1)

I agree with the choice my group made for the Justice grant. The two final contenders were
GirlUp and the Semanhyia project. We gave all 1000 dollars to the latter. I think this was
inspired because the Semanhyia representative said the organization would spend the grant funds
on acquiring materials for girls who do not have period products, which directly makes an
impact. This is different from GirlUp which wanted to spend the funds on several things
concurrently, most of which were more education based instead of making an impact. I also
think that the endeavor to give Ghanaian girls reusable pads is a better “leadership” mission
because it gives the girls the tools they need to better their education without having to depend
on outside assistance all the time. This connects to a topic discussed in the first semester about
good leadership developing autonomy in team members or clients instead of inviting eternal
dependence.

Our group discussions all went well, but the only thing I may have changed is to stick with one
idea of Justice or a checklist for our ideal recipient and abide by it. We spent a lot of time going
back and forth even in the beginning about what “justice” is. I think this is part of the process,
but now that the process is over, I think reducing time overanalyzing those components slightly
would have made the evaluation part at the end run smoother.

2)
There were many readings in the early parts of PLCY class about leadership being in different
forms, like servant leadership. I think this idea was important in the grant process that we did. I
think the grant process gives organizations the ability to make an impact, and lending a hand to
such groups is what servant leadership is about (even though the term is used in organizational
contexts). Another topic from last semester that connected with this activity is groupthink (and
the importance of resisting it). For the most part, my Justice group did a good job on this albeit a
bit too much by constantly questioning whether we should choose a specific type of “justice”
that we want to see our applicants exemplify. Groupthink also fosters an environment where the
majority rules in a really implicit way. The minority opinions may not even feel alienated
because subconsciously, whether they know or not, their ideas are being robbed. We fortunately
avoided this problem by making sure everyone is heard.
3)
One course that connects to this semester of PL is the intro Computer Science course
(CMSC132) that’s offered at UMD. The class is about object oriented design and there was a
section about software design processes. It is very similar to the grant process I experienced. A
company puts out an RFP for a software they are looking for and a software developer can
choose to take that offer. From there a development team has to determine the functions of the
software and accordingly divides itself to tackle the various sections. This is akin to our group
being divided into evaluation, outreach, writing teams, etc. The idea is that everyone works
concurrently on their part and the deciding factor (for the success of the operation) is ​usually ​the
integration part. This is when everyone’s roles come together to create the final product. For the
Justice team this was choosing and informing the winner of the grant.

Like with software design I do think that the integration part was the weakest part of our grant
process (if there is any weak part). I felt like choosing the actual recipient and deciding how
much they received felt slightly rushed. The lesson in both software design and our grant process
is that we should plan out the division of work and the finishing process well in advance of the
deadline.

Another aspect shared between these processes is making sure everyone’s voice is heard.
Working with a partner for me used to be difficult at times because we want different approaches
for the same end. However, friendly compromises will ultimately be made, and both parties’
negotiation skills improve. At the very least, the skill of remembering to make everyone’s voice
feel heard will develop. I felt the same happen with the grant process albeit to a very small extent
(since we didn’t have any major disagreement on anything). However we took great care in
making sure everyone is on the same page.

4)
Two leadership qualities I developed this semester are open-mindedness and humility. Open
mindedness developed from the grant activity. I had a specific (or narrow) view of what justice is
and the ideal candidate for the grant. After much discussion, the group was open to more types of
“justice” both because we shouldn’t be viewing it with a purely legal lens and because we
needed more applicants and knew that it would be hard to get them if we had a narrow definition.
I initially wanted to disagree with the group about stretching the definition so much. However,
after hearing people talk in the group, I ended up being more accepting of this approach because
I understood that everyone else might have something different in mind and that we should all be
heard.

I grew humility outside of the classroom. In my free time, I spent a lot of time writing
informative content on sports science and health on the internet that garnered a lot of views
(100,000 every month), and a lot of people were agreeing with what I wrote and thanked me for
helpful information. At one point, I was very dogmatic in my views about this topic. After going
back and honestly assessing my work, I realized that I don’t actually know that much and might
have even displayed slight tendencies of the Dunning Kruger effect. From that point onwards, I
wrote only about what I knew and took the advice of “staying in your lane.” This quality goes
hand in hand with being open minded. Speaking authoritatively only about things I know
absolutely well ensured that I wasn’t restricting myself from a variety of information in topics I
don’t know that well.

5)
I enjoyed the experiential portion of this course. Unlike PLCY or the fall colloquium class, I felt
like I actually made an effort, albeit with a whole team, to affect the world in some way. I don’t
think I’ve learned that much about leadership as I did in the PLCY class, but I think this is due to
the nature of the two courses. I think that the smaller “amount” of knowledge on leadership I
gained this semester might be more beneficial because it’s experiential and I’m more likely to
retain the skills I acquired.

6)
I would have liked to do weekly assignments that were not responses to readings that we are
assigned. I personally felt this was too similar to what we did in the PLCY course. Although the
quantity of readings was fair, I think the invariance contributed to me feeling not as excited to do
the readings. I think having students make small groups and discussing and recording their
opinions on the readings (where they would submit a transcript of a round table discussion)
would have been something I would have enjoyed. Of course there are other ways to motivate
students to carefully read the readings. I just think a more team based approach would better
encourage information retention.