top of page

Minutes for Anti-Racism Committee meeting April 19, 2021


  1. Some members would prefer that we try not to have meetings on Monday holidays.

  2. One member reported on an Asian acquaintance’s knowledge of anti-Asian racism.

  3. Do we need to keep minutes?  If we do, should they be public?

  4. Should some (or all?) of our meetings be open to non-members?  Or should we call such meetings open forums?

  5. Should we meet again next Monday to consider a (public) response to the George Floyd trial outcome?  We will communicate after the verdict is announced.

  6. Some members don’t want to meet during the summer. 

  7. One member recommended a documentary “Kill All the Brutes” about modern genocides.

  8. Dr. Goldwater sent an Email with some questions for our student members.  One student indicated an interest in more contact between members, through weekly rather than biweekly meetings, or perhaps through informal activities such as meals.  Some members are not prepared to devote more time to the committee than they do already.  Some members do not want to be analyzed, which might happen if the committee feels more like a therapy group.

  9. To what extent can the group “Reflective Spaces” be a model for us?  Unlike us, their members are all peers, and they have a relatively long history together including past changes in membership.

Minutes for Anti-Racism Committee meeting May 3, 2021

Attendance: Fredkin, Goldwater, Harpin, Moore, Panetta, Rodriguez, Snyder, Williams

  1. Discussion of May 1 event “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?”. As with previous events, a lot of material and less time for discussion than some would have liked. Should future presentations be less dense with content? Should they be longer? Should we have breakout rooms again?

  2. Evaluations of the event: Only those requesting CE’s filled out forms. Shall we review these? Should we request evaluations from all attendees, as we did after the last event? The same single open-ended question, or something more detailed?

  3. May 22 open discussion was planned for afternoon, but it was agreed that morning would be more convenient. Who will be the moderator(s)? What role should our committee members play? A screen shot was taken of us all smiling for publicity—will this encourage otherwise terrified people to sign up?

  4. Further discussion about opening our committee to new members, including students and faculty. How many more members do we want? How should we decide who we want? (Will our smiling screen shot encourage people to join us?)

  5. Suggestion for self-evaluation by our committee. Dr. Panetta will send out our original mission statement as a reminder of what standard we should use for self-evaluation. 6. We want to attract more students of color to BGSP. How can we do this? What will attract them?

bottom of page