[People don’t need to look at it for more than a second or two. They don’t feel like saying “Huh?”]

[People wouldn’t be likely to ignore it.]

[Addition of the playbar is helpful.]
[I like C but I think I'd like it better if instead of just having US and THEM come together and overlap each other - what if they began to merge - and then morphed into the word TOGETHER. I think that would be better. I don't know who is designed these logos, but has thought been given to having a student or professional designer give it a try.]
[The logos with the words are okay too. But they must be read, so they are not as dramatic as the first two. I am not sure about the barbed wire in the second logo--reminds me of an internment camp--probably part of my cultural history and not significant to others.]
[I like the Building Bridges much better! The All of Us dilutes the message, since "them" don't always recognize that we are talking about the part of "us" that they are! Sarah Swart, UDM]
[I REALLY like Logo A and none of the others. I would keep it in. The rest can go away. Some visual conveying coming together might be good, but not these. The basic text in the slides works well.]
[I'm still not sure you actually need a logo. I think the goal here is to engage discussion and like the notion of renaming, reframing, with a focus on constructive dialogue.]
[The slideshow is nicely done working even on my browser while I have all client side stuff turned off. I'd like to have a look at the code for that.]
[when the US and Them begin to merge...rearrange the letter and the logo into a me..it starts with me. ]
[As someone who has experienced a life changing experience with Hurricane Katrina, I prefer the us vs. them logo, because that is the mentality that we will have to overcome to rebuild my beloved city of New Orleans. It is simple, direct and contains a very powerful message that resounds past race, gender or religion. It can refer to anyone or any topic. Thank you for your work encouraging us to join them and become we and our.]
[It would help to set some context for viewing, especially if you don't know DD at all.]
[Perhaps the overarching assumption that folks won't spend more than a few minutes on this matter is self-defeating. We're not encouraged or allowed to think for a minute about the cruciality of "dangerous discussions," and why our lives--literally our lives--depend on them, and why we need to find ways to cut the barbed wire and engage "them" in dialogue.]
[The first two slides are graphically appealing. They catch your eye and draw you in but I like the message of the last slide the best. Once I viewed the presenation I could see how the slides build on one another and that was effective. I think the final message should be "building bridges, building together"]
[Too slow to advance - the buttons didn't seem to do much good.]
[Sorry, don't recall specifically the first 3 slides, esp in terms of thinking of the overall context of the slideshow]
[Logos A & B are the most bold graphically, but they are not as good because their visual message is contrary to the intent of the project. C & E are good and aligned with the intent but E is better visually because it is easier to read.]
[It takes a few minutes to understand the concept that is being presented.]
[Which is "best" would depend on the media. We saw the images, at first, in the slideshow...in which they were animated. Now we are seeing them as fixed images (which might be used for print media). Personally, I don't really care for C, D, or E so the media doesn't matter to me as far as my favorites. But to others, who prefer C, D, or E, favorites probably would depend on whether they can see it animated or are viewing it printed.]
[I like both A and E. Logo A says "no more us vs. them" but it doesn't go as far as saying what we do after we remove the barrier. Logo E really adds that additional layer by proactively building bridges from us to them.]
[#C is good, too, except that upside down text is a no-no. #E has the text the right side up, but the two texts convey almost the same message and give an impression of repetition.]
[In the matter of logos - keep it simple, keep it brief. Notice that only one logo promotes communication: the rest are objecting to lack of it.]
[B is too complicated (barbed wire on top of all). C a and D have lettering which is too small]
[I liked the one that moved the us and them together in the middle to overlap.]
[I'm also interested in challenging the "us vs. them" approach to relationships and ideas. I wonder if the word "we" is helpful as an alternative. Having said that, I also want to be cautious about the power dynamics of assuming that what divided us into "us" and "them" will be ignored or erased by a quick move to "we." (I'm sure that you have been wrestling with this question as well.) This is why I can't quite advocate for one or the other of the logos - they all seem to imply that the goal is always to move away from the identity specifics. In other words, sometimes a focus on "us" is required so as not to be swallowed up into "we."]
[The barbed wire is right out]
[Only include the logo you plan to use.]
[Seems to move much too slowly]

[I'd find C or D easier to read if the Dangerous Discussions ran from left to right. I'd put "vs." between the Us and Them in C Actually my first choice is the rectangular logo on the top of http://www.tltgroup.org/dangerousdiscussions.htm where Dangerous Discussions connects the two circles.] [consider adding word together or collaboration rather than all of us. I think they could be more visually appealing. Don't think it needs to stay with the red round circle theme.] [no opinion] [Disputes between US and Them are very rarely conflicts between equals as suggested by the graphic; usually they are asymmetric. A little tiny 'us' fighting a great big 'them'. A poor impoverished 'us' fighting a rich and resource-laden 'them'.] [The barbed wire depicted in the one version does not seem to go with what you are trying to convey.] [Strategies for working with others are more important to me than logos.] [Also like B, but 5 seems to capture more of where you are going Also all words are readable, not upside down...C & D have words that are upside down.] [I would recommend that the upside down backwards writing at the bottom be right to left. Dangerous discussions as underpinning for all of us building bridges. I'm not sure how you would do it - but perhaps making them a little more dramatic or professional might be useful] [Can I use your slide show to community groups? The word "dangerous" connotes unpleasant emotions. Perhaps "daring" could replace it.] [In D and E the letters for "Dangerous Discussions" are upside down (and this is not good). The color red in logo A and B works for the international "not" symbol. However, the circle around logos C-E is also this hot-negative color. Consider a cool-positive color such as green or blue.] [The sound level was a little low; otherwise, very easy to follow.] [The barbed wire and crossed-out graphics are sadly negative and indicate a level of confrontation and divisiveness that we are trying to replace. I still find myself uncomfortable with the phrase "Dangerous Discussion". There are many occasions and topics where strong, varied opinions and lack of communication divide people. When we say that these situations are dangerous, we are setting ourselves and our students up for failure. How about trying "Frankly Facilitated Dialogue"? Or "Liberating Conversations"?] [Its nice to have a logo - since I didn't know that I was being asked to evaluate a logo before I looked at the slide show, I found the slide show a bit mystifying] [I would like more information on the audience.] [I feel like there's a word missing since the slide show is not a dangerous discussion - It's about dealing with dangerous discussions. "Dealing with Dangerous Discussions", maybe? I'd like to see something like "negotiating dangerous discussions" or "resolving conflicts posed by dangerous discussions" or "facilitating dangerous discussions" or ...] [You will like the new "Penguin" survey where you can have the "other" box next to the radio button option which will be cleaner than this] [interesting concepts] [The D logo will work better if you turn the Dangerous Discussions over. All of the logos could be improved with better type fonts.] [The most eye-catching is (B)the barbed wire one, but it suggests international rather than campus controversy. (A) is understandable but doesn't suggest any solutions. (D) and (E) are closest to what you are striving for but the typography needs some reworking so that the words on the rim are more readable. Rather than flashing all three logos in sequence, I'd pick one and use it as a logo on all the slides.] [I don't remember the first three slides referenced in 4 above and don't know how to retrieve them] [Too much fluff -- pare it down.] [I missed a human voice....] [Is this a brief overview of possible choices, like a sort of sketch with more to be added later, or are they it? Basically they are simple, which is helpful in a lot of ways, but to be more eye catching I would like to see more "graphics" used.] [I turned on and sat through the slide show in the hopes of figuring out what Dangerous Discussions was about, and to determine if I wanted to spend time on it. I did not come out with a good idea. All this material appears to relate to how to have difficult ("Dangerous") Discussions. Is that what your program is about? I'm sorry, I still don't know why we are doing all this.] [With respect to the slide show, in the "ready for prime-time" version, I'd suggest that the narrated version has more impact and that, as I'm sure was intended, you use one logo. In the silent version, with so many similarly structured logos and your two main content slides looking so similar, I actually thought your presentations was looping (like a kiosk presentation) and that I was seeing the same content over again. In the narrated version, I did not have that problem (or course it may have helped that I saw the non-narrated version first). Also, unless your goal is to address dangerous discussions in any context (i.e., the workforce, the home, soccer games), you might want to have a slide featuring some examples. What might be compelling is to have two volunteer voices making statements such as: Voice 1: "Our administration doesn't understand that we, as faculty members, need to have time for research and that increasing our class sizes and demanding we employ distance learning can't help but negatively impact our productivity in our most important mission." Voice 2: "It's hard to believe that supposedly brilliant people--such as our faculty--fail to comprehend the pressures we are being subjected to by the legislature. If we don't improve our teaching productivity, we could lose our funding. Don't they understand who they work for?" [These, of course, are contrived and are presented solely for the purpose of example. But I believe your presentation suffers from lack of examples.]] [The logos still don't seem very effective in any of the cases presented.] [Providing some examples of who are us and them. Maybe the animated image where us and them come together it should evolve into ALL of US or WE.] [I like "D" but don't like reading anything upside down] [The message works better when the logos morph from one to another rather than just one single logo to capture the message.] [I wondered why the logos kept changing.] [In C D - Dangerous Discussions is inverted - needs to be reversed to read from left to right.] [I thought the logo with the word US (or more accurately Us) was the very best since it carried the idea of all of us in this together building bridges across dangerous discussions] [The first two logos (A&B) are negative by nature, even though B is eye-catching. Barbed wire makes me bristle; it's provocative but doesn't make me want to participate in discussion. On the other logos, they are wordy and the backwards print hard to read. I'd like D with modifications.] [I feel you should keep logo A as it defines the rule of the game and logo E as it defines the objective. Thinking of Dutch traffic signs logo E would preferable have a blue background and no red circle.] [the barbed wire logo and the "all of us logo are helpful. Logo A is unbalanced and distracting, Logo C is hard to read. The logo sequence of Us and Them moving together looks as if Us is winning (it's superimposed on them) try fading it into "all of us."] [I like C the best, but would suggest turning the words Dangerous Discussions right side up so it's easier to read. I also like D an E, but figure it's probably better to get the words Dangerous Discussions in the logo. I don't like A and B so much because they are negative images. I love the part of the slide show where Us and Them move together!] [a lightly colored background would make the display easier on the eyes (as well as being more friendly to dyslexic people I'm told) Also, as long as your logos derive from European traffic signs anyway, modify the design to make them even more like those signs -- broader red line outlined in black, etc -- in order that the logo not look amateurish] [I like # 2 (and 1) for their simplicity but the underlying text should be rotated so the NOT line more or less bisects both "us" and "them" as well as the barbed wire. I love the phrase dangerous discussions, and it should be prominent as much as possible, but I really dislike it spelled upside down. For a button, I would like to see a bridge image instead of the building bridges text. With online technology you can effectively go way beyond the simple static images. You did this with the animated mixing of US and Them - I would spend more time on this possibility - e.g. US and THEM starting as different colors and bleeding together in e.g. the dangerous discussion text, or just filling the circle. Or another example, actually animate the building of a bridge from US to THEM with each step in the animation having random amounts of the WE color (maybe yellow) and THEM color (maybe blue), until the solution is reached that is a complex mixture, blue, yellow and green (where the colors mix.), The sequence could start with the "dangerous discussion" text replacing the barbed wire, then the text itself could have it's top half be yellow, bottom green, and show it pushing up and down randomly, with the final text be slowly replaced from each end with a section of bridge, until the bridge is finally made, and the text "building bridges" is put out in green. ] [I'd thicken the red lines and use a bolder font.] [Good graphics eliminate the need for words - getting 'dangerous discussions' across w/ graphics is difficult - the logo w/ barbed wire is most effective graphically, but doesn't reflect anything about discussions - it appears to be something about war. The building bridges is nice, but a bridge itself would be good. In either case, the words at the bottom of the circle should not be a mirror - one needs to be able to read them] [The logos, all of them, confuse things. If the focus is on dangerous discussions, none of them make it easy to see, read or understand that. If the focus is on building bridges, eliminating the 'we/they' then they are closer to the intent. In terms of design, I'd add a bridge of some sort - logos are pictures, not buttons with so many words. Dangerous discussions should not be upside down. I don't understand what you are asking about in #4 so I can't answer this question] [Shorter: One logo - E - with a couple of slides to explain.] [First of all, this was fun. "B" would be the #1 choice for me if barbed wire didn't carry connotations of prison camps/jails which blurs the message and puts its relevance at a remove (I've never been to jail, etc.). If the red international prohibited sign were printed as a bolder line, it would help. Have you considered "THEM vs. US?" US vs THEM is more aggressive. In the situation I am most interested in, all stakeholders are afraid of losing something to other players and have THEM vs. US also raises in the reader's mind the question "Who are THEY?" Catchy. A little scary. Question 4: small slides at beginning good backgrounding.] [I'd pick just one or two at the most.] [I do not really like the words Us and Them. I and Thou do not work either. What about no us or them? Just the words on the surrounding circle...building bridges, building together..and then dangerous discussions in the middle. maybe too many words...] [I mentioned above that I find B the most eye-catching, but the others are as well. The reason I didn't select it as my favorite is that I prefer positive images (ones that point to solutions) rather than negative ones.] [Cut down on use.] [The Barbed wire has to go. It has very negative connotations.] [I had trouble keeping up, especially with the questions about the logos after they were no longer on the screen. But I like the whole idea of learning to work together.] [The "us vs. them" idea is powerful, and as such it has been overmined. There are so many trite implementations of this idea that I think your message might get lost in the overuse of the implementation "us vs. them"--unless you say something unexpected. I believe the logo won't be nearly as important to the success of your program as this presentation implies. Logos work effectively as placeholders for meanings--a distinctive logo will come to stand for a constellation of messages that are associated with it over time. Put another way, a logo seldom has much "meaning" in itself--in a real sense the best logo has very little or no inherent meaning for the good logo will be able to come to mean whatever its owner builds over time (e.g., the swoop, golden arches, sea shell) These complicated, layered meanings come from the messages that are strongly associated with the logo, rather than from the logo itself. The danger of a logo with a strong "personality" of its own is that it will become more difficult to use it to attach layers of meanings later on. This is one reason many companies use a graphical presentation of their own name as logo (e.g., IBM, Microsoft, Western Union, Sears). The idea is somewhat analogous to that of a good supermodel. You want someone who is attractive to look at, even gorgeous, but you don't want a movie star personality that goes along with the picture. You are hiring the supermodel to display your fashions, not his or her personalities. Being a model is about displaying someone else's work, not about becoming known yourself. As a supermodel, you are expected to look good in whatever clothes are put on you--you aren't expected to add or detract from those clothes. You absolutely are not expected to have an opinion about them. Just wear them well and look good. Leave design to the designers. That is why supermodels don't do interviews, talk about their likes and dislikes, or even engage in high profile charitable work--their currency is in being very visible but unknown. Some of the best supermodels have a deeply ambiguous look about them--as if you somehow know they are complex, but you have no idea in what way. It's different from, but related to vacuous. Now there are, of course, limitations to this analogy, but my point is that I wonder if you are asking the right questions. That is, a good logo does need to be visually attractive, but it really shouldn't try to do any heavy lifting itself. The real work needs to be done later, through the process of establishing the logo as meaningful in the minds of your audience. I am not excited about any of these logos. The only logo that strikes me with any sort of "rememberability" is the one with the barbed wire. The others seem to flirt with anonymity. . . They just seem so ordinary, common. Here is one dilemma you will need to address. On one hand, the logos that emphasize the differences between people (e.g., us vs. them, barbed wire) are stronger images. Yet this is itself a danger. Each time your participants see this logo, they will be reminded of the separation between them and others, rather than on the coming together. To use another example, the fire department could adopt a burning house as a logo. But this would not accomplish what they really want. They don't want people to get accustomed to or to accept the idea of a burning house, and they don't want people to associate the fire department with tragedy. Of course, without the possibility of burning houses there wouldn't be the need for a fire department but if the fire department is doing its job there will be fewer burning houses. It would not serve them well to focus on the undesired outcome in their logo. In a similar way, the dangerous discussions project strives to help reduce or eliminate the us/them problem. So having the problem as a logo could get in the way. On the other hand, the "all of us" logo just seems a bit vapid. We are different, and some of these differences are edgy. This is not in itself a bad thing. One danger of this project is that it will fail to recognize the power difference among the different groups of participants. A dreamy complacency about how we really are all alike is responsible for much of the anger, aggression and bitterness that has for decades been repressed by some of our national minority people. One of the reasons that people of color in these United States often show their anger is that for years they were told "you aren't being disadvantaged, everyone treats you well, if you can't succeed it must be because of a personal defect, racism is a thing of the past. . ." Often, perhaps even usually, the us vs. them distinctions are employed by those with less power in society as a way of drawing attention to the unjustice. The "us" folks often don't want to even acknowledge a legitimate other position, a "them". Many of the us vs. them confrontations on our campuses are quickly framed as a small group with a minority position challenging the status quo. Unless administration becomes involved (which brings in a whole new dynamic), faculty tend to side with the underdogs because the interests of the faculty usually lie in increasing conversation and challenging taken-for-granted perspectives. So what happens if a member of the university community who already feels embattled is offered an opportunity to engage in a process that will lead to everyone in happy agreement? Often, the result is not one of eager acceptance, but is rather one in which the minority member (not necessarily minority by skin color--could be religious, political, geographical, etc.) thinks "here we go again, there will be a pretending to hear me, then a proclamation that the problem is solved, if I just were willing to give up my unreasonable thoughts. . ." I think of this as "the tyranny of consensus." I have offered a seminar called "Dealing with Difficult People" to a few non-profit organizations. The crux of the presentation is that rather than assuming that some people are just "bad", "difficult" or "disruptive" by nature, perhaps we should take their existence as evidence that we need to attend to our own organization. That is, it is often the case that people who behave in disruptive ways (from the perspective of those in power) are doing this not because of a personal moral failing, but because this is the only way they have found to resist the will of those in power. So I go through many of the symptoms of this sort of conflict ("us vs. them" language is one of them) and make suggestions how the group in power might strengthen their organization by structuring ways to channel the care, energy and experience of these "difficult" people, rather than continuing in the age-old practice of trying to shut them down, to stifle dissent. A final question/point here: "How do we symbolize the reality that often the usses and the thems are dynamic?" That is, there might be a clear us vs. them distinction on one part of an issue, but the clear us/them boundary shifts for other aspects of the issue, and maybe goes away completely for still other parts. Perhaps the best approach to building bridges (over what?) might lie in helping people gain the skills necessary to determine where there really are differences within a community, better identify and articulate those differences, and then accept the necessary ambiguity of knowing that my position is not the only reasonable position. I guess another way of putting this might be that it is possible that we are better off teaching folks how to engage with civility than in trying to eliminate the differences.] [I think there's a missing piece in formulating the discussions' issue. The overwhelming emphasis on talking/speaking in contemporary America and as a liberal arts skill overlooks the need to develop the skill of listening, what Thich Naht Hahn calls "deep listening."] [Anything with a slash through it communicates to me an elimination of "them" rather than the idea of the separation of us and them. I think any of those with the slash could be too easily misinterpreted.] [Your animations run too slowly. Either speed them up or remove them because people don't like sitting there waiting on something to finish when they know what the end product will be.] [It seems as though you're attempting to make the point visually rather than with text. It's rather idiosyncratic and I think it would benefit from a little more textual context to help the viewer understand why you're doing this and where you're headed.]

#2 - digital communication will continue to inform and overwhelm if not guided and directed using a variety of voices.]
[The lack of funding for education during times of tax cuts for the wealthy and heavy spending on defence
How can universities remain cradles of democracy and free exchange of ideas during a world wide shift to right wing politics]
[Causes of the racial divide in America Causes of the poverty problem in America]
[Defining a culture of evidence
The lack of leadership and vision in higher education]
[Issue frequently is not being open to other ideas than their own (turf vs turfee)]
[1. Letter grades. Forced "curves" (i.e." rationing success" vs. "upholding standards"--where the latter can in fact be based on criteria rather than ranking
2. Restructuring time allocations and faculty workload to remove structural impediments to, e.g. learning communities and team teaching]
[2.]
[Communication is absolutely the most important thing. It must be honest and well meaning; others can see right through a facade of "I'm here to help to make me look good."]
[2]
[The many topics that are controversial tend to divide us when they don't have to. We are all entitled to our opinion, and we do not have to agree, but we must learn to tolerate others opinions, customs and culture. Agreement is not necessary to engage in discussion. It is good to hear all sides of an issue and consider the social implications for outcomes of the discussion. Narrow opinions are hard to defend when you don't consider both sides.]
[Respect for originality and creativity on the part of students and/or faculty --(You didn't guess what I was thinking as the right answer to that question.) Support for ill-prepared students at non-elite institutions (Is college for everybody or can we provide respectable pathways for a wide range of careers?]
[I go back and forth between very local issues and global issues. Local issues I feel you can see progress being made sooner; however, it's the big global issues that if not addressed soon will lead to further destruction of the planet. I think even with the global issues there are local components and actions that can be taken at the local level to address them. That said the to four issues that interest me now are: • Global Warming – Restoring and Protecting the Earth • Religious Understanding, Tolerance, & Freedom • Health Care – Access, Affordability, Proactive Prevention (Live Healthy) • Equitable Globalization – Fairness, Balance, Sustainability ]
[The Catholic theologian Hans Kung argues that there will be no peace between the nations until there is peace between the religions, and there will be no peace between the religions until there is dialogue between the religions.]
[In the "real world" the current generation of students (the Millennials?) are expressing a clear desire for a media environment that is ubiquitous, integrated, personalized, and customizable. Is higher education ready to provide this type of learning environment on the campus?]
[The primary issue, to my mind, is finding ways to help stakeholders appreciate the needs, challenges and constraints of other stakeholders. In my experience (and I have had some administrative responsibility in this area), getting the stakeholders to "walk a mile in another's shoes" goes a long way towards setting the tone for constructive dialogue and solution. Once most people realize that other stakeholders aren't making decisions just to make their lives more difficult, some accommodations can usually be reached.]
[Do you mean, what are examples of hot issues that require dangerous discussions? At this stage I'm interested in the process itself; how to effectively define the question, clear criteria for determining when to use the technique, etc.]
[silos or collaboration]
[Having just been through a strike by "classified" employees and a concurrent strike by faculty, I found that that the "dangerous" element was the amount of misinformation that was spread about. Thus, a topic of importance to me is avoiding polarization through honest communication.]
[1. hold strong, varied opinions]
[How to support diversity of all types in environments that are apathetic, at best, and hostile, at worst. We're working on a script for a fall meeting, "I was at the table once and I wish I'd said..." recounting a search committee meeting where anti-woman sentiments were expressed and at least one woman did nothing to present another perspective.]
[having just read George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant, I would say a good way to approach dangerous discussions is to back up far enough to identify values that both parties share. Choosing a suitable frame wouldn't hurt, either.]
[conflict of values]
[Social/Ethical Issues such as issues of JUSTICE, WOMEN, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, RACE, what is SIMPLICITY, EQUALITY, etc. I think these are topics that can only be addressed with parties understanding issues of multiple realities and fears]
[The relative importance of topical content and methods of instruction in teacher preparation. Should students be required to use the paradigm of an academic discipline even if they do not agree with it during course study. Should those outside an academic discipline be allowed to demand that the discipline's paradigm be ignored or replaced. ]
[Ending Iraq war Tax policy which rewards the rich , is no help to poor Refusal to sign international agreements of all sorts Same se unions, especially marriage]
[This is all new to me, so I don't know what kinds of things would work.]
[I think the most important within (liberal) academics is to learn to listen to conservatives, particularly theological conservatives who are not necessarily political conservatives. I think the inability has made it difficult, for instance, for white liberals to work with the Black churches. To continue on my soap box, I worry that this project will make the mistake of forgetting that the insistence on "tolerance" is itself something that creates an us and them, where "we" are civil, "they" are not. Liberals need to learn to hear positions that don't assume a universal stand point.]
[Evolution ]
[This is what comes to mind at 8:30pm 1) (among faculty) Curricular reform -- particularly those involving multiple departments 2) (between students and faculty) Grades]
[effectively servicing underprepared learners workforce training versus academic track]
[Whether services should be provided on an anonymous basis when the service could cause potential serious problems for other people. Example: Allow students to log in to the Internet from campus systems without having to identify themselves .]
[management and staff conflicts about how an org is run, money spent. Conflict among managing partners as to how to resolve a disagreement.]
[Not sure where you are going with the concept...]
[Amount Release time for faculty who are developing online courses]
[Separation of Church and State. Tolerance toward others however different they might be. Religion of Humanity]
[Use of technology and resource decisions Ineffective Faculty Senates]
[What is the role of an LMS at our institution and how much do we want to spend on it?]
[Basically, what you are describing as "dangerous discussions" is the flip-side of talking about valuing diversity as an organization. Dangerous discussions occur when you do not value diversity (of workstyles, of opinions, of beliefs, etc.)... My 3 1/2 year old daughter has a Sesame Street book called "we're different, we're the same" ... great message.]
[Student satisfaction vs student growth]
[Place of religion in public life and American democracy.]
[Discussing how race affects our perceptions of academic community.]
[1. Intellectual Property rights associated with teaching (who owns the recorded lecture, the web site). ]
[I have found that most people are unwilling to believe that the a person with a differing opinion has a valid point. Often they feel that the other person either doesn't have enough information or they just don't understand the issue.]
[* Issues of race, gender, class and economics in education. * Faculty and administration relationships. * Status of adjunct faculty.]
[Abortion Death Penalty Differing perceptions of Christianity Intelligent Design v Darwinism Should government help the poor? ]
[how might we control the cost of textbooks? See: The Economic Case for Creative Commons Textbooks http://www.campustechnology.com/article.asp?id=11891]
[Leaders in whatever discipline have to develop strategies to ensure that colleagues work collaboratively.]
[Issues where an individual has expertise or experience and is not asked for input. issues where the solutions are not beneficial to all parties. issues where agreement is under duress or a feeling of futility.]
["No significant difference" This will not go away: recent survey by the WSJ shows e-MBA's to be seriously disfavored, even when offered by Ivy institutions. "On the internet, no one knows your a dog." Reliability of outcome: who is the learner, whose performance is being measured? "Differential standards." Even the proposed language to do away with the 50% rule treats online learning differently. Accreditors are being asked by ED to establish online-specific standards. (I can speak to this one) "'When I bought the Open University to America, I thought it was one country. I was mistaken.' Sir John Daniel." The issue of state regulation of e-learning, and what constitutes "presence" for the assertion of state jurisdiction is becoming a more -- not less -- serious issue. We are doing a survey of the 50 states on this issue, which is about 2/3rd completed. Good discussion topic, I think. Brings in a new constituency (state regulators)]
[Developing institutional policies and procedures for security on the campus network. Educating students about copyright (and plagiarism). Developing appropriate community expectations about levels of Help Desk and related support services for technology.]
[I.T. Governance]
[I seem to be missing some information here and can't respond.]
[I do not understand the basic question here]
[faculty workload; intellectual property;]
[Justifications for added resources...e.g. OC3 bandwidth, ]
[Role of librarians in the academy: faculty views of librarians vs. librarians' self-defined (and often self-limiting) roles The future of information literacy: proving its merit as an educational reform movement ]
[not sure]
[1. Quality vs. productivity issues that invariably arise--and are frequently misunderstood--when technology is applied to teaching 2. The role served by research that has no relevance]
[I don't know how dangerous it is, but the area that continues to need the most attention by higher ed faculty is effective methods using technology. Some call it the need for a new pedagogy - some are saying that with increasing power to do full motion video we are/will return to the old lecture format..... "This is all too much work" - is a part of the one above "Why can't the geeks (them) be more like us (the faculty)" ROI - where can technology best be applied for institutional return on investment? (comes off Michael Schrage's speech at Wisconsin Distance Teaching and Learning conference)]

Administrative vs. Academic Computing units--schism is attitudes toward each one's mission and how it relates to the university mission of teaching, learning, and research]
[Librarians and Vendors, honestly talking about product reliability, pricing and functionality. Librarians and Students honestly discussing what is the importance or lack of importance of libraries to their academic success. Support and professional staff within libraries really having an honest discussion about why we can't just get along with status issues building barriers. Minorities and administrators/deans within the library profession, honestly discussing their issues with career advancement, acceptable leadership, under representation. Faculty/Administrators and Librarians discussing the impact factor of library instruction/services on academic success of student. A honest discussion about what is not working and what is working well. Vendor and Librarians the issue of electronic resource usage statistics, standardization why it will and won't work. Publishers and Librarians honestly discussing the cost factors of increasing serial costs. Faculty and Librarians honestly discussing how they view each other role in the academic enterprise. Men and Women in the library profession honestly discussing leadership/administrative balance of power in librarianship. Technologists, Librarians, and instructional designers honestly discussing how everyone's roles are evolving and merging. What are the turf issues and areas of better collaboration. ]
[1. A number of faculty still don't support online learning. They may develop materials because they have been told to do so but don't deep down believe it is a good service to students. 2. The belief that technology governance and planning is done poorly with little buy-in across the institution. 3. I have routinely heard by the clients I have worked with that implementing good project management concepts and practices is something they know needs to be done but is difficult to 'sell' within the academic community. "Works for corporate but not academics" I don't buy it. 4. Technology standards inhibits academic freedom.]
[None of this seemed relevant to work. It does seem relevant to dealing with teenagers!]
[Unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material. Diversity issues on campus ]
[institutionalizing diversity as a core value; implementing post-tenure review]
[Computer and network security Standards vs. individual preferences (hardware and software) Scarce resources vs. plentiful expectations]
[Often starting a discussion - dangerous or not is the most difficult task for faculty.]
[I am not really convinced that the problem is communication.. I think in another slide you said the idea was to work on supporting each other and that seems to me to involve something more than better communication. I might communicate my distaste very effectively but that won't necessarily help build a bridge or encourage others to share their ideas... BUT to get to your question, I think the DD topics that are most vital are the ones that force me to think more deeply about my own assumptions and values and beliefs.. I am going to suggest that perhaps we all find these to be the most unsettling of all DD... other types of DD appear to me more often to revolve around "managing" the dialogue or conversation rather than learning from it]
[It'd help me if the issues were repeated right here on the survey. Technology use is our institution's perennial DD]
[basic, civil communication issues]
[That significant improvements are more likely to come from actually getting things done together, than just talking about them.]
[optimistic "can do" type attitudes; some folks figure if we try to remain optimistic we're just stupid, unintelligent and not in touch with reality. :)]
[In real life the most dangerous discussions is where people point to people from Islamic countries in fear of terrorism. In professional life the subject of established researcher pointing at students who thoughtlessly copy from the web, is in my opinion a subject area in which parties can learn from each other. In my view sharing information on the web and the technical possibilities to do so need further debate. There is a divide in the discussion between the 'old intermediaries (libraries and publishers)'. I recommend the article Creative Commons and new intermediaries by Michael W. Carroll http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=782405]
[Support personnel anxiety about faculty-- you see it in derogatory jokes etc.]
[any of the longstanding battles about change: coverage v. content (what is "content" in a world were coverage is increasingly impossible?) Job training v. education (values formation v. indoctrination) or What's a liberal arts education for and shouldn't we be encouraging more citizens to get one??]
[Mac vs PC Public vs Private education conservatives vs progressives religious liberals or atheists vs religious orthodoxy gay vs straight]
[Bringing together people with very different viewpoints.]
[Sorry, I didn't read the list before doing this, and I don't recall the issues -]
[I'm not sure what this question means -- isn't a key aspect of the definition of a DD that it occurs within some context or community (e.g., a university) that makes the outcome important (e.g., that the stakeholders really have something at stake)? What will the TLT initiative DO re the issues selected?]
[Discussions of diversity/multicultural issues in the classroom.]
[Maine lakes are a high quality, high value, highly vulnerable resource. User groups (stakeholders) don't communicate, distrust each other, and squabble over access to Maine waters and surface use issues. Invasive aquatic plants and animals make protecting lakes all the more important today. Unless stake holders come together and work together to protect Maine lakes, we will see many convert from priceless assets to costly liabilities overnight. Stakeholders need to be brought together to resolve access and surface use issues before some little argument over a local issue polarizes them and makes collaboration impossible.]
[One issue I'd like to offer as a dangerous discussion involves the implementation of a campus-wide calendar/scheduling system. Some feel it should be required for all employees to allow their calendar to be available to all others, so that appointments, meetings, etc. can be more easily and efficiently scheduled. Others see this as a required invasion of privacy and another technology that they will be required to use, check, and keep up to date... check your email, voice mail, mailbox, Web course communications and now check your online calendar and make sure it is kept up-to-date, so it will be helpful to others. The dangerous discussion here centers around if the calendar/scheduling system should be optional. If it is optional, it will likely become less effective as the people scheduling meetings, etc. will still have to go through the normally tedious process of contacting various people who choose not to use it, to inquire as to their availability. If it is required, it may be burdensome on the end users and there is the potential for this to be perceived as a monitoring system of sorts.]
[Both]
[I am especially interested in discussions about peace issues, religion, ethics, and discussions about civil discussion!]
[Freedom of speech. Civility seems to have disappeared when students strongly disagree with a speaker.]
[I don't know what the Dangerous Discussion issues are.]

[should our faith be integrated with our intellectual/professional lives, and if so, how should we deal with those of different faiths? (liberal vs. evangelical, christian vs. muslim, religious vs. agnostic, etc.) Especially in our institutions of higher education. Should our professors profess their own spiritual flavor/walk, or is it irrelevant to the subject matter which they teach? It seems that liberal professors are getting heat from the political conservatives, and conservative professors are getting the heat from our cultural mainstream. Should professors just assume that getting heat is part of the job and stop whining about it? or is there something fundamentally askew in our culture? +++++++++++++++++++++++ The role and responsibility of family in a culture that focuses on accomplishments. Should it be that only the most educated and wealthiest of us have the flexibility to be there for our families? Is it our consumer society, or something else that is responsible for our "need" to have more things? Is simplicity really just a quaint ideal? can our society admire someone who chooses to live simply, or does the choice to pursue a simple life imply leaving our society as an active member. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Do we have a responsibility to our students to train them to be employable, or to teach them to be educated people? It seems we can't do both. Should we welcome the increasing influence of private industry on our college campus as a way to make education affordable to the majority of students, or should we just admit that a liberal arts education is really only for the upper classes? There is a great deal of sting behind all the jokes about PhDs serving burgers and fries. There is also an increasing acceptance of the reality that some really dedicated smart kids just will not be able to go to college. Are we living in la-la land, locked in our ivory towers, unwilling to even dirty our hands enough to talk with the admissions people from our own universities? Should we recognize the elite status of our work and stop pretending that we cared about those too dumb to succeed in college? Or those too poor to afford time to live on our beautiful and expensive campuses? Do we, at the end, all submit to sophistry, to "education for hire"? How should we account for diversity? Strictly on race/skin color? Geopolitical/sociopolitical difference? Social-economic status? Is diversity only a matter of increasing the quality of the education of our elite children? ++++++++++++++++++++++ abortion and homosexuality, of course! although I am tired of these arguments--they have all come down to tautological definitions.]
[How does one transform a culture that has a long history of lack of boundaries? How does one cultivate the listening skills that are the prerequisite to successful discussions?]
[How to resolve conflicts]
[abortion end-of-life care]
[Bigotry]
[Developing a shared understanding among faculty and administrators of the role of academic support units and creating a climate where open and honest discussion of resource allocation issues can occur. Library - IT collaboration for faculty support. My budget is mine and mine alone and my job is to get as much for my unit as I possible can. In resource restricted times a lot of heat and little light is generated around budget issues. This is often a place where any sense of teamwork breaks down, particularly to the extent that money equates to power. ]
[The "teaching" role of academic librarians. What does it mean? Why is it important? Should librarians be invited to sit on departmental and other curriculum committees?]

Utilizing netiquette rules for digital discussion in hybrid and online courses.]
[No]
[None of which I am aware, but I'm sure they've taken place.]
[No...they've all been safe and white-washed.]
[We are addressing the intellectual property issue by bringing together 3 administrators and 3 faculty representing diverse interests. the committee will need to discuss the issues. We just had our first meeting last week.]

[Steve, DO check out www.thataway.org, web-site for the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. I am now on it's national steering committee. I am writing a short handbook for them overviewing different methods. I'd love to get your input on it. Nancy G-G]
[I have conducted these kinds of issues internally but there is no significant effort within the university.]
[Being a small college in the southwest, we are constantly reaching out to the Native American and Hispanic population here.]
[Our institution is woefully remiss in this area. However, there are pockets of instructors who do challenge narrow minded students to get them to consider the opinions of others and look at other perspectives.]
[We're a research and evaluation group, have done a lot with PT3 projects and teacher pre-professional and professional development, often around technology, cultural competencies, and science. There is a lot of evidence of faculty resistance to change, especially without meaningful rewards or consequences.]
[My work is dedicated to helping groups get to higher levels of mutual understanding. I use tools and processes that support open dialogue and surfacing the critical and creative thinking of all stakeholders. One of my strategic partners is an organization called AmericaSpeaks (americaspeaks.org). With them we have supported a number of "Dangerous Discussion" on issues such as Social Security, The Redevelopment of 'Ground Zero" in New York City, Global Warming, Poverty, Regional Planning, Youth Obesity and others. We've had some degrees of success with these dialogues; some of them are ongoing and others need further processes to keep them moving forward. You can reach me at todd@covision.com to discuss these further (202) 256-3609.]

[We are actively engaged in development work in Africa. (Google on "Patriensa" and "Eskow" and you'll find us.) Another piece of our African work involves helping to create a new university college, Ghana Telecom University College, which will incorporate distance learning into its structure; the college intends to create learning conversations for its students with students and others around the world. And early next year we are helping to put together an interfaith conference in Accra which will focus on how church networks can serve as agents of development and dialogue.]
[I don't think that my institution has discussed these ideas, but the above comment is taken from a recent PowerPoint presentation that I am giving soon.]
[I second Terry's comment this morning about discussions related to SCUP's culture, specifically tension between institutional and corporate members.]
[See above.]
[Allow people to respond to a range of alternatives, rather than forcing them to decide between the two poles of an issue. The question helps to educate about the full spectrum of alternatives.]
[No, not as an institution. ]
[not likely]
[NO! I feel Wilmington College, my institution, only does dangerous discussions in the realm of our Annual Peace Symposium and we feel it is safe there. I think we have an administration that is extremely afraid of conflict and avoids it at all costs. This deeply affects our ability to meet our mission and educational goals that reflect Quaker values.]
[To quote Henry Kissinger (who may have been quoting someone else) " The arguments in academia are so vicious because the stakes are so low." We tend to swallow elephants and choke on flies.]
[I'm retired, but have the impression the college has brought many speakers on all these issues. But speakers do not equal the kind of dialogue you have in mind.]
[Just a grad student... so nothing to add.]
[No. When someone believes they are supporting some underlying principle, facts become irrelevant.]
[Meeting with all partners for 4 hours to review some touchy issues and make decisions. Basically went well except one person who is very emotional I think still feels left out...]
[Try some with community groups]
[The role of faculty and technology experts in making technology decisions.]
[All organizations that have intelligent, passionate people will have them. When people have strong beliefs, no matter if it comes from an informed or uninformed position, these will occur. The challenge is how do you channel the passion in these people in constructive rather than destructive ways.]
[Yes. Multiple women's issues. Educational access and success. Curricular and other reforms in higher education. Ross Miller, AAC&U (for Carol Schneider) miller@aacu.org]
[We have some discussions about faculty of color's different experience of liberal arts collegiality from white faculty (who created the largely homogeneous notions of community over the years). ]
[Mostly have avoided the issue, because it blew up in our faces.]
[Yes. At FMM, we are discussing the future of our prison ministries. In the past, serious mistakes were made. Some now think that the designated overseeing committee should not be a part of the current solution as they can't be trusted.]
[I'm not quite sure how to define "my institution" since my life is a web of institutions. One of my institutions, i.e. where I go to school gives whole degrees in how to hold dangerous discussions.]
[Yes, see All-UC video conference on MIT's Open CourseWare Initiative http://istpub.berkeley.edu:4201/bcc/Spring2003/feat.oci.html]
[Not that I know of.]
[The Dangerous Discussions we have are generally side stepped. After it appears we ahve "agreement" one of the parties returns "home" to "forget" what was agreed to. or the person in "power" directs a solution. ]
[n/a]
[Recently York Univ appears to be embarking on creating an I.T. Governance process in order to manage disparate technologies and organizations in a "decentralized" environment.]
[Ditto]
[I am not in an institution]
[We did come up with an OK intellectual property policy and the issue seems to have gone away.]
[We succeeded after initiating a dialogue with student government who supported adding significant bandwidth. After several years of deep budget cuts, and disappointing support for new initiatives, we decided to open a student operated TV station on the cheap to energize student interest in rich media, video and new media curriculum.]
[Somewhat addressing these issues, mostly around the margins One issue we're addressing partially is plagiarism and ethics for students]
[not sure]
[Perhaps I missed an earlier version when you discussed the "issues. Without that I can't answer, just as without understanding what you are about I really can't say what logo would be best.]
[Personally, I think that talking in terms of my institution almost reinforces a mentality of thinking the of the institution as "them"--unless you're talking to administrators, in which case it is "we". (This is the same reaction that I have when I hear a lecture on critical thinking--the way the content is presented undermines the content itself). BTW, since I'm off topic anyway, if you're really thinking that people are going to fill this survey in in a minute, your bar for thoughtfulness of answers must be set to the lowest peg!]

[volatile discussion about standardizing email addresses--in particular, how the decision would be made and who would have input. Got very bristly parties together (especially IT folks) and came to some valuable understandings]
[Effective Communication has been a dangerous discussion in my institution. The politics of who knows what and when and how it is disclosed has been creating a very unhealthy atmosphere. We tried workshops, meetings, etc. not much has worked. The eternal issue of maintaining power (administration) and empowerment of everyone (staff) throughout the organization.]
[Not that I'm aware of.]
[Our fall deliberative poll will talk about both of these issues, so I believe yes (note however that we have not framed the diversity issue as 'diversity' per se)]
[same as in 6; diversity and PTR are major issues at my institution]
[Understanding that success doesn't equate to universal happiness, we have addressed all three of the above more or less successfully. But Dangerous Discussions tend to need revisiting periodically; I haven't seen one where you can ever say, "There. That's settled."]
[Opposite - trend towards status quo and safe seems to be the trend and what is modeled. Meaning the university presents itself in a certain way - and rarely undertakes dangerous discussions. Press releases- etc.]
[I am not sure that one can easily identify DD in such a way that every institution would recognize them as DD. For this college, discussions about pre-structured degrees, a college-wide calendar, Gen Ed requirements, are all potentially explosive DDs but this is because of the philosophy of the college. Other topics which are DD might be the sorts of knowledge gained through life experience for which a student may legitimately request credit (are some subjects privileged and others grossly discounted?) Issues of language and grammar is another area that is fraught with real controversy (Do we correct students' grammar?) We deal with these issues daily... whether we do so with success is another question...]
[I would like to continue to strategize on this issues]
[not directly--civility in the classroom is being addressed]
[Our institution does not want to force PhD students to make their work available online, but instead is exploring to use a wiki and stimulate self regulation by the use of cc licenses in copyright policy issues. As I showed you for the issue of plagiarism I wrote a column explaining that sharing information is the norm in scholarly communication from the days of Erasmus onwards. But probably the most interesting plan is that I intend to update our acceptable use policy with a group of students in my cybercrime class.]
[I don't know]
[Role of religion in our school due to preponderance of Jewish families attending - attempt was not successful, I have no useful advice to share, except the concept of dangerous discussion is important, and tricky.]
[Somewhat. We do well when we're with our facilitators (thanks Steve!) but when we're eon our own, the implementation isn't always there. We get bogged down, or people are too busy, or we just can't get past some of the blocks.]
[NA]
[It's more complex than a short answer here would permit.]
[Not yet!]
[no]
[Yes, our institution is making good progress in learning to deal with dangerous discussions.]
[No]
[I am not connected to an institution.]

[No. I have only seen the verbally strong and aggressive drive out the other participants, so that one side ends up holding the field by default.]
[I am just embarking on multisession dialogues between conservatives and liberals]
[We have begun by confidentially asking all members of the community to identify which individuals they already find trustworthy. We have gathered the most frequently named individuals into a Council of Elders to advise leadership on strategies for enlarging the circle of trust.]
[I am Director of the Institute for Integrated Social Analysis, which is the research arm of Consistent Life. This nonprofit educations about the consistent life ethic, which opposes connected issues of violence -- war, the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, poverty and racism. (I was wording "euthanasia" more positively by saying end-of-life care above). We specialize in showing the relationships of pro-life issues for peace advocates and peace issues for pro-lifers. Dangerous? Adventurous!]
[Can't say that we have.]