Tools are only as good as our mastery permits us to use them, and practice certainly has a great deal to do with that. There's probably no better place to apply some of these tools than in a mapping exercise. Maps are such interesting things. They're symbols, right? They're abstractions from physical representations of relationships. And what you're looking at here is a map of the University of Michigan's central campus in Ann Arbor. There are some interesting things that should be pointed out in any map like this. The obvious physical features are that the campus is divided by north, south, east, and then west which is called State Street, largely because a public university is bisected by an avenue that is controlled and owned by the state. You also might notice Division Street over here. In the 19th century, the division here was between the parts of Ann Arbor where alcohol could be consumed – over here – and the parts of the city that were supposed to be dry. Well, I say supposed to be dry, which was the campus area. And then there's the obvious things. Hill Street, which leads up to the one rather modest hill in the area, Church Street. You see how this works. At the center of the University of Michigan campus is what we call the Diag. This is where all the sidewalks intersect, and, by tradition at least, one faculty member planted trees in such a fashion as to direct both animals and students. They did make a distinction through this central point on the campus. It's also true that at the center of campus, given places of prominence are libraries, the president's home, and the traditional schools of the campus, in liberal arts and the basic sciences. And then the campus built out with professional schools – law, business, education, social work, medicine – surrounding the interior of the campus. Part of what you can see here is that the campus reflects importance, reflects relationship, stature, hierarchy, and other aspects of the institution's evolution. It also has symbolic properties that are worth noting that come, if you will, on top of the campus. At the southern edge of the Diag, close to the president's home is this stone, commemorating the class of 1867. This was a class that probably had many members lost during the Civil War. And interestingly, it was created by a group of graduating students who probably included both individuals from the North and the South as the university accepted Southern gentlemen, as it turns out, following the Civil War, influenced in part by Lincoln's remarks in his second inaugural to try and mend the nation. However, the class of 1867 also probably included individuals who brought with them, from their home communities, values, expectations, and social mores that we would recognize now as inconsistent with the University of Michigan's current commitments. So something as simple as a stone rock carries many different layers of meaning, right? It has a text – it's pretty simple, but it has a context as well and a number of subtexts. On the northern edge of the central campus, close to the Rackham Graduate School is a very interesting figure. This is not an image of one person but reflects the pain and anguish of the Holocaust occurring during World War II and the role of one University of Michigan graduate in rescuing tens of thousands of individuals from being taken to concentration camps by his acts of courage. It happens to be the only figurative human form anywhere on the campus. When you work with a map of this sort of your own institution, can you identify the ways in which boundaries have been created both for outsiders and how they might be understood among insiders? And are there ways in which the values of inclusion, diversity, and equity have been effectively symbolized or enacted? And in this case, look both at the map in its literal sense, its text, if you will, but also how that space has become used by different groups in formal and informal ways. This is one example of the ways in which your knowledge and tools can be combined to give you a better understanding of what will it take to move a group towards greater, more committed action.