Intergroup Dialogue

Background

The University of Michigan argued in its affirmative action cases that were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 (Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger) that student diversity has educational benefits for all students. Because of its educational value, or what the courts call compelling state interest, the University of Michigan further argued that the use of race as one of many factors in undergraduate and law school admission is justifiable in order to achieve diversity. Its diversity argument was supported by the Supreme Court, as was its particular way of using race in law school admissions but not in undergraduate admissions. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor emphasized that student diversity is a compelling state interest because it promotes learning outcomes, prepares students for a more diverse workforce and society, and helps ensure that the path to leadership is visibly open to people from every race and ethnicity. What the Court could not do is suggest what kind of diversity education might achieve the goals that numerous amicus briefs in behalf of the University of Michigan laid out to the Court—that through diversity education students from diverse backgrounds learn from each other, learn to understand perspectives that reflect different life experiences and various social backgrounds, and gain cultural competence that is critical to effective local and global leadership. In this entry, one approach to diversity education that has the potential of achieving these goals is described. Intergroup dialogue, in particular the critical-dialogic model of intergroup dialogue, aims to increase students' intergroup understanding, specifically how social structure and institutions create and perpetuate group-based inequalities; intergroup relationships, specifically intergroup empathy and motivation to bridge differences; and intergroup collaboration. Evidence on the effects of race and gender dialogues at nine universities is presented.

What Intergroup Dialogue Is

Intergroup dialogue is an educational initiative that brings together students from two or more social identity groups, usually in credit-bearing courses, to achieve the three goals of intergroup understanding, improved intergroup relationships, and increased commitment to collaborative action. Three educational components are involved in intergroup dialogue:

• 1.
  A curriculum that includes readings (historical, sociological, scientific, and narrative), didactic and experiential activities, writing assignments, and questions to stimulate reflection, critical analysis, and dialogue. Writing assignments allow for reflection and help students integrate their learning from the dialogue sessions, readings, and experiences inside and outside of class.
• 2.
  Structured interaction is developed through sustained engagement in weekly classes lasting 2 to 3 hours across a period of 10 to 14 weeks. Students develop explicit guidelines for interactive learning and engage in active learning in class through exercises that stimulate dialogue about course concepts and in out-of-class group-based projects.
• 3.
  Cofacilitators, one from each identity group, work together to guide students throughout the duration of the dialogues. Facilitators create an inclusive classroom climate and support effective communication among students by modeling collaboration across differences in their own interactions as dialogue facilitators.

In intergroup dialogue, these three components foster active communicative engagement among participants. The communicative method depends on dialogue as contrasted to discussion and debate. Debate, discussion, and dialogue differ in their intentions and purposes for listening, sharing, and inquiry. Although these forms of communication can all take place across differences, their ultimate aims are distinct. In debate, each side is trying to win the argument; one may say that the goal is to achieve the truth. In discussion, people contribute diverse and multiple perspectives, but these perspectives are not necessarily joined or probed in depth. In dialogue, people continually probe, [Page 1233]inquire, and elucidate interconnections among diverse viewpoints, as well as contextualize them in larger societal arrangements of power and privilege. Dialogue enables differences to become bridges for understanding rather than merely for winning points or raising issues for argument.

...