Opinion: How Can Dialogue Be an Effective Tool to Promote Social Justice on Campus?
By Waidehi Gokhale and Rafael Tyszblat
Academic institutions are grappling with broad societal dynamics that play out on campuses. With disputes over curricula, cancel culture controversies, statements on diversity, and contested trainings, campuses seem to struggle with committing to anti-racism while maintaining the tenets of academic freedom and critical inquiry. Getting anti-racism right is crucial to ensuring a healthy campus environment and a more racially equitable future, and education is a key building block without which systemic repairs on race cannot be addressed. Today’s students are tomorrow’s lawmakers, hiring managers, product designers, decision-makers, and creators whose actions and perspectives will influence fairness and justice.
One solution has been to offer Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging trainings. While it is great to see social and emotional learning making inroads into higher education, these trainings are at times being met with push back which results in not reaching the full breadth of their intended audience. Many of these trainings are designed to impart vital information but unless space for inquiry and critical thinking is also provided, the appetite to receive the information being imparted can be greatly diminished.
Left to our own devices outside of such deliberate trainings, we tend to turn either to debate or silence in engaging with the issue of racism. Debate may not be the right tool at a time when society at large is going through a major reckoning with its past, with an attempt to correct the course for the future. Silencing ourselves or others in open societies has never proven itself to be a sustainable solution either.
How do we then effectively overcome this deadlock? Dialogue.
Dialogue, despite being a tested tool for deep learning and social cohesion, has been relegated as ineffective or even blind to oppression. While acknowledging some of its limitations (essentially that it cannot be effective when there is ongoing violence among its participants or when the power imbalance between them is irremediably high), it is worth setting the record straight on some of the most misinterpreted concepts around dialogue.
Multi-partiality doesn’t mean being neutral towards racists
Conventional wisdom holds that dialogue promotes a compromise between fundamentally right and fundamentally wrong ideas and values. Tayari Jones, in “There’s nothing virtuous about finding common ground”, writes:
There is nothing inherently virtuous about being neither here nor there. Buried in this is a false equivalency of ideas, what you might call the “good people on both sides” phenomenon. When we revisit our shameful past, ask yourself, Where was the middle? What is halfway between moral and immoral?
True, a discussion over the legitimacy of the Black Lives Matter movement could be experienced as debating the right of Black people to exist. Similarly, discussing the “don’t ask don’t tell” doctrine could be experienced as debating the right of LGBTQI+ people to exist. On the surface, a dialogue on these topics may appear to be looking for a compromise between right and wrong. In reality, it does not– not because one position is fundamentally right and the other is wrong but because seeking a compromise when a stark power imbalance is at play is ethically irresponsible. In general, dialogue does not seek compromise. Dialogue does not seek to be neither here nor there but rather to understand both here and there.
Any patronizing thought can be considered racist or violent in some contexts. To the naked eye, the distinction between racism and a critical viewpoint or a legitimate expression of pride in one’s cultural identity may not be easily visible; to a highly trained facilitator who knows how to recognize damaging power dynamics, it is.
Therefore, rather than being safe to all discourses, dialogue is about being safe to people and about separating the ideas from the person. That is what dialogue practitioners call “multi-partiality” – the ability to discuss and confront ideologies without compromising on the inherent dignity of all people. Dialogue makes it a point to be radically inclusive of people, while ensuring that no one will behave in a way that is exclusive to others. This can’t be done without the critical role of facilitators. Facilitators help participants to think for themselves, and critically explore the roots of their views and opinions.
Therefore, rather than being safe to all discourses, dialogue is about being safe to people and about separating the ideas from the person. That is what dialogue practitioners call “multi-partiality” – the ability to discuss and confront ideologies without compromising on the inherent dignity of all people.
At Soliya, we have hosted thousands of small group dialogues online within and between communities. While our highly trained facilitators who run these dialogues remain multi-partial and do not take sides or impose their views or ideologies on the participants, they are by no means neutral towards racist or destructive behavior. Soliya Facilitators are guided by values and remain loyal to a human rights framework. They will also never tolerate direct verbal violence – slurs, insults, curse words, bullying, attacking, belittling, hate speech, and calls for violence or other crimes.
That said, undoubtedly, there are risks in putting people in conversation where one is being perceived as threatening the very existence or dignity of the other. Destructive and harmful dynamics often happen between people having radically different worldviews and positions. For instance, in conversations around race in mixed groups, many observe that White liberals tend to harm minorities because they are more focused on convincing the latter that they are anti-racist than actually listening to the experience of others. While discussions on such issues can get uncomfortable for everyone, it is very likely that it will be much more uncomfortable and tiring (and potentially painful) for Black people.
Rather than a sign of weakness or a compromise between oppression and justice, listening is a skill that enables participants to overcome the “negativity bias” that clouds their meta-perceptions (their perceptions of how others view them).
The science behind Dialogue
Such power dynamics exist in all countries, not just in Western societies, creating uneven playing fields for conversations around identity. Even though a dialogue process cannot guarantee emotional safety at all times, it can help repair relations by enabling listening. Rather than a sign of weakness or a compromise between oppression and justice, listening is a skill that enables participants to overcome the “negativity bias” that clouds their meta-perceptions (their perceptions of how others view them). According to Emile Bruneau, the late neuroscientist who dedicated his life to the study of the brain and conflict resolution, people can then “update their perceptions to match reality”, which is a monumental shift in relations that can de-escalate and prevent conflict (In Conversation with Emile Bruneau: Metaperceptions, October 30, 2020, YouTube video by University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication. Dr. Bruneau founded the Peace and Conflict Neuroscience Lab at the University of Pennsylvania.)
Empathy in pursuit of justice
Empathy can be learned and is a proven necessary step in pursuing justice and inclusion. In its absence, we surrender ourselves to a “with us or against us” world.
In the context of social movements, dialogue is not a quest for common ground but a radical stance for an ethical and inclusive process for bridging gaps and repairing relationships. The field of conflict resolution has long demonstrated that sustainable justice cannot be achieved without integrating the wrong doers and the victims in the same process, seeking deep understanding and a shared effort to repair the wrong deeds. Along with correcting biased meta-perceptions, listening can fuel empathy, another underrated tool for change. Seeing the humanity in someone does not mean condoning their reprehensible speech or actions, and emotional empathy (feeling a person’s feelings) does not equate with cognitive empathy (agreeing with them). Empathy can be learned and is a proven necessary step in pursuing justice and inclusion. In its absence, we surrender ourselves to a “with us or against us” world.
If we continue to approach racism from a lens of teaching or debate but not seek to dialogue, we will find ourselves in a society where everyone speaks but no one listens. How do you bring about social justice if no one is listening? The profound lack of willingness and capacity to engage constructively across lines of difference is causing a cacophony of noise, along with more radicalization. There is enough science behind dialogue – specifically, facilitated dialogue journeys – for it to be implemented system-wide to address fractures on campus. Further, dialogue is a powerful tool to complement and maximize the impact of anti-racism efforts to uphold social justice while ensuring that critical inquiry remains a part of healthy conversations.
Waidehi Gokhale is the CEO of Soliya.
Rafael Tyszblat is an innovation and design specialist at Soliya overseeing content and curriculum development for new dialogue and training projects.