Funderburg: What do you hope to remedy with Commonplace, your recently established, not-for-profit group? Guinier: Accomplish would be a better word; remedy sounds much too ambitious for the shoestring operation that we are presently. Perhaps in a year we might feel emboldened to discuss what we're remedying. But at this stage, we are struggling to transform public discourse, particularly about issues of race. We're proceeding along several different axes at once. The first one is an academic research agenda where we are trying to develop a methodology for structured dialogue, for multiracial deliberation, for collective decision-making and collaboration among people of diverse backgrounds and perspectives. We're designing focus groups to study competing hypotheses about the barriers to candid or honest public communication - particularly on race. And we're testing two major theses. One is that you have to get people together to talk about race by providing them a mutual task that doesn't have an explicit racial text. The second hypothesis we're testing is that you have to confront, magnify, and explode stereotypes before you can get people to the point of trust and intimacy. We then want to apply that methodology to public conversations that involve people in the media, public policy activists, to structure conversations - again across difference, not just of race or of gender, but of perspective and discipline - so that the journalists can learn how to see nuance and the academics can learn how to be more clear. In this take-it-on-the-road part of the project, we could actually try to intervene in local communities that are confronting conflict or - and this is where we're more inclined to intervene - we could try to change the way the media covers the issue of race, because the media plays such an important role as the connective tissue in our national and local community. Funderburg: Why does public discourse need to be restructured? Guinier: We are operating from the premise - and it is not an original premise [laughs] - that there is a breakdown in our ability to talk to each other on a number of issues. Unfortunately, political discourse resembles, to a great degree, the worst excess of the adversary model of litigation, the winner take model of sports, and the only one of you is going to be left standing model of war. When we use that structure to talk about something like race, it reinforces all the divisions and polarities we are experiencing on so many other levels, in terms of segregated housing patterns, people not going to school together or not watching the same television shows - basically, the prediction of the Kerner Commission from almost thirty years ago that we are becoming two nations, one white and one black. Even though it's a more heterogeneous nation in some ways, it is still very segregated. Funderburg: How is it more heterogeneous? Guinier: Number one, we can't just talk about race in a context of black and white. We have to think about other people of color in a global sense and the relationship not just between whites and people of color, but among and within communities of color. Second, there has been some progress: There is at least the appearance of increased diversity - on college campuses, in public legislatures and city councils and school boards, and on television - in what we see as representational icons. On the other hand, much of that is superficial; it's cosmetic, and it's temporary. People may work in a multiracial environment, but then go home to a very homogeneous neighborhood. Funderburg: Also, it seems that many multiracial environments are still tiered hierarchically. A company with a history of having white employees can say it's become diverse, but what positions are held by those people who bring the diversity? Guinier: Michael Lind recently wrote a terrific article in Harper's on the haves and the have-nots. …
Read full abstract