Finding Common Ground at Waterford Kamhlaba
There's a misconception about UWC. I think many of us held it before arriving here. The misconception is the idea of like mindedness. Many of our National Committees have leaned into this idea. The new idea of ' deliberately diverse' has come to mean liberal students who are passionate about politics, social justice, the environment. Students who are politically correct, try to cut down on meat consumption, want 'the UWC experience' . That's fine. I think that described me pretty well. But that wasn't the original purpose of UWC. Kurt Hahn didn't want to gather a bunch of kids from different countries who all thought the same - he wanted conflict. He wanted to gather people with fundamentally different values, stick them in a pressure cooker of an environment, and watch what happened. I think some of us have lost that guiding philosophy of UWC.
At WK, there's an annual event for the IB1s called 'Common Ground.' It's mandatory - it takes place on a Saturday from 8 am to 6 pm, and covers everything from race, gender, and sexual orientation, to religion and socioeconomic status. It's an intense day. The point is to make you deeply uncomfortable. Like many events at Waterford, I can appreciate the intent while criticising the outcome. Some of the activities were pretty basic - the privilege race, where you stand in a line and take a step forward or back when certain sentences apply to you. 'Step forward if you've never had to look at price tags.' 'Step back if the colour of your skin has disadvantaged you.' At the end, we looked about at our hundred odd classmates to see where we all were. After every activity, we went back to pre-assigned small groups to discuss the outcome with a facilitator.
Some activities were much more difficult. We were split into races (the split was problematic - they identified four races of white, black, Asian, and mixed race. Some people ended up in mixed race by default, while the Asian group looked slightly bemused by being categorised as a single race.) We would then leave the room in our racial group and brainstorm words or phrases to describe our race. As white people we had descriptors like 'takes up space.' 'arrogant.' 'uncultured.' Back in the room, the other three groups listed stereotypes about white people. After fifteen minutes or so, we came back into the hall and stood on the stage while the stereotypes were read aloud. We were asked to make eye contact with the audience. The thing was, many of the stereotypes aligned pretty closely with what we had said about ourselves. 'Noisy.' 'Colonisers.' 'Can't dance.' 'Doesn't like spice.'
We then repeated the exercise with the other groups. I had never done something like this before - at old schools, something like this would have been met with shock. The scene of a group of black people on stage, as ugly stereotypes are read aloud is a shocking one. Making eye contact with my black friends on stage as words such as 'Violent.' 'Oppressed.' 'Malevolent.' are read aloud was hard. It was uncomfortable. It felt unacceptable. When we discussed it afterwards in our small groups, we mostly agreed that the exercise had been valuable, that the act of assigning the faces of friends to the stereotypes we hold was a step in the right direction of dismantling them.
An exercise that I and many of my queer friends took issue with was one regarding safety in the LGBTQ+ community. We were all asked to 'pretend' to be queer (sexual identity? Gender identity? Romantic identity?) And then asked whether we thought we would feel very safe, very unsafe, or unsure in different scenarios. Would we feel safe in a gay or lesbian bar? Would we feel safe at a youth group in a large city? It was meant to build empathy - which is great! Three cheers for empathy! The issue that many of us had was the idea that straight and cis people could understand our experience by just imagining the reality of a perpetual lived identity. When we expressed concerns, we were told that it was meant to feel uncomfortable. I think I understood that - my issue was not with feeling uncomfortable, but rather with the format of the exercise itself. I was slightly confused that the school had looked at this exercise and thought, yes, this is a good idea. There are many ways to build understanding around and empathy with members of the LGBTQ+ community. This was an ineffective, and frankly offensive way of trying to do it. As I said above, I can appreciate the intent while criticising the outcome. This deserved criticism.
At the end of the day, we returned to the hall to write small notes of gratitude to the others in our group. While I was friendly with most of the people in my group, I'd not really had many serious discussions with most of them and I feel like I've gained some new friends. Common Ground was somewhat demonized by our IB2s. They told us it caused people to break down, that it could mess year groups up. There's long been a concern that our year group is uncohesive and clique-y. We were all scared we would come out of this day hating each other. At the end of the evening, my friend brought it up. "I've come to the conclusion," she said, "that our IB2s love each other on the surface but have issues deep down. We hate each other on the surface, and love each other with our whole chests." My take is that our IB2s are friends. They love each other and care for each other and it's great. My year group is a family - with all the bratty siblings and cranky grandparents that that entails, but we're ready to come through for each other when needed. I think Common Ground solidified that for us.
Like many things at WK, the day was overfull, over ambitious, and problematic. But it got us where we needed to go, and I think it'll help with where we're going.
At WK, there's an annual event for the IB1s called 'Common Ground.' It's mandatory - it takes place on a Saturday from 8 am to 6 pm, and covers everything from race, gender, and sexual orientation, to religion and socioeconomic status. It's an intense day. The point is to make you deeply uncomfortable. Like many events at Waterford, I can appreciate the intent while criticising the outcome. Some of the activities were pretty basic - the privilege race, where you stand in a line and take a step forward or back when certain sentences apply to you. 'Step forward if you've never had to look at price tags.' 'Step back if the colour of your skin has disadvantaged you.' At the end, we looked about at our hundred odd classmates to see where we all were. After every activity, we went back to pre-assigned small groups to discuss the outcome with a facilitator.
Some activities were much more difficult. We were split into races (the split was problematic - they identified four races of white, black, Asian, and mixed race. Some people ended up in mixed race by default, while the Asian group looked slightly bemused by being categorised as a single race.) We would then leave the room in our racial group and brainstorm words or phrases to describe our race. As white people we had descriptors like 'takes up space.' 'arrogant.' 'uncultured.' Back in the room, the other three groups listed stereotypes about white people. After fifteen minutes or so, we came back into the hall and stood on the stage while the stereotypes were read aloud. We were asked to make eye contact with the audience. The thing was, many of the stereotypes aligned pretty closely with what we had said about ourselves. 'Noisy.' 'Colonisers.' 'Can't dance.' 'Doesn't like spice.'
We then repeated the exercise with the other groups. I had never done something like this before - at old schools, something like this would have been met with shock. The scene of a group of black people on stage, as ugly stereotypes are read aloud is a shocking one. Making eye contact with my black friends on stage as words such as 'Violent.' 'Oppressed.' 'Malevolent.' are read aloud was hard. It was uncomfortable. It felt unacceptable. When we discussed it afterwards in our small groups, we mostly agreed that the exercise had been valuable, that the act of assigning the faces of friends to the stereotypes we hold was a step in the right direction of dismantling them.
An exercise that I and many of my queer friends took issue with was one regarding safety in the LGBTQ+ community. We were all asked to 'pretend' to be queer (sexual identity? Gender identity? Romantic identity?) And then asked whether we thought we would feel very safe, very unsafe, or unsure in different scenarios. Would we feel safe in a gay or lesbian bar? Would we feel safe at a youth group in a large city? It was meant to build empathy - which is great! Three cheers for empathy! The issue that many of us had was the idea that straight and cis people could understand our experience by just imagining the reality of a perpetual lived identity. When we expressed concerns, we were told that it was meant to feel uncomfortable. I think I understood that - my issue was not with feeling uncomfortable, but rather with the format of the exercise itself. I was slightly confused that the school had looked at this exercise and thought, yes, this is a good idea. There are many ways to build understanding around and empathy with members of the LGBTQ+ community. This was an ineffective, and frankly offensive way of trying to do it. As I said above, I can appreciate the intent while criticising the outcome. This deserved criticism.
At the end of the day, we returned to the hall to write small notes of gratitude to the others in our group. While I was friendly with most of the people in my group, I'd not really had many serious discussions with most of them and I feel like I've gained some new friends. Common Ground was somewhat demonized by our IB2s. They told us it caused people to break down, that it could mess year groups up. There's long been a concern that our year group is uncohesive and clique-y. We were all scared we would come out of this day hating each other. At the end of the evening, my friend brought it up. "I've come to the conclusion," she said, "that our IB2s love each other on the surface but have issues deep down. We hate each other on the surface, and love each other with our whole chests." My take is that our IB2s are friends. They love each other and care for each other and it's great. My year group is a family - with all the bratty siblings and cranky grandparents that that entails, but we're ready to come through for each other when needed. I think Common Ground solidified that for us.
Like many things at WK, the day was overfull, over ambitious, and problematic. But it got us where we needed to go, and I think it'll help with where we're going.
Comments
Post a Comment