The Program on Intergroup Relations (IGR)

    Overview

    The Program on Intergroup Relations is an interdisciplinary program that brings together faculty and staff from a broad range of academic backgrounds. The Program was founded in 1988 and incorporated research, theory, and practice from intergroup relations, sociology, psychology, and higher education student development to develop an innovative content and pedagogical approach called intergroup dialogues.

    As a partnership between the College of Literature, Science and the Arts (LSA) and the Division of Student Affairs (DSA), IGR attempts to break down traditional barriers between academic programs and student affairs programs to create environments that integrate cognitive and affective learning. In doing so, the Program attempts to provide models of educational structures which effectively integrate the classroom and life experiences of students. IGR occupies a unique niche in higher education and, even more specifically, in large research universities. The Program’s innovative and experimental curricular offerings as well as its structure, governance and funding reflect its mission, philosophy, and values.

    Intergroup dialogues are at the core of IGR’s development and its most innovative contribution to education concerning intergroup relations. Intergroup dialogues emerged within a specific socio‐political context that began with the civil rights movement, the peace movement, the feminist movement, the gay rights movement and the disability rights movement. That is to say, it has its basic roots both in higher education and in broader trends of the second half of the 20th century in U.S. society.

    Origins of Intergroup Education

    Within higher education, the foundation of intergroup dialogue pedagogy rests on the rich history of social science research into issues of race, gender and social class relations. Allport, Stephan, Dovidio, Gaertner, Steele, Chesler, Gurin and numerous other scholars have examined the ways in which historic and contemporary forms of inequality at the societal and institutional level find their expression in individual identities, group relations, alternative group cultures and experiences, intergroup communication, and group struggles for social change. Of course, this intellectual tradition was also influenced by and in turn influenced historical and contemporary social movements, such as those for civil rights, gender equity, peace, gay rights and others.

    Likewise, intergroup dialogue pedagogy is strongly influenced by the progressive education philosophies that sought to transcend traditional forms of lecture‐based and classroom‐based education. Building on the 20th century visions of educators/activists such as John Dewey, Paulo Freire and Myles Horton, these experiential pedagogies sought to educate the “whole person.” They emphasized learner‐centered pedagogy that underscored personal experiences as significant to meaning-making. Of course, many of these ventures in higher education sprang from student demands and innovations. Student protests for new forms and foci of their own education led to opportunities for early efforts at engaged pedagogy. These efforts were supported by student leadership models created in student affairs, sometimes in reaction to traditional faculty models.

    Developments in the corporate arena are also crucial in this history. Many corporations and government agencies, and many towns and communities across the U.S., initiated “human relations training” or “sensitivity training” or “prejudice reduction” programs that sponsored some sort of intergroup communication and interaction as a pathway to greater understanding and less tension in the workplace and in community relations. In the 1970s Barbara Walker, at Digital Equipment Corporation, created “core conversation groups” as part of a “valuing differences” strategy. Some organizations sustained these relatively informal intergroup conversations and even some intergroup problem‐solving agendas. Many of these, of course, also grew from the racial turmoil that occurred within and outside these organizations. When “diversity” surfaced as a popular term for this agenda, “diversity training” followed quickly. In some cases it flowered into efforts at progressive social change in organizations and communities; at other times and places, it retreated to become “political correctness” — talk with little if any action.

    In the 1960s and 1970s, semi‐organized student intergroup conversations sprang up on many colleges and university campuses across the nation, some a reaction to student racial insurgencies that paralleled broader community political challenge. Some took the form of student‐ organized efforts, perhaps with the support of an innovative faculty member or student affairs staff member. Some derived from faculty members generating courses, a program, or a research community of a conceptually and pedagogically innovative character, and perhaps even continuing such a venture in their living rooms.

    Many conversations were generated by student services personnel, operating through student clubs, a series of inter‐fraternity or inter‐sorority events, a workshop or short seminar, a discussion group or perhaps a program in a dormitory lounge.

    Throughout this period, college administrators began increasingly to attend to the possibilities posed by student interest in these matters. Administrative concerns around campus diversity issues were sometimes driven by a need to calm student distress and protest against campus racism and sexism. At the University of Michigan, President James Duderstadt’s leadership created opportunities for innovative educational practices for diversity. Intergroup dialogues, then, emerged from this era of progressive social change. It grew from informal efforts to increase communication across groups to take shape as “diversity education” and later as “social justice education.”

    Starting on a relatively informal basis in 1988‐1990, a particular combination of several of the above factors, along with faculty innovation and campus leadership, contributed to the generation, maintenance and ultimate institutionalization of the Program. A university and student culture—along with a history of activist concern for an engagement in issues of racial and social equality and justice—was central in creating the commitment to intergroup dialogue. Faculty and staff members prepared to act on their own scholarly and activist concerns, and to lead or support student interest in these matters. Founders included David Schoem, Mark Chesler and Luis Sfeir‐Younis, all faculty members in the Sociology Department; Ximena Zúñiga, a graduate student in higher education; Ratnesh Nagda, a graduate student in the Joint Psychology and Social Work program; Patricia Gurin, a professor of psychology; and Todd Sevig, a therapist at Counseling and Psychological Services.

    President Duderstadt and other senior administrative leaders put their ideologies, presence and funds on the table in support of campus diversity efforts. Later, other senior leaders also helped to advance the Program, including Dean of Students Royster Harper (now vice president for student affairs), Patricia Gurin in her roles as chair of the Psychology Department and interim dean of LSA, LSA Dean Shirley Neuman and LSA Dean Terrence McDonald.

    Organization and Structure

    At its core, IGR is founded on the belief that through systematic instruction, interaction, and dialogue, it will be able to prepare learners (both students and instructors) to assist in the building of more just communities. Key to this philosophy is a set of values, which include sharing power and decision‐making, collaboration, self‐reflection (as individuals and as an organization), and on‐going commitments to challenging hierarchies and power dynamics that reinforce traditional boundaries within society and the university. At the same time, its existence within a hierarchical and discipline‐oriented institution requires an acknowledgement of the traditional university structure power and the commitment to work within it.

    A commitment to these values has led to the development of a partnership between LSA and DSA, which has been critical to achieving the Program’s mission and goals. By firmly rooting itself in LSA and DSA, the Program acknowledges that critical learning and student development takes place both within and outside the classroom. The skills students need to develop as individuals and as members of multicultural communities require a strong connection between their affective and cognitive experiences.

    Program History

    Pilot Program, The Intergroup Relations and Conflict Program (1988)

    IGR began in 1988 as a Presidential Undergraduate Initiative granted to the Pilot Program and to the Program on Conflict Management Alternatives (PCMA) in the Sociology Department. It was conceived by Mark Chesler and David Schoem. The Undergraduate Initiative (Michigan Mandate) was proposed by President Duderstadt at a time of heightened racial and ethnic tension at the University of Michigan to create a truly multicultural campus. IGR was developed with the purpose of advancing students’ understanding of and respect for diversity, and to increase students’ skills in responding to intergroup conflicts in various settings. IGR was conceived as a curricular-based initiative to be housed in the Pilot Program and fully integrated with student affairs, and was intended to explicitly link formal academic course work with co‐curricular programming as well as students’ social experiences. Although the Program has not been a part of the Pilot Program or PCMA for some time, discussion of each of these programs provide context for the Program’s history.

    The Pilot Program was renamed the Lloyd Hall Scholars Program (LHSP).Located in Alice Lloyd Residence Hall, it is the University’s longest running living‐learning program. LHSP offers courses taught in the residence hall. Students in the LHSP typically take one or two courses in the Program with the remainder from the rest of the University. LHSP courses are typically smaller than traditional courses and focus on the arts, writing, and photography.

    The Program on Conflict Management Alternatives was established in January 1986 by a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and additional funds from the University. The Program supported an agenda of research, application, and theory development. PCMA also established links among other University research and teaching efforts relevant to conflict management alternatives, and maintained liaison and collaboration with similar efforts in other universities and practitioner agencies. PCMA was housed in the Center for Research on Social Organizations in the Sociology Department.

    Since its inception, IGR has worked closely with both academic and student affairs units to develop curricular and co‐curricular activities that address social conflict, intergroup relations, and social justice. It has been the intention of the Program to address these issues within the living‐learning context of student life. Intergroup conflict is understood to encompass issues of gender, religion, nationality, socioeconomic class, physical ability, age, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity.

    The primary innovation of the Program was the creation and execution of “intergroup dialogues” — structured interactions among members of various social identity groups over sustained periods of time. Accompanying the dialogues were workshops, training programs, and other activities. With the support of the Presidential Initiative, LSA faculty and instructors were able to develop several new undergraduate and mini‐courses (which were discontinued due to funding cuts in 1994) and hold a variety of intergroup dialogues.

    New courses included Intergroup Relations and Conflict, Intergroup Conflict and Change, and Ethnic Identity and Intergroup Relations. Mini courses included Latinos in the U.S., Asian‐American Ethnic Identity, Group Skills and Intergroup Relations, and Blacks and Whites in the United States.

    In the first three years of the Program — under the direction of Ximena Zúñiga — IGR expanded through stronger partnerships with LSA, the Office of Minority Affairs (later named the Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives), and University Housing. In 1990, the dean of LSA supported the expansion of the teaching of the introductory course to include several residence halls while funding for the mini‐courses was derived from a second Presidential Undergraduate Initiative and later the Office of Minority Affairs.

    Additionally, IGR built a strong foundation for research. As early as 1989 Luis Sfeir‐Younis and Ximena Zúñiga began to meet with Patricia Gurin, then chair of the Psychology Department, to develop research instruments and test them with students in the introductory course. In 1990 coding schemes and analysis techniques were developed to use in formal and non‐formal courses and dialogue groups. A large field experiment tested the effect of IGR by comparing participants with a matched control who did not take part in the Program. The project took advantage of a campus‐wide assessment conducted by the Office of the Minority Affairs that measured all entering students in the fall of 1990 and followed them through graduation in 1995. All students participating in IGR had previously filled out the entrance questionnaires of the larger study, and IGR selected the matched control from students who had also been measured at entrance. This enabled IGR to control for relevant entrance characteristics when participants and controls were compared at the end of the first year and then again at the end of four years. This research was the basis of expert testimony by Patricia Gurin concerning the educational value of diversity in U-M’s Supreme Court Cases.

    The Program on Intergroup Relations and Conflict (1992)

    By 1991, the intergroup dialogue program expanded beyond the residence halls and diversified and strengthened with financial support from the Housing Division, the Office of Minority Affairs and the Office of the Vice President for Student Services. However, the Program on Intergroup Relations and Conflict (IGRC) experienced much difficulty in developing a comprehensive and integrated curricular and co‐curricular model that could obtain a permanent funding base. Yet, in 1992, the Program was institutionalized as a unit housed under the Division of Student Affairs (DSA) with a permanent general fund budget, which supported professional staff, support staff, and program operations. LSA continued its sponsorship, though less formally. IGRC officially became the Program on Intergroup Relations and Conflict in 1992. In 1993, as a result of the relationship with DSA, IGR moved offices from Alice Lloyd Hall to the Michigan Union in the new Multicultural Portfolio.

    Prior to May 1994, the Program had put neither a mission statement nor program goals in writing. The DSA self‐assessment process gave IGRC staff the opportunity to draft a mission statement and program goals. The document reflected IGRC’s mission and program goals since the Program was institutionalized within the Division of Student Affairs in July 1992: The mission of the Program on Intergroup Relations and Conflict (IGRC) is to educate University of Michigan students about issues of intergroup relations in a global and multicultural context, explicitly focusing on the relationship between social conflict and social justice, by offering and supporting programs and services which facilitate student development and actively promote the building of a multicultural educational community.

    The Program on Intergroup Relations, Conflict and Community (1995)

    Related to expansion and development, 1995 was an exciting year for the Program. In the winter, IGRC changed its name to include “Community,” thus becoming the Program on Intergroup Relations, Conflict and Community. In the same year the Program became further institutionalized through the establishment of co‐director positions in both the Psychology Department (Charles Behling) and the Division of Student Affairs (Todd Sevig, then Teresa Graham Brett). Permanent courses were also established in Psychology and Sociology for the intergroup dialogues, training, and practicum experiences. The Program strengthened its commitment to collaborative teaching by institutionalizing its policy of these three courses being taught jointly by LSA faculty and DSA staff. Support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Pluralism and Unity Program allowed IGRCC to expand and enhance training for facilitators and staff. The Program focused on how community could be created through the dialogue process.

    IGRCC began to formally offer a series of first‐year seminars (known as FIGs: First‐year Interest Groups) in fall 1996. In 1995, FIGs were piloted and educated 50 students. By 1996, between 100 and at least 150 students were served each semester and the courses received their own class numbers. In this context, instructors from various departments offered seminars on different topics relating to social identity and social justice. Each seminar enrolled approximately 25 students, for three academic credits. Instructors who wished to teach in the program applied to their home departments, usually as part of the university’s first‐year seminar program.There were several unique aspects to the FIGs seminars, modeled after a first‐year program at the University of Washington. First the faculty, who represented a variety of disciplines, met together regularly — biweekly during the academic year — to plan the joint activities of the seminars, but more importantly to exchange ideas across disciplines and to support each other in teaching about diversity. This faculty exchange proved to be enormously appealing to the faculty, and in fact seemed a primary reason they were eager to teach in the program. Some faculty reported that these meetings were one of few opportunities for support and networking in teaching social justice courses. In addition to bringing together faculty in a supportive and intellectually stimulating atmosphere, the FIGs program also brought students from the various seminars together for periodic joint meetings. The FIGs program continued in a variety of iterations until about 2008 when the College no longer supported these first year seminar courses.

    In 1997, IGR received recognition for being a “promising practice” by President Bill Clinton’s Initiative on Race. In the same year, IGR hosted a student retreat and formed a new relationship with residential life, expanding the Program’s reach within the University. The first student retreat was held over a weekend as a “capstone” experience for graduating seniors who had been the most active participants in the Program during their undergraduate years. Retreats were held annually for several years.

    An important development in 1997 allowed IGR to reach, at least indirectly, many of the 10,000 students who lived in University residence halls. The University Housing Office invited IGR to develop a new course to be required of all students who were hired as residence staff. Social Psychology in Community Settings was created by Jeannine Bessette, then associate director of residence education, Monita Thompson, then associate director of IGR, and Patricia Gurin, then chair of the Psychology Department. The goal of the course was and still is to prepare students already selected to be resident assistants, academic assistants and diversity peer educators the following year to build effective multicultural communities in the residence halls. During its first iteration in 1998, the course had a standard structure of one two‐hour lecture and a two‐hour discussion each week. By the second year the current structure of three large presentations (lectures, films, simulations) for all 200 students, and one weekly two-and-a-half hour discussion was put in place, with these discussion groups normally comprised of 12 to 16 students in 13 sections. The curriculum for the course has been revised numerous times during its history, although it has always involved readings, videos, in‐class learning activities, written assignments, and presentations. The students have always been exceptionally diverse racially and ethnically, and in other ways as well; typically about 60 percent identify with a racial/ethnic minority group. The course has received enthusiastic evaluations, with ratings typically ranging from 4.5 to 5.0 across the various sections.The course provided a foundational understanding of the dynamics of intergroup relations and applied these to the challenges inherent in building multicultural communities. It was expected that students would take the skills and insights learned in the course to the residence halls as they interacted with student residents and as they planned the co‐curricular programming offered in the residence halls.

    IGRCC was the first program of its kind at any major university and has served as a model and resource for similar programs at other universities. In November of 1997, with funding from the Hewlett Foundation, IGR hosted the Conference on Intergroup Dialogue on the College Campus, bringing together 71 faculty and professional participants from 23 colleges and universities. It was an intensive weekend to explore and discuss issues related to conducting intergroup dialogues on campus, and it served as a catalyst for other universities to consider intergroup dialogue as a valuable tool for diversity education.

    The External Review

    An external review of the Program on Intergroup Relations, Conflict and Community was conducted in 1998‐99 when Patricia Gurin was interim dean of LSA and could, in that capacity, authorize such a review. Gurin commissioned the review to ensure the sustainability of the Program when she would no longer be chair of Psychology, a role to which she returned and remained until 2002. The review committee was comprised of Walter Stephan, professor of psychology at New Mexico State University and the author of the major Handbook of Social Psychology chapters on intergroup relations; Troy Duster, professor of sociology at New York University; and Beverly Tatum, then professor of psychology, University of Massachusetts and now president of Spelman College. They conducted a three‐day review on campus and read materials provided by the Program, and they submitted an overwhelmingly positive report to the Executive Committee of LSA in spring 1999. That report formed the basis for negotiations with the newly appointed LSA dean in 2000, which resulted in on‐going financial support from LSA for a new lecturer position (Kelly Maxwell), a faculty researcher to continue evaluating program outcomes, and GSI positions that would be based on expected enrollments in the Program’s courses. The Program was further institutionalized and now operates as a true partner with DSA and LSA. Further, IGRCC received the Theodore M. Hesburgh Award for Faculty Development to Enhance Undergraduate Teaching in March 2000. Later that year, the U.S. Department of Education recognized IGRCC as a Promising Gender Equity Program.

    The Program on Intergroup Relations (2002)

    In 2002, IGRCC changed its name to the Program on Intergroup Relations (IGR). The next year began with significant staff changes. Monita Thompson became co‐director of the Program, filling the gap left by the departure of Teresa Graham Brett to become dean of students at the University of Texas. Roger Fisher was promoted to Thompson’s former position as associate director. Patricia Gurin joined the Program as research director, bringing with her the energy and perspective of her long career at Michigan. Ixta Menchaca also joined IGR as program assistant, bringing her skills and perspective as a recent graduate and activist, with her “finger on the pulse” of current students. Aaron Traxler‐Ballew continued as a program coordinator and Kelly Maxwell’s position as lecturer and associate director was soon made permanent as well.

    IGR’s first response to the opportunities offered by these staff promotions and additions was to think afresh about its structure and mission. Its leaders asked: In the climate of the new IGR, how can we best organize ourselves as an efficient, lean and strong team? What are the fundamental values and priorities that shape our work? How can we make a genuine contribution to the campus and to the lives of our students, our colleagues, and ourselves? How can we be clearly, wisely and unabashedly idealistic, while still being pragmatic, realistic, and effective?

    A retreat was held early in the year to discuss IGR’s mission. The results were summarized in a mission statement titled “The Promotion of Social Justice through Education.” The statement was helpful in several ways. It provided IGR with clarity and openness about its agenda, stating that “[IGR] unabashedly affirms the value of social diversity, and the fundamental goal of our work is to promote the building of a society in which the basic humanity and rights of all peoples are acknowledged, valued, and empowered.” The statement underscored the Programen rigorous examination of psychological and sociological theories and research as the basis for interdisciplinary academic content. Also emphasized was IGR’s method for contributing to the creation of this society through innovative education in which the classroom and the co‐ curricular lives of students and staff are integrated in a seamless, non‐hierarchical, experiential and challenging fashion. The statement made it clear that IGR was not a value‐neutral program; instead, it stood for equity and diversity. At the same time, it was not politically partisan, but inclusive and empowering toward all voices and all points of view — even those with whom facilitators or instructors may disagree. It asserted that equity and justice could best be served by dialogue in which all voices and all peoples are represented, listened to and respected. This “idealistic mission” aimed to motivate, and adopting it challenged (and continues to challenge) the Program to find a way to make it pragmatic.

    Following the development of this mission statement, IGR reorganized its office to improve efficiency and accountability, initiating a new “chair” system. Each member of the IGR staff served as chair of some division of the Program’s work. While IGR continued to operate by consensus, once the collective established policy and goals, a single individual would be responsible for operationalizing those policies and monitoring their enactment. This restructuring, begun in the fall of 2004, had a major impact on the clarity, efficiency and speed of IGR’s work.

    Following the mission retreat and the restructuring into the chair system, a new Strategic Planning Committee worked on fleshing out the concrete, pragmatic implications of IGR’s newly adopted mission statement. The committee met regularly for several months, first rereading and discussing theories of Intergroup Relations Education, then translating these theories into concrete plans for IGR’s work at Michigan. After this initial committee work, the entire staff began regular meetings to discuss the reports of the Strategic Planning Committee, to revise and improve on the committee’s insights, and to build plans of action.

    The methods of IGR were especially effective in moving students across the first three stages of this continuum and into the fourth. Being clearer about where IGR was positioned on this continuum enabled IGR to be clearer and focused in setting priorities for its work—to serve its ideals, it must “spend” its energy where it is likely to be most effective. This means, however, that it must be more intentional and aggressive in collaborating with other units on and off campus, especially those that focus on the areas of the spectrum where its skills are less developed. “To promote social justice through education” is an academic calling of the highest value. It requires IGR to collaborate, to be efficient, to be effective, and to organize its passions and skills in ways that are wise and pragmatic.

    During this significant strategic planning time for IGR, it also continued to develop its program offerings to fulfill our mission. For example, IGR partnered with Housing Residence Education in 2003 to develop a pilot program for first‐year students in residence halls to engage in diversity learning. This pilot program, held in East Quad, sought to engage students in topical conversations on various social issues related to community building and intergroup relations. Student facilitators received training and ongoing support to lead these groups.

    Another important development was the creation of the Multi‐University Intergroup Dialogue Research Project, which began with initial conversations among colleagues at ten universities in 2003, following the Supreme Court decision on Michigan’s affirmative action cases. These colleagues agreed that collaborating on a multi‐university study of intergroup dialogue should be experimentally based and rigorous to address a limitation in the social science literature that demonstrates the educational value of diversity in those affirmative action cases. These ten universities launched a study that involved randomly assigning applicants to race and gender dialogues to either a dialogue class or a wait‐list control group , administering a survey to both pairs of students at the beginning and end of the academic term in which the course was offered, and again a year later. A subset of the dialogue groups was videotaped during an early, mid, and late session in 10 race dialogue and 10 gender dialogue courses. Students in the videotaped dialogue courses were also interviewed and analyzed. Final papers were content analyzed from all dialogue courses. The first courses and control groups were run in 2006, the last ones in 2009. Altogether more than 1400 students were involved in the study.

    In 2004, IGR created the Patricia Gurin Certificate of Merit in Intergroup Relations to honor seniors who complete significant coursework in intergroup relations with distinction. In the same year, IGR dedicated the Mark Chesler Library Collection. Both celebrate two major champions of IGR’s work who continue to contribute meaningfully to the Program.

    Additionally, at the invitation of the Skillman Foundation, the Michigan Youth and Community Program (under the direction of Barry Checkoway) and IGR submitted a proposal for funding for a pilot year program for convening youth intergroup dialogues on race and ethnicity in metropolitan Detroit. The Skillman proposal was approved in 2005, and matching funds were allocated for the duration of the project from the U-M Provost’s office. The program administrative home was moved from the School of Social Work to the National Center for Institutional Diversity. IGR collaborated to create a curriculum that utilized “near‐peer” facilitators, undergraduate students who co‐facilitate middle and high school students in the Metro Detroit area. Summer Youth Dialogues continue today with additional funding from the Kellogg Foundation.

    The first Intergroup Dialogue National Institute was held in 2006 at the Michigan League. The institute trained faculty and staff from seven universities who wished to create intergroup dialogue programs on their campuses. The development of the Institute was directly in response to consultation requests from universities across the country.

    The Development of CommonGround

    Also established in 2006 was CommonGround, a service that offered programming in residence halls, student organizations, and academic units.

    Because the credit‐bearing Intergroup Dialogue courses were the primary way to become involved, some students had a limited pathway to being exposed to dialogue. At the same time, there was an increasing demand for IGR workshops all across campus and no mechanism to process those requests. Recognizing a larger potential audience that would not sign up for semester‐long courses, IGR launched a co‐curricular initiative in the Fall semester of 2006 and recruited a group of seven volunteer student coordinators to assist in the creation and implementation of the workshop program that became known as CommonGround. In the winter semester of 2007, the program was piloted by recruiting a set of students who were interested in facilitating workshops, training them, and collaborating with units who were interested in an IGR workshop.

    The CommonGround program was very well received by the University community and beyond. In 2008, the Michigan College Personnel Association honored CommonGround with its Cultural Diversity Award, given to programs that characterize “outstanding efforts addressing cultural diversity issues in higher education.”

    The CommonGround Program’s impact on the University of Michigan campus has been three‐fold:

    1. Workshops: Student organizations, individual professors, external offices and programs, and other various members of the University community can request and engage in workshops on topics such as social identity, privilege, oppression and civic engagement.
    2. Facilitation Training: Both graduate and undergraduate students can participate in and lead social justice dialogues outside the classroom.
    3. Leadership Development: CommonGround offers paid and volunteer leadership positions for graduate and undergraduate students to coordinate and implement workshops, trainings and other programs.

    CommonGround workshops have reached many campus constituents. Some examples of units that have requested workshops are LSA’s Office of New Student Programs, DSA’s University Unions, the School of Public Health, LSA’s Summer Bridge program, the Detroit Partnership, United Asian American Organizations, Greek organizations and individual faculty members. The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.

    One of the cornerstones of CommonGround is its development of student workshop facilitators. The workshop facilitators (approximately 40 per year) are trained and supported in numerous ways that are mostly consistent with IGR’s for-credit courses. These training and support mechanisms include a weekend retreat at the start of each semester and sustained support throughout each semester through coaching, one‐on‐one meetings, on‐going trainings, and brownbag lunches.

    The objective of engaging students from the beginning in every aspect of this program was a very deliberate one: Identifying and creating programmatic needs for the students should involve a student voice. By starting with a group of student coordinators, adding student workshop facilitators, and finally a paid student programming team, CommonGround has developed a model of student engagement that has a mutually beneficial consequence for the program and for the students involved. The program benefits enormously from having student leadership who best understand the needs and desires of students involved in the organizing. In turn, the students benefit from the variety of experiences they can have within the program: interpersonally, cognitively, and intra-personally.

    In addition to the workshop facilitators, the program involves a team of volunteer student coordinators. These students manage the program’s operations; they are integrally involved in training, marketing, recruitment, and decision‐making. The University benefits from the efforts of the students and the students leave Michigan with real‐life and marketable work experience.

    The student programming team is a group of five paid students per year (a part‐time graduate intern, three quarter‐time undergraduate program coordinators, and one quarter‐ time work study office assistant). Under the supervision of an IGR program manager, this team serves as the administrative support of the program. They oversee the student coordinator team and the program’s operations, facilitator support, curriculum development, and more. They also have a significant role in archiving the process and compiling reports about the program and their involvement.

    The Global Scholars Program

    In 2006, the Global Scholars Program (GSP) was an innovation proposed for the Residential Life Initiative (RLI) as North Quadrangle Residential Complex was in the planning stages. With support from other units and individuals, especially Peggy Burns in LSA Development, IGR submitted a proposal to develop, nurture, and host a new living‐ learning community until North Quad was built. The RLI committee considered many proposals and it chose Global Scholars (initially known as the World Scholars Program) in 2007.

    The pre‐pilot year to set the stage for GSP began in spring 2007 with Daniel Pak, a lecturer in IGR, hired as the pre‐pilot coordinator. Pak led a GIEU student trip to China in May 2008 as IGR developed pedagogical innovations in international settings. Jennifer Yim, a former IGR GSI, was later hired in fall 2008 as the pilot program director. GSP was housed within the IGR‐LSA reporting structure.

    During the 2008‐09 academic year, GSP entered a non‐residential phase, which included curriculum development and set the foundation for a video‐conferencing course and pedagogical updates to intergroup dialogue content. Input was solicited from several working sessions with a student advisory group comprised of representatives from various aspects of campus undergraduate life. It also included working with Residence Life to hire the first GSP resident advisor for the following academic year and recruit approximately 35 residents for what would be the first year of GSP’s residential experience.

    Among the curricular developments of note was the development of a video-conferenced classroom format that utilized aspects of technology and dialogic interaction to provide students with a unique intercultural experience. Rosina Chia, the first graduate student Patricia Gurin mentored years earlier and a former U-M Barbour Scholar, generously provided training and pedagogical support for this initiative based on the Global Academic Initiatives program she co‐developed with Elmer Poe at East Carolina University. A pilot series of video-conferenced student interactions was run using a group of volunteers who described the experience as an opportunity to “study abroad two times a week without leaving campus.” Three partner institutions were “loaned” to GSP expressly to pilot the technology and pedagogy for what would eventually become the Global Understanding course: University of Jammu (Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir, India), Istanbul University (Istanbul, Turkey), and Moscow State University (Moscow, Russia). This pilot experience offered students exposure to places to where they may not have considered travelling (or which may not be considered safe for foreigners) while technological and pedagogical approaches were refined.

    As preparations for the first year of residence continued, GSP hired its first resident advisor: Robert (Bobby) Poulson‐Houser, a former intergroup dialogue facilitator who had co‐facilitated an international‐U.S. dialogue. Nita Shah was hired as the administrative assistant for the GSP pilot period; her part‐time appointment was approved later that year for a change to full‐time support. For the pre‐pilot year, the GSP office was housed in the basement of the Michigan Union with other IGR staff.

    Jennifer Yim continued to serve as the GSP pilot director from 2009 through 2011.

    GSP moved to East Quad for its first official pilot year with students in residence while North Quad, its intended home, underwent construction. This first cohort of students — 35 undergraduates from all over the world — was enthusiastic and open‐minded. The first official Global Understanding course was offered with video‐conferencing partners at the University of British Columbia’s Anthropology Department (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) and Seoul National University’s English Department (Seoul, Korea). A monthly lecture series was launched, featuring outstanding local speakers with expertise on various global social justice issues. The first GSP end‐of‐year Symposium was held with students showcasing projects they carried out collaboratively in small groups.

    In fall 2010, GSP students were among the first to inhabit North Quad, a nationally noted complex with an innovative design intended to integrate academic and residential experiences. GSP had doubled its student numbers to approximately 70, filling the fourth floor of North Quad. GSP students enthusiastically embraced their new environment and friends while the staff collaborated with University Housing staff to refine residential protocols and join with the Max Kade residential program and the new International Impact Theme Community that comprised the remainder of North Quad residents. Students who had stayed with GSP from the previous year served as peer facilitators for small group projects and discussions. These student leaders were supported with training sessions that utilized elements of intercultural competency training and intergroup dialogue facilitator training.

    In spring 2011, former IGR Common Ground program manager Robbie Routenberg was hired as the GSP associate director, joining Jennifer Yim and Nita Shah as permanent GSP staff. With Routenberg’s considerable talent, the number of GSP students grew to approximately 120 (filling one and a half floors of North Quad) in the 2011‐2012 academic year, and the GSP became its own independent unit, separate from IGR, within Undergraduate Education. Though administratively separate, IGR and GSP maintained close pedagogical connections by promoting a high quality social justice education for undergraduates and innovative collaborative teaching.

    Transitions for IGR

    In 2007‐08, IGR moved its reporting home from the Psychology Department to LSA under Robert Megginson, associate dean of undergraduate education. This allowed for more programmatic attention, oversight and support from the dean. In LSA, IGR reported through Evans Young to the associate dean. IGR learned much in the ensuing years about human resources, financials, and course management, which was largely outside its purview in the Psychology Department. Associate Dean Philip Deloria began his tenure as dean of undergraduate education 2010. Through reorganization, IGR now reports directly to the assistant dean.

    At the end of the academic year 2008, Charles Behling retired as co‐director of IGR. Though this was sad for the Program, Charles remained active as a course instructor and eventually as coordinator of consultation services with other colleges and universities. Kelly Maxwell was promoted as co‐director and Adrienne Dessel was hired as LSA co‐associate director in 2008. Having initially consulted with IGR on the Difficult Dialogues project (described below), Susan King joined IGR in 2010 as outreach specialist. The centralized support from LSA and subsequent hirings allowed IGR to innovate in new ways.

    Concerned about attacks on academic freedom, scholars from across the United States collaborated with the Ford Foundation to offer significant grants to universities willing to tackle the tension between religious freedom and academic freedom. IGR was part of an initial grant made to the University to create intergroup dialogues on religions for our students. IGR offered two dialogues on religions in winter 2007, three dialogues in winter 2008, and a mini‐course on Faith Identities in winter 2007.

    While there were never plans to institutionalize the Faith Identities course, the development of the course was beneficial to the IGR course sequence. Specifically, the course was developed in a way that created teaching modules that have been utilized in the development of parts of other courses, including first-year seminars and the training of facilitators for intergroup dialogue. This has been an invaluable way for IGR to test the experiential exercises developed for the course and modify them for the purposes of other courses.

    Students raised important questions in the first dialogues and the Faith Identities course that have framed thinking about religion dialogues: How can one be part of an academic community where inquiry and evidence are central and still have faith (presumably without confirmable evidence)? What is the basis for morality if one does not have a faith tradition? How can one have a cultural connection to a faith community without believing the tenets of the religion?

    The Ford Foundation noted IGR’s contribution to the first round of Difficult Dialogues activities and requested that it submit a second round application, which was approved. In 2008, IGR formed a Religious Scholars Advisory Committee of Michigan faculty engaged in the topics of religion and/or interfaith issues. IGR also embarked on an evaluation of its religion dialogues, as follows:

    During the 2008‐09 academic year, IGR consulted with the Religious Scholars Advisory Group to revise the Religion dialogue curriculum and add supplementary readings and religious scholarship to the dialogues.

    In fall 2009, winter 2010, and fall 2010, IGR offered 2 versions of the religion dialogue. Participants from one dialogue previously enrolled in either or both Religion 200 or 201, courses that explore a variety of world religions, and also had an ongoing interest in exploring identity development and social justice issues related to religions. The other dialogue consisted of participants who never took Religion 200 or 201 but had an interest in exploring the religious and faith identity issues that the dialogue raises.

    IGR assessed these two versions of the dialogues through pre- and post-interviews and final paper investigation. Students learned to conduct research interviews, develop a coding protocol, code qualitative data and analyze the data. It was expected that students would be invaluable in moving the project forward, given the large amount of data collected, but their involvement also enlivened the project. Their research memos developed new directions in the data analysis and their relationship to the experiences of the research participants (also undergraduates) enabled a deeper interpretation of the data not likely without their contribution — an exciting and unexpected outcome of the project. In 2010, IGR offered a pre‐ Institute workshop on Religion Dialogues ahead of the National Institute that year.

    While Difficult Dialogues allowed IGR to collaborate with an off‐campus foundation, it also developed a campus partnership with the College of Engineering in 2008. Initially IGR offered workshops for the 60 students in Engineering’s M‐Stem Academy, a summer program for first-year students from high schools with less preparation for success in Michigan Engineering courses. IGR’s collaboration was extended to the offering of a full academic course beginning in summer 2011 that has continued every year. The course follows the dialogic practices IGR has developed for intergroup dialogue courses, focusing on how diversity of backgrounds and identities affects teams and groups in engineering education and practice. The MSTEM students are assigned to a summer‐long three or four‐person diverse group that functions in another of their summer courses. Two groups of three or four comprise the IGR course sections that are facilitated by undergraduates and recent graduates trained by IGR.

    After seven Arab and Jewish students worked together through independent study, IGR offered the first Arab‐Jewish intergroup dialogue topic in the fall of 2009. With help and support of IGR faculty and graduate student mentors, the students determined the scope of the dialogue and determined that 1) this was not a religious conflict but rather a geopolitical conflict; 2) Jewish identity was relevant and more encompassing than a more narrow Israeli identity; and 3) a focus on Arab identity was more appropriate than a Muslim identity, since Christian Palestinians are also involved in the conflict. That fall, a $2,000 CRLT Lecturer Professional Development grant was awarded to support research on the dialogue, and students began getting involved in the research project.

    Since then, the dialogue topic was offered in fall 2010, winter 2012, and winter 2013. In those years, 37 students participated, with roughly equal numbers of Arab and Jewish participants, and 35 students participated in the research team. The project widened into the broader campus community through a student group designed to offer continued opportunities for interactions beyond the dialogue course, the Arab‐Jewish Intergroup Relations Student Group. In the spring of 2012 and 2013, the students presented their research to the campus community and shared their experiences in both the dialogue course and the research project. Their successful relationship-building has had a positive impact, as individual leaders of student groups joined together to defuse campus conflict. In 2010, the Program moved from its long‐time home in the Union (actually, staff moved from two Union locations and South Quad) to the Galleria on South University. The move proved to be a successful transition that brought all IGR staff together after several years of physical separation.

    IGR has continued to innovate both within and beyond our intergroup dialogues. In addition to its courses, IGR is actively involved in research, cross-campus and community outreach, and the active dissemination of the intergroup dialogue model through the national Institute and consultations . In 2012, IGR and CommonGround were presented with the Distinguished Diversity Leaders Award for extraordinary commitment and dedication to diversity at U-M.

    Campus-wide and community outreach developed through the opportunity to hire an outreach specialist, Susan King, in 2010. Based on campus requests for collaboration (such as MSTEM) and outreach requests from schools in surrounding counties, in 2010 IGR began to develop models and capacity to do this work.

    The IGR also collaborated with the School of Public Health, which has committed to having every SPH Master’s student take an intergroup dialogue emphasizing identities, health disparities, and action. Utilizing a peer facilitation model and with the leadership of IGR faculty and staff, SPH first piloted dialogues, a training course, and a facilitator practicum during the 2013‐14 academic year.

    IGR has expanded outreach as a significant IGR task as well. In winter 2013, LSA sponsored an ambitious theme semester on Understanding Race, co‐sponsored by IGR. Involving campus, community, and K‐ 12 constituencies, IGR played a lead role in training educators from all 10 schools districts in Washtenaw County to bring students to a central exhibit called “Race: Are We So Different?” and to lead dialogues and trainings for students and teachers in their schools. Along with its collaborative work with Michigan Youth and Communities (as a direct result of its involvement in Summer Youth Dialogues), IGR has also trained teachers and educators from a variety of Oakland County school districts.

    Looking Forward

    Intergroup dialogue in its current incarnation is a rigorous pedagogical enterprise that is deliberately intergroup and intersectional in approach, interactive and experiential in practice, psychologically and structurally informed and focused (micro and macro), cognitively as well as emotionally focused (hearts and minds), sustained, facilitated and committed to exploring informed views of social equality and justice. While intergroup dialogues have developed fully into a model for intergroup understanding, they continue to inform practice in the areas more recently developed. Always focused on its mission, the Program on Intergroup Relations continues to seek new ways to reach students, build content and pedagogical skills, and spread opportunities for intercultural learning to a broader constituency.