Ending Racism in America,
One Conversation at a Time

by Nancy Good Sider and Cheryl Talley

You could see it in their faces. A group of about forty, mostly white people who had been mandated by their employer to spend eight hours in diversity training. There were very few like Sarah, a woman in her seventies who works part-time. "I just like learning new things. Every day there is something new to learn if you're open for it," she said with a radiant smile. However, there were also a few like Hal. "They have been forcing these meeting on me for years but it's just a waste of my time and their money. I'm tired of hearing about how bad THEY have it. 'Quit whining and get off your butt,' is what I say." Then there are the majority: looks of apathy. Looks that said, "What does this have to do with me? After all, I'm not prejudiced. I can work next to anybody, doesn't matter what color they are: red, green, black, white or blue----as long as you do your job, I don't even see color."

After decades of effort, civil rights legislation, mandated busing, and magnet schools, the problem of racism is still with us and it had gone underground. E.B. Dubois said in the early 1900’s that the greatest problem in America was the color line. Spoken in the days of segregation, those words were easier to understand. In the 21st century, there are no "colored" and "white" signs. We have words of equal access and laws banning segregation. Yet for many, the color line is more entrenched now than ever.

Much of our work in conflict transformation is done within settings where the warring parties have at least come willingly to the table. What keeps racism so deeply entrenched in the 21st century America is that the parties are not at the table. In fact, some think there doesn't even need to be a conversation at the table. "Why can't we just get along?" "We've made so much progress, why can't you people talk about that." "It used to be about fairness but now they want to give jobs to unqualified people; I don't think that is fair." These represent some of the many comments we hear. In the face of statistics that belie equal opportunity, fair housing, parity in education etc, feelings like these underscore the need for open dialogue. The question is How?

Dilemma #1: How does one attempt to build community when the groups are not communicating? One key aspect of conflict transformation is about the restoration of trust in a broken relationship. A context is created in which the parties are free to share their stories and to begin to hear the other's stories with (hopefully) a new set of ears. Conversations around race often don't focus on a single event or action on the part of the parties but a prevailing attitude or set of beliefs. These internalized "truths" are not without emotional attachment, so that stories of discrimination often evoke unresolved bitterness or blame. The communication is often offered in a monologue or debate rather than a true dialogue.

Dilemma #2: When we are finally able to establish the beginnings of a conversation, the next challenge is to identify the problem. In conflict transformation the conflict can usually be identified easily and therefore both parties can eventually agree on the main problem and begin to work towards mutual options. However, in conversations around race, we find that the participants often become defensive. When an identity is threatened the result is denial and resistance, similar to Hal's attitude described above. "If people would just focus on what we have in common, we would see that it's just a 'perception' that we have a race problem here; it's really not real at all." Studies show that most minority people feel that race relations in America are in many ways worse than during segregation, while most of the white majority say there is no problem with race. There lies the problem.

Dilemma #3: How to invite people from diverse race communities to share their stories when so much pain and broken trust abounds? One important paradox of trauma healing is to realize that 'in order to forget, we need to remember.' From our perspective as facilitators of diversity training, the largest impediment in race relations is for the majority of white people to acknowledge their role in the past. We don't mean those people that acted on their racists views but the vast majority that gave silent and therefore complicit agreement to the belief "We are better than them."

Our work has convinced us that there are no quick solutions
to problems rooted in 400 years of oppression and denial.

We can learn important lessons from South Africa's struggle to move on after apartheid. Bishop Tutu in his book, No Future Without Forgiveness, argues that true reconciliation cannot be achieved by denying our past. We need to hear the truth and then work towards steps of reconciliation. This truth telling occurs person-to-person, each one telling and listening to the other's pain, sorrow, acknowledgement, confession and apology. The challenge is to encourage these conversations.

Our work has convinced us that there are no quick solutions to problems rooted in 400 years of oppression and denial. In our view, eight hours of diversity training only serve to expose the problem. Solving the problem will take much more effort. In Henri Nouwen's book, Reaching out (Moving from hostility to hospitality), he states that perhaps our goals as facilitators should "not be to change people but to offer them space where change can take place." Creating this space, this context where change can take place, is a much more realistic goal for diversity training facilitators. It is also a goal that can be accomplished outside of the workplace environment by any group of committed individuals.

The First Baptist Church of Richmond, Virginia was founded in 1780 during the Revolutionary War and masters and slaves worshipped there together. By 1841 the number of slaves outnumbered the number of masters in the congregation. That year the slaves were given the building, which was called the First African Baptist Church of Richmond and a new church was erected for the white parishoners. For the last 159 years the two churches have been primarily racially segregated. Dr. James Flaming, pastor of First Baptist felt that God was directing him to invite the deacons of each church to begin praying together. Continued prayer and conversations with the Rev. Dennis Thomas of First African Baptist Church led to this official "affirmation," according to Dr. Flaming. On Palm Sunday of 2000, the pastors will each preach at the other's church. Dr. Flaming says that this reunion will express the fact that we are "brothers and sisters in Christ. There are ways that we can help each other, teach the other and to minister to the city." The initial conversations between these two pastors will expand to include each of the more than 5000 combined members. These churches are creating a space where change can take place.

We believe that true reconciliation can only occur when people come to the conversation voluntarily and with a willingness to change. This kind of willingness to change must include a willingness to forgive and be forgiven, to absolve and to repent. Perhaps then, it is the church and not the workplace that is the more appropriate place for ongoing conversations on issues of race reconciliation. The context of church invites the presence of God and the goals become not more efficient production but an authentic believer practicing their faith in the real world.

If First Baptist Church and First African Baptist Church are courageous enough to begin this dialogue, we can only pray that they continue this effort at the personal and institutional levels. Taking on this challenge will not be easy. However, we remain hopeful that if there is a solution to racism, it will occur one conversation, or perhaps one congregation, at a time.

Nancy Good Sider, a CTP professor, and Cheryl Talley, a psychology professor at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, model diversity as they work together leading workshops on racism and diversity issues.