Situation Analysis

• The assistant chief of police insisted that the religious images in the mural be painted over as he did not want anyone to be offended or feel discriminated against because it was not images of their religious beliefs on the mural. This factor is particularly taken into consideration because the mural was supposed to be displayed on one of the walls of the police station. People may feel that the police favor those of a certain religion if that mural is on the wall of their station. The police are supposed to be unbiased; there is a separation between church and state- the police are a part of state.
  The artists responded ideally to the demand by not changing their vision. Their right to paint religious figures on their mural goes along with the first amendment. They should not have to stifle or censor their creativity and work. The beauty of the mural is that the artists are displaying their heroes including their religious figure heroes. The beauty of this world is in the differences between people and artists should be able to present that. The students should continue to support the artists, whether they choose to edit the mural or not. After all, the students were not necessarily there to make the mural, but to help mentor the group of artists who were. Ideally the community partner should discuss with the police department as to where the mural should displayed . Where it can be shown publicly without offending others. The instructor should continue to motivate the students especially during the low points when they need it most. In an ideal world, people would be able to view these religious figures on the murals as a positive thing, not because they partake in the same religion and have the same religious figures, but because these figures show that the artists have faith – they have beliefs and heroes.

• The I affects the We in how we view, perceive and deal with the We; based on who we are as individuals, with our unique personality, traits and backgrounds, we all interact with the We of community differently. Obviously someone who is rich, old and female would intermingle in the We contrastingly to someone who is poor, young and male. The I and the We are separate in that a single person can be different from how he/she would be when part of the We; this could be a good or a bad thing. When individuals come together they build a whole new entity, if it is a positive combination, synergy is formed; if there is a negative combination of the We, the outcomes could turn out worse than if there were only the I. “Individuals are smart; people [collectively] are not.” The I and We are separable as they are two separate entities. If a person disapproves of the We’s results, they can choose to leave the We and still be their own individual. For instance a person who joins a group to work on a project feels that the group is not working productively, that person can choose to leave the group and be by him/herself. The same works vice versa, if the group, We, feels that an individual has a negative impact on the group by not holding their own weight, the group can choose to dismiss that member.
  
  In this incident the multiple I’s are the artists, the students, the instructor, the community partner and the assistant chief of police, each from different backgrounds and different jobs but with one objective tying them together to form a We, a mural that celebrated the growing Latino population. Each “I” had different reasons for achieving this objective, and had different opinions as to the content of the mural. But the I’s had to communicate, work together and compromise in order to achieve their goal; the I’s forming a We.