The Minority Affairs Committee luncheon began with an informal lunchtime discussion between faculty and students. As suggested by attendees of a previous year’s luncheon, the setup involved assigning several faculty to each table and allowing students and post-docs to fill the remaining seats. The room was abuzz with discussion for the first portion of the session, at which point Dr. Kimberly Griffin took the stage to discuss mentoring. Dr. Griffin opened by asking everyone to consider how they referred to their primary investigator; attendees suggested titles ranging from “boss” to “advisor” to “mentor”, and Griffin segued into a discussion of traits attributed to each term. Once it was clear that each title conferred a unique set of qualities, she spent the remaining time focusing on the qualities of a “mentor” and the inherent relationship. Based on her presentation, it was clear that good mentoring is critical but not often prioritized. A recurring theme of Griffin’s talk was that a mentoring relationship is a two-way street; it involves effort on both the part of the mentor and the mentee. After asking each participant to list several qualities important to a mentoring relationship, she directed us to circle those most important to us and to cross off those we could do without. This exercise segued into an evaluation of the most important qualities of a mentoring relationship for each of us and an emphasis that each person was different and thus needed to seek an appropriate mentor or mentee. A common pitfall is seeking a mentor who is similar to you rather than a mentor who meets your specific needs. Griffin shared that when beginning a new mentoring relationship, she requires each mentee to send a list of five “must-haves” and five “can’t-stands” to set the tone of the relationship. She concluded by emphasizing that each mentoring relationship is unique and that mentors should not feel pressured to have the same type of relationship with each mentee (and to be transparent about this fact). Although it was structured as a formal talk, Griffin made a point to incite discussion and address questions throughout her presentation, and there was much participation as a result. Appropriately, the session ended with further discussion among individuals at each table.