Page 342 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

of the discussion. This request set the tone for the dialogue that occurred that evening, as reported

by one respondent: “I like that everybody got to say what made them feel safe. It wasn’t like a

workshop, like where people just throw things out and then you write them down and then you

say, “Okay, this is what would make this person feel safe.” It seemed more personal, like, “I’m

expressing what would make me feel safe, so you know, and now we are all aware.” So, if

somebody doesn’t do that and somebody violates my safety, then you can’t say that you didn’t

know; you can’t say “Oh, well why do you feel uncomfortable?” It’s like “Hello, we went over

that” (P14FAA).

One respondent reported there were varying levels of safety felt by participants during the

second Community Conversation that convened a true dialogue. In particular, one of the youngest

respondents reported a feeling of hesitance and some fear at the start of the session, which lessoned

after the dialogue began. For White dialogue participants, creating a safe environment for engaging

had a reassuring affect about the intent of the gathering. Establishing safety also helped participants

understand that each member of the group could speak candidly and without fear.

“At first people were kind of leery about it [the act of dialogue]. Like they didn’t know,

‘are we going to tell them the truth or are we going to be nice?’ You know what I mean?

They were kind of like “How are we going to play this?” And there was an apprehension.

And I was sitting there and I was like I am one of the three white people in the room and I

know the truth but I don’t really want to say it because I am one of three white people in

the room. And after everyone started talking, I began to feel a little more comfortable like

nobody is going to slash my tires, we are good to go.” (P05MW)

“I think that everyone was able to express themselves in their way without fear of

reproach.” (P03FTRM)

323