CESP Blog

When I think about the community that I most recently do the most work with, Phalen Lake, I can say that there are efforts to have a universal space but it is not there yet. The space is unique because it is a Hmong Magnet Elementary School. The absolute space is friendly, inviting, and incorporates all cultures and not just the Hmong culture (however it does focus on it primarily). The relative space has been great too because the multitude of cultures represented in the classes is relatively larger than other schools that I have worked in. The relational space has some benefits too such as there is a sense of safety, comfort and drive when entering the school building. Although there are some really great features of the school I would say that overall it is not a universal space because of a couple of troubles with space.
As with any school there are a lot of pressures for both the students and faculty. I believe these stresses reduce the progress to a universal space. The first pitfall is the standardized testing stresses. There is a relational space of fear and anxiety about the student’s ability to pass the tests. This fear creates a problem with the curriculum because it does not encompass a wide range of learning styles or topics. Teachers often feel or are expected to “teach for the test”. Another problem that reduces the universal space is the cliques that form. When walking around the gym once can find pockets of students. These students are more than likely separated by race, ethnicity, and nationality. My vision of a universal space would not have these clear divisions. The last factor that needs to be repaired for a universal space is the teacher’s kindness to the children. There is a couple staff members that are not friendly to the students and sometimes really mean. This does not create an environment that is conducive to learning and reduces the desire to want to be in the building. Thus the universal space is not fully achieved. Even with some downfalls the space is generally a space where students, parents, and staff feel safe and welcomed. It is a space where I try to create a universal space and after the RAP session I will continue to create a better space for all who enter.

I'm currently doing community work in two sites. Plymouth Youth Center, which is an alternative high school in North Minneapolis and New City Charter School, which is in Northeast Minneapolis. I wouldn't consider either of these places to be "universal" because they're both schools, and like Lucia mentioned schools have elements about them that do not promote universality.
I think a "universal" space should be a place where everyone feels comfortable and enjoys being there. Unfortunately, schools aren't set-up to be universal places. Whether it is the social aspects of children gathering in cliques and excluding people, or the academic atmosphere which is not appeasing to all students, nor representative of all people.
I think Robin D.G. Kelley brings up an interest idea about creating a universal space in the 9/11 territory. The property should be a free space, belonging to all people. It would appeal to all people and have representation and meaning to all people from every walk of life.
Even though the places where I work are not universal, I think they try to create a universal atmosphere. Where they try to treat everyone equal and give them a sense of belonging. The buildings are properly constructed and decorated in a warm, welcoming type of way. The students and staff are nice. I commend them for their efforts, but I think to create a truly universal space would take a lot of effort and would require some changes to societal thought and constructs.

I find Robin Kelley's idea of creating a universal space where the Twin Towers once stood to be very unrealistic. In terms of dividing up communal space, it is definitely likely if not certain that one or multiple cultural groups or subcultures will feel uncomfortable. Part of defining ourselves as individual human beings also involves searching for ways to separate ourselves from others. This is what creates the abundance of different cultures and languages throughout the world and contributes to the feeling of comfort and/or discomfort in certain spaces. I feel a better way to denote the concept of universal space would be to call it free space or a space of equality where everyone would ideally have equal rights to go and visit. Although, I still don't believe it is possible especially since our country since its beginnings has been founded on the basis of profound inequalities and prejudices.
I feel that by doing volunteer service we are given a unique opportunity to explore and redefine the spaces we feel comfortable in. The primary organization I work with, La Escuelita, has really opened my eyes to a whole new section of the city and culture that I never knew I would feel comfortable with. La Escuelita is a afterschool program for Latino youth. I serve mainly as a homework tutor, but also as a mentor to many middle and high school students. In this space the majority of people are bilingual, but speak in Spanish (although a version of Spanglish predominates among the younger kids). I don't believe this space is universal. It serves as a safe place for one specific group of people. I ask myself why I, not being a Latina or a native speaker of Spanish, feel so comfortable there. I don't have a definitive answer. All I know is that it has become in three years of service a safe place for me as well, a free space, and it will always be.

I would agree with what Alli posted above that Robin Kelley's idea of creating a "universal space" in this instance is very unrealistic, or even impossible. In constructing the absolute space of this location the way he wants to, he would create, in another sense, both a relational and a relative space that would not be able to escape its own exclusivity. This is especially evident in his proposals for the realization of this absolute space, such as his ideas for funding. I can't quite tell how seriously he makes the proposal (he does admit the idea to be radical), but calling for "a sliding scale whereby each nation would have to pay according to the damage its armed forces have inflicted on the rest of the world during the past century" would inherently create an infinite amount of unrest, discomfort, and dispute. Even his less radical proposal of paying for "Freedom Space" by having all nations affiliated with the UN to contribute annually at least one percent of their military budgets to maintaining/developing it would construct the space in a way that produces relative exclusivity. Knowing that the space was produced by someone else (of a different nationality), and subsequently identifying and perhaps subconsciously producing judgments based on who contributed and who did not would detract from any universal feeling that the space might have. I cannot imagine how Kelley's idea for "Freedom Space" could possibly result in a space that could be called "universal," providing a safe and comfortable environment for all who share it. No matter what, it will exist in the context of how it was produced, which would produce both senses of inclusiveness and exclusiveness to those who use it.