The remaining student groups did not openly address student differences, although two staff members mentioned diversity during interviews. Shelley was aware of differences among students within the Action Read student group in terms of their age, gender, ability and interests, yet these differences were not discussed in the student group. In terms of ability, Bill was the only student attending Action Read's student meetings who was mentally and physically challenged. As well, Bill had a speech and hearing impediment. In the student meeting, I noticed that he did not engage in group discussion at any time. As Bill was mentally challenged, his lack of participation in the group discussion may have been due to an inability to follow the discussion at a conceptual level. During the meeting, he continually interrupted the discussion with questions that were off-topic. For instance, he kept grabbing my arm, asking for the date of the next meeting. He persevered on this question, even though it had been answered.

According to Jody and Shelley, Bill had attended Action Read workshops for 2 years, and his disruptive behavior at the student meeting was typical. Although the staff makes a concerted effort to include and integrate students who are mentally challenged into the program, Bill's behavior taxed their (and my) patience. Bill, indeed, was a difficult person to work with in a group setting. Yet, the staff continues to accept him and provide learning opportunities for Bill in the workshops.

Within the literature on critical pedagogy, working across differences usually refers to differences of class, gender or race (Giroux, 1993; Phelan, 1991; Rothenberg, 1990; Young, 1993). Where does Bill fit into all of this? The scenario with Bill illustrates that a politics of inclusion, although desirable, does not easily translate into practice. Yet, if we exclude people who do not exhibit appropriate behaviors, how will they ever learn to participate in society? I have chosen to highlight Bill because, as educators, we have all known a Bill -- a person that taxes and strains the patience of any group. Certainly, there is a tendency to want to exclude Bill from the group, a tendency that speaks to the desire for unity, for harmony. Yet, we know that unity functions to oppress and exclude individuals and to repress differences (Ellsworth, 1989; Nicholson, 1991). So, How does one give voice to differences so that they will not be simply reduced to exclusion or silence? As educators, how do we begin to form a bridge across differences among the students and between educators and students?