The Systemic Justice Project will host its second annual Systemic Justice Conference at Harvard Law School on Friday, April 8 – 10, 2016. Stay tuned for more details.
The fifth and final session of the Criminal Justice Program’s Race, Place, & Policing: What Can We Learn From Baltimore series (cosponsored by the Systemic Justice Project) is this Monday, Feb 29th at 5:30pm in WCC2009.
The session will feature a panel of Baltimore-based advocates who approach criminal justice reform, racial justice, and access to opportunity from several different angles. The panel will include:
- Prof. Douglas Colbert, Univ. of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law
- Natalie Finegar, Deputy District Public Defender for Baltimore City
- Tawanda Jones, West Coalition
- Sonia Kumar, ACLU of Maryland
- Dayvon Love, Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle
- Del. Alonzo T. Washington, Maryland House of Delegates
By Deanna Parrish
As long as we are on earth, the love that unites us will bring us suffering by our very contact with one another, because this love is the resetting of a Body of broken bones. Even saints cannot live with saints on this earth without some anguish, without some pain at the differences that come between them.
-Thomas Merton’s New Seeds of Contemplation, ch. 4 (pp. 71-74)
This semester I had the unique opportunity to facilitate a small group of students in conversations on personal identity and the 1L experience. These “Real Talk” sessions were part of an experiment in dialogue-building at Harvard Law School: the students I worked with constituted one of four facilitated groups, each endeavoring to create a low-risk space for participants to process their experiences, and build understanding across lines of difference.
Our conversations ranged in tone, theme, and topic. The stiffness of the introductory sessions wore off over time, and soon my participants dove into dialogue, asking each other, what is the purpose of conversing with folks who aren’t of the same mind as you? What does productive conversation look like? How is it different from debate? Does Harvard Law School adequately prompt these kinds of conversations? Should it be doing so?
In our final few sessions, our conversations took on a new urgency. As movements and voices soared on college campuses across the nation, we asked ourselves, what is justice? What does it mean to be an activist? What does it mean to be an activist at HLS? Over time, statements became more specific, more personal. The texture of voices changed—the room felt softer and louder, all at once more vulnerable, and more confused.
I do what I do because I’m broken too.
– Bryan Stevenson, Just Mercy
I am drawn to facilitation work because of the amazing things I’ve seen come from human connection. Conflicts resolved and avoided. Emotional breakthroughs. Brainstorming and organizing. Against the backdrop of a legal system that suppresses too many voices, facilitation is the revolutionary work of helping people hear themselves, and hear each other. To do this, third parties—facilitators—are used to bring neutrality and structure to conversations.
Practicing neutrality means letting go of your ego, and your personal stake in the conversation’s outcome—having no preference as to the conversation’s result. However, as our Real Talk sessions increasingly examined student activism and our roles in institutional change, I wondered if I was capable of upholding this central tenet of facilitation. I am not agnostic as to the experiences of Harvard’s community of color. I do have preferences regarding the future of legal education. What is my duty to name these biases, or voice my opinions in the course of facilitation? More importantly, where do my responsibilities as a facilitator end, and my responsibilities as an ally to Harvard’s community of color begin? Some Dispute Resolution thinkers contend that if as a facilitator, you are not entirely neutral, you are guilty of manipulating your participants. As I became increasingly involved in activism in my life outside of Real Talk, I wondered, to what extent was this true of me?
Facilitators are also supposed to own the structure—often referred to as “process”—of meetings. Process can include setting an agenda, developing group norms, and managing any logistical considerations—like an hourglass for grains of sand, process provides form and function to substance. It is process that allows ideas to be articulated and absorbed by the group. While it is not the goal of process to alter substance, it can be a side effect. Different processes can lead to wildly different outcomes. As weeks passed, I questioned if I was shirking my responsibilities as an ally to HLS’s community of color by focusing on, and sticking to, process. Should I operate free of an agenda, and let the group determine where the conversation goes? Am I providing enough space for righteous indignation? For dissent? Are my group members leaving feeling silenced? Are they feeling more broken than whole?
[O]ur brokenness is also the source of our common humanity, the basis for our shared search for comfort, meaning, and healing. Our shared vulnerability and imperfection nurtures and sustains our capacity for compassion.
– Bryan Stevenson, Just Mercy
In the days following our final Real Talk meeting, I read notes of reflection penned by my group’s members. In each note, I saw expressions of pain and passion. Notes in hand, the words of Bryan Stevenson had particular salience: You can’t effectively fight abusive power, poverty, inequality, illness, oppression, or injustice and not be broken by it.
Grappling with our brokenness is a life-long endeavor for those of us committed to working towards justice. We are hurt by what we see, and we see it everywhere. Fractures in our systems, in our laws, in our leaders, in ourselves. It is this brokenness that inspires me to do facilitation work.
There are infinite tools for working towards systemic justice. Dialogue is one. For me, it is both a means to an end and an end in of itself. It can be used for brainstorming, action-planning, organizing. But dialogue is also a space for self-exploration and reflection, whose benefits stand alone. As an institution, we owe it to our students to invest in projects that build dialogue among them. In facilitated dialogue, students are, for a moment, not adversaries, but peers. Not just students, but teachers to each other. Not feeling alone in their brokenness, but in good company.
Dean Martha Minow begins each year by telling incoming students how far and wide Harvard Law School has searched to find the talent present in the student body. You were selected out of thousands of hopefuls, she says. But it is not enough to get a diversity of experience in the door. Once here, we owe our students the opportunity to grow outside of the classroom. Student connection—through dialogue and other means—should be pursued with the same fervor as their recruitment. This radical exercise in listening and learning from others might not only normalize the brokenness in each of us, but also help put us on a collective path towards healing.
In fall 2015 the Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program (HNMCP), in collaboration with the Systemic Justice Project (SJP), launched a joint initiative for Harvard Law School (HLS) students called Real Talk – a series of small group facilitated dialogues and curated events on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The initiative developed from a shared interest of HNMCP and SJP to promote dialogue among HLS students on how legal education can, at times, unwittingly silence student voices and experiences, especially as these experiences relate to identity and personal narrative.
Real Talk is an initial effort to provide a forum for HLS students to learn with and from each other— encouraging genuine conversation around challenging issues, emotions, and narratives that relate to the law, legal systems, and legal education; a forum that promotes an inclusivity and openness that can often become stymied in traditional law school classrooms; and a forum that promotes respect, understanding, curiosity about the other, and a willingness to be “raggedy” even in our deepest moments of difference and dissent. For HNMCP, Real Talk represents the first manifestation of what we hope will be a new, larger dialogue and facilitation initiative. For SJP, Real Talk is part of a general commitment to encouraging conversations about diversity and inclusion in legal education and, more generally, about systemic problems in society.
The pilot program brought together a small number of HLS student participants, trained student facilitators, and faculty advisors in an innovative experiment of facilitated dialogue and open engagement. We were fortunate to recruit four student facilitators who have extensive facilitation training and experience, each having taken the HLS Lawyer as Facilitator and the HLS Negotiation Workshop. These facilitators led small groups of six participants (composed of first and third year law students) in four dialogue sessions throughout the fall semester. These dialogues were bolstered by several events – Fighting Debtor’s Prison in Ferguson, After Ferguson, Baltimore, New York: Strategies for Systemic Change, and On the Battlefield of Merit: the History of Harvard Law School – that served as the basis for two of the dialogue sessions.
The first round of Real Talk was met with decisive gratitude. Participant feedback indicated that the program provided a much-needed environment to express their experiences and perspectives, listen to the stories and views of others, and to share and receive a sense of empathetic understanding. In talking with students throughout the initiative, we developed an even deeper appreciation for how important spaces for authenticity, reflection, vulnerability, and conflictedness are in higher education and legal training.
We also were reminded that creating those fora is typically fraught and complex. Our preparation and review sessions with facilitators highlighted many challenges to creating open dialogue. What is the role of neutrality in facilitating dialogue on equity and inclusion? What might be the role of power and privilege in dialogue facilitation? What impact does the facilitator’s identity have on discussion and how does a facilitator manage them? How does participant composition across identity, background, and status affect the dialogue experience and what are the implications (if any) for convening such groups? We gathered that there is great value in deeper and more nuanced facilitation training at HLS, as well as a great need for HLS students to receive training on engaging in dialogue as a participant. And, as with most worthy experiences, we were pleased to have left with as many questions as “answers.”
Now, we have invited the facilitators from Real Talk – Ariel Eckblad ‘16, Deanna Parrish ’16, Carson Wheet ‘16, and Lindsey Whyte ‘16 – to share their reflections through a series of blog posts. We will publish one blog post from a different facilitator each week. Their posts touch on the themes mentioned above, as well as others, providing an inside look into their experiences, lessons, and questions from Real Talk. We hope that you enjoy these pieces, and that you will join us as we seek to dig more deeply into this important work.
By Robert C. Bordone, Jon Hanson, Jacob Lipton, and Sam W. Straus
 A panel discussion with Thomas Harvey, Executive Director of ArchCity Defenders and Alec Karakatsanis ’08, Co-founder of Equal Justice Under Law.
 A panel discussion with Thomas Harvey, Executive Director of ArchCity Defenders, Chiraag Bains ’08: Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division, Marbre Stahly-Butts: Center for Popular Democracy, and Alec Karakatsanis’08, Co-founder of Equal Justice Under Law.
 A lecture and discussion with Dan Coquillette, Charles Warren Visiting Professor of American Legal History, Harvard Law School.
Systemic Justice Project alums Whitney Benns and Blake Strode have a powerful and vital piece in The Atlantic about 21st century debtors’ prisons in St. Louis, but really about systemic racism. They write:
As the recent deluge of reports and litigation confirms, and many have long known, thousands of people throughout the St. Louis metropolitan area are routinely sent to jail because they cannot pay local court fines and fees. These people are poor, and they tend to be black. While there are many terms to describe this—including, importantly, unconstitutional—there is one with historical resonance reserved for such a practice: debtors’ prison.
Whitney and Blake use the terminology of systemic intent to explode the false dichotomy between individual intent (which is easy to isolate and condemn) and amorphous systems (identification of which as often leads to helpless shrugs as to calls for action):
There is a tendency to understand intent, much like racism itself, as only an interpersonal phenomenon. Bias, both conscious and unconscious, is real and destructive. But the systemic intent at work in a place like St. Louis is more a matter of inertia than personal biases. Like Frankenstein’s monster, the system has a life of its own. Local courts and jails are not rife with injustice and racial disparity because they are staffed with ill-meaning personnel; they exhibit these problems because they are the product of structures and policies designed with racial hostility. That is to say, ultimately, these structures and policies have worked precisely as planned.
Their weaving together of the individual and the systemic reminds us that it is the decades of deliberately racist intent that allows racism today to be hidden “in the seemingly colorblind tedium characterizing the bulk of city affairs.”
The story of the debtors’-prison crisis in St. Louis is partly one of individual failings by local officials and institutional actors whose job security depends on collective indifference to the status quo. But to regard the story solely, or primarily, as one of individual failings is to fundamentally misunderstand the problem itself as well as the structural forces responsible for the design of the region. This design did not emerge last week, last month or last year. It is the many-headed hydra produced by conscious and sustained efforts many decades ago.
I highly, highly recommend that you read the full piece here.
The fourth session of the Criminal Justice Program of Study, Research and Advocacy’s series on Race, Place and Policing: What we can Learn from Baltimore is tomorrow! Andrés Alonso, Professor of Practice at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and former CEO of Baltimore City Public Schools, will be speaking at noon in Pound 100.
Unbound: Harvard Journal of the Legal Left and the HLS Modern Money Network are hosting an event this Friday at noon in WCC1019 called Beyond Sanders and Clinton: Visionary Futures for Democratic Economics. Blurb and Poster below:
Beyond Sanders and Clinton: Visionary Futures for Democratic Economics
There is always an alternative. On Friday, February 19 at noon in Harvard Law School’s Wasserstein Campus Center – Room 1019, three economic visionaries will come to Harvard to challenge students to imagine beyond today’s policy fights and begin envisioning how an inclusive economy could function 50 years from now. Come join:
Gar Alperovitz, co-founder of the Democracy Collaborative and author of America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty and Our Democracy;
Juliet Schor, advisor to the Center for the New American Dream and author ofPlenitude: The New Economics of True Wealth; and
Greg Watson, former Massachusetts Commissioner of Agriculture Director of Policy and Systems Design for the Schumacher Center for New Economics.
HLS SALDF presents their second annual Animal Law Week!
Sponsored by the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Harvard Animal Law & Policy Program
A talk every day, on animal law! TinyURL.com/HLSAnimal
Co-Sponsored with the Harvard Muslim Law Students Association and the Harvard Islamic Legal Studies Program. Featuring Professor Kristen Stilt of Harvard Law School. FREE FALAFEL.
“Legal Protections for Farmed Animals.” Featuring David Wolfson of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP. FREE ITALIAN LUNCH.
“Direct Democracy and Animal Protection.” Featuring Nancy Perry and Kelly Murray of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). FREE CURRY, KALE, AND COLLARD GREENS.
“Animal Rights, Human Obligations.” Featuring Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). INDIAN FOOD.
Friday, Feb. 19, noon–1pm WCC 2004 “Prosecuting Animal Abuse: Common Issues and Hot Topics.” Co-Sponsored with the Harvard Animal Law and Policy Program. Featuring Niki Caferri of the Queens County Animal Cruelty Prosecutions Unit and Scott Heiser of the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF). CHINESE FOOD.
Book Talk: “What can Animal Law Learn from Environmental Law?” Co-Sponsored with the Harvard Animal Law and Policy Program and the Harvard Environmental Law Review. Featuring Randall Abate of Florida A&M University College of Law. FREE TEA, COFFEE, SNACKS.
For details about watching the competitions, or to register, click here: https://law.lclark.edu/centers/animal_law_studies/events/national_animal_law_competition/archive/2016/#Schedule