Our path unwinding: conversations and reflections on diversity through dialogue

This qualitative autoethnography has stemmed conceptually out of the increasing demand for dialogue processes in social justice and diversity education. This inquiry illustrates how an African American male graduate student and instructor reflected on semi-structured critical dialogue processes in and out of the classroom as experienced by students, staff, and colleagues and explored the use of the passion, awareness, skills, and knowledge necessary for this work. The instructor's process of self-discovery through journal reflection, conversations with colleagues, and student evaluations all contributed to the study's distinctive teachable moments; responding versus reacting; intent and impact to his role as both a teacher and a learner. This study offers pragmatic recommendations for dialogue facilitators and administrators to consider in their supportive practices for social justice, inclusion, and equity.

Our Path Unwinding: Conversations and Reflections on Diversity through Dialogue By Wazir Suni Jefferson An Educational Doctorate Capstone Project Conducted in Partial Completion of the Educational Doctorate Degree (Ed.D.) Program Requirements. Department of Educational Leadership and Policy The University of Utah Ed.D Supervisory Committee Members: Amy Aldous Bergerson, Chair Enrique Aleman Jr. David Hawkins 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 2 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 9 Intergroup Dialogue ..................................................................................................... 9 Development of Dialogue in Higher Education .......................................................... 11 Outcomes of Intergroup Dialogue ......................................................................... 12 History of Intergroup Dialogue .............................................................................. 14 Co-Cultural Communication Theory .......................................................................... 16 Table 1. Outcomes and Questions - Co-Cultural Influences ................................. 17 Passion, Awareness, and Skills Knowledge Framework ........................................... 20 Passion .................................................................................................................. 21 Awareness .............................................................................................................. 22 Skills ...................................................................................................................... 23 Knowledge ............................................................................................................. 24 Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 25 Table 2. Pre-data Collection Assumptions ............................................................. 26 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 28 Why Qualitative Research?......................................................................................... 28 Epistemology - Critical Post Modern Paradigm ........................................................ 30 Why Autoethnography? .............................................................................................. 32 Portraiture .............................................................................................................. 33 Contextualizing My Story: Researcher As Instrument ............................................... 35 Sources of Data ........................................................................................................... 37 Journals ................................................................................................................ 38 Processing ............................................................................................................. 39 Lead Facilitator, Dialogue Trainer, Educator for Social Change .................... 40 Processing Conversations and Content ............................................................ 40 Landmark ......................................................................................................... 41 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 42 A New Methodological Approach .............................................................................. 45 Trustworthiness ........................................................................................................... 48 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 49 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS .............................................................................................. 51 Knowledge and Awareness Portrait: Teachable Moments ......................................... 51 The Facilitator's Teachable Moments ..................................................................... 56 Ally ................................................................................................................... 58 Help Knows No Color ...................................................................................... 59 Challenges Outside the Classroom ......................................................................... 61 Passion Portrait: Reacting versus Responding .......................................................... 69 Skill Building Portrait: Intent versus Impact ............................................................. 77 1 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 93 Significant Contributions of the Study ....................................................................... 94 Reflection .............................................................................................................. 94 Networks ................................................................................................................ 96 I am a teacher. I am a learner ................................................................................. 98 Practitioner - Dialogue Facilitators ......................................................................... 100 Self-Care .............................................................................................................. 101 Talk with Others .................................................................................................. 101 Lead with vulnerability ....................................................................................... 101 Model the Behavior.............................................................................................. 102 Writing ................................................................................................................. 102 Supervisors/Administrators/Institutional Leaders .................................................... 104 Transparency ....................................................................................................... 105 Collaborative Relationships and Results ............................................................. 105 Networks .............................................................................................................. 106 Indemnity ............................................................................................................. 107 Microaffirmations ................................................................................................ 108 Implications for Policy & Call to Action .................................................................. 109 Furthering the Conversation/Conclusion .................................................................. 111 Coda .......................................................................................................................... 112 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 114 2 ABSTRACT This qualitative autoethnography has stemmed conceptually out of the increasing demand for dialogue processes in social justice and diversity education. This inquiry illustrates how an African American male graduate student and instructor reflected on semi-structured critical dialogue processes in and out of the classroom as experienced by students, staff, and colleagues and explored the use of the passion, awareness, skills, and knowledge necessary for this work. The instructor's process of self-discovery through journal reflection, conversations with colleagues, and student evaluations all contributed to the study's distinctive teachable moments; responding versus reacting; intent and impact to his role as both a teacher and a learner. This study offers pragmatic recommendations for dialogue facilitators and administrators to consider in their supportive practices for social justice, inclusion, and equity. 3 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION To all teachers who came before me and planted seeds for my learning; to the students past and present from whom I continue to learn; to teachers-learners still to come who will give birth to newer ideas and practice… As a fifth grader, I knew that I was going to go to college but I did not have much information about the differences between going to college and getting a good education. In Mrs. Senora Davis' class, I can remember her telling all of her students that we would be successful. I knew that I could not perform to the status quo or else I would run the risk of Mrs. Davis calling my parents at home or removing her embroidered elephant belt. No, she never physically harmed or chastised any of her students. Her involvement, caring and persistence meant that I was getting a "good education" although I did not know what that meant at the time. As I advanced grade levels and eventually graduated high school and went to college, I knew I wanted to make my parents, family, and Mrs. Davis proud. When I decided to go away to college, I knew I had a responsibility to take advantage of the opportunity to grow, thrive, and graduate. After I completed my undergraduate and masters degrees, I asked myself several questions: How can I teach and ignite a passion for change within others as Mrs. Davis did with me? How can I bring my multiple and diverse identities into a classroom setting? What passion, awareness, skills, and knowledge do I have to engage myself and others in difficult conversations on diversity? These questions led me to explore the work on diversity and dialogue, and at first I was both surprised and confused by the literature surrounding the subject. I was surprised because the literature clearly shows the ways higher education campuses could apply various models and approaches to dialogue, even though the dialogue process seemed to be missing from many 4 students' lives. This discovery inspired a desire to understand how I could process, respond to, react to and facilitate 1 the dialogic process in and out of the classroom. At the same time, however, I was confused because the literature and data did not provide many first-hand accounts of the process of teaching, nor did they provide direct accounts of how to facilitate the dialogic process from the perspective of the teacher/facilitator. This omission in the literature, left a crucial gap in understanding how dialogue about diversity should work. In my experience with facilitators whom I have trained, mentored, and developed friendships with many encounter and acknowledge gaps in their own self-awareness and knowledge of their own group's backgrounds and realities in the classroom, training, or structured facilitation. Thompson, Brett, and Behling (2001) argued that it can be very difficult to facilitate consciousness-raising and relationship building without the knowledge and awareness of the meaning and impact of one's identity on self and others. Administrators and practitioners responsible for supporting staff members whose primary goals are to facilitate programs about and around diversity dialogue should consider the processes an individual goes through to provide such trainings. There is much that educators, particularly those who are responsible for areas of multicultural and diversity education, teach themselves before they can shape teacher-learner environments that will ensure the success of all participants. The preparation for and process of teaching, facilitating, and heightening awareness are not addressed directly in the literature, and 1 The terms facilitator, dialogue-facilitator, trainer, educator, diversity-dialogue, and instructor are interchanged. When used as a title to describe a position, I capitalize Intergroup Dialogue or making reference to Dialogue and Diversity through Group Process - those terms will be used, otherwise the term will be used throughout with lowercase. I sometimes capitalize Facilitator, Diversity-Dialogue facilitator throughout this research, because it is descriptive. 5 the perspectives and first-hand accounts of such trainers are almost entirely missing from the research. In other words, the voices of those responsible for facilitating diversity through dialogue in learning environments are missing from the groundbreaking literature on the subject. This is where I decided my own work and experience would be most useful. Because I have worked in both autoethnography and diversity through dialogue practices, I decided I could use my own background and experiences to help administrators and staff understand the experiences of one individual who is responsible for instituting dialogue and social justice work. As a former housing staff member responsible for departmental programs, initiatives, and goals around diversity and social justice, I was charged with providing an inclusive environment for learning, reflection, and dialogue. Once I realized what I was actually doing in housing and later in the role of instructor in the College of Social Work was facilitating the process of intergroup dialogue, I knew I had something to offer and say about this work. Consequently, this authoethnography provides the reader an opportunity to better understand the process that occurs between teacher and student in semi-structured dialogues around diversity. This study seeks to provide a first-hand account of the processes an individual whose primary responsibility is facilitating inclusive dialogue on diversity and college campus programs that are inclusive of all students, goes through to prepare for, teach in, and provide an environment in which all feel safe in their learning experiences. In this account, I reflected on my reactions and responses to teaching difficult conversations about diversity on campus, and the dialogic tools for facilitating those lessons. The process of being a life-long teacher and learner illuminated a review of literature and my experiences, and shaped this autoethnography 6 in which I critically self-examined my identities and developed a deeper sense of self while functioning as an intergroup dialogue facilitator and instructor. Hurtado (2001) questioned the hiring processes of administrators who work with underrepresented students on college campuses: "what hiring practices do administrators use when hiring staff members [community-oriented, self-reflective, bridge-builders] that impact underrepresented students attending four year colleges and universities?" (p.31). Orfield and Whitla (2001) challenged [hiring] administrators to think about "What is happening to staff at predominately white institutions that are hired to administer programs and provide educational outcomes [facilitate dialogue] to meet the needs of diverse and underrepresented students?" (p.331). these questions are the premise for and shaped this autoethnography. Schoem and Hurtado (2001) asked deliberative questions about intergroup dialogue but did not question what administrators whose roles are to schematically program and provide educational opportunities for their campuses give of themselves in the process. Questions about the process, content, and outcomes for the dialogue process are useful for engaging administrators, faculty, and staff in understanding what facilitators experience in and out of the classroom. Hurtado (2001), Orfield and Whitla (2001), and Schoem and Hurtado (2001) provided insight into the process of developing programs and intergroup dialogues at predominately white institutions; however, they do not consider the first-hand accounts and mental processes facilitators, trainers, and instructors experience when teaching intergroup dialogue. Although previous research has focused on the concept and value of diversity, this study examines how an instructor and facilitator can effectively provide programs that are inclusive of a diverse group of staff and students. An additional goal is to expand on Maxwell, Chesler, and 7 Nagda's (2011) study, in which the role of 41 dialogue-facilitators and instructors was discussed. Their research found that participants had similar teaching experiences when offering trainings. While Maxwell et al's (2011) study does include the perspective of the facilitators' first-hand accounts in their own words, the theoretical frameworks and methodology for the research are not clearly explicated. Lynn's (2006) study explored the lived experiences and first-hand accounts of seven African American male teachers in Southern California through portraits. Lynn's study found that these teachers' experiences were collectively similar and that students viewed their style of teaching as authoritative while administrators perceived some of their approaches to teaching as "different" from some of their peer teachers. On the other hand, the principals and administrators viewed these same teachers from a deficit perspective as trying to control students. The principals and administrators failed to understand the tensions for teachers of navigating being relatable while authoritative with students in inner-city schools. Higher education professionals also face unique challenges and experiences when navigating the tensions between their responsibilities as ambassadors of the institution and advocates for social justice. I incorporate aspects of Lynn's (2006) process of portraiture towards providing insight into this study's emerging themes and tensions. Finally, this study is intended to help teachers, instructors, and facilitators better understand the process of teaching intergroup dialogue, while centering on understanding and appreciating how power, privilege, and group-based inequalities shape individual and group identities. Ultimately, the hope is that this approach will help foster an individual and collective sense of responsibility for redressing inequalities and promoting social justice. This study will also further an understanding of how colleges and universities can: 1) recognize the importance of creating programs that support pedagogical practices of addressing difference in the 8 classroom; 2) understand the experience of responding and reacting to issues of difference in higher education; and 3) inform administrators who supervise leaders who facilitate dialogue and implement diversity programming about how to support these individuals in their challenging roles. Thompson, Behling, and Brett (2011) cited that is the role of the facilitator to drive, guide, and encourage meaningful interaction among participants within groups and across groups. On campuses, facilitators come from a variety of backgrounds and positions including varying levels of degree attainment and experience. When these perspectives are not included within relevant research, it is difficult to fully understand how campus administrators and peer facilitators develop and sustain meaningful relationships towards improving campus climate. To achieve these ends, the following research questions were explored: 1) What self-reflection process and lived experiences does a facilitator, trainer, and instructor go through towards engaging staff, colleagues, faculty and administrators in understanding social justice and diversity?; and 2) How can an understanding of this process assist higher education administrators in hiring and supporting these facilitators, trainers, and instructors? 9 CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter focuses on three streams and bodies of literature relevant to this study: 1) the development of intergroup dialogue in higher education, including the need to maintain balance between responding and reacting while trying to educate; 2) co-cultural communication theory; and 3) the incorporation of first-hand accounts of teaching for social justice and facilitating dialogue in the classroom. Marshall and Rossman (1999) described the literature review process as providing guidance for the development of the study, and connecting the study with previous research while developing a method for how a phenomenon will be explored. In this chapter, important terms are illuminated in the literature, which position this study in a way that allows institutional leaders to understand the self-reflective process facilitators engage in when facilitating diversity dialogues. Moreover, this review of literature seeks to detail and explain working definitions of intergroup dialogue, co-cultural theory, and facilitator experiences important to this body of research. Finally, this chapter describes the study's theoretical frameworks and models and provides a context for the methodology described in Chapter Three. Intergroup Dialogue Zuniga and Nagda (2003) defined [intergroup] dialogue as conversation between people with different points of view on issues of mutual concern. Unlike participants in other forms of conversation, people engaged in dialogue do not try to accomplish a specific task or persuade others to accept their position. Rather, Zuniga, Williams, and Berger (2005) suggested that different participants in [intergroup] dialogue often hold separate pieces of the answer to a problem, and when they work together they can craft a solution from those parts. 10 The conceptual framework for intergroup dialogue emerged from the idea that groups must work differently (from individuals) if they are to be successful. Participants must explore common ground, listen attentively for understanding, suspend judgments and examine their own assumptions while working together to discover new options (Maxwell, Nagda & Thompson, 2011). These tasks require an open and inclusive environment in which participants feel free to contribute. Creating safe and open spaces for dialogue helps individuals from varying backgrounds discuss their diverse identities. Geranios (1997) explained that intergroup dialogue in higher education settings can be used to promote student engagement across cultural and social divides through face-to-face, interactive, and facilitated learning experiences. These experiences bring together students from two or more social identity groups over a sustained period of time in order to broaden the perspectives of participants. For example, participants in one intergroup dialogue might explore specific commonalities and differences regarding the nature and impact of discrimination, power, and privilege to find ways of working together toward greater inclusion, equality, and social justice. These types of experiences give participants a sense of validation and belonging. In higher education, intergroup dialogue is offered as a co-curricular activity on some campuses and as a course or part of a course on other campuses. Gurin, Gurin, Dey, and Hurtado (2004) submitted that the implementation of intergroup dialogue should be considered a substantive and meaningful avenue for preparing college graduates with the passion/commitment, awareness, skills, and knowledge essential for living and working in a diverse society. Gurin et al. further explained that research evidence will help fulfill the promise of intergroup dialogues to meet participants' educational goals of consciousness raising, building 11 relationships across difference and conflict, and strengthening individual and collective capacities to promote social justice. Development of Dialogue in Higher Education Issues of access, opportunity and rights for all people span from the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling to the 1965 Civil Rights legislation that declared ‘separate but equal' unconstitutional, to more recent rulings regarding same sex couples and transgender rights (Hurtado, 2001). At the heart of these policies [in higher education] is a firm belief that the integration of races, cultures, and individuals of varying backgrounds constitutes an important new way for people to engage, and that this integration and dialogue are vital to preserving democracy and the American ideal (Gurin, Gurin, Dey & Hurtado, 2004). Chang, Hakuta, and Jones (2002) shared that Brown versus Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act provided access to education for disenfranchised groups and promised increased access to opportunity and more diverse interactions. Limited educational opportunities and rights to attain educational goals for certain groups of United States citizens were evidence that society and institutions of higher education were not equitable, fair, and consistent for all groups of people (Chang, 1999). Many college students, staff, and faculty challenged the systemic barriers of racism that limited the prospects of underrepresented groups and prevented them from obtaining a "hand up" (rather than a "hand out") based on historical wrongs and ruins (Duncan, Boisjoly, Levy, Kremer, & Eccles, 2003). Intergroup dialogue has emerged as an educational and community building approach that brings together members of diverse social and cultural identities to engage in learning together including sharing and listening to each other's perspectives and stories and exploring inequalities and community issues with broad impact (Nagda & Maxwell, 2007). The work on 12 intergroup dialogue and formal intergroup dialogue facilitation was born out of a vision to encourage higher education institutions to openly and honestly grapple with issues of identity, difference, and inequality as well as demographic shifts (Stephan & Stephan, 1996, 2001). For example, student conflicts, misconceptions, and friendships that emerged based on differences in race, class, gender, and sexual orientation were not always understood by various groups of students, staff, and administrators (Duncan, Biosjoly, Levy, Kremer, & Eccles, 2003). Thus, intergroup dialogues have been used to promote interdisciplinary collaboration for dealing with intergroup conflict and social change. Outcomes of Intergroup Dialogue Nagda, Gurin, Sorensen and Zuniga (2009) noted that intergroup dialogues aim to help students gain intergroup understanding, increase positive intergroup relationships and promote intergroup collaboration. Generally speaking, students have become more critical of their relationships with peers outside of the classroom and want to engage in a process to understand issues of difference (Adair & Howell, 1997). Schoem and Hurtado (2001) added that: people in all walks of life report they are confronted with problems of `intergroup relations, and many seek some venue to join in dialogue about these issues. Why? Because every day in contemporary society we face conflict rooted in the historical legacy of the social divisions of our country and because, at the same time, we embrace a pluralistic and democratic America...We must talk with each other to survive as a society (p.1). The intergroup dialogue process consists of face-to-face relationship building and thoughtful engagement with and about difficult issues (Alimo, Kelly, & Clark 2002). Historically, people have engaged in combative debates when faced with conspicuous difference, 13 often searching for right and wrong answers. For example, Adair and Howell (1997) noted that the traditional tone of denouncing contrary perspectives often led to disagreement and unproductive methods of communication rather than engaging, learning, and relationship building. However, intergroup dialogue helps avoid and steers away from toxic arguments that silence difference of opinion and fosters extended engagement and commitment in an atmosphere of confidentiality and understanding. This arrangement runs counter to the traditional "us versus them" approach that has dominated so much of conflict resolution (Brewer & Kramer, 1985). Diversity dialogues often focus on race, although other issues of social identity can be addressed as well. These dialogues are often led by facilitators who continually undergo self-reflective work and frequently participate in the group work process themselves (Stephan & Stephan, 1996, 2000). Intergroup dialogue helps higher education institutions and individuals nurture and actively engage diverse students in constructive and productive ways that leave participants inspired to engage in future conversations. This is the objective of peace and conflict studies, intergroup and human relations, and dialogue programs taking place at different campuses. Narayan (1988) provided the space, time, location, and "road map" for engaging students and developing the interdisciplinary skills needed to build socially responsible communities. In debates about the setting of higher education, discussion and discourse have traditionally been used to argue about issues of difference and diversity (Ruenzel, 1997). However, many campuses are now adopting intergroup dialogue, bringing together faculty, staff, and students to foster a sense of understanding in areas of social justice, and encouraging cultural sensitivity (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000). In fact, intergroup dialogue in higher education was part of the University of 14 Michigan's response to racial tensions surrounding Affirmative Action more than a decade ago (Downing, Lubensky, Sincharoen, Gurin, Crosby, Queriolo & Franco, 2002). History of Intergroup Dialogue Tensions across the United States (similar to those that played out in Ann Arbor) during the mid-1980s brought about the need for more honest and open discussions of difference, inequality, and identity in institutions of higher education. Although Affirmative Action was an attempt to remedy these tensions, these hostile exchanges continued at the University of Michigan throughout the 1990s, 2000s, and presently. The ongoing racial tensions are an important part of the history of intergroup dialogue in campus settings (Downing, Lubensky, Sincharoen, Gurin, Crosby, Querilolo, & Franco, 2002). Mildred and Zuniga (2004) commented that many white students were resistant to cultural difference and diversity in the classroom and had an attitude toward underrepresented students that assumed they were receiving a "free" education. Instead of seeing historically disenfranchised groups on campus as assets, many saw them as evidence of failure and a threat to the ideal of a "fair" meritocracy (Adair & Howell 1997). Unfortunately, efforts to address these tensions through opportunity and change often led to frustration and had an uneven record of success. Many campus leaders struggled to provide opportunities for their communities to work through their differences and embrace change. According to the 2010 United States Census Bureau data, minorities (classified as any race non-Hispanic or White) will constitute a third of the population and by 2042, they are projected to be the majority making up half the population. Maxwell (2001) also noted that according to the United States Census Bureau, by 2050, 47 % of the population will be African American, Latina/o, Native American and/or Asian and that this increasing diversity should prompt higher education institutions to consider how they can be more inclusive and prepare for 15 the changing demographics of students attending college. Given these changes in the population, many institutions face challenges in providing support not only for diverse students, but also for the staff who work closely with students. Schein (2003) argued that leaders must often make difficult decisions that positively or negatively impact organizations, and that hiring individuals for a position is one of these decisions. Collins (1998) added that hiring the best people for the job is integral to an organization's gain, growth and survival. Given the changing demographics in many institutions of higher education, university leaders are faced with the task of hiring staff and administrators who are knowledgeable about the growing and changing demographics of traditionally underrepresented students, and who can engage in difficult conversations on diversity, through structured programs that include various forms of difference (Hurtado, 2001). Administrators seek ways to hire leaders and staff who can provide tools, resources and support for diverse students on campus, but often do not recognize the efforts and skills necessary to create these changes (Schoem & Hurtado, 2001). For example, traditional reporting structures at most institutions are difficult to maintain because multicultural, diversity, and social justice initiatives have often been self-contained in specific departments (Lopez, Gurin, & Nagda, 1998). A campus with 20 to 50 administrators may employ one staff member who is responsible for diversity programming and training; however, that programmer may lack the resources necessary to enact genuine change, and their supervisors may never take into account the experiences, background, and supports needed to create systemic change on a predominantly white or even hostile campus. To maintain a balance between navigating their own internal reactions to subject-content and the self-discovery process, participants in diversity dialogues examine their own lived experience based on a series of statements, expressions, and language from the facilitator 16 (Maxwell, Nagda, & Thompson, 2011). Examining both the process and content of diversity dialogues from the perspective of the facilitator offers multiple learning opportunities. The development of intergroup dialogue in higher education is shaped by what the diversity dialogue facilitator feels at the time and what events lead into the content of what is shared between groups of difference. Through on-going communication and dialogue in which participants explore what it means to be empowered to be an ally, facilitators and participants recognize the value of alliances and actions, find ways to continue person growth, and end on a positive note (Alimo, Kelly, & Clark, 2002). This study explored how the diversity dialogue facilitator experienced managing the power dynamics and spaces where participants discuss social justice and inclusion. The diversity dialogue facilitator perspective and experiences were missing from the research and this study filled that gap. Co-Cultural Communication Theory The origins of co-cultural communication theory stem from a need to bring traditionally subordinated and marginalized groups together with dominant groups in healthy and productive ways. According to co-cultural theory power difference is a socially constructed outcome that occurs between dominated and dominant groups (Orbe, 1998). For example, Pettigrew's (1998) understanding of intergroup contact theory was developed from the foundational tenets of co-cultural communication theory. These social constructions are used to maintain hierarchical differences in access and money, and develop an "us versus them" approach that culturally divides rather than unifies a society. Using co-cultural theory, Orbe (1998) developed co-cultural communication theory in which two oppositional groups engage in conversation and listen to each other rather than engaging in traditional debate. This communication [dialogue] provides individuals from 17 different cultures an opportunity to understand how persons who are marginalized in a dominant society communicate with those who have direct or indirect access to institutional power. The overarching goal of co-cultural communication theory is to explain how people in a co-cultural group [i.e. underrepresented, dominated, marginalized] communicate when talking to people who are part of the dominant group [i.e. whites, individuals with owning power]. Orbe (1998) argued that the only differences between dominant and dominated groups are the socially constructed and assigned definitions that provide perceived power. However, Orbe (1998) also noted that co-cultural theory ultimately aims to explore opportunities where marginal and dominant groups can move toward understanding. When used as outlined, there is the potential for both groups to mutually gain from each other. Many of the influences of co-cultural communication theory stem from creating means for traditionally subordinated and marginalized groups to converse in healthy and productive ways with dominant groups (Orbe, 1998; Becker, Chasin, Chasin, Herzig, & Roth, 1995). The historical foundation of co-cultural theory explained a socially constructed power difference between dominated and dominant groups. The co-cultural theory influences of the preferred outcomes and questions (Orbe, 1998) are illustrated in Table 1: Table 1. Outcomes and Questions - Co-Cultural Influences. Outcomes Questions Field of experience What past interactions have I had with dominant group members that influence my current behavior? 18 Abilities What are my physical and psychological limitations in communicating with the dominant and dominated culture groups? Situational context In what situation am I communicating with dominant culture members?" Perceived costs What do I stand to gain and lose from an interaction with members of the dominant culture?" Rewards What communication behavior leads to the effect that I desire for positive social change? Communication approach What is the best approach that I can employ to achieve my preferred outcome? These influences and their corresponding questions are intended to generate a sense of healing and positive social change. In this study, I used Orbe's (1998) outcomes to discuss my first-hand experiences of teaching and training for social justice while illuminating the facilitative approach to creating dialogue in the classroom and among participants. The co-cultural influences assisted me as I analyzed my journal entries through the passion, awareness, skills and knowledge (PASK) framework (Becker, Chasin, Chasin, Herzig, & Roth, 1995; Maxwell, Zuniga, & Thompson 2011; Nagda & Gurin, 2003; Thompson, Brett, & Behling, 2001) while they gave insight into the process, firsthand accounts, and experiences of a diversity dialogue facilitator. 19 Orbe (1998) noted that a communicative (dialogic exchange) interaction between dominated and dominant groups is negotiable and offers some resolutions toward building bridges between the two groups. The communicative approach Orbe suggested is intended to help "empower" dominated groups to become more visible without oppressing dominant groups while dispelling stereotypes, communicating self, networking, using liaisons, educating others, and confronting issues in a way that embraces conflict and difference. The passion, awareness, skills and knowledge (PASK) framework (Becker, Chasin, Chasin, Herzig, & Roth, 1995; Maxwell, Zuniga, & Thompson 2011; Nagda & Gurin, 2003; Thompson, Brett, & Behling, 2001) coupled with Orbe's co-cultural theory and the intergroup dialogue model can facilitate the intended positive social change that Orbe outlined. Co-cultural communication theory gives voice to individuals who have been traditionally excluded from conversations and provides an opportunity to honor the diversity of lived experiences rather than emphasizing an assimilated notion that does not incorporate how perceived circumstances influence identities. Another anticipated outcome of co-cultural communication theory is that dominated and dominant groups are no longer separated by social constructions, but are able to dialogue across difference to positively impact social change. This study explored how these processes occur from the facilitator's perspectives. Nagda, Kim, and Truelove (2004) offered various approaches towards positive social change and illustrated dialogue processes that distinguish between debate, discussion, and intergroup dialogue. The framework of intergroup dialogue serves as a critical-dialogic approach that is different from traditional modes of exchange (debate and discussion) around issues of difference. The goals of intergroup dialogue are geared towards building effective self-other relationships through empathic listening, personal story telling, and sharing. For example, Kim 20 (2008) noted that dialogue seeks understanding across differences through connected knowing rather than an imposition of a singular perspective [debate] or serial monologues [discussion]. Stephan and Stephan (2001) added that discourse, in a critical-dialogue approach, seeks not only an understanding of one's own and others' perspectives on issues, but also an appreciation of the life experiences that inform those perspectives. The co-cultural communication model offers an interactive process for discussing difficult topics of diversity and allows individuals who are unlikely to come together to operate within the same space, time, and similar experiences. Importantly, however, the framework does not offer insight towards understanding the facilitator's experiences of engaging this work with participants. PASK Framework (Passion, Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills) The passion awareness skills and knowledge (PASK) model serves as a foundation for competencies needed in diversity dialogue facilitation (Thompson, Brett, & Behling, 2001). PASK offers a framework through which facilitators experience cognitive learning (knowledge and factual awareness) and anticipate the affect of those who participate in conversations across difference. This framework combines the knowledge, personal passion, skills, and empathy that the authors argued are integral to being an effective facilitator. Thompson et al, provided PASK as a way of understanding both the perception and experience of diversity and social justice in education. The PASK framework allows the facilitator to carefully examine ideologies and subjects of oppression. The tenets of PASK encourage facilitators to be aware of their passion for certain subjects, develop their sense of awareness and listen actively, sharpen the skills needed to support their groups, and increase their knowledge of the situation, parties and context. The PASK framework serves as a resource that facilitators can use to support participants as they 21 respond to conflict and engage in resolution. The next sections explain each tenet of the PASK framework. Passion The passion tenet of the PASK framework encourages facilitators to examine their energy for engaging participants, as well as their deep reasons for engaging in conversations toward social justice (Maxwell, Nagda, & Thompson, 2011). Nagda, Gurin, and Lopez (2003) discussed the importance of sharing feelings with others in order to demonstrate compassion, and the professional and personal commitment needed to build a sense of inclusion and heighten an appreciation for the diversity for participants. Becker, Chasin, Chasin, Herzig, and Roth (1995) shared new perspectives on talking about confrontational issues and addressed the need for the facilitator to encourage trust and respect among participants. They maintained that the facilitator must evince an energy [including a commitment and passion] for the work. Participants who are treated as equal contributing members of the group, who feel they have a right to a voice and will be treated equitably, are more likely to engage positively. Becker et al. encouraged facilitators to be supportive, acknowledge participant contributions, and respect each member's way of "being" present in the group work. Thompson et al (2007) noted that feelings are viewed as a source of information that lends to growth, development, and understanding difference across identity. When feelings are expressed, the facilitator has the responsibility to acknowledge the expression and recognize the participant's feelings as both "present" and "real". In the diversity dialogue setting, the facilitator brings their enthusiasm in order to create shared meaning, develop group norms, maintain and enforce ground rules, and encourage participation. Awareness 22 Conceptualizing awareness starts by developing a concept of self and social identities. This awareness typically begins with individual and interpersonal issues and then moves forward to an understanding of the broader intergroup and institutional issues through the structural and cultural framework (Orbe, 1998). The interpersonal skills needed for individuals to communicate with social identities different from their own can help contribute to understanding power in society. Developing this sense of awareness can help facilitators have a stronger internal emotional balance, a more secure sense of status and privilege, and a heightened knowledge of how their facilitation styles impact others. In order to achieve more sophisticated levels of awareness, facilitators must probe for deeper level thinking, feeling, and responding and resist reacting, which may stifle further dialogue. Remaining conscious of social structures and institutions, and their effect on individuals and social groups, is equally important for both facilitator and participant (Young, 2008). This allows each individual in the group to remain in touch with their values. Observing what is happening within the group and each person's interactions with the content, adds to participants' increased awareness of diversity and its impact in the dialogue. Brewer and Kramer (1985) suggested that it might be difficult for some facilitators to see everything that is happening for each student in a group. The key is watching for what is unsaid, who is saying certain things, and who remains silent (and when). Facilitators must offer inquisitive questions in order to uncover and understand the underlying reasons for certain statements. In these conversations, identities constantly interact with each other. Duncan, Biosjoly, Kremer, and Eccles (2003) suggested that the facilitator should use his/her own identities to steer these interactions. Similar to the participants, facilitators make assumptions and inferences based on their own background and socialization. Ellinor and Gerard (1998) offered 23 strategies for rediscovering the transformative power of conversation and using self-reflection to examine where ideas come from. These strategies range from using reflective statements to pair sharing, and facilitators sharing their lived (first-hand) experiences. Skills The skills required to work with people from different groups, take risks, discuss difficult issues, and give and receive feedback are integral to the development of effective facilitation (Abdullah, 2004). Facilitators take the mediator approach in which social inequality and power are present among participants and facilitator (Winslade & Monk, 2000). In diversity dialogues, a "neutral" facilitation style is not utilized; rather, a "multipartial" facilitation style invites both oppressed and privileged communities to assume the dominant role in different conversations to explore issues of power and subjugation (Llewellyn, 2004). This tenet also provides the facilitator with the opportunity to accept leadership from various perspectives while challenging participants to learn from one another. The knowledge that is shared in this dialogue process comes from the diverse participants in the group, and as individuals communicate their own perspectives they come to unlearn and relearn how oppression works. The facilitator's knowledge of challenging topics helps guide this learning process and frees them to play a supportive and directive role (Redekop, 2004). The self-examination of skills also allows the facilitator to develop the diversity dialogue and contribute to the group dynamics and progress (Abdullah, 2004). The awareness the facilitator brings encourages participants to evolve their own self-understanding in relation to the group, while enhancing their own practical skills and knowledge of society, relations, and conflict (Llewellyn, 2004) 24 Berman (n.d.) offered a comparison between dialogue and debate, differentiating between the modes of exchange for participants and facilitators. The facilitator discovers that group privilege and understanding are inextricably intertwined, and that sources of conflict in a group can dismantle the effectiveness of traditional debate and discussion. This study further reaffirms the need for alternative modes of exchange in order to encourage diversity, such as those used in the ‘multipartial' facilitation style (Redekop, 2004). Knowledge This part of the PASK paradigm includes the exploration of concepts that concern social power, inequality, and privilege (Maxwell, Nagda, & Thompson, 2011; Thompson, Brett, & Behling, 2001). During this process the facilitator should remain aware of the group's own culture and history, as well as how individual identities affect interactions among participants. The knowledge that facilitators need includes information regarding issues and dynamics that affect the participants and an understanding of how individual perspectives impact the group. Ellinor and Gerard (1998) offered new knowledge about the role of conversation and DuBois and Hutson's (1997) findings illustrated how varying forms of "isms" can impact participants differently. This knowledge helps the facilitator understand how these discriminatory issues and diverse forms of oppression can affect participants. Zuniga and Sevig (1997) suggested several facilitator and participant questions that touch on self-examination and reflection including, "What is happening for you? What is happening within you?" (p.27). Zuniga and Sevig suggested that at any given moment during the training/workshop, the facilitator must be ready to share their feelings with participants where appropriate. In this way, knowledge can be used to forge a balance between the facilitator's "teacher role" and their function as a co-learner in the workshop, course, or training. 25 The facilitator's dual role offers participants an opportunity to take ownership of their own learning and develop their knowledge about how systems of power are developed and maintained collaboratively (Abdullah, 2004). The facilitator knows that "setting the stage and tone" (Llewellyn, 2004) for dialogue and diversity is a process and that learning must be cyclical within the group. The facilitator also must understand that successful group work requires honest, open, and knowledgeable communication about participants' own position(s) on issues. The facilitator's ability to distinguish between roles, responsibilities, and expectations contributes to furthering the dialogue among participants. Chang (1999) and Chang, Hakuta, and Jones (2002) shared the impact of diversity on campuses and Brewer and Kramer (1985) shed light on the attitudes and behaviors within intergroup [dialogue] that contribute to co-learning. These similarities and differences will contribute to the effectiveness of the dialogue exchange and further the knowledge of skills, awareness, and passion about systemic, cultural, and social oppression that impacts everyone. Assumptions Like most educators, trainers, and instructors, I come to diversity dialogue facilitation with assumptions about who I am and what it means to be an African American male facilitating dialogue and diversity towards social justice. After experiencing an extended period of writer's block, like Turnipseed's (2009) study, I decided organize my feelings into seven pre-data collection assumptions which helped categorize my data around the passion, awareness, knowledge, skills (PASK) framework, the portraits, and intergroup dialogue model (see Table 2). Table 2. Pre-data collection assumptions utilized in framing the literature review, autoethnography, data analysis, and conclusion. 26 1. Many marginalized communities have similar consciousness and awareness of systemic diversity. 2. Many individuals coming to the dialogue will challenge the facilitator position. 3. Many people feel they need "permission" to engage in healthy, constructive conversations on diversity. 4. Many people "don't know what they - don't know" and enter the conversation willing to unlearn and relearn ways of engaging dialogue on diversity through group process. 5. Individuals who come from higher social economic status (SES) across racial differences may not have an appreciation or understanding of those who experience society in the margins. 6. Participants may say something along the lines of "I don't see race" "why do we have to talk about this [diversity issues]" and use the representation of examples such as President Obama, General Colin Powell, and Ms. Oprah Winfrey, to argue that African Americans have "no excuse" as to why all African Americans and people of color are not "successful". 7. Many participants believe in meritocracy. Co-cultural communication theory is described as a means to illustrate the cross-cultural communication of dialogue that brings individuals from different races, classes, gender, sexual orientation and other forms of diversity together to interact (Orbe 1998). Co-cultural communication theory and the conceptual framework of PASK do not describe the first-hand 27 accounts of what it means to teach, facilitate, and create programs about social justice and diversity education from the perspective of an African American male facilitator. This autoethnography sought to methodologically bridge the gaps in the literature related to intergroup dialogue, co-cultural theory, and the PASK framework by bringing these frameworks and scholarship into conversation with the first-hand accounts and lived experiences of a diversity dialogue facilitator. There is a need to provide perspectives from those who are responsible for facilitating diversity dialogues to express what it is like to instruct, teach, and offer training towards social justice education. 28 CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY This study concerns the experiences of the author as researcher, educator, teacher/learner, and diversity dialogue facilitator in a pre-dominantly white university environment. I am one of a select few chosen to promote and support diversity dialogues on my campus. Central to my experience are the ways I have found to address the challenges of promoting diversity and social justice in a Primarily White Institution (PWI). My study contributes to administrators' awareness towards understanding the responsibilities of diversity trainers, facilitators, and moderators in creating social and systemic change. In this study, I emphasize my roles as both teacher and learner in the process of dialogue. I also try to provide support, resources and tools for individuals who hire, sustain, and supervise dialogue facilitators, such as vice presidents, directors, and other professional staff members. Both of these aspects were important to this study's objectives: the teacher/learner role ensures that I remain open to and respectful of other perspectives in the groups I facilitated. And, the emphasis on administrative resources ensures that this research is useful to those who can have the greatest impact on the success and well-being of campus diversity facilitators. Utilizing portraits, this autoethnography provides insight into the passion, awareness, skills and knowledge through first-hand accounts of teaching for social justice. Qualitative methods and data analysis allow reflection to occur throughout the study. Why Qualitative Research? Creswell (1998) explained that a qualitative inquiry aligned with research questions is necessary to complete an ethnography. This study examined the processes employed by one dialogue facilitator by exploring the following questions: 1)What self-reflection process and lived experiences does a facilitator, trainer, and instructor go through towards engaging 29 colleagues staff, and administrators in understanding social justice and diversity?; and 2) How can an understanding of this process assist higher education administrators in hiring and supporting facilitators, trainers, and instructors who must respond, react, and educate those who decide to participate in the dialogue process? Ellis (2009) shared that the descriptive first person autoethnography can be used as a type of autobiographical writing involving detailed measurements of self-awareness. Heath (2009) provided Marshall and Rossman's (2006) definition of autoethnography as "Back and forth autoethnographers gaze, first through an ethnographic wide-angle lens, focusing outward on social and cultural aspects of the personal experience; then, they look inward exposing a vulnerable self" (p. 209). Heath further noted that Marshall and Rossman (2006) tell us "The self is deployed as an exemplar through which social processes and identities are constructed and contested, changed and resisted" (p.8). Autoethnography is appropriate for this study because it allows for the development of creativity and personal narratives. Autoethnography supports the data sets of portraiture that reflect the personal lived, deeply felt, unmediated, unadulterated, and often misinterpreted experiences in a way that quantitative research cannot. Supportively, Denzin and Lincoln (2002) affirmed that qualitative researchers' own perspectives are impacted by the questions asked, methods selected, and the analysis and interpretation (p.72). Marshall and Rossman (2006) noted that autoethnography is presenting one's own story and the researcher's assertion is that personal narrative provides direction, interrupts, and calls to action one's identity. This study shares my reflective first-hand accounts of facilitating diversity dialogues and further provides insight into managing what are perceived to be hostile spaces of talking about topics of race towards understanding social justice. I discuss my personal and descriptive 30 narratives and how I am impacted when teaching, facilitating, offering inclusion trainings, and navigating society as an African American male. The statements from my journals were viewed and interpreted through the PASK framework and hopefully encourage others who facilitate and teach for diversity to share their experiences as well. I revisited the journal entries collected from various diversity dialogues describing when events or trainings occurred and someone said something that impacted the group. I revisited those notes and categorized entries accordingly. I took an inverted pyramid approach so that I could provide detailed journaled narratives that dive deep into the reflected personal experiences in and out of the classroom of facilitating diversity dialogues and trainings. The missing piece of the extant research on autoethnography is the day to day lived experiences on how facilitators are challenged in the work of teaching for diversity and social justice and their personal reflections on understanding how they impacted their development. This study's data from journals, conversations, peer researcher feedback and discussions are pure and provide the best strategy for this research. This study gave insight into the daily lived experiences of my facilitation and offers step by step strategies and models for other facilitators who engage in diversity dialogue work to replicate in their future work. Epistemology - Critical Post Modern Paradigm Tierney (1993) defined critical post-modernism and combined critical theory advocacy for empowerment and the development of voice for oppressed people towards social change (p.170). Tierney also noted that everyone participating in (diversity) dialogues is situated and positioned differently among various dimensions of difference. As a facilitator of diversity dialogues, I embarked on this study and engaged in the action-oriented process that Tierney 31 shared towards finding my own voice as an instructor, staff member, teacher, and facilitator whose primary responsibility calls for social change. Nagda, Kim and Truelove (2004) discussed the concept of bridging differences as motivation for dialogue participants to build a mutual and reciprocal learning process. In the diversity dialogue practice, this cyclical process of unlearning and relearning was carefully monitored and observed by the facilitator. Ways of knowing for facilitators were also shaped by their own experiences and reality. Their identity, including their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and other deep characteristics are part of the way they view and interact with the world and those around them. However, the facilitator must also be open to the multitude of perspectives in their group, allowing space for each member to participate in and contribute to the co-learning experience. Indeed, one of the underlying principles guiding this study originates from a critical postmodern paradigm that allows for a multitude of truths. Denzin and Lincoln (1998) indicated that this paradigm "assumes an ontology that there are multiple realities," some of which may even contradict one another (p. 35). Creswell (1998) noted that critical post-modernism requires that the researcher recognize that their own experience (shaped by family history, education, economics) is subjective, and that "each person has their own biases that are present" (p.75). Indeed, Schein (1998) stated that individuals and organizations bring experiences, beliefs, cultural histories, and worldviews into the process of learning. Patton (2002) noted that it is the researcher's responsibility to respect multiple viewpoints, and acknowledge the structures of understanding (dialogue on diversity) and how methodology impacts results. I have chosen to write about my first-hand accounts and perspectives for this study to help facilitators, 32 administrators, and hiring managers become more aware of the energy, time, and resources necessary for creating and facilitating dialogue on campuses. These first-hand accounts were analyzed in conjunction with the co-cultural communication theoretical framework, PASK framework, and portraiture. Nagda (2003) explained that understanding and meaning are reconstructed through dialogue and that these encounters (which involve sharing, discussion, and conversation) build new knowledge. While the existing literature uncovers how these new meanings are shaped, it does not include the first-hand accounts of facilitators combined with a theoretical framework. Why Autoethnography? The use of an autoethnography can further an understanding of the responsibility associated with creating safe, engaging, and dialogic atmospheres for participants. It can also help administrators, instructors, and staff better appreciate the need to foster equitable practices in the classroom and within their universities. Given the unique dialogue processes and perspectives that individuals bring to facilitated conversations, my constructed first-hand accounts and interpretations were deepened by using journal entries as sources of data. Werkmeister-Rozas (2003) added that in semi-structured dialogue settings the facilitator can use journaling as a method for documenting their internal and external thoughts. This study sought to uncover the processes individuals go through in preparing for and facilitating programs and supporting dialogue, and the research focused on journal entries in order to shed light on these processes. This study takes the form of an autoethnography. In order to provide an understanding of the facilitator and teacher roles, the unit of analysis for this design is one participant. Ellis (2003) maintained that autoethnography places emphasis on self-understanding, examining lives 33 one at a time, encourages voice and is a useful way to understand the world we live in. For this study an autoethnography was formed and themes were discovered and placed into categories of portraits. Lynn's (1999) study, which looked at several African American male teachers in Los Angeles, utilized and explored portraiture as a means for approaching the stressful emotional and cultural demands placed on teachers and role models. The accounts in Lynn's (1999) study and the methods of an autoethnography for sharing lived experiences were used to shed light on first-hand accounts of teaching for social justice from the perspective of the diversity dialogue facilitator. Portraiture The central methodological tool employed in this study involves the strategy of portraiture. Ellis (2003) noted that autoethnography allows the writer to express feelings and vulnerability, and invites others to express how they feel all of which are facilitated by portraiture. Ellis further stated an ethnographer should, "present autoethnography as a social project that helps us understand a larger relational, communal, and political world that moves to critical engagement, social action and change" (p.142). Portraiture is a qualitative research method that provides researchers with a rich, powerful way of presenting stories (Lynn, 2006). Portraits incorporate personal narratives and capture the detailed complexity and dimensionality of human experience (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 2005; Lynn, Johnson, & Hassan, 1999; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). In this study, story-telling grows from the first-hand accounts and experiences of teaching for social justice from the perspective of the facilitator. Within this study, I served as the subject, the researcher, and I provide the data. 34 Portraiture connects the voices of the storytellers, the narrator, and the audience. Within this study, I used the narrative and first-hand accounts towards understanding the everyday-lived reality of the diversity-dialogue facilitator to create a narrative that is complex and attempted to be holistic as it reveals the dynamic interaction of values, personality, structure, and history. Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (2005) mentioned that the life history/narrative is not a static product; it attempts to capture the developing and ever-changing picture of the life course. The intent of portraiture as a method is to capture an external perspective of an insider's lived experience of facilitating for dialogue and provide insight into occurrences that impact the facilitator. Portraiture is a method framed by traditions and values, sharing many of the first - hand experiences and techniques and goals of (auto) ethnography (Ellis, 2003; Lynn, 2006). It focuses on the convergence of narrative and analysis. It is also important when using this method to create a narrative that is authentic. The use of this method provides effective sources of insights and a point of view that reveals the reality of life and contradicts the notion that only one perspective matters. (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 2005; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Ultimately, I decided the best approach to this study would be a 360-degree view of the experiences (outside the classroom, conversations with colleagues, and student evaluations) of one diversity dialogue facilitator. To be clear, the goal of this autoethnography was to tell stories and first-hand accounts, accurately and completely, in order to understand my experiences and develop themed portraits of these experiences. Lynn's (2006) study looked at the portrait of a Black male teacher in South Central Los Angeles. The study created a portrait which intertwined the thoughts and reactions of the teacher and captured a narrative understanding of how he experienced the world. The portraits in Lynn's (2006) study, although important to document in research, were not surprising and reading these 35 first-hand accounts did not allow for reflection on the process of teaching and facilitating because they do not connect theoretical models to first-hand accounts. Portraiture is useful for sharing the first-hand and lived experiences of facilitating dialogue and diversity through group process. Thus, a desire to engage in a theoretically based, purposeful, involved, and personal approach to understanding these experiences was born. Contextualizing My Story: Researcher as Instrument My personal journey has had a major impact on my research. Having not yet reached my 35th birthday, I am an African American male, who grew up in inner city Poughkeepsie, New York. I obtained my high school diploma from Poughkeepsie High School and I earned a Bachelor of Business Administration (B.B.A.) in Legal Studies and Human Resource Administration at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I have also earned a Master of Arts and Education (M.A.Ed.) in Human and Organizational Studies at the George Washington University in Washington, District of Columbia, and this study fulfills the requirements for a Doctorate of Education in Educational Leadership and Policy with an emphasis in Higher Education at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah. The formation of my educational foundation in the liberal and conservative north, and my awareness of heritage and self-exploration during my transition to young adulthood at the Ronald McNair Post Baccalaureate program, cultivated my own worldview. My years of study in New York, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and in many other places have all deeply affected who I am and how I see the world. My status as a male, Black, graduate student in institutional ivory towers like the University of Utah has affected my perception, too. Finally, geography plays a shaping role, as well. Situated between two mountainous ranges in Salt Lake City, the physical, 36 cultural, and mental ‘inversions'2 of the University of Utah and the Greater Salt Lake City influence and impact my world view. I have always viewed any job or position I have held as service. Throughout my education, I have served in a variety of capacities, answering telephones in the Office of Residence Life at Temple University, or assisting undergraduates in the Financial Aid Office at the George Washington University. I have always, in some way, shape, or form been involved in discussions that navigate with fellow colleagues, students, and peers those strategies that would help increase my persistence and survival towards graduation, where others like me are numerically underrepresented. I had the privilege to facilitate dialogue in the residence halls at the University of Utah under the leadership of the former director of housing, Mr. Steve Nygaard. After three years in housing, I was blessed to continue working as a facilitator in a class for Masters students in the College of Social Work. It is also important to note that during this time, I was working toward the completion of a doctoral degree in the College of Education. The majority of my time at housing and in Social Work, I struggled and worked toward the completion of my doctorate degree. Certainly, through constant exploration, the impact of race, class, gender, age, ability, and many other forms of diversity each contribute to my lived experiences and my positionality. Throughout my years of school, work, social, and church life, I have struggled with issues of race, gender, class, ability, and spirituality. Importantly, my experience as a teacher and a learner in higher education has been different from that of many of my white peers-and this is true especially as an African American male instructor, where I have had to balance between responding, reacting, and educating to be successful. I choose to see these differences and refuse to ignore the significance of interactions that highlight inequity, 2 Inversion is defined as the deviation from the normal change of an atmospheric property; like most big cities, polluted air builds up and forms grey clouds blocking a scenic view. I strategically use this word to metaphorically describe how I felt 37 injustice, and institutional systems of oppression. These differences constantly impact my life, just as differences affect the lives of others who are marginalized or ignored. I came to Utah as a Black male in graduate school with an acknowledgement of who I am and what my world view is because African American male identity is how others interact with me. I am aware that it is important to recognize my theoretical lens as a critical post-modernist because this lens impacts my data gathering processes. I also see this perspective as relevant to the analysis stage of the research process because my lens will impact what I see in the data. I will strive to see myself as a participant and instructor, as a whole person encompassing varied experiences without assuming that my experience is the same as the next instructor or student. However, I am aware that my Blackness, maleness, and other identities often encourage particular responses and situational views given time, place, and circumstance. I am fully committed to sharing the truths the data revealed. While some presumptions and pre-data assumptions were confirmed, I remained open to the possibility of my biases, pre-data assumptions, and perspectives shifting. Sources of Data - Journals Heath's (2009) study forms the basis of my understanding about autoethnographies and the process of collecting data. Heath's study provided significant guidance in developing the methods for and process of collecting data for this study. Citing Dewey (1933), Heath reported that "reflective thinking . . . involves (1) a state of doubt, hesitation, perplexity, mental difficulty, in which thinking originates, and (2) an act of searching, hunting, inquiring, to find material that will resolve the doubt, settle and dispose of the perplexity" (p. 12). Weiler (1995) researched the process of journaling and concluded that, in the case of case workers or facilitators, one must engage their internal reactions and responses to comments from participants while keeping in 38 mind that the learning process (dialogue) should always collectively and progressively move forward (p. 33). This literature helped me both to understand my feelings, responses, and reactions when I am the dialogue-facilitator, and to capture these personal moments in hand-written notes that were analyzed in this study. These hand-written and typed journal entries were the context through which I understood how my experiences impacted this autoethography. I maintained the handwritten journals in a locked desk drawer and the electronic entries in "Day One" were kept in an application which could only be accessed by using a passcode. The electronic journal applications stored in "Day One" become PDF files after typed. The handwritten entries spanned from the years 2007 to 2011 with approximately four volumes of books with 100 pages within each book. Patton (2002) referred to the importance of "self-awareness, political/cultural consciousness, and ownership of one's perspective" (p. 64). After facilitating diversity dialogues, conversations with peer researchers/colleagues I met at conferences, and lived experiences, I hand-wrote and recorded reflective remarks and thoughts that pertained to my role as a dialogue facilitator. In this process, I gave extra consideration to reactions, responses, and internal dialogue when triggered in and outside of diversity dialogues. I also sought to examine how these personal reflections fit into my research and the way I experienced the classroom, university, various trainings I facilitated, and the contexts outside of the where I taught. This proved to be a useful process for me to examine new input as well as taken-for-granted perceptions of myself, students, participants, advice from colleagues, feedback from supervisors. Structured conversations with colleagues, professionals, and individuals with similar responsibilities in various regions of the United States helped shed light on the research questions posed earlier. Specifically, what is happening to staff at predominantly white 39 institutions who are hired to administer diversity programs? What challenges do they face as they serve the needs of their institution's diverse and underrepresented students? The mixing of the PASK framework, journals, conversations, feedback from students and evaluations was designed to explore these data from multiple angles, and offered insight into the organizational culture and environment where I facilitated, taught, and lived towards implementing change. Heath (2009) cited that the "…journaling process allowed me an up-close and detailed view of the challenging dilemmas for the principal and finding the means of a stronger sense of self-efficacy. A more generalized wide-angle lens might not have been as helpful for the educational leader practitioner" (p.21). Heath's (2009) process of journaling is aligned with my approach to capturing the first-hand accounts of facilitating diversity dialogues and putting them in my own words. I reflected on the intent and impact that messages from participants, students, and others involved in dialogue processes can have on the diversity discussions, both in and out of the classroom. I used my journals as data towards sharing where I have recorded my thoughts and reflected on moments when I have adjusted my behaviors based on my conscious and unconscious reactions. I referred to my hand-written descriptions of this process, including descriptive details of how I felt that may have shaped dialogue and class. An important component of my study design was unpacking the data from journals while exploring my experiences as a Black male facilitator and teacher who intends to affect change in his predominately white institution (PWI) and impact the world. Sources of Data - Processing In order to ensure that my recollections are full and complex, I have discussed the observations and perceptions from my notebooks with colleagues, co-facilitators, and 40 administrators. This process has helped trigger my thinking and vocal process in many instances, and provided me with valuable outside perspectives. More importantly, this out-loud collaborative and self-investigative reflection on the dialogue is part of a continual and on-going method of processing, a dialogue and facilitation process that encompasses a diverse array of experiences involving multiple people. This process took on multiple roles in and out of the classroom, time connecting with colleagues, and collaboration across differences around the diversity dialogue facilitation process. I documented each of these events in my journals, check-in with my "peer researchers", and talked through (skype or over-the-phone) how these experiences occurred. Lead Facilitators, Dialogue Trainers, Educators for Social Change. I have spent time at conferences (e.g., the National Conference On Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education, National Conference on Student Personnel Administrators, and National Institute on Intergroup Relations) with various lead facilitators, dialogue trainers, and educators for social change. I also have networked with these individuals after these events, and remain connected with many of them via FaceTime, phone calls, and email. These individuals come from various racial/ethnic backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, gender identities, and sexual orientations. I have journaled and reflected on these interactions, paying particular attention to the different understandings of facilitation styles, and these discussions have informed my own understanding of dialogue support. Processing Conversations and Content. I continue to openly share my thoughts, "ah-ha" moments, frustrations, moments of joy, and my observations on facilitating conversations on diversity with professors, colleagues, friends, and allies involved in the work for social change. For example, after facilitating in one course "Dialogue and Diversity through Group Process," 41 one participant remarked, "why do we have to have a mosque next to the World Trade Center?" On a different occasion another participant asked, "What makes you qualified to teach us when you aren't in the field [Social Work]?" I contacted various colleagues at the Program on Intergroup Relations (IGR) at the University of Michigan, Women's Resource Center at the University of Utah, and professors, to share my internal reactions and responses to these questions. These notes are included in several sections of reflective journaling and are part of the data corpus. Landmark (formerly Landmark Education). In connection with this research, I have completed the three-part series of Landmark, founded by Werner Erhard as Erhard Seminar Training (EST). This self-help program involves courses that began at 9:00am and end at 10:00pm over the course of a few months. The series included the Forum, Advanced Course, Causing the Miraculous Seminar, and the Self-Expression and Leadership Program. Notes from my participation in the group seminars, courses, and training helped to inform how I was experienced the data and my process of reflection. In these three types of journal data I gave specific attention to the language and words that provide insight towards passion, awareness, skills, and knowledge (PASK). These data were analyzed and developed into a personal narrative and autoethnography. In portraiture, voice and experiences are everywhere. Portraiture contributed to this study and provided insight into my journaled and documented first-hand accounts of facilitating dialogue on diversity through group process. By reflecting on my own experiences of facilitating dialogue, I illuminate my own interpretation of what it meant to facilitate dialogue and teach for social justice education. Using this portraitist reference does not reduce the reader's trust; there is more insight offered into perspectives that may not have been illuminated prior to this study. Lawrence- 42 Lightfoot and Davis (1997) argued that using storytelling does not distort the responsibility of the researcher; sharing experiences gives clarity and insight. Including my experience helps the reader understand where I am coming from as an educator, diversity-facilitator, trainer, and instructor and how my passion, awareness, skills and knowledge impact semi-structured dialogues. It is crucial for the reader to hear my story as part of the framework, to complete the picture of what it means to facilitate dialogue and diversity through group process. Portraits combined with the narrative journal entries through the PASK framework created the autoethnography. Data Analysis Given the first-hand accounts established by the data, the PASK framework initially seemed the most appropriate for analyzing and interpreting the research results. In order to bring organization to the data, underlying themes, and relationships from the first-hand accounts, and journals, reactions/responses, I documented varying instances of triggers, reactions, and responses in hopes of uncovering themes from the data. Creswell (1998) offered procedures for data analysis and stated that the researcher should be comfortable with developing categories and making comparisons. The procedures Creswell noted are: 1) writing the process in narrative form (I achieved this by journaling); 2) looking for relationships among categories (I highlighted and documented where emerging themes occurred within the data); 3) interpreting and making sense of the data (I highlighted signifying statements that I thought would fit neatly into the PASK framework then later decided to place them into the themes of this study); and 4) determining which categories the data falls in and beginning the sorting process (I sorted through the data using the PASK framework which guided the step-by-step process). Creswell required that the researcher be open to possibilities and alternative explanations for the findings. The PASK 43 framework, as well as my journals and conversations with colleagues and peers and student feedback, provided a context integral for how I understood my diversity dialogue process. This process included the methods I use to engage participants in conversations on social awareness. The PASK framework initially offered details that allowed the data to be unpacked and understood as the portraits emerged from various points within the journals. When writing up the results of this study, I refined the themes and explained viewpoints from the journal entries, processing conversations, and student feedback from evaluations. To begin the analysis, the detailed and reflective journals (each about 100 pages in length) were combed through, word-by-word over a period of time necessary to become immersed in the data. I noted and highlighted journal entries containing words that were part of emotional reactions and that could be connected to a theme of passion, awareness, skills or knowledge. From these highlighted responses I initially created themes and categories that allowed for a fuller understanding of the data. Next, each journal was analyzed for statements that offered insight into the process of facilitating. Journal entries that offered some answer to the research questions and had relevance for (or contribution to) the study's themes were helpful in initially composing the portraits and organizing the autoethnography. Several meaningful statements regarding the PASK themes were gleaned from my journals. Each of the statements was highlighted and tagged with color codes in order to separate the themes. Highlighting the themes connected to the PASK framework allowed the data to remain in their original context and format. This allowed me to check and verify statement meanings in each entry's original context. Finally, the significant statements were coded and sorted to illustrate the themes and portraits that they helped shape within the data. This part of the data analysis was most 44 challenging, because so much of the data overlapped into other various themes. Also, there was difficulty in conducting the data analysis, as some highlighted journal entries were reasonably assigned to more than one portrait. To overcome this potential difficulty, I made it clear when the data overlapped and fit into multiple categories of a framework. Highlighted journal entries, statements from conversations with colleagues, and words that jumped out as potential data were divided into the passion, awareness, skills, or knowledge (PASK) categories. Each data point was labeled according to its characteristics. Entries that were initially "reactive" were categorized in the passion portrait. "Responsive" entries or statements will be identified as part of the skills category. Personal entries (i.e., ones reflecting on my own personal history, or on thoughts/feelings related to my individual identity) were labeled as awareness portraits. The professional entries (conversations with colleagues and peers from various disciplines) were labeled as skill portraits with some overlapping to the awareness or knowledge components of portrait. Although I chose reactive and responsive as preliminary codes, I had to allow for the data to emerge into its own categories and portraits. After each journaled entry was deconstructed and photocopied, entries were pasted to a wall by theme for coding and sorting purposes, and statements in each theme were coded based on the concepts contained in each statement. For example, within the passion portrait, subthemes emerged, which included reactions and responses from each element of the PASK framework. Each portrait revealed its own "ah-ha moments", where individuals in the journal entries (students, colleagues, and the author/facilitator) were shown raising voices, crying, or laughing (or experiencing other emotional reactions). Other reactions and responses are discussed in chapters four and five to compare the first-hand accounts and experiences. 45 Special attention was given to maintain the integrity, confidentiality, and safety of journal entries. After a handwritten entry was included within my notebook or typed into the computer based journal application "Day One", I did not alter or change anything. I maintained these entries in their original form, language, and method entered without filter, correction, or editing. The absence of student journals and their first-hand accounts allowed for the focus to be on my lived experiences as a diversity facilitator; however I opted to include my interpretation of their end of semester feedback from student evaluations. A New Methodological Approach As the data were analyzed, it became clear that the Passion, Awareness, Skills, and Knowledge areas were not as neatly situated as I initially thought. I elected to restructure as the following themes emerged: 1. Knowledge and Awareness Portrait: Teachable Moments. This included the subsections The Facilitator's Teachable Moments and Challenges Outside of the Classroom 2. Passion Portrait: Reacting versus Responding 3. Skill Building Portrait: Intent versus Impact After combing through the data several times, I later decided it would be appropriate to utilize the themes of teachable moments, reacting versus responding, and intent versus impact towards building a 360 degree portrait. This helped me utilize my data in meaningful ways while adding some components of the PASK framework thus bridging research and practice. Next, each of these journals was analyzed through this new approach. Passages that ignited a reaction, response, or teachable moment were categorized into themed portraits. A journal entry that had some answer to the research questions and appeared to have some 46 relevance for (or contribution to) the study's themes was used to compose the portrait and organize the autoethnography. The four-100 page journals warranted several statements that significantly contributed to the study. Several experiences, entries, conversations, and statements did not fit into this study and were left out. Combining the PASK framework (Thompson, Brett, & Behling, 2011), Orbe's (1998) Co-Cultural framework, and Lynn's (2006) use of portraiture shaped the design of this autoethnopgrahy to explore the data from multiple angles and offer insight into the organizational culture and environment where facilitator(s) are asked to implement change. The PASK framework provided a lens through which to unpack and understand data that led to themes emerging from various points within the journals. An important component of my research design was analyzing the data from journals and exploring my experiences as a Black male facilitator and teacher who intends to effect change in his predominately white institution (PWI). The mixing of Lynn's (2006) portraiture with the PASK framework became helpful in forming the emerging themes within this autoethnography. It was important for me as the researcher and researched to feel as though I am in the study. First, I looked for the patterns that occurred within each of the elements of the PASK framework. Second, I noticed similar experiences that impacted my reality and how I experienced various situations. Third, I wove together the student evaluations, conversations with colleagues, and journal entries as data towards building the specific portrait. I almost used a form of triangulation towards allowing the portrait to take shape. Finally, I was able to construct the three themes and reveal patterns from the narratives. Lynn (2006) and Lawrence-Lightfoot (2005) stated that portraiture helps the reader interpret where the research is coming from understanding this perspective does not reduce trust; rather, trust is enhanced. It was critical for the reader to hear my stories as part of 47 the framework towards developing a 360-degree understanding of what it means to be a dialogue facilitator. To this end, I became interested in drawing out patterns and creating themes for the construction of the portraits I provided in this study. In these portraits, I reflect on my journal experiences, conversations with colleagues, and interpret the participant-student evaluations and how I internalized an awareness of my teaching pedagogies, facilitation, and experiences outside of the classroom while critiquing a system, department and institution that has not always been welcoming and affirming of my presence. This PASK framework and co-cultural theory offered details that allowed the data from the various points within the journals to be unpacked and understood. An important component of my study was unpacking the data from journals and exploring my experiences as a Black male facilitator and teacher who intends to affect change in his predominately white institution (PWI). The structured conversations with colleagues, professionals, and individuals with similar responsibilities in various regions of the United States helped shed light on the research questions posed earlier. Specifically, the co-cultural and PASK frameworks helped me incorporate student evaluations and experiences from outside the classroom as additional data towards understanding the 360-degree experiences of a dialogue facilitator. The mixing of the PASK framework and co-cultural theory was designed to explore these data from multiple angles and offer insight into the organizational culture and environment where facilitator(s) are asked to implement change. Given the first-hand accounts established by the data, initially it seemed that PASK framework and co-cultural theory seemed appropriate for analyzing and interpreting the data. The key missing component from this research is the participant and student responses to the experiences shared. Nevertheless, what this research does contain that was previously missing 48 from the field is a unique and in-depth understanding of the experience of a diversity dialogue facilitator. The development of separate portraits was appropriate for the method and data analysis. It is important to note that the experience of facilitating diversity dialogues was expressed in my own words (I serve as the researcher and subject of this research). As such, those first-hand accounts and the theoretical foundations used to analyze these experiences are my own and reflect the limits of my personal perspective. However these limitations were a necessary risk of this research, in order to ensure that the study achieved the type of in-depth perspective which had previously been neglected in the research on diversity dialogue facilitation. As future research of this kind multiplies, and additional viewpoints are added to the body of scholarship, a critical mass may help to confirm these understandings and reduce the risk of limited perceptive. Trustworthiness Ellis (2003) noted that journaling is an important component for ensuring trustworthiness in an authoethnography. As the researcher, I have lived through the experiences that appear in my writing, and my private written journals allowed me the opportunity to significantly reflect on the circumstances of those events. Additionally, I connected with friends, colleagues, and acquaintances to discuss and process these occurrences in my writing. The meaningful conversations I had with others to discuss triggers, reactions, and responses from the diversity dialogue classroom, as well as workshops and training were extremely useful in understanding: 1) where my passion comes from; 2) how the process of becoming socially aware has evolved; 3) what the on-going process of creating an environment for co-learning entails (skills); and 4) how institutional, structural, and societal oppression operates (knowledge). The collegiality and vocalized processing with colleagues helped to build 49 trustworthiness while ensuring that the reflective accounts of these experiences were critically examined through the cultural practices of dialogue. Several risks were carefully considered in the analysis and presentation of this research, and safeguards have been employed to protect the parties discussed. If an individual could be identified, or a department or university affiliation could be "outed," I decided to use the note [name stricken] as a way to protect myself and other's identities. Whether those parties were professors, administrators, family members, peers, supervisors, or colleagues, I opted to exclude all titles and names from this study. This de-identification process was intentional, and extended to all groups, organizations and individuals included in this study. To understand the influence of my biases, I critically examined myself to detect any inclination that may influence the conclusions I made about the data. Although no data or analysis is 100% value free and objective, I made a serious effort to convince others that integrity was maintained in the study and journal entries. To ensure this, I checked in with my colleagues and developed a team of "peer researchers" comprised of individuals I met at conferences and who are involved in the work of facilitating diversity dialogues. I shared my journal entries pertaining to diversity dialogues and conversed about the impact of my facilitation. This process was necessary to understand any overlooked areas within the data and blind spots that I previously did not consider. Limitations The study has a number of limitations that may affect its implications. The focal point of this research is one diversity dialogue facilitator's first-hand lived experiences of teaching and training for social justice education rather than those of multiple participants. Importantly, the information shared came from one person's lived and observed experiences, but there were some 50 data that were not shared. Although these notes did not directly pertain to the facilitation process or experience, they did concern parts my identities that remain private and were, therefore, kept confidential. Full disclosure of all my identities was not shared within this study. It is difficult to capture every internal response and reaction. This was a concern because the starting point of this information-gathering and data collection is solely from one perspective. For example, there were no data examining the experiences from the perspectives of dialogue participants based on their specific identities. The key missing component from this research is dialogue-participant and student responses. Nevertheless, what this research does contain that was previously missing from the field is a unique and in-depth understanding of the experience of a diversity dialogue facilitator. Patton (2002) suggested that qualitative researchers gain experience by doing. Arnold, Burke, James, D'Arcy and Thomas (1991) noted that trainers (facilitators) are often in the process of meeting people where they are in their process of learning, and the trust of the participants must be gained through time by sharing experiences. 51 Chapter 4 - FINDINGS In this chapter, I share detailed narratives, reflections, and thinking related to my experiences as a diversity dialogue facilitator. The data are kept in their purest form to ensure a genuine reflection of my experience. Journal entries are typed verbatim toward preserving the integrity of the hand-written, first-hand account. As the researcher and researched, this approach allowed me to put voice to the conflicts I encountered while facilitating, and the resistance I pushed through in discussions in order to enact diversity through dialogue. In a broad sense, the following themes emerged: (1) teachable moments, (2) intent versus impact, and (3) responding versus reacting. Each theme is presented as a portrait below with supporting data. Knowledge and Awareness Portrait: Teachable Moments I define teachable moments as occurrences when a dialogue participant, student, colleague and/or the researcher learned something that was not previously known. These specific moments in time when an "ah-ha" moment or "blind spot" was unveiled allowed dialogue participants to become more aware of and knowledgeable about inclusivity, social justice, and conscientious action. The reflective moment was not always easy to hear or give; however, it was often helpful in the growth and learning processes. While analyzing the journal entries, I found several statements and entries that at times placed me in the position of educator and teacher. In order to understand these experiences, I borrow from Orbe's (1998) co-cultural influence, where the researcher asks: "What past interactions have I had with dominant group members that will influence my behavior?"(p24). I had to reflect on Orbe's co-cultural influence and how this "showed up" in my interactions - before, during, and after diversity dialogues. I reflected on my own classroom experiences and recalled that many of my instructors and professors were available outside of 52 class. I found it necessary and comforting to ask follow up questions that I did not want to pose in a larger group setting. I applied these ways of being to my teaching style for a semester and found I was able to connect with students in ways that were more personable. For example, one student shared in their end of semester evaluation, "I appreciate the instructor's availability during outside of classroom time. Wazir made himself available if the students needed extra help with anything concerning the class." I decided it was important to make myself available to students, participants, and colleagues, not only during class, but after an event, workshop, or dialogue session. On one occasion, I finished an in-service event in the dining hall. I stayed around to meet with individuals on a one-on-one basis and answer any questions. A white female colleague with an African American male god-son talked with me as I prepared to exit the space and shared with me some of her background and the identities of her family. As we finished walking, she turned to me and said casually, jokingly, "well, thank you for what you did. Now it's time to go back to slavery." In that moment, I found myself frustrated, angry, and confused. My body began to ache and I felt the need to physically remove myself. Because I interpreted her remark as a clumsy attempt to make some light of our professional positions, I replied, "I have never known slaves to be paid." The female colleague then replied, "Oh. [long pause] I did not mean it like that. I was…" but because it sounded as if she was about to offer a justification for her poor choice of words, I decide to remove myself from the situation at that moment. Later I described how I experienced this situation in my journal: There's so much work to be done in housing. I am glad [supervisor's name stricken] got my back. I appreciate the opportunity to process after an in-service. On a different note, 53 what the F**k did [colleague's name stricken] really just say to me, "It's time to go back to slavery?" After talking through connecting with students and retaining underrepresented students in housing, she gonna say some ignorant s**t like that… In that moment I had to offer a response so that she would be aware of how insensitive, inconsiderate and unprofessional her comment occurred without making her feel unsafe, threatened or attacked or else I could be fired, arrested, and expelled. I wrote this detail in my journal, so I would not carry around the feelings of anger. Journal reflection was a powerful tool that helped me to vent my frustrations. This teachable moment was one of many during my time as a student, facilitator and teacher at the university. When I processed this incident with a senior colleague I met at the National Conference on Race and Ethnicity (NCORE), the colleague reinforced for me a teachable moment that I had heard throughout my childhood, adolescence, and adult life. Over the phone she shared: Wazir. Now you know that was a very ignorant comment. You know that we would never say some stuff like that. [But] As a Black man with education and social ease, you can't go off on her or anyone else. For you already know what's waiting for you, and call me and I'll be that sounding board for you. [laughter] Within your role, you must meet [all] people right where they are and be patient just as you need grace and patience extended to you. You know the golden rule, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." These remarks allowed me to feel acknowledged, heard, and validated, and I knew that I had to listen to this advice and use it even more in the future. I found journal reflection helpful towards writing my immediate and initial reactions, responses from colleagues, and a safe mechanism of expression without the need to worry about potential negative consequences from administrators. 54 Advice from colleagues in various networks like NCORE were helpful in this situation and more to follow while helping me to see myself as a "teacher" and "learner". On a different occasion, I encountered another comment by a white female colleague who was in a position of organizational power and was responsible for hiring me. During a staff meeting, another member asked a question about how best to support students who were undocumented and living in the residence halls. Laughing, the white female administrator interjected, "we'll just speak Mexican to them." Dumbfounded and confused several of the graduate and professional staff looked around at one another. I cleared my throat and was silent. I went back to my office and engaged in the process of journal reflection and wrote: WHAT THE F***K is wrong with her? Does she not realize that her children are at least one-fourth Mexican? Did she think that was Effing funny? Wow. She does not get it and does not seem like a safe person that I could even bring issues students of color are facing in this department. If I would have gotten up and walked out, then I am the angry Black man or insubordinate team member, right? Ignorant indeed. Smh [shaking my head]. I eventually privately addressed this situation with an organizational superior and carefully crafted my response. In the moment, however, the response written in the above journal entry only felt safe enough to share with myself. Journal reflection gave me the space to vent my anger then strategically respond. On another occasion, when the institution was interviewing candidates for a new director position in our area, I was responsible for escorting one candidate from the Center for Student Living to another location on campus. Before her particular time concluded, the candidate (multiracial, of Latina/Chinese descent) noted, "I met some of the staff in facilities and maintenance and wanted to know, how does housing work closely with the custodial 55 maintenance staff?" Another middle-aged white female colleague was attending the candidate screening. She was responsible for assignments and billing, and she replied: "we just slave drive them." Everyone in the room looked at her and said her name simultaneously in exasperation. The idea that the majority of the custodial and maintenance staff are Spanish speakers and from Latina/o backgrounds and that this middle-aged white woman made this comment without thinking before speaking, made me shake my head with embarrassment and frustration. Later, I wrote the following in my journal reflection: That bigot said we just slave-drive them. I cannot believe she said that. At least I now know who she is and the monster she carries. In that moment I had a visual moment of a slave-driver driving and pushing their slaves to [work]. It is clear that she doesn't even get it. After everyone said [her name] she sat there in her pride and ego as if to be proud. Ignorant ass. Wow, how small of her and embarrassing for the entire department for someone to see this…Why am I here? I called a colleague-friend within my network and shared the experience. He reminded me of the cost of reacting and how I was expected to respond. He provided me with a teachable moment which I journaled: ….Perhaps she truly feels like that. Use this as an opportunity to build a relationship and connect with someone who uses deficit language that you do not use. You may be the one who changes her heart. In changing heart, her language will be reshaped and redefined…. I will use this tool in the future and see where it takes me. As I am writing this entry, I just heard the quote, "love can conquer hate and fear." Thank you God for that on time quote. I'll follow up with [name] and see how she can understand the impact of her words and perhaps I'll learn something. 56 In this moment, a peace fell upon me and I knew that it would be important to have a conversation with my housing colleague in the immediate future. His comments helped to remind me that "I am a teacher. I am a learner". Little did I know, the next day this colleague would be waiting outside my office to discuss the event further. My friend's advice had such an impact on me that I decided that I must respond with patience to this individual; just as I wanted grace when I experienced anger, frustration, and hurt, I felt I must extend the same to her. This reciprocity helped me see how guilt and anger can co-exist and increase empathy. The Facilitator's Teachable Moments Being genuine to the "Teachable Moments" theme requires me to be watchful for those experiences that reveal previously unacknowledged gaps in my own knowledge. These are my "Ah ha!" moments, when an assumption or ungrounded prejudice became clear during an interaction, conversation, or experience. I learned that I must always be watchful for these moments because they are as valuable to facilitating diversity dialogues as is any classroom or space where personal thoughts are shared. I incorporated various colleagues' advice from our conversations into class curriculum and future dialogue facilitations. As an important part of creating spaces for co-learning to occur, I found it helpful to model for students and participants the "teacher-learner" approach. I opened the first day of classes and many workshops with, "My name is Wazir Jefferson. I am a teacher. I am a learner" and invited the participants and students to do the same. The students were given the opportunity to share their feedback on what it was like to introduce themselves as a "teacher and learner." One student's comments on the evaluation form for one event further stated: The instructor was knowledgeable and passionate about the topics discussed in class. His energy and enthusiasm was an important part of the process. I think that Prof. Jefferson 57 deeply cares about the subject of diversity, I also think he genuinely cares about the students. I appreciate that he was willing to share personal insights and leave himself vulnerable at times. Appreciative of this student feedback, it reinforced the NCORE's colleagues advice and I had to remain open to expand my knowledge and understanding of diversity dialogues whether I was in class as a student or facilitating as a trainer. I understood this comment and found the useful tool of leading [the dialogue] with vulnerability. As I received feedback on my approaches to teaching and facilitating, I was still completing course work and a full-time student. During a qualitative research methods class, the professor was sharing paradigms from which researchers conduct their studies. One student, who served as a principal at an elementary school remarked, "I just treat everyone the same. No matter what color you are or your background, everyone's the same and I don't see race." The professor waited for this student to complete their thought and then responded. "That might be a very constructivist approach to learning. [But] given a critical post-modern paradigm, the voice of those who experience the margins of society [should] get to share their capital T ‘truth'. This paradigm allows the researcher to understand there are multiple truths, experiences, and perspectives and [these often] depend on the background [of the speaker]. This approach is about bringing the voices of those who are seen as "other" to the forefront…" Smiling from ear to ear, I provided affirming head nods of agreement with what the professor shared with the class and how the student was addressed. I was surprised and felt uplifted, for it was one of the few times where I saw a white female professor address a white 58 female student in a way that expanded my understanding, and when I did not have to take on the role of diversity educator. Later that evening I journaled: I wanted react to Ms [name stricken] for saying that everyone is the same. Does she not realize that it is our differences that make us all unique? But for once, a brotha gets a break from always having to teach, reteach, and share my experiences of pain for other people to learn (because the professor responded to the situation). I am going to go by Dr. [name stricken] office. What should I call her? Mommie and Auntie said I need to put a ‘handle' on folks' names. Even with my classmates and colleagues, I don't feel comfortable calling them by their first name. When I met with Dr. [name stricken] she told me to call her by her first name, [name stricken]. I will try to call her by her first name and tell her how much I appreciate her saying something to [my classmate]. Maybe she saw my face. That's why I never won at card games ‘cause my face tells my story…LOL This teachable moment informed me that I can count on people who do not necessarily look like me to say the very thing I am thinking without apology. The instructor's transparency helped me to understand that I still have a lot of learning to do even though I am a teacher. I further added in my entry: Ally. Can I be an ally as I need allies? Too many times, people on ‘both sides' think that if you are pro-this you are against that. Just ‘cause I am for marriage equality, social justice, diversity, and inclusion, doesn't mean I am against white people, heterosexuals, or any other dominant group. I'm tired of this us versus them mindset. Just as I need her to address more students like [name stricken] when she said, "I don't see race", I equally 59 have a responsibility to address other men on their patriarchy. Wow. I just had an ah-ha moment. Ms. [Oprah] Winfrey would be proud. LOL I reached out to an Associate Vice President for Diversity towards understanding what an ally does. I shared with the administrator what occurred in class. The administrator offered the following insight: Wazir, help knows no color. Be careful you are not being used by anyone with majority status to further a cause. If this faculty member is willing to extend herself then that is someone you want to get to know. Many of my biggest allies are people I would not expect nor assume to be. [Quietness fell in the room] I walked back to my residence hall and began thinking about the administrator's comments. When I returned home, I ate something. I looked out the window. The grass was yellow and mounds of snow were melting. Before I began the self-reflection journaling process, I found it necessary to self-care by eating something after a long walk. I began to scribble in my journal: Help Knows No Color. Wow. [the administrator's name] was so right, yo! Dang. I usually have something to write and now I am at a loss for words. I don't see race. I. Don't. See. Race. Everyone. Is. The. Same. I have to rethink [the context of] why people say, "I don't see race" and their paradigm from where they come when they say such a statement. To be an effective dialogue facilitator, I must remain open and serve. I serve. I serve by being a teacher and a learner. Who else have I missed out on getting to know? My professor [name stricken] is taking time to teach, provide the notes, answer my questions, and process with me about Qualitative Research….Wow. That's an Ally. This teachable moment helped me understand differences on personal, professional, and organizational levels of an institution of higher education. It furthered my understanding for the 60 need of networking with administrators and professors who "practice what they preach" and model such behaviors for me to follow. Talking through things with others who are doing similar work. Teachable moments like this continued to occur throughout my time as a dialogue facilitator. For example, one student wrote in their evaluation, "It seemed like he was scared to be flexible." When I saw this comment, I thought to myself, "whatever. How about you teach a group of students who…," and then I had to stop myself and ask, "What can I learn from this comment?" That student's comment coupled with another's perspective helped me understand how guarded I could be when it may not always be necessary or productive: For a good man who is easy to like and has a passion for this area you can come across set in stone and unkind. People like you but too many rules and too strict criticism for mistakes such as students using the wrong word or not using ‘I' statements made it almost impossible at times to sit in your class. Give us a dang break. Don't be angry all the time. This comment left me confused, because another student in the same group of evaluations offered a contrary opinion ("Wazir is a great instructor. He was very open and approachable.") Then I moved to the next comment, in which another student wrote, "I feel that lots of this class was unproductive and made people feel crappy if they were of any majority status." I did not want to have these comments in future evaluations and wanted to understand how much these comments were based on materials presented in class, my identities, my presentation including my braided corn-rows of hair, or the time of day for the class. I reached out to several colleagues, mentors, and friends in order to make sense of this feedback and identify how I could grow from it. One colleague suggested: 61 You must have struck a nerve with some students. Think about it though, some of the comments are about you and your identities. As you continue to teach, facilitate, and work with groups, you'll find your style that works….Hang in there, you'll see in time that folks will understand and appreciate your style of teaching…. The feedback from student evaluations made me reflect on my inner and outer presentation style. I reminded myself that, "I am a teacher. I am a learner". I reflected on the alignment of my intent with the impact of my actions. I thought about my requests for assignments and made sure they aligned with the goals and outcomes of the course, program or event. I revamped the agreements/ground rules and called them "community norms." Additionally, I elected to be more intentional about asking participants if there were additional community norms that they wanted to see added. Asking for feedback from participants helped me to lead with vulnerability and remain open to their suggestions. These steps allowed me both to think more critically about my practice, and to honor the feedback of those I was responsible for serving. Challenges Outside of the Classroom While a dialogue facilitator, I have faced many challenges outside of the classroom that have impacted how I experience and see my campus environment and world. Outside my role in housing, I have also had responsibilities including graduate school and an active family life. If I was not in my roles of family, then I was expected to be a role model all while maintaining my outlook as a teacher and learner. The following experiences I could not have planned for nor foreseen. These experiences informed my understanding of how people perceive my presence as a tall African American male, and as a person often considered an outsider (unfamiliar). 62 My first night in housing occurred on Thursday, July 7, 2005. My then-colleague picked me up from the airport. The late afternoon and early evening was very well lit and I wore my sunglasses driving down the street. She dropped me off at my new place of residence and I thanked her for the tour and ride to campus. I began to unpack my bags and walked around the building to acclimate myself to my new surroundings. I also hoped to meet some of the other students who might be living in the building. A few hours later there were two officers at my door asking me who I was and what reason I had to be in the building. The implication was clearly that I was a trespasser-someone who didn't belong. Confused, I stood in the doorway to my room, reading the sheets of paper that these officers had handed to me. One sheet read, "….6 foot two, black male, low haircut..." I excused myself and closed the door, calling my housing colleague-supervisor who had just picked me up from the airport. I explained to her what was going on, including the officers' presence and she urgently stated, "I'll be right over!" Within minutes, she arrived at the second entrance, made her way to my floor, and addressed the officers. She introduced herself politely, described her role within the department, and then explained, "Yes, Wazir is a staff member within our department who just arrived earlier today." The staff member was helpful in defusing the situation, but seemed overly apologetic for the officers' actions. After I explained to her that I felt stereotyped and targeted she stated, "I don't think they [the officers] meant it like that." At the time, I did not have a journal to write about this experience and my feeling of dismissal in that moment. I tried to brush it off to ignorance and get back to being excited for the new opportunity to pursue my doctorate degree and serve in a housing position. Still, I felt uncomfortable-even as I affirmed my supervisor's 63 interpretation, and said to myself, "…maybe they didn't mean it like that…whatever." My supervisor was available to listen and respond. Less than two months later, a personalized poster that had been drawn and given to me (and displayed in the hallway outside my door) was defaced by someone who wrote, "fuck dat ni***" over the image. I shared this experience with my bi-lateral supervisor and high-ranking administrator within the housing. This administrator asked what I wanted to do and what I wanted to see as an outcome: I explained to her, "…. I do not want this to happen again and I am starting to feel targeted being in the space." At the time, it was still fall and the first semester of my doctorate degree hadn't yet begun. At the time, friends and family were checking in on my transition from the east coast. I shared the above experiences. One friend said, "…give it the fall semester and see what happens…." I wanted to leave and forget about the job opportunity and doctoral degree before the fall began. However, I decided to see how the first semester would progress and to be open to learning more about myself and the new environment. These ongoing situations, and the stories other students of color shared with me about not feeling safe, made me question whether I made the right decision to move from the east coast. It was in these moments that I began to tell myself, "maybe I don't belong here." My excitement for the new possibilities and opportunities dissipated by the end of the fall semester. I resigned from the department and was on my way to withdrawing from the doctoral program. A high ranking administrator and Director of Housing approached me about a newly created position which focused on diversity and social justice initiatives. They were transparent in their approach while sharing the new direction of the department. In the midst of anger, disappointment, and frustration, I saw this as an opportunity "to be the change I wanted to see in 64 the world." I asked a Chief Diversity Officer if I should accept this appointment, and their advice was, "Your place of birth and comfort is not always going to be your (best) place of growth." I accepted the offer. The three administrators collaboratively advocated for my success in the department's inaugural diversity position. I was now serving in a role in which I felt students and colleagues could express their concerns and ideas towards making a more inclusive, safer, and welcoming space. It was also this role where I truly found my life's work. Unfortunately, however, the incidents, stereotypes, and hurt did not stop. In April of 2008, my 17-year old cousin visited campus. He was in his senior year of high school and considering different schools for his undergraduate studies. We had just finished dropping a colleague off at the airport with her personal vehicle and returning it to the resident director parking space. We gathered our belongings from the back of the car and hurried to get to the cafeteria before it closed. When we finished eating we were greeted by two officers outside the cafeteria. The first officer stated, "We received a report, and both of you [pointing his finger at us] fit the description of two black males seen robbing a vehicle today." The officers then asked us for our drivers' licenses-not our student/university identification cards. Shocked and surprised, I asked the officers, "Are we on an episode of MTV's punk'd or boiling points?" [hidden camera television shows that involve elaborate pranks to test an individual's limits and patience]. I explained to the officers: "I am a staff member in the department [gesturing towards my office which was about 20 feet away]." They b