Preparing for a Second In-Service

For their next workshop, the Central Steering Committee discussed the possibilities of bringing in Globe of Human
Differences (GHD).2 Some teachers had already participated in “cultural sensitivity training” with this organization,
and they provided positive feedback about the experience—“With GHD, you really had to self-explore and ask
yourself questions.” Jake mentioned the Globe of Human Differences workshop that he and some colleagues had
attended “that really made the participants feel class conscious.” Making reference to the markers of high
socioeconomic status, as well as to the discomfort that often occurs when educators in positions of privilege are
challenged to self-reflect, he added, “The people from Borton in their Brooks Brothers suits were embarrassed.”
Sam insisted that, “We need to feel uncomfortable, we need to get to the root!”

Committee members explored having a daylong workshop for the same individualswho had attended the September
in-service. They wanted to keep awayfrom working with the entire staff, agreeing that, “It’s too big, the smaller the
group the better the dynamic.” Carl insisted that a vanguard needed to be created
and that the in-service participants would be in charge of making something happenin their individual schools
—“The site-based committees are the catalyst for change at the building level.”

The Central Steering Committee problematized what needed to be accomplishedat the next in-service. This time
around, the group felt that it would be crucial to work much more closely with the facilitators in shaping the
workshop agenda. The members also recognized the importance of asking the other school representatives what they
thought should be covered. Initially the committee wanted to arrange two or three meetings with the elementary,
junior high, an high schools in order to hear what these teachers had to say; however, scheduling proved to be far too
complicated to gather such insight.

In November of 1993, a new volunteer subcommittee met to prepare for the upcoming workshop. The CSC had
decided to collaborate with the same people who had attended the September in-service, whom they hadn’t
interacted with in some time. The task force discussed the virtues of working with smaller groups; however, because
of the small representation from each school (two people) the CSC would be unable to break participants up to focus
on their individual school needs.

The subcommittee went over a number of possible strategies for shaping the upcoming in-service. Sara proposed
that there be one hour of discussion around pertinent issues; with a second hour dedicated to study circles for
troubleshooting common problems. The group also discussed the possibilities of having an exhibit area where
people could spend as much time as they wanted at the different academic levels. There was mention that the local
Expo Center had had a multicultural education fair where participants received their own passport, giving them
access to the different countries and activities that were being presented. The main problem with this particular
model was that the cost was well over a million dollars. Without getting discouraged, the subcommittee members
felt that they could mine the unique resources that they had available to them in their own school system and
immediate community in order to make something like this work.

While there was overall agreement that it was crucial to have some form of curricula displays at the in-service, and
to allow the representatives to voice their concerns and provide insight, the role of the facilitators of Globe of
Human Differences was unclear. It was time for the two organizations to meet.

By December of that year, the CSC had contacted Globe of Human Differences, requesting the presence of a
spokesperson at one of its meetings. Sue Kara, a black woman, granted the committee’s wishes and brought with her
a large brochure containing a list with the goals and objectives of the program to combat prejudice and
discrimination.

Eva introduced Kara to the members of the CSC and told her about thecommittee’s Mission Statement, multicultural
goals, and previous in-service experiences. She explained that the group had decided to use the date set in January as
a follow-up session to September’s efforts, only this time with a greater emphasis on getting feedback from the
entire group and providing practical applications.
Checking to see how many people had already attended a GHD workshop, so as not to repeat anything, Kara
explained that her program was developmental by nature—“We can tailor the workshop to make everyone feel
good.” The GHD representative then explained that “teachers’ biases are based on a lack of information,” and that
her organization was about “self-examination, awareness, and sensitivity. We have ways of bringing out issues and
questions just for this purpose.” She revealed that Globe of Human Differences had some action planning exercises
(which she preferred not to call “activities”) that required a minimum of nine hours to properly work through.
“These issues are confrontational,” she saidlaughingly.

Understanding the Central Steering Committee’s desire for interpersonal interaction, Kara emphasized the point that
“the wisdom, far beyond that of the two facilitators, is in the dialogue of the group.” In terms of practical tools, the
woman explained that GHD had an agenda and a study guide, but not an actual curriculum. She suggested having a
different in-service session for integrating the basic tenets of the guide into Changeton’s existing classroom content.

In contemplating what should be the basic components of the workshop, some CSC members emphasized the need
to know more about the different cultures in the community and recommended having group presentations. While
Kara agreed that it was important to have an update on the populations that were attending their schools, she warned
of the dangers of essentializing identities:
 The Latino/Hispanic communities are seen as one when they have many differences, Asians are also lumped together.
We need to approach different people in different ways, we need to recognize what we don’t know. We talk of
individual European countries, but not when it comes to Africa.

Feeding off this point, Carl revealed that there are ten different islands in Cape Verde alone. He continued by saying
that he wanted to be able to talk about all groups and issues without emphasizing the negative—“nothing negative,
no violence we are working on that.” Giselle agreed, “We shouldn’t deal with all the negatives such as lynchings,
rather, we need to accentuate the contributions of different groups.” Melissa immediately rejected this position:

The bottom line is that we have an aging white staff and we need to talk about the negative. They [teachers] think that
these kids are from Nobel. We go out to the bus stop to show people that these kids live here, these issues are serious.
I’m tired of dancing around with food and simple curriculum changes, and I don’t like the idea of a fair, it trivializes
multicultural education, as do Black History and Martin Luther King, Jr. Month!

June agreed, arguing that “we need to ask hard questions today to get at reality.” Kara assured the group that there
was going to be conflict, opposition, and challenges to deal with in their infusion of multicultural education. She
stressed the need to help educators digest new information about human diversity into something positive. Questions
about an action plan came pouring out of some members of the CSC. For example, Fred inquired, “I want to know
strategies that teachers can respond with if they hear a racist remark in the teachers’ lounge!” In January of 1994, the
CSC was ironing out the details of a two-workshop contract with Globe of Human Differences. The committee was
trying to decide if they should have small groups for better interaction, or to have the whole group meet together (all
fifty participants). The GHD representative suggested that the large group could be used for initial introductions so
that no one would be a stranger, and that they could then break into smaller units. In troubleshooting what to do in
the first of what would now be two workshops, Kara told the committee, “There are some things that you don’t want
in the first session; some issues are difficult for the people that are in denial of living in a multicultural world.”
However, the general consensus among members of the CSC was that, “That’s not your audience, these people have
taken a step forward.” Arguing in favor of more consciousness raising, Melissa exclaimed, “I like small group
discussion, it’s less flashy, but good for examining biases and teaching people to recognize prejudice, so kids can do
the same . . . it is important for kids to question what they’ve learned—‘maybe grandpa is wrong, I think I need to
check this out.’” Carl added, “We should sensitize teachers and raise them to a level of consciousness, but there has
to be a place for sharing what they are doing.” For the second partof the in-service, scheduled for March, he wanted
to break up the participants by departments (for example, history, math, science). Emphasizing the need for an
interdisciplinary approach, rather than one of fragmentation, Melissa countered, “We have talked to each other, and
not others, for over twenty years. We don’t even sit together in the teachers’ lounge. The Cape Verdeans are in one
corner. how can they [teachers] do it [develop community] in the classroom?”

The CSC was pressed with time to make a decision about the two upcoming in-services with Globe of Human
Differences. The superintendent wanted an official statement of what the committee was going to do, as well as a
proposed budget, by eleven o’clock the next day. Kara confirmed that the CSC wanted GHD for twothree-hour
sessions and requested that the committee solicitquestions from participants so that she and her colleagues could
consider their concerns and needs in structuring the workshop. Unfortunately, Mother Nature stepped in and the
anticipated January in-service was snowed out and not rescheduled until March 16th.
First In-Service with Globe of Human Differences
In March of 1994, the rescheduled in-service was under way. The local museum was open to the Changeton school
system at no cost. The two GHD facilitators, Kara, who had helped the CSC organize the workshop, and Sandra
Casey, also a black woman, distributed the following handouts: a GHD workshop evaluation called “What I
Expected? What I Got? What I Valued? What I Want?”; a list of definitions; GHD “Goals of the Program and
Objectives”; Peggy McIntosh’s article, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”; “Guidelines for
Challenging Racism and Other Forms of Oppression”; “Guidelines for Achieving Communication Free of Racial
and Ethnic Bias”; and a GHD newsletter and calendar.

The day began with a very brief introduction to the Globe of Human Differences, which included a short video. The
two facilitators stated that the objective of their organization was “to enhance self-esteem, to develop critical
thinking skills, to counter stereotypes, to build empathy, and to encourage educators and young people to take steps
to change the world.” Kara explained that it was important that the group in attendance wanted to be at the
workshop, pointing out that her organization “is usually brought in as a form of punishment.”

The two facilitators openly embraced the active participation of the group, encouraging them to voice their
individual opinions: “We need to share and speak with ‘I’ statements, from our own personal experience—‘I
believe,’ ‘I think’—so we can get out of the practice of generalizing.” After reviewing the day’s agenda, Kara spoke
very briefly about the ways in which people learn stereotypes through the media, social interaction, stories, and the
perspectives of others. She stated that the goal of the type of training that the group was about to undergo was to
challenge and “unlearn unconscious stereotyping.” With that in mind, the two facilitators began with their “action
plan.”

The first activity consisted of playing a game called Ropes. Words beginning with the letters in “ropes” were
solicited from the audience, starting from the letter “R”—“respect,” “refrain” (“from statements that are insulting”)
—to “O” words—“open-minded,” “order,” “opinion” (“that students know the difference between fact and
opinion”)—to “P” words: “peace,” “patience,” “perspective”—to E” words: “enrichment,” “enlightened,”
“emotion”—to “S” words—“sensitivity,” “sympathy,” “social science” (“people who are in the profession of
making excuses for other people’s behavior”).

With little to no substantive interaction or semantic/ideological analysis, Casey introduced herself and the Name
Game. The basic idea of the exercise was to share a story about your name. The facilitator talked for awhile about
being African American and having a Euro/Irish name. After going around the room, Casey stated that, “Identity to
children is extremely important, as is spelling and pronouncing their names properly.” She then asked the entire
group how this exercise could be used in class. Some participants mentioned the importance of showing respect
toward students. Others commented on the need of starting the learning process from what students bring—“You
have to take them from where they are and build on this.” One teacher exclaimed, “The kids know that they know a
hell of a lot more about Puerto Rico than I do . . . teachers need to be learners.”

One respondent was concerned that “many students don’t know what their background is, nor do they always know
who their father is.” Jake (a CSC member) argued that this type of exercise can be dangerous: “What about those
kids who don’t have a heritage to fall back on, blacks, for example? Some youngsters would feel embarrassed.
‘Mommy, where did we come from?’” Without challenging Jake’s assertion, the two facilitators, short of time,
quickly moved to the next activity called Name Five, which they explained could be used with various age groups.
Equipped with a pencil and paper, each participant had sixty seconds to name five people in the following
categories: prominent (male and female) African, Latino/a, Asian, Native, Jewish, and Catholic Americans.

With time up, the group was asked how the activity made them feel? One participant replied, “Stupid!” Casey
discussed the importance of finding role models from peoples’ own groups that they could look up to. Perhaps
missing the point, one teacher of Irish descent, responded, “I agree, put Kennedy in all the groups.” During this
discussion of role models, a white woman mentioned the need for gay and lesbian representation (a category not
mentioned in the instructions of the GHD exercise). The group began to talk about the West Nobel Parade and the
controversy over whether or not to allow gays and lesbians to march. A white woman of Irish descent described the
event as “a parade to celebrate Irish history.” She claimed that because “they insisted upon participating, now
everyone is hurt because there is no parade at all.” Instead of using this particular pedagogical moment to discuss
heterosexism (a word that is used in the literature and definition list of Globe of Human Differences), the facilitator
cut this conversation short in the name of time.

Moving on, the next activity consisted of forging what the facilitators described as “a common language.” They had
small groups each explore one of the terms on the definition list that they had handed out: “stereotypes, prejudice,
discrimination, racism, religious bigotry, anti-Semitism, sexist, heterosexism,” and “scapegoating.” Unfortunately,
all of the discussions around these definitions were bereft of any profound theoretical analysis of what constitutes
oppressive ideologies and practices. The dialogue among the group stayed at a level of descriptive experiential
stories, with no sense of why the incidents described took place. It wasn’t as if there were no provocative comments
throughout the discussions, comments that could have been used to invoke a more critical analysis of the
sociohistorical nature of oppression. For example, there was mention of “intergenerational racism,” there was a
reference to “tracking as a form of stereotyping ‘stupid kids’ are tracked down,” there was recognition that “kids
grow up with the
My that whites are superior and that’s why they are in the gifted program,” and there was reference to the fact that
the gifted program was suddenly diversified when it was in serious jeopardy of being dropped because it was made
up of all white students. However, none of these issues were targeted for elaboration or profound engagement.

Instead, the facilitators chose to redirect the area of inquiry into issues of Bilingual Education. Without defining the
concept, Casey asked the entire group, “Is there tension between mainstream and bilingual children?” One
participant, responded that “A student came to me crying and said that someone called him a bad name, a
‘bilingual,’ and asked what this meant.” Some of the larger group giggled, “We have a new swear word.” A white,
male, foreign language teacher, when asked if he felt that being bilingual was a plus or a minus, responded without
elaboration “a minus.” Again, as this conversation was warming up, it was cut short “because of time constraints.”
People needed to fill out evaluations. Part two of this in-service was arranged to take place the following week and
all participants were asked to read for homework the Peggy McIntosh article, “White Privilege: Unpacking the
Invisible Knapsack.”

The second session with Globe of Human Differences took place in much the same way as the first. Kara and Casey
distributed the following: GHD workshop evaluation; “Sample questions for multicultural training,” from the
Administration Office of the Nobel Public Schools; “No One is Born Prejudiced, Prejudice is Learned and Can Be
Unlearned, What You Can Do”; an action plan sheet; “Guidelines for Establishing a Multicultural Education
Environment”; and a multicultural checklist.

Kara opened the day’s discussion with some words about “the need for safety and feeling comfortable” when
dealing with multicultural issues. She then had the entire group read aloud the McIntosh list of white privileges,
asking for responses to the ideas being expressed. A Latina emphasized the article’s central point, “These are more
than individual acts of meanness, it took a long time for it to become systemic. In reverse, it will take a long time to
get back to individuals.” Fred (from the CSC) commented, “Things have changed since 1989 [when the article was
written]. Things are not as bad as then. For example, there are more races represented in the media, and more
different newscasters.” With no critical interrogation of this assumption, the facilitators asked, “How does privilege
manifest in the classroom, how do you see it?” One person replied, “Department heads, principals, and teachers are
mostly white males.” Giselle (of the CSC) shared that sh sees this kind of discrimination more in the adult
community than in the classroom, explaining that “confidence comes from long-term privilege.”

There was resistance among many members of the group to the notions of white privilege and oppressive
pedagogical practices. One white woman argued, “I have a student who thinks that I gave him a bad grade because
he is black!” Kara responded, “I can’t deal with the fact that people will say that being black is an excuse— that’s a
cop-out, people hide behind it.” Carl chorused in, “Kids know that they’ve got you, they say that you are a racist.”
Another white woman shared that she and some of her colleagues had done a statistical analysis which revealed that
“students of color had the lower grades.” She exclaimed, “Why is it racism if students’ expectations are that they are
supposed to do poorly?” Fred jumped in the conversation, “We don’t want to shift the blame to white males in
multicultural education.” There was general agreement among the group that this was a “point well taken.” Some
whites at the in-service voiced the opinion that they didn’t think that their position was necessarily one of privilege.
One man even said that he wasn’t going to give up anything, even if it were a privilege. June, who had made a
number of comments throughout Central Steering Committee meetings that difficult issues needed to be confronted,
suddenly had a change of heart. She argued, “There is a backlash against the white male. I have three sons, we have
to work through privilege, but we also need to appreciate others. What is the purpose of this inservice and the CSC?
I think it’s tolerance. Math, science, and language have no color. We need concrete strategies to go back with.”
Mentioning that this was
“not simply a white/black thing” and that “gender, class, and sex are also important issues,” Kara took the floor
pointing out how the literature evoked “feelings of anger, confusion, and uncomfortableness.” She argued that these
feelings need to be dealt with, especially when working with students—“We want students to be comfortable, then
they will do better.”

Casey took the floor and read aloud the definition sheet that the entire grouphad briefly discussed during the
previous meeting. When “stereotyping minorities” was mentioned, one Latina made the point that “‘minority’ is a
negative term, it’s ‘non-white’. . . . It’s a stereotype in itself, it means smaller than, less than.” Without
acknowledging the comment, Giselle presented what she thought was an example of a positive stereotype—“nice
Italian yards.” Kara worked with this second comment, making the point that, “Positive or negative, we cannot use
your example to represent a whole group.” Another Latina argued that with stereotypesor generalizations, “You take
away the individuality of the person.” Jackie (of the CSC) brought up Asian stereotypes of science and math wiz-
kids. She argued that such images were “good for those that succeed, but bad for those who don’t.” A Portuguese
man agreed, stating that “stereotypes create expectations and burdens.” June insisted that “stereotypes always have
negative connotations.”

Moving on, the facilitators introduced a new exercise to the entire group: “Name a situation where you felt you were
the favored/unfavored.” The participants provided a number of different examples, including a Cape Verdean man
being greeted with respect because he was a teacher “and not a peasant,” and a woman who had to ask her husband
in order to leave the country. Eva, the chair of the Central Steering Committee, shared the following anecdote: “I
was in a local liquor store and I wanted to cash a check. The white man behind the counter told me that I couldn’t
write a check from [names the distant town that she lives in]. ‘But,’ he said, ‘you look familiar so we will cash it.’
I’d never been in that store before.” At this point, one white woman expressing frustration with the in-service,
exclaimed, “I don’t feel that I’m getting anything here that I can use! I can’t know everything about all groups,
religions, or cultures. All students need certain things. Let’s talk about that and their similarities.” Kara responded,
“Would you agree that with more personal awareness that you’d be better prepared for the classroom and curriculum
development?” With no response from the woman, the facilitator added, “We will get to materials and practical
solutions.” She then moved, on to the next activity.

The new exercise consisted of a list of sample questions that had been solicited from Changeton teachers. Two
groups were given fifteen minutes to address any one of the issues raised. The first team addressed the problem of
racist jokes in the teacher’s lounge. The general consensus was that offensive behavior of any kind should not be
tolerated. The participants discussed how such acts should not necessarily be challenged “in a combative way,” but
rather strategically. For example, “Ask the perpetrator if they would say that in front of someone of the race
attacked.”

The other group discussed whether or not multiculturalism was separatist. The participants all felt that
“balkanization was a real danger.” There was talk of developing team activities that could help create more
interactive conditions. One white woman recommended reading Arthur Schlesinger’s book, The Disuniting of
America, for “its important insights.” Another person mentioned that, “We don’t need to announce that an activity
is multicultural, we should just do it.”

The facilitators then went over a checklist entitled, How Effective Is Your School in Creating a Multicultural
Environment? Still in groups, the participants had five minutes to respond to the questions. After some discussion of
the daily school greeting in various languages; recognition of different racial/ethnic groups; the presence of ethnic
art; cultural fairs; food and dance; multicultural storytelling, plays, and concerts; and foreign language teaching, the
general consensus was that, in terms of affirming diversity, “things are getting better.” Out of time, the facilitators
asked the people to fill out the GHD in-service evaluation. In the Central Steering Committee’s post-in-service
discussion, most members felt that the workshop was “nonthreatening,” “comfortable,” “inclusive,” and “built on
our sensitivity and camaraderie.” Jake concluded, “We recognized that we do have a problem and not to simply
place blame. There are things that youhave to be aware of, that came out in the exercises.” Fred informed the group
that some people were upset because they felt that the European groups were not mentioned at all. He also brought
up the issue of white-male bashing, pointing out that “many people don’t support multiculturalism because they feel
that it’s against white males and females.” He added, “Their concern is that we should not shift the blame from one
group to another.” The committee was aware of the fact that gossip was circulating around the schools that there was
an exercise at the inservice that had supposedly led to white-male bashing. Luis, stated that he didn’t get that
impression at the workshop and countered, “The purpose was to showthat everything is centered around white
people as if they are the center of the universe.That needs to change. We need to start to teach the cultures of all of
the students.”Melissa jumped in, “I missed a good fight, I’m all for male bashing, the history of ‘he’ has got to go.”
Giselle concluded, “It [the in-service] was excellent, I enjoyed it . . . if we can speak to each other, we can certainly
speak with our children.” The committee agreed that the efforts had an impact on the participants and that they “sent
out a message.” A comment was made that “the high school is now selling T-shirts that say, ‘Be color blind.’”

Eva expressed concern about whether or not “these sensitized people” [inservice participants] will be able to help
people during faculty meetings—what took us six hours?” The CSC felt that the best way to help school-based
committees was to continue to provide support and materials. Raul stated:

There are some people who will never be sensitized. We will only make an impact by bringing in more people .
having role models here, for example, black Asians, etc. Asians are role models for all of us, even white kids.
Certain minds are made up, if you change 10 percent you’ll be lucky. We need more people.

In April of 1994, the Central Steering Committee received the compiled inservice evaluations from Globe of Human
Differences. The report included the facilitator’s description of the two days and responses from the participants
about what they expected, what they got, what they valued, and what they wanted.3 The majority of comments
embraced the in-service efforts, pointing to the benefits of “openness” and “sharing experiences.” The
overwhelming request was to provide more “how-tos.”

The CSC continued to attend workshops and gather materials that could be helpful in raising consciousness among
colleagues. In October of 1994, the committee was made aware of an upcoming conference presented by the Center
for Training and Health Education: part one was titled “Working and Living in Culturally Diverse Environments,”
and part two, “Making Schools Safe for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth.” While some members volunteered to
attend the first part of the in-service on cultural diversity, not a single person voiced an interest in issues of sexual
orientation. In fact, when talking about advertising the event and writing a proposal to request the necessary funds to
secure some seats, the group consciously tailored its public statements by omitting the gay/lesbian section.