Confronting the Elephant in the Room: The Role of Intragroup Dialogue in Challenging White Supremacy

White people in the United States benefit from the structures built by white supremacy consciously or unconsciously at the expense of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). Because of this, schools and places of work have developed numerous trainings to start the education process on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the hopes to move individuals and organizations towards racial justice. However, the conversations around racial justice are not brought back to white homes and families. This research used a dialogue series to document the experiences of white people with long standing relationships, akin to familial relationships, that are dominated by white supremacy as they converse about topics that are usually not discussed, such as racial justice. By executing this dialogue series, participants self-reported a sense of built community, deepened connection with other group members, and personal growth. The data also showed that within this designated space, the fear of open conflict, perfectionism, discomfort, and guilt, and a solutions-focused and white saviorism mindset emerged as the group conversed about topics that were usually avoided as a group, especially dialogues around race. This demonstrated the major theme observed in this research, which is that participants embodied white supremacy without realizing it. They were socialized in white supremacy system, which made it difficult to recognize how white supremacy showed up in their lives. This research begins to provide an understanding of how to dialogue with white family-like relationships around racial justice and confirmed how deeply rooted white supremacy was ingrained in white families.

CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Confronting the elephant in the room: The role of intragroup dialogue in challenging white supremacy Mackenzie Bledsoe Westminster College A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Community Leadership Westminster College Salt Lake City, Utah April 2021 CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Dedication This thesis is for all the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color harmed because of white supremacy, that have taken the burden of creating change while trying to survive and live in this country, including Bert, the co-facilitator in this research. I believe you; I see you; I hear you, and I love you. This thesis and research are dedicated to all individuals struggling with anxiety and depression that continue to engage in this work to dismantle white supremacy and create a racial just society despite struggling to get out of bed. This research is for Devyn Kerr, a MACL family member, who left the world too soon. Your strength, kindness, and passion created and spread positive change. You have left a light on this world that will not be forgotten. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Acknowledgements This thesis and research was developed and written upon the ancestral and traditional lands of the Shoshone, Ute, and Goshute peoples. I acknowledge the past and present ancestors and communities of these indigenous peoples who have been dispossessed from the homelands and territories upon which an institution, Westminster College, was built and currently occupies and operates in. To all the participants: I could not have done any of this research without you and your willingness to show up to each dialogue. Thank you for letting me into your lives in a new way to continue to get to know you all on a deeper, more intimate level. To Bert: My partner in crime, accomplice, and co-facilitator. You are such a gift to this world, and I hold your experiences and stories in my heart. Thank you for the surplus of work you put into this research without proper recognition due to the white supremacist structures within higher education institutions, like Westminster College. My gratitude can never be expressed to the fullest. You supported me through our conversations and gave me space to just be even when you were so busy. Peyton Harris, the love of my life and soul mate who deserves a shout out for the constant love and support you have given me. Your unconditional love and support for whatever journey I find myself on made the thesis and research possible. For sitting with me on the couch as I found myself unable to move and continue this work, for getting me up in the morning when this work seemed impossible, and for cheering me on during my proud moments and moments of despair. You have seen it all and I cannot thank you enough for being my rock during this journey. My puppy children Charlie and Joey: You both were by my side throughout this research, occasionally barking in the background, and giving my constant snuggles. You licked my tears away and got me outside to take breaks and enjoy mother nature. Get ready for all the adventures to come! To Mom and Dad: Thank you for your love and support. Mom, your casserole, cheeseits, hugs, and knowing you were always there for me when I needed it gave me energy to keep working. Dad, your challenging conversations allow me to see and start to understand different perspectives while solidifying my beliefs and values in ways other conversations lack. I am truly thankful to have you both in my life. To Madeline Gere, Tyler Stoddard, and Sonny Stoddard: Thank you for creating a thesis retreat of sorts at your house. The care and tough love you gave me was just what I needed to get this done. Also, letting me trash your living room with all the things were crucial to the success of the writing. I am forever grateful for you being such a strong support net in my life. Rachael Monserat: Thank you for taking the time to edit and build my writing confidence. Your feedback was helpful, and I appreciated it and you. To the people who saw me grow and created a healthy venting text group, Mere Dolny, Lindsie Smith, and numerous other MACL family members: You were a part of my changed thesis topics and helped me be the person I needed to be to continue dismantling white supremacy. My advisor Jamie Joanou: I am beyond grateful for your feedback, constant support, and guidance as I took on this (probably too large) thesis project. Shelley Erikson for sitting on Zoom with me as I had a complete mental breakdown twice and provided me support, thank you. Julie Tille, student colleagues, and my surrounding community: You all supported me in numerous ways that I am grateful for you and feel lucky to have you all in my life. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Abstract White people in the United States benefit from the structures built by white supremacy consciously or unconsciously at the expense of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). Because of this, schools and places of work have developed numerous trainings to start the education process on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the hopes to move individuals and organizations towards racial justice. However, the conversations around racial justice are not brought back to white homes and families. This research used a dialogue series to document the experiences of white people with long standing relationships, akin to familial relationships, that are dominated by white supremacy as they converse about topics that are usually not discussed, such as racial justice. By executing this dialogue series, participants self-reported a sense of built community, deepened connection with other group members, and personal growth. The data also showed that within this designated space, the fear of open conflict, perfectionism, discomfort, and guilt, and a solutions-focused and white saviorism mindset emerged as the group conversed about topics that were usually avoided as a group, especially dialogues around race. This demonstrated the major theme observed in this research, which is that participants embodied white supremacy without realizing it. They were socialized in white supremacy system, which made it difficult to recognize how white supremacy showed up in their lives. This research begins to provide an understanding of how to dialogue with white family-like relationships around racial justice and confirmed how deeply rooted white supremacy was ingrained in white families. Keywords: Dialogue, white supremacy, family, long-standing relationships, critical race theory, fear of open conflict, perfectionism, discomfort, right to comfort, white guilt, white saviorism, community, connection, personal growth. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Table of Contents Chapter I: Introducing the Problem 1 Introduction 1 Community Organization 4 Conclusion 4 Chapter II: Literature Review 5 Introduction 5 White Supremacy 5 White Supremacy Culture 6 Euro/western-centralism 9 Rationalism 10 Neoliberalism 11 Race and racism 12 Critical Race Theory 15 Group Dialogue 16 Long-Standing Relationships 18 Conclusion 19 Chapter III: Methods 21 Research Context 21 Participants and Access 22 Methods 23 Validity 25 Ethical Concerns 26 Conclusion 27 Chapter IV: Findings and Analysis 28 Introduction 28 Participants’ View of Dialogue Series 28 Community and Connection 28 Personal Growth 31 Researcher’s View of Dialogue Series 33 Fear of Open Conflict 34 Perfectionism, Guilt, and Desire for Solutions Created Comfort 38 Conclusion 48 CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Chapter V: Discussion and Concluding Thoughts 49 Introduction 49 Implications and Recommendations 49 Limitations and Future Research 50 Learning Objectives 52 Communication 52 Leadership 52 Creativity 53 Reflection 53 References 55 Appendix A: Recruitment Email 67 Appendix B: Google Survey Questions 69 Appendix C: Meeting Curriculum Outlines 71 Meeting 1: (2 Hours) 71 Meeting 2: (2 hours) 73 Meeting 4: (2 Hours) 75 Meeting 5: (2 Hours) 76 Meeting 6: (2 Hours) 77 Meeting 8: (2 Hours) 79 Appendix D: Informed Consent Document 80 Appendix E: CIQ and Reflection Questions 82 Appendix F: Guiding Summary Questions 84 Appendix G: IRB Approval Form 87 CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 1 Chapter I: Introducing the Problem Introduction Ten days after George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis police officer, Robin DiAngelo, an antiracist scholar, addressed 184 Democratic members of Congress by conference call. DiAngelo started the discussion with, “For all the white people listening right now, thinking I am not talking to you, I am looking directly in your eyes and saying, ‘It is you’” (Bergner, 2020, para. 1). She warned all the white members of Congress to not feel exempt from putting in the work now because of previous experiences such as marching in the 1960s, or serving a diverse district, or having a Black roommate in college. DiAngelo continued saying that white Democratic members of congress will “continue to enact policies and practices — intentionally or not — that hurt and limit” Black lives unless they acknowledged and truly contemplated the question “what does it mean to be white” (Bergner, 2020, para. 1); this is the driving question that inspired this research. This study focused on documenting the experiences of white people with long standing relationships that are dominated by white supremacy as they engaged in dialogue around topics that are usually not discussed, such as racial inequities. These long-standing relationships are relationships I have been a part of for at least three years, making the relationships akin to familial relationships. I drew on research that discusses family dynamics due to the close nature of these relationships with the participants. This study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic and at the height of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, making it an ideal time to study this issue. COVID-19 has shown the inequities in health care, education, and economics by disproportionately affecting the health, learning, and income of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) in way that CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 2 makes these inequities hard to dismiss (Fortuna et al., 2020; Laster Pirtle, 2020; Walters, 2020; Xafis, 2020). In other words, marginalized communities, typically communities of color, are being affected more during COVID-19 than privileged communities, which are typically white communities. In addition to the impact of the disparities in communities of color, these communities deal with discrimination on a daily basis, which can have enduring effects on psychological functioning, adding yet another layer of impact on BIPOC (Watson-Singleton et al., 2020). Thus, this research was crucial because it was situated in a time where racism and white supremacy could not be ignored. It was clear that marginalized communities are affected the most. The killing of George Floyd and numerous other Black people by police and the growing inequities of COVID-19 are prime examples of how entrenched white supremacy structures have continuously maintained power and benefited white people at the expense of BIPOC. Purpose and Importance Dialogues are pivotal in creating systemic change because dialogue is a tool to transform well-intentioned statements to anti-racist actions (Livingston, 2021). BLM’s mission is to build a better world for all marginalized communities and people in addition to engaging the unique brand of activism as a coping activity that reduces depression to ensure sustainable efforts (Watson-Singleton et al., 2020). BIPOC have been doing most of the work to combat racism instead of white people and with that work, BIPOC have experienced depressive symptoms from racial discrimination (Watson-Singleton et al., 2020). Black and other people of color should not have to shoulder the burden of a system that already creates so much harm. As the primary beneficiaries of white supremacy, white people need to put in the work to challenge white supremacy around them in a way that does not perpetuate the system. Having dialogues around CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 3 race, privilege, and identities can help move more white people towards Black liberation, which can show high levels of support with BLM. Additionally, it can buffer against depressive symptoms and creates a demand for white people to put in the work to combat white supremacy (Watson-Singleton et al., 2020). White supremacy became a topic of interest in many academic spaces with the “expansion of nationalist, anti-immigrant parties, and the rise of neo-fascist and authoritarian responses to neoliberalism” (Bonds, 2020, p. 779; Eaves, 2019; Inwood, 2018; Pulido et al., 2019; Gokarıksel & Smith, 2016, 2018; Roth, 2018). However, there is a significant gap in research on engaging people in long standing relationships in dialogue outside of education and workspaces. This research highlights the complexities that arise when embarking on such dialogues. During the Trump administration, topics that did not align with white ideals, such as collectivity (Okun, 2001), were dismissed in white families because the topics are perceived as political; these topics are not discussed or end in the loss of the long-standing relationship (Smith, 2020). However, BLM is not political. It is a human rights movement, which focuses on the collective society, making the topic more important than ever to be discussed with family members (Rickford, 2016). Despite the fact that BLM is not political, governing institutions, such as the United States government are compared to a family; this comparison is a metaphor for family and growing institutions that arise unconsciously (Lakeoff, 2009). When the intersection of family and government remains unnoticed, the political effects can be serious. This research illuminated how dialogues with family-like individuals can begin to happen around the U.S. and start bridging family and politics. It is imperative to merge the family conversations with political issues to support Black liberation in addition to exploring how to have dialogues with families steeped in white supremacy to create change. Dialogues can commit groups of CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 4 people to a lifelong process of learning together, looking at real-world actions to dismantle white supremacy, and focusing on moving people to action together (“Intergroup Dialogue”, 2007). Community Organization To carry out this study, I collaborated with the Student Diversity and Inclusion Center at Westminster College in Salt Lake City. The Student Diversity and Inclusion Center serves the Westminster community through co-curricular programs and initiatives that promote diversity and inclusion. The center also provides opportunities to develop salient social identities and spaces for discussion on issues of power, privilege, oppression, and social engagement ("Student Diversity and Inclusion Center", 2020). They currently have a program called "Engaging Whiteness", which I hope to provide insights with the finding of this thesis project. Throughout this research I have highlighted systems of power and white supremacy, which will be helpful for engaging in conversations around race, especially for students wanting to further their discussions at home. For example, when meeting with Engaging Witness Coordinator, Dylan, and Interim Director of the Center, Kari, we brainstormed potential topics for the next dialogue session, which created a reciprocal conversation about the struggles within this work. Towards the end of this call, there was a mutual understanding of supporting each other, learning from each other’s experiences, and ways to incorporate the learning moving forward. Conclusion Throughout this chapter, I explained how I decided to engage in this specific research topic, the significance of engaging white participants in dialogues to discuss systems of power and white supremacy, and how reciprocity with the community organization will benefit the collective goal of ending white supremacy. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 5 Chapter II: Literature Review Introduction The intention of the following literature review is to expand on this study's significance by connecting current research on White Supremacy, Critical Race Theory (CRT), Intergroup Dialogue, and long-standing relationships to my study. Each of these topics serves to frame the research question: What are the experiences of predominantly white participants with long term relationships in an intergroup dialogue series? How do group members navigate conversations around race? White Supremacy White supremacy is present in economic, cultural, cognitive-evaluative, somatic, and culture systems that allow white domination in all of these systems to go unnoticed and become ingrained in all parts of life (Mills, 2003). Furthermore, white supremacy encompasses ideological systems as well as human behavior (hooks, 1995; Mills, 2003). When white supremacist systems are put into place, normalized, and maintained, BIPOC are exploited so white people continue to have power and domination of all systems (Allen, 2019; Bonds, 2020; Deliovsky, 2010; Frankenberg, 1993; Kantrowitz, 2018; Smith, 2012). Evaluation between the individual and larger context of systems of white supremacy provides a basic understanding that white people maintain power in an intertwined multidimensional ideological system of white domination (Allen, 2019; hooks, 1995; Mills, 2003). White supremacy is the appropriate terminology when discussing the structure of domination put into place by white people to benefit white people. For example, using racism to describe white supremacy is not a sufficient concept to name the systemic oppression of BIPOC because racism is a product of white supremacy (hooks, 1995). Also, using the terminology CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 6 white ‘privilege’ hides the actions and structures of domination, which allows for the system to continue (Gillborn, 2006; Leonardo, 2002, 2004). Thus, I use white supremacy to describe the structures of domination that white people benefit from. Society’s thoughts, behaviors, and beliefs are steeped in white supremacy, because of the hidden and deceiving nature in which white supremacy exists (Leung & López-McKnight, 2020). It is dangerous to think about white supremacy as an individual or group with white nationalist or neo-Nazi beliefs because it neglects and hides the structural formation and labor necessary to maintain it (Bonds, 2020; McIntosh, 1990). Also, it is important to note that modern day white supremacy is not just the remains of the United States’ racial history (Bonds, 2020). Contemporary white supremacy and the benefits of being white have been created and recreated via policies, normalized practices, and white culture, which has produced a larger gap in assets between whites and BIPOC (Bonds, 2020; Lipsitz, 2006). Although there are policies put into place to diversify work settings, such as affirmative action, there is no institutional change to support BIPOC within these white systems (Hartocollis, 2019). This means that BIPOC in jobs or schools recruited with affirmative action efforts might or might not be able to adjust to the culture of institutions that were created to support white people and maintain white domination. Thus, the changes are superficial at best and continue to perpetuate the oppressive systems until the culture of institutions change (Ahmed, 2012; Leung & López-McKnight, 2020). White Supremacy Culture Having conversations about race is difficult for white individuals because of the deeprooted characteristics of white culture. The definition of culture that I will be using throughout this paper is, “the set of values, beliefs, norms, and standards held by a group of people in order to ensure the group’s ability to operate” (Okun, 2009, p. 4). Cultural systems are likely to have a CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 7 mutually supportive relationship with the economic and political systems for older societies, which produce a close relationship between culture and power (Inglehart, 1997). White elites try to keep their power status by shaping culture, which maintains the established social order of race (Inglehart, 1997). In other words, there is a tight connection between cultural value and culture to power. For example, enslaved people’s survival depended on their knowledge of navigating the white culture the white slave-owners embodied whereas white slave-owners were not required to understand or even know the culture of the enslaved people because they regarded them as less than themselves (Okun, 2009). One way to identify the culture of a group, and thus the power, is to look at the characteristics within that group. Looking at characteristics of white supremacy in detail is important to recognize how steeped white domination is within U.S. culture and systems of power. Okun (2001) identifies eight particularly damaging white supremacy culture characteristics. These characteristics are damaging because they are used as norms and standards without proactively being named or chosen by the group. Thus, proactively naming and explaining these characteristics is a crucial aspect of this research to start dismantling these norms and standards within groups. The first characteristic is perfectionism, which shows up when someone talks to others about the failures of another person instead of talking directly to the person who made the mistake. Also, perfectionism places blame on the person who made a mistake as being wrong instead of doing something wrong (Okun, 2001). The second characteristic is valuing quantity over quality. This characteristic values data, findings, etc. that can be measured and made into a statistic. For example, anything related to numbers is valued more than experiences. Additionally, experiences are dismissed and not even considered for the task at hand. Quantity CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 8 over quality also creates an inherent discomfort with feelings and emotion making those less important than data (Okun, 2001). The characteristic of worship of the written word is the third characteristic. This characteristic demands only one way for information to get shared and valued as well as upholds the belief that writing is the right way to share information and assumes everyone will adopt this practice (Okun, 2001). The fourth characteristic is power hoarding. Power hoarding is not sharing information to maintain domination of those around you and those with the power assume that they have everyone’s best interests in mind (Okun, 2001). The fear of open conflict is the fifth characteristic. This characteristic shows up in groups when people try to avoid or run from expressed conflict (Okun, 2001). For example, when someone brings up an issue that causes discomfort, a white cultural response would be to blame the person bringing up the issue as impolite, rude, or out of line. Furthermore, fear of conflict can produce white silence in race talk and dialogues functions to maintain white supremacy (DiAngelo, 2012; Taylor & Moghaddan, 1994). Conflict is not always a bad thing; working through conflict can lead to positive outcomes such as learning more and growing by hearing dissenting opinions and beliefs (Tatum, 1992; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). Individualism is the characteristic of white supremacy culture that focuses on the individual and their responsibilities, not the team, collective, or in this study groups with longstanding relationships (Okun, 2001). The eighth and last characteristic is the right to comfort. Right to comfort is “the belief that those with power have a right to emotional and psychological comfort” (Okun, 2001, para. 9). In other words, this characteristic values logic over emotion. People who embody this characteristic create themselves as the victim because those who caused discomfort made them feel uncomfortable. This is similar to the fear of open conflict. Okun (2001) provides an example of white people equating individual acts of unfairness with systemic racism, which targets people of color daily. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 9 The right to comfort is also a form of white fragility because it is an expectation that white people will stay safe from race-based stress and cause white people to disengage in the conversation, so remaining engaged is essential for learning (DiAngelo, 2011; Finn & Zimmer, 2012). These characteristics outlined by Okun (2001) relate to each other through structures that produce, reproduce, and accelerate inequities in the world (Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016). I refer to these structures as root causes for the remainder of the thesis, because these are the structures that American society must dismantle to create a more equitable world. The root causes that I will focus on are rationalism, euro/western-centralism, and capitalism. These root causes are all interconnected and are actively hidden and embedded forms of white supremacy, which as a member of the dominant group one is taught not to see (McIntosh, 1990; Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016). Euro/western-centralism Euro/western-centralism is the privileging of European cultures and white people that come from the European cultures (e.g., settler states) (Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016). This root cause values “reason,” “superior culture,” “civilization,” “modernity,” “ethnoracial supremacy” (Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016, p. 440). Since it values reason, this root cause is closely connected with rationalism and thus perfectionism, only one right way, worshiping of written word, right to comfort, and fear of conflict (Okun, 2001). Euro/western-centralism shapes a global class structure and division of labor privileging the West over the rest, placing the Western and Westernized at the core of the world-capitalist system, setting the “standard of civilization” and “development” for “uncivilized/undeveloped/developing others” (Jones, 2006, as cited in Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016). Euro/western-centralism helps us understand the CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 10 power the West, which includes the United States, holds in a global context. This root cause is important to understand, because it situated white culture as the “right” and “ideal” culture, making white culture superior to all the other cultures and perpetuates white supremacy and domination. Rationalism Rationalism describes a worldview that values intelligently coherent thoughts and linear reasoning and logic (Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016). The rationalism of white supremacy shows up in the language and laws of the dominant culture, which connects to the worshiping of written word white supremacy characteristic (Okun, 2001; Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016). White supremacy structured the world through this idea of reason to order life, nature, and our sense of reality. Furthermore, rationalism creates structure and certainty because the brain simplifies the complex world to get back in balance and maintain homeostasis (Taylor & Marienau, 2016). Rationalism has a binary hierarchy of what is rational (e.g., “human, male, European/white”) and what is irrational (e.g., “non-human, non-male, non-European/non-white”) (Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016, pp. 439-440). In other words, the rational people are placed in the dominant group and the irrational people are placed in the inferior group, which highlights the need to maintain perfectionist standards by white people who embody white supremacy. Likewise, the dominant group creates only one way to do things, which is the right and correct way and knowing the right way, which is the rational way to do things, will result in perfection. Rationalism is also tied to the root cause of capitalism, because perfection is the best way to produce the most product. Lastly, rationalism values reason and logic over pathos, passion, emotion, spirit/spirituality, sensation, relationships, intuition, empathy, compassion, instinct, which aligns with valuing logic over emotion in the fear of conflict and right to comfort CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 11 characteristics of White supremacy culture (Okun, 2001; Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016, pp.439-440). Neoliberalism Neoliberalism is the current economic paradigm in the United States (Harvey, 2006). Neoliberalism is pro-capitalism, because it promotes free markets and continued expansion, which means that neoliberalism supports every economic practice of capitalism (Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016; Harvey, 2006). Other key concepts of neoliberalism are an emphasis on individual responsibility, reducing social services to reduce a safety net for the poor, deregulation, and privatizing public goods and services (Bigelow et al., 2006; Harvey, 2006). The systematic greed of profit accumulation takes advantage of resources to maintain the drive for profit and capital to force people to constantly look for ways to improve their systems of production so the group can maximize productivity and efficiency in order to obtain the most profit and capital, which will give them the most power (Bigelow et al., 2006; Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016; Harvey, 2006; Marx & Engels, 1907). A key component of capitalism and neoliberalism is maximizing profit and a necessary way in which this is done is through the exploitation of workers (Harvey, 2006; Marx & Engels, 1907). Thus, the U.S. created white domination and exploited BIPOC through capitalism, which illustrates that neoliberalism and race are connected to maintain the current systems of power and they must be critically addressed together to fully understand white supremacy’s oppressive nature (Golash-Boza et al., 2019; Leung & López-McKnight, 2020). White supremacy not only has maintained race inequities, but has also maintained class inequities (Cole, 2009). Neoliberalism is a product of white supremacy, and embodies the characteristics of individualism, perfectionism, and only one right way because it demands that CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 12 everyone be productive and efficient. One factor of neoliberalism is, “eliminating the concept of “the public good” or ''community” and replacing it with “individual responsibility”” (Bigelow et al., 2006). This means that a society that operates under neoliberalism looks at the individual to succeed versus the collective. For example, neoliberalism pressures people to find solutions to learn all by themselves and if someone were to fail at being perfect, they would be labeled lazy and brushed off by society (Bigelow et al., 2006). The lack of transparency and quick labeling makes it difficult to improve and/or prove worth for a promotion, bonus, or advancement in jobs (Gulati-Partee & Potapchuk, 2014). Therefore, race must be critically looked at in the larger context of neoliberalism because neoliberalism and capitalism are systems put in place to maintain white power (Orelus, 2013). Race and racism Race and racism are social constructs that white supremacy has created to treat people differently and influence the way we see ourselves and others in the world (Lewis, 2003; Orelus, 2013). For example, people of African descent understand the social construction of their race is fundamentally linked to their systematic oppression in society (Alexander, 2010; Bonilla-Silva, 2001, 2003, 2010; Tatum, 2007). This means systemic racism has portrayed BIPOC in a negative way in mainstream media and major Hollywood movies (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Orelus, 2013). The ways in which BIPOC are represented are subtle ways in which racism exists and generates internalized race and racism unconsciously. Moreover, race is a product of social interaction (Lewis, 2003, 2004). This means that we learn about race from interactions and institutions, like mainstream media and Hollywood movies, not because we are born with race. Although the dominant narrative around racism is that it has been eliminated, racism still exists today. Since the narrative has claimed that racism does not exist, predominately white CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 13 spaces have silenced conversations around race (Winant, 2004). For example, in a neoliberal frame the responsibility of racism is moved away from the systems to individual effort, which conceals and legitimizes racism and protects white privilege (Amin, 2012; Goldberg, 2009; Harries, 2014; Lentin & Titley, 2011; Preskill & Brookfield, 2009; Reinsborough & Canning, 2017; Winant, 2006). Furthermore, the United States’ education systems are “overwhelmingly organized to maintain and perpetuate whiteness” (Radd et al., 2019, p. 659). Thus, talking about race is an important conversation to have with others to demystify race, which makes this research of understanding the experiences of predominantly white participants with long term relationships in a dialogue series, especially topics around race, essential. Race and racism derive from as well as form and make up euro/western-centrism. The power matrix from race and racism hierarchically separate humans by “phenotypical and ethno/culturally essentialized attributes” (Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016, p. 441). These beliefs are spread globally, and through disciplinary powers; they remain in local communities as well. Race and racism have normalized governmentalities of rule and have “entrenched hierarchically racialized systems of power/oppression privileging a sociopolitically constructed, and materially/economically entrenched ordering where Euro-Western and white supremacy rests on the subjugation of “non-white/Southern other(s)”” (Jones, 2008, as cited in Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016, p. 441). The systems of race and racism show up in all the white supremacy culture characteristics because the hierarchy of euro/western-centrism privileges all of the dominant traits within society as well as leaves no room for alternative ways of learning, communicating, hierarchy, and addressing conflict, collectivism, expressing emotion, and necessary discomfort. This means that the dominant culture, white supremacy, is privileged in society above other cultures. Also, racism and race are a product of white supremacy, so it makes CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 14 sense that race and racism are showing up in all the white supremacy characteristics (hooks, 1995). With all of the issues at hand, it is important to have race conversations with predominantly white participants with long term relationships to begin to create new systems by acknowledging the massive effects of the current hidden oppressive systems and how predominately white groups perpetuate these harmful systems. White Saviorism One of the most predominant ways in which white supremacy maintains power during fights for racial justice is through the embodiment of white saviorism, making race work like this research difficult. However, there are ways to combat white saviorism. Edwards (2006) states that allies for social justice truly become allies when they are working with members of the target group instead of working for members of the target group. Additionally, Kivel (2017) claims racial justice work must bring people together to ensure everyone has a tremendous stake in building a more racially just society. This means that the underlying motivation of racial justice work must move towards working with BIPOC in the mutual interest of fighting against white supremacy (Willer, 2019). Furthermore, hooks (1992) argues that for work towards racial justice to be effective, there needs to be a mutual recognition and understanding that racism and white supremacy impacts both those who are dominated and those who dominate. This actively demonstrates the importance for white people to recognize and respect the dignity and abilities of BIPOC to work with them as opposed to for them. Failure to do this will result in white people upholding and operating from a savior complex and will continue for white supremacy to dehumanize BIPOC (Willer, 2019). The white saviorism complex is tied to the white supremacy characteristics. White people tend to approach working for BIPOC instead of working with BIPOC when they engage in this CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 15 work, because it brings comfort to them to help when they try to grapple with their positionality and their role in white supremacy (DiAngelo, 2011; Willer, 2019; Edwards, 2006; Kivel, 2017). White culture also subconsciously makes white people feel like they are helping when they are actually power hoarding in this situation by maintaining white supremacy, which gives them power, to superficially help BIPOC (Okun, 2001; Willer, 2019). To combat white saviorism, this research utilized a Critical Race Theory framework. Critical Race Theory Critical Race Theory (CRT) is the best theoretical framework to use to frame this research and its findings. CRT defines white supremacy as structural policies, actions, and systems that benefit white people instead of focusing on individual groups or people who are white supremacists (Bush, 2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 1997, 2001; Gillborn, 2006). The systems include rationalism, capitalism, euro/western centralism, and race and racism discussed above. Bell (1992) first developed CRT because legal scholars noticed that race was central to the development of laws and later, Lopez (1997) found race to be imperative in the development of citizenship. The development of critical race theory is important because it further illuminates the connections between rationalism of white supremacy that shows up in the language and laws of the dominant culture, which also connects to the worshiping of written word white supremacy characteristic (Okun, 2001; Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016). A big component of CRT is that the systems that create and help maintain white supremacy are normalized and allow it to go unnoticed (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Yosso & Solorzano, 2005). Although the main focus of CRT is race, CRT also looks at the intersection of white supremacy systems such as rationalism, neoliberalism, euro/western centralism to understand how these systems work together to benefit white people (Crenshaw, 1991; hooks, 2000; McCall, 2005; Romero, 2017; Weber, 1998). Davis CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 16 (1998) expressed: “Critical theory… has as its goal the transformation of society, not just the transformation, but social transformation and thus reduction and elimination of human misery” (p. 22). This indicates that the fight against white supremacy is a necessary fight against the interlocking systems of white supremacy that maintain oppression of BIPOC. Furthermore, providing white individuals with a new critical lens for unpacking the world’s injustices can move away from white saviorism towards the life-long unlearning of white supremacy (Case, 2012; Aronson, 2017; Freire, 1970; Latta et al., 2018; Straubhaar, 2015; Tatum, 2003). Group Dialogue One of the most powerful aspects of white supremacy studied is how entrenched white supremacy is in society’s systems, which allows for white supremacy to remain unnoticed and hidden by those who are not directly affected by white supremacy and do not learn about it (Amin, 2012; Bonds, 2020; Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016; Goldberg, 2009; Gulati-Partee & Potapchuk, 2014; Harries, 2014; Lentin & Titley, 2011; Leung & López-McKnight, 2020; Lewis, 2003, 2004; McIntosh, 1990; Mills, 2003; Preskill & Brookfield, 2009; Reinsborough & Canning, 2017; Winant, 2006). For example, many jobs require employees to have “professional” emotions within the workplace. However, with these jobs, “professional” emotions are not specified and clearly stated, so the assumption is that everyone knows what emotions are appropriate and what emotions are not (Gulati-Partee & Potapchuk, 2014). With this lack of transparency in the beginning, the specifics are brought up in conversation only when someone gets in trouble by bringing those emotions to work that are not considered “professional” (Gulati-Partee & Potapchuk, 2014). The ideal method to explore white supremacy is through dialogues, either intergroup dialogues or intragroup dialogues. Although intergroup dialogue is the more common social CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 17 justice education practice, intragroup dialogue has become increasingly more popular to support the exploration of a single target or agent group identity (Adams et al., 2007; Tatum, 2003). For example, the intergroup dialogue model encourages learning among target, or nonprivileged social identity groups; the intergroup model does not expand to include the use of intragroup dialogue among dominant group members and the literature on intragroup dialogue is fairly limited to help understand this gap (Ford, 2012; Gurin & Nagda, 2006). There is educational value in both intergroup and intragroup dialogues, however, both dialogues have different ways to social justice outcomes. For example, Omi (2001) observes that intergroup dialogues often focus too much on white people and often rely on BIPOC to educate whites. In contrast, an intragroup dialogue challenges the notion that a reference group is needed to promote social change and provides a space for white people to “speak with honesty and candor rarely possible in racially mixed groups” (Tatum, 2003, p. 111; Ford, 2012). Ford (2012) found that in intergroup dialogues, white participants focused more on white skin privilege and the implications with reference to BIPOC whereas white participants in the intragroup dialogue were able to own the sociohistorical process of becoming white within the U.S. context independent to defining whiteness in contrast to the Other or relying on a symbolic white ethnic identity (McKinney, 2005). However, without the personal narratives of BIPOC, intragroup dialogue members did not have the same profound emotional realizations in the dialogue process (Ford, 2012). With all the issues at hand between intergroup and intragroup dialogue, intentionally structured dialogue series can produce similar social justice results (Ford, 2012) The goals of dialogue are for participants to understand and identify how power plays out in society when we look at and analyze our experiences in intergroup dialogues, which is a starting point of practices oriented toward antibias, antiracist, multicultural, or social justice CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 18 education (“Intergroup Dialogue”, 2007; Preskill & Brookfield, 2009; Nagda et al., 2003). In these dialogues, the focus is to understand commonalities and differences between participants, examine the nature and impact of societal inequalities, and explore ways of working together toward greater equality and justice (“Intergroup Dialogue”, 2007). This means that by looking at the products of white supremacy, a group can develop even closer relationships and work together to abolish white supremacy. Furthermore, intergroup dialogue can focus on the systems that exacerbate a problem rather than focusing on the individuals, which can help those who might embody fear of open conflict, individualism, and right to comfort (Okun, 2001; Preskill & Brookfield, 2009; Zúñiga et al., 2007). Lastly, there is substantial evidence that white people who engage in intergroup dialogue increase their understanding of white supremacy, racial inequities, and institutional racism as well as take action in some regards to racial justice and liberation (Gurin et al., 2013; Yeung et al., 2013). In this research, the methods were informed by intergroup dialogue practices, but since the participants were all white, it was an intragroup dialogue. Furthermore, the co-facilitator was a Hispanic man, which added a new perspective to the white group. Long-Standing Relationships One of the hardest aspects of intergroup dialogue is building community. It takes a lot of time and energy to bring people together to build long-term relationships (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009). Also, individuality is steeped in White supremacy, which makes it hard for people to focus on community goals instead of individual goals (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009; Figueroa Helland & Lindgaren, 2016). Thus, when people with long-lasting relationships that resemble familial ties engage in intergroup dialogue, there is more of a base of community than working CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 19 with a group of strangers. This means that it might not take as long and as much energy to build long-term relationships making the intergroup dialogue easier to start. There are unique challenges with a group unit, including obliviousness and conflict avoidance that make dialogues difficult. Obliviousness and conflict avoidance are defense mechanisms in families, especially predominately white families that operate under traditional norms and white conformity, to protect them from the threats and harms of information that could damage family relationships and protect their right of comfort (Okun, 2001; Schrodt, 2009; Steverson, 2010). This could be one reason why families ignore certain topics of conversation and why the participants in this study used strategies to move towards more comfortable topics. However, families can grow together and have open conversations about difficult topics, such as race (Keating et al., 2013; Walsh, 2006) and while focusing the intergroup dialogue on topics of white supremacy, the community can make the invisible visible and create an action to promote continuous connection with one another (Reinsborough & Canning, 2017; Ryan & Gamson, 2006). In this research, conflict avoidance showed up when participants tried to maintain their relationships with others in the group as well as when participants focused on maintaining their perfectionism within the group. Additionally, participants self-reported built community, deepened connections with others, and personal growth. This means that participants used strategies to move towards topics that were more comfortable as well as grew together in their learning journey. Conclusion This literature review developed this study's framework and significance by connecting current research on white supremacy, CRT, group dialogue, and long-standing relationships/familial relationships. This research used white supremacy characteristics to inform CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM the findings of this research and used CRT, group dialogue, and long-standing relationships, to shape the methods of this research as well as make sense of the findings. 20 CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 21 Chapter III: Methods Introduction This chapter outlines where the research took place, the participants, methods for data collection, ethical considerations, the problems that arose and the validity measures employed. The following research question guided this research: What are the experiences of white participants with long term relationships in a dialogue series? How do group members navigate conversations around race? Research Context This study focused on documenting the experiences of people with long standing relationships that are dominated by white supremacy as they engaged in dialogue around topics that are usually not discussed, such as racial inequities. This study took place over Zoom but is situated in the United States. The U.S. served as the ideal location for this research because of the increased discussions around systemic inequities that were created through white supremacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration has been described as ultranationalist, white supremacist, populist, authoritarian, and anti-immigrant in response to neoliberalism in the U.S., which are traits of a neo-fascist president (Bonds, 2020, p. 779; Eaves, 2019; Inwood, 2018; Pulido et al., 2019; Gokarıksel & Smith, 2016, 2018; Roth, 2018). With the neo-fascist ideology dominating U.S. politics, the Trump administration created high levels of partisan polarization and increased the likelihood of misguided presidential decision-making (Orentlicher, 2016). This research study was important to conduct in the U.S. because of the growing partisan polarization (Orentlicher, 2016). CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 22 Participants and Access The participants in this research study were people who I have had a 3-10+ year relationship with, making the relationships akin to familial relationships. I considered most of the people whom I have long-standing relationships with to be conservative and embody many of the white supremacy culture characteristics described by Okun (2001). I believed these relationships to be not only long standing, but close relationships, because we see each other often. However, this group of people deeply embodied the characteristics of perfectionism, fear of open conflict, and right to comfort as well as the others (Okun, 2001). So, although we are close, we do not talk about our imperfections and do not bring up any controversial topics in an effort to keep the peace. Thus, I would describe these relationships as very surface level. I recruited potential participants from a pool of 47 people, with 8 of those individuals eventually taking part in the study. While whiteness was not a requisite for participation, the space ended up as a predominately white space with all eight of the participants being white. My understanding of the group before going into the dialogue series was that there were individuals representing two genders, men and women. This was confirmed during a social identities worksheet exercise. Although I would have liked to have equal representation of both men and women, there were seven women and one man. I attribute this to men tending to maintain the power structures of not sharing emotion (PettyJohn et al., 2019). I had a co-facilitator during this dialogue who self-identified as a Hispanic man with personal experiences and a surplus of knowledge around racial inequities. All the participants were at different starting points about knowledge around white supremacy, race, and racism. Since I had long-standing relationships with the potential participants, I had direct access to them for recruitment. I chose the participants because of my already established relationship CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 23 with them, ranging from 3-15+ years. This access helped me to reach out to potential participants who were interested in engaging in dialogue during this study. I sent an advertisement email to all 47 potential participants blind carbon copied to ensure confidentiality and had them fill out a google form to express their interest for me to follow up with them individually. (See Appendix A: Recruitment Email and Appendix B: Google Survey Questions). Out of the 47 potential participants, 10 responded and filled out the google survey, and 8 dedicated their time for the duration of this research due to their availability and willingness to participant after more information was provided. Methods To engage in a dialogue with people who have long standing relationships with each other about identities, experiences, and controversial topics, I adapted intergroup dialogue practices and analyzing experiences practices (“Intergroup Dialogue”, 2007; Preskill & Brookfield, 2009). Intergroup dialogue is a learning experience and approach to dialogue that brings differences to the group to bring people together through a sustained period of time. In the dialogues, the focus was to understand commonalities and differences between participants, examine the nature and impact of societal inequalities, and explore ways of working together toward greater equality and justice (“Intergroup Dialogue”, 2007). Also, a feminist lens was used in approaching the dialogue sessions by problematizing gender and bringing forward women and their concerns as well as learning and attending to others’ liberation and justice struggles, specifically Black liberation and the BLM movement (DeVault & Gross, 2006). I used this particular method because intergroup dialogue promotes active, productive, and transformative connections and explorations of everyone involved in the dialogue, which aligned well with the goal I had in mind for these meetings (Intergroup Dialogue, 2007). CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 24 Additionally, dialogue is a starting point of practices oriented toward antibias, antiracist, multicultural, or social justice education (“Intergroup Dialogue”, 2007; Preskill & Brookfield, 2009). Analyzing experiences is especially effective in groups because the diversity of perspectives and histories shared allow for everyone to compare and contrast their own experiences, which highlights common connections and major differences (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009). Furthermore, “analyzing experience in groups should focus on how institutions, culture, and ideology, not individuals, exacerbate a problem” (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009, p. 115). This means that as a group, we looked at the roles of white individuals within the numerous white supremacy structures. I schedule eight structured meetings that were 2 hours long (“Intergroup Dialogue”, 2007). During these meetings, I followed the goals of consciousness raising, building relationships across differences and conflicts, and strengthening individual and collective capacities to promote social justice (“Intergroup Dialogue”, 2007) (See Appendix C: Meeting Curriculum Outlines). For example, in meetings one and two we focused on building relationships, meetings three and four we focused on self-awareness, and meetings five through eight we focused on individual and collective capacities to promote social justice. Ideally, these dialogues would have occurred in person. However, during COVID-19, we participated in these dialogues through Zoom. These Zoom meetings were recorded with the permission from the group via Zoom meeting recording feature (See Appendix D: Informed Consent Document). To obtain consent, I sent the interested participants an email with the consent document attached. Then, I called each individual to walk them through the form and answer any questions they had before they signed the form. After each dialogue, I used critical incident questionnaires (CIQs) with critical reflection questions to receive feedback from each meeting as well as document the CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 25 participants learning throughout the dialogue series (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009). These CIQs were mostly filled out within 2 days after the meetings. However, there were two participants that did not turn in one of their CIQs. (See Appendix E: CIQ and Reflection Questions. Validity To enhance the credibility of my study, I engaged in several methods to ensure the validity of my assertions. I continued to engage in research reflectivity throughout the study because I recognize and acknowledge that my background and core values could have produced implicit or explicit biases that filtered my responses to participants' viewpoints. I engaged in reflexivity in a typed journal before the first meeting (Creswell & Miller, 2000), and continued to report on my personal beliefs, values, and biases on my family dynamics and individuals through conversations with my thesis advisor, thesis group, co-facilitator, and community supervisor and journaling. The next measure I took to ensure validity was through thick, rich description (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Thick, rich descriptions are notes that “describe the setting, participants, and the themes of a qualitative study in rich detail” and will be captured through field notes used after dialogues as well as reviewing reactions from Zoom recordings (Creswell & Miller, 2000, p. 128). The fieldnotes I took and body language from the Zoom recordings I reviewed enhanced the credibility of all dialogues by “[creating] verisimilitude”, which are “statements that produce for the readers the feeling that they have experiences, or could experience, the events being described” (Creswell & Miller, 2000, p. 129). (See Appendix F: Guiding Summary Questions). Lastly, I employed peer debriefing with my community supervisor, capstone advisor, and co-facilitator to further increase credibility and validity of this study (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I did this by talking through quotes, results, and theoretical frameworks to ensure other experts in this area drew the same CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 26 conclusions. For example, I had weekly meetings set up with my capstone advisor to review codes and talk through assertions. Ethical Concerns The ethical concerns I encountered in this research project are stemmed from confidentiality and white fragility. All participants chose a pseudonym to identify themselves, which enabled their identities to remain confidential. Furthermore, participants in the group created group agreements to ensure their identities and information remained confidential. To ensure the participants’ information and comments they shared remained secure, all Zoom recordings that were produced were kept on password protected devices that I alone have the code and account information for. Also, all signed informed consent documents were kept in a secure virtual place, one USB that only I had and continue to have access to. I sent out the general topics of the meetings before the Zoom dialogue along with supplemental activities or readings to give participants a chance to review the topics and become familiar with the general dialogue session. This helped participants feel more ready for the dialogue, which is important ethically because it gave participants to be their most prepared selves. Moreover, I worked to support each individual with compassion to the best of my ability by providing information about the appropriate resources needed. Additionally, I saw white participants feel and exhibit characteristics of “white fragility”. Robin DiAngelo (2011) defines “white fragility” as: …a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. I also might consider working with a professional CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 27 such as a counselor or social worker to ensure the best psychological support for the participants (p.56). This means that white participants felt harmful feelings during the dialogues. To combat these feelings, I shared my relationship with “white fragility” and checked-in individually with participants that exhibited those behaviors after the dialogue. At the center of the dialogues, I used and taught compassion. Compassion helped with white participants to start to recognize others’ suffering, which is described as compassion witnessing, as some white participants felt an overwhelming feeling of guilt and negative views towards self (Hernandez & McDowell, 2012; Weingarten, 2003). I practiced compassion and used compassion towards participants as they recognize the limitations and limited development of their understanding to promote a sense of forgiveness and emphasize giving oneself an opportunity to learn and change. Conclusion This chapter outlined the significance where the research took place, how participants were recruited as well as descriptions of the participants, methods for data collection, ethical considerations, the potential problems that arose, and the validity measures employed in this research. All the information aided in conducting this research as well as helped gather data to find the answer to the following question: What are the experiences of predominantly white participants with long term relationships in a dialogue series? How do group members navigate conversations around race? CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 28 Chapter IV: Findings and Analysis Introduction The purpose of this research was to understand the experiences of predominantly white participants with long-standing relationships in a dialogue series as well as document how the participants navigated conversations around race. This chapter reports the findings of this research project. The first theme this chapter addresses is what the participants self-reported from the dialogue series, which is community, connection, and a sense of personal growth. Next, this chapter reveals that the purpose of the dialogue was not met due to a fear of open conflict, which led participants to prioritize their comfort. This chapter also explores how participants became stuck in the learning process due to their perfectionism, feelings of guilt, and solutions focused mindset, which were mechanisms for participants to feel comfort in the dialogues. Participants’ View of Dialogue Series Participants found that the dialogue was a space that allowed the group to build community and form deeper connections with each other. Every participant showed up to each of the eight dialogues, which shows there was something positive that kept them coming. Along with building community, participants felt a sense of personal growth. Community and Connection The participants in this study clearly believed they built community and deepened their connection to others during the dialogue series. As we reflected on this experience as a group in the last dialogue, Ashley stated: It’s been a really nice time to have like this kind of like community, especially with like, Bert and Kimberly [living in a different state], you know, we don't get to see you that CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 29 often, or have in depth conversations with you. And it's just been, it's been really, really nice. In this example, Ashley made it clear that all the participants rarely, if ever, had opportunities like this to dive into more intimate dialogues with one another when they see each other in person. Additionally, group members have not seen each other in person since the pandemic occurred in the United States or have not seen others in the group because of living proximity. Thus, the dialogue space was a meaningful way for participants to build community and deepen human connection and do so in a short period of time. Christine also felt a sense of built community and deepened connection. She mentioned in her reflection after the second dialogue: I am excited. I am enjoying [getting] to know people in the [group] on a deeper level. I feel that for the most part [other long-standing relationships I have] don’t talk about deeper or difficult conversations. I am looking forward to hearing more of what people have to say. In her reflection, Christine compared this group of people to other relationships she had and noted how the other relationships felt superficial and this group felt different. As Christine wrote about the difference of those two groups, she commented on how going deeper and getting to know others in a new less superficial way gave her energy and desire for these dialogues. Families grow together when they have open conversations about difficult topics, such as race (Keating et al., 2013; Walsh, 2006), which is what Christine experienced. She perceived that the relationships in the dialogue deepened as more difficult topics were addressed in the dialogue series, which is demonstrated through her excitement of being in the group. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 30 Additionally, Hannah stated in the reflection as a group on the last dialogue, “...first of all it was, it's been so lovely and for me to just get to know everybody on such a more in-depth level and so that's been really lovely...”. Hannah was one of the newer relationships within this group. In this statement, Hannah conveyed a sense of deepened connection when she expressed how nice it was to get to know everyone on a more profound level. She reflected on the sense of community in a positive way, which illustrated the built community in the dialogue series. Furthermore, Bert, the co-facilitator, mentioned his perspective on community building during the last dialogue when he stated, “I think this group has given me a lot, not just a really good opportunity to get to know everybody a little bit of a deeper level...”. In this quote, Bert claimed that being a part of this dialogue series allowed him to receive a lot of benefits. One of those benefits was the opportunity to learn about others in a non-superficial way. Going deeper with the group demonstrated a sense of deepened connection and built community, because Bert was able to share and learn about others in a new way that has previously been withheld in group settings. During the dialogue series, community was built across differences. Through the deepened exploration of differences and conflicts, the built community was involved in an important role of intergroup dialogues; the built community created an action to promote continuous connection with one another (Reinsborough & Canning, 2017; Ryan & Gamson, 2006). This means that the built community with participants in this dialogue series will likely be long-lasting because of the deepened connections participants developed with the other group members. As the participants moved away from a superficial relationship, they went focused on more important aspects and brought out the authenticity and vulnerability of others (“Intergroup Dialogue”, 2007, Preskill & Brookfield, 2009). CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 31 Personal Growth The participants in this series also made it clear that the dialogue offered them an opportunity for personal growth. For example, Frank mentioned in her last confidential reflection that, “I believe I have grown as a person for the better and learned a lot about the history of racism.” Frank explicitly stated that she grew as a person in a positive way. She also mentioned that she learned a lot about the historical roots of racism, which supplemented her growth as an individual. Similarly, Hannah stated in her last reflection that, “I learned that I still have a long way to go addressing race in my day-to-day life. I have definitely become more observant of unconscious bias around me.” In this excerpt, Hannah described her journey of becoming antiracist. This entry in her Critical Incident Questionnaire reflected her growth in this dialogue series and she noted that there is more room to grow in the future. Comparable to Hannah’s personal growth journey, Kimberly also acknowledged her need to continue to learn and grow. Kimberly verbalized in the last dialogue, “So, over this timeframe, I've really learned a lot which you know, obviously I have a lot more to go but I've been thankful, and I learned a lot.” Kimberly claimed that she has learned a lot and still needs to continue to learn. Furthermore, she mentioned that she is thankful for the learning experience the dialogue has provided. Personal growth is a crucial and necessary step in race work. As Saad (2020) states, “You cannot dismantle what you cannot see. You cannot challenge what you do not understand” (p. 38). This means that people need to put in the work to become honest with themselves, become educated, and become more conscious about what is really going on around them. Without the necessary step of personal growth, many white individuals fall into the trap of white saviorism by taking action that continues to dehumanize BIPOC (Willer, 2019). CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 32 Likewise, Alexis wrote in her reflection at the end of the dialogue series, “I have learned to be more aware. I listen and watch more about what people say and what I see.” This excerpt actively demonstrates that Alexis’ personal growth was tied to awareness. She feels that coming to these dialogues made her more observant to what others say around her and how she views her surroundings. The last quote to exhibit personal growth that I will touch on is from Jeremy. Jeremy reflected on his time in the dialogue series and what he has learned when he stated the following: I think these dialogues have helped me sort of like… not assuming the worst in people when they do make, like a racist comment or project, not like, politically correct idea. And its sort of helped me like, look back and think like, “Okay, why do you think that?” and try to look more at the root cause of why they think that way… instead of quickly jumping to [a] conclusion [about someone], I've kind of taken a step back and tried to look at things more holistically In this quote, Jeremy displayed an understanding of the systemic components of racism. This revealed his personal growth by understanding that people are socialized in a white supremacy culture and the root cause is not individual actions from people, but the systemic structures that produce behaviors and thoughts that align with white supremacy culture. Lastly, this quote demonstrated Jeremy’s empathy and compassion towards others, which has potential to allow him to further these dialogues in other groups by teaching with empathy and compassion. Intergroup dialogue is a learning experience and approach to dialogue that brings differences to the group to bring people together through a sustained period of time. In the dialogues, it is important to understand commonalities and differences between participants, examine the nature and impact of societal inequalities, and explore ways of working together CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 33 toward greater equality and justice (“Intergroup Dialogue”, 2007). Frank, Hannah, Alexis, and Jeremy asserted that throughout this dialogue series they expanded their knowledge on topics surrounding race, which helped them examine the nature and impact of societal inequities. For Frank, it was the history of racism. Hannah learned about the unconscious bias that was present in her life. Alexis became more aware of the details around her, and Jeremy learned about the systemic nature of white supremacy. Learning about these aspects of white supremacy helped participants continue their conscientization by critically interrogating the world around them (Freire, 1970). Group members grew during this process, or at the very least, learned how to think more critically about how the U.S. operates under the system of white supremacy, which intergroup dialogues show strong evidence of participants' critical consciousness (“Intergroup Dialogue”, 2007; Preskill & Brookfield, 2009; Nagda et al., 2003). Researcher’s View of Dialogue Series Although the participants built community and deepened connection during the dialogue series, the main purpose of this research was to understand the experiences of predominantly white participants with long-standing relationships in an intergroup dialogue series as well as document how the participants navigated conversations around race. While the participants maintained that they sustained personal growth throughout the dialogue series, they also exhibited white supremacy characteristics in the dialogues and in their confidential reflections. Both of these are possible. People in the group learned about white supremacy and white culture. They were also socialized in this very system, which made it difficult to recognize how white supremacy showed up in their lives. A quote referred to multiple times throughout the series was, “The longer you swim in a culture, the more invisible it becomes” (dRworksBook, white supremacy culture). This demonstrates the major theme observed in this research, which is that CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 34 participants embodied white supremacy without realizing it. Within this designated space, the fear of open conflict, perfectionism, discomfort, and guilt, and a solutions focused and white saviorism mindset emerged as we conversed about topics that we usually avoid as a group, especially dialogues around race. This theme provided an understanding of how to begin family dialogues around racial justice and confirmed how deeply rooted white supremacy was ingrained in white families. Fear of Open Conflict The group exhibited agreeability by not challenging their own ideas, thoughts, and beliefs openly. Additionally, group members did not challenge other’s ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors in the group. By demonstrating agreeability, participants displayed fear of open conflict. Considering the group exhibited fear of open conflict, which is a white supremacy characteristic, they acted polite during the dialogue showing agreeability and then contradicted what they put in their confidential reflections. Reflecting on the first dialogue, Jeremy explained the presence of politeness: I guess I expected to be some dissenting opinions besides yours (saying something like “well, conflict is okay sometimes!”), but everyone seemed agreeable and were firm on their beliefs not to upset anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings. Jeremy expressed his surprise of the agreeability in the group. Through his introspection, he commented on the fixed, yet agreeable opinions and beliefs within participants. Additionally, he noted how the participants were hyper aware of the feelings of others, which are signs of the fear of open conflict (Okun, 2001). Participants avoided expressed conflict, because they did not CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 35 interrogate the assumptions of themselves and others in the group. This journal entry was significant as Jeremy identified how the fear of comfort consumed the dialogue space. Politeness continued throughout the dialogue. Rarely, if ever, participants pushed back in the dialogue by questioning other’s ideas and opinions in the dialogue sessions. Another example of politeness was the established seamless uninterrupted flow of the dialogues. Alexis reflected on her experience for dialogue four when she wrote: I was distracted when I wanted to learn more about what happened to Bert when he was in 5th grade and I was distracted again when I wanted Christine to explain more of what happened during the electoral vote. I need to get in the habit of asking more questions when they are on my mind Alexis commented on her level of engagement during dialogue four. It is clear that she was not present in the conversation because she was focused on wanting to know more about what others said previously. However, she felt that asking questions would have disrupted the dialogue, which led her to remain quiet and distracted from learning more. This quote is important because it showed the hidden and entrenched white supremacy characteristic, fear of open conflict, to avoid interrogation of the topic to learn more (Okun, 2001). Fear of conflict not only showed up when participants were not asking critical questions and remained polite, but was also present when participants disagreed with topics, beliefs, and/or comments in their private reflections and not in the public group. Ashley reflected in her journal after dialogue six about a video on reverse racism: I tend to agree that reverse racism isn’t a thing. However, I was thinking about this idea later. I do think that this idea is a little bit dangerous. I think it does open up a window for CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 36 “othering” a group of people. When I really think about it, I do think racism is racism and it is wrong no matter who it is directed at and I think it should be called out on all sides. During the dialogue, Ashley said nothing about her stance on reverse racism as others in the group expressed their views that reverse racism did not exist. Ashley did not ask questions, did not speak her discomfort, and left the dialogue somewhat stagnant because of the agreeability in the group. If Ashley shared her true thoughts on reverse racism or spoke up about some discomfort she had, there would have been conflict. This conflict could have deepened the learning and potentially could have deepened the understanding of reverse racism. Thus, a fear of open conflict allowed for the harmful and dangerous white supremacy culture to persist because participants' limited and incorrect understanding of racism was not addressed. Furthermore, Ashley’s avoidant behavior verified that she used fear of open conflict as a defense mechanism. In family-like relationships, especially predominately white families, people use avoidant behaviors to protect them from differencing opinions that could damage family relationships and protect their right of comfort (Okun, 2001; Schrodt, 2009; Steverson, 2010). This is why families often ignore certain topics of conversation and why Ashley remained silent in the group when she felt discomfort and held a different viewpoint. Another example of conflict avoidant behavior was when Kimberly did not share her own level of understanding because of the fear of conflict. Kimberly reflected after dialogue five by writing: I think what surprised me the most was towards the end of the conversation when we started to discuss affirmative action in the workplace. I was a little shocked at what was being said and would have liked to speak more on that subject. I have personally thought about this subject long before these meetings and I feel that as a white person it is hard to CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 37 see the other side (I feel like I am not saying that in a good way). I just think sometimes it is hard to see past your own nose in certain situations and I think this is one topic for white people that is really hard to see from the other side. In this quote, Kimberly demonstrated her understanding of focusing outside her and other white people's experiences with affirmative action. She noted that she was astounded with what was being said about affirmative action. However, Kimberly did not mention or push back on the comments during the dialogue session, so she noted her opinion in the CIQ. Towards the end of the dialogue series, Kimberly became more aware of how she exhibited fear of conflict. Kimberly self-identified her struggles to avoid conflict. During dialogue #8, she told the group: I was gonna say what Christine said. I feel like I babble a lot and I get uncomfortable anyways talking and so I think that was my hardest thing and trying not to make people hate me and be angry. This quote from Kimberly actively demonstrates her acknowledgement about embodying the white supremacy characteristic, fear of open conflict. She wanted to keep the peace among the group of participants to not let them hate her. This quote is important because it helps understand how white supremacy showed up as well as emphasized one of the biggest struggles in having dialogues with white families entrenched in white supremacy. Furthermore, this quote underscored the complexity and intersection of being a woman and socialized by white supremacy. She wanted people to like her, which is a common experience among women (hooks, 1990; DeVault & Gross, 2006). In this sense Kimberly’s whiteness and her gender identity and gender socialization made open conflict even more difficult. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 38 The participants in the group will continue to be a part of each other’s lives in some capacity, making keeping the peace a seemingly good thing to do in these dialogues. However, the fear of open conflict inhibited learning and blocked the potential to grow even more. As Taylor and Moghaddam (1994) observed, “avoidance of conflict means support for the status quo, and thus the maintenance of the majority-group superiority” (p. 58). Conflict is not always a bad thing; working through conflict can lead to positive outcomes such as learning more and growing by hearing dissenting opinions and beliefs (Tatum, 1992; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). Perfectionism, Guilt, and Desire for Solutions Created Comfort By demonstrating agreeability, participants displayed fear of open conflict. The purpose of the dialogue series was to talk about white supremacy and racial injustices, but participants were not able to do this because of how they showed up to do the work. As a result of participants displaying fear of conflict, other white supremacy characteristics were unmasked to maintain the comfort. These white supremacy characteristics were perfectionism, discomfort, and guilt, which prevented participants from going deeper into the conversations because they got stuck in preserving their comfort. Christine felt discomfort when the definitions of social and personal identities were not clear and straightforward. She stated her frustration in her CIQ after dialogue three: Frustration: I was not able to expand on knowledge of the topic of social and personal identities because I didn’t understand the definitions of them. Once I had a better understanding of the definitions I was able to connect pieces together better. In her reflection, Christine expressed her frustration that she was unable to expand more on the topic and prove to the group she learned something, which would have been more comfortable for her. The comfort of a fixed definition gives psychological comfort to participants (Taylor & CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 39 Marienau, 2016). When the extremely clear and succinct definition was absent, Christine exhibited frustration with the discomfort of not understanding. However, when there were clear definitions, she felt more comfortable and made connections in her head. The right to comfort in Christine’s circumstance is derived from the hierarchy of euro/western-centralism because white supremacy privileges all the dominant traits within society and leaves no room for alternative ways of learning and necessary discomfort (Figueroa Helland & Lindgren, 2016, hooks, 1995). In other words, when the definitions were not clear, like they normally would be in other learning environments, Christine felt uncomfortable when necessary discomfort unfolded. The group exhibited high levels of perfectionism and defensiveness in the attempt to find comfort. Participants wanted to share more even when what they were sharing was not relevant to the conversation to show themselves as knowledgeable and/or to prove that they worked hard to get where they are at. When discussing affirmative action in dialogue five, Ashley added to the dialogue by saying the following: ...I kind of feel the same way, especially looking at like college admissions and stuff like that, or like pharmacy or medical school admissions. It's like, you need to keep hiring the best people for the job and if those people aren't diverse, or if you're not having, like, let's say you don't have enough Black applicants, then I personally feel like the solution should be or like enough women applicants is maybe a better example, if you don't have enough women applicants then maybe like, as a profession you need to work with like STEM students earlier, or middle school and high school and say, “Hey, look, women in STEM are awesome. Like, this is super cool.” You know, rather than accepting people not qualified for the job based on their race, because that ends up being harmful to them in the long run. Because like if you hire, if you accept someone Black into medical CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 40 school, because they're black, but they're not qualified to be there, that's gonna harm Black doctors down the road. It's gonna cause a lot of harm and so I struggle with that too. So, I think the question is like, instead of just accepting more people based on their race, like what can we do earlier, or what we can do better earlier on to make sure that those populations people have barriers (video freeze) to those places be really qualified for those jobs Ashley provided a nuanced understanding of how to reduce barriers by working with younger populations to empower youth to see themselves in careers that are typically white male dominated. Ashley also strayed away from race by looking at women in the STEM fields, which illustrated her understanding that an opportunity gap underlined the issue. This underscored how Ashley centered herself in the conversation since she is a woman in STEM and highlighted herself for working hard to be a woman in a STEM field. As a result, she justified her role within affirmative action as a woman in a male dominated field. When she brought race back into the conversation, she was unable to have the same positive outlook of affirmative action. On top of that, she did not have an educated view of what affirmative action actually entails. She assumed that Black people in the medical field that benefited from affirmative action are not qualified. In reality, they are equally as qualified as a white person and were most likely accepted because of their qualifications and their lived experiences. To sum up everything that has been stated thus far, Ashley brought up race with affirmative action, then went into an example that highlighted herself overcoming the opportunity gap unrelated to race and ends her stance that when BIPOC benefit from affirmative action due to their race, the person is unqualified for their position. Furthermore, Ashley exhibited defensiveness when a new topic, affirmative action, was brought up. According to Okun (2001) and Livingston (2021), white supremacy makes talking CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 41 about new or challenging ideas difficult because people who embody white supremacy characteristics respond to these ideas with defensiveness. Another way Ashley exhibited defensiveness was by actively centering herself in the conversation to justify that she appropriately benefited from affirmative action, because she worked hard to get where she ended up without unearned white privilege. Through this underlined tone of feeling threated, Ashley displayed an additional layer of defensiveness because she mistook affirmative action as criticism of those in power and felt threatened by what was being said (Okun, 2001). This form of defensiveness produced a fixed mindset and narrow view of how white supremacy operated making it difficult to empathize with those who do not benefit from white supremacy structures. Additionally, Ashley’s quote was tied to perfectionism because she took the viewpoint that mistakes were seen as personal and those who make mistakes are reflected badly as opposed to mistakes as a necessary step for learning (Okun, 2001). Due to Ashley not thinking it was important or necessary to understand the viewpoint or experience of those who are affected by racist structures daily and truly understand that affirmative action is a step towards reparations, she justified her benefiting from affirmative action to exhibit the hard work it took to be perfect. Another example of perfectionism showed up in Laurel’s reflection after dialogue three. Laurel wrote the following: I was confused when we did not discuss sexual assault further, though I realize that tackling all the topics at hand during that meeting would have taken WELL over two hours. And police brutality is so prevalent today that it deserves an entire meeting and even more. Maybe that’s what I was distracted by. I was thinking “When are we going to delve into sexual assault?” only because I have a lot to say about it and I’ve recently been CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 42 doing a lot of reading about it. I don’t think anything amps me up as much as sexual assault, so once it was mentioned, I was READY. Laurel, who is one of the younger women in the dialogue group, reflected on not feeling present in dialogue three. The particular reason for the circumstance was that she wanted to share all of her knowledge on sexual assault to be seen as an expert in the topic instead of a learner in race talk. Laurel exhibited her desire to be portrayed as an expert in sexual assault to demonstrate her knowledge. Instead, Laurel was portrayed as an imperfect learner. Furthermore, Laurel continued this pattern. In her dialogue four CIQ she wrote the following: I wasn’t as comfortable as usual. I felt like I didn’t have anything insightful to say, so I didn’t say anything, which I see as a bit of a problem. And who knows what a simple comment could lead to. I think I need to settle myself into the space a little bit better next time. I felt a bit unsettled by my lack of words, so I think if I do a bit of meditation and thinking exercises for even five minutes before I open my computer for the next meeting, I will have a better experience. In her reflection, Laurel explored what would make her feel more comfortable in the next dialogues. She noted her lack of confidence to share during the group because she did not have anything “insightful” to say. This directed Laurel to shut down and engage white silence, which functions to maintain white supremacy (DiAngelo, 2012). Laurel’s white silence emphasized how damaging not saying anything due to fear of mistake making can be during antiracist work, because white supremacy cannot be addressed and challenges. She brainstormed ways to get in a better headspace to learn during the next dialogue, which showed a want to be better. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 43 Laurel’s quotes are tied to perfectionism because learning involves mistakes and mistakes are seen as personal because in a white supremacist culture, mistakes reflect badly on the person making them as opposed to being seen for what they are; mistakes (Okun, 2001). Laurel read a lot on the topic of sexual assault, which made her feel like she could have had a full discussion around the topic and not make a mistake. Whereas discussing topics around race, which was a topic she was learning, was more difficult for her to be excited about. Additionally, Laurel exhibited defensiveness. When a new topic, identities, was brought up, Laurel wanted to say on the old topic, sexual assault because white supremacy makes talking about new or challenging ideas difficult because people who embody white supremacy characteristics respond to these ideas with defensiveness (Okun, 2001; Livingston, 2021). Furthermore, Laurel exhibited defensiveness by passively centering themselves in the conversation to make her seem perfect among the group. Similar to Laurel’s experience of shutting down, Kimberly noticed that she shut down in the learning process in her dialogue seven CIQ: I learned that I really shut down and back away when I feel that I have upset others or feel alone in my thoughts. It was easier to see in a group setting, but it is something I do all the time and something I know I need to work on. In her reflection, Kimberly acknowledged that when she felt that she offended others or her thoughts did not align with others, she disengaged in the conversation. This occurred after Kimberly expressed in the dialogue six CIQ that she felt less comfortable within the group. This illustrated another example of a participant who shut down and engage white silence, which ultimately functions to maintain white supremacy (DiAngelo, 2012). Although Kimberly learned about how she navigated the group, throughout most of the dialogue she participated in white CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 44 silence. Moreover, Kimberly felt alone in her thoughts, which isolated her from building community and deepening her connection with others in that moment. This example illuminated the pain and isolation white supremacy created for Kimberly and continues to negatively impact not only BIPOC, but white people as well (Saad, 2020). Likewise, Jeremy engaged in white silence until he felt that his opinion aligned with someone. He wrote in his reflection after dialogue five: I learned that I tend to wait until someone else disagrees with a comment before I feel emboldened to disagree with someone out loud. My reaction to this is that I sometimes depend on the social aspect of arguments and I want to be backed up if I have a differing opinion because I am not always confident in what I have to say. In his reflection, Jeremy noted that he felt more comfortable with challenging someone after someone else disagreed. This is problematic because it placed urgency on others to do the internal work needed to create racial justice and if others did not speak up, white supremacy would be maintained again through white silence (DiAngelo, 2012). Additionally, he felt insecure and focused on what others might have thought about him, which was tied to perfectionism because he would let others make a mistake before he felt comfortable engaging in the dialogue. This illustrated a deep internalization of perfectionism because he had a fear of making a mistake. Through the lens of perfectionism, mistakes are perceived as personal because in a white supremacist culture, mistakes reflect badly on the person making them as opposed to being seen for what they are; mistakes (Okun, 2001). The group internalized the white supremacy characteristic of feeling they deserved the right to comfort. Participants that embody the right to comfort shut down in the dialogues in the presence of discomfort. Ashley reflected on a video on racism, prejudice, and implicit bias in her CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 45 CIQ from dialogue seven. She wrote, “I couldn’t get over her “test” of racial discrimination, the ideal partner thing. This is so flawed it's insane and I had a really hard time taking anything else she said seriously.” In this reflection, Ashley commented that she did not like the video because she determined one of the examples of self-identifying racial discrimination did not align with her thoughts. The dissenting thoughts made her experience discomfort as she watched the video. Rather than sitting in that discomfort and questioning it, she dismissed what was said that made her uncomfortable (Okun, 2001). Furthermore, she exhibited scapegoating for the person who caused the discomfort, which was the creator of the video (Okun, 2001). As a result, Ashley dismissed everything else the creator said, which shut down any potential for learning. This underscored how Ashley preferred comfort over learning about the hidden ways in which white supremacy and racism encompass her life and inhibited future growth. Similar to exhibiting defensiveness from feeling uncomfortable, participants’ learning was inhibited by white guilt. Hannah mentioned feeling white guilt in her dialogue five CIQ. She formulated, “I got uncomfortable talking [about] whiteness and I think it’s because I am white and I know that there are so many things I don’t understand and will never understand about other cultures. I feel the white guilt hard.” Hannah expressed her limited scope of knowledge about other cultures. She attributed the limited scope of knowledge to her whiteness. This reinforced the notion that white supremacy suppresses other cultures that do not fit within white culture and when white supremacy systems are put into place, normalized, and maintained, white people have structures, beliefs, and cultural practices that exploit people not defined as ‘white’ so that white people can continue to have power and domination in all of the systems (Allen, 2019; Bonds, 2020; Deliovsky, 2010; Frankenberg, 1993; Kantrowitz, 2018; Smith, 2012). Additionally, white supremacy remains hidden, which makes white people uncomfortable CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 46 discussing white culture (hooks, 1995; McIntosh, 1990; Mills, 2003). In other words, it is hard to figure out exactly what white supremacy culture is and how it operates. Hannah touched on these aspects of white supremacy culture and felt white guilt for being entrenched in white culture without intentionally and consciously understanding what that entailed. Comparable to Hannah’s experience, Alexis also felt white guilt. She said in her reflection of dialogue seven, “During the meeting I started to feel like I was ashamed for being white. Then I thought, “is this what colleges are teaching students?” Then I realized that they are just trying [to] educate the public on racism…”. Alexis compared her experiences to those in college when she mentioned her sense of shame around being white and quickly realized that this feeling is a part of the learning journey. Earlier in dialogue five, Alexis shared how she deals with shame when she stated, “I just internalize it. I don't talk about it. I just try to deal with it on my own.” This means that when Alexis felt shame, she shut down and kept her thoughts in her head to deal with the shame. The internalized shame allowed Alexis to disengage in the dialogue. Remaining engaged is essential for learning (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Furthermore, Felman (1982) explained that resistance to learning is a refusal “to acknowledge one’s own implication in the information” (p. 30). This means when Alexis shut down, she resisted learning, which is prevalent in talk that addresses systemic oppression and privilege. Participants focused on solutions as another way to avoid discomfort. During dialogue six, Ashley interrupted the conversation with a question. She asked, “I have a question that may not be the best, most appropriate time to ask this. But like, how do you like, what would be like, how do we fix that? Like, what would be your solution to that?” This moment depicted how a sense of urgency to fix the problem at hand disrupted the learning process. According to Livingston (2021) states: CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 47 Enduring, long-term solutions usually require more than just a pill. Organizations and societies alike must resist the impulse to seek immediate relief for the symptoms, and instead focus on the disease. Otherwise they run the risk of a recurring ailment. This means that jumping to solutions, like Ashley tried to do in the dialogue, is problematic because people gamble maintaining and falling back into white supremacy culture. Furthermore, Ashley felt uncomfortable exploring a topic in immense detail. She mentioned in her CIQ from this dialogue that “We have problems obviously as a country. I think having conversations about the problem is important, for sure. But I think we should talk about fixing it and how we can fix it…”. In this reflection she commented on how these conversations are important but was quick to move towards solutions to find comfort. According to Okun (2001), a sense of urgency makes it hard to think long term and consider consequences. This is important because without learning in-depth how society is entrenched in white supremacy, mistakes will continue to do more harm than good. Thus, it is better to sit in discomfort in the conversations than try to find a quick fix. Frank also avoided discomfort by yearning for a clear direction to create change. She wrote in her CIQ from dialogue eight: I believe I have grown as a person for the better and learned a lot about the history of racism and will continue to educate myself and other[s], however I wish I had some defined steps on what to do next. Frank wanted a clear direction on how to fix racism, even though it is extremely complex and there is not a clear action other than continuing to learn and critically think about how white supremacy shows up in her daily life. Sitting in the discomfort is uncomfortable, so going straight to solutions makes Frank feel more comfortable. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 48 After participants exhibited multiple ways of finding comfort within the dialogue series, Bert, the co-facilitator and only person of color in the group, expressed how avoiding discomfort is harmful to him. Bert wrote: Definitely frustration and even a bit of anger towards those who seemed to pull away. I think in my mind I feel that it's inconsiderate to think of your own discomfort while trying to find a resolution or solutions for others who are suffering. Again this is likely why I began to feel anger and frustration. But aside from that I felt immense happiness at other recognition of their own environment and the racism that surrounds them. Bert voiced his frustration with those who shut down in the dialogues to find more comfort. Bert brought to light how white supremacy generated a culture of comfort for those who are entrenched in this system. He demonstrated the problematic nature of the right to comfort when he reflected on participants who prioritized their own comfort over others who are suffering. Conclusion This chapter demonstrated the findings of this research project. While for the participants, the dialogue was beneficial because felt the dialogue series produced community, connection, and a sense of personal growth, white supremacy is so deeply entrenched that the learning was minimal. The purpose of this dialogue was to talk about white supremacy and racial injustices, but participants were not able to do this because of how they showed up to do the work. They exhibited perfectionism, guilt, and focused on solutions to feel comfortable. Participants did not do the internal work that needs to be done first before moving on to solutions. This work is about planting seeds so participants can build upon the foundation that we set together, and this research provided the opportunity to plant those seeds. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 49 Chapter V: Discussion and Concluding Thoughts Introduction This chapter addresses the implications of this research project and offers recommendations for future projects that seek to engage in dialogues with those in long-standing relationships. I then discuss the limitations of this research, learning objectives I achieved, and my personal reflection of my experiences doing this research with participants who I am in longstanding relationships with. Implications and Recommendations The biggest implication to this research was participants embodied white supremacy and until the participants realize that, real learning will not happen. This project intended to illustrate how to facilitate a dialogue series to move participants in long-standing, family-like, relationships towards racial justice. Due to the deeply ingrained white supremacy characteristics, it was difficult to understand the extent of learning of white supremacy and racism. To further growth and learning, journaling every day and debriefing journal responses in the group would be recommended to combat embodiment of white supremacy. Additionally, my recommendation for facilitators in this work is to combat burnout by working with a cofacilitator to critically reflect on what is being said in the dialogues to plan future dialogues. Lastly, having a network of other people experienced in anti-racist work was helpful to brainstorm ideas. The group of participants was fairly homogeneous, which was a barrier to change and learning because this homogeneity heightened white supremacy characteristics. Also, similar experiences produced a sense of group think, hindering critical analysis of lived experiences. Thus, I recommend that research in the future seek more diversity in participation with CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 50 socioeconomic status and upbringing, religion, sexual orientation, gender, and race to bring more perspectives to the dialogue. The last implication that came from this research is that the participants built community and grew from this experience. Even if participants are still in the beginning stages of the racial justice journey, they built a network of people on a similar journey. The hope was to produce a safe place for participants to ask questions and have a support system in place when they need help having conversations with others around race. However, due to the embodiment of white supremacy characteristics, critical learning did not occur. I recommend that others try to name white supremacy when it is showing up and bring forth the journal entries in a vague way to learn from what participants are writing without the pressure of others. With those recommendations, there could be dialogue around actively challenging white supremacy in a space where discomfort, learning, and conflict is practiced. Limitations and Future Research These dialogues took a lot of work, effort, mental and emotional space, and energy from both the participants and facilitators. Trying to fit these two-hour dialogues into two and half months did not allow for the space of reflection. Furthermore, participants were not able to experience their “normal” lives and how they operate via white supremacy structures, because of the pandemic. Experiencing a learned topic solidifies the knowledge in a deeper way compared to reading about an issue solely. Other limitations included a homogenous group of participants, the length of time the research was conducted in, having the dialogues over Zoom instead of in person, and a sense of burden of the reflections. While participants who participated in the dialogue series varied in age (21 years old - 55 years old), their upbringings, race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender only CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 51 varied a little bit. It would be beneficial for future research to seek more diversity within the group to bring about more perspectives, their experiences in a white supremacy culture, and their reactions and thoughts to others in the group. Additionally, for future research, it would be enlightening to have younger participants and participants 60+. This could create an opportunity for everyone to learn from different generations and share experiences of white supremacy throughout generations. The dialogue series was held via Zoom. This led to a sense of flexibility and I think increased participation from people from other states. However, there were more outside distractions for the participants than if we were all in a room together. For future research, I think these dialogues should be held in person, because of the power of human connection. Additionally, when all of the participants get together in person for a group gathering in the future, I am not sure how the dynamic will change, if at all. Having the dialogues in person could eliminate the anxiety around seeing these people in person again. However, if future researchers want to bring people together from other states, cities, countries, Zoom is a great second option. Longer dialogues would have developed the dialogue further been beneficial to develop critical thinking and learning. It seemed like around 1.5 hours of the dialogue, we got deeper in the group. However, thirty minutes to continue the deeper dialogues was not even time. I would suggest meeting for three or more hours for future research. Additionally, we met two to three times a month for two and a half months. I would have liked to have dialogue a year or so after completion to determine and understand the lasting effects of the dialogue series. Having more time between each session would have allowed participants to reflect deeper. Another suggestion would be to meet to reflect as a group or individual instead of having participants write out their reflections. Most participants would need reminders to complete the CIQs, wrote very little in the CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 52 reflections, or would write to answer the questions instead of critically reflecting on the dialogue. Overall, for future research, a different form of reflection would be beneficial. Learning Objectives Throughout my thesis and the MACL program, I was able to strengthen my communication skills, leadership style, and creativity. I was able to develop and enhance these qualities during my co-facilitation in the dialogue series I led over Zoom with people whom I am in long-standing relationships with. Combined with my research, this gave me the opportunity to explore how I can convey my passion and vision for social change by cultivating a community to have dialogues to move people towards racial justice specifically. Communication By writing effectively to get across the importance of my research with numerous drafts, I improved my communication during this writing process. Also, I verbally worked with the participants to build community and general understanding of why Black Lives Matter as well as how white supremacy shows up in their lives. Through creating a web of oppression with the group, I was able to show how oppression is connected through different systems through visual communication. Lastly, I developed skills around facilitating touchy subjects that ensured effective communication within a group, even though it was challenging. With these communication skills, I increased participants' understanding of what it means to be white and how white supremacy is ingrained in U.S. culture to encourage others to take action against white supremacy. Leadership Throughout my thesis, I enhanced my leadership skills. I practiced my facilitation, teaching, listening, and leading by example to empower those around me to critically look at CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 53 white supremacy and how white supremacy is showing up in their lives. As I nurtured these skills in this informal community setting, I used what I learned to demonstrate my skills in my work setting. Creativity My research developed my creativity. In my literature review, chapter II, I synthesized and combined new ideas, practices, and expertise to relate it to my study. Also, as I worked with people in which I have had long-standing relationships with, I developed my risk taking in a safe way that yielded an increase in connection among participants and myself. Lastly, these dialogues potentially created new ways of thinking/living/etc. for participants now or in the future. Reflection As I wrap up this research, I want to share how this research has impacted me. This research was tough! I constantly saw white supremacy show up in my way of facilitating, writing, and internal thoughts, and feelings to this research. I noticed my desire to be perfect in writing and conducting this research. I noticed a sense of failure when I could not provide an example that resonated with others. I reflect on how I embody a sense of urgency when I wanted to see more change in the participants anti-racist journey than I saw in 3 months. I had an internal conflict on wanting to challenge everything someone said and letting them figure it out for themselves. I am making a promise to myself to continue this work. By continuing this work, I pledge to practice patience, compassion, and a growth mindset on myself, not just the participants. The research has made me truly understand how white supremacy has been socialized in myself and those around me when I see myself and others remain complicit in a system that was CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 54 intentionally set up to benefit me and other white people at the expense of BIPOC. I have a better understanding of identifying white supremacy thinking, values, and behaviors, which is going to help me critically think and challenge how I perpetuate white supremacy around me as well as challenge others to do the same. These conversations need to happen to understand one another. As I engaged in these dialogues with people who I am in a long-standing relationship with, I learned something about each member that I did not know. This new level of understanding helps me to make sense of where they are coming from, regardless of racial conversations. Knowing more about a person opens the door to deeper conversation to further develop the foundation of racial justice. Without this research, I would have continued to feel isolated within the group of participants with my views. I would shut down and brush off each participant and say, “They will just never get it.” Now I know that people within these close relationships are trying because they showed up and continued to show up throughout the dialogue series. We all have a life-long journey of continual growth and learning, and some more than others need support in recognizing and challenging white supremacy around them. I promise to remain that support system to the best of my abilities. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 55 References Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham NC: Duke University Press. Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness. New York, NY: New Press. Allen, W. S. (2019). “I had missionary grandparents for christ’s sakes!”: White women in transracial/cultural families bearing witness to whiteness. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Studies, 6(1), 130. Amin, A. (2012). Land of strangers. Cambridge: Polity. Aronson, B. (2017). The White Savior Industrial Complex: A Cultural Studies Analysis of a Teacher Educator, Savior Film, and Future Teachers. Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis, 6(3). Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/jctp/vol6/iss3 Bell, D. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. New York: Basic Books. Bergner, D. (2020). 'White fragility' is everywhere. But does antiracism training work? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/magazine/white-fragility-robindiangelo.html?auth=login-google. Bigelow, B., Garcia, A., & Martinez, E. (2006). What is neoliberalism?. In The line between us: Teaching about the border and Mexican immigration (pp. 20–20). essay, Rethinking Schools. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 56 Bonds, A. (2020). Race and ethnicity II: White women and the possessive geographies of white supremacy. Progress in Human Geography, 44(4), 778–788. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1177/0309132519863479 Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001). White supremacy and racism in the post civil rights era. Boulder, CO: Rienner. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Anything but racism: How social scientists limit the significance of race. New York, NY: Routledge. Bush, M.E.L. (2004). ‘Race, ethnicity and whiteness’, Sage Race Relations Abstracts 29(3–4): 5–48. Case, K. (2012). Discovering the privilege of whiteness: White women's reflections on anti-racist identity and ally behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 78-96. doi: 10.1111/j.15404560.2011.01737.x Cole, M. (2009). Critical race theory and education: A Marxist response. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299. Creswell, J.W. & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice. (39)3. Pp. 124-130 Davis, A. Y. (1998). Interview in G. Yancy (ed.), African-American Philosophers: 17 conversations. New York: Routledge. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 57 Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (1997). Critical white studies: Looking behind the mirror. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press. Deliovsky, K. (2010). White femininity: Race, gender & power. Black Point, N.S: Fernwood. DeVult, M. L., & Gross, G. (2006). Feminist interviewing: Experience, talk, and knowledge. In Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 173-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. DiAngelo, R. (2011). White fragility. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy 3(3): 54–70. DiAngelo, R. (2012). Nothing to add: The role of white silence in racial discussions. Journal of Understanding and Dismantling Privilege, 2(2), 1-17. dRworksBook. White Supremacy Culture. https://www.dismantlingracism.org/white-supremacyculture.html. Eaves, L. E. (2019). The Imperative of Struggle: Feminist and gender geographies in the United States. Gender, Place & Culture, online ahead of print. Edwards, K. (2006). Aspiring social justice ally identity development: A conceptual model. NASPA journal, 43(4), 39-60. doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1722 Felman, S. (1982). Psychoanalysis and Education: Teaching Terminable and Interminable. Yale French Studies, 63, 21–44. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.2307/2929829 Figueroa Helland, L. E., & Lindgren, T. (2016). What goes around comes around: From the coloniality of power to the crisis of civilization. Journal of World-Systems Research, 22(2), 430-462. doi:10.5195/jwsr.2016.631 CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 58 Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. (pp. 97–131). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5 Ford, K. A. (2012). Shifting White ideological scripts: The educational benefits of inter- and intraracial curricular dialogues on the experiences of White college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(3), 138–158. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1037/a0028917 Fortuna, L. R., Tolou-Shams, M., Robles-Ramamurthy, B., & Porche, M. V. (2020). Inequity and the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color in the United States: The need for a trauma-informed social justice response. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1037/tra0000889 Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury. Gillborn, D. (2006). Rethinking white supremacy. Ethnicities, 6(3), 318–340. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1177/1468796806068323 Gokarıksel, B. & Smith, S. (2016). ‘Making America great again?’: The fascist body politics of Donald Trump. Political Geography 54: 79–81. Gokarıksel, B. & Smith, S. (2018). Tiny hands, Tiki torches: Embodied white male supremacy and its politics of exclusion. Political Geography 62: 209–211. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 59 Golash-Boza, T., Duenas, M. D., Xiong, C., Christian, M., Seamster, L., & Ray, V. (2019). White supremacy, patriarchy, and global capitalism in migration studies. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(13), 1741–1759. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1177/0002764219842624 Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The threat of race: Reflections on racial neoliberalism. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Gulati-Partee, G., & Potapchuk, M. (2014). Paying Attention to White Culture and Privilege: A Missing Link to Advancing Racial Equity. The Foundation Review, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1189 Gurin, P., Nagda, B., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Harries, B., (2014). We Need to Talk about Race. Sociology, 48(6), 1107. Hartocollis, A. (2019). 50 years of affirmative action: What went right, and what it got wrong. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/affirmative-action-50years.html. Harvey, D. (2006). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press. Hernandez, W. P., & McDowell, T. (2012). Speaking of Privilege: Family Therapy Educators’ Journeys toward Awareness and Compassionate Action. Family Process, 51(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01394.x hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: race, gender, and cultural politics. Between the Lines Press, Toronto. hooks, b. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. Boston: South End Press. hooks, b. (1995). Killing rage: Ending racism (1st ed.). New York, NY: H. Holt and Co. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 60 hooks, b. (2000). Feminist theory: From margin to center. London, England: Pluto Press. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Education: Definition, Origins, and Practices. (2007). ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(4), 1–8. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1002/aehe.3204 Inwood, J. (2018). White Supremacy, White Counter Revolutionary Politics, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Environment and Planning C: Politics & Space. DOI: 10.1177/2399654418789949. Jones, B. G. (2006). Decolonizing international relations. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. Jones, B. G. (2008). Race in the Ontology of International Order. Political Studies, 56(4), 907927. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00710.x Kantrowitz, S., (2018). White supremacy has always been mainstream. The Boston Review. http://bostonreview.net/race/stephen-kantrowitz-white-supremacy-has-always-beenmainstream Keating, D., Russell, J., Cornacchione, J., & Smith, S. (2013). Family communication patterns and difficult family conversations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(2), 160–180. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1080/00909882.2013.781659 Kivel, P. (2017). Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice. Canada: New Society Publishers. Lakoff, G. (2009). The political mind: A cognitive scientist's guide to your brain and its politics. New York: Penguin Books. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 61 Laster Pirtle, W. N. (2020). Racial capitalism: A fundamental cause of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic inequities in the United States. Health Education & Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 47(4), 504–508. https://doi-org.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1177/1090198120922942 Latta, M., Kruger, T. M., Payne, L., Weaver, L., & VanSickle, J. L. (2018). Approaching Critical Service-Learning: A model for reflection on positionality and possibility. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(2), 31-56. Retrieved from http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/2049/1075 Lentin, A., & Titley, G. (2011). The crises of multiculturalism: Racism in a neoliberal age. London: Zed Books. Leonardo, Z. (2002). ‘The souls of white folk: Critical pedagogy, whiteness studies, and globalization discourse’, in G. Ladson-Billings and D. Gillborn (eds) The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Multicultural Education, pp. 117–36. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Leonardo, Z. (2004). ‘The color of supremacy: Beyond the discourse of “white privilege”’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(2): 137–52. Leung, S. Y., & López-McKnight, J. R. (2020). Dreaming revolutionary futures: Critical race’s centrality to ending white supremacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 14(1), 12. Lewis, A. (2003). ‘‘Everyday Race-Making: Navigating Racial Boundaries in Schools.’’ American Behavioral Scientist. Lewis, A. E., (2004). “What group?” studying whites and whiteness in the era of “colorblindness.” Sociological Theory, 22(4), 623. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 62 Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lipsitz, G., (2006). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from identity politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Livingston, R. (2021). The Conversation: How seeking and speaking the truth about racism can radically transform individuals and organizations. Currency. Lopez, I. H. (1997). White by law. New York: New York University Press. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1907). Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 2). Chicago, IL: Charles H. Kerr. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771-1800. McIntosh, P. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Independent School, 49, 31-36. McKinney, K. (2005). Being White: Stories of race and racism. New York, NY: Routledge. Mills, C. W. (2003). White supremacy as sociopolitical system: A philosophical perspective. In A. W. Doane, & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White out: The continuing significance of racism (pp. 35-48). New York, NY: Routledge. Nagda, B. R., Gurin, P., & Lopez, G. E. (2003). Transformative Pedagogy for Democracy and Social Justice. Race Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 165–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320308199 Okun, T. (2001). White supremacy culture. Retrieved from https://www.dismantlingracism.org/uploads/4/3/5/7/43579015/okun__white_sup_culture.pdf Okun, T. (2009). The emperor has no clothes: Teaching about race and racism to people who don’t want to know. Information Age Publishing. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 63 Omi, M. (2001). (E)racism: Emerging practices of antiracist organizations. In B. B. Rasmussen, E. Klinenberg, I. J. Nexica, & M. Wray (Eds.), The making and unmaking of whiteness (pp. 266 –293). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Orelus, P. W., (2013). Unpacking the race talk. Journal of Black Studies, 44(6), 572. Orentlicher, D. (2016). Political dysfunction and the election of Donald Trump: Problems of the U.S. constitution’s presidency. Indiana Law Review, 50(1), 247–264. PettyJohn, M. E., Muzzey, F. K., Maas, M. K., & McCauley, H. L. (2019). #HowIWillChange: Engaging Men and Boys in the #MeToo Movement. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20(4), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000186 Preskill, S., & Brookfield, S.D. (2009). Learning as a way of leading: Lessons from the struggle for social justice. Jossey Bass. Pulido, L., Bruno, T., Faiver-Serna, C. and Galentine, C. (2019). Environmental Deregulation, Spectacular Racism, and White Nationalism in the Trump Era. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 109(2): 520–532. Radd, S. I., Grosland, T. J., Welton, A., Diem, S., & Carpenter, B. W. (2019). Desirablizing whiteness: A discursive practice in social justice leadership that entrenches white supremacy. Urban Education, 54(5), 656–676. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1177/0042085918783824 Reinsborough, P., & Canning, D. (2017). Re:imagining change: How to use story-based strategy to win campaigns, build movements, and change the world. Oakland, CA: Pm Press. Rickford, R. (2016). Black Lives Matter. New Labor Forum (Sage Publications Inc.), 25(1), 34– 42. https://doi-org.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1177/1095796015620171 Romero, M. (2017). Introducing intersectionality. New York, NY: Polity Press. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 64 Roth, S. (2018). Introduction: Contemporary countermovements in the age of Brexit and Trump. The Sociological Review Online 23(2): 496–506. Ryan, C., & Gamson, W. A. (2006). The Art of Reframing Political Debates. Contexts, 5(1), 13– 18. https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2006.5.1.13 Saad, L. F. (2020). Me and White Supremacy: Combat Racism, Change the World, and Become a Good Ancestor. Sourcebooks. Schrodt, P. (2009). Family Strength and Satisfaction as Functions of Family Communication Environments. Communication Quarterly, 57(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370902881650 Smith, A., (2012). Indigeneity, settler colonialism, white supremacy. Racial Formation in the Twenty-First Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 66–90 Smith, T. (2020, October 27). 'Dude, I'm Done': When politics tears families and friendships apart. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/27/928209548/dude-i-m-done-when-politicstears-families-and-friendships-apart. Steverson, L. A. (2010). Shared Obliviousness in Family Systems. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(1), 96–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00043.x Straubhaar, R. (2015). The Stark Reality of the ‘White Saviour’ Complex and the Need for Critical Consciousness: A document analysis of the early journals of a Freirean educator. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(3), 381-400. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2013.876306 Student Diversity and Inclusion Center. (2020). https://westminstercollege.edu/studentlife/student-diversity-and-inclusion-center. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 65 Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.1.146k5v980r703023 Tatum, B. D. (2003). ‘Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?’ and other conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books. Tatum, B. D. (2007). Can we talk about race? And other conversations in a era of school resegregation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Taylor, K. E., & Marienau, C. (2016). Facilitating Learning with the Adult Brain in Mind: A conceptual and practical guide. Jossey-Bass - A Wiley Brand. Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of Intergroup Relations: International social psychological perspectives. Praeger. Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Walters, A. (2020). Inequities in access to education: Lessons from the COVID‐19 pandemic. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 36(8), 8. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1002/cbl.30483 Watson-Singleton, N. N., Mekawi, Y., Wilkins, K. V., & Jatta, I. F. (2020). Racism’s effect on depressive symptoms: Examining perseverative cognition and Black Lives Matter activism as moderators. Journal of Counseling Psychology. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1037/cou0000436 Weber, L. (1998). A conceptual framework for understanding race, class, gender, and sexuality. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 13-32. Weingarten, K. (2003). Common shock. Boston, MA: Dutton. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 66 Willer, J., (2019). Working Through the Smog: How white individuals develop critical consciousness of white saviorism. Community Engagement Student Work. 29. https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/soe_student_ce/29 Winant, H. (2004). The new politics of race: Globalism, difference, justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Winant, H. (2006). Race and racism: Towards a global future. Ethnic and Racial Studies 29(5): 986–1003. Xafis, V. (2020). “What is inconvenient for you is life-saving for me”: How health inequities are playing out during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Bioethics Review, 1–12. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1007/s41649-020-00119-1\ Yeung, J. G., Spanierman, L. B., & Landrum-Brown, J. (2013). “Being White in a multicultural society”: Critical whiteness pedagogy in a dialogue course. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6(1), 17–32. https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminstercollege.edu/10.1037/a0031632 Yosso, T. J., & Solorzano, D. (2005). Conceptualizing a critical race theory in sociology. In M. Romero & E. Margolis (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social inequalities (pp. 117146). New York, NY: John Wiley Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B. A., Chesler, M., & CytronWalker, A. (2007). Intergroup dialogue in higher education: Meaningful learning about social justice. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32, 1–128. doi:10.1002/aehe.32 CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 67 Appendix A: Recruitment Email Hi Everyone, First off, I hope you all are doing well and staying healthy! We both miss you all so much! Recently, some of the things, like COVID-19 and Black Lives Matter, are going on around us in the world are creating different experiences for us as individuals. During moments of conflict, there seems to be a divide between experience and thoughts among a variety of people. We, Bert and Mackenzie, want to have dialogues with willing participants about our identities to build our relationships with one another to look for shared meaning in our experience and values. We also want to start having dialogues with you all about hard topics, such as our role in the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. So, we want to start a dialogue with a group of people with long standing relationships to provide a non-judgmental space (see attachment on how dialogue is different from debate and discussion). https://drive.google.com/file/d/18BAfWnfNNxuvEPOgaX5NoxOVh6kepMKk/view?usp=sharin g). Our intentions and goals for this dialogue are to build stronger relationships with one another, learn more about our individual identities and how those are connected with each other, and eventually learn from everyone in a way that fosters critical thinking about topics we would not normally talk about, such as BLM. In other words, we want to build a foundation of understanding one another’s perspectives before talking about world events. For example, the first few sessions we will be discovering our individual values and identities before we start talking about controversial topics. We really hope that everyone will be involved and fully participate in these conversations, and participation is a key factor in these dialogues. It is very CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 68 important that if you’d like to be involved in these dialogues that you do so from the beginning, as we hope to have solidified a few foundation points initially and engaging into the conversation later may cause you to be unaware of the topic, others’ experiences, and other nuances. If you are interested in participating, even a little bit, we encourage you to get involved and lean into some discomfort you may be feeling. Here is the link to RSVP (google form link). If you want to participate, please RSVP as soon as you can and no later than [date] as we would like to have our first dialogue before [date] and this allows us ample amount of time to prepare. If you RSVP yes, we will be gathering information from you to provide us a better understanding of how to prepare for the first dialogue. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns please feel free to reach out to Bert and Mackenzie individually. Again, we wish you all good health. We are excited to create an experience to grow together as we always have. Love you all so much. Warmly, Bert and Mackenzie CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 69 Appendix B: Google Survey Questions If the participant marks yes, they move on to the following questions. If they mark no, the survey ends. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 70 CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 71 Appendix C: Meeting Curriculum Outlines Meeting 1: (2 Hours) ● Share our purpose in this (Mackenzie and Bert) (10 minutes) ● Check-in (TBD) o Rose (something good that has happened to you), bud (something you are looking forward to), thorn (something not so good that has happened to you) ● Extensive Zoom Overview (15 minutes) o Zoom Etiquette ▪ Keep yourself on mute o How to get to gallery view→ try it out o How to mute→ we have done this with our check in! o How to chat→ try it out ▪ Mini check-in name one feeling you have right now ● Ex: nervous, excited, etc. ● Jam board (5 minutes) o How to add a sticky note o How to edit a sticky note o Other tools? ● Break (5 minutes) ● Community Norms: Come with list and ask for others (1 hour) o Be present when you’re on the zoom call ▪ No side texting/calling or other side conversations (knowing we are all human and something might come up) o Confidentiality ▪ We want to create an atmosphere that is open and honest. What is said here stays here. What is learned leave here. If it's not your story, don’t share it. o Allow someone to express their emotions and experiences without projecting your experiences/thoughts/feelings onto them. ▪ Pg. 15 #5 don’t rank oppression o Validate other experience and focus on their experience even if you were involved. o Lean/Speak into discomfort o Monitor your airtime. ▪ Be mindful of… o Speak your discomfort ▪ Explanation o Challenge the idea not the person ▪ examples → mock conversations o Parking Lot o Unanimous Agreement: When everyone has the power to block a decision, each participant has the right to be taken into account. This puts pressure on members to work toward mutual understanding. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 72 Unanimous agreement vs. Person in charge makes decisions vs. Majority vote ▪ Gradient of agreement scale (p. 338) ▪ Record the proposal being discussed on the JamBoard ▪ Check to see that everyone understands the proposal ▪ Ask for final revisions in the wording of the proposal o Show the gradient of agreement scale ▪ Define the gradients ▪ Ask the group, “On this proposal, where do each of you stand?” o Take the poll. Capture everyone’s positions on the scoreboard. ▪ This is a preliminary poll not a vote that will show your level of support for the community norms. There will be a discussion and final poll after we get a feel for where everyone stands currently. ● 1- Whole-hearted endorsement ("I really like it") ● 2- Agreement with a minor point of contention ("Not perfect, but it is good enough") ● 3- Support with reservations ("I can live with it") ● 4- Abstain ("This issue does not affect me") ● 5- More discussion needed ("I don't understand the issues well enough yet") ● 6- Don't like but will support ("It's not great, but I don't want to hold up the group") ● 7- Serious disagreement ("I am not on board with this- don't count on me") ● 8- Veto ("I block this proposal") ● Check-out: o One question, one hope, and one personal goal ● Homework for next Session Saturday, December 12th from 1-3pm: o Fill out CIQ’s ▪ Send email o Sort values to get your top 20 values ▪ Come to next session with top 20 values ▪ https://www.guilford.com/add/miller2/values.pdf?t ▪ CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 73 Meeting 2: (2 hours) ● Check in (Bert) o What is one thing that you thought more about after last meeting? o What are your expectations since the first dialogue? Did they change from prior to dialogue to now? o Show Brené Brown video on empathy (MACKENZIE) ▪ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Evwgu369Jw&t=17s o Show Brené Brown video on Blame ▪ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZWf2_2L2v8 ● Community Norms (Bert) o What are three community norms that we should pay extra attention to when we talk about values today? ● Values sort and discussion on top values (MACKENZIE) o https://www.guilford.com/add/miller2/values.pdf?t ▪ Narrow values from 20 to 10 values (7 minutes) ● Delete 10 values from your list ▪ Narrow values from 10 to 5 values (7 minutes) ● Delete 5 values from your list ▪ Narrow values from 5 to 3 values (7 minutes) ● Delete two values from your list ▪ Choose top value (5 minutes) ● Change your sticky note color of your top value from yellow to another color o How was that activity? (Bert) o What was the hardest or easiest value to get rid of and why? (Bert) o What are you noticing are common values within our family? (MACKENZIE) o What are some major differences? ▪ How did those differences come about in your life? What might have been different in your life than in others? ● Break (2-5 minutes) ● Self-reflection is a big part of these dialogues, so we are practice deep self-reflection (Bert) ● CIQ’s and reflections (MACKENZIE) o At what point in your life did your values (Maybe choose from top 3) stand out in your life? What are the roots of that value→ where did that value come from? (20 minutes) ▪ Pairs o Share out in big group→ present your partner (10 minutes) (MACKENZIE) o How are your values showing up in your life currently? (10 minutes) (MACKENZIE/ Bert) ▪ Small Group o What was an example that stood out to you in your group? (5 minutes) (Bert) ● Check out (5 minutes) (MACKENZIE): I am noticing our values are o What is one thing you learned about another person today? CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 74 Meeting 3: (2 Hours) ● Review previous session and discuss new insights (5 mins) o Are there any new insights you noticed since last session? ● Community norms (8 mins) Mackenzie o As we popcorn, please note that you can pass for more time to think OR pass and not answer. ● Check in o What do you do when you leave home to protect yourself from sexual assault? (15 mins) Bert o What was your experience with police growing up? How do you view police today? (20 minutes) Mackenzie ● Social identity wheel/identity circle (Remainder of time) o Show jam board of Mackenzie’s personal and social identities and sort them as a group. (20-30 minutes) Mackenzie ▪ What is different between these two things? ● Try to get at social identities have a social construct attached to them. o Social construct: is something that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interactions. It exists because humans agree that is exists. ▪ Example: An example of a social construct is money or the concept of currency, as people in society have agreed to give it importance/value. Money is actual paper. ▪ Use the example for pink. Pink is just a color, but we have attached that to a little girl and blue to a little boy. o Take time to fill out your first column of the social identities worksheet. (15 minutes) Bert ▪ Choose one identity. ● What was the first time you noticed your social identity? ● What was the most recent time you noticed your social identity? o Maybe try to tie in values with identities? ● Check out Bert o One word to describe how you’re feeling ● Homework for next meeting on Thursday, January 7th from 6-8pm Mackenzie o Bring one item for a show and tell. That item must represent a privileged identity that you hold. o Finish the worksheet CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 75 Meeting 4: (2 Hours) ● Mackenzie Preview of today (10 minutes): o Objects o Current events o Moving away from popcorn methods to ensure a more organic dialogue. o Community norms are on this sheet and we really want to focus on our conflict areas of dialogue and stay away from discussion and debate. ▪ https://drive.google.com/file/d/18BAfWnfNNxuvEPOgaX5NoxOVh6kep MKk/view?usp=sharing ● Bert Check in (15 minutes): Share a one or two-word intention you hold for today’s dialogue. ● Mackenzie (35 minutes) Share your object that you brought that represents an identity that you think about the least. o After each presentation of object, person asks questions and then we open it up to the whole group ● Bert (45 minutes) We didn’t plan for this to come up during this dialogue and we noticed that everyone is having reactions about what is happening in Washington D.C. with the election yesterday and that Capitol building break-in. So, we wanted to open this space to speak about what you are feeling and what you’re going through. o https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Media-Bias-Chart6.0_Licensed.pdf o https://apnews.com/article/us-capitol-lockdown2f56a611445df15fb9640893bb9f7a93 o https://apnews.com/article/78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818 o Take 5-minute break and read one of the articles ▪ Why do you think people are doing this? ▪ What impact will this have (big scale and personal)? ▪ Do you think this is right? Explain. ▪ What does this remind you of? ▪ Draw a comparison and contrast of these events and BLM protests this summer. ● BACK-UP: (45 minutes): Ask someone in the group one question that you’ve thought about during this dialogue series so far. ● Mackenzie Check-out (15 minutes): Do you feel like your intentions were met during this dialogue? Explain. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 76 Meeting 5: (2 Hours) Objective (Bert): 1. To articulate your own culture and how it relates to your race Community Norms (Bert): Pick top 3 Framing (Mackenzie): ● Check-in Question: How do you react when you are feeling shame? ● Avoid shame→ Talk through it! Shame can be projected. ● Healthy guilt→ not a bad thing (Missy’s example) Conversation around culture (particularly around White culture): ● (Bert)Providing why we are talking about it→ White people have culture even when it is hard to identify. ● (Mackenzie) Cultural iceberg example ● (Bert) Now that we notice the differences between visible culture and hidden culture, identify one hidden cultural characteristic that you can identify with as being immersed in White culture. ○ Give a personal example. ● (Mackenzie) Let’s go through visible culture and deep culture to develop what American culture would identify with. ○ Although things are flexible and ever evolving, these are the things that America values as a White culture. Check-out question: (Bert) What is your current view of White Culture and how it relates to you? OR Try to articulate your culture. Next session (Mackenzie): ● Homework: CIQ’s and review the White Culture Characteristics and mark which ones apply to you personally. CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 77 Meeting 6: (2 Hours) 2 minutes-Objectives (Mackenzie): 1. Learn about myth of meritocracy 2. Learn about equality, equity, and justice 1:02pm-Community Norms (Mackenzie): Pick one that you personally are going to focus on today ● Share out which one you are focusing on today 1:10pm-Framing (Bert): ● Check-in Question: Tell us about a conversation you had around race that you still think about? What did you resonate with? Who was the conversation with? ● Watch YouTube video together ○ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M ○ What did you learn? 1:45pm-Break out rooms: ● Room 1: Unpack and define Meritocracy ○ Identify examples of meritocracy (or lack thereof) in our government today ○ Define ○ Find some pitfalls of meritocracy ● Room 2: Equality, Equity, and Justice ○ Define each ○ Find where it is missing for people of color ○ Pros and cons of each 2:05pm-Big group discussion: ● Each person from each group will tell us what they learned and identify areas where they can continue to learn. ● What were some feelings that were coming up when learning about this? ● What were some difficulties doing this research? 2:50pm-Check-out question: (Bert) In learning about the history and current state of meritocracy, equity, and justice, how are you going to challenge yourself these next two weeks? 3:00pm-Next session (Mackenzie): ● Homework: CIQ’s and reading ● Next session is Saturday, February 27th 1-3pm CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 78 Meeting 7: (2 Hours) 2 minutes-Objective (Mackenzie): 1. Participants will learn how systems work together to reinforce racial oppression 1:02pm-Community Norms (Mackenzie): Pick one that you personally are going to focus on today ● Share out which one you are focusing on today 1:10pm-Framing (Bert): ● Check-in Question: How do you identify racism around you? 1:45pm-Break out rooms (Mackenzie): Racism exists on the macro/micro levels. Write out the good and bad of each of system with at least 4 bullet points → go to the internet if you have any questions ● Room 1: Education ● Room 2: Criminal System ● Room 3: Healthcare ● Room 4: Employment ● Room 5: Housing 2:05pm-Big group discussion (Bert): ● Share out what we found→ Quickly ○ Writing on the whiteboard ● How to these connect ○ Bert and Mackenzie give an example from housing ■ Housing → education (Start small) ■ Then connect these→ criminal justice system → employment → healthcare 2:50pm-Check-out question: (Bert): How do you see yourself impacting the web of oppression? 3:00pm-Next session (Mackenzie): ● Homework: CIQ’s this is the second to last CIQ ● Next session is Saturday, March 6th from 1-3p CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 79 Meeting 8: (2 Hours) 2 minutes-Objectives (Mackenzie): 1. Using all our newfound knowledge on racism to apply it to real-life situation 2. Reflect on dialogue experience 1:02pm-Community Norms (Mackenzie): Pick one that you personally are going to focus on today ● Share out which one you are focusing on today 1:10pm-Read the article (Bert): ● https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=csal 1:35pm-Case-study discussion (Mackenzie and Bert): ● Below are prompts and questions for the reader based on the previous case study: ○ (1) As the Director of SOGG, what are steps you would take to address this situation on individual, institutional, and systemic levels? ○ (2) How does culture, diversity and equity play a role in your ability to understand this case? Why is this important to consider? College Student Affairs Leadership Volume 3, Number 1 ○ (3) How might critical theoretical perspectives such as critical race theory and intersectionality inform your response as the director of SOGG? ○ (4) How might you think about working not only across campus, but off campus with constituents to enhance the racial climate at NIC and in Bedor? 2:20pm-Reflection (Mackenzie and Bert): ● What do you all feel like is your biggest take away from the dialogues? ● Tell us about your personal growth. ○ How has your daily life or thought process changed? ● Did we accomplish our community norms? ● What would you change if you had this experience again? ● What was the most challenging part of the dialogues? ● Would you do this again? Why or why not? 2:50pm-Check-out question: (Bert) How are you going to continue to learn? ● Asking about Eric coming to a session with new knowledge and outside-family experience. 3:00pm-LAST CIQ!! (Mackenzie): ● Homework: CIQ’s CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 80 Appendix D: Informed Consent Document Westminster College Institutional Review Board (IRB) For the Protection of Human Participants Information and Purpose: You have been invited to participate in a research study, because of your long-standing relationship with Mackenzie. The purpose of this study is to highlight the experiences of people with long standing relationships who start to engage with their identities and controversial topics around race. Your Participation: You are being asked to participate in multiple dialogues to help inform this study. Your experience is being sought out to share your perspectives and experiences talking with participants about hard topics, such as the Black Lives Matter movement and identities. There will be eight, two hours Zoom meetings. If at any time you are uncomfortable with engaging in dialogue, you may stop participating. Benefits and Risks: The potential risks associated with the study could be psychological harm of sharing a traumatic experience or negative feelings about oneself. If you experience either a crisis moment or negative feelings during one of our dialogues, I will follow-up with you the next day and provide resources to help reduce mental health concerns as well as talk with you about some negative feelings with kindness and compassion. Confidentiality: If you choose, your name will be kept strictly confidential, and you will be assigned a pseudonym in the final study as well as having the opportunity to omit identities that might make you easily identifiable. If you agree, your Zoom meetings will be recorded. All video files will be kept on electronic devices that are password protected, and only the CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 81 researchers have the password. Field notes and journal entries will be and saved on password protected computers, and only the researchers have the password. Signed informed consent documents will be kept in a locked file cabinet, and only the researchers will have access to the key. While due diligence has been applied to ensure the risks are diminished, some risks may be unforeseeable. If you have any questions about this study or wish to withdraw, please contact: Jamie Joanou Phone: If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact: Sheryl Steadman Phone: All personally identifiable study data will be kept confidential. However, the results of this study may be made available to you upon request or used in formal publications or presentations. If you feel that you have received a satisfactory explanation as to the risks and benefits of this study as well as your rights as a research participant and you would like to participate, please sign and date below. You will be given a copy of this form for your records. Signature of Participant Date Signature of Investigator Date CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 82 Appendix E: CIQ and Reflection Questions 1. At what moment in the meeting did you feel most engaged with what was happening? 2. At what moment in the meeting were you most distracted from what was happening? 3. What action that anyone (participant or facilitator) took during this meeting did you find most affirming or helpful? 4. What action that anyone took this week did you find most puzzling or confusing? 5. What is it about the meeting that surprised you the most? (This could be about your own reactions to what went on, something that someone did, or anything else that occurred.) 6. What were some feelings that arose during this meeting? Why? 7. How do you feel about attending the next meeting? Why? 8. What is one thing that you learned in this session about yourself or others? What is your reaction to that knowledge? 9. How comfortable are you feeling in this space? 10. (Additional question used to reflect after dialogue three) Please share why you joined this dialogue group. 11. (Additional question used to reflect after dialogue five) Try to articulate your culture. 12. (Additional question used to reflect after dialogue seven) What questions or topics do you have that you would like to discuss next week? 13. (Additional question used to reflect after dialogue eight) Do you feel like you adhered to the community norms? 14. (Additional question used to reflect after dialogue eight) What is one thing that you learned in this session about yourself or others? What is your reaction to that knowledge? CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 83 15. (Additional question used to reflect after dialogue eight) What was the biggest thing you learned about yourself throughout this dialogue series? 16. (Additional question used to reflect after dialogue eight) What do you wish you could have done better in this dialogue series? CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Appendix F: Guiding Summary Questions Meeting Number: Date: Participating Pseudonym Initials: 1. What main issues or themes stood out in this conversation? 2. Summarize the information that was elicited (or not) on each of the target questions. Consciousness Raising: Developing Personal and Social Identity Awareness: Social System Knowledge: 84 CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Building Relationships Across Differences and Conflicts: Building Capacity for Sustained Communication: Bridging Differences: 85 CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 86 Strengthening Individual and Collective Capacities to Promote Social Justice: 3. Anything else that was salient, interesting, illuminating or important (ex: body language, facial expressions, feeling in the room)? 4. What new (or remaining) issues might be considered for a follow-up check-in with the participant(s) or in future meetings? CONFRONTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM Appendix G: IRB Approval Form 87 APPROVAL of a thesis/project submitted by Author(s): Mackenzie Bledsoe School Department: MACL Title of Thesis: Confronting the elephant in the room: The role of intragroup dialogue in challenging white supremacy The above named master's thesis/project has been read by each member of the supervisory committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready to be deposited and displayed in the Westminster College—Institutional Repository. Chairperson, Supervisory Committee: Jamie Joanou Ph.D Approved On 5/3/2021 11:49:51 AM Dean, School: Dr. Melanie J. Agnew Approved On 5/3/2021 11:56:11 AM STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO DEPOSIT & DISPLAY THESIS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY Name of Author(s): Mackenzie Bledsoe School Department: MACL Title of Thesis: Confronting the elephant in the room: The role of intragroup dialogue in challenging white supremacy With permission from the author(s), the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College has the right to deposit and display an electronic copy of the above named thesis in its Institutional Repository for educational purposes only. I hereby give my permission to the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College to deposit and display as described the above named thesis. I retain ownership rights to my work, including the right to use it in future works such as articles or a book. Submitted by the Author(s) on 4/30/2021 6:04:35 PM The above duplication and deposit rights may be terminated by the author(s) at any time by notifying the Director of the Giovale Library in writing that permission is withdrawn.