Constructive and inclusive dialogues don’t just happen.
They require careful planning, intentional design, and clear communication.

When designed and implemented effectively, dialogues can:

• Build relationships
• Explore issues
• Raise awareness
• Increase trust
• Motivate individual action
• Mobilize group action

However, there are times when dialogue may not be the best approach. These can include:

• When there are significant power imbalances amongst participants
• When there is not shared agreement on the purpose of the dialogue
• When the organizers are more focused on “changing” someone else’s position
• When conflict prior to the dialogue requires more formal mediation
• And more

Being clear on the motivations and goals of the organizer and participants can help to determine if dialogue is the right approach.

When designing constructive and inclusive dialogues, it is critical to consider the sequencing of questions and exercises.

The Virginia Center for Inclusive Communities draws upon the confirmation, contradiction, continuity model in most of our program work (Kegan, 1982 and Goodman, 2001).

The first step in the model is called confirmation, where questions and exercises should be focused on building trust and psychological safety among participants and with facilitators.

The second step is exploring differences and disagreements in participant responses and experiences, and sharing information and frameworks to promote critical thinking. This phase, called contradiction, is often the longest.

The final step of a dialogue in this model is continuity. This step includes applying new information and perspectives, and considering next steps to support participants in effectively moving forward.

Source: Wisconsin DPI with the support of federal funds

One of the major challenges with dialogue involves its implicit and explicit ties to power dynamics. Individuals from marginalized groups may ask themselves questions such as:

“What will this conversation change?”
“Will the effort be worth the stress?”
“Will people listen to me or believe me?”
“Is the dialogue taking place at a location where I am comfortable?
“Will there be repercussions if I’m honest about my experiences?”

When dialogue participants are concerned about engaging in what could be a vulnerable or damaging encounter, the opportunity for constructive dialogue may be hindered before it begins. This is where establishing allyship and solidarity play an important role.

When considering how a dialogue may unfold, one may want to consider:

1. In what ways is (or isn’t) my allyship and/or solidarity constructive?
2. How do I hope for my allyship/solidarity to be further informed by this dialogue?

Not only are these reflections helpful for building self-awareness and understanding one’s own context before entering into a conversation, but also have the potential to address the power dynamics that hinder constructive dialogue. Namely, the more solidarity and allyship are demonstrated, the more that trust can be established – trust that dialogue results in progress.

Indicators of allyship and solidarity include:

• Investment in educating self and others (without any expectation that a member of a marginalized group will be your ‘go-to’ for learning)
• Not ignoring harmful behaviors when they occur
• Leveraging advantage by taking opportunities to speak up (without speaking for or over others)
• Addressing the roots of harm at both interpersonal and institutional levels (e.g. practices and policies)

Ultimately, constructive and inclusive dialogue – paired with healthy allyship and solidarity – can result in concrete, actionable steps that merge the issues that prompted the dialogue with solutions that address the underlying causes of said issues.

A Legal Perspective on Constructive and Inclusive Dialogue
By Danielle Wingfield, JD, PhD

Background about the First Amendment

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment is the first of twenty-seven amendments of the United States Constitution and speaks directly to the essence of what makes us human – our spirit. It further secures the inalienable right to the free exercise of religion and, presumably, the right not to engage in religion. It can very well be argued that this Amendment addresses the spirit of community across the United States of America, bearing witness to the humanity of each individual. As a part of the greater diversified society, each one of us has been engrafted into the free spirit of America.

Other First Amendment freedoms speak to humanity in ways other amendments do not. The First Amendment encompasses the freedom of expression, assembly, and protest. As a person, we have the right to transcend who we are by extending ourselves outward through our voices. Whether as an individual voice or the voice of a collective few or a collective many, we have a right to be heard and to come together with others of like minds. Whether by speech or other forms of media, the free course of thoughts, feelings, and ideas is a right that we must continue to exercise and defend. In doing so, our humanity, our communities, and our way of life are preserved.

Implications for Constructive and Inclusive Dialogue

Generally, private entities may place limits on individual freedoms, including freedom of speech. A primary means of redress for people who feel aggrieved is to leave the organization or disaffiliate. Still, there are limits to private entities restricting individual liberties where the private entity is receiving public funding. For instance, this comes up when a private business wants to discriminate against people based on race or religion and at the same time receive government benefits. In traditional public forums, however, the First Amendment is implicated. The government may still impose time, place, or manner regulations and other content-based restrictions depending upon whether it is a public or a private space.

Even with this heightened awareness of what is and is not considered protected speech, there are several examples of the type of instructive and inclusive dialogue we might aspire to have in this current moment. I contend that the fair and unbiased application of the First Amendment is among the most important topics of the 21st century. The conversation must continue as, for example, the experiences of the underrepresented, who are most often the poor and minorities, continue to be disaffirmed after generations of unequal treatment.

The First Amendment codifies the strength of the human spirit, the right to be heard, and the right to come together. By exercising these rights and celebrating the diversity of this country, we become the embodiment of a truer, brighter America.

As the NAACP nationally broadcast incidences of lynchings, murders, and other inhumane affronts to people of color in the nation, moderate Whites who were offended by White America’s march toward a decidedly violent response to the presence of African Americans founded the biracial Commission on Interracial Cooperation (CIC) that opposed lynching, mob violence, and racial bias in education and society in general. A decidedly southern organization, local committees emerged throughout the nation including in Virginia with agendas that focused on managing White supremacy instead of eliminating it. Supported by many prominent political leaders, such as Virginia Senator and later Governor Harry S. Byrd, the CIC sought to create a segregated society devoid of racial violence. By 1921, a Women’s committee was created, eventually emerging a decade later as the powerful Women’s Council on Interracial Cooperation (WCIC). In Virginia, the WCIC was especially active, beginning in 1945, and led by Vivian Carter Mason, a social worker who eventually became president of the National Council of Negro Women. Clearly, the agenda was set by the empowered group, leading to an unsuccessful dialogue that failed in its objectives because the goal was not mutually agreed upon by an inclusive group and its motivation by the dominant group was based on fear.

With the Great Depression that threatened to topple society and the looming Second World War, numerous organizations felt an urgency to create a collaborative dialogue that would produce solutions to national and international challenges in the 1940s. The Congress on Racial Equality, The National Council of Negro Women, the Women’s Interracial Council, and the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) initiated independent and collective efforts to fight for equality globally, transcending race, class, gender, and nationality, issues that divided people. These organizations met with some success in promoting interracial cooperation and real change because the agendas were not established by the power elite. Rather, it was crafted in an equitable manner and by those who were the victims of prejudice or discrimination.

By the 1960s, it was clear that dialogue was an important tool for community building. However, the agendas did not reflect the promises. Numerous cities and states created interracial commissions and community groups to discuss and provide input on city planning, housing, crime, redistricting, voting, and other matters. Yet, the implementation bore little resemblance to the recommendations, thus igniting community conflict and anger. This practice continued throughout the remainder of the century and into the next until the protests surrounding the murder of George Floyd. While Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama attempted to trigger national dialogues on race and equity, it was not until the nation witnessed images of George Floyd being killed was there an international outcry demanding systemic change.

Kim Bobo
Executive Director
Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy

Cortney Calixte
Director of Movement and Capacity-Building
Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance

Chloe Carter
Community Engagement Coordinator-Youth
Chesterfield County

Rob Corcoran
Training Consultant
Initiatives of Change International
Founder Emeritus, Hope in the Cities