SGA x Care Dialogue Fund Application

Application Draft

Dialogue Fund Form Items:

Page 1 Please list the full names of all applicants below. Natalie Bernstein Hayden Cheng Jackson Morris Luke Holmes

Please list the email addresses of all applicants below. nbernst4@jh.edu hcheng39@jh.edu jmorr119@jh.edu lholme23@jh.edu

Biography (one paragraph): Submit a short biography for each student applicant, highlighting relevant experience and motivation for carrying out the proposed initiative.

• Natalie Bernstein is a senior from Arlington, Virginia studying Psychology and Political Science, with a minor in Civic Life. She is currently the President of CARE, a Transform Mid-Atlantic Civic Fellow, and an At-Large member of the Health and Well-Being Learner Advisory Committee. She was previously a Civic Leadership Development Fellow at the Center for Social Concern, and currently works as a research assistant at the Democracy and Division Lab. She recently organized a grant from the SNF Agora Institute to CARE to facilitate student engagement with local Baltimore volunteer organizations. Natalie is passionate about building community on campus, and connecting students with each other and their peers. Relationships with graduate students, faculty, and staff have been pivotal to her time at Hopkins, and she hopes to help students build those connections through this proposed event.
• Hayden Cheng is a Junior from Houston, Texas studying Psychology and Public Health, with a minor in Civic Leadership. They are currently the Treasurer-Secretary of CARE, Lead Mentor for the Mentor Assisting Peer Program (MAPP), a fellow in the Teaching Fellows Project, and Treasurer of the Sexual Assault Resource Unit (SARU). They hope this event will give students the opportunity to challenge themselves to learn from new perspectives, especially those they disagree with.
• Jackson Morris is a senior from Omaha, Nebraska studying Biomedical Engineering. He is currently SGA’s Disability Caucus Senator and Chair of the Committee on Civic Engagement. He previously served as 111th Student Body Vice President, the inaugural undergraduate Co-Chair of the Cross-Institutional Student Advisory Committee, a member of the Provost’s Disability Inclusion Advisory Committee, a CIIP Fellow in the office of Baltimore City Councilman Mark Conway, and is a Harry S. Truman Scholar. Through his elected roles and individual advocacy, Jackson has been a champion of student dialogue, democracy, and civic engagement throughout his time at JHU. He believes that universities function best when they are informed by a diverse community of stakeholders who view each other as equal colleagues with a shared academic mission. He hopes that the proposed event will spark dialogue about what it means to study, teach, research, and work at Johns Hopkins, and inspire more cross-affiliate events.
• Luke Holmes is a sophomore from Houston, Texas studying Chemistry and Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and pursuing research in metabolic engineering. He is one of SGA’s Academic Senators (representing WSE) and a member of the Civic Engagement and Finance committees. Luke hopes this event will inspire future collaboration across academic communities.

Page 2 Please list the two or more recognized student organizations (must state advisor), established research groups (must state PI), and/or departmentally supported student programs.

Natalie and Hayden are with CARE. Advisor: Willow Goode (wgoode2@jh.edu)

Jackson and Luke are with the JHU Student Government Association (SGA). Advisor: Dr. Charles Norman (charlesiii@jhu.edu)

What types of groups are represented? We hope to represent Homewood-based Hopkins affiliates (undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, and staff).

Please name the group advisor(s), PI(s), or staff contact(s) Willow Goode (Civic Life Specialist, Center for Social Concern) and Charles Norman (Director, Leadership Engagement & Experiential Learning).

Is your advisor or PI aware that you are applying for the Student Blue Jay Dialogue Innovation Fund Grant? Yes, both Willow and Charles are aware.

If your proposal involves dialogue between or about specific communities, identities, faith traditions, political perspectives, or lived experiences, how are those groups represented in the planning process? If awarded the grant, CARE and SGA will work closely with Homewood graduate students, faculty, and staff in event planning and execution. We consulted with Heterodox Academy, a faculty body focused on intellectual pluralism. In addition, we would aim to work with the Graduate Representative Organization (GRO), the primary student governance body for Homewood graduate students, the KSAS and WSE Faculty Senates, as well as Homewood members of the Staff Advisory Council (SAC) to collaborate and share information about the event with our respective communities. The reproducibility of this event relies on the buy-in of our fellow affiliates, so we will endeavor to ensure that stakeholders other than undergraduates are present and co-creators at each stage.

Proposal: Include a description of the program and its goals, the specific issue(s) being addressed, the rationale behind your approach, and the dialogue-based methods you intend to use, how you intend to evaluate the success of your program, and how you will know your goals were met. Assessment examples include: pre- and post-tests to measure learning before and after participation in your program, surveys, focus groups, etc.

Inspired by the Longest Table, An Equal Plate aims to convene a large, diverse group of affiliates to converse as equal members of the Homewood academic community over a shared meal. We will bring together undergraduate and graduate students from both KSAS and WSE, as well as faculty and staff, to exchange conversation across and about our collective community. Our purpose is to create a setting that enables affiliates to discuss issues relevant to the university community. Of course, any conversation about what it means to be part of an institution of higher education will invariably fall short without balanced participation across learner, faculty, and university staff levels, but these groups rarely interact as peers. By giving each participant an equal plate—representative of the value that each member of the university community brings—we hope to remove barriers to natural dialogue and enable participants to build camaraderie across affiliate groups. Dinner will be consumed and dialogue will commence at tables of 8-10. Trained facilitators at each table will initiate, guide, and observe conversation, as well as take feedback at the end. After the event, we will meet with facilitators to gather their feedback. Based on the success of An Equal Plate, we may endeavor to hold smaller follow-up meetings later in Spring 2027.

Program title (working): An Equal Plate

Which topic(s) does your project address? Options

• Current events
• Political issues
• Religious, spiritual, or interfaith dialogue
• Identity, belonging, community
• Civic engagement and democracy
• Social or cultural issues
• Campus climate
• Local, national, or international news
• Other

Please provide a brief project summary (350 words maximum) An Equal Plate will gather university affiliates from across the Homewood campus to facilitate conversations at a peer-to-peer level over dinner. We intend for this project to include 150-200 participants, divided among tables of 8-10 with one facilitator. We will contact representatives of graduate students, faculty, and staff to co-create and advertise this event. The event will take place in a single large room on the Homewood campus. Catered food and non-alcoholic refreshments will be provided. We will use placards to place participants, with the goal of composing full tables with diverse groups (including representation from each affiliate group) seated at each table. Facilitators will moderate discussions on current issues in academia and in campus life (examples based on the current moment listed below; this list is not exhaustive or binding). Following the conclusion of the event, facilitators will transition discussions to gathering feedback. We will then ask participants to complete a brief (<3 minute) assessment of their satisfaction with the event and whether they feel more equipped to engage in dialogue with different affiliate populations.

Example Topics:

• Academic AI Use
• Federal Research Funding
• Living and Working in Baltimore
• Perspectives on JHU
• The Future of Higher Education

What issue will your project address? The Homewood campus is rich in its diversity: we have faculty, students, and staff in a wide range of fields from biomedical engineering to philosophy. Yet, in spite of sharing the same physical space, undergraduates only see faculty and graduate students in class and office hours. Faculty and graduate students are separated by their departments, and staff are even further isolated. Because an academic institution is also a workplace, the depth of dialogue that can be exchanged is limited both by the scant interaction affiliates have across divisions and the scope of their roles. Our event seeks to overcome these divisions through a meal by exposing affiliates to perspectives they might not otherwise encounter and thus building community on the Homewood campus. Connecting affiliates from across Homewood campus is important to another key goal of our event: to foster dialogue on significant issues relevant to affiliates surrounding campus life, higher education, belonging, and community, such as the future of higher education, artificial intelligence in the classroom, and our relationship with Baltimore. These issues are interdisciplinary, but are predominately discussed in their respective departments. Due to the cloistering of affiliates in divisions and departments, it can be very difficult to find genuine, cross-divisional intellectual exchange. Furthermore, the roles and expectations for community members can make it feel worrisome to speak freely. SNF Agora Professor Dr. Andrew Perrin et al.’s research on campus climate at JHU has found that often students are hesitant to speak their minds due to fear of judgement by peers and faculty (2025). An Equal Plate addresses these issues by enabling students, faculty, and staff to converse as equal members of the university community to which we all belong. This way, we hope to beget sincere engagement and candor from all attendees.

TODO - How will you know whether your project achieved its intended outcomes?

The survey that facilitators will conduct will be brief, assessing satisfaction with the event (questions listed below). It will assess feelings of connectedness in the Hopkins Environment, participants' view of the effectiveness of the event, and whether meaningful dialogue was exchanged across different groups of affiliates.

Survey Questions:

• Would you do this again?
• After this event, do you feel more certain you are part of the JHU community?
• Are there any participants you think you will follow up with after this event?
• Do you feel like you were exposed to perspectives you don’t usually encounter?
• Did you learn something new through this experience?
• Would you recommend this event to your colleagues?
• Do you plan to interact with other affiliates differently after this experience?

Following the event, a meeting will be held with facilitators to assess outcomes. Facilitators will share what topics were discussed, the results of the post-event survey, and event feedback. Facilitator feedback will instruct us as to whether there was meaningful interaction between affiliates from different areas of the university, whether discussion was robust, whether there were unanticipated barriers to dialogue, and whether participants meaningfully engaged with the topics we sought to cover. We will determine that our project has achieved its intended outcomes if facilitators report back positively, and survey results suggest a majority of participants agreed with the items listed in our survey.

TODO - Where and how will constructive dialogue happen during the program? Constructive dialogue will occur at each table. Facilitators will begin discussions by carrying out introductions and opening with a question about a current issue in academia or in campus life (examples based on the current moment listed below; this list is not exhaustive nor representative of what might be of interest closer to the event date). Facilitators will moderate with an emphasis on encouraging free-flowing discussion. They will be tasked with building the initial rapport between affiliates necessary to promote deeper dialogue and ensure everyone at their table is engaged. They will cycle through our preplanned topics throughout the time.

Example Topics:

• Living and Working in Baltimore
• Perspectives on JHU
• Classroom AI Use
• Federal Research Funding
• The Future of Higher Education

TODO - What different perspectives will be included in the program? The program will convene the perspectives of diverse affiliates on the Homewood campus. This will include undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, and staff from KSAS and WSE. We all share the same campus, but not the same perspective. Students are learners in academic programs, while faculty and staff are employees. The contrast in the day to day experiences of these groups of affiliates is vast. Undergraduates spend much of their time in classes, studying, and extracurriculars; graduate students spend a mix of time teaching, taking classes, and conducting research; faculty spend most of their time teaching or researching; while staff dedicate their time to their roles. These unique experiences of the same institution translate into diverse viewpoints we believe will foster a pluralistic environment and give rise to fascinating conversations.

TODO - How will your program move beyond presentation, awareness, or one-directional education? An Equal Plate is an event focused on encouraging intellectual exchange. One of the foremost goals of this event is shared conversation between university affiliates. In terms of presentation, at most, we will provide a short (<5 minute) introduction at the beginning of the dinner to explain the purpose of the event and our guidelines. Furthermore, as a participant-led event, dialogue will be directly driven by the interests and concerns of students, faculty, and staff. We will train facilitators to encourage discussion, provide guiding questions, and ensure everyone’s participation, so that dialogue will be led by participants.

Please identify two to three learning outcomes for participants?

1. Participants will be exposed to different perspectives through dialogue.
2. Participants will articulate and exchange viewpoints across perspectives on campus climate and issues affecting JHU and higher education.
3. Participants will gain a sense of shared academic community.

How will you assess participant learning? Facilitators will take notes during the dialogue, using our learning outcomes as their guideposts. Additionally, they will talk with participants about their thoughts at the end of the event and conduct a brief (<3 minute) survey. On a subsequent date shortly following the event, we will meet with facilitators to assess whether learning outcomes were met and gather their general takeaways. The feedback collected by facilitators will allow us to assess our desired learning outcomes. We will also try to determine whether there was meaningful interaction between affiliates from different areas of the university and meaningful engagement with the topics we sought to cover. Facilitators will also be asked for insights on opportunities for future events or follow-ups.

Who will facilitate the dialogue component of your program? Facilitators from the SGA, CARE, and Heterodox Academy will be trained to help facilitate discussion by their respective organizations and the CSC. Their role will consist of initiating conversation, carrying out introductions, encouraging engagement with our guiding questions, helping to prompt participants if conversation is lagging, and ensuring equal participation, in keeping with our goal of enabling peer-to-peer discussions. Additionally, they will be responsible for assessing learning outcomes by surveying participants at the end of the event and providing feedback to organizers. Aside from this role, dialogue will be facilitated directly by participants. While a list of topics will be prepared, our aim is to allow discussion to freely cover any subjects participants are interested in, with prepared topics serving to prompt discussion, rather than to limit it.

Proposed Itemized Budget ($)

• Speaker honorarium
• Food
• Materials or supplies
• Transporation
• Technology or media needs
• Other
• Total

Are you receiving or seeking funding from any other source for this project? (Options) Yes, No, Maybe

What training or support do you anticipate needing from the CSC? (Check all that apply)

• [x] Constructive dialogue design
• [x] Facilitation support
• [x] Event planning
• [x] Hopkins Groups support
• [x] Budget planning and tracking
• [x] Assessment or evaluation support
• [x] Outreach and marketing
• [x] Managing sensitive topics

If selected I commit to attending a mandatory Constructive Dialogue peer-to-peer and a orientation session on 11/16

• Yes, I commit to attending a mandatory orientation session and a Constructive Dialogue Peer-to-Peer session.

Outline

Dialogue Fund Form Items:

Page 1 Please list the full names of all applicants below.

Please list the email addresses of all applicants below.

Biography (one paragraph): Submit a short biography for each student applicant, highlighting relevant experience and motivation for carrying out the proposed initiative.

• Jackson Morris is a senior from Omaha, Nebraska studying Biomedical Engineering. He is currently SGA’s Disability Caucus Senator and Chair of the Committee on Civic Engagement. He previously served as 111th Student Body Vice President, the inaugural undergraduate Co-Chair of the Cross-Institutional Student Advisory Committee, a member of the Provost’s Disability Inclusion Advisory Committee, a CIIP Fellow in the office of Baltimore City Councilman Mark Conway, and is a Harry S. Truman Scholar. Through his official roles and individual advocacy, Jackson has been a champion of student dialogue, democracy, and civic engagement throughout his time at JHU. He believes that universities function best when they are informed by a diverse community of stakeholders who view each other as equal colleagues with a shared academic mission. He hopes that the proposed event will spark dialogue about what it means to study, teach, research, and work at Johns Hopkins, and inspire more cross-affiliate events.

Page 2 Please list the two or more recognized student organizations (must state advisor), established research groups (must state PI), and/or departmentally supported student programs.

• SGA
• CARE
• Potentially: GRO, SAC

What types of groups are represented? Homewood undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, and staff

Please name the group advisor(s), PI(s), or staff contact(s) Willow Goode and Charles Norman Is your advisor or PI aware that you are applying for the Student Blue Jay Dialogue Innovation Fund Grant? Yes

If your proposal involves dialogue between or about specific communities, identities, faith traditions, political perspectives, or lived experiences, how are those groups represented in the planning process?

• Going to do outreach

Talk here about how we will involve GRO & SAC

Proposal: Include a description of the program and its goals, the specific issue(s) being addressed, the rationale behind your approach, and the dialogue-based methods you intend to use, how you intend to evaluate the success of your program, and how you will know your goals were met. Assessment examples include: pre- and post-tests to measure learning before and after participation in your program, surveys, focus groups, etc.

We will create a dialogue event centered around collegial discussion with all aspects of the Homewood community. We will bring undergraduate and graduate students from both KSAS and WSE together, as well as faculty and staff, to share a meal together and hold conversation over our shared community. Since these groups rarely are able to hold discussion in a peer-to-peer context, this event enables building relationships across the Hopkins University environment. Dialogue will be held of tables of six to eight people, so as to enable a more personal environment. Facilitators at each table will help to initiate conversation. Additionally, they will take notes on topics discussed and poll participants on their experience at the end of the event. (?) We may additionally hold smaller follow-up meetings.

Make pitch simple Funding primarily for big event Caveat possibility of follow-ups? Characterize additional follow-ups as continuous community? Use facilitators to collect feedback and follow discussions

Program title: [ JH and U

Which topic(s) does your project address? Options

• Current events
• Political issues
• Religious, spiritual, or interfaith dialogue
• Identity, belonging, community
• Civic engagement and democracy
• Social or cultural issues
• Campus climate
• Local, national, or international news
• Other
  • Cross-affiliate dialogue

Please provide a brief project summary (350 words maximum)

• Facilitating dialogue among students and university affiliates at a peer-to-peer level through a large event
• Bringing together inter-departmental Whiting and KSAS communities
• Fostering camaraderie amongst affiliates as equal colleagues in a shared academic community

The project will gather university affiliates from across Homewood campus to facilitate conversations at a peer-to-peer level. The project is intended for 50-80 participants, divided among tables of six to eight. We will contact representatives of graduate students, representatives of faculty through SNF Agora, and staff. Additionally, we will advertise this event to Homewood undergraduates. The event will occur over in a single location, currently planned to be a larger room in the BSC.

What issue will your project address?

• University members predominately interact with others from their own division
• Affiliates interact with each other in an academic hierarchy rather than as peers

University members interact largely with others from their own division; graduate students and undergraduate students rarely interact outside of work in research labs, while students and faculty rarely engage with one another outside of the student-professor context. KSAS and WSE faculty often face significant barriers between their departments. As a result, affiliates across the university interact with each other almost exclusively through the academic hierarchy, rather than as peers. This results in a disconnected environment on campus around many of the primary issues.

How will you know whether your project achieved its intended outcomes?

• Discussions with facilitators?

Following the event, a meeting will be held with facilitators to assess outcomes. Facilitators will share topics of discussion held during the meetings, as well as assessed feedback following the event. The survey that facilitators will conduct will be brief, existing to gauge satisfaction in the event’s aspects and gauge interest in the possibility of future events. The facilitator’s direct polling at the end will assess feelings of connectedness in the Hopkins Environment, participants' view of the effectiveness of the event, and (?).

Where and how will constructive dialogue happen during the program?

• Dialogue will happen at a primary event

What different perspectives will be included in the program?

• Undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, and staff

How will your program move beyond presentation, awareness, or one-directional education?

• Discussion-focused event
• Everybody is an educator
• Building lasting connections between members of different divisions
• Spontaneous discussion, facilitating but people’s lived experiences guide the conversation
• Learning from participants - what do university affiliates want to know about each other? What do they want to talk about? Extemporaneous data on how the university can build community

Please identify two to three learning outcomes for participants?

• Point around dialogue
• Point around making academic community feel more real; invitation to replicate

How will you assess participant learning? Facilitators will assist in taking notes. Additionally, they will talk with participants about their retrospective thoughts at the end of the event, then conduct a very brief (<3 minute) survey. We will hold a dialogue session between facilitators to assess topics of discussion and learn about participants and takeaways.

Who will facilitate the dialogue component of your program?

• Dialogue will be led directly by participants. Facilitators will help to kickstart discussion, but they will not guide or limit areas of discussion.

Facilitators from the SGA and from CARE will be trained to help facilitate discussion. Their role will consist of initiating conversation, carrying out introductions, and helping to prompt participants if conversation is lagging. Additionally, they will be responsible for checking with participants and providing a survey after the event.

Proposed Itemized Budget ($)

• Speaker honorarium
• Food
• Materials or supplies
• Transporation
• Technology or media needs
• Other
• Total

Are you receiving or seeking funding from any other source for this project? (Options) Yes, No, Maybe

What training or support do you anticipate needing from the CSC? (Check all that apply)

• [ ] Constructive dialogue design
• [ ] Facilitation support
• [ ] Event planning
• [ ] Hopkins Groups support
• [ ] Budget planning and tracking
• [ ] Assessment or evaluation support
• [ ] Outreach and marketing
• [ ] Managing sensitive topics

If selected I commit to attending a mandatory Constructive Dialogue peer-to-peer and a orientation session on 11/16

• Yes, I commit to attending a mandatory orientation session and a Constructive Dialogue Peer-to-Peer session.

Event Design

Helpful Resources

Application Webpage

• https://students.jhu.edu/student-life/get-involved/center-for-social-concern/student-blue-jay-dialogue-innovation-fund/
• Goals
  • 1. Develop their capacity to respectfully engage in constructive dialogue and discussion with others whose perspectives may differ from their own.
  • 2. Demonstrate effective leadership skills by employing critical thinking, ethical decision-making, collaboration, and reflection.
  • 3. Provide opportunities for students to engage in dialogue across different perspectives on issues that are important to them.
  • 4. Enhance the community’s understanding of complex political and social issues.
  • 5. Strengthen our community’s ability to come together to discuss and learn from each other.

Willow Questions

• Our two ideas - Bmore & affiliate, want to go with affiliate bc we would want to do baltimore right, but would love to do that as well
• What do the numbers look like (participant numbers, facilitators to participant ratios)?
• How does the question on Program Description differ in aim from the question about the Project Summary?
• What would CSC training for facilitators look like?
  • We were thinking about a more unstructured event with our facilitators as initiators, what would you think about that?
• What happened to the Longest Table?
• What would be sufficient to demonstrate our program has been successful? We were thinking of checking in with facilitators and/or maybe a survey?
• How should we frame/emphasize our learning outcomes?
• What does food and event budgeting look like?
• What would each of the Training/Support items look like?
• What does involving participating groups as planners look like? Could you be our staff contact?

Willow Meeting Notes

• Our two ideas - Bmore & affiliate, want to go with affiliate bc we would want to do baltimore right, but would love to do that as well
• What do the numbers look like (participant numbers, facilitators to participant ratios)?
• How does the question on Program Description differ in aim from the question about the Project Summary?
• What would CSC training for facilitators look like?
  • We were thinking about a more unstructured event with our facilitators as initiators, what would you think about that?
• What happened to the Longest Table?
• What would be sufficient to demonstrate our program has been successful? We were thinking of checking in with facilitators and/or maybe a survey?
• How should we frame/emphasize our learning outcomes?
• What does food and event budgeting look like?
• What would each of the Training/Support items look like?
• What does involving participating groups as planners look like? Could you be our staff contact?

Minutes:

• NB: Presentation of our broader idea — we want to bring affiliates from across the university together where they can have a conversation with each other — they can get to know each other as equal colleagues rather than just through the hierarchical model. In the future, we might expand this to the Baltimore community.
• WG: Something we’re trying to push — dialogue about a current event, a controversial issue, etc. With your questions that you plan on doing, make sure that the questions are relevant to what is happening currently
  • [JM note]
• NB: We left the conversation field pretty open, but are open to having guiding questions. At Hopkins, there are a lot of issues that individuals encounter on campus that they do not always have the chance to discuss with each other
• WG: Good that there are 2 student orgs, make sure you have a clear budget for the analysis of the selection committee.
  • NB: We’d like to know
  • WG: Circle tables
  • NB: BSC 204?
  • JM: Can we put together a list of questions that we would ask if the event was held today, with the understanding that current events and shared interests will change by Feb 2027 and beyond?
  • JM: Note that this will include graduate students and faculty; will there be a
  • NB: Staff representative?
    • WG: Staff Advisory Council (SAC), not sure who represents Homewood, would recommend reaching out to their leadership
    • WG: yes that’s good
• NB: Asked about desired effect of event + learning outcomes; would like an alternative to a formal survey (such as using facilitators at each table) and see outcomes as people come together again. WG: put “these are the questions we plan for our discussion leaders to ask”
• NB: What does constructive dialogue planning support mean? What is event support?
  • WG: Student Blue Jay Dialogue implementation committee, will assign awardees a staff touchpoint who will help with event planning matters. Will have CDI constructive dialogue institute modules and a peer-to-peer session
• JM: Graduating in Dec 2026, LH will be the SGA contact to ensure continuity
• NB headed out
• LH: What should the ratio of participants to facilitators be? How many ppl should we try to have present?
  • WG: 6:1 or 8:1 based on the size of the round tables.
  • WG: Depends on how many people would be interested. Maybe 10 tables of 6-8 participants, or something like that.
  • LH: Mostly planning CARE, SGA Civic Engagement Committee members to be facilitators. Could also bring on additional students to get trained.
  • WG: Applications due October 6th.
• JM and LH talked; LH may be SGA contact, but ultimately the successor Chair of Civic Engagement will be responsible for SGA’s part in the event.
• LH: NB and I will try to get a draft done by Sunday night.
• JM: recommend
  • CDI, ODI, Student Affairs ppl JM knows - Longest Table planning documents
  • LH: shoot JM an email with questions that you have for ppl involved with past versions of the event — JM can ask to see if it’s possible to make the task of getting quotes/event planning information much simpler. Interested in how they did outreach to different parts of the student, faculty, admin, staff community.

Action Items

Reaching out to:

• GRO
• Shilliam and/or Braunstein
• HxA?
• jacksonmorris21@gmail.comneeds to talk to Charles