Religious Education

The official journal of the Religious Education Association

ISSN: 0034-4087 (Print) 1547-3201 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urea20

Safe Spaces or Brave Spaces? Re-Envisioning

Practical Theology and Transformative Learning
Theory

Tracey Lamont

To cite this article: Tracey Lamont (2019): Safe Spaces or Brave Spaces? Re-Envisioning
Practical Theology and Transformative Learning Theory, Religious Education, DOI:
10.1080/00344087.2019.1682452

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2019.1682452

Published online: 15 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 50

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urea20
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2019.1682452

Safe Spaces or Brave Spaces? Re-Envisioning Practical

Theology and Transformative Learning Theory
Tracey Lamont
Loyola Institute for Ministry, Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The Loyola Institute for Ministry (LIM) developed a method of prac- Postmodern curriculum;
tical theology for ministry professionals and religious educators transformative learning;
rooted in transformative learning theory to enable students to reflect practical theology; white
normativity; antiracism
more intentionally and theologically on their experiences in ministry.
This study asks, by teaching students to engage in dialogue through
transformative learning practices in safe spaces, are religious
educators inhibiting the self-actualization needed to confront white
normativity and expose white fragility, thus, advancing rather
than dismantling racism with our students in graduate programs in
ministry and religious education?

Introduction
In the spring of 2018, two of my graduate students in the Loyola Institute for Ministry
(LIM) discussed with me an incident that took place in their class on spirituality, moral-
ity, and ethics. Their professor described the reading assignments for the next class on
the topic of racism in the United States by defining racism as prejudice towards people
of another race. One student, familiar with research on racism and white privilege,
raised her hand and offered a correction of the professor’s definition, noting that racism
includes white racial and cultural prejudice and the systems of power that benefit from
social and political inequality. Her fuller and more accurate definition generated a
heated outburst by several white students who argued that racism no longer exists in
the United States adding that they felt deeply insulted and angered at the implication
that they might be racist.
Robin DiAngelo (2011) recounts a strikingly similar situation involving intense anger
that erupted when she and her colleague led a presentation on the topic of race in the
workplace. DiAngelo describes these emotional outbursts as examples of “White
Fragility,” whereby “even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, trig-
gering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emo-
tions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and
leaving the stress-inducing situation” (54). Derald Wing Sue’s (2015) research on the
psychology of race talk describes common themes that emerge with whites and persons
of color around dialogs on race, including the tendency to avoid the subject, intense
anxiety, painful or “uncomfortable emotions,” and the deep challenges to a person’s

ß 2019 The Religious Education Association

2 T. LAMONT

identity (22). Avoiding classroom conversations around race is a carryover from mod-
ern white Western or Euro-American curriculum theories (Giroux 1991) which impli-
citly and explicitly value empiricism, logic, and rational objectivity at the expense of
emotional or subjective knowledge as these more intuitive ways of knowing bring in
teacher/researcher bias, subjectivity, and preconceived understandings of the subject
(Sue 2015, 65, 66).
The students who approached me about the incident in class were shocked and upset
to find that their classmates hold these beliefs so vehemently and with such intensity,
and that these students would be graduating from a ministry program believing institu-
tional racism and white privilege did not exist. This caused me to think deeply about
how my own curriculum design and pedagogy might implicitly and explicitly reinforce
white privilege and racism.
I, as a white able-bodied cisgender female religious educator, had a surface under-
standing of white privilege. I knew the definition of racism and that I had several
advantages that people of color did not have. Considering the incident on campus, how-
ever, I have come to realize that I never fully explored my own whiteness, white privil-
ege, and the effect of the intersectionality of my identity on my practice of teaching and
learning; knowledge or awareness was not enough. I did not embody the full implica-
tions of white privilege. A series of questions began to surface in my mind. I questioned
whether my curriculum and pedagogy, which is grounded LIM’s method of practical
theology and theories of adult learning and transformative education, is sustaining white
normativity and thus perpetuating racism. I began to wonder if I was even prepared to
engage my students in what can become a heated, divisive, and harmful conversation
over racism, whiteness, and white privilege in my classroom. I wondered: is LIM’s cur-
riculum and pedagogy preventing students and teachers from dismantling racism?
This study asks, by teaching graduate students to engage in practical theological
reflection and dialogue through transformative learning practices in the context of a
safe classroom space, are religious educators insulating white privilege and, thus,
advancing rather than dismantling racism with students in graduate programs in minis-
try and education? Stated differently, are the theories of transformative learning, adult
learning and development, and dialogue barriers to successful race talk and, therefore,
barriers to dismantling racism? Once I began to research critical social justice, race talk,
and postmodern curriculum, I learned I need to uncover my own biases and understand
my own racial and cultural identity if I am to encourage students to make sense of their
own racial identity and positionality through dialogue to begin the work of racial heal-
ing to dismantle racism.
This study explores critical theory, transformative education, and adult learning and
development in higher education from the framework of postmodern curriculum theory
and multicultural and antiracist pedagogies to explore how LIM’s curriculum and
method of practical theology can create brave classroom spaces that facilitate race talk,
unmask whiteness and white normativity to dismantle racism. Sue (2015) notes that
“racial dialogs are very difficult for white people” making many feel overwhelmed, anx-
ious, fearful, and angry while “people of color in race talk often experience a denial and
invalidation of their racial realities, feeling their racial integrities are being assailed, and
frustrated that their white counterparts are so unaware of their biases and privileges”
 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 3

(15–16). Successful racial dialogue, according to Sue, can expand a person’s conscious-
ness and “reminds whites that they have both the responsibility and power to take
action against racism and oppression” (33).
The first section describes LIM’s method of practical theology and how religious edu-
cators facilitate classroom dialogue based on theories of adult learning and how devel-
opment and transformative learning are pedagogical. The second section explores the
implicit and explicit effects of the modern Euro-American curriculum as it compares to
postmodern curriculum theory, the limits of critical and transformative learning theory,
adult learning and development, and the practice of dialogue in “safe” classroom spaces.
It examines the LIM method of practical theological reflection for its capacity to sup-
port an antiracist pedagogy. The article concludes by offering practical suggestions to
encourage religious educators to embody their pedagogies in their own commitment to
antiracism, embrace the challenges of facilitating successful race talk in graduate pro-
grams in ministry and religious education and encourage students to work to dismantle
racism in their communities.

Defining terms
It is important to unpack the terms whiteness, white normativity, and racism when dis-
cussing postmodern curriculum development and anti-racist pedagogy. This essay fol-
lows the definitions offered by Robin DiAngelo who posits that whiteness is a “specific
dimension of racism that serve to elevate white people over people of color” (2011, 56).
Whiteness breeds white normativity which perceives “whites as the norm or standard
for human, and people of color as a deviation from that norm” (2018, 25). With Asa
Hilliard, DiAngelo defines racism as “encompassing economic, political, social, and cul-
tural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribu-
tion of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color
(Hilliard 1992)” (2011, 25). It is important to see the connections between white norma-
tivity, whiteness and individual and systemic racism if white people are to do the work
of racial healing to dismantl racism in the United States.

The LIM method of practical theological reflection

The Loyola Institute for Ministry offers their Master’s degrees (MPS and MRE) and cer-
tificate programs in three formats: LIM on campus, LIM online, and through an exten-
sion program, or LIMEX1 (now LIMFLEX). The LIM faculty developed a method of
practical theology, rooted in the Catholic Tradition, for ministry professionals and reli-
gious educators to engage more intentionally and theologically on their experiences in
ministry. Barbara Fleischer, emerita faculty member and coauthor of the LIM method,
describes this unique model and method of theological reflection, stating:
Since its inception in 1983, the Loyola Institute for Ministry Extension Program (LIMEX)
has relied on an experientially based method of theological reflection grounded in the

1
The LIMEX setting is an onsite learning group, typically sponsored by a diocese and/or parish, that meets for a period
of weeks to discuss the course work with a facilitator. LIM faculty train the facilitators in the same adult communication
skills noted in this article.
4 T. LAMONT

works of David Tracy and Bernard Lonergan. The LIMEX program asks students to reflect
on their ministerial praxis contextually (Bevans 1994) and to view their work as an
interplay of influences, including their interpretations of the Christian tradition and the
sociocultural, personal, and institutional contexts of their ministry (2000, 24).
Students explore these four ministry contexts within the wider meta-context of all
God’s creation, as manifested through the natural world and the universe, “as the con-
text that makes possible all subsequent contexts.” (O’Gorman 2016, 212). Elizabeth
Johnson describes well the practical theological significance of cosmology, stating:
Through greed, self-interest and injustice, human beings are violently bringing
disfigurement and death to this living, evolving planet which ultimately comes from the
creative hands of God … social injustice has an ecological face … [we cannot] just think
through a new theology of creation, but that cosmology be a framework within which all
theological topics be rethought (1996, 206).
The natural world reveals a deep interconnectivity between diverse species. Attentive
listening to the rhythm of God’s creation provides a framework from which students
can explore their ministerial concerns, including issues of race, privilege, normativity,
and social justice.
Students are first introduced to LIM’s method of theological reflection, which is
embedded throughout the program, through the LIM course and course book,
Introduction to Practical Theology (Fleischer et al. 2016). Practical theology begins by
observing and describing peoples’ lives, their everyday lived experiences, then asks: what
is going on, in what contexts do these observations emerge, what are my assumptions
about this concern, and why might this be happening? According to Fleischer,
“rootedness in a praxis mode of questioning and acting presents religious educators
with a way forward for connecting contemporary life experiences with the full breadth
of Christian vision, wisdom, and experience” (2000, 24).
LIM, like many graduate programs in ministry and religious education, draws from a
variety of best practices in adult learning and education. Transformative adult learning
theories such as Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy, Jack Mezirow’s transformative or
“emancipatory learning,” and Stephen Brookfield’s critical theory and self-directed
learning models provide religious educators with teaching methods that encourage crit-
ical conversations whereby students can become more aware of their tacitly held
assumptions and come to a new or renewed understanding of their beliefs and actions
in the world. “The goal of adult education” according to Mezirow, “is to help adult
learners become more critically reflective, participate more fully and freely in rational
discourse and action, and advance developmentally by moving toward meaning perspec-
tives that are more inclusive, discriminating, permeable, and integrative of experience”
(qtd. in Fleischer et al. 2016, 68).
Transformative learning theories encourage educators to create safe, respectful, and
trusting spaces in the classroom so students will feel comfortable articulating and critic-
ally reflecting on their initial assumptions in dialogue with their classmates (Mezirow
2000; Cowan 1993). Fleischer et al.’s (2016) course book teaches students about the ben-
efits and barriers of healthy communication to help create a safe and fruitful learning
environment. The chapter on adult learning and communication skills and asks students
to use these skills with their onsite and/or online learning groups. This chapter explores
 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 5

Paulo Freire’s (1970) critique of what he called the “banking model of education” and
his approach to teaching so students may learn and practice the art of facilitating and
promoting healthy group conversations. Freire’s critical theory also asks students to
examine the dominant structures of power and oppression in society to work for justice.
Critical theory comes to life as method of teaching, or critical pedagogy,2 in
the classroom.
Theories of holistic dialogue, discussion, and conversation enable students see the
deeper meaning of their communication with their onsite or online learning group, peo-
ple in their ministry context, and other people in their lives. Other LIMEX/LIM course
books, such as Pastoral Leadership and Organization (Fleischer and Gast 2013) describe
for students the practice of conversation which involves distinguishing between dialogue
and discussion. Fleischer and Gast define discussion as talking with someone in a way
that affirms or debates another’s argument. “Dialogue,” according to the authors, “is the
slower, deeper running form of conversation that unveils hidden assumptions, evokes
discovery and insight, and grafts collaborative relationships based on common aware-
ness and understanding of purpose” (2013, 130). It is from this premise that facilitators
and instructors encourage learning groups to take the risks involved in changing our
worldview and be open to a new horizon of meaning.
An important characteristic of healthy communication in the LIM curriculum
involves understanding and enhancing student’s capacity for dialogue. “Dialogue,” for
Freire, “becomes a horizontal relationship of which mutual trust between the dialogers
is the logical consequence. It would be a contradiction in terms if dialogue - loving,
humble and full of faith — did not produce this climate of mutual trust, which leads
the dialogers into ever closer partnership in the naming of the world” (77). Fleischer
describes several skills to help facilitate the trust needed for true dialogue and ways to
avoid misunderstanding and verbal conflict by teaching them the value of using “I”
statements, concreteness, appropriate self-disclosure, gatekeeping, and inviting more
information (Fleischer et al. 2016, 82–86). Barriers to healthy communication include
“poor self-concept;” “Elitism/Prejudice,” defined as putting one’s own perspective ahead
of others; “fear of the stranger,” or avoiding those who think differently than we do;
“denial/self-deception,” when we close ourselves off to experiences we might not want
to face or keep hidden from us, and “refusal of responsibility” for our choices (Fleischer
et al. 2016, 80). These practices strive to ensure our learning communities, both online
and face-to-face, encourage safe spaces.
It is common for faculty and facilitators, when mediating a breakdown in healthy
communication between students online or face-to-face, to encourage students to revisit
the communication skills and learning agreement and work towards meaningful dia-
logue by rebuilding the bridges of healthy communication through the use of “I” lan-
guage and inviting more information before jumping to conclusions. Faculty members
can remind students that when we ignore or marginalize the voices of others, or the
other, we close ourselves off from God’s revelation and self-communication. I also
remind students of the meta-context of God’s creation that requires us to find God in

2
According to Malcolm Knowles, andragogy is the more accurate term; however, Freire uses the term pedagogy.
Pedagogy is still often used to include teaching practices in general, including both children and adults; therefore, for
the purposes of this paper, I will use the term pedagogy to describe teaching methods and practices.
6 T. LAMONT

all things by listening deeply God’s voice in ways we might not be accustomed to; to
the voices of the natural world that are marginalized and ignored for human gain, to
the views and ideologies that conflict with our own, and extend this practice of listening
to one another in challenging conversations, no matter the circumstance. LIM faculty
and facilitators hope that by practicing the skills of adult communication described
above, students will be better prepared to enter into a trusting atmosphere of deep lis-
tening and genuine conversations towards conversion or transformation.

Democratic dialogue in learning communities

LIM’s Introduction to Practical Theology teaches students about Stephen Brookfield’s
(1986, 1987) theory of adult learning and development to help religious educators and
ministers develop learning practices that focus on the needs of adult learners.
Brookfield and Preskill (1999), while noting the distinctions between the meaning of
discussion, dialogue, and conversation put forth by scholars like Lipman, Burbules,
Dillon, and Rorty, propose that discussion can include both concepts of dialogue
and conversation. The term discussion, for the authors, is used “to explore the theory
and practice of group talk … .[which] incorporates reciprocity and movement, exchange
and inquiry, cooperation and collaboration, formality and informality” (1999, 6).
Brookfield and Preskill situate their understanding of all three terms, discussion, dia-
logue, and conversation in the context of “critical discussion” which encourages people
to examine how “different linguistic, cultural, and philosophical traditions can silence
voices … to understand how [these traditions] have kept entire groups out of the
conversation” (8). In this article, Brookfield and Preskill’s understanding of critical
discussion will be used synonymously with Fleisher, Freire, and Cowan’s definitions
of dialogue.
Brookfield and Preskill move their analysis of critical discussion further by encourag-
ing educators to be attuned to the dynamics of “engaged pluralism” when using discus-
sion as a means to create a more democratic method of communication with adult
learners (1999, 18). Engaged pluralism “demands an openness to what is different and
other, a willingness to risk one’s pre-judgements, seeking for common ground without
any guarantee that it will be found” (Bernstein 1988, 271; quoted in Brookfield and
Preskill 1999, 18). Fleischer et al. (2016) and Cowan (1993) affirm a similar understand-
ing, noting when students are authentically engaged in conversation, they risk putting
their own worldview and assumptions at risk. These readings and teaching practices
centered on transformative learning and critical theory help religious educators create
structures to support students if they face challenges or limits in their way of knowing.
There is a growing need, according to Sue, for students and teachers to explore
“whiteness as a sociodemographic racial category and to examine their own racism”
(189). The LIM curriculum and pedagogy affirms the need for students to explore their
personal and sociocultural ministry contexts, authentically engage in conversation, and
work against systems of social and environmental injustice on behalf of those to whom
they minister. In the first course, for example, we ask students to read and analyze the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishop’s document, Building Intercultural
Competence for Ministers, which, in Module four, discusses the realities of white
 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 7

privilege (without putting forth a definition of white privilege); however, they do not
mention whiteness at all. Students could read this material, become cognitively aware of
white privilege, but never internalize or realize the full implications of whiteness and
white normativity. Reading a short description on white privilege does not prepare
white students to unveil whiteness as a part of their own identity, nor does it help white
students and students of color engage in race talk (Sue 2015). The LIM curriculum
renounces racism as an evil in contemporary society, however the curriculum and peda-
gogy do not explicitly ask students to explore their racial identity, positionality, or the
intersectionality of their identity, and, thus, silences or ignores efforts to unmask the
realities of white normativity and racism. In sum, LIM’s curriculum framework and
pedagogy, grounded in critical theory, transformative learning, and adult development,
do not explicitly address the dialogue and practice of race talk, whiteness, and as such
does not explicitly work to dismantle racism. This realization led me to ask, how is it
that critical theory, transformative learning, and dialogue do not help students trans-
form how they think of race and racism?

The modern Euro-American curriculum, postmodern curriculum theory, and

race talk
William E. Doll Jr. (1993) describes how the modernist curriculum values and reinforces
characteristics of progress, industry, empirical data, uniformity, and rational objectivity.
The modern curriculum sets out for “control and prediction, mathematical and mech-
anistic models … a Lockean view of the mind, a radical separation of objective and sub-
jective realities … ” (Pinar et al. 2014, 499). Curriculum theories, such as the Tyler
rationale, are empirical and analytic, often stressing the importance of rational thinking,
establishing clear objectives, predetermining and implementing lessons, and evaluating
the end results (Pinar et al. 2014; Slattery 2013). The modern curriculum emerges from
white Western or Euro-American education and curriculum theory (Giroux 1991)
which values empiricism, rational objectivity, the scientific method; all efforts to reduce
teacher/researcher bias, emotions, and preconceived understandings of the subject (Sue
2015, 65, 66).
Transformative learning theories echo this objectivity advocating for a certain level of
classroom decorum and emotional maturity, as evidenced in LIM’s protocols for
encouraging constructive dialogue. Mezirow’s, for example, focuses heavily on the cog-
nition of participants more so than role of emotion. Emancipatory learning assumes the
participants in a learning environment have reached a certain level of emotional matur-
ity capable of transformation. Mezirow, with Goleman, states, “ … major social compe-
tencies include … self-regulation [which] includes self-control and trustworthiness
(maintaining standards of honesty and integrity)” (2000, 11). bell hooks (1994), describ-
ing her experience in academia, discusses how this approach devalues human experience
and “notions of wholeness” by advocating for a more “objective mind – free of experi-
ences and biases” (16, 17). Sue reiterates hooks’ argument, stating that such “attempt[s]
to maintain objectivity … have resulted in separation of the person from the group (val-
uing of individualism and uniqueness), science from spirituality, man/woman from the
universe, and thoughts from feelings [which] tend to work against meaningful and
8 T. LAMONT

successful race talk in classrooms” (2015, 66). Emotions, experiential learning, and sub-
jectivity are less valuable, less academic, and therefore unimportant and diminished in
academic spaces. Dialogue on race; however, involves emotions and experiences of
racism, prejudice, and discrimination (Sue 2015, 66). The tendency in the modern white
Western educational systems to put forth a rational objective approach to all subjects
minimizes, ignores, and discredits the stories, emotions, and experiences of people of
color and as such provides an obstacle to race talk.

The limits of critical theory and transformative learning

Embedded in the literature on critical theory, transformative learning, and theories on
dialogue are strong characteristics of Modern Euro-American education. First, Freire’s
theory focused largely on class not race and overlooks intersectionality. Second, as noted
above, there is a strong emphasis on cognition for transformation, almost at the expense
of emotion. Finally, there are underlying assumptions about dialogue and discussion
that can become barriers to dismantling racism in higher education. This section
explores these limits of critical theory, transformative learning, and adult learning and
dialogue from a postmodern framework of curriculum development as a way of explor-
ing how LIM’s method of theological reflection can be more intentional about engaging
in race talk.
Freire developed his critical pedagogy within the sociocultural context of Latin
America in a way that does not transfer easily to the United States. Sleeter describes
these limits of critical theory on multicultural education, noting that teachers working
in traditional or modern institutional schools struggle to put into practice a critical
pedagogy that often “directly opens up very difficult and painful issues in the class-
room” (2013, 121). Critical pedagogy does ask the teacher to explore his or her own
ideology, but it does not, according to Sleeter, “directly address race, ethnicity, or gen-
der and as such has a White bias” (121). In this way, religious educators may fail to
explore their own positionality and intersectionality as well as other power dynamics
among students in the classroom learning environment apart from the teacher/student
power dynamic. Sharon Welch (1999), in her discussion of postmodern diversity train-
ings, also critiques Freire’s limited focus on power dynamics adding, when
“acknowledging the power held by one’s own group” the dominant group can leverage
that power on behalf of social justice (115). Both Sleeter and Welch’s critiques help reli-
gious educators reconceptualize critical pedagogy to explore not only classism, but
racism and the implications of white normativity, and asymmetrical relationships among
learners.
Mezirow’s transformative learning, as noted above, relies heavily on cognition at the
expense of emotion. Belenkey and Stanton critique Meziorw’s pre-condition for dis-
course noting how it automatically excludes “the immature and the marginalized;”
groups who are capable of entering into discourse communities) and “presumes rela-
tions of equality among participants in reflective discourse when, in actuality, most
human relationships are asymmetrical” (2000, 74, 73). Edward Taylor (2000) also notes
how critical reflection often receives more scholarly attention than affective learning. “It
is our very emotions and feelings,” according to Taylor, “that not only provide the
 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 9

impetus for us to critically reflect, but often provide the gist of which to reflect deep-
ly … . Research should begin focusing on particular feelings, such as anger,[and] fear …
and explore how they individually inform the reflective process” (305). Committing to
practice self-control and keeping one’s integrity is a formative task when discussing
power and privilege in racially diverse classrooms and, as such, can become a barrier to
race talk.
The systemic power dynamics of whiteness and white normativity create a type of
emotional barrier that protects white people from the tension or stress that emerges
over the topic of race (DiAngelo 2011; Sue 2015). Most whites are not only less exposed
to issues related to race, but when the language of race, racism, white privilege, and
whiteness do enter the discussion, many whites try to avoid the topic altogether or
respond emotionally with angry outbursts, guilt, and indignation, even leaving the
discussion altogether.

Reconstructing brave spaces and transformative learning

Researchers in education and critical race theory approach the topic of safe spaces from
multiple perspectives. Theories about teaching and learning in multicultural education
and anti-racist pedagogies suggest that by creating safe spaces in the classroom, religious
educators risk diminishing the capacity for students and teachers to adequately address
whiteness, white normativity, and racism. Brian Arao and Krisiti Clemens (2013), in
their article “From safe spaces to brave spaces,” describe how their experience creating
workshop on diversity and social justice led them to explore the reality of safe spaces.
They implemented a visual activity called “One Step Forward, One Step Backwards”3 as
a way of “illustrat[ing] the phenomena of social stratification and injustice and how par-
ticipants’ own lives are thereby affected” (2013, 136, 137).
The activity revealed a series of negative emotions in some participants which in
and of themselves, as experienced by members of both the dominant and nondomi-
nant group, made each group feel unsafe. The authors argue that, given the research
on transformative learning and the “ground rules” needed to create a safe space in a
classroom, they still wonder whether safety is attainable or even appropriate in con-
versations regarding race (Arao and Clemens 2013, 139). In expecting racialized peo-
ple to conform to a safe space, white people are forcing them to restrict their
emotions and fears to conform to the dominant group (Wise 2004; Sue 2015; Evans
and Shearer 2017). Sue, in his critique of the white Euro-American education system,
states what white educators “consider safe is often based on White conversation con-
ventions and White definitions of respect; these conditions may inherently be unsafe
for people of color” (2015, 243). This “is the ultimate expression of white privilege”
(Arao and Clemens 2013, 139).
Elizabeth Ellsworth (1992) also examines the relationship between historically
marginalized voices, power, and dialogue in the classroom. Ellsworth, based on her

3
This activity has several names, including “The Privilege Walk,” or “Leveling the Playing field.” To understand this
activity, see https://edge.psu.edu/workshops/mc/power/privilegewalk.shtml or http://www.culturalbridgestojustice.org/
resources/written/level-playing-field
10 T. LAMONT

experience as a student engaging in classroom dialogue centered on critical peda-

gogy, states:
Acting as if our classroom were a safe space in which democratic dialogue was possible
and happening did not make it so. If we were to respond to our context and the social
identities of the people in our classroom in ways that did not reproduce the oppressive
formations we were trying to work against, we needed classroom practices that confronted
the power dynamics inside and outside our classroom that made democratic dialogue
impossible” (2013, 107).
It is worth noting that feeling comfortable and feeling safe are not interchangeable
emotions or reactions and often when educators advocate for safe spaces they implicitly
reinforce comfort rather than safety. What is more, Welch (1999) and Sue (2015) note
that when we claim a classroom or workshop is a “safe space” we implicitly and expli-
citly show that there is no value in difference, that difference is to be avoided. Welch
(1999), in light of this observation, instructs her participants that there will be painful
and difficult moments, but these teaching moments mirror and learn from rather than
hide from “the external world of injustice and mistrust” (107).
Assuming a classroom is a safe space can reinforce white normativity, however, Beverly
Daniel Tatum argues that we can create a “climate of safety” in the classroom by setting up
procedures for class discussions on the topic of racism, which correspond to LIM’s adult com-
munication skills, such as using I language, “honoring the confidentiality of the group” and
refraining from negative responses to or even “comedic relief” from others’ stories (1992, 4).
However, there are situations where safe spaces can and should exist. Eric F. Law, in his
discussion on the differences in the perception of power, advocates for an “ethnorelative”
approach in multicultural class settings and workshops (1993, 35). Realizing there are
power differentials operative in classrooms, Law argues “we need to create an environ-
ment that allows people to interact with equal power and therefore redistributes power
evenly” (1993, 35). We can do so by creating or encouraging what Law calls “monocultural
groups” or what Tatum and others call affinity groups, where people gather based their
commonalities rather than differences. According to Law, “for people of color, a monocul-
tural gathering serves as a time to be in community, to gain self-esteem in the context of
the collective, and to gain strength before moving into a world that does not value who
they are” (50). Such intentional grouping can have the effect of a safe space.
Arao and Clemens argue that we do not have to eliminate safe spaces, rather educa-
tors can transform them to become “brave spaces.” Even the act of telling students this
will be a “brave space” sets some ground rules that this is not a space where “anything
goes,” rather there are ground rules in place when engaging in race-related conversa-
tions (2013, 142). LIM’s adult communication skills still serve as a method for engaging
in respectful dialogue, but turning the space from one of safety to one of bravery
encourages students from the start to see this conversation from a different perspective.
Students, for example, should still use “I” language, and ground their reflections in their
own experience rather than generalizing about racism or white privilege; however, they
can also learn about the ways in which race, ethnicity, and gender determine the way
people communicate (Sue 2015). Religious educators, by taking the language of “safe”
off the table, can encourage students to be brave, to practice courage and to, learn and
be attuned to the cognitive and affective skills needed to engage in race talk.
 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 11

Revising the LIM curriculum

Religious educators, theologians, and practitioners are documenting the drastic need to
dismantle racism in Christian ministry and education programs (Ospino 2006; Sue
2015; Murry 2018). LIM’s method of practical theology is in a unique position to
explore faith from multiple ministry contexts. Religious educators using a method of
practical theological reflection, critical, transformative learning methods, and protocols
for classroom dialogue can become more conscious about the Euro-American biases
governing our curriculum and pedagogy to explore the psycho-social dynamics involved
in dialogue around race talk and to use the language of brave spaces over safe spaces to
dismantle racism.
Religious educators and ministers, however, cannot do the work of dismantling
racism without first realizing their own racial and cultural identity and unmasking their
own biases and assumptions. Sue’s (2015) research on race talk outlines strategies for
educators that can promote race talk. In addition to understanding one’s own racial and
cultural identity, Sue states educators can acknowledge their own racial biases, become
comfortable discussing topics of race, understand the meaning and range of emotions,
and validate courageous dialogs on race (2015, 234–237). Religious educators, therefore,
“must experience and learn from as many sources as possible … sources that come dir-
ectly from communities of color and from people of color” to deconstruct whiteness
and white normativity, but also attend ethnic minority community gatherings or
churches. “Cultural understanding and sensitivity” states Sue, “cannot occur without
lived experience” (2015, 221). Developing a nonracist and antiracist identity must be
embodied practice if it is to become a part of a postmodern curriculum.
When LIM students explore their ministry concern from their personal ministry
context, they, they analyze their personality type and explore the strengths and weakness
in their verbal communication skills. Transforming the LIM curriculum to dismantle
racism includes exploring one’s own and others racial and gender communication pat-
terns to include non-verbal communication styles (Sue 2015), and encourages students
to see beyond their social location to explore their intersectionality and their ecological
location, thus, grounding the personal context more fully in the framework of Creation.
The LIM curriculum can add to the literature on the sociocultural ministry context
to include reflections from Peggy McIntosh’s article, “White Privilege and Male
Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in
Women’s Studies” and ask white students to explore their own unexamined privilege as
it relates to their efforts in ministry. Students can then explore the systemic and institu-
tional systems of oppression using case studies on diversity in their institutional minis-
try context and analyze Bryan Massingale’s (2017) research and reflections in Racial
Justice and the Catholic Church, particularly his chapter on racism and culture.4
Articles from Black Christian theologians like James Cone can help to break open stu-
dents’ limited racial experiences within Catholicism to explore the tradition in a more
racially diverse way as it informs their praxis.

4
The first chapter, “What is Racism,” includes a case study on unconscious bias through the events surrounding
Hurricane Katrina.
12 T. LAMONT

Finally, a postmodern cosmological and theological curriculum, filled with wonder

and unknown territory, moves beyond the dualistic, binary humanistic theology to
inspire religious educators and ministers filling them with a spirit of communion that
listens to the natural world to imagine a better home for all God’s Creation. As
Johnson notes, “the turn to the cosmos in theology needs to cut through the knot of
misogynist prejudice in our systematic concepts, shifting from dualistic, hierarchical,
and atomistic categories to holistic, communal, and relational ones” (1996, 201).
It is not enough to expect white students to recognize white normativity or uncover
the systems of power and oppression which they do not experience. If White Fragility
insulates students from understanding their racial privilege, then graduate programs in
ministry have a responsibility to help white students build the skills and competencies
to engage constructively in dialogue to leverage their privilege for the work to dismantle
racism and uplifting of all God’s creation. Designing an antiracist postmodern curricu-
lum and pedagogy relies on breaking down the implicit and explicit oppressive class-
room structures in white Western Euro-American educational settings to embody
antiracism and the discomfort and healing that comes along with this journey.

Notes on contributor
Tracey Lamont, is Assistant Professor of Religious Education at the Loyola Institute for Ministry,
Loyola University, New Orleans. She studied Religion and Religious Education at Fordham
University and specializes in youth and young adult ministry and religious education.

ORCID
Tracey Lamont http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6287-143X

References
Arao, B., and K. Clemens. 2013. “From safe spaces to brave spaces: a new way to frame dialogue
around diversity and social justice.” In the art of effective facilitation: reflections from social
justice educators, ed. L. Landreman, 135–150. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Belenkey, M. F., and A. V. Stanton. 2000. “Inequality, development, and connected knowing.” In
Learning as transformation critical perspective on a theory in progress, ed. J. Mezirow, 71–102.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bernstein, R. 1988. “Metaphysics, critique, and utopia.” Review of Metaphysics 42:255–273.
Bevans, S. B. 1994. Models of Contextual Theology. New York: Orbis Books.
Brookfield, S. 1986. Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Brookfield, S. 1987. Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternate ways of
thinking and acting. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S., and S. Preskill. 1999. Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for
university teachers. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cowan, M. 1993. “Sacred game of conversation.” The Furrow 44:30–34.
DiAngelo, R. 2011. “White fragility.” International Journal of Critical Pedagogy 3 (3):54–70.
DiAngelo, R. 2018. White fragility: Why it’ s so hard for white people to talk about racism.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Doll, W. E. Jr. 1993. Post-modern perspective on curriculum. Columbia, NY: Teachers College
Press.
 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 13

Ellsworth, E. 1992. “Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of
critical pedagogy.” In Feminisms and critical pedagogy, eds. C. Luke and J. Gore, 90–119. New
York: Routledge.
Evans, D., and T. Miller-Shearer. 2017. “A principled pedagogy for religious education.” Religious
Education 112 (1):7–18. doi: 10.1080/00344087.2016.1256367.
Fleischer, B. 2000. “A theological method for adult education rooted in the works of Tracy and
Lonergan.” Religious Education 95 (1):23–37. doi: 10.1080/0034408000950104.
Fleischer, B. 2000. “Practical theology and transformative learning: partnership for Christian reli-
gious education.” In Forging a better religious education in the third millennium, ed. J. M. Lee,
203–225. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
Fleischer, B., and D. Gast. 2013. Pastoral leadership and organization. New Orleans, LA: Loyola
Institute for Ministry, Loyola University New Orleans.
Fleischer, B., Cowan, M., G. Fagin, G. Goulding, B. Lee, and K. O’Gorman. 2016. Introduction to prac-
tical theology. New Orleans, LA: The Loyola Institute for Ministry Loyola University New Orleans.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc.
Giroux, H. 1991. “Border pedagogy in the age of postmodernism.” In Postmodern education:
Politics, culture, and social criticism, eds. S. Aronowitz and H. A. Giroux, 114–135.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hooks, B. 1994. Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge.
Hilliard, A. 1992. “Racism: Its origins and how it works.” Paper presented at the meeting of the
Mid-West Association for the Education of Young Children, Madison, WI.
Johnson, E. A. 1996. The cosmos: Astonishing image of god. Origins 26: 206–212.
Law, E. H. F. 1993. The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: A spirituality for leadership in a multicul-
tural community. St. Louis, MI: Chalice Press.
Massingale, B. N. 2017. Racial justice and the catholic church. New York: Orbis.
Mezirow, J. 2000. “Learning to think like an adult. Core concepts of transformation theory.” In
Learning as transformation: Critical perspective on a theory in progress, eds. J. Mezirow, 3–34.
San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass.
Murry, G. V. 2018. The church must ‘speak and live in truth’ to combat racism, bishop says.
America, February 1, 62.
O’Gorman, K. 2016. “The cosmological and ecological contexts of ministry.” In Introduction to prac-
tical theology. eds. B. Fleischer, M. A. Cowan, G. M. Fagin, C. J. Gill Goulding, B. Lee, and K.
O’Gorman New Orleans, LA: The Loyola Institute for Ministry, Loyola University New Orleans.
Ospino, H. 2006. “Educating Christians to confront racism.” Journal of Catholic Social Thought 3
(1):195–208.
Pinar, W., W. Reynolds, P. Slattery, and P. Taubman. 2014. Understanding curriculum. New
York: Peter Lang.
Slattery, P. 2013. Curriculum development in the postmodern era. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Routledge.
Sleeter, C. 2013. “Critical pedagogy, critical race theory and antiracist education.” In Power teach-
ing, and teacher education: Confronting injustice with critical research and action, ed. C. E.
Sleeter, 114–141. New York: Peter Lang.
Sue, D. W. 2015. Race talk and the conspiracy of silence: Understanding and facilitating difficult
dialogues on race. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Tatum, B. D. 1992. “Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity
development theory in the classroom.” Harvard Educational Review 62 (1):1–24. doi: 10.17763/
haer.62.1.146k5v980r703023.
Taylor, E. 2000. “Analyzing research on transformative learning theory.” In Learning as trans-
formation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress, ed. J. Mezirow, 285–328. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Welch, S. D. 1999. Sweet dreams in America: Making ethics and spirituality work. New York: Routledge.
Wise, T. 2004. “No such place as safe.” Accessed September 10, 2018. https://zcomm.org/zcom-
mentary/no-such-place-as-safe-by-tim-wise/.