Two weeks ago, some of my classmates and I traveled to Detroit, Michigan to attend a conference put on by AICAD, which is the Association for Independent College of Art and Design. The conversations that were had throughout the two day conference were diverse and engaging - rarely did I feel that we were treated like students, and it was refreshing to be among a group of people who, upon learning, refused to treat us any differently than they did their colleagues.

First, I want to underline the importance of student involvement at conferences in general, but specifically conferences discussing higher education. In my experience (which is by no means the prevailing experience across the board), academia has put up clear boundaries on what students should and shouldn’t be involved with when it comes to administrative and university issues. With that in mind, participating in this conference felt like a huge step forward. We attended a conference as students (the only ones to do so), that was meant for educators. This type of barrier breakdown is hugely important, and should be so to both students and every other party involved. The student perspective is an important piece of getting education right, and our attendance at an event like this showed that we had major support back home.

But back to the conference itself; Some of the conversations included subjects such as Neo-liberalism, the ethics of Social Practice in higher education (and in general), and the basic concept of citizenship. While it was encouraging to hear them mentioned, I personally felt that not enough time given to the group to discuss those issues - they were quickly over-ridden by alternative topics which were more oriented towards implementing social practice curriculum into their universities programs. It seemed ironic that the discussion focused so much on implementation, as a deep conversation held earlier questioned the very success of such programs.

All in all, I will say the focus on action and doing was disconcerting to me - especially when few people knew if the programs actually achieved anything. Coupled with the fact that sometimes action can make things worse, it would have been nice to see more discussion around alternative action to change social paradigms.

It’s also important to note that a large percentage of the conference group was white; a detail that shouldn’t be overlooked in terms of the overall subject matter. There we were, discussing social injustice, in a room full of people who may have had no experience being on the receiving ends of said injustice.

Change, in the form of design, does not always have to take the form of privileged individuals (usually white, middle/upper class) inserting themselves into situations under questionable circumstances. Sometimes, it can be implemented where it will have the most impact, which in my mind, is policy and the public sector of our society. I was surprised to see very little discussion on our involvement in that aspect of society - and it felt ironic (yet again) to be discussing neo-liberalism when the main industry of art and design is involved in the private sector.