About twenty minutes later, Nitichan called me and we spoke for almost an hour.  She thanked me for sharing my thoughts about the workshops, stating she had no idea how politically charged the topics were.  City Year’s intent, she said, was to hold workshops that would open communication on important topics, not be divisive or politically charged.  She emphasized that City Year has always worked to bring people together, not set them apart or against each other.  She also said that City Year considered those offering the seminars “credible,” saying they had track records of opening communication between groups.

As the discussion progressed, she came to understand how politically charged and divisive the topics were and said she would review the materials the presenters planned to use.  I asked her for a statement in reply to my email, explaining that not only had I heard from so many people about the event, but also had such strong feelings about it that I was planning on publishing my own statement on the matter.

In the statement, they quote from the mission of NH Listens’, presenter of the “Unpacking Whiteness” workshop, but don’t address what they will present.  Thankfully, one of the people who alerted me to the material copied the content (again, published below), because it disappeared from City Year’s Web site.  Only a blank registration page comes up when the original link is clicked.

In response to my questions about why the material was removed, Nitichan said it was because the classes were small and they didn’t have room for a surge in last minute registrations.  She also said that City Year did not vet the materials that would be presented in the workshops, trusting the presenters would be positive and fostering of appropriate dialogue on the difficult topic of race.

If that belief is sincere, then the presenters should make their all their workshop materials available to City Year and City Year should republish the workshops with their summary descriptions and all of the topics and materials that will allegedly be used.  I was unequivocal in making that suggestion and am concerned that it wasn’t accepted.

Without repeating what I wrote in my email to Nitichan, (here’s a link to the Dr. King speech referenced in my email), I believe the workshops offered in honor of Dr. King are, at best, a terribly misguided attempt to promote diversity and inclusion and, at worst, an insult to the city and citizens of Manchester.  Either way, there is reason to be manifestly displeased, even disgusted by them.

Manchester didn’t ask for refugees and immigrants to be settled here nor were its businesses recruiting them to fulfill any worker needs.  The State Department and its associated resettlement agencies decided Manchester would receive thousands of people from dozens of countries, speaking well in excess of one hundred languages (dialects included), and bringing cultures and customs that, in some instances, are incompatible with Western living.  The impact on schools, neighborhoods, social services and the community in general has been profound.  Despite having no help from either the federal or state governments or the resettlement agencies, the city has undertaken enormous efforts to welcome, educate, socialize and otherwise serve these people.

Yet, instead of highlighting the many people, organizations and efforts undertaken in this city that have helped so many for so long, we’re treated to workshops that essentially accuse virtually any white native of being ignorant, inhospitable and insensitive at best.  The language explaining the workshops makes clear that “white America” created systems and institutions designed to keep “people of color” oppressed.  It made clear that, if you’re white, you’re privileged and if your not, you’ll essentially be a victim of the system for your whole life.

Not to mention, if you ask someone where they’re from or compliment them on their English skills, you’re guilty of a “microaggression,” which is considered “hate speech” and routinely used on college campuses and elsewhere to accuse people of everything from cultural insensitivity to racism.

I have worked with Nitichan closely over the past two years and have been a strong supporter of City Year.  I respect both her and the organization she leads.  I believe they’ve been a valuable asset in our schools and have worked hard to fund their work.  That said, if celebrating diversity and bringing people together was their aim, and, for the record, I not convinced it wasn’t, then showcasing the people, institutions and efforts that have had great success in working with Manchester’s new populations would have been the way to go.

Imagine a workshop where Superintendent Dr. Bolgen Vargas, a Dominican immigrant, shares his story and gives insight into how he went from not speaking a word of English as a 17-year-old immigrant to being one of the most respected educators in the country.

How about a workshop where the Manchester School District showcased its efforts to open educational opportunities, not just to minority students, but also to poor white students?

Why not have a workshop where the Manchester Police Department can highlight its many community engagement efforts?

Where are the workshops featuring immigrants like Mary Georges or Eva Castillo-Turgeon (who, by the way, assures me that active bystander training is “a pretty inoffensive training that teaches how to safely intervene if someone is being bullied or picked on.”) and their efforts to help newcomers become acclimated to their new home?  Many others come to mind, like State Rep. Jean Jeudy.

I don’t think Dr. King would approve of topics that inherently leave one group of people “accused” and all others “victims.”  I think he would marvel at how far we’ve come, celebrate the successes and build on them to disprove the idea that the cover of the book matters.  Yes, we still have work to do.  We will always have work to do because people are people and that’s the way it is.  But, breaking people into camps that can be generally summed up as “perpetrator” and “victim” and painting them with broad brushes would seem to turn Dr. King’s admonitions on their heads as they appear to:

• “…satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.”
• depart from “…the high plane of dignity and discipline.”
• “…lead us to distrust all white people…”  despite the many “…white brothers…” who “…realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.”  (As I firmly believe.) and
• reject the idea “…that their freedom is in­extricably bound to our freedom.”  (As I also firmly believe)

And, most importantly, if one believes in “microaggressions” or the need to “unpack whiteness” or “Combat the Criminalization of Black, Brown, and Red Youth,” it seems utterly contrary to Dr. King’s dream that his:

“…four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their  character.”

Dr. King’s dream is not possible when people are summarily assigned to groups and given characteristics that fit a narrative.  His dream is only possible when we truly take the measure of any individual, race, color or creed notwithstanding.

Manchester deserves better than workshops built around the inflammatory terms and rhetoric of those who use racism as a brickbat.  For all it’s justly done to assist its newcomers, Manchester’s earned it.

Even if the seminars are innocuous as claimed, the organizers should have been mindful of those terms’ meanings in the modern political context.  They aren’t secrets and are designed to provoke reactions they then use as evidence of their claims.  Maybe I should have left well enough alone, but if we’re going to have discussions on race, it’s important we have them without the roiling rhetoric and that we demand those who use it define their terms and be held to account.

Here’s the complete line up of workshops as posted, but no longer available, on City Year’s Web site: