260. Yvette Taylor and Micelle Addison Dillabough, J. A. and Kes Routledge Haylett, C. @o01) and middle-class 19, 361-37 Kemway, J. 1d McLeod, J, (2004) Bou points of view’: whose eflexivity, which perspective? British Journal of So Euation,25(8), 525-544, Nayak, A. 2003) Race, Place and Global Oxford: Berg. Nayak, 4. and Kehily, M.J. (2008) Gender, Youth an 2s Basingstoke: Palgrave Macraillan Parker, 8. 2010) Working cay ¥. Taylor (ed), Classe Intersections: Spaces, Seles, Knowledges, Aldershot: Ashgate, 13-34 reflexive sociology and ‘spaces of oof Changing Word Savage, Sage ‘Skeggs, 8. (1997) Pormations of Class a Taylor, ¥. and Addison, M. (2009) (Rejconst and (reimagining spatial negotiation of gender and dening participation students’ perience of higher education, UX, European Societies Qn lone, N. (2008) Object Matters. Cond ‘Watson, S. 2006) (Oxon: Routledge. 14 Safe Feminist Spaces: Reflections about the Institute for Research on Women at Rutgers-New Brunswick Yolanda Martinez-San Miguel and Sarah Tobias Bien ajo Lupercio Leonar, que bien se puede filosofar y aderezar la cena. ¥ yo suelo decir viendo estas cosilla by Lupercio Leonardo that one can philosophise preparing supper. I often say, when I make these id Aristotle cooked, he would have written a deal more’. (75)] Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Respuesta Sor Filotea AL could do was to offer you an opinion upon one minor point —a ‘woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to fiction; and that, as you will see, leaves the great problem of t le nature of woman and the true nature of fiction unsolved. (4) Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own Introduction We begin with two iconic statements in the Anglo and Sp: traditions: Sor Juana’s me: century, in New Spain, abo ties like cooking, and Virginia Woolf's reflection fr ‘women’s need for resources and a private space that would allow them to write. Although many would consider that the proposals advanced by these two writers are not current, we would like to use their words as inspiration to reflect on the need to create and validate intellectual spaces for femi- nist knowledge and scholarship in universities today. At'a time in which many would assume that women’s intellectual spaces are guaranteed in feminist, 261262 Yolanda Martinez-San Miguel and Sarah Toblas contemporary First:World societies, we would like to argue that the constl- tution of ‘safe feminist spaces’ is still a crucial component in the mission of research centers such as the Institute for Research on Women, located Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, in New Brunswick. ‘The need to create ‘safe feminist spaces’ is all the more pressing in what some have called ‘the corporate university’ - an understanding of the university as an entity shaped and reshaped by the strictures of neoliber- alism. As scholars have argued, starting in the 1970s, but most pronounced in the 1980s and beyond, North American higher education has increas- ingly adopted a market-driven approach to the academy. This approach has been characterised by large cuts in public spending ~ especially at universities like our own - with a drive to replace these monies by private- sector funds, In this type of model, the pursuit of quantifiable efficiency takes priority over any type of egalitarian ethos, ‘democratising mission’ or notion that higher education 1s a public good, resulting in full-time faculty members being replaced by contingent teaching staff (Newfield, 2008: 9). In this environment, the humanities - as well as interdisciplinary approaches to scholarship that cannot attract significant sponsored sesearch funds or ‘generate profits ~ are marginalised. Furthermore, fields that address social justice, including scholarship that centers on race or gender, confront the ‘threat of being ‘either eliminated or technicised because their role in the market will be judged as c V (Giroux, 2002: 434), So the question wwe explore here is how building safe spaces and intellectual commu can still be a productive endeavor in our neoliberal institutions of higher education. ‘We engage this question by theorising about the work that has been done at the Institute for Research on Women at Rutgers (IRW) to create a diverse, feminist safe space. At the forefront of feminist research for over 30 years, the IRW at Rutgers advances cutting-edge, feminist, inte plinary scholarship on gender, women and sexuality. Part of the School of Arts and Sciences, the IRW was founded in 1977 by faculty a Istrators seeking to expand feminist scholarship and activism beyond the university's fled; Today, the IRW supports, abroad range of programming designed to stimulate research on wom gender and sexuality within and across the disciplines, throughout and beyond Rutgers. Our core programming includes a weekly sen distinguished lecture series, an undergraduate learning com and the organisation of a spring colloquium almost every other year, Promoting faculty and student connections and building a space for intellectual community is central to the IRW’s mission. Rutgers is the main public university of the state of New Jersey in the United States. While 84 per cent of its st from within the state it neverthe- less has one of the most diverse student populations in the nation.’ Like ‘many public universities, Rutgers is consistently losing state support, and Safe Feminist Spaces. 263 the corporate, entrepreneurial university model for the development of research and p s become a central goal lagogical initiatives. In this context, lied interdisciplinary research as well as research conducted in the are facing serious challenges to secure funding and preserve their existence. In this chapter we reflect on how the core programming of the IRW contributes to the creation of feminist Intellectual spaces in Public state institution of higher education. By encouraging the develop: ‘ment of a safe, democratic, participatory environment that seeks to instan- tiate equality, the IRW constitutes a counterpoint to the market-driven approach to acad We propose the notion of a ‘safe feminist space’ in conversation with several different theoretical debates. On the one hand, we are making ‘h emerged from reference to the wel the women’s movement an (hooks, 19949; Val 2002; Enke, 2003). Recent gay and queer spaces, safe spaces suspend heg based on sex and gender to explore other ways of spaces. The concept of safe space is closely communities, by promoting interaction, e the subject's difference and individualit is respected and protected. Yet in tls chapter we are proposing a ‘safe feminist space’ - Instead of a feminist safe space ~ to acknowledge the internal tensions among feminist scholars, and to emphasise how the process of creating a safe space also ln Jnterrogation of what feminist scholarship and knowledge can contaibutein curtent institutions of higher education such as Rutgers Crucial for our reflection about space and feminist intellectual produc tion are the links between research and teaching. Most ofthe intatives wwe promote at the IRW aspire to function as incubators of nev Ideas and shared knowledge, Teaching and leaning ace at the core of the promo- tion of research that is the central goal of the IRW. Therefore, our works inspired by constructive pedagogical initiatives derived from the classial work of Paulo Freire ({1968] 2000, 1998), as well as more recent pedagogical interventions, such a8 b ing Community 2003), of by ano. vative models that allow us to unlearn outdated and reinvent new modes of academic exchange not guided by malnstream notions of efficiency and proctvity, such as the ones practiced in the Institute Tepoctlan forthe ‘Transnational History of the Americas Deeply embedded in these alte natlve pedagoglcal practices are several key principles: @) Teaching and ng ae basic steps in the production of knowledge and research, ©) inowledge is shares, promoted and encouraged by te participation, inter action and exchange of subjects; (@ bullding community is fundamental tn the learning and research processes, and (@) feminist knowledge and research are practiced ~ performed embodied activities that ae a result264 Yolanda Martine-San Migu 1d Sarah Tobias of a consensual event. For the very specific case of the IRW, research and Knowledge production are closely linked st agenda, as well as with a consistent commitment to the creation of diverse Intellectual spaces ‘open to global, international and non-US-centric forms of theoretical and inary debate. We will use the core programming organised around our annual topic for 2012-2013 ~ “Trans Studles: Beyond Hetero} Homonormativities' ~ as the case study to reflect about the creation and performance of a safe feminist space. IRW weekly seminar ‘The IRW’s weekly seminar has been the central organic space for the produc. tion of knowledge and promotion of research at the IRW since its origin the late 1990s. Its precursor, the "Towards 2000 Graduate/Faculty Seminar’ began in 1993 and met once a month to discuss scholars’ works in progress around an annual theme. Not immune to the pressures of a neoliberal that emphasises the importance of growth through spon- ‘h, the Institute for Research on Women collaborated in 1996 tute for Women's Leadership to obtain a seed money grant from the university that transformed the monthly meetings into weekly meetings, Three years later, the IRW/IWL collaboration secured a Ford Foundation grant that funded the seminar for twa years in exchange for Rutgers’s commitment to fund the seminar permanently (Hodgson, 2010: 13), Since 1997-1998, the seminar has convened weekly, attracting between 15 to 20 faculty members, graduate students and short-term and long-term {fellows visiting the university with support from external fellowships (uch, as Fulbright, Mellon and Ford Foundation Fellowships), to present and discuss their work in progress. The seminar meets every Thursday mor at the IRW Library. Regular fellows are invited to apply through an annual call for proposals, and those accepted are funded (through course releases oo research fund support), The seminar is also open to non-funded fellows, who can attend all the sessions, or can request to visit special sessions that are closely related to their areas of interest, After each session, fellows are invited to Iunch In order to foster an intellectual community that goes beyond the more formal Interactions The logic and structure of the IRW weekly seminar has been careful Constructed and finessed over the years. Some of its salient features are closely linked to the ways in which this intellectual space is conceived as safe feminist space for the articulation of knowledge. One of the most Important characteristics of this seminar is the creation of a non-hierar- chical dynamic to encourage open discussions among juntor and senior faculty, graduate students and faculty members. 7 me of the ‘most delicate components of the seminar, and it requires careful monitor and design. During the first weeks of the seminar, participants adjust to the with the Safe Feminist Spaces. 265 ‘ew setting and learn how to share an intellectual space that questions the traditional divisions between junior and senior scholars. At the beginning of the seminar, participants receive an emall explaining the rationale of each session: the main goal is to present a paper, chapter, essay or research proposal that is a work-in-progress. The comments and feedback offered to seminar participants should be constructive and should encourage an inter. disciplinary conversation about the topic being discussed. he IRW seminar resists the individual incursions into the academy by inv following a queue that promotes equity in participation. The queue is moder- ated by the director and the associate director of the IRW to ensure the broadest participation. Participants are encouraged to share their comments , to ensure that others also have time to intervene in the conversation, New voices are always welcome, so the queue is altered to allow 4 person who has not previously spoken at the session to participate prlor to others who have already intervened in the discussions, ‘when at all Possible, we encourage a question-and-answer format, but when the queue ‘grows long, or when time is limited, two to three participants ask thelr ques- tions before the presenter is allowed to respond, The rationale and format of the seminar are explicitly shared with seminar participants, who are invited tohelp the moderators in achleving full participation for everyone present, Seminar fellows’ collaboration with, and full understanding of, the pa Patory structure of each session are key to the successful integration of al ‘members. One of the main goals of the weekly seminar is to create a sense of ‘community among participants, so everyone actively assists moderators in ‘opening spaces for discussion that truly encourages and supports individual participation, In between seminar sessions, the IRW’s director debrief on seminar interact les contact participants Who have not been as active during the discussion to ensure that a proper platform is offered to enable them to participate more fully. We also discuss with individual participants ways to improve the effectiveness of thelr weekly interventions. In some cases, senior faculty ate invited to frame ts in a more inviting and less hierarchical tone or format, and graduate students and faculty are encouraged age seminar par pants as intellectual partners, regardless of thelr level of seniority in the profession. To encé infor ye among peers, everyone presents following the same format. Gender dynamics, along with age and seniority dynamics, are also closely monitored during weekly meet {ngs to promote a safe space for engaged intellectual discussions. Finally, for Participants who are not English dominant, alternate venues to offer weekly input are encouraged, such as sharing private comments with the presenter before or after the session, or even during lunchtime, ot via email, The IRW director also provides written comments to all presenters, to save time nd associate director266. Yolanda Martinez-San Migu during weekly sessions, yarticipants receive detailed feed- back, and to provide a solid academic backbone to the seminar experience, ‘One of the main contributions of the IRW’s weekly seminar is the redeft- nition of research it advances. First, we welcome work-in-progress that is at different stages of development. Second, seminar sessions also promote interdisciplinarity in its broadest sense, one of the strengths of W; also benefits from Rutger suchas the IR, te Genter for Race and ical Analysis, among others By promot ns and research, the seminar also lps to beak some of y separated emplral and gua sis from culturl studies or putely theoretical wock that more cominon Incerain fe: rthermors the stn sent ofconmuniy seen ong ater the con inar we held during the 2012-2013 academic year posed partic. lenges. First, the annual topic, ‘Trans Studies: Beyond Hetero/ Homonormativities’ is an area of research in which Rutgers does not have a strong faculty presence. We were very fortunate to be jolned by a talented Mellon postdoctoral fellow, Aren Aizura, whose area of specialty is Trans Studies. Otherwise, however, our challenge has been to find enough faculty ‘members interested in devoting an entire year to an area of research In fh many of them had very limited trat faced was that most of the viable applicants were graduate studer whom were still not advanced to candidacy by the time they ap seminar, The fellows were therefore younger, and clustered in a narrower range of disciplines than our typical seminar participants. We addressed these limitations in four ways, ‘we decided that our weekly seminar this year would include three Kinds of fellows: faculty fellows; a cohort of graduate fellows {in using work in Trans Studies in their dissertation projects; and, a group of junior graduate student fellows who com seminar for credit. Second, to supplement the lack of fac working consistently in the field of eas of collaboration in more detail later on). Finally, we uss the Spring Colloq) asked Junior scholars to present final paper proposals In liew of works. progress. Even though the new structure made us work harder to achieve a Safe en Spaces 267 on-hierarchical safe space for i exchange, by the end of the year wwe believe that we were able to support one of the biggest and most coheciee cohorts we have hosted at the IRW in the last five years. The IRW weekly seminar is ‘ciplinary and Intellectual Taeruty: The scholars attending the seminar during the 2012-2103 year have been with Comparative Literature and the School of Social Work as well as the departments of American Studies (Rutgers Newark campns), Educational Theory, Policy and Administration, History, Latina and Hispanic Caribbean Studies, Media Studi Newark campus, Sociology, and Women’s and attending the seminar were two graduate students from UC Berkeley In total ‘we had 20 seminar ‘members and 10 graduate students ong with 1 global scholar joining us lo de Michoacén in Mexico), 2 Mellon postdoctoral fellows, dratttt member and 1 community member. Seminar participants wer, Grawn from a diverse array of counts! mnada, South Korea, Morocco, Puerto Rico, England, Austral Republic, Mexico ind the United States. Seminar discussions showcased participants exciting and trans issues in Iceland ender-neutral housing, and gender identity and grandparent/grandchild relationships. Some of ox, solicagues explored other time perlods and even modes of representations, ch as the study of gender and sexual difference in the medieval period. and the examination of the concept of trans as a foundation for narrative ;Matezles, symbolical tmaginaries and a distinctive poetics. The strong] non-US centric focus of the seminay, in line witha long tra ing diverse intellectual voices at the IRW, allows for a tich end lectual setting that facilitates inclusion, ‘The deep sense of community promoted by the sernin: an intellectual cohort that usually translates into future academic and intellectual collaborations that take place long after the conclusion af the Seminar. If one of the effects of neoliberalism Is to displace s and replace it with measurable, utilitarian projects, seminar on Trans Studies offered an alternative mode! sressing intellectual borders to create a set of intends tives that go beyond the usual goals of quantifiable Distinguished Lecture Series ‘The Distinguished Lecture Series (DLS) has also been an Imp nent of the IRW’s intellectual work a nt compo- and rich history, The laboration with local st annual themes and "ems of women duringa time period in which their and their very legitimacy as (Hodgson, 2010: 7-8). The Dist 1987 ‘Symposium on Critical Theory and Black generated a key volume in won 2010: 12). Since i ‘opened new spaces of debate, in which feminists larship was linked with the legitimation of academic spaces that promote the intersection of racial, economic, int also raclal a we would repertoire. Distinguished Lectures are usually held on Thursday afternoons, following the IRW weekly seminar meeting. The idea behind the structure of the lecture series is precisely to offer a supplement to the research work that is done during the seminar, The lecture series enables us to showcase scholarship from Rutgers, while also introducing new volces to our conver. sation by inviting lecturers from other institutions to present their work in a critical dialogue with the annual theme. Using the format of a public address, we are able to expand the theoretical frameworks being discussed in the weekly seminar, while simultaneously enabling more members of Rutgers community to participate in our core programming. As an ex sion of the intellectual work of the seminar, but with a much more public face, the IRW lectures also embody a robust, critical challenge to ‘measur. able’, unidisciplinary research. Indeed, at times, guest lecturers also visit the weekly seminar to discuss thelr work in more detail and to engage in the broader interdisciplinary conversations taking place among seminar par pants. The prolonged and more individualised access to lecturers, wh ‘goes beyond a public presentation, is one of the distinctive features of our programming, This year, for example, our lecture serles Included a rich combination of Projects, such as a study of the performance of gender fluidity by Haitian American performance artist Mildred Gerestant, presented by Omise'eke Natasha Tinsley (University of Texas-Austin). We also hosted lectures about the problematic relationship between the state and human rights in the ccase of trans subjects who are also migrants (Aren Aizura, IRW/WGS Mellon a meticulous reflection about necropolitics and violence ts Jin Haritaworn, York University). Two of the lectures proposed very rich historical recoveries: first of the location of transexu- ality and intersexuality in the medieval period (Leah DeVun, Rutgers), and, second about the problematic exclusion of trans women from the femi ist movement in the 1970s (A. Finn Enke, University of Wisconsin). Our \d gender diversity. Intellectual, disciplinary, but ‘economic diversity, have been central ike to conceive, following Diana Taylor, as the IRW’s cognitive Safe Spaces 269 ture series closed with Myra Hird’s (Queens University, Canada) inter. inary exploration of sex and gender using the bacterial microcosm. nother angle from which to interrogate anthropocentric definitions of gender. The scholars invited to share their work at our Distinguished Lecture Serles analyzed contemporary performances and documentaries, historical archives, m texts and images, as well as scientific models on sex and reproduction to interrogate Trans Studies from an interdisciplinary perspec- tive. Their interventions expanded and challenged our intellectual horizons and contributed powerfully to our yearlong exploration of Trans Studies. By providing a public forum for scholars whose work addresses trans issues ~ issues that ate marginalised in the academy at large - we sought to center discourses that are often silenced or diminished, and therefore amplify a set of counter-narratives to hegemonic claims, The year-long lecture series on ‘Trans Studies was connected to the other aspects of our core-programming, as well to a series of undergraduate classes and our learning community, Incorporating faculty, graduate students and undergraduates in a vibrant space for discussion and learning. Undergraduate learning community ‘One of the main challenges we face at a research center like the [RW is how to incorporate our undergraduate students into our core programming in a consistent manner. In the spring of 2007 the IRW opened its doors to its first undergraduate learning community - an attempt to extend its ‘unique programming, not to mention its locus as a safe space for feminist knowledge production, to Ratgers undergraduates. In a state university as large as Rutgers, the creation of a small, personalised learning environment Where self-selected students with an interest in the study of women, gender could work together was a logical fit for the IRW. As the first such enterprise to be housed in a Rutgers research center, the IR ‘community has consistently sought to familiarise undergrad ige interdisciplinary research conversations that typify other ects of the inst from its inception, participating undergradu- shed Lecture Series, reading and discussing works by guest speakers in order to develop a thorough understanding of the annual theme, It is precisely the close preparation for each lecture with materials provided by each speaker, followed by the opportunity to interact directly with the speakers that has made our learning community an integral part of our programming. Learning community students have also created their own thematically related research projects. Mentoring by faculty, graduate students and visiting scholars affiliated with the IRW ~ many of whom are themselves participants in the IRW faculty/graduate student seminar ~ has been central to this endeavor. These mentoring rela- tionships not only help students to polish their research projects but also270 Yolanda Martinea-San Mi Tobias enable them to start creating networks as they develop plans for graduate school or professional careers. For many learning community members these contacts, often their first with faculty outside the regular classroom setting, are sustained throughout and beyond their undergraduate years. ning community has remained remarkably 's goals and practices ~ creating a nurturing, interdisciplinary space for Rutgers undergraduates to learn how to conduct scholarly research. At Rutgers, one of the most diverse college campuses in the country, this isno small feat. I 1ning-community students have always been drawn from a wide range of ethnic, racial, class and disciplinary backgrounds. First-generation South Asian, African American and Latino students were among this year’s learning community cohort. This year’s learning commu- nity also included a pre-med student studying biology, a nursing student, and students majoring In women’s and gender studies as well as histor Spanish, psychology, and economics. Some students have partici pated in other research- Intensive programs, while some ate exposed for the first time to gulded undergraduate research, Peer and faculty n crucial in the development of the research skills of each student. Under the guidance of Yomaira Figueroa, our talented graduate student coordinator, students who enrolled in the “Trans Studies: Beyond Hetero/Homo’ learning community during the 2012-2013 academic year developed and presented research projects on toples as vatied as ‘Clransforming Voices: Aesthetic Expressions of Trans Women of Color’ and ‘Reclaiming the Transfeminine Killer. They explored parallels between bisexuality’s challenge to hegemonic discourses on sexuality and ‘rans to dominant discourses on gender. Two students created movies ~ including a documentary about what the °T’ in LGBT means to Rutgers students, In addition to attending the Distinguished Lecture Series and developing their research projects, students in the fall semester enjoyed a special screening of the film, Gun Hill Road, followed by a discussion with its director, Rashaad Ernesto Green, In the spring semester, they received an as visit from Binghamton University scholar, Xhercls Méndez, who uses the tradition of santerfa to explore and reframe the concepts of gender and embodiment in Afro-diasporic Caribbean communities. They also took a field trip to the Museum of Sex in New York City. Finally, leari ‘munity students met both semesters with the Rutgers Women’s and Gender Studles librarian for a research methods class tailored to the “Trans Studies th ‘As with the rest of the IRW’s work, underlying the learning comma structure is a eritcal pedagogy that recognises the Importance of partici patory knowledge creation and links it to experience. We do not measure the learning community's effectiveness through calculations about cost versus impact, but by the interest of our students in pursuing ‘complex sociocultural knowledge to help a polarised world’ (Newfield: 10). End-of year evaluations described the learning community as providing a ‘family classroom environment’. In ye undergraduates, ctuals, type of environment instead of a stressf this space, which was filled with matur perceived that they were ‘treated like adults and respected as intel ‘According to on self into ie jut the IRW and interdisciplinary participation in the learning commu: y, another student responded: ‘I learned that it Is a safe place, and that dedicated to integrating everyone’. If these comments are an accurate reflection of undergraduate experience, then It is reasonable to conclude that the IRW has helped create a thriving community that reduces hier- archy, fosters collaboration rather than competition and enables intellec tual growth through carefully constructed conversations about gender and sexuality. Spring Colloquium While the IRW’s 2012-2013 undergraduate learning community, Distinguished Lecture Series and faculty/graduate student seminar focused largely on academic contributions to the field of Trans Studies, the 2013 Spring Colloquium sought, instead, to create a space for academics to engage with activists working on trans issues. In creating this space, the IRW built on its long history of incorporating activist organisations into Its work and, literally, providing a physical space where members of academic one another ~ can gather i talk together. This tradition be 1980s, when the IRW first held an annual conference ca of Our Work’, an event with partic! middle and high schools, nonprofit organisations and government agencies from throughout the USS. East Coast. he conference was initiated by then-IRW Director Catharine R. Stimpson, nd intended ‘to create a spirited, inclusive foram In which m could present thelr research, poli ves, and projects 01 women. This forum was also designed to show what a stat fo for the public that supported i’ (IRW Network 3) Th ‘The last Celebration of Our Work conference was held at the IRW in 1999; it was replaced thereafter with a sequence of conferences focusing on femi- nist issues of topical intellectual interest, The rationale articulated for this shift was that, by the late 1990s, other organisations both at and beyond Rutgers were regularly gathering academics and activists together to address women’s issues (IRW Network 3). However, by 2013, more than a decade