IN A 2016 PIECE FOR NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO S

Transcription

1 VIEWS FROM CAMPUS We Could be Heroes Conor P. McLaughlin and Christopher B. Newman challenge us to use our power to create new possibilities for equity on our campuses. By Conor P. McLaughlin and Christopher B. Newman IN A 2016 PIECE FOR NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO S Monkey See blog titled Superheroes and the F-Word: Grappling with the Ugly Truth Under the Capes, Glen Weldon wrote: Superheroes are democratic ideals. They exist to express what s noblest about us: selflessness, sacrifice, a commitment to protect those who need protection, and to empower the powerless. Superheroes are fascist ideals. They exist to symbolize the notion that might equals right, that a select few should dictate the fate of the world, and that the status quo is to be protected at all costs. Weldon s quote offers a chance for each of us to consider that our framing of who is a hero and who is a villain depends largely on our perspective. Similarly, our own sense of ourselves and the righteousness of our actions are subject to the same limitations. Are we always the best to determine how others experience the impact of our actions, especially when we are exerting power? This paradox, being two seemingly dichotomous things at once, can be a helpful way of examining how each of us engages our students in understanding politics in the United States of America as it impacts the environments on our campuses. We often want those representing our party or interests to be heroes. But are we willing to embrace the ways in which they exhibit both aspects of superheroism described above, or only the first? It is likely even as you read this that you have a feeling about which side of the proverbial aisle represents the superheroes who are selfless, committed to protecting the greater good, and the individuals most in need of protection, and which side uses might to equal right and leverage their amassed influence and resources to exert power over the fate of the world. Some may even see the entire American political process as a system of villainy and evil; others may see it as our only hope, and a host of perspectives exists in between. Students can understand faculty and staff at colleges and universities through a similarly vast range of lenses. As we continue our work with our students, both in and out of classrooms, we must understand the power we have to be examples of the great potential and great peril of being a superhero. Much like all involved in politics, student affairs professionals and faculty members hold the power to shape environments in which their constituents live and learn. We must ask ourselves how we will use our own power and engage each person with whom we interact across and in appreciation of difference. Answering these questions will be important in advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion on our campuses in these fraught times. Dialogue: A Call to Action IF OUR MISSIONS ARE TO create spaces and opportunities to examine, understand, and engage in ways Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) 2018 by American College Personnel Association and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: /abc

2 that appreciate difference, a dialogic approach is imperative. While dialogue has come, colloquially, to mean a conversation between people and is often seen as synonymous with discussion or debate, the dialogue to which we refer is of a deeper sort. David Bohm, in On Dialogue, describes dialogue as a process in which all participants are asked to examine what informs their assumptions about the world. It is only after we collectively engage in unpacking our own assumptions about the world and the experiences that have shaped those assumptions that we [change] the way the thought process occurs collectively (p. 9). In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire describes this approach as a way of engaging with other people that opens space for many understandings of the world to emerge. Both of these perspectives on dialogue call for the humanity of all involved to be at the center of the experience rather than an ideal or position while asking all involved to be open to allowing the naming of an experience and the potential for understanding that experience. Freire writes that dialogue cannot CONOR P. MCLAUGHLIN researches white, heterosexual, male student affairs professionals and their participation in social justice. He serves as the Special Assistant to the Associate Provost for Inclusion and Diversity at the University of San Diego. CHRISTOPHER B. NEWMAN is an Associate Professor at the University of San Diego s School of Leadership and Education Sciences. He researches racial equity in higher education with a focus on science and engineering educational environments. We love feedback. Send letters to executive editor Frank Shushok Jr. ( aboutcampus@vt.edu ), and please copy him on notes to authors. David Bohm, in On Dialogue, describes dialogue as a process in which all participants are asked to examine what informs their assumptions about the world. It is only after we collectively engage in unpacking our own assumptions about the world and the experiences that have shaped those assumptions that we [change] the way the thought process occurs collectively (p. 9). fear the people, their expression, their effective participation in power (p. 128). This does not mean that all of these perspectives exist in a vacuum and can go unchallenged or uncritiqued. Rather, Bohm and Freire implore all of us to allow them to be spoken so that they can be examined, and a newer, deeper understanding of the person and their experience can emerge from that engagement. After all, diversity, equity, and inclusion as professional values do not call for people to get along better within the current system but to participate in evolving the current system into something more just. We can begin to think, metaphorically, about the superheroes described by Glen Weldon and how we use our own power in service of our mission and values as educators, such as employing dialogue to create new possibilities for equity on our campuses. Seizing an Opportunity for Dialogue AS A FACULTY MEMBER IN The Department of Leadership Studies, I (Christopher) recently had an important opportunity to reflect on the power I hold in the classroom. In one of my courses, a graduate seminar, I work to offer space for students in our higher education leadership master s program to connect their academic course work to their professional experiences. A few weeks prior to the 2016 election, students were presenting on a variety of hot topics in higher education. Given the then upcoming presidential election, my co-instructor and I thought that assigning one of the groups the election and its impact on campuses would be helpful. When the group presented on the election, however, they had a much different tone than those presenting on Title IX, firearms on campus, racial equity, and student activism. This came from an assumption that there was a consensus in the room 23

3 that Donald Trump s candidacy should not be taken seriously. In all fairness, this course assignment was presented a few weeks after the virulent reaction to the now infamous Access Hollywood tapes of Mr. Trump describing how he grabs women without consequence because of his celebrity status. By comparison, when the group presented information on Secretary Hilary Clinton, they made few critiques of her higher education platform, which arguably had serious limitations. Rather, Clinton was portrayed as a superhero, who at least had something, as compared to the villainous Mr. Trump. While the discussion of Secretary Clinton was straightforward and professional, the presentation of Mr. Trump s platform was taken as a joke. The presentation quickly shifted to other areas of concern regarding The Donald s (as the student referred to Mr. Trump) racist and sexist comments and actions. The presenters and their classmates heckled and scoffed at the idea of Mr. Trump being elected. Mr. Trump and all of his supporters were cast as deplorable. My co-instructor and I allowed this conversation to take its natural course, but we interjected at the end of this presentation with a question to encourage dialogue: How many of you believe a student you advise supports Donald Trump? The climate in the room swiftly shifted. Together, we discussed the assumptions being made that everyone in the room was a Clinton supporter and the contempt given to Trump and his supporters. We followed up by asking How inclusive were we being during that presentation? Lost Opportunities for Dialogue IN HIGHER EDUCATION, WE STRESS inclusivity and the importance of language. However, sometimes, our efforts to advance this important goal have also helped to usher in a new era of language politics and word policing in which anyone not using the most While language is an important component of an inclusive campus environment, it is a surface-level view of a campus racial climate. In short, each of us must be willing to ask what good are words when institutions and their stakeholders actions do not correspond with the espoused mission of inclusivity. up-to-date, politically correct terminology is cast as a supervillain. This casting shuts down opportunities for dialogue, with each side digging in its proverbial heels for a fight. Dialogue, by contrast, offers a space that may help all members of our communities find common ground instead of alienating those who do not understand and/or see the world from our same perspective. While language is an important component of an inclusive campus environment, it is a surfacelevel view of a campus racial climate. In short, each of us must be willing to ask what good are words when institutions and their stakeholders actions do not correspond with the espoused mission of inclusivity. Leaders in higher education settings need to go beyond word policing and foster a community that is willing and able to engage in dialogue across differences. Word policing is an expression of might and power equaling right. Dialogue provides opportunities for understanding to inform action. These actions can be in the service of fostering community, empowering others, and committing to the protection of those most vulnerable and/or silenced. Choosing When to Use Dialogue IN ALAN MOORE AND DAVE GIBBONS S seminal work Watchmen, the phrase who watches the Watchmen often appears spray painted on walls in the background of the city in which the story is set. It serves as a reminder throughout the story that those with great power require oversight and management. To leave them unchecked could lead to abuse of that power, however unintentional or unforeseen. The 2016 presidential election served as a salient reminder of how we, as faculty and higher education leaders, can contribute to division if we do not check each other s (and our own) power. On November 9, 2016, I (Conor) received an from a colleague, offering space for staff within our Division of 24

4 Student Affairs to process the election. A number of the attendees expressed shock, grief, fear, and anger. Many of us projected our frustrations and disbelief onto others, feeling incapable of understanding how they could vote for Mr. Trump, how they could vote in many cases against their own interests and wellbeing. After about 15 minutes of this, a colleague asked, What did the College Republicans do last night? One administrator offered that they reserved a private room on campus to watch the results, wanting to stay close to like-minded people and feel supported. No one knew if any campus faculty or staff joined the students because no one in our space supported the newly elected president. The room was silent for a few moments; then, another colleague asked a question that really shifted the tone of the room: Would we be doing any of this if the election had gone differently? We were all reminded of the ways we had contributed to an environment where the divisiveness and polarization make dialogue, understanding, and community building even more difficult while reifying the current political state. This is especially relevant on our mostly white, private, faith-based campus because stratification across identities such as race, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, and faith/spirituality/meaning making already seem so deeply entrenched. The reflections that these questions prompted speak to the core of what is possible and what is most necessary for student learning in the current political climate: approaching our work with students and colleagues in a dialogic way. I still ask myself about each of the interactions I have with students, as well as those with staff and faculty and if I believe I have practiced dialogue in that interaction. Am I willing to listen and engage with what they are saying and hold their humanity at the fore even if what they say upsets me or challenges me to see the world differently than I want? Would I rather continue to tell I still ask myself about each of the interactions I have with students, as well as those with staff and faculty and if I believe I have practiced dialogue in that interaction. Am I willing to listen and engage with what they are saying and hold their humanity at the fore even if what they say upsets me or challenges me to see the world differently than I want? them they are wrong? Will this help create the sort of transformational change needed on our campuses? Recently, I was working with a white student who seemed resistant to acknowledging his own white privilege. He said he was too tired for the conversation, and I shared that while it upset me to hear that, my frustration was also rooted in my own anger at myself for using being tired as a reason to avoid confronting my own privileges. This interaction gave me opportunity to reflect on my own failure to live up to my values rather than shut down this student or cast him as a villain. Perhaps we must each ask ourselves, after each of our interactions, whether we were willing to experience the truth of what that person was saying rather than whether we agree with them or not. This willingness to allow ourselves to be changed and challenged will be important to us because our approach to engaging with students is one rooted in the power of our positions. As a University staff member, I know I need to recognize the power that I have to create transformative spaces of learning and growth needed to recognize each person fully, rather than reducing them to one idea or belief they hold. If I use this power to withhold growth from some groups of students or other staff members, I continue to push them further into the spaces in which only like-minded people are allowed and in which they fear the sort of engagement across differences that our current political climate uses as ammunition. This presents a fine line to walk because each person needs to be held accountable for the impact of his or her actions and the assumptions that inform those actions impact. A dialogic approach offers ways in which we can hold individuals accountable while not hurting them the way they have hurt others. Dialogue offers each person a space to express the way they see the world and a community with whom they can examine that understanding. 25

5 A Call to Practice Our Values THESE REFLECTIONS HELP BRING INTO focus more clearly the utility of the superhero metaphor and the connection to the paradox presented by Glen Weldon. If we continue to cast ourselves and those with whom we agree as those committed to upholding justice, while those who are different are painted as evildoers working to protect the status quo, we become the thing we claim to work against. While neither of us sees perfect equivalence between the potential for good or evil of super-powered characters and university staff and faculty, we do see very clearly that we all have a chance to examine how we use the power of our positions. Everyone working with college students, especially at this contentious moment in our history, needs to ask ourselves if we are using our might to make sure we are right at any cost or using that power to create new possibilities for systems in which power is differently distributed across difference and position. Superheroes and supervillains represent clear dichotomies, very similar to the poles of righteousness and abhorrence in which politics deals regularly. The reality is that our campuses and our students continue to exist in the wide spectrum between these dichotomies. Even more to the point, each of us has the potential to be a hero and a villain. Viewing ourselves as one or the other may be much simpler and feel better. Acknowledging that people on our campuses view us through different lenses and using our power to create Acknowledging that people on our campuses view us through different lenses and using our power to create spaces in which people can name their experience of the world will be more difficult but also critical to living out both the values of our field and our highest potential as educators. spaces in which people can name their experience of the world will be more difficult but also critical to living out both the values of our field and our highest potential as educators. To that end, we must be able to ask ourselves whether we are comfortable with the balance we are striking on our campuses? Now more than ever, dialogue becomes most necessary. We need to be willing to reach out across differences, to use our powers for the kind of good that moves the world to better places, rather than replacing one system of authority with another that better serves our own interests. It is a huge responsibility, and each of us has to shoulder a heavy part of that burden. As Stan Lee ( 1963 ) tells us in The Amazing Spider-Man, with great power comes great responsibility. How will we use ours? NOTES Bohm, D. ( 1996 ). On dialogue. London : Rutledge. Freire, P. ( 1968 ). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY : The Continuum International Publishing Group. Lee, S. ( 1963 ). The amazing spider-man. New York, NY : Marvel. Moore, A., & Gibbons, D. ( ). Watchmen. Burbank, CA : D.C. Comics. Weldon, G. ( 2016 ). Superheroes and The F-Word: Grappling with The Ugly Truth Under The Capes. Retrieved from 26