We were broken into smaller groups that included faculty, staff, and students. We had 10 minutes to go around in our groups and say why we were there, what we were bringing to the conversation and what we hoped to gain. The first ten minutes was a space to listen to each other without commenting. The whole group came together and summarized what each group had to say concerning one of these questions and then we broke into our small groups again to create a list of actual changes we wanted Grinnell to enact and who on campus would be responsible for making it happen.
Leslie Turner, the Assistant Dean of Students and Director of Intercultural Affairs, created a master list of all the suggestions and is planning on presenting it to the president of the college tomorrow when several speeches and a solidarity march are scheduled.
General Thoughts:
- I appreciated the format. The groups were broken up by counting off so that people of all ages, genders, races, etc were getting to talk to each other.
- That our group was a 'safe space' where people were free to speak their minds was iterated
- No one was forced to talk, and by asking the question 'why are you here' people were able to state their intentions clearly.
- The groups were a little too big for the amount of time we had but we were still able to talk about a lot even with the limited time frame.
- The exercise of writing down achievable goals and the practical step of defining who would be in charge of seeing them through was very much appreciated and started to address a problem that many people brought up; that while we keep having this conversation nothing is done afterward. I think this sets up a nice trajectory that has a better chance of being seen through.
Connection to the performance:
I received this email a few hours before I was supposed to have rehearsal today. My first reaction was that I had already sent out the email saying who needed to be there and what we were doing, Wednesdays are one of only two days I have the studio reserved, and that we were going to finish the last bit of cleaning for a section today so I'd have a new video to show at my MAP meeting on Friday. This all pretty immediately struck me as ridiculous. Here the subject of my MAP is colonialism and slavery which has led to systematic injustices that continue to affect the world centuries later, all which I'm trying to help bring into the spotlight and I don't have time to go to a discussion on the subject? It's that constant reminder of how easy it is to not pay attention when you've grown up with something that's so ingrained in your own society but it can seem blatant and atrocious when you encounter it in another society.
I went in not knowing what the layout of the meeting was going to be. When Leslie posed the first few questions, I realized that the reason I was there today was to listen. I didn't share this with my group but remained silent which, looking back, I'm not sure was the right call but I achieved my purpose nonetheless.
One student was saying that there was no point to our meeting because these talks never change anything and part of why is because it's always the same people coming. Several people spoke up saying that if he really believed that then why was he there because what's the point. I tend to agree, if we give up that anything can ever change then we're becoming passive bystanders who are actually reinforcing it. Also, I think I feel this way because I wasn't somebody who used to go to talks about race or diversity so I think there is always a chance of changing at least one person's point of view. You've got to start somewhere.
I don't think my performance is making some heretofore unknown observation or statement but it's making it visible to another audience on another day. It's doing something instead of giving into the seemingly impossible obstacle that is systematic oppression.
