• CONFLICT RESOLUTION

GOALS

To prevent conflict to the best of our abilities, to resolve it to the best of our community’s interests, and to learn from it every step of the way.

CF'S CONFLICT RESOLUTION MODEL

Democratic

Democratic

We follow a decentralized, non-hierarchical model that allows for all organizers and members to be held responsible for their actions.

Inclusive

Inclusive

We fully involve our community in problem solving, empowering minorities to take the lead on issues that concern them.

Restorative

Restorative

We emphasize accountability, making amends, and reintegration.

 

Rather than a debate on who is right and who is wrong, dialogue is a conversation with a centre not sides. The centre of a conference is an act of harm and its consequences. Dialogue seeks to gain access to the collective intelligence and creativity of the group to repair the harm and prevent it from happening again.

— William Isaacs —

Conflict Resolution Tree

Conflict-Resolution-Tree

 

I. Why A Conflict Resolution Policy

As CF grows in numbers of organizers and community members, the risk of internal conflict increases, so a resolution policy is necessary for positive growth. It’s something that’s always been a part of social structures and will always exist: from our personal interactions with family and friends, to organizations and institutions. Conflict is inevitable, but it can be stopped from escalating, and it can be resolved and used an experience to learn and develop from.

Conflict and its resolution have been a focus of studies by social scientists worldwide for decades. Drawing from examples of wars and liberation struggles, labor rights and of course social justice movements, scholars have assembled multiple theories and practices for resolution. These theories are now being taught at law schools, business schools, public administration, policy and social work programs, and they’re being practiced by transformative justice initiatives across the globe, from prisons and juvenile detention facilities to domestic disputes and public schools.

II. Conflict Resolution Commitments

The CF community bases its principles on restorative justice. These include:

 

PREVENTION

PREVENTION

MEDIATION

MEDIATION

VICTIM SUPPORT

VICTIM SUPPORT

DISMISSAL

DISMISSAL

REINTEGRATION

REINTEGRATION

In its conflict resolution process, the CF community commits to mutual respect, mutual effort to solving problems, and mutual agreement to using the process below as well as modifying it as needed.

III. The Conflict Resolution Team

The Conflict Resolution Team (CRT) will be comprised of 3 CF organizers or community members, randomly selected every month:

  1. People in the CRT “pool” will rotate until every one of them has sat on the team; then the process of rotation will repeat.
  2. In the event that a grievance is submitted against a person currently on the CRT, that person will step down from the team and will be replaced by another organizer, also randomly selected.
  3. In the event that a grievance is submitted against a person based on a specific type of minority discrimination (e.g. racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc.), the team will be restructured to comprise of two-thirds members of the pertinent minority. E. g. if the grievance is in regard to a person’s racist behavior, the team will be restructured to comprise of at least 2 people of color.
  4. Organizers can opt out of the regular rotation but should be willing to participate in a CRT on an “on-call” basis as needed (e.g. if they are a member of the LGBTQ+ community and the CRT only has 1 LGBTQ+ member at a time when a grievance comes in regards to LGBTQ+ issues.)
  5. Community members who wish to be a part of the regular CRT rotation or be “on-call” should be familiar and in alignment with CF’s Values, Safer Space Agreement and this policy.
  6. All CRT “pool” participants will have access to the grievances@collectivelyfree.org email address and are expected to check it regularly to ensure grievances are received and acknowledged promptly by the CRT.

The existence of conflict is not necessarily bad in and of itself. In fact, it is often a necessary catalyst that allows an organization to survive, evolve, and progress in changing times. Therefore, the goal in dealing with conflict is not to eliminate it but to respond to it constructively rather than destructively.

— Allan J. Stitt —

IV. Conflict Resolution Process

1. Conflict Prevention

While conflict is often inevitable, even more often it can be prevented. As community members, we can each contribute to conflict prevention by being precisely that: a community. Getting to know one another, discussing the things we care about, and supporting one another emotionally are some of the many great ways to foster camaraderie and a sense of belonging that in turn inspire us to do the work we do. Supporting one another means remembering that none of us are perfect, that we all sometimes make mistakes, but that we should always be open to learning from one another as we continue to grow.

CF organizers will do their best to implement conflict-prevention methods within their local communities and beyond. Organizers will also communicate across chapters of any lessons they’ve learned locally that may benefit other communities/the larger community.

Example: CF Raleigh is in the middle of resolving a conflict with an activist who’s consistently exhibited ableist behavior and actions. The local organizers regularly update the rest of CF’s organizers. At the same time CF Detroit notices that people from their local community are also exhibiting ableist behavior. So CF Detroit decides to partner with a local disability activist group and co-host a lecture/panel discussion on the importance of language in activist communities and how the animal rights movement should be inclusive and supportive of the disability rights movement.

CF organizers will also do their best to anticipate potential issues and address them before they begin.

Example: A new activist joins the CF Vancouver community. After getting to know them a little bit, the local organizers find out that 3 years ago the person protested against gay marriage and was posting homophobic content on social media. The local organizer asks to speak with them one-on-one and politely inquires about the activist’s past: “Hey, I couldn’t help to notice that 3 years ago you seemed to hold a position that gay people were somehow inferior and not worthy of the same rights as straight people. Since you’ve joined CF, I just wanted to speak with you about this because CF is a community where no one is inferior to anyone, and where we speak against the oppression of not just animals but humans as well.”

Initiating a dialogue like this will provide the local organizers with an understanding of the person before they or anyone else in the community begin to judge them. Perhaps the person has changed and are no longer homophobic, in which case the organizers can ask that they make a statement to the community about it. Or perhaps the person hasn’t changed, in which case the organizer can explain that the CF community cannot welcome them at this time because oppressive views have no place in the community. Regardless of the outcome of the conversation, speaking with this new person early on prevents them from becoming a cause or catalyst for conflict later on.

2. Informal Conflict Resolution

Before submitting an official grievance, CRT members, organizers, and community members can opt to try and resolve an issue with an aggriever personally. This is encouraged for minor issues that do not address other community members or a systemic issue.

Depending on the nature of the issue, a person can choose whether to address the aggriever privately or publicly. The important thing in either case is to never “attack” someone personally  about their wrongdoing but to rather stay focused on what they’ve done wrong. Focus on the act, not the actor since ultimately it is the act that’s problematic, not the person themselves.

 

2.1.  Lack of Knowledge

When the issue seems to come from a lack of knowledge (e.g. use of a commonly used word that carries oppressive meaning, not considering building accessibility when scheduling an event, etc.), a person may find that reaching out privately is a more effective way to resolve the issue.

Example: Person “A” and “B” are both CF NYC community members (not organizers). “A” notices that during an action “B” uses the word “blind” in a phrase to mean something negative. After the action, “A” and “B” are both riding the train together. “A” casually brings up the subject: “I heard you use the word “blind” earlier, and it threw me off a bit during my speakout. I heard this talk recently about the use of language, and they mentioned so many words and phrases that we use daily without thinking about them which are actually quite oppressive. The word “blind” was one of them because we use it to mean something negative when it really just means lacking the physical ability to see. And this can definitely be offensive to someone who is indeed physically blind. The whole thing made me really think about all these words I use myself without thinking about them and how if we as activists don’t want people to use speciesist words (like calling cops “pigs” for instance), then we should really be careful of words we use ourselves that can offend other minorities. I know you really didn’t mean to offend anyone – it just was something I noticed and I wanted to mention since I’ve been thinking a lot about it lately.” In this case, person “A” does not assume person “B” is ableist (or at least doesn’t show such an assumption); instead, person “A” focuses on the word/phrase that’s ableist.

 

2.2. Lack of Consideration

Lack-of-ConsiderationWhen the issue seems to come not just from a lack of knowledge but also from a conscious lack of consideration (e.g. posting a racist statement against Chinese people in regards to the Yulin dog meat festival, excluding trans women from a women space, etc.), a person may find that addressing the issue publicly is more effective.

Example 1: At a demo protesting the use of chickens in the Kapporos ritual in orthodox Jewish communities, and then later in the protest event page, an activist notices that a lot of people use borderline anti-semitic language and slurs against the Jewish community where they witnessed the ritual. The activist decides to address the whole group publicly: “Hi friends – at the demo tonight I noticed a lot of you using negative words against Kapporos participants personally. I understand it was an incredibly heavy and emotional experience for us all, watching hundreds of innocent beautiful birds get tortured and killed right in front of us, but I really want to encourage us all to remember that we shouldn’t be pointing fingers at the people themselves but rather at the act they’re doing. Most of us here did horrible things to animals too, directly or indirectly, but we didn’t get to where we are by getting vilified. Perhaps before the next demo we can all meet a little bit earlier and have a brief discussion about how to best stay focused on the issue before we go into that heavy emotional place? Maybe we can do something like a buddy system where we watch out for one another and the things we say to make sure we don’t antagonize the community but to rather engage them in a dialogue?” The activist does not make personal assumptions or accusations about the group, even if none of its members are Jewish – because the issue is with their behavior and not their personal background.

Example 2: A person or a group posts a public meme about the health benefits of a plant-based diet that features a stereotypical thin/fit white cis hetero couple holding a basket of fruits and vegetables. An activist from our community replies to the meme publicly pointing out all its flaws: classism, ableism, racism, cisgenderism, heterosexism, and others if any. The activist also asks that the person/group that posted the meme acknowledge the issues with the meme and to afterwards take it down. The activist does not include personal facts about the person who posted it, even if that person is a non-poor able-bodied white cis hetero person – because the issue is with the meme, not the person.

If you look at successful groups whose interactions are characterized by open and civil discourse, mutual respect, and commitment to enacting a shared vision – in short, by higher ground – you will find that they have taken a variety of paths to get to the same destination.

— Franklin E. Dukes —

3. Formal Conflict Resolution – Submittal of First Grievance to CRT

First-GrievanceA community member can submit an official grievance by emailing grievances@collectivelyfree.org and providing as many details as possible about the issue. They can (and are encouraged to) request a CRT comprised of a certain demographic majority (e.g. women, people of color, LGBTQ+, etc.)

 

4. Calling-in Aggriever OR Conferencing with Aggrieved and Aggriever

Conferencing_IllustrationCalling-in is a way to address an issue without making it public – yet it is not the opposite of calling-out. It’s a first-step conflict resolution method that acknowledges mistakes as repairable and not conclusive of
one’s integrity or belief system – or that of the community as a whole.

Conferencing is at the core of restorative justice practice. It is a way of getting to a collective resolution for an issue by bringing together the victim (aggrieved) and the offender (aggriever). This inclusive approach empowers the aggrieved to speak directly to their aggriever and to express any needs, concerns or suggestions for solution. It also offers the aggriever a space to recognize their wrongdoing and whether or not they wish to work on restoring their place in the community.

Either process is best done in-person or through the use of video conferencing, when possible or practical. Social media and written communication have their merits, but they are certainly not the optimal way of conversing about emotionally-loaded issues. So much of a person’s tone and language nuance can get lost in written conversations, especially public ones. The added pressure of social media can cause conflicts to escalate much too fast and become a reason for a community divide. In-person or video communication on the other hand offers participants the ability to express themselves fully, allowing their conversations to occur in real time, in private spaces, and without the public/social media pressure. As such, in-person meetings and/or video conferences are the most effective and preferred way of communication in conflict resolution.

After a first grievance is received and after the appropriate CRT is formed, the CRT will speak with the aggrieved to ensure they understand the whole story. The aggrieved can then choose whether or not they wish to take part in a conferencing with the aggriever and the CRT, or if they wish for the CRT to speak to the aggriever alone – and to remain anonymous if they wish. In either case, the aggrieved is also encouraged to contribute suggestions for approaching and resolving the issue.

 

4.1. Calling-In

Call-InIf the aggrieved does not wish to be involved at this point, the CRT will contact the aggriever with a brief description of why they’re contacting them and will schedule a meeting (in person or online, however is more practical). At the meeting, the CRT will: a) express all issues laid out in the grievance and why they are offensive; b) demand reasoning and motives behind the aggriever’s actions; and c) offer a solution to the aggriever if they wish to remain a member of the community.

 

4.2. Conferencing

ConferencingIf the aggrieved does wish to be involved, the CRT will schedule a conference with them and the aggriever (in person or through video conferencing, however is more practical). Additional community members may also be invited if they have been affected and if no other participant objects. At the conference, the CRT will facilitate a dialogue between the aggrieved and the aggriever, ensuring both get a chance to express all they wish to express. The conference will begin with either the aggrieved or the CRT listing all the issues laid out in the grievance and why they are offensive. The aggriever will not speak at this point.

After the aggrieved has finished expressing themselves, they can begin to ask questions of the aggriever. The CRT will help facilitate these questions.

This will be the time for the aggriever to explain themselves, admit their wrongdoing and indicate their desire for a resolution that would allow them to remain in the community. If present, community members can also contribute to the dialogue at this point.

After this discussion, the aggrieved will offer their proposed solution, after which the aggriever will either agree or disagree. The aggriever can take some time to think (up to 3 days), especially if they are in a particular emotional state (e.g. anger) by the time the resolution is proposed. In the case of such a break, a continuation of the conference will be scheduled with all parties, in which the aggriever will announce their decision.

 

4.2.1. Agreement on Solution

AgreementIf the aggriever agrees with the solution, the present group will then lay out a plan of action. This can include a commitment from the aggriever to change certain behavior or use of language, making a public statement or apology, etc. After this resolution, the CRT, with the aggrieved’s approval, will too make a public statement on behalf of CF acknowledging the resolution of the conflict. Within a month, the CRT will then follow up with both the aggrieved and aggriever to ensure both parties are well and satisfied with the outcome.

 

4.2.2. Disagreement on Solution

DisagreementIf the aggriever does not agree with the proposed solution, the aggrieved and CRT can decide on the spot to dismiss the aggriever from the community. The CRT should remind the aggriever of CF’s community values and safer space agreement, and that their refusal to hold themselves accountable for their wrongdoing is ultimately a refusal to practice the community values. The aggrieved and CRT can also decide at this point to make a public statement about the decision to dismiss the aggriever. See 8. Dismissal of aggriever from CF community.

The existence of conflict is not necessarily bad in and of itself. In fact, it is often a necessary catalyst that allows an organization to survive, evolve, and progress in changing times. Therefore, the goal in dealing with conflict is not to eliminate it but to respond to it constructively rather than destructively. Dealing with conflict constructively results in well-considered decisions that move the organization toward achieving its objectives. Dealing with conflict destructively, on the other hand, can result in bad decisions, low morale, and unhappy employees.

— Allan J. Stitt —

5. Submittal of Second Grievance to Team

Second-GrievanceSometimes an issue with a particular individual does not get resolved at the first attempt. Sometimes it even grows to involve multiples individuals. And other times the same issue may occur again but with another individual.

A community member can submit a second official grievance by emailing grievances@collectivelyfree.org and providing as many details as possible about the issue. They should also indicate that this is the second grievance submitted towards the same person(s) or issue(s). They can (and are encouraged to) again request a CRT comprised of a certain demographic majority (e.g. women, people of color, LGBTQ+, etc.)


6. CRT Conferencing with Aggrieved & Aggriever

After a second grievance towards the same individual or issue, the CRT will again speak with the aggrieved alone first to ensure they understand the whole story.


6.1. Grievance Towards a Person with a Prior Identical Grievance

Recurring-PersonIf the grievance is towards a person(s) with a prior identical grievance, the CRT will schedule a conference with the aggrieved and the aggriever (in person or through video conferencing, however is more practical). Additional community members may also be invited if they have been affected and if no other participant objects. At the conference, the CRT will facilitate a dialogue between the aggrieved and the aggriever, ensuring both get a chance to express all they wish to express.

The conference will begin with either the aggrieved or the CRT listing all the issues laid out in the grievance and why they are offensive. The aggriever will not speak at this point.

After the aggrieved has finished expressing themselves, they can begin to ask questions of the aggriever. The CRT will help facilitate these questions.

This will be the time for the aggriever to explain themselves, admit their wrongdoing and indicate their desire for a resolution that would allow them to remain in the community. If present, community members can also contribute to the dialogue at this point.

After the discussion, the aggrieved will offer their proposed solution, after which the aggriever will either agree or disagree. The aggriever can take some time to think (up to 3 days), especially if they are in a particular emotional state (e.g. anger) by the time the resolution is proposed. In the case of such a break, a continuation of the conference will be scheduled with all parties, in which the aggriever will announce their decision.

 

6.1.1. Agreement on Solution

AgreementIf the aggriever agrees with the solution, the present group will then lay out a plan of action. This can include a commitment from the aggriever to change certain behavior or use of language, making a public statement or apology, etc. After this resolution, the CRT, with the aggrieved’s approval, will too make a public statement on behalf of CF acknowledging the resolution of the conflict. Within a month, the CRT will then follow up with both the aggrieved and aggriever to ensure both parties are well and satisfied with the outcome.

 

6.1.2. Disagreement on Solution

DisagreementIf the aggriever does not agree with the proposed solution, the aggrieved, community members (if present) and CRT can decide on the spot to dismiss the aggriever from the community. The CRT should remind the aggriever of CF’s community values and safer space agreement, and that their refusal to hold themselves accountable for their wrongdoing is ultimately a refusal to practice the community values. The aggrieved and CRT can also decide at this point to make a public statement about the decision to dismiss the aggriever. See “8. Dismissal of offender from CF community.“

 

6.2. Grievance Towards the Same Issue as a Prior Grievance but Different Person

If the grievance is towards the same issue as a prior grievance but a different person this time, this can be an indication of a recurring/systemic issue. The CRT will still proceed with a conferencing process as described in “6.1.“, but in addition they will also schedule a meeting with the aggrieved from both instances (in person on through video conferencing, however is more practical). If together they determine that this indeed is a deeper issue, the CRT will then schedule an open meeting with members of the concerning community. If they choose so, the aggrieved will have the opportunity to lead the meeting and share their experiences. The CRT members will again act as facilitators in the discussion and steer it towards a resolution. Possible outcomes can be the drafting of new anti-discriminatory policies, a revision of the Safer Space Agreement, the organization of a public educational lecture on the issue, etc.


A second grievance comes in regarding racist behavior by different people. In addition to the conferencing process with the aggrievers, the CRT also separately meets with the aggrieved from both instances, and they all establish that there is definitely an issue of racism within the community that isn’t being addressed. The CRT schedules an open meeting for people of color in the CF community. During the meeting, the group decides that a good first step is to revise the Safer Space Agreement to better clarify what constitutes racist behavior. Upon revision, the new draft is posted along with an article explaining the need for the changes. Following this, the group continues to brainstorm solutions.

Genuine forgiveness is tremendously difficult, requiring 1) a letting go of anger, resentment, and other sentiments; 2) a freeing up, by recovering lost control and lost of compromised dignity; and 3) a reconciliation. The third step is most difficult, and requires compassion, understanding, and most importantly, a restoration of basic human trust.

— Carol Quinn —

7. Submittal of Third Grievance to CRT

Third-GrievanceSometimes calling-in and conferencing don’t result in a person’s full understanding of their wrongdoing. Perhaps they truly don’t grasp or something is preventing them from grasping why their words, behavior or actions hurt others. They may have a following of agreeing supporters, making their actions seem legitimized. Yet just because they have backers doesn’t mean that their voices matter more than the voices of those they’ve hurt.

One of the top priorities of restorative justice is victim support. In traditional judicial resolution, focus is mostly on the offender; very little is done to provide the victim with what they need to cope with their pain, and they are hardly ever asked about what would give them a resolve. CF commits to first and foremost focusing on the aggrieved and their needs to feel safe in the community.


7.1. Third Grievance Towards Same Person

If a third grievance is submitted against the same person, that person will be dismissed from the community. See “8. Dismissal of offender from CF community.“

7.2. Third Grievance Towards Same Issue

If a third grievance is submitted regarding the same issue as two prior grievances, this again is an indication of a recurring/systemic issue as well as of a need to revisit the conflict resolution process. At this point, instead of forming a CRT, the CF organizing team will schedule an open meeting (in person or through video conferencing, however is more practical) with members of the concerning community and discuss ways to improve the conflict resolution policy and safer space agreement. Any changes agreed upon will be written and included into a new draft of the policy. The new policy will then be posted publicly along with an article explaining the need for the changes. The grievance will then be followed up as per the new policy’s process.

8. Dismissal of Aggriever from CF Community

DismissalAfter a third grievance towards the same individual(s), or earlier, if so determined, the CRT will dismiss them from the community. The CRT should remind the aggriever of CF’s community values and safer space agreement, and that their refusal to hold themselves accountable for their wrongdoing is ultimately a refusal to practice the community values. The CRT will then consult the aggrieved and make a public statement on behalf of CF about the decision to dismiss the aggriever. If the reason for dismissal was an issue of continued discrimination, the statement should stress that this (and all) types of discrimination has no place in the CF Values and community. The statement should also acknowledge that the “door is open” for the aggriever to come back to the community if they wish to put in the work for that – with the aggrieved’s inclusion and approval.


9. Possible Reintegration of Aggriever into CF Community

ReintegrationA person dismissed from the CF community is always encouraged to make the changes necessary for their return. When such a person (former aggriever) wishes to return to the community, the CRT will schedule another conference with them and the persons they had previously aggrieved, as well as any other community members that may have been affected. At this conference, the former aggriever will speak first and tell the story of why they wish to rejoin the community and how their values have come to align with those of the community. The former aggrieved and community members will then ask specific questions addressing concerns they may have about reintegrating the person back. Once all questions have been answered and concerns addressed, the CRT, aggrieved and community members will decide if and how to welcome the person back.

FAQ

Is the process described here how all issues will be resolved from now on?

The Conflict Resolution Policy is not “set in stone”. It will be an ever-growing document with contributors from both the CF organizing team and community members, adapted as needed with every conflict (or potential conflict) we face.

 

What is the goal of the policy?

To prevent conflict to the best of our abilities, to resolve it to the best of our community’s interests, and to learn from it every step of the way.

 

What makes this system democratic?

We follow a decentralized, non-hierarchical model that allows for all organizers and members to be held responsible for their actions and to participate in conflict resolution at all of its stages.

 

How to Foster Community while Supporting the Aggrieved?

There are many feelings people affected by oppressive behaviors can suffer from, and it can affect both one’s mental and physical health: anger, anxiety, fear, frustration, depression, helplessness-hopelessness, isolation, paranoia, resentment, sadness, self-blame, self-doubt which, in extreme cases, can lead to heart disease, hypertension and muscle tension.

Sometimes it is possible to deal with oppression through a positive manner (and that is always the goal), but a lot of times one cannot help but nurture negative feelings as a coping mechanism.

It is vital to foster a sense of community where the aggrieved receives support from people who can relate to their struggles, who can listen to and offer emotional help. Allies are welcome, but depending on the case and gravity, it can be more beneficial to offer help through a network of people who have experienced/are experiencing similar oppression/feelings first-hand. Why? Because it’s reaffirming to the aggrieved that they are not alone and isolated and it also feels more credible and reassuring. Sometimes, allies may say things that can trigger the aggrieved even more.

 

How to Deal with Rage?

When you live in a system that systemically oppresses you, rage can work as a coping mechanism. “Rage is a way of resistance! Anger has been used by many people, movements, and countries! Think of Brazil’s (and Latin America in general) blunt anti-American stance: one of the ways a country built on colonialism has found to defy imperialism is by publicly “hating” on Americans. […] Think of Black Rage: a book which focused on the racial crisis in the US. Think of Black Lives Matter: a movement which emerged out of the rage and mourning that accompanied George Zimmerman’s acquittal for the murder of Trayvon Martin.” for full article, read here.

Sometimes, another person’s anger has nothing to do with you personally. Recognizing this can change the way you deal with the situation drastically. A 2012 study found that when people understood they weren’t the cause of the person’s anger, they weren’t upset about it.

Example: Person “A” is dealing with homophobia through anger and posts about how eliminating straight people from the face of the earth would make it a better place.

Facebook,-Homophobia-
For those not experiencing their rage, the way of coping can seem unreasonable, unjustifiable and wrong and can lead us to quickly judge the aggrieved, be “appalled” by their behavior, shut them out or pity them. We must critically analyze the power dynamics in these situations: no matter what that person said, at the end of the day their fear of being oppressed, beaten up or even killed will still remain there, while straight people, in this case, will remain assured none of that violence will ever be inflicted upon them over their sexual orientation. Sometimes, anger is all one can find to fight back.

Our job, as the conflict resolution team, is to support the aggrieved, let their anger breathe and inform you, our community, that the best you can do in situations like these, is:

  1. Do not take it personally.
  2. Check your privilege and acknowledge you are part of the oppressive group in question, even if you personally have not contributed to the issue in question.
  3. Acknowledge that the aggrieved has the right to their rage.
  4. Understand that growing out of rage can take time and sometimes the aggrieved never fully grow out of it due to traumatic experiences they went through.
  5. Support the aggrieved.
  6. Help turn rage or any negative feelings into an opportunity for strengthening of our community and growth.
  7. Recognize that rage born from oppression is not the same as misanthropy or violent attitude.


How Can I Become a CRT Member?

Thank you for your interest and support! In order to become a CRT Member you will be asked to:

  1. Commit to constantly learn about different forms of oppression and intersectionality.
  2. Have availability to be in the rotation team.
  3. Email us at grievances@collectivelyfree.org.
  4. Sign an NDA so both the aggrieved and aggriever’s information are kept in confidentiality.

Training

All rights reserved, Collectively Free: Awareness & Action ©2016

Back to Top