On March 4, 2022, sophomore Saroya Ornelas Pagnucci, Parker Student Government’s Inclusion Coordinator, sent an email to the Upper School student body announcing that a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Dialogue would take place during Plenary. Students were randomly sorted into groups of about 16 to 17 people, with one student facilitator to lead the conversation. 

When asked to explain the purpose of the DEI Dialogue, Ornelas Pagnucci stated that “The purpose of this DEI Dialogue was to allow for the Upper School student body to have meaningful discussions about DEI topics at Parker,” Ornelas Pagnucci said. 

Similar to the DEI work done in previous years, “the dialogue was meant to be a space where the students could share their thoughts and opinions on DEI-related questions while also reflecting on themselves and their role in the student body.”

In addition to Ornelas Pagnucci, the Upper School DEI Task Force played a significant role in planning the DEI Dialogues. “Essentially, we planned and facilitated the entire Student Government session,” sophomore and member of the DEI Task Force Jack Charfoos said. 

Some discussions began with a physical exercise in which the facilitators asked students to move to different parts of the classroom based on whether they agreed with a particular statement. Drew Klauber, a junior and one of the session facilitators, opened his session by asking students: “is a potato a vegetable?” Students were asked to move to either side of the classroom based on their response. Next, Klauber asked students, “does Parker do a good job including all people?” Students were asked to once again move to a particular side or corner of the room based on their opinion. 

After conducting several more questions of the same nature, students were told to return to their seats. At this point, the questions shifted fully to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion at Parker. “Some of the common themes in the various rooms were the lack of representation in the curriculum and the microaggressions by faculty members and peers,” said Ornelas Pagnucci. 

“It was also brought up that mostly people of color were the ones who felt comfortable having these kinds of conversations, while the non-people of color generally felt like they didn’t have reason to talk in this space because the issues being discussed did not pertain to them,” Pagnucci added.

The intention was to provide an opportunity for conversations about DEI, but some facilitators expressed concerns about the efficacy of the dialogues.” The rooms were too large to really get any meaningful conversation started,” Charfoos said.

Payton Pitts, head of the Black Student Union (BSU) and the Men of Color Affinity Group (MOCHA), shared a similar opinion. “I thought the DEI conversations lacked incentive and purpose. The students weren’t given any knowledge whatsoever about where the information said was going to be used, which has been a problem in past years,” said Pitts. 

Ornelas Pagnucci began planning the dialogue with Rupani and the DEI Taskforce in late November, with the original date set for some time in February. The week of the dialogue, however, a longtime teacher made a racist comment during class, and some students believed that the dialogues were meant to be a direct response. 

One anonymous student shared this view. “It seemed like the focus was not actually on students’ personal experience with DEI,” the student said, “but rather a stunt to see the kids’ thoughts on an event that transpired and could damage the reputation of the school.” 

The DEI conversations highlighted additional challenges. When the BSU discussed the conversations, member comments included that “DEI discussions are heavily contributed to by students of color,” in turn making them “ineffective.” BSU members also shared that students of color felt “uncomfortable” as they were “getting side eyes” during the conversations. 

While the response to the discussions was not entirely positive, students shared solutions and ideas for improvement during future sessions. “I think the next time we do this, students should pick their own groups,” Charfoos said. “People understandably feel more comfortable with their friends, and that sense of comfort will lead to better conversations.” 

Pitts shared a different view than Charfoos. From Pitts’ perspective, he thought whoever was in charge should “make it an optional space so everyone who wants to be there is there and will actively participate.” Pitts added that there must be a clear use for the dialogue. “Telling the students ways in which their genuine thoughts and expressions are being used will potentially provoke more effective discussions,” Pitts said. 

When asked if she was happy about the results of the event, Ornelas Pagnucci said, “I think that the DEI Dialogue was a crucial step towards discussing DEI topics with the student body and receiving extremely helpful feedback and insight. However, I think that turning that feedback into actionable change is something that we will need to continue to work on.”

Echoing the sentiments of the Inclusion Coordinator, Pitts said “students’ thoughts are being recorded and for all we know nothing has been acted upon. Nothing substantial will come out of a meeting forced upon unengaged students on a sunny Friday afternoon.”