i think this class was beautiful, sharon. thank you.
via discussions, i can see that the impact seems to be varied. but, for me, this was beautiful — the literature, the fact that we concretised the literature (and lived it through the ‘experiences); the fact that you got 116 students to engage critically with an abstract idea from a book (and to empower them to bring their own point-of-view).
argh. this was awesome to see it play out, and for me to experience the transistion from a critic to a believer.
from an email to sharon de la cruz.
i wrote this, a couple of months prior:
i currently don’t believe that the course sets students up to engage in a critical dialogue with leaders. the fact that the course is designed as a 116-student lecture-format, with the additional sprinkle of ‘q & a-s’ is not enough to foster critical dialogue; especially when dialogue is supposed to be two-way.
i believe there are better ways to execute this class, and more honestly meet the mission.
this class has reinforced that i need to trust the process.
i think there is space for depth in this program. it is rooted in the practice of the professors; we’re just too stimulated to see it. addition to my approach to itp:
when you feel that you’ve gone fast for too long, slow down.
i need to make space to reflect more, to shut up & absorb what’s going on, and to let thoughts boil (instead of acting on them instantaneously).