I face a conundrum. My goal here is to think about the challenges our communities face in creating and maintaining equity for all. I want to increase communication, not increase resistance. But am I?

In December, I attended a lunchtime program sponsored by SPIN, the St. Paul Interfaith Network, at which Bill Doherty was one of two speakers. Doherty, a professor of Marriage and Family Therapy at the University of Minnesota, is one of the founders of Better Angels (better-angels.org/our-story/#problem). To quote the organization’s website, “Better Angels is a national citizens’ movement to reduce political polarization in the United States by bringing liberals and conservatives together to understand each other beyond stereotypes, forming red/blue community alliances, teaching practical skills for communicating across political differences, and making a strong public argument for depolarization.” This is a great organization and some of their programs have been, or will be, in Roseville and other communities around the Twin Cities. (Some brought to you by our friends at Do Good Roseville.) These events would be worth your time and energy.

Some programs are a weekend, some a day, and others are several hours; they employ several types of dialogue. Their long format events reminded me of the challenging work of filmmaker and diversity educator Lee Mun Wah, whose film, The Color of Fear (1994), brought together men of color and white men for a weekend of conversation on issues of race in America. This conversation was often angry and disputative, but ended in growth. It is a valuable film; it is not an easy film. Better Angels, coming from a background of mediation, has developed techniques to reduce the conflict and optimize the understanding among the participants. A potent idea refined.

Doherty spoke of the impact of Better Angels programs and the methods they used. It was inspiring. It also made my heart sink a bit. I felt dismay when he spoke of the potential negative impact of language. He noted that words like equity, privilege, and inclusion, instead of bringing light and clarity to explain goals or problems, can raise hackles and generate instant resistance. These are words and ideas I write about all the time. On the other side of the equation phrases like “we are a Christian country” or “make America great” likewise generate leaps to preconceived positions. But the ideas still need to be talked about. So how do I talk about them without turning people off before the conversation has even begun?

I have not yet been able to make it to a Better Angels program, but the Better Angels pledge to understand the other side’s point of view while seeking common ground to bring all together would help any conversation (better-angels.org/our-story/#our-approach).

The key is to listen, not just to talk. While choice of language may vary, final goals may have great overlap. How do I listen in a solo format? How do I write so that a reader will know that I want to hear their side, too? One approach came in a TED talk about health care; it involves totally reframing the topic. More about that next month.