Julie Andrzejewski


My name is Julie Andrzejewski and I have been a professor at St. Cloud State University for—this is my 30th year, actually. What else do I want to tell you? I also have been the director of various programs. Uh, currently I’m just ending uh the director uh of the Citizenship for Diversity project, which is a project on teaching to prevent harassment and hate crimes.

Great. Let’s see, I started at St. Cloud State in 1971 and I immediately became involved with a special program there called Human Relations. And the Human Relations program was just—actually, it was just a course. It was a course that was developed to teach teachers about par—in particular at that time it was uh race and class. The um—this—this program was just getting started and we had to develop it. And we really hadn’t—many of the people that were involved really had no idea how to even teach about these issues, although we were very interested in them. Many of us have been involved in some of the social movements that were—had evolved during the 60’s. And so we were involved in anti-racist work, anti-sexist work, or the feminist movement. It was woman’s liberation movement at that time. So I came to St. Cloud from Seattle where everything—all kinds of things were happening and St. Cloud was kind of a sleepy little town at that point. But they did have the same program and that was exciting to me. So I became involved with that program and we started teaching teachers and we had a mandate that all teachers had to take a course in 60 hours of human relations training. This came about because parents came to the State Department of Education of Minnesota and said, “Our children are not being educated and they are experiencing problems in school and we want to have teachers that are going to actually uh no how to teach our children, that are not going to be encouraging racism, and especially socioeconomic class issues. So that’s how it—it began and this was a requirement for all teachers who were very angry that they had to take another class that they did not get even a lane change for. So we were sent out all over to the—all over the state to teach this class to angry people and it was really a um trial by fire for sure. We were—and we learned a lot because we had to figure out ways of developing the class in ways so that we could actually turn people’s aggravation at taking this class into some inspiration and some interest. So we started out with uh “What were they worried about? What are they concerned about in the world? Did they see any of these things happening in their own lives?” And little by little we were able to build a class where we were able to turn people around from very defensive, angry, or aggravated people into a group of people who actually could see that there might be some benefit in studying these issues. So this class that we offered both for in-service teachers and pre-service teachers began to become very um popular. Students who were in other classes and not in teacher education began wanting to take our classes. And it was not popular because it wasn’t challenging because I know that can happen to. I mean you can have a real nice fluffy class where people are just—feel—doing feel-good kinds of things, but we were really challenging people on difficult issues. Really challenging them to look at their teaching, to look at the various kinds of students that they had in their classes and to look at even if they felt like they didn’t have any diversity in their schools. Because a lot of—of um the teachers would come from rural school districts or something where they had no students of color and so then they would say, “Well, why do I have to come to this class because I don’t have any of those people to teach?” And, of course, what we talked to them about is that racism is alive and well in all white schools and there are other issues as—that are uh diverse within your school systems and so on. So we were very excited about working on these issues. This was in the early 1970’s and as I said, other students began taking our classes who were non-education major and at that time we decided to create a general education course. So we did that and it was called, “Non-oppressive Relationships” and that course also became extremely popular. I mean students—it was very much in demand. And what they said was that in this class they could deal with issues that were ignored or omitted from other classes that they were taking. So they said the students that would take one class, then the non-oppressive relationships would say, “Well, we want more. So at that point, I was chair of the department and I developed a minor. I thought, “Well, that’s an easy thing.” And to develop a major you have to prove that you—they can get all kinds of jobs in this area and so on. And I thought really a minor would be good because then a student that was majoring in any area could use a minor in human relations. And that was the name of our program at that time—was Human Relations. Later we changed it to Human Relations and Multicultural Education. So we developed this minor and the minor had uh this non-oppressive relationships class was the foundation class and then we developed a number of different electives. We have a disability rights’ elective. We have heterosexism. We have a class in critical analysis of science and technology, critical analysis of the media. We have American Indian issues. We have gender and education. Slowly we developed uh short courses on each of these issues and each of those courses was to integrate all of the other issues. In other words, one of the components of our program is that we deal with all of the social justice issues. And this came about as our—as the initial course—teacher education course that we developed started out just with race and class but very quickly we added gender. We added—we were teaching uh gay/lesbian, bisexual, transgender issues in the early 70’s and began adding ableism, global issues, which is another area where a lot of um multicultural program, I think, really don’t necessarily make the connection to global issues. And we dealt with xenophobia, that is uh national origin—issues of national origin within this country as well as issues of global economics and politics. And looking at issues of capitalism and how the search for—in maximizing profits does create—it inherently conflicts with human rights issues, with environmental issues, and all of the social justice areas that we were teaching about. So little by little we came to—to see those things. We—we had a process of our own and began learning. First of all, we had to learn—we—we started seeing these connections. We—we—we started out as many programs do and that is having uh victims or survivors now we would call them, of these different oppressions tell us their stories and—and have people think about how are these people treated. And then very quickly we move to an examination of who’s making these decisions and looking at institutional uh oppression, looking at uh provasive, and subtle, hidden types of oppression that were occurring, how ‘business as usual’ is racist and sexist and ageist and all the rest. And how you have to really examine all of these—these details uh within any kind of an institution in order to really change that institution. So we came to that and then we started noticing, “Well gee, there are some patterns that tend to reoccur among these different types of oppression.” And looking at how often times then power and money are a foundational and core issues involved in those. So our—our whole analysis changed, our theoretical base changed, and we began to really re-examine and reformulate how we taught the class. And as I say, the students who came into the non-oppressive relationships class, for instance, or the teacher education class, found something there that they weren’t finding in other classes. And they were very excited about it. It named some things. It named some things. We studied some things that were happening in their lives. Their parents, for instance, might be working for a corporation that moved to another country and the—their job was eliminated. So there were—there were a number of these things. Like maybe their parents lost their job. Uh maybe it was a middle management job. Maybe it was—maybe one of their parents had uh quite a—um a responsible position with a corporation and all of a sudden there was downsizing that was occurring and that their parent all of a sudden was having to maybe work at several part time jobs. And these various life experiences really helped us begin to touch the lives of our students. And that’s another thing that we have always incorporated into our classes. That we try to make our classes very practical and very related to student lives so that from the very beginning of our classes we want students to—to connect all of these issues with themselves and to see how they affect their lives and how they can do something about these issues. They have some power to change them.

So we developed this minor and as a part of the minor the capstone course we developed was called “Change Agent Skills.” And this is a course in teaching cit—citizenship skills really and activism. Because one of the things that is really a problem is that a lot of schools at whatever level you are at, whether it’s elementary through university level, almost all schools say that they are teaching citizenship skills. And so in one of my classes many years ago, I started asking, “Well, that’s great. So let’s list the citizenship skills that you now have.” And so as they—so they—first of all, they’re quiet and then someone says, “Vote.” OK. So I write that on the board. And little by little they would bring up a few things here and there. But when they looked at the list, it was pretty pathetic because basically throughout—now I’ve been asking the—that question for about 15 years and I almost always get five things. Vote, salute the flag, say the pledge of allegiance, pay your taxes, and obey the laws. Occasionally a student will say, “Write to your congressperson.” I’ll say, “OK, great. How many of you have done that?” Maybe one, maybe two people have done that in the class. So it’s my contention that we really don’t teach students citizenship skills because what that means is really teaching students to become activists. And, of course, as we know, activists in the media are portrayed as troublemakers, people who are out of control, they are ignorant, and they just want to cause a ruckus. So people don’t want to be that. And yet, what we try to teach then is what is a social movement, what is involved with that, how can you—what are the actual kinds of skills that you need. You need to know how to write a letter to the editor. You need to know how to uh write a letter to a—an official and copy it maybe to some other people. You need to know how to do research. You need to know how to evaluate information, especially information from what we call the mainstream media because it is our contention—and this is one of the things that we have students study is, “Who owns the mainstream media?” And we uh use project censored materials from Sonoma, California—you’re probably familiar with that—where they identify the top 10 stories every year that have been censored by the mainstream media. And we teach students because our students come very much believing in the printed word. If the uh paper—if the newspaper reports something, that’s the truth. And what we teach them is to examine who owns the media and in who’s interest are they shaping the information that is made available to us. When the students begin to study who owns the media and discover that actually the media are not there really to provide them with information, they are really there to maximize their own profits. And that most of those profits come from advertising. They are shocked. And they’re amazed. And then we actually teach them the skills of analyzing the media. So we bring in newspapers and examine, you know, what are the—what’s on the front page versus what’s on the back pages. We have them compare corporate-owned media with alternative press publications. Most of our students are not even aware that the alternative press exists. Especially—and of course, what we’re dealing with is the social justice—social and environmental justice uh alternative press. So we send them to the website HYPERLINK "http://www.altpress.org" www.altpress.org and they can see all of the different uh publications that are basically for the most part non-profit publications. And we have them examine—we have them critique those two. We’re—we’re not saying, “OK, you can believe the alternative press but not the corporate-owned press.” We say there’s lots of information in both of these but you need to evaluate that information. So that means that you have to identify what are the hidden values here? What—what is valued? So we ask a series of questions where they will actually analyze what are the values in the corporate-owned media and compare it with what are the values in the alternative press and usually on an article that’s on the same topic and then they can really see those differences. So that’s another change agent skill that we would teach the students. We teach students about organizing and about social movements and what makes up a social movement. And how—if something’s happening in their neighborhood or their school or their state or even country, just like the students have been organizing around sweatshops and challenging what sweatshops have been doing. How are they treating their workers? What are they paying them? And how are colleges involved in that because a lot of their clothing is made in these sweatshops. So this is a—a—an example of a student movement that has been tremendously successful and—and it involved research, it involves writing letters, it involves organizing with others, it involves reaching out to others across the country and using the Internet and all forms of communication to connect with uh other students. So that’s our capstone course. We’re very excited about that as well. And then the students’ said, “We still want more.” So at that point we—this is about 5 years ago now—we developed a master’s degree in social responsibility. And this masters degree is a program that really looks at global, social, and environmental justice issues, connects them with personal, individual, and community levels. In terms of how are these larger policies and practices—like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization how are these treaties like the uh—the NAFTA—North American Free Trade Agreement or GATT, the General Agreement uh on uh Trades and Tariffs—how are they affecting our lives? And, of course, at first many of our students they kind of—their eyes kind of glaze over like these things I—they don’t—I just can’t understand them. And we are very much against jargon in our program. We teach in, you know, regular language and we contend to the students that you can understand these. These are not concepts or issues that are beyond your reach at all. You can understand them and you must understand them because they are affecting your lives every day. So we—we use—have these larger issues of global capitalism within which even the issues of racism, and sexism, ableism, even make more sense because then they can see how does racism play out on a global level? Where are the countries that are so-called under-developed? We call them over exploited. We get that term from Michael Parenty. And they are the countries mostly of people of color. And within those countries even who are the groups that are often timed used. And, of course, women are among those that are used in the factories, especially, as almost throw away labor. Uh, they’re brought in sometimes to use microphones until their eyes go bad and then they’re discarded. Actually, now a major issue is slavery. Slavery is a huge issue. There is more slavery in the world today then there ever was. And this is now just beginning to come out. That in some of these—it’s not even sweatshops, it’s not even low wages, it actually is either indentured uh servants or it’s actual slavery where people are not allowed to leave. And it can happen in a variety of ways in different countries. There is a book called, “Disposable People” that identifies—by—by Kevin Bails that—that de—develops this idea. Now I don’t know that he ties it as well into this globalization. He does to some extent. So we draw from uh so many different areas and we all—we always connect it with people’s every day lives. Not only their jobs and the big things in their lives, but uh then also we bring it down to even issues—very interpersonal issues like respect and safety on campus. And this um was developed—let’s see, I should say uh five—about five years ago in one of my—my change agent classes, a number of my students came to me and they said, “There are some really terrible things happening in the residence halls. People are being subjected to negative language and to nasty notes written and put on their bulletin boards and things like that. And we think that really something must—needs to be done. We don’t think this is unusual, we think this is the way it’s been for years and years and years. But we think that it’s not a safe and a supportive environment for a lot of people here on campus.” So because they have to do projects in their—in their change agent skills class—because they actually choose a project of their own interest to uh develop and to research and then to choose to take some actions on, they started researching this problem and they gathered information from all of the different residence halls and pulled it together and then they made some recommendations. And one of the recommendations was that a whole course needed to be offered; especially to first-year students because they said a lot of these behaviors are really occurring in the students’ first years.

One of the things that I start my classes with is “What are your worries about the world today?” And students are not asked that question very much. So I have them write that down in the same card that they write their name and address and phone number for a little list. They write on the back of that card, “What are their worries about the world?” And what comes out is amazing because they actually identify the issues. I don’t identify the issues for them; they start saying, “Well, you know, I’m worried that our air isn’t breathable and our water isn’t drinkable and our soil is—is—is being eroded. And I’m worried that there’s toxic waste dumps all over. I’m worried that there’s violence in our communities. I am worried that people don’t have jobs, they’re homeless people.” And even if they themselves don’t happen to be homeless, they may have to—they may encounter homeless people and they don’t know how to deal with that and what does that mean and is it those people’s fault or is it the fault of something else? They are very concerned about so many of these issues. So little by little they identify the issues as we go around even on the first day, they can say, “I’m worried about the hate crimes that are occurring. I have a gay brother and I’m worried for his safety.” Another person might say, “I have a person in my family that is—has a disability and they were attacked on the street the other day. I’m very scared for them now.” Or “I’m afraid—or “My friends go around saying the word ‘retard’ all the time and it makes me feel very uncomfortable because I have, you know, a person in my family who has a developmental disability and I am really offended when someone makes a statement like that.” So they themselves begin to identify these issues and as we put them up on the board then we just look at them and I say, “And that’s what the class is about.” So I do that with the teacher—the—the teacher’s courses also so that they can see that these issues are of concern to everyone and that they can bring them out of their own students. That the students are—are concerned and worried about so many things and they don’t get a place to talk about these issues. They are very frustrated and they’re so delighted. Even though they’re controversial and even though they may not agree with different things, and there may be conflicts in the class, as long as we can be a midwife to those kinds of discussions and keep it on a level that we’re discovering what the importance of—of these issues and we’re discovering the truth. We’re looking for the truth and by looking at our disagreements, we can research these issues and find out what is the real information and then we can analyze this information and come to some conclusions of our own and we may not come to the same conclusions. So that’s sort of the—the approach that we take as we say “We’re taking an investigative approach in this class and we’re trying to track down the veracity of information and really check it out. We can check our sources, we can crosscheck, and then we can analyze the data that we have before us and apply what are our values. And, of course, I always come back to what I was taught, that the United States stand for which is “equality and justice for all” and what does that mean? And they—the other thing that we teach students is even just how to analyze. I mean they don’t really know—people talk about analysis and synthesis, but they really don’t—most students really don’t have—get taught what does analysis mean? What does analyzing mean? And so we teach analysis and synthesis in our classes. We teach that analysis means that you are asking questions about various types of information. You are searching it. You are—you are looking at it from different angles. You might even have a set of criteria that you’re applying to it. And I give them—I say, “OK, we’ll start with a very simple model of analysis. One that you all know.” And I’ll say, “It’s that you just compare what a person says they stand for with their actions.” And you can do that with a person, you can do that with an institution, and you can do that with a country. So you can take what the United States says it stands for, “equality and justice for all,” and then let’s look at the policies and practices that the United States has. And then we actually make lists on the board of what does the United States say it stands for and then we make lists of what are its—what is it doing? What is it doing with the military? What is it doing when it’s going—what does it say it’s doing? Well, the United States says that it’s promoting democracy. But then if you actually look at its policies, how many countries have been overthrown by the CIA? And do the American people even know this? No they don’t. Well, why don’t they know this? So those are the kinds of questions that we raise and those are the—that’s—that’s a very simple model. They get that right away. And actually I had them do that with the candidates. That was another skill that they were taught this semester in particular. I say, “Just look at the candidates, identify what they say they stand for, and then examine their records. Not what their plans are, but what have they done and then you can make a judgment about who you might want to support.” Well they found amazing things, of course, even about their favorite candidates. They were—they were disturbed. They said, “Well, this candidate says they’re for ‘x’ but then I found that they were doing this, and this, and this.” And—so that way it’s a good way because you’re not telling them, “Well, you should vote for this candidate” or “You shouldn’t—or you’re not implying that.” They’re completely coming to these conclusions themselves and the same with the media. I’m not saying don’t believe the corporate-owned media. I’m not saying always believe the alternative press. I’m just saying, “What are their values. Let’s analyze what their values are, how can we tell.” Just little things like what words are used—all of those kinds of things. That’s another method of analysis. And then you can make a judgment for yourself about, you know, “In whose interest is this publication working. In whose interest is that publication working.” So those are the kinds of skills that we teach in the change agent class. Those are the kinds of skills we teach the teachers hoping that the teachers will be able to teach these skills to their students and get them to analyze “Do they want to teach the way they have been taught or do they want to teach some—some skills that maybe they—they were not taught.” And that leads me to the article that I wrote uh for the anti-deformation league. I actually—it was a—I wrote it for a conf—uh a—a speech that I was suppose to give uh at a media conference. And they—the title was “Political Correctness.” And I said, “Well, I don’t really like that title in itself.” I said, “I think that’s a bias title.” But I said, “That’s OK.” So I wrote this little essay called, “Reflections Upon the Political Bias in Traditional Education.” Because, of course, those of use who are teaching these alternative perspectives—and I say alternative—they’re alternative to the conventional wisdom that is taught through many different ways. It’s taught in our educational system, it’s taught through our media, it’s taught in our churches, in so many different—in so many different venues. People get their stereotypes, their biases, misinformation about history, about—about science, so many different things. And what we are—what we’re doing is to try to say, “We are giving you some perspectives that you haven’t been taught.” And that’s what I—I talk about in my essay. I just wrote about what I had been taught, which was uh that George Washington was the father of our country. Well who’s country was this and who’s ‘our’? And I’d just make a list of those kinds of things. By what was a taught by people in other countries? And when I thought about it, I thought, “Well, I wasn’t even taught about people in other countries.” I was taught about magnesium and bauxite, which I didn’t even know what it was. But I just remember those little symbols. Uranium, gold, and diamonds. I remember seeing these big maps of these countries. We would study where the countries were and then we would study what these countries had. And if we—first of all, it was very puzzling. And the only thing that we eventually learned was that we studied about what these countries had because we wanted it. And it was only later that I discovered that how we were getting it was through neocolonialism or the extraction of wealth out of these countries uh through unfair means and often times violent means. So when I thought back on what I was taught, that the only importance that these countries had was what these resources were. If we were taught about the people of the other countries, we were taught that they were backwards, uh rather incompetent, and in need of our help and we—we should go in there and sort of do a chartable thing and—and help these poor people out because they just couldn’t seem to handle their own countries of theirs. Instead of, of course, as I studied later, finding out that no, these countries were prevented from developing in any way that would benefit themselves. Their resources were extracted for the benefit of some wealthy people or corporations in a—in other countries, European or western countries. So I wrote that rest—that essay because I wanted to show people that there was tremendous political bias in the traditional education that many of us grew up with and in fact many of my students still are getting that same education. It’s very depressing. Thirty years later, I still have students who come and think that Columbus discovered America and it is—it’s very distressing to—to see that.

OK. I think I mentioned that five of my students had done this research in the residence halls and discovered that there were a lot of very negative things that were occurring and they made recommendations at the end of their research. And their recommendation was that a course needed to be developed. So I said, “Great.” And I worked with them and developed a course called “Human Relations Harassment and Personal Behavior.” Well, we didn’t have any staff to teach this course because all of our other courses were full and we had a lot of pressure to meet our other needs. So I wrote a grant proposal and got enough money to hire a person for two years—a full-time person for two years and that—in that way, that person could teach some of my classes and I was able to develop this new project. And the project that I developed was called—I called it the “Citizenship for Diversity Project,” teaching for the prevention of harassment and hate crimes because it is my firm belief that you can prevent harassment and hate crimes by changing the norms and environments that have been encouraged by negative cultural and pop—and popular culture as well. So I—I strongly believe that there is a connection between every day behaviors and violence. And you can see that if you look at the young men who killed Matthew Shepherd or James Bird, Jr. Because both of them—uh all—all of the young men that were involved in there said that they thought that their friends and their communities would be happy that they killed these people or beat these people. And that means that that environment that they lived in was so negative and people made such terrible comments that these young men felt that violence was not only acceptable, but would be appreciated. So there is a wonderful—what would I call it? A uh—there’s a wonderful model. And the model is called “The Tower of Violence.” I got it from the gay/lesbian community action council in Minneapolis and then I’ve adapted it a little bit. And I can give you a copy of it uh because I think you’d be interested. And it starts off with indirect acts of prejudice, to acts of individual prejudice, to—to human rights violations, which include things like institutional discrimination and so on, to acts of violence, to um life-threatening acts. And it shows that there is a connection between all of these things. And I have some exercises that I developed that help the students see that—that their every day lives are filled with negative comments about people’s differences because I have a list of all the different categories that people are in and most of us our in multiple categories. And I ask them, “Do they—have they ever experienced themselves or have any of their friends or family experienced any kind of ridicule or teasing or name calling or threats and so on based on any of these things?” And the students are amazed that every day they are seeing that there are certain things that are being said or done that hurt them. And then I ask them “How many times have you participated in these things against other people?” And they also realize that they are saying things and doing things every day that are hurting other people. So right away they can see these things connect to their own lives. And I developed this project that is a whole class that teaches about each—many of the different issues. We integrate anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and looksism—that’s discrimination based on physical appearance. Uh, it can be size, it can be hair, it can be so many different things. And, in fact, all of the other issues almost uh come together in that looksism uh area as well. And then I paired it with an English or a speech class—general education requirements—and faculty members who also understood the issues of social justice. And they then would allow students to write about these issues in the English classes or uh do various kinds of speaking projects in the speech communication classes. And then we took cl—students from all from one residence hall because we wanted to see—if we didn’t all the students in that residence hall, but we had some of the students, could we change the norms in that—in that area? And so we also had programs going in the residence halls and we—we connected with the residence hall staff. We also included all of the different student support organizations on campus. The Women’s Center, the Minority Student program, the um Student Disability Services, the Gay/Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, uh Student Life and Development, the American Indian Center. You know, all of those were involved in giving suggestions to the project and also helping support it in various ways like by offering programs in the residence halls and so on. We did a pre/post survey on the—on that course that found uh very significant results between uh the two um, uh surveys and we also did follow up interviews with students as well and found a tremendous uh change in people. That they themselves changed their own lives. We were not able to do studies of the whole residence hall, but we did get feedback from the directors of the residence hall and were able to compare them with some of the incidents that were occurring in other residence halls. So we were able to see that there was a difference in that as well. What happened was that the students would go out of the class and they would be arguing about these things and conversing and—and they would in their spare time when they were having parties or get-togethers or whatever, issues would come up or somebody would say, “That’s so gay.” And then somebody else would say, “Are you sure you want to say that? Don’t you think we should—you know, maybe someone’s gay in here?” Or something like that so that those issues uh started to become part of their every day experience. And that uh—we haven’t finished with that project. Obviously it’s just the beginning. The thing that I did with that then is I worked with teachers that are in our master’s degree program, in social responsibility, and I now am working with three teachers in high schools who are teaching classes in these issues to prevent harassment and hate crimes at their high schools. And one of my teachers did a great project. He has his students in—his high school students after they go through a class that studies these issues, he has his high school students going to the elementary and middle schools and has the high school students teaching the younger students. And it’s a very powerful experience. So again, these are—these are things that have just been developing now at this time and we’re very excited about the potential for them. But we’re also seeing that there are results already, even though they’re, you know, still in a small—small amount.

But I was going to say—I was going to tell about one other part of that program uh—of that project because I would say two of the most significant parts of that class that is taught to first-year students who are coming from—who are coming out of their high school experience—and that’s another problem, is that you can see that these—this name calling and these jokes and all of this negativity is ramped in the schools, that is what is happening and, of course, the Minnesota Safe School Repot shows that. That violence is happening every day, insults are happening every day, and the violence is related often times to insults uh that students if they’re even not participating, they are silent about it or even laughing. And that’s very unfortunate. So the students are coming out of these environments and are coming to uh their first year and they don’t really know how to behave in a respectful and safe manner. So with two of the most powerful things that we have discovered in that class, one is experiential projects where they actually have to uh ig—observe race—any instances of racism or racist language or jokes and we give them all kinds of examples of what that might look like. And they’re essentially analyzing their own existence, their every day lives. And they get maybe two or three weeks to just watch. Watch themselves, watch their parents, watch their family. And, of course, when they first get this project, they all say, “I’m not going to find anything. It’s just not going to be there.” And, of course, at the end of the project they come in and they say, “I was shocked. I couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe what my friends were saying. I couldn’t believe what my family was saying. And I couldn’t believe that I said these things myself and that I said them every day. And then I was getting e-mails about that and laughing at these different things that were occurring.” So these—when we have an experiential project on each one of the issues where they do some kind of analysis of their own everyday behaviors and then part of the next step is to try and practice changing that. And that gets again to the skill level, that is that they are actually then practicing not saying—using that name, stopping saying, “That’s so gay” or “You retard” or the—sending back the uh—a note to the person who e-mailed you with that very racist joke and saying, “Don’t send me those anymore. So they practice it. So that has been one thing that the students themselves have identified in the—in the evaluation of the class, that that was very powerful. And the other one is that we have peer panels coming in. Panel of students who themselves have experienced problems and they get to hear what are the consequences of these negative jokes and comments that are made to people. And even some—in some cases how violence is involved in that situation. And the students are just amazed again. And they—they get to hear that these things cause pain and they don’t want to be doing that. That’s not who they see themselves as and they want to behave in a way that isn’t harming other people. So that has been a very powerful thing for us to—to see the changes that students are going through in these classes.