[classified]: stories that catalyze dialogue about diversity

This paper documents the development and implementation process of a theater project at Virginia Tech that was designed to investigate the ways in which the use of language can contribute to different people’s experiences of safety and harassment as well as their willingness and ability to intervene for social justice. The project, titled [classified], used intersecting methods of performance, public dialogue, community engagement and evaluation to catalyze difficult conversations about racism, homophobia, sexism and personal responsibility on campus and in the Blacksburg community. Our development model for [classified] placed high priorities on relationship building and a strong commitment to place, while attempting to bridge the gap between university policy and individual experience. The dramaturgy and community partnerships of the project were designed to invite multiple types of dialogue with the audience while the evaluation process was designed to measure if and how this intentional art project could influence participants’ awareness of diversity and their investment in social justice, and possibly make a contribution to institutional healing.

As four graduate students leading the project areas, we attempted to stay in close dialogue with each other so that performance, community and evaluation would be integrated at each step. As a result, discoveries made in the rehearsal room influenced approaches in the survey design and conversations with community partners shaped aspects of the script. This interconnectivity led to a project that continued to evolve each time it encountered an audience.

Creating in Context

Virginia Tech is the second largest institution in the Commonwealth and enrolls approximately 28,500 students at all its campuses. The number of undergraduate students enrolled is about 22,000. The undergraduate population self-reports as 72% Caucasian, 4.5% African-American, 2.3% Hispanic, and 0.25% Native American (Task Force on Race and the Institution 9).

In recent years, tensions on campus have increased due to several incidents that brought us face-to-face with racism, homophobia and sexism. During a Diversity Committee meeting in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, a few student leaders from the University’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Allied organization came forward. They spoke of feeling unsafe as they told stories of harassment and hate speech, and asked for support. [classified] grew out of this appeal with the idea that a performance of true stories could personalize the issue of harassment for a broad student audience and invite a conversation about how we share responsibility for creating our environment. Several interviews were conducted around campus with students and faculty, both individually and in story circles, and these accounts became the raw material for the script. Though the stories were based on the lived experiences of individuals at Virginia Tech, they described scenarios we found to be common on campuses across the country. The script addressed this commonality by referencing national statistics, including excerpts from current articles and University policies, connecting micro-level incidents to national issues of institutionalized oppression.

True stories were assembled and edited together as a collage of monologues and short scenes, set in various locations. The stories in the play did not resolve questions, but rather posed them. The space between actors and audience remained porous and each actor performed as multiple characters. Sometimes the actors performed as themselves, even interrupting their own “performances” to invite the audience to verbally respond to a question or issue in the scene. This dramaturgy was inspired by multiple ideas and many artists, but primarily by the work of Robbie McCauley, Marty Pottenger and Augusto Boal.

In McCauley’s play “Sally’s Rape” and in Pottenger’s project “City Water Tunnel #3,” both writer-performers interweave their own personal experiences with stories and ideas collected from other people, both historical and contemporary. “Sally’s Rape” and “City Water Tunnel #3” both establish a relationship with the members of the audience through direct address. In “Sally’s Rape,” McCauley includes the story of her own grandmother with dialogue about the manifestations and the human cost of racism in our culture historically and today. At various moments throughout the performance, McCauley steps out of the playing area and into the space inhabited by the audience where she engages in conversation with the audience about the ideas in the play. After a certain amount of time, different each night depending on the audience present, McCauley calls an end to conversation and continues the scripted part of the performance (Mahon).

In “City Water Tunnel #3,” Pottenger created a multimedia project to tells “the story of the planning, building and financing of the largest non-defense public-works project in the Western Hemisphere” (Pottenger). She collaborated with hundreds of people and multiple organizations through a multitiered process of interviews, story circles and art projects. One manifestation of the project was a one-woman show performed by Pottenger in which she embodied multiple characters and took on issues of class, accountability and progress through an examination of our relationship to water (Pottenger). The methods explored by McCauley and Pottenger for connecting with the community as both part of the development and performance, greatly influenced the design of [classified].

Similarly, [classified] was influenced by the Image Theatre and Forum Theatre concepts and methods of Augusto Boal, which provided specific approaches to the physicality of actors and staging ideas for the stories (Boal). Boal’s collection of ideas, referred to as Theatre of the Oppressed techniques, posits that the theater can be used as a tool to imagine and practice alternate scenarios than the one initially presented. Boal’s methods question the status quo and invite suggestions for illuminating subtext in scenarios. An adapted version of Forum Theatre was used in [classified] in a story told by an African-American male student who was singled out by his professor with the offer of “extra help” after class so he could “keep up.” In performance, the actors froze the action of the scene and “stepped out” as themselves to invite audience members to voice the underlying assumptions at work in the scene and to raise questions as to whether or not the professor was acting inappropriately.

During [classified], audience members were invited to share written responses — stories, reflections, opinions about diversity — that they did not feel comfortable sharing out loud in the room but wanted to contribute to the project. The postcards were collected after each show and hung around the room for the audience of the next performance to read. Above, [classified] cast members Clarence Brown, Mehmet Ege, Sarah Hoffman and Alicia Saunders examine some postcards before the performance at Glade Church in Blacksburg, Va. Click here to enlarge

Other audience-dialogue techniques, beyond the Boal ones, were built into the entire performance experience. We incorporated a public art installation called the Postcard Project, which was inspired by one of our community partners. One evening after a preview performance of [classified], one of our community partners commented that, although the dialogue during the event was effective, we “should have been in the car” with him and a few students after they left the show because it was in that more private space that the students really opened up about the issues and their personal experiences. Unable to follow everyone home from the play, but wanting to explore a way of accessing this more intimate response to the material, we arrived at an idea of postcards. Audience members were invited to share written responses — stories, reflections and/or opinions — that they did not feel comfortable sharing out loud in the room but wanted to contribute to the project. The postcards were collected after each show and hung around the room for the audience of the next performance to read. The growing post-card installation traveled to various performance sites and became another tier of public dialogue for the project. Some of the cards were even read within the performance each night.

The excerpt below shows an example of how the use of Boal and the Postcard Project came together in performance. It is from the story of a gay, white, male student who experiences regular harassment on campus and in town when he’s out with his boyfriend. Boal’s Image Theatre, which uses bodies to create “pictures” as a way of communicating layers of meaning that words cannot access as powerfully, led to the style of staging that enabled a five-person ensemble to appear in multiple locations and roles throughout the telling by shifting their bodies in relation to each other. The storyteller in this scene, originally from a rural and conservative part of Virginia, talks directly to the audience:

QUENTIN
I remember seeing, when I was younger
I remember seeing gay people downtown in Blacksburg and thinking,
well, you don’t see that in Franklin County.
You just don’t see that.
It’s very hush hush.
When I first started coming out myself, as a no-qualms-about-it-gay man
I just didn’t care what people thought.
As long as I was being true to myself I didn’t care what anyone had to say about it.
But as time went on, I started to hate all the stares and comments.
Can’t I go out and not get crazy looks?
Can’t I just go to a bar
with my boyfriend
and have him
put his arm around my shoulder and be left alone?

Ensemble enters the scene and creates the image of hanging out in a nearby booth.

Here we are in a downtown restaurant,
very late at night,
I’m out with my boyfriend.

Ensemble starts to look, snicker and comment.

…

Someone says, “Faggots.” QUENTIN’S BOYFRIEND stands up, turns to face them.

ENSEMBLE
No, man, sorry.
We’re just drunk.
Sorry. It’s cool. Won’t happen again.

BOYFRIEND sits.
Laughter starts again.

BOYFRIEND to QUENTIN
What should we do?

QUENTIN looks at his boyfriend then out to audience. He stands.

QUENTIN
It’s the most sickening thing to look around
and see people watching.
Or pretending they don’t see…
acting like it’s not happening.
We were not alone in that restaurant.

Ensemble stands, creates image of wait staff, averting their eyes.

he waiters saw everything that was going on,
they were uncomfortable, I could tell,
but they allowed it to happen.
Why do we allow it to happen?

Ensemble turns out of image to face audience as they speak.

LIEL
People say, “Maybe they’re just friends playing around.”

LAURA
People say, “It’s not my place to get involved in other people’s business.”

ALEX
People say, “I was raised to believe that homosexuality is immoral. I can’t support this.”

LYDIA
People say, “There’s someone else who’s more qualified to deal with this.”

ENSEMBLE
That’s what people say.

Ensemble walks through house to various locations where postcards are exhibited and read from cards. [The spoken text changed each night. The following are some examples of the postcards collected throughout the run.](Carney)

“I feel as if whenever I, a black person, speak about being uncomfortable in situations, white people take it only one way. I not only feel uncomfortable sometimes when I’m the minority, but also when I’m with a bunch of black people and there are limited white people. I wonder to myself if they feel safe and are judging us.”

“I’m in an interracial relationship and I sometimes wonder if his friends don’t ‘approve’ of me.”

“I was at the dining hall and a boy with long curly hair walked by. As he passed, I heard another boy call him ‘faggot’ and the rest of his friends laughed with him. I wish I had stood up and yelled at them or done something, anything! But I didn’t.”

“I do feel afraid. I’ve always heard of hateful things happening, which is partly why I’ve stayed in the closet. I feel like if this didn’t happen so often, I could be more like myself.”

“…I feel guilty sometimes knowing that I have it so easy when that’s not how the world really is.”

“I never thought that not doing anything when lines were crossed could be looked at so negatively. It’s like walking away when someone is calling for help.”

“I have spent 22 years as an ARMY soldier, protecting the freedoms of this country… Freedom of speech does not mean one has the right to condemn another because they live a different lifestyle or come from a different race.”

By embedding multiple tiers of dialogue inside and around the performance event we hoped to create multiple opportunities for audience members to draw personal connections to the project and consider their role, however passive or active, in the perpetuation of the discriminatory behavior reported by the storytellers. The quantitative and qualitative evaluation tools for the project were developed with this goal in mind. We also developed community partnerships with groups of individuals who were invested in the outcome and contributed greatly to the success of the project by attracting audiences and participating in its long-term development.

Public Dialogue & Community Partnerships

To enhance the production’s ability to affect change in the broader campus and community, the [classified] project partnered with several student organizations, classes, programs and local community groups that could engage individuals in the process. This work was coordinated by two individuals who served as community producers. Their job was to seek out, establish and maintain connections with communities through specific themes related to the show; to help to publicize the show(s); and to provide support to the production that might fall outside of the conventional theater structure by coordinating and hosting special events.
While there were several classes and organizations that played a significant role in making [classified] happen by inviting performances, hosting story circles, and allowing us to workshop script material, this paper will discuss the project’s two major partnerships — a local faith community, Glade Church, and a Virginia Tech undergraduate program called Leadership Tech. We sought to make these relationships dynamically reciprocal in that the conversations within the organizations fed the project and the project was, in turn, useful to the life and agenda for both of these partners.

Glade Church Partnership

Glade Church is an open faith community near Virginia Tech that has a strong commitment to the arts through a fully operational gallery with monthly exhibits in the sanctuary and training programs in painting, stone cutting and pottery. This church community and its pastor, Kelly Sisson, were seeking to branch out to different art forms and were open to the idea of hosting our initial staged reading of the script in the fall of 2006.

The staged reading was for an invited audience of various groups who had been involved in the evolution of the project and its script to date. By keeping the audience small but varied, we were able to engage in a dialogue that was not targeted to any individual group’s agenda. The staged reading gave the stakeholders and storytellers an important opportunity to see the project that they had contributed to and to celebrate the process and each other. It also served the artistic process because it highlighted places where the script needed revision.

The original intention of working with Glade Church was to develop a fully collaborative partnership; however, in this exchange, the church simply felt like a venue for the performance. We wanted Glade Church to host the final performance, but to make it more successful, we knew we needed to cultivate the partnership with Glade Church into something deeper, more dynamic and reciprocal. The process included several steps:

• A church member convened and facilitated a focus group asking members of the congregation to have a conversation about what it meant to them to have the [classified] project at their church and what their goals for its return might be. They shared some of the results of the report with the [classified] team, but were careful not to influence the show in any way. For example, they didn’t share their debate over whether or not the actors should keep the swearing in the script when they performed in the church.
• We asked the pastor to play an integral role in the introduction of the play as well as the facilitation of the post-show discussion. The pastor introduced the play and talked about why the church wanted to work with the project.
• We chose a date for the performance that held particular meaning for the church members — April 5, or Maundy Thursday. During the post-show discussion, the pastor spoke about Maundy Thursday as a time when Christians typically come together to remember the story of Jesus’ crucifixion. “This is also a time of darkness and shadows,” she said, “and we are using this play to look at the dark places in our own community and bring light to them. Something we often ignore.”
• The pastor suggested hosting a gallery exhibit with the theme of “classified, untold stories” that would be on display at the same time as the performance.
• The Postcard Project was installed as part of this exhibit. They remained on exhibit in the church for two months after the closing of the [classified] project.

There were 100 people at Glade Church on the night of the final performance, and a feeling of celebration electrified the room. We had come full circle, both in this partnership and with the project as a whole. Weeks later, as some of us were up on ladders taking the postcards down, Kelly Sisson came in to visit and help out. “You know, it’s been a great year, working with you guys. We don’t usually have this kind of opportunity to work with the university community. Let’s do another play together.”

Leadership Tech Partnership

The second, and equally significant, collaboration for [classified] was with a group of sophomores in a program called Leadership Tech, whose mission is to use curricular and service activities to help freshmen and sophomores develop leadership skills. This particular group, whose focus of learning related to social justice, included two facilitators and eight students [seven white females and one white male]. The students of Leadership Tech were looking for a service activity that related to their theme of social justice and found out about [classified] at a town-hall-style meeting on race and the university. Through discussions and brainstorming with the [classified] team, Leadership Tech decided to host a performance in conjunction with a facilitated discussion technique called The World Café as outlined in the book, “The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter” (Berrett-Koehler).

The event was called Café de [classified] and drew 50 people from many different sectors of the campus. The audience was divided into small groups at café-style tables as [classified] was performed. After the play, a set of prompting questions was distributed to each table group and, through a series of small, rotating discussion groups, each table leader recorded on a paper tablecloth the big ideas that emerged. At the end of the event, the tablecloths were displayed on the wall so that all attendees could view the results and find the similarities and differences among the groups. Participants were encouraged to enjoy refreshments as they walked along the wall and looked at the “quilt” of idea maps and discuss them with people from other tables. The maps were not only visually stunning when pieced together on the wall, they also held a lot of information about what students, faculty and staff thought about the disparity between university policy and campus reality. Although in the World Café model it is recommended that participants come back together and discuss what is discovered in the process of exploring the idea maps, our event was already a late night, and we released attendees after they had this opportunity for individual and small-group reflection at the map wall.

One of the most interesting facets that emerged from this project was the behavior of the students working with us to make it happen. The Leadership Tech sophomores who planned the Café de[classified] event spent months planning the logistics for the event, but when it came to that night, they mostly stood in the back of the room, serving food or sitting at tables by themselves as if the event were “for everyone else.” Though the event may have had an impact on the rest of the audience in attendance, we question whether it had the desired impact on the Leadership Tech organizers. This problem will be discussed further in later sections.

Evaluation Methodology

Evaluation was one of the key components throughout this process: We wanted to see whether our project had an impact on participants. We gathered both quantitative and qualitative data through pre- and post-show surveys, participant observations and interviews. The surveyed population comprised either participants in at least one performance/dialogue event or the members of Leadership Tech. Data collection of the Leadership Tech group involved participant observations and semi-structured interviews.

The pre- and post-surveys included ten Likert-scale questions and four short-answer qualitative questions that were administered to students, faculty, staff, community members, alumni and administrators. The pre-surveys were administered during class visits, and via organization and class listservs for those who were targeted as potential audience members. The post-surveys were administered immediately following each performance and took approximately ten to 15 minutes to complete. They were designed to collect the self-reported impacts that the experience of the play had for participants and their perceptions of diversity, harassment, safety and community, as well as their perceptions of Virginia Tech administrators’ responses to these issues.

The demographic breakdown of the survey respondents is summarized in Table One.

Evaluation findings

Quantitative Results

The 85 pre-show responses and the 162 post-show responses were coded using Atlas.ti and SPSS data-analysis methods. Results showed that there were significant changes in four of the ten questions between the pre- and post-survey data as highlighted below.

• “In general, the relationship between minority and majority students is a friendly one.” Prior to seeing the show, respondents’ average score was between “agree” and “neutral.” After the show, the average moved closer to “neutral.”
• “People of different backgrounds do not feel comfortable when interacting socially in this community.” Prior to the show, respondents scored between “neutral” and “disagree.” After the show, they scored between “agree” and “neutral.”
• “The university actively promotes diversity on campus.” Prior to seeing the show, respondents’ average score was between “agree” and “neutral.” After the show, the average moved closer to “neutral.”
• “I think the university overall is doing well in addressing issues of discrimination on campus.” Prior to seeing the show, respondents scored between “agree” and “neutral.” After, they scored on average between “neutral” and “disagree.”

Significant differences were also found between demographic groups. Nonheterosexual respondents were more likely to disagree that “In general, the relationship between minority and majority students is a friendly one.” Nonheterosexual and female respondents were more likely to disagree that “Virginia Tech exhibits an open and accepting environment.” Finally, nonheterosexual and female respondents were more likely to disagree that “I think the university overall is doing well in addressing issues of discrimination on campus.”

Qualitative Results

Like the survey results, the short-answer survey responses revealed significant differences between the pre- and post-surveys.

1. Has [classified] influenced your definition of diversity? If so, how?

Respondents noted that [classified] influenced their definition of diversity by expanding it to include categories they had not thought of, such as sexual orientation. Seventy-four out of 85 pre-show respondents (87.06%) cited that their definition of diversity was “differences,” while only four out of 165 post-show respondents used the term “differences” in their definition. A total of 13.33% said the show shaped their definition.

2. After participating in [classified], do you now feel that you or a friend has experienced harassment or a situation that you would classify as unsafe?

Respondents noted additional situations related to safety. The respondents were also more likely to cite a cause of their harassment or unsafe situations after seeing the show. Situations that were cited in the post-survey include racism (4.71% to 7.88%), homophobia (8.24% to 9.09%) and sexual harassment (5.88% to 7.27%).

3. How has this program shaped your thinking about diversity?

Of post-show respondents, 41.82% report that [classified] raised their awareness of diversity at Virginia Tech; 6.06% of post-show respondents report that [classified] inspired or created dialogue about diversity; and 11.52% report that the show inspired individual action. Several white respondents (2.42%) cited redefining their behaviors as problematic after seeing [classified]. These behaviors include telling racist jokes (6.06%), excluding racial/ethnic/sexual minorities from social interactions, and staying silent on issues of discrimination, harassment and diversity.

4. How can Virginia Tech promote a more diverse community?

Post-show respondents called for the university administration to define diversity more clearly and to address racism, sexism and homophobia explicitly since “diversity” can serve to mask concrete forms of discrimination and inequality. Of post-show respondents, 12.12% suggest dialogue and interaction and 5.45% suggest that individual action should be used to promote diversity.

Although the general audience changed their thinking about diversity on campus, the significant results of the qualitative research were not observed in the Leadership Tech group. Initially Café de [classified] seemed to show similar results from the surveys but we were unable to detect the changes to be expected after a deeper engagement with the work. The students expressed a great deal of pride and contentment derived from working with the [classified] project but revealed a lack of critical analysis of racism in the semi-structured interviews. One female reported, “I’m not racist – I try not to see race, and I want other people to not see race either.” We believe that color-blind ideology such as this can serve to perpetuate racism; it precludes examination of the underlying power structures that inform our views of race. While the students often cited feeling good about “helping” marginalized voices come to the forefront through interaction with this project, they did not necessarily challenge their own position of racial and other forms of privilege.

In Conclusion: Staying Responsive to Community

[classified] seemed to have a significant impact on the individuals who took part in this project, including audience members, partners, actors and storytellers. Yet, the reach of the project was limited. In a community of 25,000 students and approximately 40,000 community residents, we came into contact with approximately 900 people, about 1%, through the performances and the Postcard Project. It should be noted that this is an extraordinarily large audience for a workshop production of this nature on our campus. And yet, to truly make a lasting impact we needed more time, more opportunities to connect with the community, and a more constant presence in the life of the University.

With more time, we certainly would have wanted to debrief further with the students of Leadership Tech in order to evaluate their experience and understand how we could have better supported their learning. We were in talks with university administrators to make [classified] an annual part of the process of incoming student orientation. We had also planned to distribute a follow-up survey to track changes that occurred in people a few months after their experience of the show. However, a few days after we finished our tour of [classified] our lives were turned upside down by the tragic shootings that left 33 members of our community dead and forever changed the conversation about safety on our campus. Because we were only three weeks away from the end of the year, many undergraduates opted not to finish the semester. We had no choice but to cancel all of our plans for follow-up.

At this time [classified] is still available through the College of Liberal Arts Diversity Committee as a successful workshop model for catalyzing dialogue about diversity on campus and there is a plan for an interactive Web site featuring the stories and the postcards. It is our hope that [classified] will continue to evolve while remaining an integral part of the Virginia Tech’s ongoing commitment to diversity, safety and community healing.

This essay is part of the Community Arts Convening & Research Project, 2008, funded by a Nathan Cummings Foundation grant to the Maryland Institute College of Art. The essay was reviewed and selected by the project's Editorial Board: Ron Bechet, Xavier University of Louisiana; Lori Hager, University of Oregon; Marina Gutierrez, Cooper Union; Ken Krafchek, Maryland Institute College of Art; Sonia Mañjon, California College of the Arts; Amalia Mesa-Bains, California State University Monterey Bay; Paul Teruel, Columbia College Chicago; and Stephani Woodson, Arizona State University.

Laura E. Agnich is a Ph.D. student in Sociology at Virginia Tech. She received her M.S. in sociology from Virginia Tech in May 2007. Agnich is currently a graduate research assistant to Jim Hawdon and John Ryan, studying the effects of the April 16, 2007, shootings on the Blacksburg community. In addition to research, she currently advises the Virginia Tech chapter of Golden Key International Honour Society, and sits on the Diversity Committee for the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences.

Kimberly A. Baker is a doctoral student at the Center for Public Administration and Policy at Virginia Tech with a concentration in nonprofit management, organizational development and community arts. She holds a B.S. in psychology, a B.A. in theatre arts, and an M.S.W. in clinical social work with a certificate in arts and community practice. Before returning to school, Baker worked as a director for community-arts and arts-education programs at various organizations in both Oklahoma City, Okla., and Pensacola, Fla. She is currently working on the Arts Initiative for Virginia Tech through the Office of the Senior Fellow for Resource Development.

Megan Carney was the associate artistic director of About Face Theatre in Chicago until 2005, where her work as a writer and director contributed to original plays, including “On the Record” at The Goodman Theatre (2004) and The Home Project at Victory Gardens (2006). Teaching credits include the Urban Studies Program of the Associated Colleges of the Midwest, the University of Chicago and Rhodes College in Memphis. Awards include a TCG Observership Grant and a residency at Bard College’s Envision retreat. She will complete her M.F.A. at Virginia Tech spring of 2008 in directing and public dialogue.

Shannon M. Turner is development director at Synchronicity Performance Group in Atlanta, Ga.. She received her M.F.A. in arts administration with a certificate in nonprofit administration in spring 2007 from Virginia Tech. Turner was program coordinator for a community organization, HERE: Honoring Experiences, Reflections and Expressions, which formed in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy to facilitate community dialogue and artistic response for the community's healing efforts. Prior to her graduate program, Shannon worked for the YMCA at Virginia Tech for five years in multiple roles, including director of Y Student Programs and interim executive director.

Works Cited

Boal, Augusto. Games for Actors and Non-Actors. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Carney, Megan, director. [classified]. Play. Virginia Tech University: Multiple venues, 2007.

City Water Tunnel #3. Video recording of performance at Judith Anderson Theater, New York, N.Y. Writ. and Dir. Marty Pottenger. Ed. Jeanne Finnerty/Good Girl Productions. Prod. Dancing in the Streets, Dance Theatre Workshop, The Working Theater. 1998. Available from Williams College Library, New York University Library.

Brown, J., D. Isaacs and the World Café community. The World Cafe: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2005.

Mahon, Sydne, ed. Moon Marked and Touched By Sun: Plays By African-American Women. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1994.

Pottenger, Marty. “CWT#3: Making City Water Tunnel #3.” The Citizen Artist: 20 Years of Art in the Public Arena: An Anthology from High Performance Magazine 1978-1998. Eds. L.F. Burnham and S. Durland. Gardiner, New York: Critical Press, 1998. 311-334.

Task Force on Race and the Institution. Progress report and preliminary recommendations. Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Tech, 2007.

Original CAN/API publication: June 2008