IDENTIDADES 1 ENGLISH IDENTIDADES 8 ENGLISH | Page 41

then O.J. Simpson, revealed a yawning
chasm between the racial perceptions of
whites and people of color. The sudden
sense that we were divided as a nation,
and the violent results of that division,
spurred a wide array of local leaders to
make race relations an immediate priority. Elected officials across the country realized that, while they might address racism and race relations through
their work in areas like economic development or housing discrimination,
they also had to deal directly with the
race-related perceptions, biases and
beliefs of their constituents. This kind
of public outreach had rarely been done
before; most communities lacked venues for people of diverse backgrounds
to talk to each other about race or any
other issue. Many different kinds of
local leaders began looking for ways to
involve people in productive discussions on race. They hoped that these
efforts could help to overcome community divisions and prevent public debates from being dominated by extreme
voices. A wave of local public engagement efforts swept the nation, involving
hundreds and sometimes thousands of
citizens in forums, trainings, workshops
and small-group dialogues. Human

relations commissioners, YWCA directors, heads of interfaith groups, elected
officials, and other leaders began creating opportunities for people of diverse
backgrounds to talk about race. These
projects mushroomed virtually overnight, involving hundreds and sometimes thousands of citizens in forums,
trainings, workshops, and small-group
discussions. By the end of 2002, largescale intergroup dialogue programs had
been initiated in 266 communities in 46
states. As these organizers experimented with different kinds of meeting
formats and recruitment methods, they
discovered tactics that were also being
pioneered in fields like education, planning, and crime prevention. Like most
of these public issues, race affects
people at a personal, emotional level.
To allow participants to share their
experiences in a productive way, local
organizers gravitated toward strategies
that emphasized small-group discussions, either on their own or as breakout
groups within larger forums or workshops. Organizers either realized from
the beginning, or learned by trial and
error, that these small-group sessions
would function more effectively if they
included four main components:

1- Having an impartial facilitator was critical. Many organizers felt that if the facilitators tried to “educate” the participants or direct the group toward a particular conclusion, the dialogue would backfire. They found that facilitators could be
successful if they remained impartial: giving everyone a chance to speak, helping the group manage the allotted time, helping the group use discussion materials, and trying to manage conflicts within the group.
2- Allowing groups to set their own ground rules was important. When the participants in a small group set their own norms for the discussion, they were more
likely to abide by the rules, and the sessions tended to be more civil and productive. Participants typically proposed rules about not interrupting others, maintaining confidentiality, and keeping an open mind.
3- People valued the opportunity to compare personal experiences. Encouraging
participants to talk about their cultural backgrounds and experiences with racism
turned out to be a critical way to begin the discussions. It defused some of the

41