A previous blog post was about the difficult handling of far-right parties in simulation games. Since then, these parties and other actors have continued to gain strength worldwide and in Germany. These social developments are reflected in our workshops: anti-democratic positions are being expressed more frequently and with greater self-confidence, and misanthropic statements are on the rise. This is an impression that is also confirmed by other people and organisations active in political education.

Many of our permanent and freelance trainers have already experienced challenging situations in their work context. Although most of our events go off without incident, discriminatory or exclusionary statements do sometimes occur. There is a growing openness to exclusionary positions, especially among young people, and more and more often it is not a matter of individual persons, but of several participants.

Even though this is not an easy task, we want to be better prepared for such situations. We do this in different ways: firstly, we provide further training internally with anti-discrimination experts; secondly, we pass on our knowledge in the form of argumentation training against right-wing slogans; and thirdly, we have created a guide for our trainers to help them react to discriminatory statements in our workshops in the best possible way.

But what actually is a good reaction? Unfortunately, as is so often the case, there is no patent remedy for this. Every situation is different, and each trainer brings different experiences and levels of personal involvement to the table. Nevertheless, in order to provide a starting point, we – like other institutions – like to refer to the reaction triangle in our training sessions.

Depending on the context, it shows three basic ways of dealing with discriminatory statements.

In our work and with a view to our particular responsibility to enable everyone to participate on an equal footing and to protect potentially affected persons in our workshops, we do not have the option of ‘not discussing’ when discriminatory statements are made in our workshops. We are obliged to ‘position’ ourselves and, depending on the context, also to ‘discuss’.

In order to feel more confident and react appropriately, the preparation of the workshop is crucial:

In the future, we will therefore also try to clarify with teachers in advance which situations could potentially arise.

The workshop then normally begins with the establishment of rules of engagement that we can fall back on as needed. If transgressive statements are then made, it is important to first recognise them and then categorise them, even if there is often not much time for this. The categorisation includes:

Content:

Situation:

What is the position of the person(s) saying the problematic things?

We have developed a cascade model for the reaction. Depending on how it progresses, the reaction can be adjusted and made sharper. At the beginning, there is (friendly) questioning, clarification and correction, since a statement can also be made out of ignorance. If there is no insight or reluctance, the statement must be clearly marked as ‘not OK’ (positioning). We remind them of the established rules of the conversation and demand respectful behaviour accordingly.

So-called power phrases for positioning can also help here, which are suitable for many situations and which trainers can prepare in advance. ‘I respect you, but not your opinion’, or ‘We clearly agreed at the beginning that we would like to speak respectfully to each other here - that was not respectful!’. This can be used to counter the other person's point of view and gain time.

However, if the other person is neither willing to discuss openly nor to hold back, it is always possible to take a break. This can de-escalate and the trainers have the opportunity to coordinate with each other, to talk to people who may be affected by the discriminatory statements or to the ‘difficult’ person. However, the protection of those affected always takes precedence here.

If the comments are made in plenary, moving into small groups is an option, for example, to avoid giving discriminatory behaviour or provocation a platform. If this type of behaviour continues, the next stages of the cascade model are to modify the programme if necessary, to exclude the person from the workshop (if necessary, in consultation with the teacher) or – if nothing helps – to cancel the event.

It is helpful to have these ‘tools’ ready in advance so that they can be used quickly if necessary. After all, some situations are overwhelming, and the less the trainers have to react spontaneously, the better.

Teamwork and institutional integration
Not only is individual preparation important, but also the support of the team. During and after the event, we can support each other, share experiences and discuss solutions. Especially when it comes to workshops in schools, it is essential to liaise with teachers. Close cooperation and clear agreements help to better manage difficult situations. We also hold discussions with various clients in order to establish good practice for dealing with discriminatory comments in the long term.

Exchange and joint development
We welcome feedback and reports on your experiences! Which strategies have proven successful in your workshops? What challenges have you faced? An exchange between trainers and clients helps us all to act with more confidence and composure. Let's work together to develop a workshop culture that is both discrimination-sensitive and robustly democratic!