ERIC EJ1150941: Intergroup Dialogue & Religious Identity: Attempting to Raise Awareness of Christian Privilege & Religious Oppression

2017·0.18 MB·English

by  ERIC

Research
Intergroup Dialogue & Religious Identity
Attempting to Raise Awareness
of Christian Privilege & Religious Oppression
Sachi Edwards
Introduction research examined three religion-themed The critical-dialogic model of IGD
IGD courses at a university with a well combines the pedagogical features of this
Intergroup Dialogue (IGD)—a peda-
established and respected IGD program. four-stage process with dialogue that
gogical model that purposefully advances
In the end, however, none of the three explicitly addresses social (in)justice and
a critical social justice agenda—is used
cases fully adhered to the social justice fo- incorporates psychological processes such
on college campuses (and in other school-
cus that IGD prescribes. Thus, much of this as identity engagement and self-reflec-
or community-based spaces) around the
article is dedicated to discussing how and tion (Sorensen, Nagda, Gurin, & Max-
country to facilitate student learning
why that happened, even in a reputable well, 2009). In contrast to other forms of
about issues of identity and structural
program whose courses have been featured dialogue that embrace a democratic model
power dynamics. Since its initial develop-
in many existing IGD publications. (in which students have complete control
ment at the University of Michigan in the
In doing so, this article also seeks to ex- over dialogue topics, and facilitators do
late 1980s, it has received a great deal of
pand the theoretical and practical discus- not attempt to change the direction of the
positive attention as an effective form of
sions related to IGD, points to the need for conversation), the critical-dialogic model
critical engagement.
a more developed theoretical framework is designed such that facilitators purpose-
Empirical literature (e.g., Gurin, Nagda,
for analyzing religious identity from a fully and unapologetically raise issues of
& Sorensen, 2011; Gurin-Sands, Gurin,
social justice standpoint, and offers some privilege and oppression pertaining to the
Osuna, & Nagda, 2012) shows that IGD pro-
foundational suggestions for a broader relevant identity category, even if students
duces positive student outcomes consistent
discussion about increasing inclusiveness are uncomfortable doing so.
with its stated goals: (1) to raise awareness
in higher education diversity and social Literature on social justice and critical
of identity oppression and social inequities,
justice oriented initiatives. identity studies has shown that privilege
(2) to build cross-group communication
and oppression are often unseen and dif-
skills and relationships, and (3) to increase
The Critical-Dialogic Model ficult to talk about (McIntosh, 1998). Thus,
intergroup cooperation for addressing iden-
of Intergroup Dialogue in a democratic dialogue, it is possible that
tity based social justice issues.
students either will not recognize or will
However, the vast majority of this re- IGD pedagogy is based on a four-stage
not want to deal with controversial topics
search has analyzed data from race (primar- process whereby students engage in sus-
like power and domination. For that reason,
ily) and gender (secondarily) IGD courses tained and facilitated dialogue with peers
IGD’s approach attempts to ensure that
alone. In practice, IGD is used in courses from different social identity groups “to
these important issues are not ignored.
about a wide variety of identities, including understand their commonalities and dif-
Student outcomes, according to this
sexuality, ability, religion, socio-economic ferences, examine the nature and impact
theoretical framework, include intergroup
status, and national origin, among others. of societal inequalities, and explore ways of
understanding, relationships, and collabo-
Yet, identities other than race and gender working together toward greater equality
ration—or, in more descriptive terms: (1)
have been largely overlooked in research. and justice” (Zúñiga et al., 2007).
heightened awareness of identity oppres-
One of the identities missing from cur- Courses using this pedagogy single out
sion and social inequities, (2) stronger
rent IGD discourse is religious identity. To one social identity to focus on, and then
cross-group communication skills and
date, no empirical publications focus exclu- use two facilitators (one from the dominant
relationships, and (3) increased intergroup
sively on the experiences and outcomes of identity group and the other from a non-
cooperation for addressing identity based
students in religion-themed IGD courses, dominant group) to: (1) create a safe space for
social justice issues.
making it difficult to know how or if exist- sharing and vulnerability among the group,
Numerous empirical studies—includ-
ing IGD theory applies to teaching and which is comprised of an equal number of
ing a large-scale, multi-institution, longi-
learning about religious identity. In an at- dominant and non-dominant identity stu-
tudinal study (Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga,
tempt to fill that gap in the literature, this dents; (2) explore students’ differences and
2013)—have demonstrated positive student
commonalities of experience, and analyze
outcomes consistent with this framework.
Sachi Edwards is a lecturer
those experiences within a socio-historical
While the findings from these studies are
at the University of Maryland,
context; (3) use ‘hot topics’ related to the iden-
certainly exciting and encourage support
College Park, Maryland,
tity theme of the course in order to dialogue
for IGD, the vast majority of this research
and also
about conflict and multiple perspectives; and
discusses race and gender alone.
at the University of Hawai’i, Mănoa,
(4) build alliances and plan for action.
Of 27 empirical studies reviewed for this
Honolulu, Hawai’i.
MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
18
Research
article,1 only six analyzed student outcomes acknowledges the Christian hegemony has been largely ignored. In fact, in some
in IGDs about topics other than race or gen- (historic and current) within the United cases, campus spaces specifically designed
der—one that combines findings from race, States that shapes our experiences with as a safe place for minority students can
gender, and sexuality IGDs (Kivlighan & religion on a daily basis. As is the case with represent precisely the opposite for reli-
Arseneau, 2009), two that analyze sexuality discussions about race, gender, sexuality, gious minority students. As Accapadi (2009)
IGDs (Dessel, Woodford & Warren, 2011; and any other social identity, social justice explains, university multicultural centers
Dessel, Woodford, Routenberg & Breijak, oriented dialogue about religion must in- often still operate according to Christian
2013), two that focus on Arab-Jewish IGDs spire critical reflection about the way we norms—for instance, holding Christmas cel-
in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian con- are socialized to understand this aspect of ebrations—serving to further marginalize
flict (Khuri, 2004; Dessel & Ali, 2012), and our identities, and must be situated within non-Christian students of color who expect
one that compares outcomes from IGDs on the larger institutionalized power dynamic safety and understanding from them.
sexuality, religion, and the Israeli-Palestin- between religious groups in this country. Even initiatives rhetorically designed
ian conflict Dessel, Masse & Walker, 2013). Thus, when talking about religious for interfaith understanding often fail to
As such, expanding on the current body identity, I refer to the religious culture and address issues of power and privilege as
of literature to include research on other worldview that one has been socialized into they pertain to religious identity. A com-
identity themes would surely increase from birth, rather than the specific set of re- mon model for interfaith programming on
our understanding of the way this model ligious or spiritual beliefs one holds. In this college campuses can be exemplified by the
works, and of the potential differences way, someone who does not believe in the interfaith service projects promoted by the
that may exist when implementing IGD in existence of a higher power, yet maintains Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC), a Chicago
courses about a wider range of identities. a cultural practice and worldview aligned based organization with partnerships in
with the religious tradition of their upbring- higher education institutions around the
Religious Identity ing, may still have a Christian, Muslim, country. Such programs are centered on
on College Campuses Jewish, Hindu, or other religious identity. facilitating positive interactions between
Moreover, not all religious traditions students from different religious identities
Despite the advances that have been necessitate a belief in a higher power (see Patel & Brodeur, 2006).
made in the last several decades with re- (e.g., some forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, However, emphasizing only positive
gard to issues of identity and social justice Confucianism, and others). As Adams interactions, as Seifert (2007) contends,
on college campuses—a movement which and Joshi (2010) explain, critical dialogue without adequately acknowledging and
IGD programs have certainly been a part about religious identity and religious op- managing the drastic power imbalance
of—there has been relatively little headway pression should not focus squarely on, “In- between different religious groups can be
in the effort to understand and address dividual dimensions of faith and belief, but damaging to religious minority students
religious identity and oppression (Blumen- on the societal role of religion in justifying who may perceive the initiatives as hollow
feld, 2006; Patel, 2012). Recently, however, and helping to maintain a social system attempts to assuage them, while not actu-
a small but growing group of scholars have characterized by religious domination and ally addressing their marginalization.
begun to pursue a deeper understanding of subordination” (p. 228). In light of the tension that exists on
how religion and religious identity impact Further, McIntosh’s (1998) writings on college campuses between students from
college students’ experiences. race and White privilege help us to under- different religious identities, coupled with
For instance, a recent survey of college stand that our various identities are so- the lack of attention religious oppression
students in the United States showed cially constructed (not personally defined), currently receives in various campus
that 83% of college students identify as and that oppression is most dangerous spaces and diversity initiatives, IGD pro-
religious or spiritual, and that 80% are in the invisible systems bestowing social vides a strong model for a critical social
interested in spirituality, yet faculty and dominance on one social identity group over justice oriented form of interfaith dialogue
administrators continue to shy away from others. Accordingly, throughout this article, that has the potential to address religious
discussing this side of their students’ iden- I describe my participants using a label that diversity in higher education in a way that
tities (Astin, Astin, & Lindholm, 2011). blends both their personally defined beliefs is inclusive of, and sensitive to, minority
Moreover, as findings from the Campus and their religious identity (e.g., Atheist, religious groups.
Religious and Spiritual Climate Survey Muslim, or Evangelical Christian). This article examines the use of IGD
indicate, non-Christian college students re- Similarly, when I talk about religious in this way—as a means of facilitating
port more negative interactions with peers oppression, I refer not only to individual interfaith dialogue—using a qualitative
from different worldviews and experience acts of discrimination religious minorities analysis of three such courses at a large
more coercion on campus than Christian face, but to the systematic subordination of public university in the Mid-Atlantic
college students do (Bryant Rockenbach & religious minorities that is deeply imbed- region. Findings from the study indicate
Mayhew, 2013). For these reasons, explor- ded in the social, political, and historical that there are a number of potential chal-
ing pedagogical efforts with the potential fabric of this country. In this article I lenges when adopting IGD to religious
to build inter-religious understanding and highlight some of the ways that misunder- identity dialogue (as opposed to dialogues
justice for religious minorities, such as standing religious identity and Christian about race or gender), and that outcomes
IGD, is essential. privilege can hinder interfaith dialogue may not always be as positive as existing
The concepts of religious identity and and programming in higher education. IGD research indicates. However, I am still
religious oppression themselves must also Thus far, in campus-based efforts to quite positive about IGD’s potential, and
be interpreted through a critical lens in embrace diversity and promote inclusion I offer a number of suggestions for how to
order to ensure a discourse that recognizes across the range of identity differences, overcome the challenges observed in my
the socio-cultural nature of religion and religious diversity (i.e., religious minorities) research.
WINTER 2017
19
Research
Research Approach researcher field notes and memos; (c) 542 his cultural and familial upbringing. Both
pages of participant reflection journals; (d) facilitators of this course also had Chris-
The study described in this article is
29 in-depth, semi-structured, post-dialogue tian identities, although one described
a qualitative multiple case study (Mer-
interviews, totaling over 30 hours of audio herself as Agnostic.
riam, 1998) of three religion-themed IGD
recording and 510 pages of transcriptions; (e) Throughout the course, the facilitators
courses at large public university in the
6 informal interviews with IGD facilitators made a few subtle attempts to raise the
Mid-Atlantic region—which I will refer
and program coordinators; and (f) 431 pages issue of privilege, but they was never ex-
to as East Coast University (ECU) for
of course and program documents. To help plicitly introduced the concept of Christian
the purposes of confidentiality. The ques-
me manage this data, I used the qualitative privilege. Thus, whenever privilege became
tions that guided my research process
data analysis program HyperRESEARCH a part of the group’s dialogue, students de-
centered around my goal of understand-
to file, sort, code, and analyze. ferred to discussions about White privilege
ing: (1) what my participants experienced
Below, I present a brief summary of and male privilege—concepts that many
by participating in religion-themed IGD,
each case, the similarities I noticed across of them were already familiar with. The
and what meaning they made from those
the three cases, and a comparison of the readings for the class, after all, described
experiences; and (2) how my participants’
outcomes to existing IGD theory. I also the concepts of privilege and oppression
descriptions of their experience of the
discuss the implications of this research mostly in terms of race and gender, only
course align with the theoretical goals
for future IGD theory and practice, and naming religious identity in passing.
and outcomes of IGD pedagogy.
offer some practical suggestions for IGD Moreover, there were three extremely
Methodologically, I adopt an explor-
coordinators and facilitators. vocal Christian students in the class who
atory and constructivist approach to this
consistently voiced their perspective that
research. Due to the lack of published
Case Summaries they, as Christians, were stereotyped and
research on the religion theme of IGD,
marginalized more than other religious
an exploratory approach was best suited At the outset, this research intended to
groups or non-believers.
to investigate student experiences in this explore what happens when IGD pedagogy
The facilitators—one of whom was
case. As a researcher I approach learning is used to facilitate dialogues between
extremely experienced and had received
and empirical investigation from a con- students from differing religious identities.
several years of IGD training—did not
structivist paradigm. This paradigm posits However, in all three cases included in
interject. At the end of the course, many
that reality is socially constructed and that this study, adherence to the social justice
of the students, especially the Muslim and
individuals interpret meaning from a given aspect of the pedagogy (which is heavily
the Hindu student, very much felt that the
experience or object based on their situa- emphasized in IGD literature) was limited
class was a Christian-Jewish dialogue,
tion and circumstances (Mertens, 2005). at best. None of the courses I observed
simply because of the demographic break-
Researchers and research participants, explicitly raised the issue of Christian
down of the class and the way that topics
then, interactively construct knowledge privilege, which, in theory, should have
related only to the Christians and Jews
based on the research participants’ in- been the primary focus of the dialogues.
dominated their conversations (i.e., the
terpretation of their experiences and the This outcome, in itself, raises some
tension between Christmas and Hanukkah
researcher’s interpretation of the rendered important questions about the practical
during the winter holiday season).
experiences. Aligned with this approach application of IGD to religious identity dia-
are mostly qualitative methods of inquiry logues. While it may seem unreasonable to
Case Two
such as interviews and observations as label these courses as IGD when they do not
In the second class, there were 13 stu-
they are the most appropriate for achieving actually follow IGD pedagogy in full, it may
dents: six were Christian, four were Jewish,
in-depth understandings of why and how be important to note that ECU maintains a
two were Muslim, and one was Jain/Hindu.
realities are constructed within a given nationally well-regarded IGD program, and
One of the facilitators was Christian, the
context. As such, the research I present has been featured in much of the existing
other Buddhist. The Christian facilitator in
here is entirely qualitative in nature. empirical literature about IGD.
this case was very knowledgeable about IGD
To start, I gained approval for this study In this way, the religious identity
(she had worked for the IGD program office
from the institution’s IRB office, the IGD themed IGD courses offered by ECU’s
in the past) and had previously facilitated
program coordinators, the facilitators of the program do offer some insight into the
many IGD courses, including one that was
three IGD courses I observed, and all 39 stu- challenges that IGD programs at other
a part of the large-scale, multi-institutional
dents enrolled in the courses. For each class institutions may also be experiencing. In
IGD study I mentioned above. The Buddhist
meeting, I participated minimally—so as not this section, I will describe each class and
facilitator, on the other hand, was new to
to be a complete mystery to the students, yet how it failed to adhere to IGD pedagogy.
IGD, and had a much more passive person-
also making a strong effort not to influence Later, I will discuss the way the misunder-
ality than the assertive Christian facilita-
the direction of the dialogues. I did not record standing of religious identity and religious
tor—a dynamic which gave the students the
the course sessions, but spent several hours oppression led to many of the departures
impression that the Christian facilitator was
after each session describing the events of from IGD’s critical social justice model.
the “lead” facilitator. On the very first day of
the class and reflecting on my own thoughts
the class, the Christian facilitator explained
and reactions as they developed. At the end Case One
the purpose of IGD, but then stated that this
of the course, I invited the students to share
In the first class, there were 14 students:
class was “different” and that when discuss-
their weekly reflections with me (a required
eight were Christian, four were Jewish, one
ing religious identity, the students would
part of the course) and to participate in a
was Muslim, and one was Hindu. I have in-
simply be asked to share their own religious
one-on-one interview with me—29 students
cluded one student in the Christian group
traditions with the rest of the group.
accepted. In the end, I amassed: (a) 40 hours
who defined himself as Atheist because of
As promised, much of the class time
of participant-observation; (b) 226 pages of
MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
20
Research
was dedicated to students explaining their the end, most of the students were happy Certainly, there are ways in which a
respective religions, mostly describing the with the way the class turned out. However, person can convert from one religion to
history, tenets, and rituals of their tradi- there was no mention of Christian privilege, another, and can become absorbed into a
tion rather than how they experience it for no engagement of the students’ religious new religious culture, making religious
themselves. The Jain/Hindu student was identities, and no analysis of power imbal- identity more fluid than, for instance,
forced to do this on her own, as she was the ances between religious groups. racial identity. However, that does not
only student who was alone in her religious negate the complex social, familial, and
identity within the group—an experience Thematic Analysis historical factors that contribute to one’s
she struggled with given that most of her overall identity development.
The three courses included in this study
classmates were completely unfamiliar Beverly Tatum (2010) describes how an
were all very different at face value, but
with her religion. individual’s identity is largely dependent
also had quite a bit in common. Similarities
During the one conversation about privi- upon the invisible social and cultural mes-
among the courses include: (1) students and
lege/oppression (mandated by the course sages they receive throughout their lives
facilitators understood religious identity as
syllabus) the discussion (as in case one) about who they are. These influences cannot
an individual’s belief system, rather than
became primarily about White and male be deleted. Individuals can choose to forge
a socio-cultural identity; (2) the concept
privilege. Both facilitators participated by a new spiritual path for themselves later in
of Christian privilege was not discussed,
offering their own experiences with oppres- life, but their upbringing, and the religious
despite the expectation to do so according
sion as women of color, but did not bring up socialization they received, remains a part
to IGD pedagogy; and (3) course dynamics
their respective religious identities at all. of them. As Tatum (2010) puts it, a person’s
and dialogue topics were largely dependent
Ultimately, the course became something identity is developed by, “Integrating one’s
on the two groups with the most represen-
akin to what one might expect from a “Reli- past, present, and future into a cohesive,
tation in the course, leaving students from
gion 101” class: surface level descriptions of unified sense of self” (p. 6).
lesser-represented groups overlooked.
a few different religions, without any deeper The dialogue facilitators had the poten-
analysis of the power dynamics between tial to impact the students’ thinking on
Misunderstanding Religious Identity
religious groups (as IGD requires). this issue—through readings, activities,
The theoretical foundations of IGD are or even sharing personal experiences—
Case Three grounded in critical identity literature, which is precisely what IGD pedagogy
which is very clear about how social iden- suggests they do. However, because they,
In the final class, there were 12 students:
tities, including religion, are not actually too, seemed to interpret religious identity
six were Christian, three were Jewish, one
selected by choice. according to personal beliefs, no such ef-
was Muslim, one was Hindu, and one was
forts were made.
Buddhist. Interestingly, out of the 12 stu- Our socialization begins before we are
Moreover, because the readings as-
dents, seven students (two Christian, two born, with no choice on our part. No one
signed in the syllabus template given
Jewish, one Muslim, and both the Hindu brings us a survey, in the womb, inquiring
and the Buddhist) described themselves as into which gender, class, religion, sexual to facilitators of all IGD themes did not
either Atheist or Agnostic. All but one of the orientation, cultural group, ability status, explicitly cover religious identity in detail,
or age we might want to be born. These there was nothing for students or facilita-
Atheist/Agnostic students (the Buddhist)
identities are ascribed to us at birth tors to rely on for a deeper, more critical
also described themselves according to their
through no effort or decision or choice of theoretical understanding of religious
religious identity. The two facilitators in this
our own. (Harro, 2010, p. 46) identity. Program coordinators at ECU’s
course had Christian religious identities
(although one was also Agnostic)—both had Yet, in all three cases in this study, most IGD program train facilitators to supple-
several years of experience and training of the students and facilitators understood ment their syllabi by adding readings or
in IGD and both had facilitated religion- religion as a prescribed set of beliefs, and videos that are more relevant to their
themed IGDs in the past. failed to recognize the ways in which specific identity topic (lists of which are
From the start, several of the Athe- people are socialized into their religious provided on the program’s website), but for
ist/Agnostic students made it clear that identities, just as they are with their other the most part, that did not happen here.
they wanted to engage in a philosophical identities. Many of them expressed that
discussion about the existence of a higher one’s religious identity changes as soon as Failing to Discuss Christian Privilege
power, and began questioning the “believ- one changes their beliefs, demonstrating a Analyzing systems of privilege and
ers” about their faith. In response, the lack of recognition of the cultural aspects oppression is one of the hallmarks of IGD
believers became defensive and, over time, of religion. For instance, in a post-dialogue pedagogy, so it was surprising to me that it
eventually withdrew, admitting that they interview, one of my participants said: did not happen in any of the three classes I
had no interest in hearing what the non- observed for this study. While the concepts
If some religion has low privilege, I really
believers had to say. The facilitators took don’t care; I’m not a part of that religion. of privilege and oppression more gener-
a bit of a back seat role, and allowed the It’s not like they’re in need of my help, ally were raised, students and facilitators
students to continue their philosophical whereas, like, poor people or something, alike were more inclined to discuss White
debate throughout the course. it’s going to help them live. Like, you privilege and male privilege—topics they
By the last day of the class, the group, made that choice to be that religion. I all seemed more comfortable and familiar
guess that’s why it’s different. People do
with the help of the facilitators, came to the with than Christian privilege.
get judged pretty hard on their race, so
conclusion that they had common ground As a result, many students came away
there’s a lot of research done on both race
in the unknown—for the believers, the un- from the course with an inaccurate under-
and gender discrimination. Religion is a
known fueled their faith; for the non-believ- choice, but you can’t change your race. standing of how the privilege/oppression
ers, the unknown fueled their skepticism. In (Agnostic Catholic Student) dynamic applies to religious identity. For
WINTER 2017
21
Research
instance, when I asked one student if she to share with the group an example of how respectively. Resultantly, many of the stu-
learned anything about privilege in the she feels marginalized on campus. In re- dents felt like the courses were primarily
class, she said: sponse, one of her classmates made a joke Christian-Jewish dialogues, and the other
about it, and the entire group (including minority students—three Muslims, one
When it comes to religion, I do not think
the facilitators) laughed. Hindu, and one Jain/Hindu—expressed
the privilege/underprivileged system
applies because all religions face some I saw the facilitators laughing too when feeling irrelevant to most of the dialogue
form of oppression. The general non- that happened. Like, I’m not trying to be an topics. In case three, there was a bit of a
religious, let’s say Atheists, are more uptight person, but when I’m explaining a different dynamic because many of the
privileged, because they get to decide, time when I feel under-privileged I don’t religious minority students (the Muslim,
‘We don’t want God or anything religious think it’s appropriate for someone to say Hindu, and Buddhist students) presented
in the schools,’ and then, check, it’s done a joke and then everyone laughs. Things themselves as non-believers in the class
for them. And, like, the Bible definitely like that made me feel like the atmosphere (along with two Jewish and two Christian
talks about the rod and the child … we’re was, you know … not comfortable enough students), making non-believers the larg-
not abusing them or anything, it’s just for me to open up. (Jain/Hindu Student)
what God instructs us to do, but we’re est group in the class with seven total,
not allowed to hit children because it’s Again, the facilitators had the opportu- followed by four Christian believers and
considered child abuse. So, in that sense nity to impact the students’ understanding one Jewish believer.
I think that Atheists are more privileged. of Christian privilege and religious op- Throughout case three’s philosophical
(Evangelical Christian Student) pression—in fact, the critical social justice debate between the believers and the
Even some of the minority religious model of IGD requires that they do—but non-believers, the beliefs that were the
students lacked an understanding of they did not. None of the facilitators even primary target of discussion were Chris-
Christian privilege and religious oppres- demonstrated a critical self-awareness of tian beliefs; thus, leaving the one Jewish
sion at the end of the class. As a comment their religious identity—even though these student in a situation where her beliefs,
from one of my Muslim participants shows, same individuals were extremely aware of practices, and experiences as a Jew did
religious oppression (as in the systematic the ways in which their other identities (e.g., not play a role in the conversation. Similar
marginalization of religious minorities race, gender, sexuality) held either privi- to the Muslim, Hindu, and Jain/Hindu
within our institutional structures in the leged or oppressed positions in society. students in cases one and two, this Jew-
United States) was often conflated with While IGD literature does emphasize ish student felt disconnected from, and
individual acts of prejudice: the need for facilitators to understand and ignored by, the dialogue topics.
communicate privilege and oppression with According to Chesler, Wilson, and
I mean, how is someone not privileged? I
regard to the relevant identity category, and Malani (1993) individuals who are the only
don’t see how that’s possible. It’s not like
the program coordinators at ECU further members of their identity in a dialogue
there’s oppression of religion … I mean,
maybe Muslims are a little less privileged emphasize this in their facilitator training situation are made to feel like a spokesper-
just because of the whole stereotype of sessions, somehow all six facilitators across son for their entire identity group—some-
Muslims and terrorism, but it doesn’t the three classes I observed failed to raise thing that IGD explicitly seeks to prevent
really affect me at all, so I don’t see how the issue of Christian privilege. (Zúñiga et al., 2007). This is precisely what
I’m less privileged than anyone else. happened to several of the participants
(Muslim Student) Overlooking Underrepresented Minorities in my study, and many of them remained
Often, my participants referenced the quiet throughout the dialogue as a result,
All three cases in this study had ex-
First Amendment when trying to explain further preventing their perspective from
tremely different foci and covered very
how religious oppression is not an issue being heard within the group.
different topics—and in each case, the direc-
in the United States—although interest-
tion of the dialogue was strongly influenced Having more Hindu students would have
ingly, they never mentioned the existence by the breakdown of the religious identities helped me to explain better, because I
of legal protections from other kinds of and beliefs of students in each course. In noticed in dialogue a lot of the conversation
discrimination. revolved around certain religions and
consistency with IGD’s model, ECU pro-
sometimes I couldn’t really say much
In America, we have religious freedom gram coordinators attempted to enroll an because there was a good chunk of Jewish
codified in the law, so people of different equal number of Christian and non-Chris- students. I mean, what if there was only
religions, yes, they’re in the minority, but tian students. Theoretically, this maintains one Jewish student and four Hindu or
they weren’t treated as poorly as racial a balance of power between students. While five Hindu kids? The Jewish kid would
minorities or as women were in our the goal is to create a dialogue “with each probably feel the same way that I was
history, so there’s not a lot of difference in of the social identity groups participating feeling. (Hindu Student)
terms of social status. So, religion isn’t as
in the dialogue ideally represented equally”
correlated with discrimination as gender Clearly, the demographics of the group
(Zúñiga et al., 2003, p. 9), in practice this
or race. (Methodist Student) impact the IGD process. Especially, it
typically gets translated as an equal num-
seems, that of those in the non-dominant
A few students, however, were upset ber of dominant and non-dominant identity
identity category.
by the lack of attention to Christian students. Thus, it is possible, as was true
privilege, and (for the religious minority for all three cases in this study, that some
Discussion
students) were offended that the group students in the IGD are actually the only
seemed to ignore the oppression they face. one of their identity group in the class. Current theory around IGD student
One of my participants, who had taken In cases one and two of this study, the outcomes suggest that after participation
two other IGD courses previously and non-dominant identity group consisted of in an IGD course, students gain: (1) height-
was aware that discussing privilege and four Jewish students and only two and ened awareness of identity oppression and
oppression was an expectation, attempted three other religious minority students social inequities, (2) stronger cross-group
MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
22
Research
communication skills and relationships, used for dialogues about religion, sexuality, to specific identity themes. At present, lit-
and (3) increased intergroup cooperation socio-economic status, ability, national ori- erature on IGD training discusses general
for addressing identity based social justice gin, size, and a number of other identities. approaches to teaching facilitators about
issues. However, in this study, my par- Empirical study and theoretical literature, understanding the critical social justice ele-
ticipants explained that only one out of the therefore, should also examine this wider ment of IGD and how to carry out the peda-
three theoretical outcomes of IGD applied to range of identity themes. gogical model with a group. However, what
their experience—communication skills. Beyond theory related specifically this research highlights is the potential for
Instead, my participants described their to IGD pedagogy, the outcomes of this implementation of religion-themed IGD to
own perceived learning outcomes as: (a) an research highlight the need for a larger, manifest in ways that vary greatly from the
increased exposure to personal opinions more sophisticated body of conceptual and pedagogy as it is intended to be, even by
and belief systems they were not previ- theoretical literature looking at religious facilitators who are considered extremely
ously aware of, (b) more knowledge about identity from the same critical perspective knowledgeable about IGD, who have been
other religious traditions, and (c) greater that exists for other identities (e.g., Criti- trained extensively, and who have even
clarity on their own spiritual beliefs. While cal Race Theory, Feminist Theory, Queer contributed to existing IGD research.
sharing personal opinions and perspectives Theory). My findings here indicate that Some of the facilitators I observed in this
is certainly an ascribed element of IGD, the both students and facilitators seem to have study have been strong social justice advo-
cases analyzed here lacked the process of difficulty applying broader conversations cates and highly effective IGD facilitators
sharing how individuals’ experiences as a about identity, privilege, and oppression to in dialogues about other identity themes.
member of their religious identity relates religious identity. Yet, their facilitation styles, their critical
to larger normative social, historical, and Thus, we cannot assume that discus- self-awareness, and their articulation of
political patterns. sions about these important issues will social justice issues in a religious identity
Moreover, IGD pedagogy explicitly re- make sense for all social identities if/when IGD were very different. Could it be that
jects the notion that IGD should be used they are only presented using the language some people are ready/able to facilitate
as a place for students to teach their peers of a select few identity categories. Clearly, certain IGD themes and not others? How
about their identity group (Zúñiga et al., the differentiation between religious does that impact the way IGD facilitator
2007). Lastly, some may see a benefit in identity and personal belief needs to be training should be both discussed in schol-
achieving greater clarity on one’s spiritual explained in more certain and explicit arly literature and carried out in practice?
beliefs, but according to IGD theory, stu- terms, and the current and historical state How might IGD program coordinators
dents are expected to gain an increased un- of religious identity oppression needs to be assess potential facilitators’ ability to be
derstanding of their relevant social identity, more widely critiqued. critically self-aware with regard to all
and one’s personal beliefs certainly do not Likewise, this study demonstrates the their identities? What should their role be
constitute their religious identity. importance of including religious identity in helping them achieve that critical self-
Given the lack of attention to religious in scholarly discourse (and practice) on awareness if they are lacking it for some
identity and Christian privilege in all three social justice education and diversity ini- of their identities more than others? How
of my cases, it may come as no surprise tiatives in the higher education context. should IGD program coordinators evaluate
that my participants did not increase their Thus far, campus-based diversity initia- facilitators to determine their level of ad-
awareness of religious identity oppression tives have largely overlooked religious herence to the pedagogy? Moving forward,
or their ability to address religious identity diversity as a component of their work. scholars and practitioners of IGD should
based social justice issues. Nevertheless, Those that do (such as, Patel & Brodeur, consider these questions.
the classes I observed were offered under 2006; Kazanjian & Laurence, 2007) fail Secondly, findings from this research
the IGD name, by an IGD program, at an to take on a critical lens in order to ad- point to the problem of lesser-represented
institution with a well-established history dress issues like Christian privilege or students feeling overlooked, even in a
of IGD research and training. In that way, proselytism that serve to marginalize group specifically designed to make them
this study raises the question of how and members of smaller religious groups. feel empowered. IGD theory suggests that
why such departures from IGD’s critical Just like the participants in my study an equal balance between dominant and
social justice model were made here, and who felt ignored and irrelevant in their non-dominant identity students assures
whether or not other IGD courses/programs IGD because they were the only student that non-dominant identity students do
are experiencing similar difficulties. of their religious identity in the group, not feel outnumbered. However, that was
To this point, IGD research has been students from underrepresented minority not the case in this study, as there were
heavily weighted towards race (with a sec- religious groups may also feel overlooked several students who admitted feeling left
ondary emphasis on gender), race relations, by supposed diversity initiatives that do out of the loop because no one else in the
racial oppression, and White privilege. Ac- not reflect their experiences or concerns. room shared their religious identity, even
cordingly, theoretical outcomes of IGD have if there was an equal number of Christians
been developed using data primarily from Implications for Intergroup and non-Christians.
race and gender dialogues. Yet, IGD scholars Dialogue Theory and Practice So, this should make us question
continue to suggest that such outcomes ap- whether students in race and gender
ply to IGD about all social identity catego- Despite the courses I observed not adher- IGDs feel similarly marginalized if they
ries. As this study shows, taking a model and ing to IGD pedagogy in full, the findings I are the only person of their identity? Are
a theory that has been developed primarily present here do complicate current IGD the experiences of a Native American
from race and gender dialogues, and apply- theory in a couple of important ways. First, IGD participant overlooked if the rest of
ing it to another identity theme (in this case, it questions whether or not IGD facilitators the group is comprised of only White and
religion) can be difficult. In practice, IGD is need to be selected and trained according Black participants? Are the experiences
WINTER 2017
23
Research
of a gender queer or transgender IGD References action: How talking, thinking, and feeling make
participant overlooked if the rest of the a difference in intergroup dialogue. Equity and
group is comprised of only cis gendered Accapadi, M. M. (2009). When a safe space Excellence in Education, 45(1), 60-79.
becomes an oppressive space: Christmas in Harro, B. (2010). The cycle of socialization. In M.
participants? What is the fair and just way
a cultural center. In W. J. Blumenfeld, K. Y. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castaneda, H. W.
to proceed if in fact these participants are Joshi, & E. E. Fairchild (Eds.), Investigating Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.),
being overlooked? Would it be better to Christian privilege and religious oppression Readings for diversity and social justice (2nd
select only two identities when defining in the United States (pp. 113-133). Rotter- ed.) (pp. 45-51). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
an IGD theme? dam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Kazanjian, V., & Laurence, P. (2007). The journey
Some of my participants in case one said Adams, M., & Joshi, K. Y. (2010). Religious op- toward multi-faith community on campus:
that their class felt like a Christian-Jewish pression. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. The religious and spiritual life program at
dialogue. Would it have been better if it Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & Wellesley College. Journal of College and
X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and Character, 9(2), 1-12.
were limited to those two identity groups
social justice (2nd ed.) (pp. 227-234). Abing- McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege: Unpacking
alone in order to prevent the experience don, UK: Routledge. the invisible knapsack. In M. McGoldrick
that the Muslim and the Hindu students Astin, A. W., Astin, H. A., & Lindholm, J. A. (Ed.), Re-visioning family therapy: Race,
had in that class? Is it better to more even- (2011). Assessing students’ spiritual and re- culture, and gender in clinical practice (pp.
ly balance the identity breakdown to make ligious qualities. Journal of College Student 147-152). New York, NY: Guilford.
sure all possible identities are equally Development, 52(1), 39-61. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and
represented? Is that even possible? Blumenfeld, W. J. (2006). Christian privilege and case study applications in education. San
A couple of my Christian participants in the promotion of “secular” and not-so “secu- Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
lar” mainline Christianity in public schooling Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation
case three used the believer to non-believer
and in the larger society. Equity & Excellence in education and psychology: Integrating
ratio (5:7) to argue that religious people’s in Education, 39(3), 195-210. diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and
perspectives are oppressed. How might a Bryant Rockenbach, A., & Mayhew, M. J. mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
facilitator effectively make a point about (2013). Campus religious and spiritual Nagda, B. R. A., Gurin, P., Sorensen, N., Gurin-
privilege and oppression if dominant iden- climate survey infographic. Retrieved from: Sands, C., & Osuna, S. M. (2009). From
tity students are actually outnumbered http://www.ifyc.org/sites/default/files/u4/ separate corners to dialogue and action. Race
by the various groups of non-dominant CRSCS%20infographic_1.pdf and Social Problems, 1(1), 45-55.
identity students? It is beyond the scope Chesler, M., Wilson, M., & Malani, A. (1993). Nash, R. J., & Scott, L. (2009). Spirituality,
Perceptions of faculty behavior by students religious pluralism, and higher education
of this article to attempt an answer to any
of color. Michigan Journal of Political Sci- leadership development. In A. Kezar (Ed.),
of those questions. Nevertheless, they are ence, 1(16), 54-79. Rethinking leadership in a complex, mul-
important to consider. Dessel, A. B., & Ali, N. (2012). Arab/Jewish inter- ticultural, and global environment: New
group dialogue courses: Building communi- concepts and models for higher education
Conclusion cation skills, relationships, and social justice. (pp. 131-150). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Small Group Research, 43(5), 559-586. Patel, E. (2012, September 17). Is your cam-
As colleges and universities around the Dessel, A. B., Masse, J., & Walker, L. (2013). In- pus diverse?: It’s a question of faith. The
country become increasingly aware of the tergroup dialogue pedagogy: Teaching about Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
need to actively involve students in diver- intersectional and under examined privilege from http://chronicle.com/
sity and social justice related initiatives, in heterosexual, Christian, and Jewish iden- Patel, E., & Brodeur, P. (Eds.). (2006). Building the
pedagogies like IGD offer promising ways tities. In K. A. Case (Ed.), Deconstructing interfaith youth movement: Beyond dialogue to
privilege: Teaching and learning as allies in action. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
to do so in a way that is both engaging and
the classroom. New York, NY: Routledge. Seifert, T. (2007). Understanding Christian
critically oriented. However, as initiatives Dessel, A. B., Maxwell, K., Masse, J., & Ramus, privilege: Managing the tensions of spiritual
like these expand, it is imperative that we E. (2010). Exploring religious differences and plurality. About Campus, 12(2), 10-17.
also expand our empirical and theoretical building bridges through intergroup dialogue Sorensen, N. (2010). The road to empathy: Dialogic
exploration so as to make these pedago- courses. Diversity & Democracy, 13(2), 13-14. pathways for engaging diversity and improv-
gies more inclusive of the range of social Dessel, A. B., Woodford, M. R., Routenberg, R., & ing intergroup relations. Unpublished doctoral
identities we all carry. Breijak, D. P. (2013). Heterosexual students’ dissertation, University of Michigan.
The study presented in this article experiences in sexual orientation intergroup Sorensen, N., Nagda, B. R. A., Gurin, P., &
dialogue courses. Journal of Homosexuality, Maxwell, K. E. (2009). Taking a “hands on”
shows how a well-intentioned and highly
60(7), 1054-1080. approach to diversity in higher education:
successful model for critical dialogue can Dessel, A. B., Woodford, M. R., & Warren, N. A critical-dialogic model for effective inter-
actually marginalize certain students. It (2011). Intergroup dialogue courses on group interaction. Analyses of Social Issues
also shows how individuals’ understanding sexual orientation: Lesbian, gay and bisexual and Public Policy, 9(1), 3-35.
of concepts like identity, privilege, and op- student experiences and outcomes. Journal Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B., Chesler, M., & Cytron-
pression are not always consistent across of Homosexuality, 58(8), 1132-1150. Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup dialogue in
identity categories. This should push us to Galtung, J. (1964). A structural theory of aggres- higher education: Meaningful learning about
further explore the use of these pedagogies sion. Journal of Peace Research, 1(2), 95-119. social justice. ASHE Higher Education Re-
Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Sorensen, N. (2011). port, 32(4), 1-128.
in order that the full potential of a model
Intergroup dialogue: Education for a broad
such as IGD can be realized. conception of civic engagement. Liberal
Education, 97(2), 46-51.
Note Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2013).
Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory,
1 For the purposes of this literature review, and research on intergroup dialogue. New
only primary empirical publications reporting York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
on higher education student outcomes were Gurin-Sands, C., Gurin, P., Osuna, S., & Nagda, B.
included. R. A. (2012). Fostering a commitment to social
MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
24