Crossing the Line Raises More Questions than Answers
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
Last week, my RAs threatened to fine students $25 if they did not attend the “mandatory” ResEd program “Crossing the Line” (note: they did not later enforce the fine). The RAs did not offer any information about the program besides that it would help build dorm camaraderie. Not until students were inside the room and the doors were shut did the program facilitator Josh Schiller introduce himself as a representative of the Multicultural Education Training Organization (METrO) and reveal the purpose of the program: to build “community by visually demonstrating dimension in individuals and commonality in a community where there is overlap in multiple identities.”
For those unfamiliar with Crossing the Line, here is a synopsis of what occurred in my dorm: Students gathered in the common room, which was divided by a line of blue tape. Schiller then asked that students respond positively to a series of questions by silently crossing the line. He encouraged students to interpret the questions for themselves and explained that they could later make clarifications to the group. While he told students that they should not feel pressured into revealing anything they did not want others to know, he also indicated that the activity would only be productive if everyone was open. To encourage openness, he reminded us that the information we volunteered was confidential. All students whether they participated in the event voluntarily or not were required to keep all disclosures confidential. (To respect this confidentiality, I will not address specific comments made during the program and will keep anonymous those who later commented).
Schiller then mentioned that he would record statistics of responses, but not to worry, that he would not include any names: just general information, no identities. He did not explain the purpose of such statistics, and when asked in an e-mail, he did not comment. During the proceeding discussion, Schiller shared some statistics that METrO had collected through the program over the years, making questionable the program’s confidentiality.
Many questions,however, were framed so ambiguously that statistics could not yield meaningful responses. For example, instead of asking “Have you ever felt attracted to a member of the same sex?” Schiller asked “Have you ever found a member of the same sex attractive?” While I find Jessica Alba attractive, I am not attracted to her. To the program’s credit, many questions were two-sided. For example, when Schiller asked whether students felt uncomfortable around homosexuals publicly displaying signs of affection (which can be interpreted from merely holding hands to having sex), he followed up with a similar question with regards to heterosexuals. When he asked, “Do you prefer to date individuals of the same race?” he also asked “Do you prefer to date individuals of a different race?” However, one exception was notable: Though he asked “Are you religiously conservative?” he did not ask “Are you religiously liberal?”
“I am not sure what he was getting at with the religious conservative question,” said one student. “Like is it bad to be religiously conservative?”
While politics is often just as significant as religion in “demonstrating dimension in individuals and commonality in community,” Schiller did not pose any questions about political ideologies such as “Are you politically liberal?” or “Do you feel uncomfortable expressing your political views?” When asked why he did not address politics, Schiller did not comment.
“I was really expecting him to ask about politics, especially after the question about religious conservatism. But he didn’t, which was really strange,” said one student. “Maybe he didn’t think politics was as sensitive an issue as religion.”
Notably, while some questions concerned topics like mental health, relationships, and alcohol, the predominant focus was on the five pillars of multiculturalism: race, religion, gender, sexuality, and socioeconomics. Have you ever told a racist joke? Do you feel that others misunderstand your religion? Have you experienced sexism at Stanford? Have you engaged in homophobic behavior? Do you feel uncomfortable around people of different socioeconomic classes? Those who admitted to prejudiced behavior stood ashamedly in front of their peers with their arms crossed and eyes pointed to the ground.
After a slew of provocative questions, we discussed our feelings first in pairs and then as a dorm. While in pairs we were able to privately discuss personal issues in greater detail, Schiller “facilitated” the proceeding hour-plus dorm discussion that focused entirely on race and ethnic housing. Although questions of race had only constituted about fifteen percent of the activity, Schiller often fueled the discussion by inserting his own opinions and made no attempt to steer the discussion to other issues. For example, he responded to a comment that ethnic housing supported separatism by asking whether all-frosh houses also supported separatism.
“I think everyone got really sick of the discussion, but at the same time, no one could stop it,” said one student. “It really bugged me that he kept on throwing in his own opinions and ended with his opinion”
After allowing the discussion to run over by half an hour, Schiller concluded with an “alternative point of view”: he asked students to reconsider how ethnic housing helps minorities cope with prejudice and that it is not easy being a minority. Finally, he encouraged us to “confront” our peers later in private about anything that surprised or concerned us. For example, I was later accosted about why I supported racial profiling for national defense purposes and was forced to defend my position. I could not help but wonder how encouraging students to confront one another rather than to discuss the issues helps build community. While the lengthy discussion over race and ethnic themed houses exasperated many students, Schiller succeeded at calming some frustrations by asking students to give one another five hugs before they left.
“The hugs helped diffuse some of the tension of the discussion and bring the focus back onto community,” said one student.
Unlike in most Stanford classes and programs, students did not receive the opportunity to provide feedback so that future participants can benefit from the program. When I e-mailed Schiller about writing an article on the program, he asked for what publication and voiced his blank disapproval, suggesting that depicting what truthfully occurred would undermine the program’s effectiveness for future participants: students might not want to participate or speak candidly if they knew its content and objectives beforehand. Schiller did not address any of my other concerns about the methodology of the program.
