Skip to main content

Banneker 5 Report 1: Building Community

From its inception, one of the primary aims of the Banneker Institute has been to build community within astronomy that can can be supportive and even nourishing for students of color. To be sure, this is a radical proposition. The field of astronomy and the social structures upon which it is built are extensions of the structures of US society at large. And building off of those structures, solidarity is not a natural outcome.

During previous summer programs, John et al. told the students that they'd like them to be in community with one another, and we even had a pledge that attempted to bring mindfulness to the values that we hoped would help us get there. Things like being greater than the sum of our parts, recognizing that things can get difficult, and standing up for each other when things get tough. This wasn't much to go on, to be honest, and the fact that so many cohorts did form a supportive community is a testament to the strength and good will of the students. Banneker students are great!

While things worked extremely well in the main, there were occasional breakdowns in communal bonds that could be traced back to the people involved not dealing with conflict in a generative, growth-oriented manner. This should come as little surprise because our society offers few opportunities to learn to deal with conflict in good faith. Conflict is a natural and normal outcome when people from different backgrounds and lived experiences gather together in close proximity. There will inevitably be butting of heads, disagreements about the best way of doing things, or unintentional yet hurtful words and actions. Conflict is not the problem. Instead, issues arise when people in conflict rely on the default tools handed to them by society: refusing to talk, whispering behind each other's back, ostracizing, or generally ceasing dialogue in favor of punitive measures.

To reiterate, these negative actions have been rare during the first four summer programs. The larger Banneker community avoids such actions and leans toward open, honest communication as a primary mode, which is admirable and uncommon especially compared to society at large! However, when breakdowns occur, they leave outsize wounds. Saying that conflict is normative and can be addressed differently is easy, doing it is hard. Indeed, it is The Work.

This summer we (Stacey, Duney, John and Vale) are trying something new. Instead of declaring that there will be community, providing a minimal set of rules, and crossing our fingers, we instead endeavor to be much more intentional. During the first week we had a daily, two-hour community building workshop. Vale and John ran the workshop, and we started on the first day with some basic questions: "What do you need from the instructors, mentors, advisors and your fellow students in order to learn most effectively?" and "What has worked for you in the past, and what was sub-optimal when you were learning and working with others?"

After reflecting on the good, the bad, and the ugly of past (mis)adventures in academia, the students shared richly what they had learned. The group collaboratively developed a set of agreements that articulated what they knew about themselves and responded to their needs. Rather than receiving a pledge from above, the students gave us and each other a purpose-drawn blueprint for how to be in community.

Norms like "listen[ing] to each other to understand, not just to respond" and agreeing to "foster a collaborative learning environment by offering information rather than imposing direction" (a.k.a. the abuelita rule) are testaments to their desire for mutual connection. Students also laid the foundation for encouraging self-care with the "free to pee" rule (the freedom to take care of biological needs) and setting the intention to practice a "gentle inclusion" where staying in for a night doesn't mean missing out on invitations for the rest of the summer. Of particular interest to us as educators and scientists is the declaration for collaboration: "We are teammates not competitors; we have learned something once we all understand it". These are radical notions in our individualistic society and even more so in let-me-demonstrate-how-I-am-better-than-you halls of academic science.

Since creating the group norms, the students have introduced them to each new instructor before the start of each topic, thus setting the tone for the classes that follow. Preparing the agreements together was an important way to center the students' knowledge and discover what this cohort means by "community." But, what about some time in the future when sticking to them gets hard, or it seems like one of our fellows has failed to uphold them? Surely these would be the moments for conflict to arise.

We spent the next two days talking about conflict and how to handle it. Cultural norms around punctuality provided a relatively low-stakes difference where it could be easy to have a hurtful misunderstanding. Are we on "American-time" or is it just "time" with the expectation that we will be punctual? How disrespectful is it to arrive late? Does my existential discomfort about our proposed scheduling parameters warrant discussion? even mention? The discussion was as practical as it was revelatory: we agreed on timeliness (with flexibility for self care) and saw how normative difference could be worked through collectively. Raising the stakes meant that we (John and Vale) had to dip into our personal history. In describing moments of tension and discomfort in our friendship and working relationship, we sent a postcard from conflicts future; its message was: come bearing questions rather than accusations and you can make it through.

The lasting efficacy of our strategy will be seen over the course of the summer. However, the space of normalized conflict and demonstrated vulnerability provided by the workshop has already seen this summer's students knit themselves together in beautiful ways. They've already been able to share uncomfortable truths, hold one another when wounded, and push back, gently, but firmly, against each other and us in moments of disagreement. Certainly, difficulty will come, but we are extremely proud of the groundwork the students have laid to face it.

We are the Banneker Institute!

Written by John Johnson and Vale Cofer-Shabica


Popular posts from this blog

back-talk begins

me: "owen, come here. it's time to get a new diaper" him, sprinting down the hall with no pants on: "forget about it!" he's quoting benny the rabbit, a short-lived sesame street character who happens to be in his favorite "count with me" video. i'm turning my head, trying not to let him see me laugh, because his use and tone with the phrase are so spot-on.

The Long Con

Hiding in Plain Sight ESPN has a series of sports documentaries called 30 For 30. One of my favorites is called Broke  which is about how professional athletes often make tens of millions of dollars in their careers yet retire with nothing. One of the major "leaks" turns out to be con artists, who lure athletes into elaborate real estate schemes or business ventures. This naturally raises the question: In a tightly-knit social structure that is a sports team, how can con artists operate so effectively and extensively? The answer is quite simple: very few people taken in by con artists ever tell anyone what happened. Thus, con artists can operate out in the open with little fear of consequences because they are shielded by the collective silence of their victims. I can empathize with this. I've lost money in two different con schemes. One was when I was in college, and I received a phone call that I had won an all-expenses-paid trip to the Bahamas. All I needed to d

Reader Feedback: Whither Kanake in (white) Astronomy?

Watching the way that the debate about the TMT has come into our field has angered and saddened me so much. Outward blatant racism and then deflecting and defending. I don't want to post this because I am a chicken and fairly vulnerable given my status as a postdoc (Editor's note: How sad is it that our young astronomers feel afraid to speak out on this issue? This should make clear the power dynamics at play in this debate) .  But I thought the number crunching I did might be useful for those on the fence. I wanted to see how badly astronomy itself is failing Native Hawaiians. I'm not trying to get into all of the racist infrastructure that has created an underclass on Hawaii, but if we are going to argue about "well it wasn't astronomers who did it," we should be able to back that assertion with numbers. Having tried to do so, well I think the argument has no standing. At all.  Based on my research, it looks like there are about 1400 jobs in Hawaii r