so if all of those things make hard for IgD, to be a responsive tool, like an instant tool on that way, but I do believe that there’s power and what dialogic responses can do. But we have to focus on equipping people with the knowledge, skills, and tools that are needed in order to do it effectively. And in order to do it in ways that are meaningful, and really do bring about the change that we want and expect

Bridget Turner Kelly
Amina if I could just jump in. And because I know we want to have more of a dialogue and not just have Heather, just interviewer. So yeah. So I just wanted to get your perspective on what you were just talking about in terms of maybe dialogue being used, used, I use that word. As Amanda said, words matter, being used as a tool to cool things on campuses. Because just to do some active listening with you, you know, you were just talking about, it’s not going to be that quick response. If you’re angry, it’s not good if you if people aren’t willing to talk. It’s not. It’s not good. And so and so asking those of us who facilitate dialogues to do so immediately, in a crisis. And if you’ve had experience with that, or can talk about that, how it could be used to kind of just temper things down, as opposed to be the proactive tool that I think we all would love it to be.

Nina Tissi-Gassoway
I’m sure that you all could speak to other moments as well. But I think it is tempting, right? It is tempting to be to have dialogue be used in that way, right? And it is tempting to be able to try and use their skills in those moments to be responsive. But I think the more that I do this work, I know that that is not the way that we should be using this, these still these skills in these spaces and being willing to say no, right? Like, this isn’t the tool right now. But what else is possible? Or how are we working to build capacity for the next time?

Mark Kamimura-Jiménez
Yeah, you know, when you’re talking, we’ve been talking about using that as a muscle. I love that because it’s true, right? It’s something that you know, you have to you can’t just go out and run a long distance or even a short distance actually. As a former sprinter I am quickly reminded I’m trying to chase my dog. And but I think the big thing too, like for me when I think about that is also that even our most elite athletes, and those most skilled facilitators can still get injured. Pull muscle, right, because what prep the preparation that it takes to engage in these spaces is requires the stages, right, it requires us to build into the work. And so like when, you know, our, the order here, but just, you know, it makes me think about the work that we are starting to do with our facilitators on campus. And that is really putting them in dialogue as well. So that they’re able to be prepared to think through their own self reflective moments and the listening to their own bodies, right, thinking about how they’re responding to things that are said in dialogue, but also being prepared to then, you know, pivot or understand the context in which things are being and how week to week at times. That is changing. Anyway, I just kind of mentioned that it made me think of those those pieces.

Ximena Zúñiga
As say, one word here was something I learned from my mentor. This I learned from my mentors in Michigan, and when we started to lose work, you know, with a lot of different ratios, a lot of conflict going around. And, um, and as Nina will say, was very tempted to to, to move into reactive mode, but I think maybe something I learned with Ximena, let’s focus on being proactive. I think our charge is to be proactive to build capacity. Yes, you can respond. And there are times where I, I responded, I supported difficult conversation. But yet, when I did that, I put some condition. Okay, yeah, we will enter by needs to be four week window and for session, we need to have this type of facilitator, we need to do something on the assessment. So we cannot just campaign. So I think we, we could do that. But I do think that the further I think, yeah, we have to be able to teach system that this is a proactiveness if not something that you can get through a quick fix. And a quick fix will likely backfire. And people need to be willing to do it. So I think that’s because sometimes people say does require us to to do Intergroup Dialogue. I’ve heard that I said, No, let’s not do that.

Nina Tissi-Gassoway
I wonder, you know if, like I agree the rate that the Intergroup Dialogue shouldn’t be responsive, and it is tempting to pull be pulled in. But I wonder if there are ways that even if it’s not Intergroup Dialogue, I wonder if there’s like dialogic skills or tool YES. RIGHT TO to have those moments as our responses. And that’s often what I think about right? Like if, if I am in a conversation with someone who has a different perspective, or might be a little bit more heated about something like is there something that I can use in that moment? That is dialogic? Right? But it’s not doing an Intergroup Dialogue or

Heather Shea
a great point of purchase? Bridget, I know we talked a little bit in the, in the beginning or before we got on the call about how you’ve used this specifically in student affairs graduate preparation programs, and I’m really curious about that. And, and also, you know, again, it’s the kind of goes back to the equipping facilitators with skills and are they doing similar work to what Nina’s group is doing, too? Yeah,

Bridget Turner Kelly
I think so. And Mark, Mark shared in the intro about what they’re doing. Student Affairs seemed like a natural fit with Intergroup Dialogue when I first started teaching student development theory or intro to student affairs and care for the whole student and understanding and, you know, you’ve got some real life practitioners educators on on the call, so I’m not going to pretend I’m one I’ve always just been a faculty member. But as I understand the work and think about though, I think about them as kind of a first responders to our college students, and how can you be an authentic relationship with these college students and be kind of journeying along with them, which is my understanding of Student Affairs, if you don’t understand them, if you don’t understand their perspectives, if you can’t find a way to have them, be authentic and get a trusting kind of relationship with you. And so as I was teaching, graduate students who want it to be student affairs Educators Intergroup Dialogue within the classroom seemed like a way to help them reach that goal, but also to help them work through some of the things that maybe they didn’t get to work through when they were college students or, and then they can’t really work through on the job, because then it might be harming the very students and people and parents and other people that they work with. And so how do we have those real live conversations and dialogues where they get to be vulnerable, and they get to examine their biases and their prejudices, and, as Mark said, understand others and then understand themselves a little better. And so I started setting up our class and Intergroup Dialogue where we did the stages. I am a believer of Jimenez and Ximena and other folks model. And so we started by how do we form that, that beginning process in the group and build trust, and how do we think and and kind of teaching them about what facilitation looks like and some of those dialogic skills that Nina’s talking about, and working with a co facilitator, because Intergroup Dialogue typically has people who are working together with a group and facilitating and then I would facilitate the first few weeks, with small parts of the class, depending on how many students I had maybe about 10 to 12 students in kind of like a fishbowl situation, and have the other 10 to 12 students on the outside looking at our process and our content and then debriefing as a large class. And then about four weeks into the class after they’d kind of formed some of those communities and done some of that early work that Hemet have talked about in the first stage of the model, then I would turn the second half of class over to them, and they would facilitate Intergroup Dialogues with each other in small groups, and then we process. And then at my best when I was doing this as a PhD student when I was at Maryland, I then had those students work with undergraduate students, I think kind of like marks model is in facilitating Intergroup Dialogues with those students. And now I’m back at Maryland as a as a faculty member. And our students are allowed to do kind of a practicum, after they’ve gone through this course, with one of us as faculty, I’ve been teaching it most recently. And they’re able to sign up to be a co facilitator with some other folks with undergraduate students who are taking the course. And so it’s that learning and being that vulnerable and being in it yourself before you have to then work with undergraduate students. And I think it’s taking off at our institution, like I said, we just are starting a center because we need to, as Nina said, build up the capacity of more and more people. So not just our graduate students, but graduate students and students all across the university need these skills and are going to need to be peer facilitators and different things for people who are trying to get that capacity, not for any current specific problem in society. But as Nina said, there are a medicine, there’s always something going on in society. So how can we build up that capacity for people so that we can already be in conversation and in dialogue, before something happens, and that we have those relationships established? And I the last thing I’ll say is, I think the research has shown because I’ve researched this and other folks have that those facilitators who’ve done that participated in this Intergroup Dialogue, as graduate students, when they go into their practice, as an educator, have some of those dialogic skills and are able to have a just another tool in their toolbox in addition to counseling and others helping skills that people learn in student affairs, that’s really enabled them, I think, to build trust and community and be, as I said, an authentic relationship with the students that they’re working with. So not necessarily they are doing dialogue facilitation, you know, like I am in a formal sense as faculty member, but they’re able to use it in their practice. And we’ve seen it in social work, and we’ve seen it in counseling and other programs to and so it’s, it is a not the holy grail of like a V tool, but it is a tool that I think helps people. Yeah, I don’t know if marker, or Nina, if that’s similar to how you’ve set up programs at UMass and other places where you’ve worked.

Heather Shea
Mark, I’d love to hear more about. Yeah, your work specific. I mean, we talked about not being about a specific topic, but you know, certainly we’re at kind of a moment where our campuses are looking for tools to discuss conflict in the Middle East and, you know, in our, in our preparation, where we’re thinking a little bit about that, in particular, So, Mark, tell us more about what you’ve done. Yeah, gosh, you

Mark Kamimura-Jiménez
know, I, I totally agree. It’s not like this is not the tool to fix everything, but I think that it provides us a an opportunity for engaging communities and engaging our campuses. In some structured ways, and so, but we also have to be thoughtful about the context in which we do it. So when October 7 happened, I think there was this immediate, like, urge to do something. But in, in our case, I think the right thing to do was to hold and let the community digest what was happening, how people were feeling, and understand where our students were at, in that moment. And so as a as just in our own reflection of developing dialogues for students, because we knew that this was something we wanted to consider, and we would go back and forth with what this could look like. And, you know, I’ll share but it’s not like, I don’t think it was like anything Ultra complex. I think the timing, though, did matter. We did create some space. And actually, Ximena talks about the intern intra. And so we actually embrace that we embrace the fact that students are pro Israel, or how to a Jewish identity. And they may not know that those things don’t like mean the same thing, right. But we wanted to make sure that students who had a position could have a space in which they shared that space with others, then we had students who either were connected to or had a pro Palestinian position, and brought those students together, we had been students who wanted to have dialogue, the inter Intergroup Dialogue, they wanted to have a dialogue with folks who had different perspectives. And and then the fourth one was students who didn’t have necessarily any affiliation, or even a position that they they wanted to take, and wanted to learn or understand more about how others were, were processing as well. And so those four groups, we had to then go and find the right facilitators. We didn’t say the right, you know, like, but facilitators who had some experience, and also, I would say, had, were willing to have some courage to facilitate in a space that is highly contentious, right. And I think that there was a lot of fear in different spaces for many different reasons of why people didn’t want to talk about it. But I think, talking about how people were feeling and how they are experiencing things and understanding their personal connections to a space or to people and to identity and things that were impacting who they were, I think really had a an extraordinary impact on broadening understanding. And it didn’t stop protests. It didn’t stop people from having their positions. But it did have, I think, an impact on those students in the US. And I’d like to hear a little bit more from Ximena about this, but I like these micro learning spaces, these micro dialogic space really had positive impact.

Ximena Zúñiga
I’d say, thank you for sharing them Mark. And I think that’s a nice, nice way of working through the complexity of these landscapes. And I think, I think for me, okay, so on the one hand, we’re trying to invite people to have a conversation to find a space to process whatever they need to profit and to explore the questions are going to the one explore, but then we’re also trying to model that’s possible. And thing for me, this is a tension, that we’re trying to both model that this is possible, people can see it and have a difficult conversation. Like those students who decide to have an integral conversation. I’m sure they weren’t all their friends. Yeah. I, we weren’t, you know, we’re, you know, we had students, you know, doing this, that to me that there’s a power in that, and I think, in the we have to bear to invite that conversation. But basically, that’s the power. So it’s not only what happens, you know, for them, but also that brings hope, and hope also is a muscle that we have to develop. So I think for me, yeah, I think it’s beautiful what you did there and that you had a methodology to how to invite different people with different questions to different tables. And yeah, and I think maybe that’s the challenge for us is that one size, ones size doesn’t fit everyone. So we have to be very creative about how we do it. And we don’t have full control and we’re really scared that I could You will have to have control. We wouldn’t be controlled conversation control of things. And when you open it up, you don’t have control. So next week we’re doing this thing that I’m not sure what’s gonna evolve, but we’re trying and see if we can organize a good conversation around. These guests are coming from the Middle East. And I think that’s all women say. I’m curious if Bridget on. Mina, you have anything else to add about this, but I think powerful.

Bridget Turner Kelly
Yeah, I just wanted to know, some more clarifying questions and other dialogic skill. You know, how long were these dialogues? Mark? And it was it is a volunteer that people could could be in and facilitators, are they compensated? Were they employees? Are they students? just clarifying questions?

Mark Kamimura-Jiménez
Yeah, you know, that we had, I think it was the four or five days after we are like thinking about, Okay, what would this look like? And that was a little bit of the Alright, let’s take a timeout. Let’s start gathering information about also, you know, what’s the willingness of, you know, if we have no facilitators, and, you know, that’s not gonna work, either. But that those, those were all professional staff on our campus. And I, they had also had some previous experience, but also, were trained in our program here. That was interesting is as we’re developing the curriculum, or the president, you know, how we’re going to structure that time, one of one of the folks that said, Oh, I think we can do this in like, an hour and 15 minutes or something like that. And I was like, I was like, No. And so we started bargaining for time. I’m like, No, we got it, like I want, you know, we started three hours, I think we, we settled on two and a half hours or something like that. But, you know, it was, it also depended on the time of day, and, you know, because students need to eat and, you know, faculty and staff have other things, but like, there was a commitment to the time commitment to the space and after, like, talking through understanding that this was not a course section, this is different, that, I think sometimes it’s, we take an educator lens versus a dialogue lens. And so that, that build of time in that space might mean that person that started just listening and absorbing needs the full at night, a 90 minutes to like, say one thing, right? Yeah. And, and how powerful may that moment have been for that person? Or even what they say, right? So I think that there was also a dialogue, the development of the dialogue is a dialogue, right? Sharing why from my position, this is important or experience, and we all have had different lived experiences around dialogue. And so bringing all those together was important. Yeah.

Heather Shea
And let’s talk a little bit about some of the barriers potentially to implementing Intergroup Dialogue initiatives and how they might be overcome. It sounds like, you know, skilled facilitators is a really important commitment, right, that a program is going to make if they’re going to hold space for difficult conversations. And time, right time. And all of that requires resources. So Mark, can you talk a little bit about think you’re building a new program? How did you go about doing it? What kind of barriers have you faced? And then how have you overcome those?

Mark Kamimura-Jiménez
So no, I think one of the big things that has nothing to do with dialogue is creating credit in for class. Getting working with our academic partners to understand and see that this is there’s a model this is a you know, there’s a lot of research and literature around dialogue. And it’s explaining that I think, in presenting that to committees, that approved courses, who may not share the same kinds of academic preparation that we do around this work is important. And so, and also understanding that campus right so every campus may be a little bit different. We’re working right now on a in a one credit class, and that has been a little bit of a challenge because it’s a short period of time. And so we have these, you know, very short classes or, you know, 80 minutes, and then you have to move them along in a very short period time I’ve thought about, Okay, should we do it every other week, so there’s more experience of the semester, right? There’s all these different aspects of challenge. They’re kind of logistic. But I do think that also having folks committed to showing up, like students showing up to class and fully engaging, I think that sometimes there’s a topic that may be more , there might be resistance to it. And I think I’m often reminded, like, I think it was mentioned earlier about oppression and resistance. But in sometimes there’s a resistance or even the silence is a reflection of the our students own awareness of their identity, that in and of itself can also become a moment of progression. And so getting our like, working with our facilitators are all they’re trained in many different fields. So they’re not Iread books only. And so talking about student development, talking about the path of a student experience that we have undergraduates who may be first years in fourth years. Every every year is included or odd, you know, they can take the class. And so those presents some challenges. But it’s important for our our facilitators to be aware of where students may be in their undergraduate experience. So we do at the end of every week, we bring all of our facilitators along, and we talk through what worked, what didn’t work, what things are, are people working with another classes? And how are we? How are we building upon that, and sometimes they’ll switch they’ll move, or they’ll borrow from each other. And I think that has been a very positive outcome. And I this next year, we’re also going to pinch the three credit class, I think that the students are they’ve been asking for that they were like we want more time. This fall, we’re also going to have all of our first year students engage in a three hour dialogue to start there. Barrett, we call bear beginning. And that that will be a part of their onboarding experience at Wash U. And we’re excited about what happens there. And then we’re going to create, like Amon was talking about these micro groups. So use a small group dialogues with their various undergraduate facilitated groups.

Heather Shea
I love it. I found like,

Ximena Zúñiga
can I ask a question? Mark? For sure. You’re the champion. So we’ve been a champion. I’ve been a champion in my old days, but not, you know, not fully champion right now trying to be a champion. So teach me how you can you be a champion? What are the arguments that a championship, you know, to bring to the conversation? I’m curious about bridging to you know, your center. And I’m curious, how are you making the case? For these work, but also process? Because I think we all understand that process is important that time that that how we engage measures? What we talk about the how, one that’s really hard to convey in high rates. I’m curious how the two of you are inviting people to think with you or are you persuading what kind of resources you have? I’m tend to personally, some people that you met sometimes builder issues about how you’re moving the needle in your camp.

Mark Kamimura-Jiménez
Well, I can try to be quick here. But I think we were a little we have an advantage of Andrew Martin being our chancellor, who was the Dean of Ellison, at the University of Michigan, and had a front seat to see the impact Intergroup Dialogue has, and so one but it wasn’t something that he led with. It’s something that he also, I think, you know, saw the opportunity as our our campus is developing under his leadership, and also hiring my vice chancellor who was doing an Intergroup Dialogue at that University of Illinois in the past Lewis and Clark, director on honor Gonzalez. And so I think that there’s been a unique collection and development of leadership. On our campus, we have done some workshops with our Board of Trustees. And what I love is the fact that they don’t want to stop talking about a topics and it has some vibrant conversations there. And I think that it’s experiencing the value that it can have for our students, I think is is clear when you experience it. And that has been a positive facilitator, if you will help. dialogue.

Bridget Turner Kelly
would say at Maryland is probably no surprise, it’s a Research One institution. So evidence matters and data matters. And thanks to people like commend to colleagues at Michigan, and across the country who have been doing this tireless research on Intergroup Dialogue and showing the dialogic skill, the application, the the why the critical thinking, the perspective taking that students are able to gather critical consciousness that they’re able to develop from participating Intergroup Dialogues is very compelling. But I think what really pushed it over the edge in terms of Intergroup Dialogue being a part of the diversity requirement, which is why we’re trying to build up capacity at the University of Maryland, is the students, the students made some demands around a lot of the racial Reckoning and different, not just the US or global racial reckoning, but specific things that happened on the University of Maryland campus. And so really asked for those things and kind of held the administration feet to the fire in terms of accountability. And we’ve been asking for these things. And you know, where are them? And where are they and so, and a lot of hard work from people who’ve been kind of in the trenches, doing the dialog, work on campus in different honors programs in different places around the campus. And we as a group merged together and, and worked on proposals and things. And so I think it was kind of a trifecta of the students asking for the evidence was there people who were willing to put the labor in and talk about the usefulness and utility of Intergroup Dialogue that’s really brought it up to capacity? And we’re all at the University of Maryland, it’s all about do good. It’s a public good, and how can we kind of create this civic discourse and engagement and talk civilly across differences? You know, we’re a state with just had a Republican governor, and you know, and Mark Hogan, and now have a Democratic governor. But there’s that tension, right, there’s not a homogeneous sense of how the system should move forward on these cases. So I think it really took a lot of hard work and labor by people, but also the students really pushing that just it’s like, Hey, we got ethnic studies, right. And women’s studies, and LGBT studies and centers are finally getting centers for those things on campus to because students have been asking for them. And so it’s wonderful that the to see the power of the student voice and see that they, even as young people have a vision for what they’d like to see. And as Nina said, kind of a resistance to some of the social media and the ways that people are being socialized and encouraged not to talk across differences. And the students are, I think, thankfully, saying, That’s not why we came to college, you know, we came to engage in these issues and topics. And so that’s been, it’s been wonderful to watch.

Heather Shea
I love this conversation, I think what I’m gonna do is move us to final thoughts, but I think that we should have a part two, because there’s many questions that we didn’t unpack. So folks who are listening today, you might be like, but how does this intersect with broader conversations? What about power and privilege? And where does that fit? So stay tuned, we will get this group back together, or we’re an iteration of it to talk about those questions as well. So our final thought, we always kind of end with the same thing. This podcast is called Student Affairs NOW. So we’d love to hear what you are thinking about troubling, excited about questioning now. And then if you would like to share how people can connect with you, that would be great. So Bridget, I’m going to start with you. Great.

Bridget Turner Kelly
I think having more conversations like this having more dialogues like this, we tend to get stuck in our silos, you know, as a faculty member, and then being able to be with Mark and other people who have been a professor of practice with Nina and some other people who come at come at the work differently. And so that’s what I’m thinking about now is how do I involve myself and invite myself into kind of dialogues and conversations with people who are not just thinking about publishing research and writing books and things but how do I engage and as I get further in my career, how do I have an impact kind of beyond the right Everything that I do, or the research that I do, and then you can get in touch with me on LinkedIn. Active on that on that platform, also really easy to find me for email still a person that reads all my emails and can’t seem to get back to you right away, but definitely, it’s way to engage with me as well. So thanks for having Yeah,

Heather Shea
thanks, Bridget. Mark, what about you your final thoughts?

Mark Kamimura-Jiménez
Um, so many. But I think I don’t know why. But it just like it’s made me think like, stretch stretches like, you know, we’re like, don’t get overconfident in the things that work. Because we need to be thinking about how to do we’re not, we’re likely not be prepared for the next thing. So first, you know, if I think about it metaphorically, if I’m stretching, if I’m working with my team on a regular basis to talk through even issues that are positive, like what’s the positive opportunity here in terms of like, not embracing necessarily the conflict, but thinking about a positive conversation and how dialogue can revolve that, I think is really what’s kind of like the popping in my mind right now. And so more to come.

Heather Shea
Thanks, Mark. I’m Nina.

Nina Tissi-Gassoway
I’m still deeply resonating and ruminating on something that Bridget said at the start of our conversation actually, thinking about you said, I heard you say IGD helps us to be the type of institution we ought to be or where we’re supposed to be. And I, they totally deeply resonate with that. Like when I think about equity, when I think about sense of belonging, when I think about like a meaningful engagement or instilling hope in the next generation, or equipping our students with tools to be in relationship with or transform the world. Like, we know all those things happen through Intergroup Dialogue, right? We have the evidence, we have the research, as you were saying, and so I’m just thinking about, like, you know, going back to this idea of championing this championing championing this work, like using those things that we know to be true, right, and making them in alignment with the goals that are already clear to our institutions. Right, and, and the evidence that we already have, and rainbows in conversation with each other to really champion this work.

Heather Shea
Thanks, Nina. Ximena, thank you so much for your for bringing together this incredible group. What are your final thoughts?

Ximena Zúñiga
Yeah, I think for me, and I think, listen to Bridget, and to mark and you need and I’ve been, you know, thinking together how we can move the needle. Neither you, Matt. So we have had our own conversation, it’s helpful to hear you, Mark and Bridget and well, that, you know, it’s true, we we do have some answers. But we there’s competing priorities. So it’s hard to move the needle when there’s so many competing priorities. But for me, the question is, how do we link? What do you ask me now? That was beautifully said, but how do we influence systems? And I think I was glad to hear You know, the problem? You know, the dean, you mentioned came to the table? Well, that’s helpful. You know, we have a chancellor now who was a UAC. And he was sort of exposed to internal dialogue there. So we that that helps. But then how do you align? You know, because we have been doing this work for 25 years here? Almost, yeah. 25 years? And yeah, it’s been hard to center it, it’s been hard to, you know, we offer courts, we have trained 200 grad students to do this work. 60% on sales work in Student Affairs in the country. So we have continued to the work, yet we haven’t been able to center or have a sense, you know, we haven’t been in that position for whatever, different different reasons. So it’s, I think, for me, that’s the question, how do we learn, you know, one, how we know that this is a powerful pathway. But yet, what are all the factors that help us move the needle? And indeed, some of this is political. So on this evidence I want this is having champions, like Mark, like Bridget, like me that like I am politics more than champion. And I think we need to be transparent about that. More than ever, more than champion. It calls for more, because this work is hauled by champion in many places in the country, with 1234. Many staff members, but it’s champions who lead the way, because it’s very hard to explain to someone who hasn’t been exposed to its value. And I like what you Mark, you said, having the trustees having the conversation, they engaged to us ago my prop my former Prime was brought to train from Michigan to do a training for faculty in in the sciences, they were, they were blown away by the whole thing. So that opened the door for some of us to move the needle a little bit farther, because they experienced the power of conversation. In a time where, you know, we’re mostly talking through soon. So I think there’s also that element. But I do think that maybe that’s something that I’ve missed in the process is to inviting the leader to have conversation. And maybe that’s something to think about. And that’s another maybe another. Another way to move the needle is to invite know the pros and people to have deeper conversations and do them in a way that is engaging. They value the power of this process. I’m rambling, but it would be great. Thank you, Heather for bringing it together, indeed invaded. This was an important work. And you know, and thank you for all of you for spending time together.

Heather Shea
Yeah, I am so grateful for all of you sharing space and bringing your wisdom to this topic and your experiences on your campuses. So thank you for for joining me on this episode. I also want to take just a moment to express my gratitude to our incredible producer Nat Ambrosey. Nat your efforts don’t go unnoticed and we thank you so much for making us look and sound great. And also thanks to today’s episode sponsors LeaderShape partners with colleges and universities to create transformational leadership experiences for students and professionals with a focus on creating a more just caring and thriving world. LeaderShape offers engaging learning experiences on courageous dialogue, integrity, equity, resilience, and community building. And you can find out more by visiting leadershape.org or connect with them on Facebook, Twitter, X, I guess it’s actually called Instagram and LinkedIn. Our other sponsor today is Symplicity. Symplicity is the global leader in student services technology platforms with state of the art technology that empowers institutions to make data driven decisions specific to their goals. A true partner to the institution Symplicity supports all aspects of student life, including but not limited to Career Services and Development, Student Conduct and wellbeing, student success and accessibility services and you can learn more by visiting symplicity.com or connect with them on Facebook, X and LinkedIn. To all of our listeners, if you’re listening today and not subscribed to our weekly newsletter, please take a moment go to our website studentaffairsnow.com and put your email in there we send just one email a week about our latest episode on Wednesdays. And while you’re there, you can visit our archives. Once again, I’m Heather Shea thanks to everybody who’s watching and listening. Let’s make it a great week.

–