PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

!"#$%&'(#)*+%,&$%-.,/*.&-+-%012%34&'5#*+6%7&'./8
9/2%:;%<&')"%:=>=
7))+$$%-+(&#*$2%7))+$$%?+(&#*$2%3$@0$)'#A(#./%/@B0+'%C:=DEF>>D8
G@0*#$"+'%H.@(*+-5+
I/J.'B&%K(-%H+5#$(+'+-%#/%L/5*&/-%&/-%M&*+$%H+5#$(+'+-%N@B0+'2%>=F:COP%H+5#$(+'+-%.JJ#)+2%<.'(#B+'%Q.@$+6%DFR
P>%<.'(#B+'%S('++(6%K./-./%M>!%DTQ6%UV

!"+%L-@)&(#./&*%W.'@B
G@0*#)&(#./%-+(&#*$6%#/)*@-#/5%#/$('@)(#./$%J.'%&@(".'$%&/-%$@0$)'#A(#./%#/J.'B&(#./2
"((A2XX,,,Y#/J.'B&,.'*-Y).BX$BAAX(#(*+Z)./(+/([(FE:C=C=:F

7--#/5%,#(".@(%4./('&-#)(#./2%!"+%4"&**+/5+%.J%9A+/#/5%UA%I/(+''&)#&*
?#&*.5@+
7&'./%4&$(+*\/%4&'5#*+%&
&%?+A&'(B+/(%.J%4.BB@/#)&(#./%S(@-#+$6%4&*#J.'/#&%S(&(+%U/#]+'$#(16%K./5%^+&)"6%4&*#J.'/#&6%US7

9/*#/+%A@0*#)&(#./%-&(+2%:;%<&')"%:=>=

!.%)#(+%("#$%7'(#)*+%4&'5#*+6%7&'./%4&$(+*\/_:=>=`%a7--#/5%,#(".@(%4./('&-#)(#./2%!"+%4"&**+/5+%.J%9A+/#/5%UA
I/(+''&)#&*%?#&*.5@+a6%!"+%L-@)&(#./&*%W.'@B6%FP2%:6%>D=%b%>P:
!.%*#/c%(.%("#$%7'(#)*+2%?9I2%>=Y>=E=X==>D>F:>==D;=PPF=
UHK2%"((A2XX-dY-.#Y.'5X>=Y>=E=X==>D>F:>==D;=PPF=

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t782909027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131721003604470


The Educational Forum, 74: 130–42, 2010
Copyright © Kappa Delta Pi
ISSN: 0013-1725 print/1938-8098 online
DOI: 10.1080/00131721003604470

Address correspondence to Aaron Castelán Cargile, Department of Communi-
cation Studies, California State University, 1250 Bellfl ower Blvd., Long Beach, 
CA 90840-2407, USA. E-mail: acargile@csulb.edu

Abstract
This essay begins with the question, “What can educators do to minimize 
the risks inherent to interracial dialogue?” Though no such meaning-
ful conversation ever will be without risk, this article offers two specifi c 
strategies that have helped foster open classroom climates: adding without 
contradiction and granting freedom for conclusions. Both of these strate-
gies intervene on several dysfunctional habits U.S. participants enact in 
conversations about race and, thus, help enrich the ameliorative capacity 
of interracial dialogue.

Key words: dialogue, facilitation, race, strategies.

In our classrooms, the deep rift between white students and students of color 
[is] always present. As educators we have an opportunity, and perhaps even an 
obligation, to expose this rift in order to foster a truly dialogic community. 
(Rich and Cargile 2004, 354)

Several years ago, Marc Rich and I (Rich and Cargile 2004) wrote about the 
process of facilitating interracial dialogue. As we (and many others; e.g., Nakagawa 
1987; Berger 1999; Simpson 2003) described it, race talk holds great promise, as well 
as peril. Latent tensions can manifest themselves as overt, painful confl ict and, as 
one student put it, “there isn’t always a happy ending.” However, because of its tre-
mendous potential to heal deep wounds and increase awareness, dialogue remains 
a central component of multicultural instruction. The question thus becomes, “What 
can educators do to minimize the risks inherent to interracial dialogue?”

Adding without 
Contradiction: The 
Challenge of Opening 
Up Interracial Dialogue
Aaron Castelán Cargile
Department of Communication Studies, California State 
University, Long Beach, California, USA

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



The Challenge of Opening Up Interracial Dialogue

The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010 • 131

In this essay, responses to the question raised are offered on the basis of my 15 years 
of experience in facilitating such dialogues. In practice, I acknowledge the failure to man-
age the risks well until the strategies of “adding without contradiction” and “granting 
freedom for conclusions” began to emerge in facilitation. Although the effi cacy of these 
strategies has not been experimentally assessed, my extensive experience reveals and 
judges them to be effective. More than 3,000 students have enrolled in my basic course 
in intercultural communication and have shared their experiences in the form of a class 
journal. These journal entries further corroborate in-class, shared experiences regarding 
the effectiveness of these strategies (as well as testify to the ineffectiveness of previous 
approaches). With the written permission of the students, this essay offers a representa-
tive sample of these journal entries.

The Risks of Dialogue
Interracial dialogue is risky because it brings participants into contact-the outcome 

of which is often unpredictable. Decades of research in social psychology cautions that 
intergroup contact may result in increased prejudice, ostracism, decreased self-esteem, and 
reinforced stereotypes—to name some of the risks (Hewstone and Brown 1986; Pettigrew 
1998). As one student wrote of the dialogue experience, “This class, if anything, has made 
me more of a bigot than I was coming into this whole mess. It just showed me how annoy-
ing people are that support this standpoint of multiculturalism.” Though such reactions 
of increased prejudice are real, their incidence is rare and perhaps impossible to mitigate. 
A far more common, and likely preventable, negative outcome of interracial dialogue is 
“shutting down”—the response of disengagement.

Shutting Down

Each class period we widened the gaps and chasms that exist between the races. … 
It is sad that all we do is bitch and complain. … By the end of the course, even those of 
us who were active speaking participants did not want to attend class.

As this student’s comment illustrates, one typical response to interracial dialogue is 
a fatigued resistance—shutting down. As Fishman and McCarthy (2005, 347) suggested, 
shutting down occurs when students are seen “hardening their confl icting positions and 
turning deaf ears to one another.” When students shut down, they suspend listening; they 
have fi rmly reached their own conclusions and are no longer open to any viewpoints but 
their own.

Resistance and its ultimate expression—shutting down—can take many forms, includ-
ing silence, passive-aggressiveness, absenteeism, and overt hostility (Chan and Treacy 1996; 
Higginbotham 1996). Examples of the last two forms occurred in classes where students 
had a particularly diffi cult time engaging in constructive dialogue. The conversation 
turned so sour that a signifi cant number of students stopped showing up, despite a policy 
of required attendance. Among the continuing participants were those who would greet 
discussion periods with both expressed and quiet rage. One student noted the palpable 
tension: “I have felt more hostility in this class than I have ever felt. I never knew there 
was so much hatred and anger about these racial issues.” As this experience illustrated, 

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



132 • The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010

Cargile

interracial dialogue can lead students to shut down in anger; if they do so in numbers, 
the discussion climate may be irrevocably changed.

Though shutting down can occur in a climate of anger, it more commonly occurs in a 
context of ennui in which students greet discussion with silence and passive-aggressive 
responses. For example, one European American student reacted to African American 
stories of inequality by goading her classmates: “Start looking at life as a pursuit for 
yourself as an individual and quit worrying throughout life about your race or culture!” 
Predictably, this response was met with a defense of why race (still) matters and was 
followed by additional accounts of discrimination. If students fail to get through to one 
another in situations like this, the dialogue often will get stuck as the same points of view 
are voiced, repeatedly. Unfortunately, breakthroughs rarely occur after one or two itera-
tions. Instead, if the same standpoints keep being articulated, students may begin to shut 
down. One student explained it this way: “After this class, I fi nd myself moving away 
from the pursuit of multiculturalism because of the redundancy of it all.”

Shutting down is a risk of interracial dialogue that all participants face. Even so, it is 
important to note that this risk is not shared equally: Students who benefi t from system-
atic inequality (European Americans in a U.S. context) are more likely to resist pedagogy 
and discussions that examine race than those students who do not (Levine-Rasky 2000; 
Gillespie, Ashbaugh, and DeFiore 2002; Williams and Evans-Winter 2005). As Marx and 
Pennington (2003, 93) shared, European American students “often respond to such discus-
sions in a highly defensive manner that reveals their resentment against people of color 
and their resistance.” Seemingly, dominant racial group members have a vested interest 
in opposing efforts to deconstruct race—the source of their privilege. In the United States, 
identifi cation with the ideology of equality brings most European Americans to the dis-
cussion, but it often does not sustain them when their racist assumptions are repeatedly 
challenged. In her journal, one white student noted her own aversion midway through the 
dialogue she was once excited about: “The black students got angered and started talking 
about how the ‘white man’ keeps them down and we oppress them. Blah, blah, blah.”

When students reach the point of shutting down, there is often nowhere to go, even 
with non-dialogic curricula. Though they may return to deal with race in the future and 
in other settings, the experience of students in the context of a semester-long course is that 
once they are done with race, they are done. Consequently, it is important that instructors 
learn how to minimize the risk of shutting down in the fi rst place.

Possible Strategies

If we can begin to see the ways that students resist, we can then also begin to 
answer and problematize those practices as well as cultivate more productive and en-
abling interactions with whiteness. (Hytten and Warren 2003, 88)

Anyone who has facilitated interracial dialogue is aware of the many challenges it 
presents. Over the years, scholars have suggested a host of strategies to better manage the 
conversation, and it is possible that these generic approaches also might prove effective 

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



The Challenge of Opening Up Interracial Dialogue

The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010 • 133

in minimizing resistance and the risk of shutting down. For example, the provision of 
appropriate models of racial identity development (Tatum 1992; Miller and Donner 2000) 
may help students to both normalize and anticipate their resistance, which may in turn 
aid in sustaining openness. Similarly, the presentation of apt historical and sociological 
information (Miller and Donner 2000; Fishman and McCarthy 2005) may enrich students’ 
compassion and, thus, expand their capacity to hear one another. Perhaps most useful 
to efforts aimed at minimizing resistance is the often-encouraged practice of providing a 
supportive, trusting, and respectful environment (Davis and Proctor 1989; Tatum 1992; Fox 
2001; Marx and Pennington 2003). Of course, this is easier said than done; creating such 
an environment always demands experience and a bit of alchemy. Even so, two specifi c 
strategies are essential in creating a classroom climate that opens up interracial dialogue: 
adding without contradiction and granting freedom for conclusions.

Adding without Contradiction

American history is longer, larger, more various, more beautiful, and [emphasis 
added] more terrible than anything anyone has ever said about it. (Baldwin 1963)

“Adding without contradiction” is a phrase inspired by Mikhail Bakhtin (as discussed in 
Min 2001), and represents the simple idea that opposition does not forcibly lead to negation 
or, put differently, that antipodes can coexist without mutual exclusion. Though elementary, 
the idea requires explanation because it stands in contrast to the dichotomous logic that 
has conditioned Western thought for more than 2,500 years (Carr and Zanetti 1999). 

As Nisbett (2003, 25) noted, “The Greeks were focused on, you might even say ob-
sessed by, the concept of contradiction. If one proposition was seen to be in contradictory 
relation with another, then one of the propositions had to be rejected.” As a result, West-
ern cultures have for millennia encouraged thought in terms of right or wrong, nature or 
nurture, public or private, quantity or quality, and good or evil. Though relatively recent 
strands of post-structuralist thought in the West have transcended this dichotomous logic, 
it nevertheless remains awkward for many Westerners to categorize the world in terms 
of right and wrong, good and evil.

The same cannot be said for many Easterners who have inherited blended legacies of 
Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. Indeed, adding without contradiction is entirely 
consistent with and informed by Eastern thought. According to Nisbett (2003, 13), “A 
fundamental of the Eastern stance toward life [is that] the world is constantly changing 
and full of contradictions. To understand and appreciate one state of affairs requires the 
existence of its opposite.” A brief look at both Taoism and Buddhism helps to inform this 
Eastern outlook.

First developed in China roughly 5,000 years ago, Tao represents “the path” or “way” 
of life. Though the path comprehends much (and more than can be expressed in words 
alone), it involves recognizing that, despite appearances, everything is unifi ed. As Watts 
(1994, 46) explained, when we accept the Tao, we are “above and beyond the opposites.” 
Similarly, Buddhism has long taught about fundamental connection; in particular, this 

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



134 • The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010

Cargile

theology provides a detailed account of how people erroneously construct the illusion 
of a separate self on the grounds of union using fi ve skandhas, or psychological elements 
(Trungpa 1993).

Buddhism instructs that duality is a product of the mind, not a quality of nature 
itself. The state of nature is fl uid connection, yet we impose on it a duality in order 
to construct the self out of the non-self. As Trungpa (1993, 73) articulated, “[The ego] 
perceives the ‘other ’ and in a panic perceives itself as another something else across 
from that other.” For example, when an “other” claims to be a victim, the dualistic ego 
hears this as an accusation of being a victimizer and will subsequently seek to defend 
itself. However, Buddhism intervenes on this dichotomy by pointing out its illusory 
nature: The self is not separate and opposed to the other; rather the self and the other 
are one. When others are victimized, so too are we; the natural response of big (or non-
egoistic) mind is compassion, not defense (Suzuki 1970). Thus, following Buddhism, 
adding without contradiction is a dialogic practice that aims to intervene on habitual, 
refl exive opposition to the other. The benefi t is that “when this understanding [of tran-
scending opposition] matures … it creates an inner freedom and spontaneity, a sense of 
being at ease in the world” (Watts 1994, 47). With this brief explanation of the concept 
in place, the practice of adding without contradiction in interracial dialogue can now 
be described more fully.

In Practice: Adding without Contradiction
In the United States, students enter interracial dialogue with some powerfully em-

bodied habits—ways of speaking that consistently undermine their capacity to hear one 
another. One such habit is found in the discourse of assimilation long ago adopted in this 
country (see Horsman 1981). In the beginning, assimilation orientations were perfectly 
obvious in the treatment of “others,” such as American Indians who were forced to attend 
government schools in which they were reclothed, regroomed, and renamed in the colo-
nizer’s image. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, assimilation preferences continued 
to be expressed overtly and were but thinly veiled in practices such as immigration, which 
heavily favored Europeans as stock for the American “melting pot.” With the advent of 
the civil rights movement in the United States, however, such blatantly discriminatory 
conduct was outlawed and the expression of long-established assimilatory desires became 
coded primarily in the discourse of “color blindness.” As Gotanda (1991), Harris (1993), 
and others (e.g., Lewis, Chesler, and Forman 2000) argued, color blindness is a form of 
race subordination in that it denies the history of racialized oppression; it insists that we 
all treat one another as humans when the adopted model of humanity requires that people 
of color assimilate to white cultural norms.

The effect that a discourse of assimilation has on interracial dialogue is to deny differ-
ence. Within this frame, difference is something that, if encountered, should be eradicated. 
It is presumed to undermine national unity; thus, stories expressing themes running 
counter to the cultural grand narratives (e.g., “I pulled on my bootstraps and those suckers 
broke!”) are fi rmly challenged and shouted down. When students refl exively respond this 
way in the classroom—because that is the only model for cultural discourse that society 
has presented them—the promise of dialogue quickly fades.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



The Challenge of Opening Up Interracial Dialogue

The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010 • 135

A second habit that also works against interracial dialogue is the proclivity for debate 
in the United States. In her book, The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words, 
Tannen (1999, 7) rooted out the tendency in Western culture to approach public dialogue 
as a war in which “criticism, attack, or opposition are the predominant if not the only 
ways of responding to people or ideas.” In this environment, fully hearing a discussion 
participant is superseded by the search for “weaknesses” in the “argument” of the “op-
ponent.” As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) famously pointed out, we do not simply employ 
the metaphor “argument is war,” we live by it. Thus, in this context, the challenge of open-
ing up productive and enriching interracial dialogue is considerable. Caught between a 
cultural heritage that presents debate as the means to knowledge (see Ong 1981) and a 
powerful ideology of assimilation, students are not prepared to use interracial dialogue 
as an opportunity to heal deep wounds and increase awareness. It is the job of educators 
to prepare them for dialogue; adding without contradiction is a dialogic practice that can 
be used toward this end.

So what, specifi cally, is the practice of adding without contradiction and how does it 
help improve dialogue? I introduce the concept in a course on intercultural communica-
tion when talking about Christopher Columbus. Within the U.S. cultural grand narrative, 
Columbus is presented as the daring explorer who discovered America. Alternatively, he 
is also described, signifi cantly less often, as a conquistador who succeeded in exploiting 
native peoples and their land. Led by their habits of dichotomous logic, assimilation, and 
argument, students typically will argue about which description of Columbus is correct. 
Is he a hero or a villain? Before the debate breaks out, however, Loewen’s (1995, 70) de-
scription of the man is offered and explained: “Columbus’s importance in history owes 
precisely to his being both a heroic navigator and a great plunderer.”

This example helps students to appreciate that what is true depends on one’s point of 
view: From the point of view of Europeans, Columbus discovered a new land; and from 
the point of view of Native Americans, his arrival marked the beginning of oppression. 
Both of these powerful truths exist simultaneously; one does not exclude the other. Though 
most students can appreciate this sort of subjectivist epistemology intellectually, they do 
not practice it. Thus, students engaged in such discussion are encouraged to “add without 
contradiction” by adopting the simple habit of saying “and” instead of “but.”

 Throughout the semester, whenever one student rebuts another, they are challenged 
to say “and.” For example, instead of replying to the comment, “My parents didn’t have a 
chance to learn English when they arrived” with “But my mother enrolled in ESL [English 
as a second language] courses when she came here,” students are encouraged to say, “And 
my mother enrolled in ESL courses when she came here.” In this instance, “and” interjects 
a subjectivist epistemology into the dialogue by creating plural realities for the immigrant 
experience: Some immigrants to the United States have the resources to quickly develop 
a profi ciency in English, and others do not. Students need reminders that human faces 
are the same and human faces are different.

A second way the practice is introduced is through use of a card-game metaphor. 
Because of the habit of argumentation, students are well-practiced in “trumping” one 

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



136 • The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010

Cargile

another ’s stories—using one account to negate another. For example, whenever an 
experience of “driving while black” is shared, it is regularly met by a white person’s ac-
count of equally intense or suspicious treatment by police. Using Grice’s (1989) Maxim 
of Relevance—which declares all shared comments relevant to the conversation—it 
is explained how the second account functions to trump the fi rst. The second story of 
police mistreatment relates to the fi rst by rebutting the explicit claim of racism with the 
implicit claim of racial equality—we are all actual or potential victims of police miscon-
duct, regardless of race. However, instead of habitually positioning our experiences as 
competing claims about reality, as with Columbus, these two seemingly contradictory 
truths coexist: For some, race plays a role in how we are treated by police (i.e., “being 
black in the wrong neighborhood”) and, for others, it does not (i.e., people are mistreated, 
despite being white). Thus, the task in interracial dialogue is to create space in which this 
multiplicity of truths can be expressed; instead of using cards to trump one another, we 
need to simply “lay them on the table.”

When we learn to tell our stories both authentically and in a manner that does not 
deny or minimize the experiences of others, the conversation opens up. As one student 
related the following:

I am a fi rm believer in adding without contradiction. … As we began our class 
discussions and I listened to people talk, I began to understand exactly how it worked. 
In one word I was thankful because it validated each and every person’s response and 
created an equal playing fi eld.

Despite this success, sharing personal narratives without shutting out others is 
never an easy practice when we embody habits based in argumentation. Participants 
need skillful and regular guidance in this practice. Students need help in unpacking their 
stories because, despite their understanding and intentions, students are on a course 
to trump one another. For example, one white student, eager to show his peers that he 
identifi ed with them, followed up a story of hardship told by a student of color with 
his own account of poverty. Unfortunately, because he told it in the refl exive style of 
“white people are poor too!,” some peers began to roll their eyes; all they heard was 
another account justifying the racial status quo. Sensing this, an intervention whereby 
he was asked to personalize his experience while avoiding generalizing was attempted. 
As a result, the unexpressed enthymeme “people are poor regardless of race” became 
the expressed story, “I especially hear you because, adding without contradiction, I am 
poor as well.”

As illustrated in the preceding example, one specifi c technique that often encourages 
stories to be heard in a spirit of addition rather than contradiction is personalization. 
Similar to the concept of an “I statement” (see Burr 1990) in which a speaker takes own-
ership for his or her remarks, personalization entails prefacing stories with the speaker’s 
location in social space and emphasizing the singularity of the experience. In this way, 
personalization helps to “contain” the speaker’s story, thereby allowing room for others 
to add without contradiction. One student commented:

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



The Challenge of Opening Up Interracial Dialogue

The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010 • 137

I think that by framing our experiences and marking them as just ours is very 
important. I have learned a lot by speaking in this way. Also, when I listen to other 
people’s stories, I am able to mark them as well and know that that was their experience 
and it is okay if I have a different viewpoint/experience in the same situation.

As described thus far, adding without contradiction is a conversational frame that 
allows dialogue participants to express a multiplicity of cultural truths. The strategy 
succeeds by simultaneously creating space for much needed “back talk” (hooks 1989; 
Warren 2000) and minimizing reactionary defensiveness. In the words of one student, “I 
seriously think that this approach encouraged students to tell their story more, and it also 
acted as a barrier to prevent other students from attacking their point of view.” Indeed, 
the lack of such attacks in a conversation about race was conspicuous to many. As another 
student noted, “I have never taken such an intense class. Hearing other students speak 
on what they believe and somehow not getting into heated discussions was a challenge, 
but somehow the whole class managed.”

In the end, what are participants’ overall impressions of adding without contradiction 
in interracial dialogue? The following are some representative comments:

I used to think that I had to simply pick my battles, when in actuality, I should 
have been looking at the conversation not as a war but as a learning experience. It is so 
easy to shut out unwanted opinions and facts, but the problem with tuning out people 
is that it gets you nowhere. … I think that in order to have a multicultural conversa-
tion, laying the cards out on the table is the only means for success.

I don’t fi nd my blood boiling as much when I hear stories from a dominant group 
member because I have come to understand that this is their experience. … I feel the want to 
understand our world and validate everyone’s experiences while still expressing my own.

This approach would be so helpful. But it is still just not practiced in our conversa-
tions, I think. When we are conscious that we should not trump others, this works well. 
But if we are not really conscious, our old habit still comes fi rst.

By listening to what was said and simply accepting it for what it was, their 
thoughts, I realized I have come a long way in this class. Half the struggle of under-
standing multiculturalism is … simply accept[ing] other people’s points of view.

One of the responses you showed in lecture summed up what this practice taught 
me: “Just listen to my story and believe it is true to me.” As human beings we all just 
want to know that people hear us and believe us when we talk about our experiences.

As these student comments refl ect, adding without contradiction helps intervene 
on the dysfunctional habits often carried into conversation and, thus, enriches the 
capacity of interracial dialogue to heal deep wounds and increase awareness. A second 

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



138 • The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010

Cargile

strategy that also works to unlock the potential of dialogue is granting freedom for 
conclusions.

Granting Freedom for Conclusions
As Buddhism inspired, in part, the idea of adding without contradiction, so too it 

encourages educators to grant students the freedom to draw their own conclusions. The 
Buddhist approach is, at its core, “framed in terms of nondualism … and a stance of non-
judgment” (Berkson 1999, 184). Consequently, by exploring non-judgment in the context 
of interracial dialogue, we have discovered it to mean that no matter how prejudiced a 
participant’s attitude or how antagonistic his or her position, facilitation may be most 
effective when individuals are received for who they are and accepted where they are.

It is unsurprising to recognize that people who choose to facilitate interracial dialogue 
are most often deeply dedicated to social justice. In this position, it is thus natural to encour-
age or even goad others to commit to this deserving platform. As one educator explained, 
“I know the direction I want my students to go. … I want them to develop respect for all 
people. … I want them to confront the moral contradictions in … society. … I want them 
to believe that they, and their society, can change” (Fox 2001, 85). Indeed, we can identify 
with these expressed desires. Even so, experience teaches that pushing any platform, no 
matter how laudable, also engenders friction. As a student once commented, “I’ll decide 
for myself what I believe—not the ‘class dogma’ because it’s artfully presented.”

When participants feel ideologically boxed in, they begin to resist. As Chan and 
Treacy (1996, 217) related, “sometimes students who object to the content of multicultural 
courses do so because they feel pressured to adopt certain principles or beliefs, and so 
these students can become very resistant to class participation.” Experiencing exactly this 
sort of unwillingness, implementing a non-judgmental stance to facilitation succeeds in 
opening up the classroom conversations about race.

In Practice: Granting Freedom for Conclusions
This process must begin fi rst by learning to recognize our own implicit biases. I, as 

a biracial individual with both the educational background and personal equanimity to 
shoulder tough inquiries into the U.S. racial morass, realized that I embodied a refl exive 
critique of those positioned in the ideology of “whiteness.” In deconstructing this refl ex, 
I discovered a metaphorical distance between myself and some of my students: Some 
inhabit social spheres in which critical inquiry into race is punished and, moreover, life 
experiences may have robbed their personal strength to take on challenges such as this. 
As a result, I realized the futility in expecting others to respond to racism in the ways 
familiar only to myself; indeed, we all walk very different paths before meeting.

With recognition of the differences and a commitment to honor the distances between 
myself and my students, I began enacting non-judgmental facilitation—most powerfully 
through nonverbal communication and most typically with stories demonstrating my 
role in the dialogue. I explained to students that there are no “right” answers or “correct” 
actions to be uncovered; instead, as with the idea of multiple truths, there are multiple 
answers to each of our situated predicaments dealing with race. Though I had drawn 

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



The Challenge of Opening Up Interracial Dialogue

The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010 • 139

my own tentative conclusions, they are not necessarily conclusions that anyone else will 
draw; instead, each of us must take on the diffi cult work of deciding what answers work 
best in our own lives.

To illustrate these ideas, consider that while both of my maternal grandparents were 
born in the United States to Mexican immigrant parents, each chose a different way of 
being Mexican American. Grandfather took an accommodating and sometimes segregat-
ing outlook on life surrounded by European Americans; he spoke in Spanish and often 
of the spirit of la raza (the race). On the other hand, Grandmother assimilated to such a 
degree that, despite her lineage and native Spanish abilities, she did not consider herself 
Mexican American. Who chose the “right” way out of the racial dilemma in which you are 
an “other” in your own land? There is no answer that is correct for everyone; thus, we can 
salute Grandfather for making the choices that were right for him, as well as Grandmother 
for acting as she best knew how. As such, the frame of this story from my personal history 
helps demonstrate to participants my specifi c role in the dialogue—namely, to grant them 
the freedom to draw their own conclusions.

Approaching facilitation without judgment is incredibly liberating (you do not have 
to have all of the answers!), though accepting people where they are remains a great chal-
lenge. One student commented:

Too many times the professors in college want students to live under their beliefs, 
without considering some students have experienced many different things. ... Trying 
to change people is not the way for them to blossom into better people; change comes 
gradually with life and experiences.

So, what happens when a facilitator embodies non-judgment? At the outset, students 
notice—particularly those who adopt a conservative ideology. In the words of one such 
student, “I enjoyed the fact that you were not a hardcore liberal teacher jamming your 
ideology down our throats.” In instances like this, a stance of non-judgment mitigates 
resistance built into traditionalist discourse about multiculturalism and encourages par-
ticipants to stay otherwise engaged. One student confessed:

I know what I know and I am not afraid to … stand up for what I think is cultur-
ally right. … [Yet,] I don’t want to be naïve anymore, so I am glad that I am able to 
think through things without people pushing their beliefs on me.

In addition to mitigating resistance, granting freedom for conclusions has had the 
unexpected effects of stimulating additional dialogue, as well as critical thought. Because 
of the emphasis on the social responsibility of collecting lots of evidence on which to base 
conclusions, participants often are eager to survey the cultural landscape and hear others’ 
stories. Several students shared:

Reaching my own conclusions I’ve found is key. Sometimes it’s hard not to become 
enwrapped in what my surrounding environment believes, especially when those 
I’m around are all intelligent and cultured individuals. But taking a piece from each 

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



140 • The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010

Cargile

student who shared has helped me to form and mold my own opinions about multicul-
turalism and diversity.

I really like the fact that I am encouraged to draw my own conclusions and beliefs, 
rather than having to believe what my peers or instructor believes. It really gives us a 
freedom that we all have but might not always be aware of. And through this, I believe, 
we learn more because we are more open to question things and look at all answers 
before we, ourselves, decide what it is exactly that we believe.

The idea of reaching my own conclusions defi nitely scared me at fi rst because I was 
afraid that I would make conclusions that were not the “right” ones. … [However,] I 
now feel empowered. Now, I am gaining more awareness of the choices I make, about 
what to believe or not believe.

As these comments reveal, facilitators who grant participants the freedom to be who 
they are and to judge things for themselves may experience the emergence of open and 
dynamic conversations about race.

Conclusion
This essay began with the question, “What can educators do to minimize the risks 

inherent to interracial dialogue?” Though no such meaningful conversation ever will be 
without risk, two specifi c strategies are offered here that can help foster open classroom 
climates: adding without contradiction and granting freedom for conclusions. Both 
of these strategies intervene on several dysfunctional habits we enact in conversation 
and, thus, enrich the capacity of interracial dialogue to heal deep wounds and increase 
awareness.

References
Baldwin, J. 1963. A talk to teachers. The Saturday Review, December 21: 42–44.
Berger, M. 1999. White lies: Race and the myths of whiteness. New York: Farrar, Straus & 

Giroux.
Berkson, M. 1999. Buddhist–Christian dialogue: Promises and pitfalls. Buddhist–Christian 

Studies 19(1): 181–86.
Burr, W. R. 1990. Beyond I-statements in family communication. Family Relations 39(3): 

266–73.
Carr, A., and L. A. Zanetti. 1999. Metatheorizing the dialectic of self and other. American 

Behavioral Scientist 43(2): 324–46.
Chan, C. S., and M. J. Treacy. 1996. Resistance in multicultural courses. American Behavioral 

Scientist 40(2): 212–21.
Davis, L. E., and E. K. Proctor. 1989. Race, gender, and class: Guidelines for practice with indi-

viduals, families, and groups. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fishman, S. M., and L. McCarthy. 2005. Talk about race: When student stories and multi-

cultural curricula are not enough. Race, Ethnicity and Education 8(4): 347–64.
Fox, H. 2001. When race breaks out: Conversations about race and racism in college classrooms. 

New York: Peter Lang. 

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



The Challenge of Opening Up Interracial Dialogue

The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010 • 141

Gillespie, D., L. Ashbaugh, and J. DeFiore. 2002. White women teaching white women 
about white privilege, race cognizance and social action: Toward a pedagogical prag-
matics. Race, Ethnicity and Education 5(3): 237–53.

Gotanda, N. 1991. A critique of “our constitution is color-blind.” Stanford Law Review 
44(1): 1–68.

Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harris, C. 1993. Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review 106(8): 1709–91.
Hewstone, M., and R. J. Brown. 1986. Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective 

on the “contact hypothesis.” In Contact and confl ict in intergroup encounters, ed. M. 
Hewstone and R. J. Brown, 1–44. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Higginbotham, E. 1996. Getting all students to listen. American Behavioral Scientist 40(2): 
203–11.

hooks, b. 1989. Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Cambridge, MA: South End 
Press.

Horsman, R. 1981. Race and manifest destiny. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hytten, K., and J. Warren. 2003. Engaging whiteness: How racial power gets reifi ed in 

education. Qualitative Studies in Education 16(1): 65–89.
Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press.
Levine-Rasky, C. 2000. Framing whiteness: Working through the tensions in introducing 

whiteness to educators. Race, Ethnicity and Education 3(3): 271–92.
Lewis, A. E., M. Chesler, and T. A. Forman. 2000. The impact of “colorblind” ideologies 

on students of color: Intergroup relations at a predominantly white university. Journal 
of Negro Education 69(1–2): 74–91.

Loewen, J. W. 1995. Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got 
wrong. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Marx, S., and J. Pennington. 2003. Pedagogies of critical race theory: Experimentations 
with white preservice teachers. Qualitative Studies in Education 16(1): 91–110.

Miller, J., and S. Donner. 2000. More than just talk: The use of racial dialogues to combat 
racism. Social Work With Groups 23(1): 31–53.

Min, E. 2001. Bakhtinian perspectives for the study of intercultural communication. Journal 
of Intercultural Studies 22(1): 5–18.

Nakagawa, G. 1987. Why must you reopen old wounds? Disfi guration, refi guration and 
healing in stories of Japanese American internment. Paper presented at the Western 
Speech Communication Association annual convention, February, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Nisbett, R. E. 2003. The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently … 
and why. New York: Free Press.

Ong, W. J. 1981. Fighting for life: Contest, sexuality, and consciousness. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 
University Press.

Pettigrew, T. F. 1998. Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49(1): 65–85.
Rich, M. D., and A. C. Cargile. 2004. Beyond the breach: Transforming white identities in 

the classroom. Race, Ethnicity and Education 7(4): 351–65.
Simpson, J. S. 2003. I have been waiting: Race and U.S. higher education. Toronto: University 

of Toronto Press.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0



142 • The Educational Forum • Volume 74 • 2010

Cargile

Suzuki, S. 1970. Zen mind, beginner’s mind. New York: Weatherhill.
Tannen, D. 1999. The argument culture: Stopping America’s war of words. New York: 

Ballantine.
Tatum, B. D. 1992. Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial iden-

tity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review 62(1): 1–24.
Trungpa, C. 1993. The development of ego. In Entering the stream: An introduction to the 

Buddha and his teachings, ed. S. Bercholz and S. C. Kohn, 73–82. Boston: Shambhala.
Warren, J. W. 2000. Masters in the fi eld: White talk, white privilege, white biases. In Racing 

research, researching race: Methodological dilemmas in critical race studies, ed. F. W. Twine 
and J. W. Warren, 135–64. New York: New York University Press.

Watts, A. 1994. Talking Zen. New York: Weatherhill.
Williams, D. G., and V. Evans-Winter. 2005. The burden of teaching teachers: Memoirs of 

race discourse in teacher education. Urban Review 37(3): 201–19.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
C
a
r
g
i
l
e
,
 
A
a
r
o
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
8
:
4
0
 
2
6
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0