i attended the sfpc orientation recently and it was really enjoyable (aside from transit making me get there half an hour late (a matter not helped by me accidentally getting on an express train & needing to backtrack)).

the most notable part was the ways that icebreakers were done. one of them was dedicated to going over the community agreement. normally, i find these forms of engagement incredibly forced and performative.

https://orienting.sfpc.study/is-where-we/look-after-each-other/community-agreement.html

the part that the group i was in went over was 'power relations,' it's incredibly explicit in ways that makes me want to put trust in it.

Teachers, organizers, co-directors, and/or stewards should not form sexual relationships with current participants. In all cases, SFPC community members agree to build relationships with consent.

maybe that's due to sfpc being a small, community-oriented organization or just my distrust of larger institutions (as they tend to protect those who compose it rather than those they serve). in college, going over title ix was a required video. in corporations, sexual harassment prevention is often mandatory training, yet both of these still run rampant.

i think about how so many communities rely on this unspoken 'common sense' and i begin to think that it is this ambiguity that becomes breeding grounds for abuse. when it comes to humor, content, whose comfort becomes prioritized? is it those that have been there longest and if so, does that space become one for exclusion?

a co-director reiterated part of the community agreement that stuck with me. though i had read the agreement as apart of applying, it hadn't had the same affect on me. maybe that's because i reading it rather than hearing it said to me (generally). maybe because it was i had just spent a bunch of time leading a conversation.

Make space/take space. If you’re someone who tends to not speak a lot, consider moving into a role of speaking more. If you tend to speak a lot, consider moving into a role of listening more.

more specifically, to consider 'letting the awkward silence provide time for those who need it to think.'

the past couple of days, i've been thinking about how my defaults act to create a space where others don't feel as comfortable to speak up. i don't think that's necessarily a fault in of itself (that i tend to talk a lot) but i think there is much more i could to make a space more accommodating. i think the hard part about ice breakers is that i don't know what others' preferred forms of communication are and i don't have time to figure them out with the predetermined time constraints. i suppose in situations like this, those who gravitate to the helm tend to steer it. and while again, i'm not sure that's a bad thing in of itself, i think there's more i can do once class begins to make a space more equal.

a note i took was "equity over equality." it's not enough to just make a space where everyone can talk, a flat open town square. it is spaces like these that draw the loudest voices, where those most comfortable with it (whether due to extroversion or familiarity with the space) dominate. rather, how can spaces be a place where anyone feels comfortable to speak?

internet gaming culture, where i've unironically seen people say the solution to toxicity is to do nothing. "if someone says something to you, say something worse to them or just mute." then i see claims on women's vs. men's capability in various games and i really wonder how merit-based these people truly believe that their spaces are.

%% (a bit of a tangent) %% i think about schooling with its accommodations. some time ago, i read this post on neurodiversity by wesley that i had meant to write about.

The article that coined the term is a interesting read as well:

Until recently, [neurotypicals] have had the privilege of believing that their form of wiring was the standard for the human brain.

The common assumption in cognitive studies these days is that the human brain is the most complicated two-and-a-half pounds of matter in the known universe. With so much going on in a brain, the argument goes, the occasional bug is inevitable: hence autism and other departures from the neurological norm. ISNT suggests another way of looking at this. Neurodiversity may be every bit as crucial for the human race as biodiversity is for life in general.

!attachments/Pasted image 20260330015052.png

today, it does feel like 'neurodiverse' and 'neurodivergent' have become synonymous to ADHD and autism. formal education 'accommodates' these conditions but does so as second class citizens, 'solutions' often being extra test time or homework extensions (two things that i never found use for), means of shoehorning people into a 'neurotypical' education framework. it assumes that the way things are taught are the way and any failure to do so must be the fault of the individual.

i doubt that this is a radical opinion, given the common discrepancy of in-school performance and career success (not to mention the unhealthy habits and culture that formal education reinforces). it's inflexible and any 'flexibility' is on the onus of the instructor, legally required but unpaid labor.