and yet the program does move us in the direction of appreciating ambiguity. The significance of ambiguity is perhaps easier to acknowledge in working with diversity than with ethics, but it belongs to both. At one of the early training workshops, we were asked to partner with someone we would not usually select. An African American woman came immediately to me and asked to be my partner. When we were asked to share with each other the reason for our choice, she said that she selected me because I looked like the white males in her office whom she considered racist. Her remark flustered me, because I felt that she had seen me as just another white male. I think I saw her as another African American woman. We were both relying on our assumptions, although she was probably clearer about hers than I was about mine. After this beginning, we shared our own particular experiences of living in the United States. Soon we were able to see each other as particular individuals. Our dialogue not only allowed us to move beyond our initial perceptions, it also allowed us to live with our “multiple” identities. As a white male, I need to be aware of white privilege and power and of the systemic dynamics of inclusion and exclusion that tend to work in my favor and against many others in my country. I also need to be aware of myself as a particular person. To be present at these workshops, I have found that I cannot slip into one or the other identity, but need to live in between my group and individual identities. Living in this “in-between” is what I mean by ambiguity. Ambiguity is not only important for individuals, but also for groups. Ambiguity allows the dialogical process to facilitate learning. As long as everything is clearly up or down, in or out, we cannot entertain differences and disagreements, or discover more than we knew before, or change our perceptions of others and of ourselves. Since the ethical process is just as dependent on learning as is diversity, ambiguity is also important for ethics. There is a notion of ethics, of course, that sees ambiguity as a problem. This is an ethic that searches for clear knowledge of the right thing to do. To return to our previous example of whether to forgive someone for making a mistake, such a person would take a stand on the “issue,” by saying that people must be accountable for their actions. That would probably mean that the employee should be fired. In terms of the four different levels of discourse, this approach disregards the differences between proposals and values, ignores different observations, and remains unconscious of assumptions. As you can imagine, this stance does not allow a dialogue with others that includes the suspension of judgment or the balancing of advocacy and inquiry. If they could separate their proposals from their values or principles, and stand on their principles, rather than on their proposals, then they could listen to different observations and explore different assumptions. In other words, if they allowed some ambiguity about their “rightness,” they could become receptive to new information and knowledge. If everyone on a team allowed this type of ambiguity, they could work together to find the option that would take advantage of all the resources in the room.