The Summer Camp Society Blog
Defaulting to Inclusive Language
As one of the millions of people who regularly read The New York Times (or bits and pieces of it, let’s be honest), I have been running a little hot lately. Almost every time I open the NYT app or click the bookmark on my desktop I end up leaving more frustrated, angry, or upset than before I started reading. And no, it’s not because each day there is news that highlights our dystopian world, although that is plenty disheartening on its own, but rather because the Op-Ed section has been publishing some seriously bogus takes about inclusive language, “cancel culture,” or “free speech.”
I have been reading them quietly and lamenting to anyone that will listen about how ridiculous they are, but this piece by Pamela Paul finally set me off enough to write this blog post. My goal here is to offer up a perspective that disagrees wholeheartedly with Paul’s take on inclusive language so that anyone else who is reading these op-eds and feeling discouraged, or maybe even reconsidering some of your efforts at camp, knows there is someone else out there in your corner.
If I were you, I’d skip the article in question and save your emotional energy because boy oh boy has it occupied a lot of my headspace. I’ll summarize briefly: Pamela Paul celebrates the end of the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative, a project in Stanford’s IT Department, by using 45 of the words the department deemed harmful in her piece. I will refrain from rewriting them here, but suffice to say this includes terminology that is ableist, racist, sexist, and just… hurtful? rude? disrespectful? I’m not sure how best to describe it all. The Stanford IT Department, however, never offered up the initiative as a ban on people’s freedom of speech (”free speech” being a potential dog-whistle we should all look out for) like Paul claimed. Rather, the initiative was an attempt to make their website and outward-facing communications more inclusive through this guidance they created.
Are you starting to see the connection to camp? I definitely am. As we go about creating inclusive spaces for children and young adults to thrive, this also involves making our communications reflect our values. And, when we do, we should be prepared for pushback from people with similar views to Pamela Paul’s that we are becoming “authoritarian” in our “policing” of language. I reject this opinion outright, but think it is worth highlighting some of the benefits of defaulting to inclusive language using documents like Stanford’s (or this one from the APA Allison recently shared) so that we can feel confident in our choices and articulate our rationale to skeptics.
Allison Note: And for all my Y people, YUSA has an Inclusive Language Style Guide. I’m not saying I agree with everything in it, but it’s Y official.
Everyone deserves to feel like they belong.
Sometimes, it is as simple as that. Every person who steps into their cabin for the first time, meets a member of our community, or even just visits our website, should feel like they are welcome. Or, to put it another way, there should not be a sign on the metaphorical door that says “you do not belong here.” Language has the power to make people feel disregarded and hurt when we say things that minimize their identity, tie it to negative values, or refuse to name their existence at all. Taking guidance in the type of language we use, whether it be from organizations like Stanford or from the campers and staff we serve, can help people feel like their experiences and feelings are valued. Even though inclusive language is far from the only step in giving everyone the chance to feel true belonging, it is an important piece of the puzzle in making sure members of your community or those interested in joining it are not automatically put off by the things you say.
The worst case scenario is fine and the best case is amazing.
Pamela Paul describes how some of the terminology in the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative was poorly researched and perpetuates knee-jerk reactions to restrict free speech. I say— fine by me! At the end of the day, a term that you stopped using in your communications as a result of faulty research simply means you prioritized inclusion in that moment over the time it would take to find the perfect answer on your own. That seems like, well… a great approach! We should be defaulting towards inclusion whenever possible and evaluating our decisions over time. If this is the worst case scenario (inaccurately identifying terms for replacement), what is the best case scenario? Paul declines to offer any possibilities, but I will: a prospective camper’s guardian reviews your website and finally sees a place where their child might be affirmed and loved. Or, a staff member reads your guidelines and realizes that they can set aside some of their fears for the summer because, at first glance, you seem to care about them. Potential best cases like this tip the scales strongly in favor of defaulting towards inclusive language, especially when the worst case has few material consequences.
Staff can actually hear what we are trying to say.
I have heard it said often in camp spaces that communicating with the young people we hire is hard. That “this generation” presents unique difficulties in developing shared understandings of necessary work, helping regulate emotions in a healthy way, and building stamina for a long summer. Whether or not this is a universal truth is besides the point, but one way we can ensure what we have to say can be heard is by using inclusive language all the time, not just on our websites. When staff hear us use outdated, sometimes hurtful language, there is an immediate and understandable reaction to fixate on it. If someone insulted you directly, would you be able to quickly move on to hear the rest of what they are saying? I don’t think I could. If our language is inclusive from the beginning, staff are going to be able to hear the nuance in what we need to tell them, to go from feeling disregarded to respected. Obviously, the content of what we are saying still matters, but I can’t help but wonder if what seems like a disinterest in our asks and reflections is actually due to finding a small element of what was said to be off-putting. When we’re intentional about our language, we open ourselves up to more honest and direct communication with our staff members in ways that can be mutually beneficial.
We (selfishly) stand to gain a lot.
As our spaces gradually become safer for marginalized populations, we have a lot to gain as camp professionals. This is entirely selfish (I did not lead with this point because I do not think it is as important as the experiences of our communities) but do think it is worth mentioning. When people feel included, they are willing to take risks and be their authentic self. When people show up authentically to camp, we get to see all the positive impact that comes from their very presence. Everyone who joins us, be it as a one-week camper during the summer or as a year-round staff member, has the opportunity to impart some of their wisdom and leave camp better than they found it. The opportunity to do so opens up when people feel comfortable and wanted, willing to share about their experience at camp and how we can best serve them in the future. And, as Chris points out in Transplaining trainings, we never know how many folks will want to be a part of the good thing we’ve got going on when we start outwardly signaling our values. All of those new additions, and the existing people who now feel an increased level of safety, can change our communities for the better.
In conclusion…
Stand strong! Don’t let the rhetoric of some people with a platform slow you down on your path to being a force for inclusion for your campers, staff, and families. Everyone deserves to feel like they belong. Know that it is okay to defer to others when communicating, both in the written word and verbally, because the worst case scenario is that you learn something new and are building the skills of using language intentionally. We have a lot to gain, but most importantly the members of our community have everything to gain when they can feel fully loved in places so many consider a second home.
want to get in on the conversation?
Our members come together to talk about trainings, inclusion, and so much more. Join the conversation so we can learn and grow together!
DEX COEN GILBERT
Assistant Director & Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access Coordinator - CAmp onas
TSCS MEMBER
Dex can be reached at dex@camponas.org.
Diversity Training Part 2
Last month, I offered up some areas that I think are worth focusing on when we plan a diversity training for our staff members. If you have made it here without reading that one by some miracle of an internet search algorithm, I recommend you skim it first to understand some of my definitions, qualifications, and the focus points themselves. Briefly, the focus points were:
Focus on your “why.”
Focus on being a facilitator.
Focus on upgrading skills.
Focus beyond one specific identity.
In this blog, my goal is to highlight a training we have been working on here at Camp Onas that emphasizes some of these focus points while also highlighting ways it could improve. This is not designed to be something you can take and implement exactly on your own, but rather a case study that might help you brainstorm new ideas, develop an even richer training for your camp, and help me improve mine.
Focusing on our “why”
Those who know me understand that I am a big believer in the power of a good process. It is paradoxical, but I hold that typically the most important decision is how we make decisions themselves.
This particular training was developed by a group of our summer counselors called the IDEA Advisory Committee. IDEA stands for Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access, and this group of counselors brings a variety of lived and work experiences to the table to help Camp Onas advance its goals of becoming a place where everyone can feel true belonging. Counselors self-select into the committee as one of their specialized work areas and are compensated in the same way other counselors are for their work area. The committee works directly with me so that I can help support and implement their ideas and they can help establish priorities for me to work on as a year-round employee. This has included creating trainings, trying to build affinity spaces, developing my year-round role as the IDEA Coordinator, and formalizes the work they often are doing anyway as members of our staff who their peers often go to for the answers to questions related to diversity.
With a designated time slotted into orientation week for a diversity training, the IDEA team sat down to figure out how to use it best. The training began to take form as these counselors shared what they thought camp, and by extension, its counselors, needed to know and be prepared for before the campers arrived for the summer. This was our emphasis on the first focus point, the shaping of our “why” through data collection. Something I heard a lot from the IDEA team was how tiring it can be for a counselor when their peers regularly need their help to handle certain situations relating to their own identity, leading to burnout from constantly helping other counselors.
So, we identified two key goals for the training. The first was to help counselors be able to identify and stop a situation that could be causing harm, address it fully if they felt able to, and then find appropriate help to follow up as needed. The second was to develop a shared understanding of key concepts among all our staff, examples being performativity, ableist language, microaggressions (a term I’m not in love with anymore, but highlight here because that’s where we were at the time), among many others.
Focusing on upgrading skills
With these goals in mind, it was time to start thinking about how we would accomplish them. Rather than change people’s minds, which we know is very difficult, we want to focus on upgrading people’s skills to understand some of these identity-based concepts better and be able to stop harmful situations as they arise.
We settled on talking through practice scenarios as one of the best ways we could give people exposure to difficult situations. Rather than act out the scenarios, we chose talking them through for two reasons:
Our staff who do not have the lived experience for a given scenario will be more likely to show up fully to a conversation where they can say something “incorrect” and not have it spiral out of control.
Talking about things would be a safer initial step for our staff with lived experience than re-living harmful situations they may have previously encountered. This second point comes from direct experience in previous years where trainers in roleplay scenarios took their job as “instigator” too far and ended up causing harm in the process.
We planned to split our counselors into groups of about 6-8 people across ages, with each group being given one scenario to talk through. After giving groups the time to create a plan of action, we would come back together as a whole staff and each group would present their response to the scenario. Then, everyone else would have the opportunity to ask questions or offer suggestions related to their response.
Focusing on facilitation
Now that we had our goals and knew how we would target people’s skill-building, it was time to start thinking about who would facilitate this training. I have complete confidence in the members of the IDEA team to be leaders at camp, both in formal and informal settings, so having them lead the training was an option on the table from the start. However, we decided that having five facilitators was a little unwieldy for the space, and no particular member of the team felt strongly that they would like to be the sole or co-facilitator for the training.
In short, the reason was that none of them wanted to do it. There’s a delicate balance to strike in including staff where we want to give them opportunities to be involved and not put the entire effort of the work on them. Helping guide the planning of a training is a lot less work than leading it, and given that I was an eager (if imperfect) potential facilitator, they were comfortable with me stepping into that role. This included the caveat that, should they deem it necessary at any point, a member of the IDEA team could raise their hand during the training and I would give them priority in the speaking order so that they could add their own clarifications or additions to any of the scenarios.
As a facilitator in a multicultural space talking through these scenarios, it was important I remember my role as a facilitator, not “the” expert. My job was not to personally critique each response and create the director-approved action plan, but rather to give space for everyone to offer their own insights and collectively reach a satisfying solution. Having done this for two years now, I lead each training with the simple sentiment that there is no single best answer to these scenarios. Rather, there are a plurality of possible good outcomes as well as bad ones. We don’t know the perfect response, but together we can identify action plans that will be more helpful than harmful and vice versa.
Focusing on multiple identities
In order for our training to engage all our staff and not leave anyone feeling scrutinized for the entire time, it was important that we create scenarios that could speak to many different issues that counselors might encounter. This is also critical because it allows people to take space from a particular scenario if it feels too personal without missing the whole training. We expected some of these scenarios to hit close to home because all of them were based on experiences members of the IDEA team or their peers have had at Onas.
Below are a few examples of scenarios we have used:
Your bunk is working on a lip sync performance. They’re trying to choreograph a dance and one camper turns to the one Black camper in your bunk and asks “well you could probably teach us something right?”
During tent clean-up, one of your campers regularly struggles to focus on the task at-hand and the other campers are starting to notice. “Just be helpful for once and not such a spaz,” one of the campers says.
At your table, a camper has told everyone on the first day that they use they/them pronouns. One camper, however, misgenders them later that day. You correct the camper then, but they do it again the next day.
During an assembly, you watch as a female CIT asks a group of graduate campers to be role models for younger campers and quiet down. The graduates nod, but quickly after the CIT leaves the male campers roll their eyes and continue to talk.
A couple of campers are writing letters together in your bunk. After one of the campers makes a comment on the other’s letter, you hear “ugh don’t be such a grammar Nazi.”
Where we can grow
One of the biggest areas for growth I see in our training at Camp Onas is in making my focus point on examining the intersections of identity a more intentional piece of the program. Right now we include many different topics in our conversations, but we are not always integrating them together. Perhaps this could look like updated scenarios that work around multiple identities, such as ones where the person causing harm holds marginalized identities in addition to the person they are harming. Or, maybe this could be having counselors create specific action plans that more specifically speak to their identity, something that certainly comes up in conversation but is not a formal aspect of our scenario problem-solving.
Another area where I could see this growing is furthering our skills by practicing some of these scenarios through roleplay after the initial discussions. It is critically important that we don’t recreate traumatic incidents in people’s lives for the training benefit of others, but there has to be a middle ground where we can build muscle memory in responding to these regular occurrences without putting an undue burden on our community members who have already been impacted. To be clear, these roleplay scenarios are not potentially harmful because of the fragility of our staff, but rather the occasionally over-zealous nature of those acting as the instigating individual(s). I mention this because, as our experience at Onas attests, we cannot rush into roleplays for things without creating very clear guidelines and boundaries for the trainers to mitigate how overwhelming the “worst case scenario” can become. While it may seem a little silly given the rather basic talk-through example scenarios provided above, when they are played out with further conversation/conflict they can get quite intense.
A third area of improvement would be to create a resource for our staff that contains a glossary of terms and concepts we expect them to have a basic understanding of prior to the training itself. In some previous iterations of the training, we have had huge portions of time be taken up just by collaborative definition-setting which, while it has its merits, is pretty exhausting for those in the room who already have strong content knowledge. This resource, as well, could be referred to throughout the summer as needed by our staff.
Last, speaking of exhausting, I want to talk briefly about how tiring this type of training can be for historically marginalized staff. As I mentioned in Part 1, considering your audience is a key part of any training and we need to take a multifaceted approach towards examining diversity if we want all our staff to be present. However, even when doing so, there are still going to be times (likely many times) when sitting through someone else’s growth on something that feels like a basic part of your life experience is going to be exhausting. And, it can be doubly tiring when their peers rely on them for the “right” answers which requires extra participation. One of the ways our staff is most diverse is in the varied levels of background knowledge when talking about these topics, so the burden of responding to scenarios can quickly default to the person who others assume has this experience. As a guy with basically all the markers of privilege in American society, I don’t have all the answers to this problem, but it is an important site of inquiry for our growth and requires further collaboration.
Those are four of the places I can see this training improving, but there are tons of other things I have not written down, fleshed out, or likely even thought of yet. So, if you’re someone who finds themselves in a similar position as me, I would love to hear your thoughts about what is working well for your camp and how you’re looking to grow, too!
want to get in on the conversation?
Our members come together to talk about trainings, inclusion, and so much more. Join the conversation so we can learn and grow together!
DEX COEN GILBERT
Assistant Director & Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access Coordinator - CAmp onas
TSCS MEMBER
Dex can be reached at dex@camponas.org.
Diversity Training Part 1: Focus Points
As I’ve been studying for my CDP in the past few months, I’ve been reflecting on the role of “diversity training” within the camp setting. The notion of a “diversity training” typically occupies corporate meeting rooms, but I think we can see it a lot in the camp world, too. How are we teaching the young people who come through our doors to collaborate and care for one another in a multicultural environment? In what ways are we taking the informal aspects of our culture (based in inclusion, equity, kindness, and all those other amazing value words we use to describe camp) and making them formal so that all our campers and counselors can benefit from them?
When I use the phrase “diversity training,” I’m talking about a pretty nebulous concept, which is why I put it in quotes before I defined it. For the sake of this article having some semblance of meaning, I take “diversity training” to mean the following: the time you set aside to talk explicitly with your whole staff about diversities of culture, identity, and experience. I hope, in reading that proposed definition, you see that what I’m going for is very broad and somewhat vague because I want it to apply to things you do. Take a minute to think about what trainings, if any, you offer your staff that fit under this definition. Heck, you might even call it diversity training like we did at Camp Onas until recently!
Before I begin my reflections in earnest, my proverbial focus points, it is important to put forward a few qualifications.
First, there is no one-size-fits-all training, program, or cultural intervention that can “solve [insert -ism here],” especially if it is only done once a year. We need to be integrating social justice into all levels of our organizations and communities.
Second, and I hope this goes without saying, hire a consultant to assist you if you can. There is a certain richness to internally-created trainings (more on that later), but recognize your own limits and utilize your organizational resources to bring in a professional if you need it.
Third, I am talking specifically about staff training here, not to the detriment of also being intentional in teaching our campers about social justice concepts.
And, last, I am imperfect and so are my opinions. The thoughts I’m offering are based in personal experience, research, and preparation for my certification, but please let me know when you disagree so that I can further refine them.
This is the first part in a two-part series on diversity training. In this first one, I am going to put out some ideas in a bit more of a theoretical way, blogger-style. In Part 2, I will be talking about a specific training at Onas that has grown over time and how I’m working within my own rules from Part 1. With that being said, let’s get into the quippy part of this article…
Diversity Training Focus Points
Focus on your “why.”
I can pinpoint many times in my life, with all sorts of different organizations, when it was deemed appropriate by “management” to have some sort of diversity training. After lots of them, I can’t help but wonder why they chose the topic at hand. Did they identify a specific problem that needed solving? Did they decide what the needs of the organization were and that the training would meet them? Did they ask the people they were training what they wanted to learn?
Any good training, not just ones that talk about social justice, is both process and outcome-oriented. We often think of outcomes too much and process too little when it comes to other types of training (I’ve sat through too many OSHA talks), but I think we do the inverse when we talk about diversity. We start with process and outcomes become rather nebulous. To have a good outcome, we need to know where our staff are coming from and what they need from us. We need to know why we are doing this training: what are our goals.
A good way to figure out your “why” is to collect some data. When I say collect data, I mean it in a gentle way. The insights you have as someone who knows your camp incredibly well? That’s data! But, good data comes from more than one point. My favorite form of data is simply conversations, but I am working to add more ways to interpret data because… why not?! Below are a few ideas:
Try asking your staff what a good training would look like for them. What outcomes do they see are needed and what is a good process to get there?
Maybe you could look through your incident reports and see what kinds of issues of harassment are being reported and what kinds aren’t. Both aspects are data that could be in your toolbelt for planning your training.
And, perhaps you could look at your other trainings and see what works there (process ideas) and what people are not learning that they need to (outcome ideas).
Or, if you’re leveling up your game to a higher degree than I am right now, you could start categorizing and cataloging different microaggressions or incidences of bias that happen at camp to see in the aggregate what are the most pervasive parts of your culture that you need to work on.
Focus on being a facilitator.
There’s nothing quite like sitting still for hours at a time listening to someone drone on about, well, anything. I am a defender of a good lecture, I think it has its time and place, it's just often an over-utilized strategy. While it may seem obvious to not lecture too much during any training, I think it’s valuable to note specifically in regard to conversations about equity and justice.
There is no one trainer who knows everything. As I mentioned earlier, the help of a professional (aka consultant) is not a bad idea, but even they are going to have points of their lived experience that do not match with the people they are training. To solely lecture at people when talking about diversity privileges the perspective of the lecturer in a way that we should strive to decenter. We want everyone to feel included in a training that is so tied into the very idea of inclusion, and one of the fastest ways to do that is through their active participation.
Rather than talk at people, talk with them. A good facilitator will help people find their voice, add it to the group, and bring together a collective wisdom that is greater than any of its parts. A great facilitator can do all that while navigating the complex dynamics of power to ensure all voices that need to be heard are heard and nobody is disproportionately hurt in the process.
A facilitator, or multiple facilitators, are guides to your diversity training. They help establish an agenda (that is open to being changed based on the needs of the moment), collaboratively create ground rules for participants, and help keep the group oriented towards your predetermined outcomes. But, this is a much more horizontal endeavor than the top-down lecture, offering the opportunity for contributions from members of your community who have experience or knowledge they want to share. Pivoting my thinking from teacher to facilitator has done wonders for the way I approach training staff at Onas. By giving people more room to incorporate their own ideas and skills into the training, I have seen not just engagement improve but also our collective outcomes grow stronger.
Focus on upgrading people’s skills.
This might be controversial, but hear me out: you are tremendously unlikely to change someone’s mind with a single training. Our beliefs as humans are held steadfast, with biases, logical errors, and/or emotional saliency giving people the rationale to keep them. Changing minds happens slowly, over long periods of time with consistent exposure to new ideas where individuals can challenge them and be challenged back safely. Change the minds of your staff 1-on-1, or in small groups, with an effort on meeting that individual where they are in their stage of growth. This is why Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion work needs to be done at every level of an organization.
But, your training is not the place to subject every person present to a few people’s need for growth. In fact, this where I have seen some of the most harm caused in a training, classroom, or even just a community. The person leading the space will engage with someone who has disagreements, drawing everyone into a debate where the person debating may be arguing that the identity of their peers does not exist, that they should not have human rights, or they do not belong in this community. Even someone playing “devil’s advocate” can cause inordinate harm to people witnessing their behavior. If you know someone has a problematic take in your organization and you have the emotional bandwidth to engage them on it, do it privately so that everyone else can have a breather and that person has the best chance at changing.
Instead of focusing on what people believe, focus on what they do. This short article from Khalil Smith gets to the point and, I will add personally, I think changing people’s skills might help change their minds later.
Having used data to identify the goals your training is trying to fulfill, focus on the skills people will need to get there. Do you want an environment with less inappropriate jokes? Teach people how to spot a joke that would hurt someone and how to intervene when they hear it. Do you need your staff to be better at handling inter-camper conflict? Run them through scenarios of identity-based conflicts and how they can solve them. Are staff treating people differently based on their identity? Upgrade their skills in identifying unconscious bias in themselves and how to act out their biases differently.
None of these examples include convincing people to treat others with the dignity and love they deserve. Instead, by focusing on skills, you are saying “this is an integral part of your job and we need you to do it well.” And, this will give those who don’t already believe in what you’re selling the chance to engage with the topic on a similar playing field to everyone else. With everyone building skills together, this creates an environment where there can be wrong answers to specific questions, but there is agreement on the outcomes you all want.
Focus your lens broadly, incorporating the intersections.
If your diversity training is called “Undoing Racism,” “Gender at Camp,” or any other identity-focused topic, it is not diversity training. That is a different type of training entirely and certainly has tons of merit. There are dozens of reasons we need to spend hours/days/years unpacking each of these issues and this is not a case against them.
Let’s take the “Undoing Racism” training as an example. If that’s the kind of training we are doing, then we know it is needed among our staff because we have collected the data. But, we need to think critically about our audience. If we are asking all of our staff to show up and engage fully, are all of them the target audience? To me, this sounds like a training intended for white staff members and therefore should not require racially and ethnically marginalized staff to attend.
Again, I take no issue with these types of training on their own. Creating affinity space for your white counselors to unpack their own racism without placing that burden on their peers sounds like a wonderful idea. But, the purpose of this type of diversity training is to get all of your staff into one space together, where camp culture can be created collectively, and we aren’t really doing that if one particular part of your staff feels uncomfortable, unwanted, or unengaged.
By examining the intersections and plurality of diversity, your training can both include as many people’s experiences as possible without putting an undue emotional burden on one group. In making people feel seen, we create space for participation that is communal, where everyone has something to offer. And, people can choose to disengage from a specific topic without missing the entire session. If a certain question/discussion/exercise is too difficult for one staff member because of their lived experience, they can step out of the session until you have changed gears and they feel it is safe for them to return.
In addition, incorporating topics from across many identities and experiences gives everyone the chance to learn something new. Unlike when focusing with a single identity-based lens, all participants in an intersectional training know there are new personal discoveries to be made because they are not an expert in every aspect of identity. When we put all our staff into one space to talk about diversity, keeping intersectionality at the forefront allows everyone to be a full participant as both a sharer (should they choose to do so) and as a learner.
Conclusion
With a focus on the why, facilitation, people’s skills, and the intersections of injustice, we’re on the path to leading a great diversity training. Being on the right track, however, is not the same as being completely prepared. There are lots of other things we need to consider (group agreements, content mastery, follow-up, etc.) that I have not touched on here. My smallest hope is that the reflections I’ve shared will encourage you to continually evaluate your diversity trainings and work to improve them. My greatest hope is that, through diversity training, we find one possible vehicle to center social justice in our communities and begin the hard cultural and structural work to transform our organizations.
want to get in on the conversation?
Our members come together to talk about trainings, inclusion, and so much more. Join the conversation so we can learn and grow together!
DEX COEN GILBERT
Assistant Director & Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access Coordinator - CAmp onas
TSCS MEMBER
Dex can be reached at dex@camponas.org.