Running head: FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

How does facilitation affect racial discourse?

Emily Huttner
Senior Seminar
Minnesota State University, Mankato
July 21, 2017
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

Abstract
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

Introduction
As a white woman who grew up just outside of North Minneapolis I felt I had been

exposed to diversity and never considered myself to be racist or hold prejudice. My family and

friends never really discussed race and if there was discussion most conversations started with

Im not racist but... or thats not an appropriate topic. In my experiences, racial discourse is

often avoided. Discussing race meant that you viewed others differently, which ultimately made

you racist. I was conditioned to believe in the bootstrap mentality. People assume that

because we are post-civil rights that we must be equal. These behaviors express colorblindness

and fear of being labeled. Colorblindness fails to acknowledge that inequities and prejudice

whether intentional or not, still exist. As the ACLU (2017) states

From our public schools where students of color are too often confined to racially

isolated, underfunded, and inferior programs, to our criminal justice system that

disproportionately targets and incarcerates people of color and criminalizes poverty, to

the starkly segregated world of housing, the dream of full equality remains an elusive

one (Whats at Stake section, para. 1).

Racial discrimination and prejudice has become more apparent over the last few years with the

coverage of police brutality, the #BlackLivesMatter movement, increased coverage of hate

crimes and the 2016 election. Glaude (2016) writes Our conversations fail because we refuse to

accept what such conversations demand: an honest reckoning with the ugliness of who we are

and the racial habits and fears that animate our way of life (para.12). I truly believe we cannot

move forward until we take the time to have honest conversations, examining prejudices and

understanding our differences.

FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

Existing research such as DiAngelo (2012) discusses new racism; colorblindness an

ideology that suggests that by pretending we dont notice race it will end racism (p. 106). This

is a form of racism people use to ignore and erase systematic, historical and cultural

marginalization of people of color. DiAngelo (2011) also discusses white fragility Whites have

not had to build the cognitive or affective skills or develop the stamina that would allow for

constructive engagement across racial divides (p. 60) White people are uncomfortable

discussing race, when they arent even the ones experiencing racial oppression. Luckily there

are organizations working to create opportunities or platforms for individuals to address racism,

and hopefully get over white fragility by providing safe spaces for people to engage in racial

discourse.

Organizations such as the YWCA Mankato, have developed and initiated racial justice

initiatives that include racial dialogue workshops such as Its Time to Talk (IT2T), Confronting

Racism Minnesota Style and other customized training sessions. The mission of the YWCA

Mankato is; dedicated to eliminating racism, empowering women and promoting peace, justice,

freedom and dignity for all. Their programs and workshops are creating spaces for racial

discourse to occur through facilitation. YWCA Mankato states

-Its Time to Talk is a trademarked racial dialogue facilitation process that involves

trained facilitators leading small dialogue circles about race and racial justice.

Participants exchange ideas through a series of questions designed to garner authentic

introspection and discussion within a constructive and non-threatening environment.

IT2T workshops typically end with a "What's Next?" discussion or handout to provide

guidance on how participants can continue to move forward. (IT2T section, para 1).
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

This study specifically focuses on racial discourse facilitated at YWCA Mankato IT2T

workshops. This literature review seeks to discover reoccurring behaviors, thoughts and feelings

about racial discourse and the influence and methods of facilitation to answer the question: How

does facilitation affect racial discourse?

Literature Review

The following reviews existing research discussing racial discourse and facilitation. With

the focus of the study interviewing facilitators from IT2T workshops it was important to review

existing research surrounding racial discourse to see if and how people already engage in racial

discourse outside of facilitation and in what ways. Then additionally it was important to gain

understanding of the influence of facilitated discussions, and specifically the process of circle

dialogue.

Racial discourse takes many different forms and racism hasnt been as overt in the media

until recently during the 2016 election. Racism and racial discourse had been existing through

colorblindness and microaggressions and still does, but has been becoming more overt since the

election. This section of the literature review focuses on reviewing existing patterns of racial

discourse.

Racial Discourse
Powell (2016) discusses the political and racial climate of 2016 in relation to that of

1964. Leading up to the 2016 election, Powell argues both Clinton and Trump lack regard for

black and brown lives the only difference being covert or overt racism. Powell parallels Malcolm

Xs The Ballot or the Bullet 1964 circumstances to that of 2016, the development of the

#BlackLivesMatter movement in response to the unjust killing of black lives; calling on the same
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

racial consciousness Malcolm X did fifty years ago. Powell encourages us to find strength in one

another. This think piece article highlights the racial tensions that have risen over the past few

years, we cannot move forward without discussion and facilitated racial discourse could help in

developing empathy and understanding of racial inequity

Augoustinos and Every (2007) conducted a study analyzing the discursive and linguistic

patterns of everyday talk and formal institutional talk surrounding race, immigration and

multiculturalism within Western liberal democracies. Their study found five patterns of talk;

denial of prejudice, reason and rationality, positive-self/negative other presentation,

deracialisation, and liberal arguments for illiberal ends. The speech was not labeled as racist or

not, not but instead reviewed the dialogue to find talk that repeatedly positioned minority out-

groups negatively or rationalized the marginalization and exclusion from majority groups.

Lunds (2006) study took place over two years interviewing student and educator activists in

Canada. The study sought to understand the tendency of avoiding racial discourse by students

and educators and its impact on social justice projects in schools. This denial and avoidance

creates barriers when trying to address the inequity people of color are experiencing. These

interviews created opportunities for self-reflection and Lund in a way, served as a facilitator

creating an opportunity for the discussion. The lack of cultural competency and willingness to

engage by educators ultimately failed their students and their actions to effectively create social

change.

Eliasophs (1999) ethnographic study attempts to discover how people discuss race in

everyday, public conversations. Focusing on the idea of a civil society, which Eliasophs

borrows Walzers (1992) definition, it is neither home nor work, but a third kind of place,

where theorists say that citizens cultivate relationships with a wide range of others, expand their
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

horizons, and nurture a kind of selfhood that is compatible with an open society (p.480). They

highlight the importance of speech context when discussing topics, and not only what we say but

also when we chose not to say anything. Eliasoph brings the focus back to etiquette, stating

If one pulls the thread of racist conversation out, the whole cloth of American civil

society disintegrates, not because members share a bond of racism, but because they

share the bond of putting race-talk into the category of topics to be avoided by polite

people (p. 498).

We have been taught when and where to or not to discuss race and far too often it happens

backstage or in coded language.

Like Lund (2006), Doanes (2003) study focused on racial discourse related to schools.

Doane conducted a case study that focused on the public discourse of racial issues surrounding

the West Hartford school desegregation during the 1990s. Doane reviewed and analyzed public

statements, letters to the board of education, to the local newspaper and statements made at

public hearings during the process of development, adoption, and implementation of a school

desegregation. This case study focused on analyzing the use of symbols, reasoning devices, and

an assessment of general interpretive frames that members of the general public use to view

racial issues. Doanes research provides evidence of how racial understanding is contested, and

although overt racism may have been on the decline during the 1990s, racism still existed

through the denial of systematic and institutional oppression. The arguments and tactics used by

those opposed to the desegregation are examples of the patterns of talk found in Augoustinos and

Everys (2007) research including; deracialisation, positive-self/negative other presentation, and

liberal arguments for illiberal ends.

FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

In Trawalter and Richensons (2008) study they explored interracial interactions. The

goal of their study was to find out if interracial interactions were as stressful for Black people as

they are for White people and if race-related topics moderated interracial contact stress?

Participants of the study were brought to lab rooms where a white or black interaction partner

joined them and they were given 3 topics to discuss; 1 focused on race and 2 were neutral.

Participants nonverbal behavioral anxiety was compared during race-neutral and race-related

discussions. The results of the study concluded that White participants were more anxious during

interracial contact regardless of the topic, and also were anxious discussing race related topics

even in same-race contact. Black participants had less anxiety when discussing race related

topics than neutral ones in interracial interactions. Although this study only focuses on two races

it provides insight on how majority members have pre-existing anxiety when engaging in racial

discourse which helps explain topic avoidance.

Facilitated discussion is distinctly different from everyday conversations and public

discourse. When you are having an interpersonal conversation there typically isnt an agenda.

You move through a conversation naturally which may result in conflict or someone

dominating the conversation. Facilitation provides a space for a conversation that might not

otherwise happen or allow for a level playing field when addressing conflict.

Facilitation
Norander and Galanes (2014) work expands into a community setting. Their study

sought to understand how difference organizes dialogue and maintains community with intent to

encourage further conversations about difference, community and engaged scholarship. They

completed field work of three nonprofit organizations in Springfield, MO after the Chamber of

Commerce developed a strategic priority issue, surrounding the lack of racial and cultural
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

diversity. The author facilitated conversations about diversity within the 3 organizations over the

course of 18 months. Data was collected through participant observation, in-depth interviews,

and focus groups and thematic analysis was completed. The three themes that emerged where;

difference creates community, difference mobilizes organizing and dialogue, and difference

orders meaning.

Both definitions of race and community are contested, by creating opportunities to

engage in discussion the organizations were able to come together and discover their shared

desires and develop shared meaning. Beyer-Hermsen (2001) reviews Saunders book focusing on

sustained dialogue and the public peace process. Beyer-Hermsen emphasizes the importance of

deep listening, and need for sustained dialogue among participants that represent main

perspectives of the community to resolve conflict and states facilitators of dialogue can provide

a safe place for participants and provide examples of how to think through issues in conflict,

whereas participants bring the expertise to deal with deep-rooted conflict and effect change in

their relationship (p.363). The organizations that participated in Norander and Galanes study

were participating in sustained dialogue, they committed to multiple meetings to work out their

differences. Facilitation provides a space for people to come together with the intent to discuss a

topic, allowing everyone an opportunity share their thoughts or experiences and demands active

listening.

Brunson (2000) explains that in order to constructively talk about race and race relation

or interracial communication, teachers need to possess the following competencies: a thorough

knowledge of the content area, understand group dynamics, realize the critical importance of

establishing students trust in the teacher, and fostering an open, accepting and non-judgmental
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

atmosphere. Like Norander and Galanes (2014) it is critical to be knowledgeable about the

facilitated topic and to develop a safe space for open, honest dialogue to take place.

Gordon (2004) provides a detailed explanation of the Wisdom Circle Process, how they

utilize it in their interpersonal communication course and encourages other educators to do the

same. The Wisdom Circle Process begins with an opening ritual to develop a safe container

with a facilitator sharing personal mementos and possibly playing music. Next, the facilitator

introduces guiding questions, every individual will respond to the question, but only the

individual who possesses the talking piece may speak at that time, with cross -talk being avoided

to promote deep listening, ending with a closing ritual; a poem, song, reading or summary

statement is shared as an element of closure. Gordon emphasizes the use of Rodgers person-

centered perspective with the core conditions of warmth, empathy and genuineness as guiding

theoretical paradigm in the course. Gordon seeks to foster interpersonal intercultural

communication just as the Its Time to Talk workshops seek to do the same; this research

supports the use of circle dialogue as an agent to develop empathy and understanding. Those

facilitating circle dialogue seem to emanate the competencies suggested in the previous article.

Gordon (2006) was able to create this atmosphere by breaking away from traditional

communication models. Gordon critiques traditional methods of teaching communication and

challenges educators to move away from agentic to communal aspects of human

communication, to build communication communities. Gordon uses Rogers (2002) core

facilitative conditions and Bubers (1970) I-It and I-Thou theoretical infrastructures to explain

The Wisdom Circle process. Additionally, Gordon provides conditions for dialogue to occur,

encouraging those within the field of communication to become facilitators, to bring individuals
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

from diverse backgrounds together and nurture positive human community to create

transformation.

After working with students for 15 years on race relations Mulvey and Richards (2007)

have also challenged traditional methods. They challenge the usual model of antiracism

education, stating they view it as limiting the possibility of opening minds, developing critical

thinking, and cross-cultural relationship building. As a result, they founded a campus-wide

initiative called the Race Relations Project; students across all disciplines meet to discuss race

issues in small groups. Each group has two facilitators and emphasize the conversational

approach and follow these guidelines; no set agenda, remain neutral towards topics, do not teach

or correct misinformation, treat everyone equally, focus on personal stories not political issues,

work with the feelings of people from all groups, and they are not searching for racists. Their

model closely resembles circle dialogue and it has proven to be effective. Less than 5 percent of

participants evaluated the conversations as not worthwhile, and is a highly regarded project at

Penn state. Mulvey & Richards Race Relations Project initiative provides additional support to

the effectiveness of facilitating race conversations rather than antiracism education.

FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

Method and Procedures

The YWCA Mankato has been hosting Its Time to Talk Workshops (IT2T) in Southern

Minnesota as a part of their Racial Justice Programming. I took an interpretive approach and this

research is a case study interviewing facilitators from the IT2T workshops and their experiences

facilitating racial discourse during circle dialogue. This provides insight specifically related to

racial discourse as that is the focus of the discussion at the workshops.

The interview participants were recruited through the YWCAs Racial Justice Coordinator.

I met with the coordinator to get an overview of how the workshops are run. The coordinator then

contacted past facilitators through email and invited them to contact me for further information to

set up an interview. I had 3 facilitators get back to me and then requested interviews with 2 YWCA

staff members who have worked as facilitators as well. Ideally, I would have liked to interview as

many of the facilitators as possible to have more saturation of the workshops that have been held

but due to limited time and access to facilitators I conducted a total of 5 interviews.

Interviews were semi-structured; an interview guide was developed but additional

comments were allowed. They were conducted in-person at local coffee shops, the YWCA office

and over email. The email responses are already transcribed. The in-person interviews were

recorded using an interview recording tool on my personal cell phone in addition to taking detailed

notes of their responses during the time of the interview. The audio files were then uploaded to

drive, and later transcribed. Using Glaser and Strauss (1967) grounded theory, I went through the

interviews and conducted open coding. Corbin and Strauss (1990) in open coding,

events/actions/interactions are compared with others for similarities and differences. They are also

given conceptual labels. In this way, conceptually similar events/actions/interactions are grouped

together to form categories and subcategories (p.12). The responses of each facilitators were
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

compared to one another to find common behaviors, responses & reactions of participants of the

workshops, how the facilitated discussions differ from other race discussions, descriptions of the

influence of the circle dialogue setting, as well as what they felt their role was as a facilitator.

Results

Role as Facilitator

Facilitators were asked about their role, its importance and how they facilitate. The

interview responses overwhelmingly were in agreement that their role is to simply start the

dialogue and to keep the conversation going, it is not their job to interject personal opinions.

Facilitator # 5 stated I try not to, I dont want to be a teacher, I dont want to try and define things,

I dont want to put ideas in peoples heads. I really just guide the conversation for people to share

their own experiences because its their journey. Their role is not to be an expert but when needed

will engage their groups by sharing an experience to help get the conversation started or to get

them to think deeper. Facilitator # 2 stated weve been trained to not really participate, however,

in this area sometimes we find that if the facilitator doesnt participate a little bit the conversation

stops, people look at us to see what they are supposed to be doing. They are responsible for

developing what they call a safe space by establishing expectations and rules of the circle

dialogue process. Trust is built by allowing everyone an opportunity to talk but also sometimes

requires facilitators to engage in discussion, without that participation the group members are

sometimes hesitant to even begin the conversation out of fear of not knowing what to say.

Facilitators have been trained to not engage in the conversation unless they feel it is necessary. In

addition to keeping the conversation going there are times when the facilitator will step in to

address the use of stereotypes because they want participant to focus on their personal experiences,

they will affirm experiences but will then challenge participants to think deeper. Facilitator # 2
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

states we usually focus on race so when, and since its an uncomfortable topic people tend to veer

towards -isms by age-ism or socioeconomic status or things like that but we try to bring it right

back to the topic of race. Additionally, their role is to keep the discussion focused on race, so if

they begin to stray away into politics or other -isms they will remind participants that the topic is

race, the color of ones skin. Facilitators also shared that when being a person of color and

facilitating its can be really hard, because the safe space allows individuals to share their

experiences no matter how offensive they may be.

Influence of Circle Dialogue

The facilitators really rely on the structure of circle dialogue. Circle dialogue specifically,

forces participants to listen, and prevents domination of the conversation. Facilitator # 3 wrote I

certainly like the structure of the circle dialogue. It prevents anyone from hijacking the

conversation and explaining how the Dakota people used it for problem solving and hearing all

voices really hits people and they get it! The structure of circle dialogue allows facilitators to

foster this safe space where participants can share their experiences honestly without there being

a right or wrong answer even when others may disagree. Interviewee # 1 stated I think the process

of the dialogue is so key, and also its really trains you to listen because you dont get to speak until

it (the talking piece) comes back around. Everyone has the opportunity to share their opinions

and experiences without interruption.

How Facilitated Discussions of Race Differ from Other Race Discussions

Facilitators expressed how the circle dialogue process creates a different environment for

racial discourse in that it really is more of a conversation. Normally when discussing a topic we

listen to respond, rather than listening to understand or to hear what that person is really saying.
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

Facilitator # 2 stated

Just with circle dialogue itself and like I said just taking turns and sharing of ideas forces

you to listen to other peoples opinions an focuses you to internalize and see how they do

or dont match with your own and why or what you can do with that I think when in

circle dialogue it is a safe space where you can have different opinions and its okay, we

make that okay from the get go.

Race is a topic that is often difficult to discuss and can result in arguments but circle dialogue

really prevents confrontation. You are forced to listen until it is your turn to speak, you are allowed

to share your honest feelings and experiences because a safe space has been created. Participants

are allowed to share prejudices in the circle where they may not be so honest in public or personal

conversations.

Behaviors, Responses & Reactions of Participants

Additionally, facilitators were asked if there were any reoccurring reactions, comments or

behaviors they have witnessed while facilitating. Every one of the facilitators interviewed stated

they experience denial from participants. Facilitator # 4 stated Denial that racism exists, that there

is no problem in our community and our society in general. Denying having any experiences or

seeing any situation that someone has been discriminated against. Denial and consistent

responses of using the golden rule; treating others how you want to be treated, simply not

wanting to talk out of fear of saying the wrong thing or being labeled racist, participants look to

the facilitator for approval. Facilitator # 5 stated

it depends on your audience; some people are much further along on their journey then

others. You dont know what you dont know and so there have been a handful of tables
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

where racism doesnt exist, or I dont see it, or that cant happen here or you know, a lot

of denial. Thats not always, it just really depends on the audience and how far along they

are on their journey. Every single one is different.

Although facilitators experience a lack of engagement or denial of there being race issues,

having these conversations allowed participants an opportunity to view things from other

perspectives, one engaged by the facilitator. This shows just how important the role of the

facilitator is, and how without the circle dialogue structure and process racial dialogue, racial

discourse if often avoided or it really isnt a conversation.

Conclusion

The patterns that Augoustinos and Every (2007) found were present in the facilitated

discussions; denial of prejudice and existence of racism, positive-self/ negative other,

deracialisation by veering off to other -isms were all reoccurring behaviors. But racism exists

regardless of the amount of denial expressed, it exists individually, systemically, and

institutionally. Facilitated racial discourse, and specifically Its Time to Talk workshops have

created safe spaces for individuals to come together to discuss their experiences regardless of

how they feel. Circle dialogue specially allows opportunities to combat white fragility and fear

of confrontation due to the nature of the process of circle dialogue. Everyone has an opportunity

to share, no one can interrupt, and you can only speak when you have the talking stick.

Facilitators are required to hold participants accountable to adhearing to the conditions and

expectations of the dialogue while also helping guide the conversation and encouraging

participants to dig deeper. Where racial discourse may not have otherwise been engaged in for

being seen as a as a taboo topic the IT2T workshops provide a platform to discuss. Although a

great first step in attempting to eliminate racism, these conversations are just that, conversations
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

Many of the facilitators added that they would like to see more conversations, measurement of

impact and outcome, and how we can hold each other accountable for continuing to have these

discussions. This study was limited to the perceptions of the facilitators own influence on racial

discourse for further research I would recommend interviewing participants to understand how

they feel the facilitation influenced their participation and engagement compared to other

conversations theyve had about race.

FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

References

ACLU. (2017) Whats at stake. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice#whats-

at-stake
Augoustinos, M., & Every, D. (2007). The language of race and prejudice A discourse of
denial, reason, and liberal-practical politics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology
26(2), 123-141.
Beyer-Hermsen, L. (2001). Can we talk? Citizens voices in search of sustainable peace. Journal
of Peace Psychology, 7(4), 361-364.
Brunson (2000). Talking about race by talking about whiteness. Communication Teacher 14(2),
1-4.
Corbin, J., 7 Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative
criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13(1), 3-21.
Croucher, S. M., & Cronn-Mills, D. (2015). Understanding communication research methods: A
theoretical and practical approach. New York: Routledge.
DiAngelo, R. (2011). White fragility. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, pp.54-70.
DiAngelo, R. (2012). What does it mean to be white? Developing white racial literacy. New
York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Doane, A. W., Jr. (2003). Contested terrain: Negotiating racial understandings in public
discourse. Humanity and Society, 27(4), 554-575.
Eliasoph, N. (1999). Everyday racism in a culture of political avoidance: Civil society, speech
and taboo. Social Problems, 46 (4), 479-502.
Glaude, E. (2016). Why we fail when we try to talk about race in America: Lets acknowledge
the self-deception at the hearth of our racial theater. Moyers & Company. Retrieved from
http://billmoyers.com/story/fail-try-talk-race-america/
Gordon, R. D. (2004). The wisdom circle process: Community, story, and spirit. International
and Intercultural Communication Annual, 27, 43-61.
Gordon, R. D. (2006). Communication, dialogue, and transformation. Human Communication
9(1), 17-30.
Lund, D. E. (2006). Rocking the racism boat: School based activists speak out on denial and
avoidance. Race Ethnicity and Education, 9(2), 203-221.
Mulvey, L. L. & Richards, S. M. (2007). Thoughts on a conversational approach to race
relations. Sociological Forum, 22(2), 220-226.
Norander, S. & Galanes, G. (2014). Bridging the gap: Difference, Dialogue, and Community
Organizing. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42(4), 345-365.
FACILITATED RACIAL DISCOURSE

Trawalter, S. & Richenson, J. A. (2008). Lets talk about race, baby! When whites and blacks
interracial contact experiences diverge. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
1214-1217.
Powell, K. J. (2016). The year of the ballot or the bullet: A discussion of Race, Revolution,
and the 2016 Election. Womens Studies in Communication, 39(4), 370-374.