In May of 2026 I participated in the Problematique Dialogue (using the Banathy Conversation method) at OCAD. In the final phase of the method, Recollecting, teams and participants are encouraged to write proceedings about the event that can be carried into future work and dialogues. Due to the nature of my experience, I have decided to write this solo. That being said, in the spirit of what I have written, I have shared this with some of those affected prior to a wider release to ensure my words were appropriate and accurate to their experience.

I am a Black man with considerable expertise working at the intersection of climate change, justice, community, and systems and futures thinking. I’ve learned everything I know about systems through doing on the job. Thus I have always identified more as a practitioner. This is important context for my experience at the event.

The Problematique Dialogue was organized as a part of the overhaul of the systems thinking curriculum at OCAD, and the reimagining of sLab, an institute/lab at OCAD that had supported systems thinking work for years. Banathy Conversations have been held for many years across the world through the International Federation for Systems Research (IFSR) and other bodies, but had fallen dormant in recent times. I understood that this was also an attempt to get them back on a regular schedule, as there had been a Conversation held the previous year in Iowa. I had met most of the organizers at various events in the months leading up to the start of the process, so I was also curious about the event, the method, and the other transformational activities.

The process follows the following structure:

Before the Event

During the Event (The event itself is 4.5 days of unstructured dialogue where teams explore their framing question in 2 phases):

Post-Event:

I was encouraged to participate in the dialogue by a friend, who thought that my expertise, specifically with respect to equity, would be a valuable addition to the dialogue. This is someone I highly respect, so I was in. I also thought that it would be a good opportunity to learn more about traditional systems thinking theory and practice, since I was never formally trained. At the kick off event, at the start of the Connecting phase, I put forward some ideas based on my expertise and practice. I was also tentatively identified as a team lead. But it was also made clear that attendance for all 5 days for the full time allotted was essential. As a married father of two who doesn’t live in Toronto proper, this was a huge ask, and one that I couldn’t answer alone. I saw this as a major barrier to entry.

At this point I also began to be concerned about safety. I have been a part of large events with groups of folks who don’t know each other. Especially with a group like this, I felt that safety was an important consideration. The majority of the participants were going to be white. And for a Black man like me, being in white majority spaces comes with a lot of emotional labour before, during, and after the event. This labour often includes dealing with microaggressions, erasure, and all manner of covert and overt racism. In this case, I was proposed as a lead of a group that would focus on an equity/climate/intersectional topic. This topic is a minefield in the best of circumstances, and there was no telling what the case would be with my group.

I decided to reach out to the organizers to find out about what they had in mind with regards to participant safety, including psychological safety. Especially for a Black man such as myself and with this topic, I did not want to get left carrying load on my own, with no structure or support. The response was lackluster, and I could tell that they didn’t really understand my question. I also flagged my concerns with members of the facilitation team in the hope that by raising this in multiple places, it would be taken seriously.

These concerns were raised in parallel with conversations that I was having to better understand the process, and what was going to happen during the week. Understanding the process would’ve helped me to fill in some of the care gaps left by the lack of structure. Also it would have helped me set up my learning goals that aligned best with my participation. My participation was initially driven by my interest in learning. As I couldn’t participate in the whole event from start to finish, I wanted to make sure I could maximize what I got out of the event.

I want to pause here and mention that I was not only asking about safety to protect myself (although that definitely factored in!). I was asking because of my experience facilitating groups and designing workshops. I have seen how much harm can happen, not because people are malicious or bad, but because such spaces are not always designed in a way that gives participants a structure to understand each other, bridge differences, and repair conflict. For me to fully participate, this is a minimum. I have concrete experience doing this for others in my work. But I have also seen concretely how intentionally designing in safety and care results in a better event, a better experience for participants, and better outcomes at the end.

I ultimately decided to not be a team lead and switched groups. With the new Lead, based on what I knew of them, I deemed the group too unsafe for me. They did not seem to be someone I could turn to to be an ally in creating safety on the team. This decision was validated when I heard about a Black femme participant who was harmed in that group, which led to them dropping out of the event entirely. I was fortunate to have a couple of friends join me on my new team.

In my new group, the Team Lead reached out to me about us being Co-Leads. It turned out that their challenges in participating, which were largely capacity issues in the Gathering phase, were opposite to mine, which were largely capacity issues during Exploring and Reflecting Phases. I agreed, thinking that it would allow me to increase my learning while balancing that with participation that was appropriate for me.

Leading during the Gathering phase helped me better understand the Lead role and the why behind pieces of the Problematique. But, it also revealed there was a lot less process and structure in the Method than I had originally thought. I concluded there wasn’t much to learn.

At this point I was on the fence about my participation. Participating wasn’t going to teach me much. There was a lack of safety that I was going to have to navigate on my own. And the lack of care and resistance to feedback from the organizers felt like a recipe for disaster. I later found out there was sustained resistance from the organizers to any kind of centering of care. My friends were similarly questioning participating and one on my team ultimately decided to drop out.

I eventually decided to go through with the event, however I significantly reduced my enthusiasm and engagement. To navigate the possible harm that I would have to face, and to reduce my disappointment in the process and what I would get out of it, I lowered my expectations. At this point, it was just an opportunity to hang out with friends that I didn’t get to see too often.

I began to construct my armor and masks that I would use on the week of. BIPOC people will understand the masks and armour we have to wear in these spaces to survive. Showing up as yourself fully can be a risky and harmful endeavour. I spent significant time working on my mental and emotional armor, to ensure I could navigate the microaggressions and casually problematic behavior that I was sure to face. My partner found the name of the event quite fitting. I wanted to be prepared as much as possible. On the flip side, If you want a powerful example of what happens when you go into a situation like this without the armor, go read Jenn Chan’s experience at a futures conference here. I see these proceedings as a spiritual sequel to Jenn’s piece.

The harm started the week before the conference and smoothly rolled right into the event.

I didn’t raise any of these issues with my team. I predicted that because of the ‘we need to be friends’ team dynamics, that the problems would be met with fragility and defensiveness. Because I had my well constructed, thick armour and a diverse set of masks, I was good. These things are harmful, but they didn’t reach me. Because I expected them, their effect was minimal. Unfortunately, my predictions would come true soon enough, just not in the way that I expected.

What happened next included me, but some of the events I only heard second or third hand. My understanding is that on Tuesday afternoon one of the facilitators spoke to one of the folks on my team, to address some problematic behaviors. This prompted the defensive response I predicted in that person. That person messaged me that evening, seeing if I raised any issues. Having some idea that what I had observed (this person was involved in almost all the harms I highlighted above) had been raised, but still interested in staying behind my armor, I played dumb and said I had not. I hadn’t raised any issues, but I had some idea of what was going on. This is the first of a few times that I wondered what would have happened if I had spoken up. So I need to take responsibility for my silence. This is the impossible choice that BIPOC and other marginalized peoples regularly face in these types of situations, speak up and possibly be harmed, or stay silent and have harmful situations continue.

On Wednesday morning, a conversation between the organizers, the facilitators, and the person on my team was convened. I was not a part of the conversation, but my understanding was that the person continued to be defensive. That person did not rejoin our team until that afternoon when the White Woman Tears™ (trademark tongue in cheek) started. Black people know what happens when these tears are weaponized against us, yet another step in the process that I had expected. In particular, this person returned and used their tears to get the rest of the team on their side, purporting that they were wronged and that the facilitators were the bad guys. It was at once fascinating and horrifying to watch this play out, and see how the rest of the team instantly jumped to that person’s defence. No one questioned what had happened, or tried to find out more before they chose sides. The person seemingly did not reflect on their actions or take any accountability. This is the power of White Woman Tears™, our society and system predisposed to protect white women at all costs. The day ended with a meeting between my group and one of the organizers, in which that person proceeded to attack the facilitators integrity, supported by the team and the organizer. I was lucky that I had to leave early, and only endured a short part of that toxic conversation.

The next morning, (Thursday), the choice I discussed previously came back around, even stronger than before. It went straight to my heart, penetrating my carefully constructed armour as if it wasn’t there. It seemed like I only had a few choices:
- I could speak up and take on the conflict myself.
- I could stay silent and watch the tears continue to be weaponized, and people’s integrity wrongly questioned. Or,
- I could just not go back, and let folks take it how they will.

None of the choices seemed right. These are the kind of lose-lose situations that BIPOC people face in these situations. I managed to come up with a fourth solution that worked for me: I sent a note to the team explaining that I had been harmed, their behaviour was unsafe and that I wouldn’t be returning. It's unfortunate, because while there was blame to go around to everyone (including me), there were some team members that were more culpable than others, and I did not distinguish. I also met with one of the organizers, the one that had not been a part of the harmful conversation the evening before, and gave my perspective in hopes that it could shed light on what happened and support improvements for future events. They encouraged me to return on Friday to experience the Reflecting phase. I debated it but decided to participate on Friday to stay true to my interest in learning. I set a boundary with my team to avoid discussions with me about what had happened.

I was not directly involved in the conflict. I got swept up in it and was laterally harmed. I think I was blamed/held responsible for it, even though I had not participated and not asked for it. The power dynamics, the ‘friend’ orientation of our group, the lack of structure, and the inexperience of the organizers and some of the facilitators created a perfect storm that drove what happened. There continued to be a move to blame the dynamics, inexperience, and acts of the participants, and not the structure of the event itself. The irony of not examining the system at a systems thinking event!

This document is my contribution to the Recollection phase, sharing my experience, learnings, and expertise with a wider group in the hope that these events improve. I heard anecdotally after the session about many others who were harmed in some way through the process, with every group, I think, having some incident. I’m not sure these incidents could’ve been avoided. But there definitely could've been more structure/support in place to work through them. Many of the conflicts from what I heard, including the one I was involved in, were a result of unchecked, dismissed, and/or ignored social dynamics in the ‘system’ of the event. Racism and power are a part of our system whether we acknowledge them or not. Productive conflict and dialogue, which is what the Banathy Conversation Method is all about, is more likely if we shine a light on and then navigate these realities.

Despite all that happened, I had a positive experience overall. I learned some systems stuff. I got to spend three focused days discussing systems and topics, which was surprisingly fun and invigorating. I got a window into others' work, thoughts, and approaches. I better understand what minimal process, structure, and logic existed within the Banathy Conversation Method. In the Gathering phase I had given up on learning anything. As it turned out, I ended up learning a lot.

While I would not suggest a Banathy Conversation to any marginalized person in its current form, I think it could be a valuable systems and relational tool. It’s no longer acceptable to throw a bunch of people in a room and assume they will all ‘be adults’. That puts the onus on the marginalized people to navigate these systems alone, with no power or support, as I had to do. I’m lucky that I was as prepared as I was.

Changes to the process would include:

All of the above could be summed up under the banner of intentionality and relationality. Being intentional creates more certainty for everyone, and being relational strengthens the connections between participants.

Sankofa: Adinkra symbol originating from the Akan people of Ghana. It embodies humility, reflection, and respect for ancestry, teaching us to pay due regard to the lessons and practices of the past and to draw on them to inform the present and the future.

After the event, I learned that one of the organizers said that my team ‘got hit with the social justice agenda’ and that was the reason that things happened the way they did. No, things happened that way because of the lack of care and safety, coupled with not enough structure for the group. My guess is that wouldn’t have been said if I, a Black man, wasn’t a part of the team and centred in the conflict.

While equity and justice were motivators for what I thought should be done, it was more so my experience and expertise that drove my thoughts. I do this in my work and I understand how it can be done with care and intention. I am lucky enough to work with people who know how to do this stuff well, and create great experiences for people.

On Friday after I left the event, I had lunch with a foremost expert on anti-oppressive workshop design. They were appalled at the lack of a container created for the event. In my humble opinion, creating a safe container should be the minimum for events like this. And the word ‘container’ is used deliberately. A container has structure, but can be as simple as a single boundary. Any further structure in that container should be customized for each event or initiative. However, this is an area of practice, and as a result requires knowledge and expertise to do it well. I don’t think that some of the organizers even acknowledged that this is a thing, let alone an area of expertise needed to support the event. My hope is that these proceedings will help them understand why this is of vital importance.

I also understand that this is very much a 2026 way of approaching things and Banathy is still designed for 80s-90s systems thinking academics and professionals who have the ability to spend 6+ days living in an Austrian Monastery. That is a very specific type of person that creates a specific type of group, with a specific set of dynamics. As I said before, I think Banathy is a valuable tool that definitely shouldn’t be discarded. But it needs to be updated to a twenty-first century paradigm, to make it a viable tool for many more types of people.

A big part of my career is show and tell: don’t speak about it, be about it. And one of the stated hopes from the organizers on the last day of the event was that it might spawn other Banathy Conversations, that others might carry the method into their own context. After such a strong reminder of the significant harms that can happen when safety and care aren't on the organization's radar, I'm more inspired than ever to do just that. Show them how it could be done differently, and translate it into a form that BIPOC and other marginalized folks can participate in and get value out of. That is what I try to do in all of my work. Maybe one day I will do it with this.

Because I walked away from this with one very important key learning. I learned that my expertise in safety and care in event and workshop design is valuable and my instincts are on point. That was the best part of my participation in this event.