Mini Ethnography Summary

Mini Ethnography at Colors of Inequality Conference I chose to do my ethnographic study at the Intergenerational Spring Seminar sponsored by the Unitarian Universalists United Nations Office (UU-UNO). The theme for this year’s conference was The Colors of Inequality: Costs and Consequences Conference. This conference took place at three locations throughout New York City. The three locations it took place at were All Souls Church (NYC), the Salvation Army International Social Justice Commission building, and the United Nations Headquarters. All Souls Church served as our living quarters and dining hall when we had meals at the conference. For the purposes of this assignment, I will no longer mention All Souls Church because a requirement for
this assignment was to choose a site other than a church. Most lectures and activities occurred at the Salvation Army International Social Justice Commission building. One session took place at the United Nations Headquarters. UU-UNO’s Intergenerational Spring Seminar has been held for the past eleven years. The purpose of the seminar is to reflect, learn, and grow around challenging social justice issues. The seminar targets teens ages 14-18 in high school throughout the United States and Canada to participate in this conference. The conference offerings focused on the intersection of income inequality and structural racism against people of minority status, mainly people of African descent.
Though this conference aimed to achieve this goal, I believe they failed miserably.
They failed to achieve for a variety of reasons. Two reasons I believe the conference failed to achieve this goal are a lack of understanding of how children learn and the surface level nature of the conversation. For example, participants were lectured at for eight hours on these topics by academics presenting research-driven analysis of the issues. After the first hour of listening many of the participants, adults and children, were checked out. As a result, much of the information presented went in one ear and out the other for participants. The other reason I believe the goal of the conference was not achieved deals with the fact that much of the information presented only touched the surface when dealing with issues of inequality. The two students I was responsible for while at the conference struggled greatly with this. They struggled with the shallowness of material because they themselves had hard questions about the inequalities they suffer from that could not be adequately answered based upon the information that was presented. A few of the participants at the seminar suffer from consequences associated with the issues presented on that could not be addressed. Therefore, they voiced concern that the research was flawed because it did not include the entirety of everyone’s
experience.
Seeing people take the leap of “faith” to have difficult conversations about hard issues was evidence of God moving. I could see God moving most obviously at the Colors of Inequality Conference simply by the fact that White people from throughout the world were having a conversation on inequalities that most directly affect communities of color. That rarely happens. I also saw God moving in the level of acceptance of what I would considered traditionally “exiled” people groups, particularly the LGBTQ+ community. I believe this conference is a place where true reconciliation can happen across many margins. The space allows for learning to occur for individuals who are ignorant about certain issues of inequality and for those who suffer adverse effects to speak up about their experiences to educate others. At the Colors of Inequality Conference, God is providing a space for people to begin to love their neighbors as themselves. But, before that love can occur recognition and understanding have to take place for the reconciliation to transpire.
The session that occurred at the United Nations Headquarters during the conference focused on mass incarceration and solitary confinement. This session featured a prison psychiatrist, a psychology professor, and a formerly incarcerated advocate, who spent over twelve years in solitary confinement who served as speakers. They were all given time to speak on their expertise dealing with mass incarceration and solitary confinement. After the panel discussion was complete there was a time for questions. What surprised me most was the amount of tension in the room between the psychology professor and the advocate. Most conference attendees had questions and comments for Five, the guy who was formerly incarcerated. That seemed to upset the professor. For the remainder of the panel discussion she added to what Five was saying in an attempt to be heard. Consequently, Five says “Listen yawl, I am an expert at this thing. I have a master’s degree in mass incarceration and a Ph.D. in solitary confinement. I know what I am talking about. I did not have to go to school to learn this, I’ve lived it.” Conference participants erupted in applause for him and continued to direct questions at him. This is the kind of environment that churches would do well to replicate in their communities to help facilitate conversations around tough issues that impact the world and the church.
This has to be done carefully because if it is not it could backfire in the face of the church. Creating safe places for dialogue on tough issues is often very difficult and requires those within that system to be intentional about having and maintaining that space. For example, people cannot get offended when someone says something they disagree with because more than likely that person will shut down when asked to speak again. Quite honestly, I am not sure the church will ever get to this place. But, I am optimistic and see it as a goal of mines as a mark to reach
for.
While observing at the Colors of Inequality Conference I noticed abundant diversity except racially. Out of all the participants, there were only 15 minority participants at this conference. This even trickled over to speakers who presented at the conference. There were only 7 minority speakers out of about 40 speakers total. Another thing I noted that was interesting was the high emphasis placed on intellectualism. Most of the presenters were scholars who were presenting academic research to these participants. When I inquired about why so many academics were used as speakers and panelists I was told, “We as Unitarian Universalists pride ourselves on being intelligent.” This bothered me immensely. I responded by stating, “So are you trying to insinuate that those who are not UU’s aren’t intelligent? Because that is not the case. All people are intelligent. Not many people can sit in an 8-hour lecture and actually gain information, especially kids.” This example shows why conferences like this are still necessary and important for us today.