Hi Corinne,
Thanks for continuing the conversation, because I really did not address what you were asking. If I were going to lead something for JMU faculty, I would initiate an "Engagement toward Shared Values" Conversation series. The goal would be to bring folks together who have strong feelings about this and foster dialogue based on CALM MO principles. I participated in something similar to what I envision here, which was called Intergroup Dialogue<https://www.jmu.edu/cfi/career-development/faculty-communities/intergroup-dialogues.shtml>, and our CI program facilitates these. Intergroup Dialogue involves a 12 session meeting of individuals from different social identity categories. I participated in one that was for men and women (that also, interestingly, has about 50/50 white v. people of color). I would envision folks who were passionate about identity politics/diversity issues across the spectrum to come together and learn from one another.
Anyway, as you may know, CALM MO stands for a reflective, deliberative attitude toward self and other that is curious, accepting, loving compassionate, and motivated to learn and grow toward valued states of being. I would advocate that folks enter into groups that last for some time so that people can actually get to know one another, rather than just come together and voice grievances. Then, everyone should have an opportunity to share their version of reality and be heard by the group from a CALM MO stance. Then the group should be exposed to visions and values about where we should go and have CALM conversations about them. For example, folks should watch the Munk Debates or read passionate articles like this one titled "Why Can't We Hate Men?" from today's Post<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?utm_term=.1b1ecf4e8803>. The idea would be a real community could emerge, something different than a “colorblind” denial of minority issues versus the idea that everyone’s existence is inevitably defined by social category oppression.
Of course, I am just about on sabbatical, so I won’t be doing that 😊. But that is the first brainstorm I would have about how we might go forward.
Best,
Gregg
-----Original Message-----
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Diop, Corinne Joan Martin - diopcj
Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2018 5:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: feedback on chapter
Hi Gregg,
Wow, the article on Trump's hate is chilling-- and the white guilt book review is pretty challenging too...
To your first point below that "we need considerations of the principles and goals of what we are trying to move toward", this is specific to JMU/ not all universities, but we do have a strategic plan with a supposedly-shared "vision" to be "engaged with ideas and the world". https://www.jmu.edu/jmuplans/engagement.shtml
Interestingly, engagement gets defined in three points-- and the second one directly overlooks the downside of slave-owning, Constitution "Father" James Madison: Civic Engagement/ Advancing the legacy of James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, by preparing individuals to be active and responsible participants in a representative democracy dedicated to the common good.
It's interesting and hope-inspiring to consider that we are indeed making great cultural shifts and that we need to consider what was normal in past time periods as we look back on them with our hopefully more enlightened views. But in this transition it does feel like we are all on edge for anything we say or do-- like CNN's Joy Behar recently had to answer for anti-gay blog posts she made back when it was OK to have that opinion AND she had to apologize for saying that "talking to Jesus is a sign of mental illness"... (https://nypost.com/2018/04/24/msnbc-stars-lame-excuse-after-homophobic-remarks-surface/ https://www.thewrap.com/joy-behar-belatedly-apologizes-for-comparing-mike-pences-christian-faith-to-mental-illness/)
I know this is possibly getting too specific about a certain situation-- and I certainly am not the one to facilitate it within my department or wider university-- but I do wonder if there is a way to address these issues with the faculty at JMU who are feeling the need to display Hate/Anger/Pride in response to the current university climate. It's easy for me to say they shouldn't counter former or present injustice and hate with a hateful response... What do you think could be done that brings some recognition of their pain and evoke accountability-- and healing? (Or maybe I am still showing White guilt by wanting to intervene?)
Thank you again for sharing this topic!
Corinne
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
